[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#689715: Review of eyefiserver-2.3~rc1-1


On Wednesday 10 October 2012 19:59:11 Vincent Fourmond wrote:
>>>   * I don't see the point of including session dumps - especially 4MB of them !
>> Absolutely. Done.
>> I did not change the orig tarball however. Right?
>   Hmmm... I'm unsure about that, since the copyright status of the
> dumps is somehow unclear (and their license too). I'm afraid the
> FTPmasters would not appreciate that much. I leave it up to you to
> dedice however...
> (...)
>   Great. I'm waiting for your answer on my first comment, and I'll upload then.

I would prefer not to have a fetch-orig target that would mangle the orig tarball.
So the best option, IMHO, would be to solve that upstream. I can do that.

The big dump file has been helpful understanding the protocol, so I'm a bit reluctant to just drop it.

I can see two options:
- Delete the http_dump file entirely.
- Delete the part of the file that contains the "uploadImage()" command, so it goes down to a decent size, less than 10kB.

I think option 2 is better, but you also mentioned its license is unclear:

Is that because it contains a dump of a windows eyefi session? Would that be better to have a similar dump of the free version of the server? I mean a truncated dump.

Your are not talking about the embedded image in tarball in the uploadimage() in the dump file, are you?

If I go for a truncated dump, I plan to put back the dumps in the documentation, that would be ok, wouln't it?

Thank you very much for your time!

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: