1 |
Jan, thanks for the reply! It was a pleasant surprise to find out that you |
2 |
read our list :) |
3 |
|
4 |
I plan to switch to the non-"stdopt" ppp patch in the next release (not |
5 |
without lots of warnings and notices, fellow Gentoo users). Sorry for all |
6 |
the bug traffic this may have caused you. |
7 |
|
8 |
Thanks, |
9 |
Cory |
10 |
|
11 |
On Sun, Aug 29, 2004 at 01:02:09PM +0200, Jan Dubiec wrote: |
12 |
> On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:24:50 +0000, Cory Visi <merlin@g.o> wrote: |
13 |
> > Hi all. I am working on some ppp bugs and I noticed there is an excellent |
14 |
> > kernel patch for MPPE/MPPC available for both 2.4 and 2.6 kernel versions: |
15 |
> Thanks ;-) |
16 |
> |
17 |
> [.....] |
18 |
> > 1. Can I include the ppp patch in the ppp ebuild? How do I do it legally? |
19 |
> IMO the *pppd* patch can be included because it doesn't contain actual MPPC |
20 |
> code. MPPC (de)compresion routines are located in the *kernel* patch. |
21 |
> |
22 |
> > 2. Can we include the kernel patch in the gentoo-sources base patch set? |
23 |
> > How do we do it legally? |
24 |
> IMO, if Gentoo servers are outside the USA (e.g. in the EU), the patches |
25 |
> could be included. Although I am not a lawyer. |
26 |
> |
27 |
> I have one question - does somebody of you know if my patches are included |
28 |
> in an unofficial Gentoo sources? I am asking because I am receiving a lot |
29 |
> of emails from people who use Gentoo and my patches. They use "stdopt" |
30 |
> (e.g. ppp-2.4.2-stdopt-mppe-mppc-1.1.patch.gz) version of the pppd patch. |
31 |
> It has MPPE/MPPC related options compatible with original pppd-2.4.2. |
32 |
> Unfortunately, because of that it inherits also a few drawbacks of the |
33 |
> original. So if you decide to include my patches into Gentoo sources, I |
34 |
> recommend using non-"stdopt" pppd patch (i.e. ppp-2.4.2-mppe-mppc-1.1.patch.gz). |
35 |
> I generates much less email traffic from unexperienced users. |
36 |
|
37 |
-- |
38 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |