[TAG] [lgang] Debian & OPL
sbisbee at bu.edu
Tue Feb 20 22:50:39 MSK 2007
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007, Kapil Hari Paranjape wrote:
>>> The reasons for the orphaning of the lg package are given in the
>>> following bug report:
>> Blecch. Frankly, I expected better than that from Debian's maintainers
>> (perhaps naively.) Joerg Jaspert's comments are, at the very least,
>> poorly founded or based in ignorance ("Many people dislike them, so if
>> you want to keep them in the current way - have a thick skin"), and
>> sound like he had an agenda; I may be wrong, but the implications of his
>> statements certainly point that way.
>> If licensing was the issue, it wouldn't have taken much to email me and
>> find out what we would do. I'm at least somewhat annoyed that he didn't
>> even have the courtesy to do that.
> Actually, I think even more than licensing there was this question
> of how the lg packages should be handled. This is mentioned in the
When I spoke briefly with Jaspert (I work with him over at OFTC) a week or
two ago about this he only quoted the licensing issues, pointing me to the
link that Ben provided in this thread's head. That being said, I agree
that packaging is a concern.
> first posting to the bug report and I think there was a debate (which
> I haven't managed to fully locate) which went on the following points
> and a few more:
> -- the number of packages will continue to grow forever.
I hope you knocked on wood after saying that!
> -- the stable distribution will always have only old issues.
> -- how can the system admin/user get the latest issue and be
> aware that the issues installed on "stable" are old.
> -- is this still worthwhile when "everything is on the internet".
> As Rick said in his posting elsewhere, the Debian package Maintainer
> proposes and the Debian ftpmaster disposes. So any person wanting to
> package for Debian should be willing to sort out licensing issues
> if these are raised by the ftpmasters and/or the CABAL (of
> which as we know there is none!).
> I would be interested in trying to put together these packages for
> Debian if I can properly resolve the questions raised above. I think
> the main issue is how one can organise things so that:
> (a) A user could obtain *all* old issues from the Debian
> archive. (Here *all* would mean all up to the point of the
> stable release in case of the stable release and up to a
> reasonably current issue in case of the testing/unstable release).
> (b) A user could setup to obtain the current issue from
> a specified LG mirror.
> (c) A user could setup to only have the current issue from a
> specified LG mirror.
> (b) and (c) would be simple scripts and so should really not involve
> license issues (I think!). (c) would "Conflict" in the sense of Debian
> packages with (a) and (b) of course but (a) and (b) could co-exist and
> (a) could even "Suggest" (b). The first would require some commitment
> to discuss the licensing issue as it is very likely to be raised.
> As matters currently stand this would also be a question that would
> be raised by anyone who sponsored this package for me.
I seem to remember reading in another post to this thread the suggestion
of a package that would download/display issues for the client. This would
resolve the large number of [meta] packages and which issues would be
easily available to the client.
I envision a client that would display issues pulled directly from the
web, parsing issues based on their table of contents. Users would have the
option of storing the issue on their drive or simply displaying it like a
web browser (requires internet connection). They could select any issue
they wanted ("current issue", "last issue", by issue number, and by
date/month) or search for specific articles (by author name, title, and
The "why", since all of this is already available on the web, is harder. I
will just leave it to y'all as I am on the run to lecture and do not have
sufficient time to ponder this. :-)
Samuel Kotel Bisbee-vonKaufmann | "A statistician lay with his head in an oven
Boston University, Undergrad. | and his feet in ice, and on the average he
OFTC.net, Network Operator | felt fine." --Prairie Home Companion
Linux Gazette, Assoc. Editor | www.geecs.org * 339.236.0994
More information about the TAG