[php-apt-parser-maint] Re: patches for parse-apt-files.inc

[Damian Viano]

On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 10:49:11AM +0300, Jarno Elonen wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm moving today (and might be out of net for a few days), so just a quick 
> note.
> 
> > I saw that the project is up :)
> > http://alioth.debian.org/projects/php-apt-parser/
> 
> Added you both to project staff.

  Great.

> > - what should be the starting point (especially the script version) - do
> > we want to start with my version + Dami?n's patches? I remember, that we
> > had a few discussions in the past about improvements and my changes did
> > not always fit your changes
> 
> I don't remember what the issues where right no, but could you please put my 
> current version to SVN and make a branch/another dir with your changes for 
> now?

  As I see it we have (at least) 2 courses of action here:
  * start with latest version and work forward
  * start with the first version and construct a svn tree with full
    history.

  I don't see any of these as much trouble, and I think Daniel could do
both, since he must have your original version around and probably his
patches too. And certainly have my patches.

  If that's the situation (is it Daniel?) then I think the second
approach is probably better. Would that be ok with you Jarno? Have you
had time to take a look at Daniel's and my changes?

> > - what should be part of the project (I suggest: the CGI script, the PHP
> > script and at least one CSS file and one example - of course only, if
> > Dami?n agrees to donate the CGI script) and how the directory structure
> > should be organized for the files

  Of course, I've put everything up in
  http://damianv.com.ar/debian/php-apt-parser/

> Sounds reasonable. Please feel free to design the dirctory structure.
> 
> > - what should be used CVS or SVN
> 
> I asked for SVN - I like it much better as you don't have to have a shell 
> account and to grope the file system directly to rename/delete/move files 
> (among other things).

  SVN is just fine, although I personally like darcs better.

> > - what license can be used (IIRC there were a few discussion about
> > released-to-the-public software and resulting issues) - GPL or LGPL?
> 
> LGPL is fine with me, though I'd actually prefer an even less restrictive 
> license like MIT / modified BSD. I don't see how anyone could really misuse 
> this small piece of software by prorietarizing it. However, if someone wanted 
> to embed it with some CMS, for example, that was not (L)GPL compatible, it 
> would be a shame if it wasn't possible, IMO.
> 
> No strong opinions here either, though.

  As I said before, anything DFSG free seems right to me.

> > BTW: Can we create just one mailing list, so the discussion can be moved
> > there?
> 
> Yeah, that might be a good idea. You should now have privileges to do that.

  I've already joined the list, in fact this should be the very first
mail there. ;-p


	Damián Viano(Des).

P.S.: CCing Jarno since he is not subscribed yet..