Thank you for the feedback and for the effort it takes to review these packages.
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Andrey Rahmatullin <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 12:05:26PM -0600, Stephen Dennis wrote: > > > By the way, binutils (>= 2.28.0) is wrong, as 2.28-1 is not >= 2.28.0. > > > > > > > Fixing. > You've changed it to >= 2.25-5. Why? Also, why this restriction is needed? > I don't know what the guidance is for versions, so I picked the versions for Jessie (oldstable). There's nothing in the code that would prevent it from being built with older versions of these dependencies. However, if you have better guidance, lead on. Should I pick all the versions from testing? I've run license-reconcile on the package, it shows a lot of copyright > mismatches and asks you to name the pcre.* license "BSD-3-clause". I've > alos noticed src/wild.cpp says "This code is hereby placed under GNU > copyleft" which is not clarified, not mentioned in debian/copyright and > may be problematic in conjuction with Artistic 1.0. > Glad to make the BSD-3-clause change. The wild.cpp code is very old (on the order of 20-25 years), and it has changed little in that time. Code that old has been licensed and re-licensed by the original authors, starting with GNU but eventually landing under Artistic 1.0. There is a long and complex history, and it is possible that someone contributed code that I don't know about, but I know for certain that all of the primary maintainers have agreed to put their work under Artistic 1.0 (not only for TinyMUX but for the entire family of MUSH-style servers). If you want to read about this complex history, check out http://wiki.tinymux.org/index.php/History. Stephen
