* Peter Samuelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > [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.
Ok, that sounds promising. > 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. Don't worry, I more than understand the pain of "irritating" license problems. > > 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. I would certainly give it a shot, if I can find the time. I also might be slightly tainted, since I have done some work on the original svn_load_dirs. -- Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
