[Pkg-x2go-devel] [X2go-dev] Starting to get x2go into Ubuntu Oneiric

[Mike Gabriel]

Hi Jonas, hi all,

On Do 19 Mai 2011 22:27:30 CEST Jonas Smedegaard wrote:

> Hi Stéphane,
>
> On 11-05-19 at 02:25pm, Stéphane Graber wrote:
>> > >> DO you think you can work on our NX code base and do the changes
>> > >> there? Work on each Git project (nxcomp, nxcompext, nxcompshad)
>> > >> could start in a Git branch first.
>> > >
>> > > I'm currently using the upstream tarballs from
>> > > http://www.nomachine.com/sources.php and updated the packaging
>> > > based on what's in the x2go PPA and in Debian. Resulting packaging
>> > > should probably end up in Debian and then be synced in Ubuntu.
>> >
>> > Ok, so you also actually picked up dead source from NoMachine. Thank
>> > god... Thus, it again makes sense to incude all actual code changes
>> > (version packaging changes) into the X2go Git repos... (to have all
>> > code together end up in Debian, finally).
>>
>> It really is an issue to have two "upstreams" for the same "project"
>> ... I'm really reluctant to use x2go as the "upstream" for anything
>> that's at http://www.nomachine.com/sources.php
>>
>> Though I'm perfectly fine using NoMachine's source code and applying
>> recommended changes from x2go's git on top of that.

Currently we have not really changes much. Only thing is that we  
included the Debian/Ubuntu patches into the upstream'ish code.

>> Of course if Debian actually chooses to "switch" upstream for the NX
>> code over to x2go, then I'll be fine syncing from Debian. I just think
>> it'll confuse a lot of people having two "active" upstreams for the
>> "same" code...
>
> I perfectly agree with you, Stéphane!
>
> If newer alternative libraries are not appropriate to apply as patches
> to the existing ones in Debian, then I find it most sensible to ship
> them with alternate names in Debian (rather than replacing the existing
> ones).

Questions:

  o is NoMachine's NXv3 still maintained by NoMachine?
  o If not: does Debian accept unmaintained code?
  o if not: does it need another group of people responsible for upstream?
  o if yes: is the X2go project an acceptable upstream for Debian (and
    subsequently Ubuntu etc.)
  o if yes: do I understand it correctly that nxproxy & nxcomp* should
    better be renamed? Probably already in X2go upstream. To make it really
    clear that it is not a continuation but a fork

I think the other devs from X2go upstream will fully agree that X2go  
does not want to guarantee compatibility with all NX-Client'ish  
products available. We are mainly interested in NX libs working with  
X2go. As we have already actually forked x2goagent (from nxagent)  
forking the rest of the NX code should not be too much of a problem?!?

Any recommendations from pkg-x2go-devel how to handle this in  
upstream? Thanks!!!

Greetings to all!!!
Mike



-- 

DAS-NETZWERKTEAM
mike gabriel, dorfstr. 27, 24245 barmissen
fon: +49 (4302) 281418, fax: +49 (4302) 281419

GnuPG Key ID 0xB588399B
mail: mike.gabriel at das-netzwerkteam.de, http://das-netzwerkteam.de

freeBusy:
https://mail.das-netzwerkteam.de/freebusy/m.gabriel%40das-netzwerkteam.de.xfb
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: Digitale PGP-Unterschrift
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-x2go-devel/attachments/20110520/d2594ef9/attachment.pgp>