Guillem Jover wrote:
Hi, On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:37:14PM -0400, Nick Lewycky wrote:* Package name : folding Version : 4.00 Upstream Author : <somebody@example.org>This field is missing.
Sorry. That should be: Upstream Author : Vijay Pande <pande@stanford.edu>
* URL : http://folding.stanford.edu/ * License : No-redistribution. Description : Folding@home Client (install package)Folding@home is only distributed in binary form from Stanford's official webserver. This package will download the client from Stanford and install it on your computer. It is only available for x86.This packages is so non free that cannot even be included in the non-free section without an installer. It's also only for i386. dpkg will not be able to track its files.
"without an installer"? This package *is* an installer!And what's this about dpkg not being able to track its files? Was that statement intended to be disconnected from the i386 specificity?
Is there really a need to add that to the archive? I've seen as well that you don't maintain any package yet, is this the way you want to contribute, given that one of our essential interests is the Free Software movement?
Another one of Debian's essential interests is a commitment to its users. Folding@Home has a community of around 300,000 users and is growing. It was only a matter of time before the two groups intersect. I want a Debian package for it. My choice was to either RFP it or ITP it and I chose the latter. If I'm capable of packaging it, why wouldn't I choose to contribute?
Nick Lewycky