From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from g1t0026.austin.hp.com (g1t0026.austin.hp.com [15.216.28.33]) (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 E118F21F0F0 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 10:26:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from g1t0038.austin.hp.com (g1t0038.austin.hp.com [16.236.32.44]) by g1t0026.austin.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FCA3C13F; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 17:26:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [16.103.148.51] (tardy.usa.hp.com [16.103.148.51]) by g1t0038.austin.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06703302B7; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 17:26:09 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <51489FB1.7000104@hp.com> Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 10:26:09 -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> <51489A55.5020202@hp.com> <87fvzrxq8u.fsf@toke.dk> In-Reply-To: <87fvzrxq8u.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 17:26:15 -0000 On 03/19/2013 10:17 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > Rick Jones writes: > >> Ah yes, licensing - I guess netperf not being GPL would be an issue >> there because the debian packaging scripts are themselves GPL? > > Yeah, I think they are by default. However, I looked at the 'copyright' > file in the debian/ directory (which contains the packaging script), and > couldn't find any reference to the license of the packaging files > themselves; it only contained what appeared to be the list of copyrights > From netperf itself, with the name of the packager added on top. > > I suppose the safe thing to do would be to either (a) fire off an email > to the packager and ask if he has any objections to his packaging being > distributed as part of the netperf source, or (b) re-create the > packaging script from scratch. As for (b), Debian does provide a set of > scripts to scaffold the packaging scripts, so it might not be too hard > to do. However, given that I am very much a Debian packaging novice, > asking for permission to incorporate the existing packaging scripts > might be worthwhile, at least as a first attempt. I did send an email to the person I thought was the Debian mantainer - didn't get a response from him though. Probably worth a second shot. > What, btw, is the purpose of incorporating the packaging scripts? Do you > want to provide ready-made .debs for download, or do you simply want to > make it easier for others to create packages? And which distribution(s) > are you planning to target? The main reason is to make it easier for others to create packages, where others includes myself. rick