[Eric Dorland] > I'm going to take the liberty of bumping up the severity, since I > think this tool is fairly important to subversion, and its removal > also breaks most of the functionality of svn-buildpackage.
Oh, I didn't realise it breaks svn-buildpackage (which I don't use). Anyway, yes, I agree that it is regrettable to lose a script which we have always shipped before. I hope Blair Zajac can work it out with his former employer to get either a copyright assignment or an open source license. He's involved with the Ubuntu packaging, which derives from the Debian packaging, so I know he has the background to understand why this is important to us. I actually did consider not removing any of the unlicensed stuff, just sort of "looking the other way", on the grounds that at least this isn't a regression from sarge. But in the end I couldn't quite justify doing that. > Is there any chance of reimplementing this if the licensing doesn't > work out? It's a few thousand lines of code. I'm not really interested in reimplementing it. But if you or someone you know would like to try, I'd be happy to review your code for functionality, feature parity, and bugs (at least, obvious bugs), and include it in subversion-tools if it's good enough. I doubt this could happen in time for etch, though. Peter
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
