On Sat, 2008-04-05 at 10:47 +0100, Robin Cornelius wrote: > 1) It probably would be a very good idea to remove the expat source code > from upstream completely and ensure the code builds with the latest > expat from expat's upstream instead of carrying a specific copy. Agreed. > > Files: src/expat_compat.h src/compat.c > > Copyright: (C) 1997-2007 The PHP Group > > Licence: PHP-3.01 > > (src/compat.c is part of the packaged library as it is listed in > > src/Makefile.am under libxmlrpc_epi_la_SOURCES. src/expat_compat.h is > > not packaged in the -dev) > > Proposal - drop these files upstream and only use expat as the xmlparser > for now. That would make things a lot easier. > > Files: expat/* > > Copyright: (C) 1998, 1999 James Clark > > Licence: Mozilla Public License Version 1.1 or GNU General Public > > License > > (files not packaged, code not compiled) > > Proposal - drop these files upstream, and if necessary package them in a > separate tarball/zip for distros that don't necessary have expat available. Agreed. > > Files: scripts/cvs2cl.pl > > Copyright: (C) 1999 Karl Fogel <kfogel@red-bean.com> > > Licence: GPL-2+ > > (build tool? Robin? seems to be an upstream thing - again worth asking > > upstream not to package it in the released tarball). > > This should be (will be now) dropped from the source tarball and only be > in upstream > CVS as its a CVS changelog tool. OK. > Ok i think we can overcome the major problems fairly easily here to get > the package into an acceptable state. Long term the package needs to be > able to nativly use the libxml2 parser *without* that php compatibility > library. Agreed. > Short term i would like to remove all the php licensed code and the > ability to use libxml2. I will do this upstream then repackage for > debian. This will leave us with an xmlrpc-epi that can only be used by > GPL compatible code, which is probably the better state to be in rather > that a library that cannot be used by GPL code. > > Longer term use libxml2 and remove libexpat so that php5 can use the > library if they so wish. > > How does this sound? (and add that -dbg package, fix the changelog --closes entry and implement the autotools recommendation for debian/rules from the other email). That sounds perfect. Let me know when the new upstream needs a sponsor. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part