Debian Bug report logs - #84819
ITP: rdesktop-1.1 -- Windows NT/2000 Terminal Server Client

Package: wnpp; Maintainer for wnpp is wnpp@debian.org;

Reported by: Sam Johnston <samj@faredge.com.au>

Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 19:03:10 UTC

Severity: wishlist

Done: "Sam Johnston" <samj@samj.net>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Toggle useless messages

View this report as an mbox folder, status mbox, maintainer mbox


Report forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org:
Bug#84819; Package wnpp. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Sam Johnston <samj@faredge.com.au>:
New Bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Sam Johnston <samj@faredge.com.au>
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Subject: ITP: rdesktop-1.1 -- Windows NT/2000 Terminal Server Client
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 05:22:28 +1100
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist

rdesktop is an open source client for Windows NT/2000 Terminal Server, 
capable of natively speaking its Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) in order to 
present the user's NT desktop. Unlike Citrix ICA, no server extensions are 
required.

rdesktop was written by Matt Chapman (matthewc@cse.unsw.edu.au) and is 
hosted at http://www.rdesktop.org It is licensed under the GPL.




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org:
Bug#84819; Package wnpp. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Bradley Bell <btb@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #10 received at 84819@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Bradley Bell <btb@debian.org>
To: 84819@bugs.debian.org, Sam Johnston <samj@faredge.com.au>
Subject: rdesktop
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 07:00:03 -0700
Hi, are you still working on packaging rdesktop?  I noticed that, though
it's GPL, it contains a few files with a non-free license (crypto/arith.c
crypto/arith.h, crypto/conf.h).  If you're interested, I've got a patch to
get rid of them, so rdesktop could go into main.  I've also got the whole
thing debianized, if you want to take a look.  I'll have it all uploaded to
http://people.debian.org/~btb/src/rdesktop/ pretty soon.

-brad



Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org:
Bug#84819; Package wnpp. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Sam Johnston <samj@samj.net>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #15 received at 84819@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Sam Johnston <samj@samj.net>
To: Bradley Bell <btb@debian.org>
Cc: "84819@bugs.debian.org" <84819@bugs.debian.org>, <matthewc@cse.unsw.edu.au>
Subject: Re: rdesktop
Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 00:30:41 +1000 (AUS Eastern Standard Time)
Brad,

Thanks for your interest. Yes I do indeed plan to package rdesktop...  in
fact I have a 1.0.0 package ready for action, however I've refrained from
uploading it on the grounds that the author, Matt Chapman, assures me that
some time in the not too distant future he will be merging the patches
into a 1.1 release, and would rather I wait till then.

As 1.0 is fairly broken without the patches I think it's probably worth
the wait (unless I were to build a package with the patches which is
likely to break versioning - any suggestions?). I really want to see a
working rdesktop in the next release of Debian which probably means we
should get something up there sooner rather than later.

Your crypto patches (which make use of GMP in place of the german arith
code) would be a welcome addition no doubt. The existing license appears
to allow for non-commercial use only and thus violates DFSG.

 - samj

On Sat, 5 May 2001, Bradley Bell wrote:

> Hi, are you still working on packaging rdesktop?  I noticed that, though
> it's GPL, it contains a few files with a non-free license (crypto/arith.c
> crypto/arith.h, crypto/conf.h).  If you're interested, I've got a patch to
> get rid of them, so rdesktop could go into main.  I've also got the whole
> thing debianized, if you want to take a look.  I'll have it all uploaded to
> http://people.debian.org/~btb/src/rdesktop/ pretty soon.
>
> -brad
>




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org:
Bug#84819; Package wnpp. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Bradley Bell <btb@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #20 received at 84819@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Bradley Bell <btb@debian.org>
To: Sam Johnston <samj@samj.net>
Cc: "84819@bugs.debian.org" <84819@bugs.debian.org>, matthewc@cse.unsw.edu.au
Subject: Re: rdesktop
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 12:06:49 -0700
On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 12:30:41AM +1000, Sam Johnston wrote:
> Brad,
> 
> Thanks for your interest. Yes I do indeed plan to package rdesktop...  in
> fact I have a 1.0.0 package ready for action, however I've refrained from
> uploading it on the grounds that the author, Matt Chapman, assures me that
> some time in the not too distant future he will be merging the patches
> into a 1.1 release, and would rather I wait till then.

Hmm, would he have a problem with a patched version, or just with 1.0.0?

> As 1.0 is fairly broken without the patches I think it's probably worth
> the wait (unless I were to build a package with the patches which is
> likely to break versioning - any suggestions?). I really want to see a
> working rdesktop in the next release of Debian which probably means we
> should get something up there sooner rather than later.

I think a patched version ought to be fine.  The "unified" series from
http://bibl4.oru.se/projects/rdesktop/ is pretty stable, and even works with
w2k server.
It shouldn't break versioning, as long as it's in the form 1.0.0-whatever.

> Your crypto patches (which make use of GMP in place of the german arith
> code) would be a welcome addition no doubt. The existing license appears
> to allow for non-commercial use only and thus violates DFSG.

Yeah, that's what I figured.  The rest of the crypto code looks okay, but
IANAL...
I haven't really been following the debate about crypto export, so I don't
know what the us/non-us situation would be.

-brad


> 
>  - samj
> 
> On Sat, 5 May 2001, Bradley Bell wrote:
> 
> > Hi, are you still working on packaging rdesktop?  I noticed that, though
> > it's GPL, it contains a few files with a non-free license (crypto/arith.c
> > crypto/arith.h, crypto/conf.h).  If you're interested, I've got a patch to
> > get rid of them, so rdesktop could go into main.  I've also got the whole
> > thing debianized, if you want to take a look.  I'll have it all uploaded to
> > http://people.debian.org/~btb/src/rdesktop/ pretty soon.
> >
> > -brad
> >
> 



Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org:
Bug#84819; Package wnpp. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Sam Johnston <samj@samj.net>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #25 received at 84819@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Sam Johnston <samj@samj.net>
To: Bradley Bell <btb@debian.org>
Cc: "84819@bugs.debian.org" <84819@bugs.debian.org>, "matthewc@cse.unsw.edu.au" <matthewc@cse.unsw.edu.au>
Subject: Re: rdesktop
Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 10:24:29 +1000 (AUS Eastern Standard Time)
> Hmm, would he have a problem with a patched version, or just with 1.0.0?

Matt assures me that the patched version breaks quite a few things
(although he didn't specify what). He said it will take a few solid days
for him to get it to where he wants it for a 1.1. I know he's busy though
with uni/sysadminning/samba/etc. so I offered to find some 'sponsorship'
(even if that means paying him myself :) ). My last discussion with him
was about a month ago.

> I think a patched version ought to be fine.  The "unified" series from
> http://bibl4.oru.se/projects/rdesktop/ is pretty stable, and even works with
> w2k server.
> It shouldn't break versioning, as long as it's in the form 1.0.0-whatever.

So we can upload the 1.0.0 release, follow it up with 1.0.0-up19.5.10 or
similar and then with 1.1.0 when Matt gets around to it? And apt will
track the upgrades (ie 1.0.0->1.0.0-up19.5.10->1.1.0)? I'd want to
be fairly sure that's the case first. Sounds good to me.

> I haven't really been following the debate about crypto export, so I don't
> know what the us/non-us situation would be.

I suspect we'll have to put it in non-us for now, but who know's what will
come of current discussions about relaxed export laws et al.

I don't see your GMP patch in the unified patches... perhaps that would be
a good place for it?

