Bug#199692: ITP: rfc-tool -- Tool to search in the RFCs and display them
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 05:59:07PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Martin Quinson wrote:
> > The Requests for Comments (RFCs) form a series of notes, started in 1969,
> > about the Internet (originally the ARPANET). The notes discuss many aspects
> > of computer communication, focusing on networking protocols, procedures,
> > programs, and concepts but also including meeting notes, opinion, and
> > sometimes humor. See RFC2026 (in package rfc-bcp) for more information.
> > .
> > This package contains a tool called rfc which can be used to search the
> > RFCs about a given port number, a given protocol, arbitrary text or even
> > perl regexps. If you have the rfc-* packages installed, it will search
> > there, but if not, it will connect to the internet to retrieve the RFC
> > index and work on it.
>
> Excellent. A much nicer solution than including giant masses of non-free
> documentation in debian.
Yes. I'm currently playing with the idea of concentrating my efforts about
rfc to this script, and let the existing doc-rfc packages as they are.
> Have you considered adding some form of caching facility, for
> offline use? doc-rfc could be considered a kind of solution to this, but
> I'd rather just be able to cache the few RFCs I regularly refer to, and not
> the entire set of them.
Current version do cache the rfc index (400k over RTC hurts), but afaik, not
the RFC themselves. I guess it should go somewhere under /var, with a group
of users allowed to write them in. Using the RFC when they are installed
from the giant packages is not an issue.
> > Please note that this description is not correct until my new version of
> > the rfc package gets uploaded to the archive. But I don't exepect the
> > rfc-tool to hit the archive before the data RFC packages.
>
> At the moment, the whole doc-rfc situation seems quite up-in-the-air.
> Since the maintainer is active, it is not appropriate for you to be
> taking it over, but it's unfortunate that the maintainer ignored your
> NMU and may be ignoring your suggestions for the package. Maybe it would
> be better to not block this excellent idea for a package on the whole
> doc-rfc mess, and make it be able to use doc-rfc for now, if that's
> possible.
Anyway, the bugs I wanted to get fixed did get fixed (beside the description
clarification, but I keep optimistic). The sad side is that I did a lot of
stuff for nothing, but who knows, I may also convice Kai to rethink his
package split, and cleanup its build process so that it does not produce
tons of warnings...
> If you need a sponsor for this, I will probably do so, contingent on
> looking at the package.
Thanks.
> > Likewise, the licence for now is:
> > #############################################################################
> > # Feel free to redistribute as long as you keep this header in tact.
> > # http://www.dewn.com/rfc/
> > # Please let me know if you find this useful, I'd love to hear about it!
> > # rfc@dewn.com
> > #############################################################################
> > I contacted upstream to clarify it.
>
> That's not free. It does not allow modification (of the program; it's
> fine that the "header" containing the copyright be unmodifiable), and it
> does not allow distribution for a fee. If you can't get this clarified,
> this does not seem at first glance to be an especially hard program to
> rewrite.
Thanks for the reminder. Jfs did also explain it to me, but now, I do have
contacted upstream to ask for a relicencing...
Thanks a lot, Mt.
--
Il y a 10 catégories de personnes : celles qui comprennent le binaire, et
les autres.
--- Blague d'informaticiens
Reply to: