Salut 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!
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.