ext Luarvique L. Luarvique luarvi...@gmail.com writes:
This whole talk about any repository but Extras is unsafe and evil
is mostly bullshit, and I think most users are smart enough to know
it.
It might be mostly bullshit, but not entirely. If we teach people that
it is normal to go hunting
On Mar 29, 2010 9:07am, Marius Vollmer marius.voll...@nokia.com wrote:
It might be mostly bullshit, but not entirely. If we teach people that
it is normal to go hunting for alternative repositories, we
substantially increase the risk that they run into unsafe and evil ones.
I do not think
On Monday 29 March 2010 08:07:06 Marius Vollmer wrote:
all the good stuff in them, because they know that these repositories
are well-maintained and backed by a community: packages are not
abandoned, and they can expect them to be updated when necessary.
Yes, we have not talked about this much
On Mar 29, 2010, at 11:00 AM, Attila Csipa wrote:
On Monday 29 March 2010 08:07:06 Marius Vollmer wrote:
all the good stuff in them, because they know that these repositories
are well-maintained and backed by a community: packages are not
abandoned, and they can expect them to be updated
ext luarvi...@gmail.com luarvi...@gmail.com writes:
[...] What I do see though is that the Extras admission/promotions
processes have become so bothersome to developers that they border on
hostile.
I don't have an opinion on this, since I am not at all involved in any
of the specifics. (I
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010, Attila Csipa wrote:
On Monday 29 March 2010 08:07:06 Marius Vollmer wrote:
all the good stuff in them, because they know that these repositories
are well-maintained and backed by a community: packages are not
abandoned, and they can expect them to be updated when
On Monday 29 March 2010 13:13:14 you wrote:
With the current state of extras-devel, long term availability is hardly
a point that should be raised against other repositories. At least the
source is available.
I feel this is more to the fact that very few people use 3rd party
repositories and
Seconded.
Whilst I have no intention on setting up my own repository, I can't
help but think Extras-devel is not perfect (looking at the events of
this week), either.
1. Packages not being imported: While this isn't common and X-Fade
does solve them rather promptly, this is not the first time
On Mar 26, 2010, at 8:19 AM, Matti Airas wrote:
On 25.03.2010 18:10, ext Dave Neary wrote:
There is an alternative - if Benoît does not want to deal with Extras,
and others feel that the packages he was packaging are vital, someone
else can take over as official packager and deal with all
On 22.03.2010 11:12, ext Benoît HERVIER wrote:
Please, can you remove all version of the following packages from the
extras fremantle, extras-testing fremantle, and extras-devel fremantle
repository :
[...]
- pypackager
- py2deb
[...]
Hi Benoit et al,
Having been preoccupied with other
Hi,
Matti Airas wrote:
However, as a member of the PyMaemo project I'm really worried about the
fate of the pypackager and py2deb packages which allow for creating deb
packages of Python programs without resorting to the use of Scratchbox.
The functionality provided by these packages is quite
On Mar 23, 2010, at 10:35 PM, Klaus Rotter wrote:
Am 22.03.2010 16:22, schrieb Graham Cobb:
On Monday 22 March 2010 14:30:00 Matan Ziv-Av wrote:
- You can't easily remove a package from extras-devel. (Or maybe at all?
I asked for a package to be removed two weeks ago. It is still there).
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 00:20, Attila Csipa ma...@csipa.in.rs wrote:
On Tuesday 23 March 2010 00:39:09 Darren Long wrote:
However, in the general case where the source and the executable are not
the same, I believe that maemo.org would be obliged to continue to make
the source available, for
ext Attila Csipa ma...@csipa.in.rs writes:
On Tuesday 23 March 2010 01:00:19 Gary Birkett wrote:
why doesn't HAM allow somebody to use a later provided version from Beniots
own repository?
there would be nothing wrong with leaving everything existing and Beniot
can get what he wants by still
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 7:55 AM, Andrew Flegg and...@bleb.org wrote:
requirement IF and ONLY IF you choose to provide the sources through a
written offer (instead of accompanying the binaries through neighbouring
links, which is actually what maemo.org does).
However, I think that link is
2010/3/23 Andrew Flegg and...@bleb.org:
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 00:20, Attila Csipa ma...@csipa.in.rs wrote:
On Tuesday 23 March 2010 00:39:09 Darren Long wrote:
However, in the general case where the source and the executable are not
the same, I believe that maemo.org would be obliged to
Hi,
And why should you insist
Because the GPL says we can.
The GPL also says that i can take your GPL app, modify it, even break it, reduce
its functionality etc etc and replace the original version with my broken one.
Still
you wouldn't want me to do this even though it's perfectly legal.
OK. Looks like you may have got me there. I guess this is why GPLv3
clarifies this aspect a bit. It hadn't dawned on me that maemo.org actually
complied with 3a and that there was actually no written offer.
And you are satisfied that your contributions to this dicussion finally made
the
On Mar 23, 2010, at 11:24 AM, Thomas Perl wrote:
2010/3/23 Andrew Flegg and...@bleb.org:
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 00:20, Attila Csipa ma...@csipa.in.rs wrote:
On Tuesday 23 March 2010 00:39:09 Darren Long wrote:
However, in the general case where the source and the executable are not
the
Am 22.03.2010 16:22, schrieb Graham Cobb:
On Monday 22 March 2010 14:30:00 Matan Ziv-Av wrote:
- You can't easily remove a package from extras-devel. (Or maybe at all?
I asked for a package to be removed two weeks ago. It is still there).
Contact the debmaster (Jeremiah) by direct email.
Hi,
Please, can you remove all version of the following packages from the
extras fremantle, extras-testing fremantle, and extras-devel fremantle
repository :
- pygtkeditor
- pypackager
- py2deb
- pylint
- vectormine
- mcalendar
- mtodos
- mnotes
- python-logilab-astng
- python-logilab-common
-
Hello
And please remove qypy too.
David.
Benoît HERVIER wrote:
Hi,
Please, can you remove all version of the following packages from the
extras fremantle, extras-testing fremantle, and extras-devel fremantle
repository :
- pygtkeditor
- pypackager
- py2deb
- pylint
- vectormine
- mcalendar
-
Do these packages have other packages that depend on them?
Why are you guys interested in removing so many packages?
Jeremiah
On Mar 22, 2010, at 11:16 AM, David Hautbois wrote:
Hello
And please remove qypy too.
David.
Benoît HERVIER wrote:
Hi,
Please, can you remove all version of
I'm not allowed to use this name (based on qype name)
The application will come back soon with another name and some improvements
Jeremiah Foster wrote:
Do these packages have other packages that depend on them?
Why are you guys interested in removing so many packages?
Jeremiah
On Mar 22,
Why are you guys interested in removing so many packages?
Because it ll be not be maintained anymore, and new versions will be
publish only on my own repository. But as HAM, ignore packet as my
repository isn't in the ham trusted list, there is here a conflict.
But here i didn't start a debate,
Sorry forgot to answer to the main question :
Do these packages have others packages that depend on them?
None i know on maemo extras repository.
Regards,
Le 22 mars 2010 12:20, Benoît HERVIER kher...@khertan.net a écrit :
Why are you guys interested in removing so many packages?
Because it
On Mon, March 22, 2010 11:56, Robin Burchell wrote:
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Jeremiah Foster
jerem...@jeremiahfoster.com wrote:
Why are you guys interested in removing so many packages?
Did you miss the thread asking for bugs wrt packaging to be fixed,
which was met with crickets?
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Niels Breet ni...@maemo.org wrote:
Did you miss the thread asking for bugs wrt packaging to be fixed,
which was met with crickets?
Where was this?
Two references:
http://lists.maemo.org/pipermail/maemo-developers/2010-March/025100.html
On Monday 22 March 2010 11:56:43 Robin Burchell wrote:
While I wish there was another way to fix this, I don't think Khertan
has mismanaged this in any way - he reported the bugs, he followed up
on it, and has been met with silence on issues that annoy and
frustrate the extras packaging
On Monday 22 March 2010 11:20:53 Benoît HERVIER wrote:
Because it ll be not be maintained anymore, and new versions will be
publish only on my own repository. But as HAM, ignore packet as my
repository isn't in the ham trusted list, there is here a conflict.
You are well aware of my views so I
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, Graham Cobb wrote:
On Monday 22 March 2010 11:20:53 Benoît HERVIER wrote:
Because it ll be not be maintained anymore, and new versions will be
publish only on my own repository. But as HAM, ignore packet as my
repository isn't in the ham trusted list, there is here a
On Monday 22 March 2010 14:30:00 Matan Ziv-Av wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, Graham Cobb wrote:
I just don't see how using your own repository is actually any **better**
than just using extras-devel?
There are a few problems with extras-devel:
- There are way too many warnings all over the
Presumably the source must continue to be available from the extras
repositories, even after the package binaries have been removed, assuming its
under the GPL, which e.g. Pygtkeditor is.
I'd suggest not removing the binary packages from extras, on the grounds that
they don't have to be
Hi,
why should you have to continue to provide the sources once you removed the
binaries?
And why should you insist on uploading old versions to maemo respositories
which a) just ignores the authors wishes and worse b) interferes with his work
on establishing his own repository.
Let him his
Hi,
See below ...
On 22 Mar 2010, at 19:55, Till Harbaum / Lists wrote:
Hi,
why should you have to continue to provide the sources once you removed the
binaries?
Doesn't the GPL say so? I believe that if the source isn't provided with the
binaries, then it has to be available for 3
GPL issues below
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Darren Long darren.l...@mac.com wrote:
Hi,
See below ...
On 22 Mar 2010, at 19:55, Till Harbaum / Lists wrote:
Hi,
why should you have to continue to provide the sources once you removed
the binaries?
Doesn't the GPL say so? I
I made apps for Maemo as a hobby ... today you are pissing me of ...
You didn't want alternate repository in your little world ... great ... do not
count me in your little world anymore !!!
Bye !
--
Benoît HERVIER, Khertan Softwares - http://khertan.net/
On Monday 22 March 2010 20:41:33 Darren Long wrote:
Doesn't the GPL say so? I believe that if the source isn't provided with
the binaries, then it has to be available for 3 years, from those who
distributed the binaries, which in this case is maemo.org.
Of course, if Benoit personally owns
On 22 Mar 2010, at 23:15, Graham Cobb wrote:
On Monday 22 March 2010 20:41:33 Darren Long wrote:
Doesn't the GPL say so? I believe that if the source isn't provided with
the binaries, then it has to be available for 3 years, from those who
distributed the binaries, which in this case is
why don't we ask a different question.
why doesn't HAM allow somebody to use a later provided version from Beniots
own repository?
there would be nothing wrong with leaving everything existing and Beniot can
get what he wants by still offering users the opportunity to add his own
repository and
On Tuesday 23 March 2010 00:39:09 Darren Long wrote:
However, in the general case where the source and the executable are not
the same, I believe that maemo.org would be obliged to continue to make the
source available, for at least 3 years.
Now, I might just be grossly misinformed or
On Tuesday 23 March 2010 01:00:19 Gary Birkett wrote:
why doesn't HAM allow somebody to use a later provided version from Beniots
own repository?
there would be nothing wrong with leaving everything existing and Beniot
can get what he wants by still offering users the opportunity to add his
OK. Looks like you may have got me there. I guess this is why GPLv3 clarifies
this aspect a bit.
It hadn't dawned on me that maemo.org actually complied with 3a and that there
was actually no written offer.
Darren
On 23 Mar 2010, at 00:20, Attila Csipa wrote:
On Tuesday 23 March 2010
43 matches
Mail list logo
