On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 12:18:42PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:30:13AM +0100, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
On 12/10/2010 09:53 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
We _must_ rip out the BSD-4 licensed code from our source. We _can_ simply rip it out, and then add a Debian-specific patch reapplying one of those alternative files,

i don't see the need for that, as this file is only needed if and only if the system does not provide an inet_aton itself (currently i can only check on linux (not kFreeBSD or hurd), and libc6 does come with an implementation.

so the file is not needed, and no replacement is needed.
we need not ship the file, and be save and happy.

but would be much better if upstream did it.

which still holds true, as in this case we won't even need to exclude an offending file, but just take upstream as it is.

the main problem i do see now is, that the offending code has been copied into a separate file but not moved (it still exists in a cre component that we cannot exclude)

I fail to understand your arguments, when put together:

First, you turn down my proposal as "unneeded", but then you conclude that we do have a problem. Isn't that the same problem which I address?

I was wrong!

Please do elaborate on what problem you see that still exist.

 - Jonas

 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to