From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from g5t0008.atlanta.hp.com (g5t0008.atlanta.hp.com [15.192.0.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.hp.com", Issuer "VeriSign Class 3 Secure Server CA - G3" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7A32E200BD0 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 10:03:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from g5t0030.atlanta.hp.com (g5t0030.atlanta.hp.com [16.228.8.142]) by g5t0008.atlanta.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55DB024296; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 17:03:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [16.103.148.51] (tardy.usa.hp.com [16.103.148.51]) by g5t0030.atlanta.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C98991425F; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 17:03:17 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <51489A55.5020202@hp.com> Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 10:03:17 -0700 From: Rick Jones User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130106 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Toke_H=F8iland-J=F8rgensen?= References: <87obehwhx9.fsf@toke.dk> <51475027.6040501@hp.com> <87li9kzig6.fsf@toke.dk> <5147717F.80606@hp.com> <87hak7zpzt.fsf@toke.dk> <51487A6B.1010803@hp.com> <87vc8nxsbi.fsf@toke.dk> <514895BC.9070703@hp.com> <87mwtzxr4s.fsf@toke.dk> In-Reply-To: <87mwtzxr4s.fsf@toke.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Bloat] Packages of netperf 2.6 and netperf-wrapper for Arch and Debian/Ubuntu X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 17:03:19 -0000 On 03/19/2013 09:59 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > Rick Jones writes: > >> As to the first, a patch set would be great. > > Right, I'll see what I can do. > >> As to the second, got me - packaging is black art to me. > > I was thinking more in terms of licensing or other reasons... :) Ah yes, licensing - I guess netperf not being GPL would be an issue there because the debian packaging scripts are themselves GPL? rick