Bug#586413: RFA: a lot of packages
Hi Ola, Ben and Timo,
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 00:02:59 +0200 Ola Lundqvist <ola@inguza.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 11:50:35PM +0300, Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote:
> > Ben Armstrong <synrg@sanctuary.nslug.ns.ca> writes:
> > > Although I cannot take on sole maintainership, I'm interested in the
> > > survival of the best VNC server and client in Debian. If a team can
> > > be put together, I would be happy to contribute in what small ways I
> > > can.
> >
> > I'm a daily user of vnc4server/xvnc4viewer 4.1.1+X4.3.0-31. Please let
> > me know if you need help in testing :-)
> >
> > > What about eventual replacement by TigerVNC (http://tigervnc.org/),
> > > since upstream for that fork is actually active?
> >
> > realvncserver, tightvncserver and vnc4server all seem to contain an
> > embedded copy of xfree/Xorg source code. If tigerVNC's Xorg module
> > actually works this sounds really promising. Any idea why it is not
> > developed in the Xorg tree? Is it still because Xorg does not want
> > GPL'd code?
>
> Yes. License problems do not change over night.
>
> > The only earlier attempt on a modular Xorg vnc module I've heard about
> > is xf4vnc: http://xf4vnc.sourceforge.net/modular.html -- How does this
> > compare against TigerVNC?
>
> It compiles (with a few fixes), but I never got it working, at
> least not in a compatible way to the current vnc packages.
>
> I have not got either TigerVNC nor xf4vnc in a good enough way
> for release. So I do not know.
>
> Last try was a few (1-3 I do not remember) years ago though so
> things may have changed.
>
> Best regards,
>
> // Ola
I have just looked at tightvnc in the context of my Debian LTS work and
am preparing a security upload to Debian unstable, buster and stretch
(and jessie LTS, of course).
(I will NMU the unstable one soon with a 5 days delay).
As tightvnc is up for adoption, I am thinking of adopting this package
and move it into the context of the Debian Remote Maintainers Team
(debian-remote@l.d.o.). I'd consider this a QA measure. And, I am quite
expertised with the imake build system that gets used for building Xvnc
(nx-libs uses it, too).
As I understand it, the 1.x version is still maintained upstream. (There
even is a new upstream release available).
So for providing a minimal amount of maintenance shared by several
people moving over to a team is maybe a good idea.
@Ola: would you be ok with the team maintenance move? Would you like to
be in Uploaders:?
@Ben, @Timo: is any of you still available for co-maintenance? (Or have
you moved on?)
Comments? Feedback?
Greets,
Mike
Reply to: