Hi All,
Is there currently an issue with the koji repo process? A pair of
rawhide chain builds that I ran last night failed and when I tried
them again this morning the previous package still wasn't in the repo
to build against. Similarly a F-11 build override that was tagged 10
or so hours ago
On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 21:13 -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
It just fits into your blind spot so nicely -- because you are firmly
convinced that there is never any downside, you completely ignore everytime
someone brings up an obvious one.
Have a look at http://live.gnome.org/CodeOfConduct
Peter Robinson wrote, at 07/07/2009 03:26 PM +9:00:
Hi All,
Is there currently an issue with the koji repo process? A pair of
rawhide chain builds that I ran last night failed and when I tried
them again this morning the previous package still wasn't in the repo
to build against. Similarly a
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 10:24:24AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Frank Murphyfrankl...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there any contingency plans in place,
for a worst case scenario if C#, is lost?
FesCo?
Legal?
Is there any searchable parameter,
to work out what
Hello All!
In order to build cross-toolchain I need to pass additional --define
binutils_target name of my target to rpmbuild command-line. See
this spec, for example:
http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/spu-binutils/devel/spu-binutils.spec?revision=1.10view=markup
How can I do it?
--
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabrar...@1407.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 10:24:24AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Frank Murphyfrankl...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there any contingency plans in place,
for a worst case scenario if C#, is lost?
Op dinsdag 07-07-2009 om 13:02 uur [tijdzone +0400], schreef Peter
Lemenkov:
Hello All!
In order to build cross-toolchain I need to pass additional --define
binutils_target name of my target to rpmbuild command-line. See
this spec, for example:
2009/7/7 Erik van Pienbroek e...@vanpienbroek.nl:
Op dinsdag 07-07-2009 om 13:02 uur [tijdzone +0400], schreef Peter
Lemenkov:
Hello All!
In order to build cross-toolchain I need to pass additional --define
binutils_target name of my target to rpmbuild command-line. See
this spec, for
On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 00:18:51 +0200, Kevin wrote:
Josh Boyer wrote:
Fedora Legacy (the original one) failed.
It failed because of excess bureaucracy (they didn't even trust Bugzilla's
authentication, requiring GPG signing of all Bugzilla comments with impact
on the procedures, and QA
On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 11:09:51PM -0400, Braden McDaniel wrote:
2. improves the resiliency of the package build to changes to
Fedora's autotools chain.
Many projects come with public source repositories, and those don't
include the binary configure/Makefile.in files. You usually
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 11:07:52AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
The promise makes quite sure to tell you you have no right[1], but you can
infringe that they won't sue *you*[2].
[1] = means you can't do it with GPL
It explicitly grant this right.
What you're explicitly told s that you won't
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Le 07/07/2009 12:02, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra a écrit :
What you're explicitly told s that you won't be sued if you do so without the
right.
And you have no right!
Just to try to understand your point.
1/You don't have the rights to do A.
2/
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 07:14 -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
libguestfs is a case in point - the Debian maintainer builds it from
git using some unknown version of autoconf, and I build it on RHEL and
This is a rare exception.
No, it's a rare exception for project to keep autotools generated
Compose started at Tue Jul 7 06:15:17 UTC 2009
New package b43-openfwwf
Open firmware for some Broadcom 43xx series WLAN chip
New package frinika
Music Workstation
New package mojito
A social network data aggregator
New package perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-FillInForm
Braden McDaniel wrote:
Breaking compatibility with previous versions of automake, autoconf, or
libtool has no impact on released tarballs made using those tools; they
continue to work as intended because they do not depend on the presence
of these tools. As such, I imagine the autotools
Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Sure, why not. It just so happens that, not too long ago, I was in an
analogous position where I had some other package that also built against
zlib, for $dayjob$. At $dayjob$ we also package free software using a
scripted reproducible build. Not RPMs, but an analogous
Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Which, as I pointed out, is still the case if you were to patch
configure.ac instead.
But, go ahead and ignore this inconvenient fact, too.
As I explained (and you ignored), configure.ac tends to change a lot less
between upstream releases, especially with a lot fewer
於 日，2009-07-05 於 12:32 +0200，Jeroen van Meeuwen 提到：
On 07/05/2009 12:12 PM, Jos Vos wrote:
On Sun, Jul 05, 2009 at 12:03:05PM +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
The CentOS project, or it's upstream, has a release cycle of approximately
three years -not a steady release cycle of three years
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 09:56 +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 10:24:24AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
http://port25.technet.com/archive/2009/07/06/the-ecma-c-and-cli-standards.aspx
Oh poo, and what's the difference? None. None whatsoever but more marketing.
You can't
On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 05:55:21PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Miroslav Lichvar (mlich...@redhat.com) said:
I'd like to update readline to the latest version 6.0. The problem is
that the license was changed to GPLv3+ and we have some GPLv2 packages
using readline.
A possible
2009/7/7 Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com:
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 09:56 +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 10:24:24AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
http://port25.technet.com/archive/2009/07/06/the-ecma-c-and-cli-standards.aspx
Oh poo, and what's the difference? None. None
On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 02:48:47PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
kdeedu-4.2.95-1.fc12
kdeedu only uses readline in KAlgebra which is GPLv2+ (and only in the
command-line version (calgebra) at that), so no problems there. (I also
verified that calgebra doesn't use any
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Jonathan
Underwoodjonathan.underw...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/7 Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com:
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 09:56 +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 10:24:24AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
On 07/07/2009 02:30 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
Is there a reason any of that can't be done as a secondary arch-like effort?
Nope. Not as far as I can see.
I've already pointed out why it's painful to keep EOL releases around. You
didn't really address those, and you seemed to have grouped them
On 07/07/2009 12:37 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 00:18:51 +0200
Kevin Koflerkevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Patrice Dumas's proposal failed because he wasn't provided with the
required infrastructure (and he was unable to come up with it
himself, which I can't blame him for).
2009/7/7 Ding-Yi Chen dc...@redhat.com:
於 日，2009-07-05 於 12:32 +0200，Jeroen van Meeuwen 提到：
On 07/05/2009 12:12 PM, Jos Vos wrote:
On Sun, Jul 05, 2009 at 12:03:05PM +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
The CentOS project, or it's upstream, has a release cycle of approximately
three years
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 14:27 +0100, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
Not answering Ajax's question specifically, but this looks a bit iffy:
If you file, maintain, or voluntarily participate in a patent
infringement lawsuit against a Microsoft implementation of any Covered
Specification, then this
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabrar...@1407.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 11:07:52AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
The promise makes quite sure to tell you you have no right[1], but you can
infringe that they won't sue *you*[2].
[1] = means you can't do it with GPL
It
Am Dienstag, den 07.07.2009, 15:36 +0200 schrieb drago01:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Jonathan
Underwoodjonathan.underw...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/7 Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com:
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 09:56 +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 10:24:24AM +0200,
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Julian
Aloofijulian.fedorali...@googlemail.com wrote:
Am Dienstag, den 07.07.2009, 15:36 +0200 schrieb drago01:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Jonathan
Underwoodjonathan.underw...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/7 Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com:
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at
Hello All!
I plan to add arm-toolchain into Fedora and encountered a difficulty -
how to properly name the package? From what I found in the Internets,
the cross-toolchains *often* named with the following prefix:
arch-vendor-operating system-libc-
For example:
i686-pc-linux-gnu-
Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 02:48:47PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
kdeedu-4.2.95-1.fc12
kdeedu only uses readline in KAlgebra which is GPLv2+ (and only in the
command-line version (calgebra) at that), so no problems there. (I also
verified that
On 07/07/2009 12:29 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On 07/06/2009 03:07 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
Bugzilla spam. If we keep the release open for random bug filing, we
have no good way of telling bugzilla that only specific users should get
bugs for specific releases of Fedora. Ownership is at a
On Jul 7, 2009, at 3:15, Dodji Seketeli do...@redhat.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Le 07/07/2009 12:02, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra a écrit :
What you're explicitly told s that you won't be sued if you do so
without the right.
And you have no right!
Just to try
On Jul 7, 2009, at 4:14, Sam Varshavchik mr...@courier-mta.com wrote:
Richard W.M. Jones writes:
On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 11:09:51PM -0400, Braden McDaniel wrote:
2. improves the resiliency of the package build to changes to
Fedora's autotools chain.
Many projects come with
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 16:06 +0200, Julian Aloofi wrote:
Unfortunately the patent promise covers more things than just C# / CLI
patents.
And it seems like you're going to lose the whole promise when you just
sue them over one specification in there, e.g. the XPS specification.
Maybe that's
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2009-July/msg00014.html
Regards,
Frank
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
On 07/07/2009 12:07 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Sat, 2009-07-04 at 23:58 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
I wanted to draw your attention to a feature I've proposed for Fedora
12, mysteriously called Extended Life Cycle.
You can find more details at
On 07/07/2009 01:06 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 20:20:50 +0200
Jeroen van Meeuwenkana...@kanarip.com wrote:
Reading it on a question-mark per question-mark basis though, I think
the feature page answers half of the half-posed questions. Anyway:
- a bunch
fas names?
On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, Jesse Keating wrote:
These days distributing via tarball is bizarre. Distributed source control is
changing the way that projects work and
release. Sure there are plenty of projects out here that don't work this way
but more and more are headed in this
direction.
I
於 二，2009-07-07 於 14:44 +0100，John5342 提到：
2009/7/7 Ding-Yi Chen dc...@redhat.com:
Any comments?
In theory your proposal sounds great but i see just one major flaw
that probably doesn't have a solution. Your idea of packages being
built based on dependencies should work great apart from
Kevin Kofler (kevin.kof...@chello.at) said:
Per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Milestone_Adjustment_Proposal what
used to be called Beta is now called Alpha. This matches industry
nomenclature for what we were actually producing.
Uh, I kinda recalled that the feedback on the mailing
On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, Colin Walters wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Seth Vidalskvi...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
I disagree. I think the discrete tarball snapshot of a release will continue
for quite some time and I've not seen anyone moving away from that in their
public software
On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 22:53 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
Just a reminder that we are kicking off our 'fit and finish' initiative
with a test day on display configuration tomorrow, in
#fedora-fit-and-finish. If you go to
On 07/02/2009 05:31 PM, Xavier Toth wrote:
It's a one liner.
--- anaconda-11.5.0.12/yuminstall.py.orig 2009-06-30
09:05:19.0 -0500
+++ anaconda-11.5.0.12/yuminstall.py2009-06-30 09:06:03.0 -0500
@@ -575,8 +575,7 @@
YumSorter.getReposFromConfig(self)
#
2009/7/7 Ding-Yi Chen dc...@redhat.com:
於 二，2009-07-07 於 14:44 +0100，John5342 提到：
2009/7/7 Ding-Yi Chen dc...@redhat.com:
Any comments?
In theory your proposal sounds great but i see just one major flaw
that probably doesn't have a solution. Your idea of packages being
built based on
Braden McDaniel wrote:
Breaking compatibility with previous versions of automake, autoconf, or
libtool has no impact on released tarballs made using those tools; they
continue to work as intended because they do not depend on the presence
of these tools.
...but they depend on a slew of *other*
Summary of broken packages (by src.rpm name):
bmpx
clutter-cairo
clutter-cairomm
clutter-gst
clutter-gtkmm
cluttermm
CodeAnalyst-gui
gauche-gl
gauche-gtk
ginac
kdeedu
libchamplain
libprojectM
libvirt-qpid
octave-forge
orsa
Ding-Yi Chen wrote:
Therefore, I would like to propose an alternative approach,
namely, project Denture. See my blog post for further information:
http://dingyichen.livejournal.com/14055.html
Any comments?
As I've tried to explain to you last time you proposed that approach on your
blog,
Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
Fedora End-Of-Sales or something (please avoid the Legacy or LTS names).
End-Of-Sales doesn't make a lot of sense for something which isn't sold…
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
On Monday 06 July 2009, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Sam Varshavchik wrote:
But that's what /you/ want to do, not me. Me, I'll just apply a patch to
the configure script, directly.
And you'll be violating the GPL (unless you're talking about a
BSD-style-licensed software or configure.ac is
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 14:01 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Braden McDaniel wrote:
Breaking compatibility with previous versions of automake, autoconf, or
libtool has no impact on released tarballs made using those tools; they
continue to work as intended because they do not depend on the
This should have already included in daily rawhide report. I am not
sure why broken deps report is not getting included in daily rawhide
report.
There is some problem with the script and Jesse is not around to fix it.
Cheerio,
Debarshi
--
One reason that life is complex is that it has a real
Matthew Woehlke wrote:
...but they depend on a slew of *other* things, like a POSIX shell and
many POSIX tools.
Right. Assuming POSIX in a tool which is supposed to be a portability tool
is completely nonsensical and anachronistic, considering the most popular
operating system is a
Ville Skyttä wrote:
The FSF seems to disagree with that.
http://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/html_node/Distributing.html#Distributing
That applies to the automatically copied shell code, but not necessarily to
the code from the original configure.ac.
Kevin Kofler
--
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 16:24 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
If you take into account that the proposal concerns security fixes only,
then every update has to be labeled a security update (and preferably
have some kind of CVE/bug# attached??). We would need to think about a
policy for that,
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 01:17 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On 07/06/2009 08:09 PM, Braden McDaniel wrote:
On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 16:36 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On 07/06/2009 03:57 PM, Braden McDaniel wrote:
On 7/6/09 6:10 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
[snip]
Introducing side-effects
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 9:16 PM, Michael Schwendtmschwe...@gmail.com wrote:
The following packages in the repository suffer from broken dependencies:
package: CodeAnalyst-gui-2.8.38-12.fc12.i586 from fedora-development-i386
unresolved deps:
libbfd-2.19.51.0.2-20.fc12.so
package:
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 22:26 +0530, Debarshi Ray wrote:
This should have already included in daily rawhide report. I am not
sure why broken deps report is not getting included in daily rawhide
report.
There is some problem with the script and Jesse is not around to fix it.
I'm working
On 07/07/2009 09:45 AM, Braden McDaniel wrote:
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 01:17 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
Perhaps but it doesn't decrease the work that the maintainer has to do.
It very well might if Fedora upgrades to a new autoconf, automake, or
libtool that is not 100% backward compatible
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 10:16:59PM +0530, Parag N(पराग़) wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 9:16 PM, Michael Schwendtmschwe...@gmail.com wrote:
The following packages in the repository suffer from broken dependencies:
package: CodeAnalyst-gui-2.8.38-12.fc12.i586 from fedora-development-i386
Hi all,
I need to escape a # character in a spec file, but I can't seem to
find how to do that (is it even possible?)
See also BZ #508847. There are a couple of .#pfd1.xml like files which
need to be rm -f 'd...
Thanks, Stefan
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
This is a policy and licensing change that affects anyone who edits
the wiki or otherwise contributes to Fedora documentation.
The consensus of the Docs Team, with full Legal support, is to
relicense wiki and documentation from the deprecated OPL 1.0 to the CC
BY SA 3.0 license. This move brings
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 15:47 +, Michael Schwendt wrote:
The following packages in the repository suffer from broken dependencies:
package: pypar-2.1.0_66-3.fc10.i386 from fedora-development-i386
unresolved deps:
libpython2.5.so.1.0
python(abi) = 0:2.5
I haven't been able to
On Tuesday 07 July 2009, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Ville Skyttä wrote:
The FSF seems to disagree with that.
http://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/html_node/Distributing.html#D
istributing
That applies to the automatically copied shell code, but not necessarily to
the code from the
2009/7/7 Ville Skyttä ville.sky...@iki.fi:
On Tuesday 07 July 2009, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Ville Skyttä wrote:
The FSF seems to disagree with that.
http://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/html_node/Distributing.html#D
istributing
That applies to the automatically copied shell code, but
Hello guys.
How can we add gtk2-immodules and gtk2-immodule-xim by default in a
PT_BR Fedora installation ?
We need to correct this problem ASAP for Fedora 10 ,11 and rawhide
We are receiving a lot of claims about this problem in Brazilian lists
and forum.
Bugzilla entry:
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 04:06:02PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabrar...@1407.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 11:07:52AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
The promise makes quite sure to tell you you have no right[1], but you
can
infringe that they
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 12:15:28PM +0200, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
Le 07/07/2009 12:02, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra a écrit :
What you're explicitly told s that you won't be sued if you do so without
the right.
And you have no right!
Just to try to understand your point.
1/You don't
On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 11:18 +0100, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2009-07-02 at 23:22 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
It would be nice if someone who actually who's primary language is
English reviews and fixes potential ken lee entry's i've made.
I did a copyedit on the page,
On 07/04/2009 03:11 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 23:19 -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 15:00 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 10:43:34 +0100,
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
but it's actually a lot less trouble to just do:
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 21:11 +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 04:06:02PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 11:07:52AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
The promise makes quite sure to tell you you
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:11 PM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabrar...@1407.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 04:06:02PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabrar...@1407.org
wrote:
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 11:07:52AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
The promise makes
On Tue July 7 2009, Jesse Keating wrote:
See above, should be how we do things now, group related updates into a
single bodhi submission, and attach the bugs/CVEs to that single
submission.
This may be disliked by upstream and others, because it creates bogus security
update notification
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 23:06 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
This may be disliked by upstream and others, because it creates bogus
security
update notification mails, that say that there are security updates for
packages that are no security updates, e.g.:
Ville Skyttä wrote:
Well, the copyright notice at the top of configure (included in my
previous mail) pretty clearly tells me what I can do with the script, and
who to contact in case I'd disagree or have any questions.
The FSF cannot claim copyright over the configure.ac code I or whoever
On Tue July 7 2009, Jesse Keating wrote:
Why was this update marked as security, but not bundled with the package
that actually had the security issue that you were rebuilding for? When
It was bundled with the packagate that had the security issue:
Jesse Keating wrote:
Why was this update marked as security, but not bundled with the package
that actually had the security issue that you were rebuilding for? When
the entire list of packages is in one email then it makes sense. Such
as https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2009-1095.html
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 16:39 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 21:11 +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 04:06:02PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 11:07:52AM +0200,
On Fri July 3 2009, John Poelstra wrote:
The logist...@lists.fedoraproject.org mailing list has been created to
meet the requirements discussed here:
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2009-July/msg0.htm
l
Imho announcement mails should not require someone to read some
On 07/07/2009 04:24 AM, drago01 wrote:
http://port25.technet.com/archive/2009/07/06/the-ecma-c-and-cli-standards.aspx
Were there any announcements about their libraries? This sounds like
clarification about which parts of .NET they *don't* plan to sue people
over. It would have been easy
Kevin Kofler writes:
Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Which, as I pointed out, is still the case if you were to patch
configure.ac instead.
But, go ahead and ignore this inconvenient fact, too.
As I explained (and you ignored), configure.ac tends to change a lot less
between upstream releases,
Kevin Kofler writes:
Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Sure, why not. It just so happens that, not too long ago, I was in an
analogous position where I had some other package that also built against
zlib, for $dayjob$. At $dayjob$ we also package free software using a
scripted reproducible build. Not
(Since I see some people here doing it... *cough*Please do not quote my
e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.*cough* Thank you.)
Simo Sorce wrote:
People, why don't you all stop playing lawyer and wait that some lawyer
actually comment on the promise?
I guess some organization like
Mark McLoughlin writes:
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 07:14 -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
libguestfs is a case in point - the Debian maintainer builds it from
git using some unknown version of autoconf, and I build it on RHEL and
This is a rare exception.
No, it's a rare exception for project to
Note: this is my last email on this thread
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 10:55:15PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
What you're explicitly told s that you won't be sued if you do so
without the right.
And you have no right!
If I told you you can do whatever you want with this and I won't sue
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
(Since I see some people here doing it... *cough*Please do not quote my
e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.*cough* Thank you.)
Simo Sorce wrote:
People, why don't you all stop playing lawyer and wait that some lawyer
EPEL bug day is fast approaching and we are looking for your help. This is a
chance to get involved with EPEL and help make the overall product a little
better.
Goal: Reduce or update bugs from EPEL.
Strategy: The vast majority of EPEL bugs have been classified loosely into
three categories.
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 23:36 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
Why was this update marked as security, but not bundled with the package
that actually had the security issue that you were rebuilding for? When
the entire list of packages is in one email then it makes sense.
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 18:16 -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Jesse Keating writes:
These days distributing via tarball is bizarre. Distributed source
control is changing the way that projects work and release. Sure there are
plenty of projects out here that don't work this way but more
drago01 wrote:
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
(Thank you.)
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=mozclientie=utf-8oe=utf-8q=sflc+microsoft+patent+promise
(Granted, much of that is about OOXML, but it seems to be referring to the
same OSP, and even so, given the
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 12:19 AM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabrar...@1407.org wrote:
And no I am not doing something illegal because the company which
holds the patents stated in a legally binding document that I can
implement this standards as long as I don't sue them over a patent
that is covered
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
In a couple of years Microsoft is bought by Fu-Bar Inc and there goes the
promise down the drain.
...if only. The odds of *any* company that might buy out M$ (well, if it
isn't started by Gates and/or Ballmer and/or such) being as bad as M$
have got to be
drago01 wrote:
So what about the patents owned by redhat?
http://www.redhat.com/legal/patent_policy.html
It's also just promise.
True. However anything RH shipped as GPLv3 that uses a RH patent is no
longer a mere promise, it's a legally binding patent license. Something
that has yet to come
alfin...@boxbe.com
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 4:25 AM, Robert 'Bob' Jensen
b...@fedoraunity.orgwrote:
Junk Score: 1 out of 10 (below your Auto Allow threshold) | Change:
https://www.boxbe.com/mail-screeningtc=147907721_1484328999
Approve sender:
Matthew Woehlke writes:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
In a couple of years Microsoft is bought by Fu-Bar Inc and there goes the
promise down the drain.
...if only. The odds of *any* company that might buy out M$ (well, if it
isn't started by Gates and/or Ballmer and/or such) being as bad
Argh... I know I said I wouldn't, but this one really needs to have some scale
applied.
On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 12:43:28AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
They just promised (and their word is worthless in this regard) not to
sue you.
So what about the patents owned by redhat?
alfin...@boxbe.com
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 12:48 AM, Matthew Woehlke
mw_tr...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
Junk Score: 4 out of 10 (below your Auto Allow threshold) | Change:
https://www.boxbe.com/mail-screeningtc=205147289_978180501
Approve sender:
Bill McGonigle wrote:
With being tied up with ECMA and the various well-publicized efforts to
get RAND licenses on them, these aren't the parts most people were
worried about.
But the thing is, RAND does not necessarily mean royalty-free, let alone
compatible with Free Software licenses (no
Sam Varshavchik wrote:
This may come as a shock to some, but configure does not often change
unless configure.ac changes too.
So, I'm not sure what does the frequency of changes to configure.ac has to
do with anything.
Where your argument falls apart is that patch fuzz is a local concept!
1 - 100 of 283 matches
Mail list logo