 - samj

> > On Sat, 5 May 2001, Bradley Bell wrote:
> >
> > > Hi, are you still working on packaging rdesktop?  I noticed that, though
> > > it's GPL, it contains a few files with a non-free license (crypto/arith.c
> > > crypto/arith.h, crypto/conf.h).  If you're interested, I've got a patch to
> > > get rid of them, so rdesktop could go into main.  I've also got the whole
> > > thing debianized, if you want to take a look.  I'll have it all uploaded to
> > > http://people.debian.org/~btb/src/rdesktop/ pretty soon.
> > >
> > > -brad
> > >
> >
>




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org:
Bug#84819; Package wnpp. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Bradley Bell <btb@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #30 received at 84819@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Bradley Bell <btb@debian.org>
To: Sam Johnston <samj@samj.net>
Cc: "84819@bugs.debian.org" <84819@bugs.debian.org>, "matthewc@cse.unsw.edu.au" <matthewc@cse.unsw.edu.au>
Subject: Re: rdesktop
Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 02:41:44 -0700
On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 10:24:29AM +1000, Sam Johnston wrote:
> > Hmm, would he have a problem with a patched version, or just with 1.0.0?
> 
> Matt assures me that the patched version breaks quite a few things
> (although he didn't specify what). He said it will take a few solid days
> for him to get it to where he wants it for a 1.1. I know he's busy though
> with uni/sysadminning/samba/etc. so I offered to find some 'sponsorship'
> (even if that means paying him myself :) ). My last discussion with him
> was about a month ago.

well, in any case, if it's made clear in the package description that it is
not the canonical version, and bugs should be reported to debian, not to
upstream, it should be fine to upload a patched version.  We don't want him
to have to deal with bugs that aren't his fault.

> > I think a patched version ought to be fine.  The "unified" series from
> > http://bibl4.oru.se/projects/rdesktop/ is pretty stable, and even works with
> > w2k server.
> > It shouldn't break versioning, as long as it's in the form 1.0.0-whatever.
> 
> So we can upload the 1.0.0 release, follow it up with 1.0.0-up19.5.10 or
> similar and then with 1.1.0 when Matt gets around to it? And apt will
> track the upgrades (ie 1.0.0->1.0.0-up19.5.10->1.1.0)? I'd want to
> be fairly sure that's the case first. Sounds good to me.

yep. that's how it works:
% dpkg --compare-versions 1.0.0 lt 1.0.0-pl19-5-10 && echo true || echo false
true
% dpkg --compare-versions 1.0.0-pl19-5-10 lt 1.1.0 && echo true || echo false
true

> > I haven't really been following the debate about crypto export, so I don't
> > know what the us/non-us situation would be.
> 
> I suspect we'll have to put it in non-us for now, but who know's what will
> come of current discussions about relaxed export laws et al.

Yep.  another member of the rdesktop list suggested taking out the rest of
the crypto code and using libssl, but it would still have to go into non-us,
as long as it depends on something from there.

> I don't see your GMP patch in the unified patches... perhaps that would be
> a good place for it?

yes, Peter Bystrom said he'd add it pretty soon.

-brad


> > > On Sat, 5 May 2001, Bradley Bell wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi, are you still working on packaging rdesktop?  I noticed that, though
> > > > it's GPL, it contains a few files with a non-free license (crypto/arith.c
> > > > crypto/arith.h, crypto/conf.h).  If you're interested, I've got a patch to
> > > > get rid of them, so rdesktop could go into main.  I've also got the whole
> > > > thing debianized, if you want to take a look.  I'll have it all uploaded to
> > > > http://people.debian.org/~btb/src/rdesktop/ pretty soon.
> > > >
> > > > -brad
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 



Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org:
Bug#84819; Package wnpp. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to <andyzib@ringworld.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #35 received at 84819@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: "Andy Zbikowski (Zibby)" <zibby@ringworld.org>
To: <84819@bugs.debian.org>
Cc: <samj@faredge.com.au>, <btb@debian.org>
Subject: Re: Rdesktop
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 12:07:20 -0500 (CDT)
I've also been keeping a package for my personal use. Just screwed up
updating it to the latest unified patch (19-6-3) though. Whoops.

I'm thinking that a version-patchlevel type scheme should do the trick.

ie:
1.0.0 is the source as is,
1.0.0.19.6.3 is the original source + the latest patch
1.1.0 - the next release.

This scheme will work nicely as long as you keep version numbers out of
the package name. (apt-get install rdesktop, not apt-get install
rdesktop1.0) Many maintainers have recently made the mistake of using
prerelease versions with the final version followed by a datestamp.
(2.3.0-20010325). This leads to things like 2.3.0-final to get the
versioning back on track. A version like 2.2.9.20010325 should have been
used, then when 2.3.0 is release apt would have noticed that 2.3.0 >
2.2.9.20010325 and gotten the new version.

Going by this, 1.0.0 would tranition to 1.0.0.patchlevel, and
1.0.0.patchlevel would transition to the next patchlevel or 1.1.0 cleanly.
The downside to this is that each new patch would be considered a new
upstream version, and since it's in patch form not tarball form many of
the automated build tools won't work as advertised, so you'll have to do a
little extra work.

Also remember that each time you use dch -i you will create a new
incremental package that will replace the package your previously created,
so that is another option for handeling new patchlevels that may be
simpler and shorter. Just make sure you make note of it in your changelog.

Packaging with the different patches presents a new chalenge. I haven't
figured out how to apply a new patch without going back to the original
1.0.0 source.

Then there's the issue of the dangling non-free lib included in the
original rdesktop source. After patching this isn't an issue, but Debian
will still be distributing the original source that includes the non-free
lib until 1.1 is released. This is a question for debian-mentors (or maybe
even debian-devel), as modifying the original source tarball to
remove this lib would cause rdesktop to not to compile, and most likely a
policy violation. Perhaps Matt will consider resolving this issue before
others, thus creating a 1.0.1 that debian can distribute. Doing so might
give the unified-patch folks a little work.

If Matt Chapman has a tentive date for the 1.1.0 release, and that date is
before the Woody freeze date, apply for maintainer/developer status now.
Last time I checked you still have to become a maintainer/developer, and
that process does take time. (Finding a sponser, face to face keysigning,
etc.)

Once you're a maintainer, getting the 1.1 release into Woody shouldn't
take long, and as long as it's bug free, should survive the freeze.

I think what I would do is:
Become a developer/maintainer.

On your people.debian.org homepage, put up a page describing the current
problems with the package (explain why 1.0 will never be an official
package.)

On people.debian.org, maintain an apt-getable repository for your rdesktop
package so far so that people who would find it useful in it's current
state don't have to duplicate your efforts, and interested parties can
submit packagine (let me repeat that, PACKAGING!) bugs to you. You don't
want to deal with any bugs that ARE NOT related to PACKAGING until your
package is in unstable.

Hope all that was helpful on some level. ;)

| Andrew S. Zbikowski       | Home: 763.591.0977 |
| http://www.ringworld.org  | Work: 763.428.9119 |
| http://www.itouthouse.com | PCS:  612.306.6055 |
|   His power apparently lies in his ability to  |
|           choose incompetent enemies.          |
|    - Crow T. Robot, MST3K, "Prince of Space"   |




Reply sent to "Sam Johnston" <samj@samj.net>:
You have taken responsibility. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Notification sent to Sam Johnston <samj@faredge.com.au>:
Bug acknowledged by developer. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #40 received at 84819-done@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: "Sam Johnston" <samj@samj.net>
To: 84819-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: rdesktop uploaded
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 13:28:27 +1000 (EST)
rdesktop-1.0.0+19.6.6 was recently uploaded to unstable. enjoy.






Send a report that this bug log contains spam.


Debian bug tracking system administrator <owner@bugs.debian.org>. Last modified: Wed Apr 23 16:01:49 2014; Machine Name: buxtehude.debian.org

Debian Bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.