[Pkg-nx-group] freenx debian packaging

[Paul van der Vlis]

Israel Miranda schreef:
> I agree with you Alexander, you're damn right.
> Supporting a package wich provides remote access with security packages
> becomes a nigthmare,
> if there is duplicated code.

It is more work, but a nightmare?

I see many applications in Debian with more then one version, that's
code duplication too. E.g. Cyrus 2.1 and Cyrus 2.2.

> Right now I use the proprietary nomachine's package, but I'd like to use
> a GPL version.

You can, no problem. I am using version 0.60 on many machines.
deb http://krnl.nl/freenx/ ./
Works great.

Fabian Franz did post untested 0.7.1 Debian packages to the FreeNX
mailing list:
http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/freenx-knx/2007-November/006140.html

> Alexander, I didn't know that the GPL version of freenx had so many
> "implementation problems".
> But it's still a great technology and it's worthy using ( a stable and
> without duplicated code version ).
> 
> So, what would be the solution?
> Creating a fork project?
> Because, by what I've learned in this discussion, the actual freenx
> version will be very dificult to support in the future, and maybe the
> project could even be dropped in the future or totally rewritten.

No, FreeNX is not a problem.

The problem are the GPL2 NX libraries from Nomachine. They should be
included in other programms like Xorg, SSH, CUPS and Samba, and they all
have other licenses so they cannot use a GPL2 library.

It would be the best to do a complete rewrite of the NX code and
implement it in the applications with there license. But I think this is
really a lot work and it would be really complex to handle, because all
the projects should work together to make it work.
http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/freenx-knx/2007-July/005492.html

Another way would be to make GPL plugins for the applications, or
something tricky like that.

Another way is to vote about the inclusion in Debian in the way it is.

With regards,
Paul van der Vlis.



-- 
http://www.vandervlis.nl/