Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 05:36:22PM +0100, Gustavo Felisberto wrote: A little background info: Right now there are three versions of net-im/skype in the tree: 1 - the 1.2 series (with a stable version) 2- the 1.3 series also with a stable version 3- the 1.4 series with a ~/hardmask version Also the skype license states that we cannot mirror it's files (this will be need later) The 1.4 series will have a version released soon that skype wants to become the standard stable version, it has many new features and better audio quality. I as Gentoo Dev and Skype Betatester was informed that starting on June 19th Skype will no longer provide downloads for the 1.2 and 1.3 version, and that means that 1.4 will be released some time before. For Gentoo that means that starting from the 19th users on the stable profile will not be able to install skype as no files will be available from upstream. So the thing is, as soon as Skype releases the 1.4 stable version I'm going to have it in tree and we need to have it tested ASAP on the stable profile. My thing is with the time between, we will have 5 days tops or users will not be able to install. Suggestions: 1- in the 19th remove skype 1.4 from the tree 2- Make 1.4 ebuilds empty and leave them on the tree and ewarn the users to use the unstable skype The first option will trigger portage errors and prompt users to open bugs until we have a stable 1.4, the second gives us a chance to explain the issue. Any alternatives? -- Gustavo Felisberto (HumpBack) Web: http://dev.gentoo.org/~humpback Blog: http://blog.felisberto.net/ It's most certainly GNU/Linux, not Linux. Read more at http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html . - Let's remove it from portage. why should we use it? I run it for a bit I can say it's awful... it is closed-source, is not it? so I think it's better not to install it... -- Linux is only free if your time has no value Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree
_JusSx_ wrote: On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 05:36:22PM +0100, Gustavo Felisberto wrote: A little background info: Right now there are three versions of net-im/skype in the tree: 1 - the 1.2 series (with a stable version) 2- the 1.3 series also with a stable version 3- the 1.4 series with a ~/hardmask version Also the skype license states that we cannot mirror it's files (this will be need later) The 1.4 series will have a version released soon that skype wants to become the standard stable version, it has many new features and bette= r audio quality. I as Gentoo Dev and Skype Betatester was informed that starting on Jun= e 19th Skype will no longer provide downloads for the 1.2 and 1.3 versio= n, and that means that 1.4 will be released some time before. For Gentoo that means that starting from the 19th users on the stable profile wil= l not be able to install skype as no files will be available from upstre= am. So the thing is, as soon as Skype releases the 1.4 stable version I'm going to have it in tree and we need to have it tested ASAP on the stable profile. My thing is with the time between, we will have 5 days= tops or users will not be able to install. Suggestions: 1- in the 19th remove skype 1.4 from the tree 2- Make 1.4 ebuilds empty and leave them on the tree and ewarn the= users to use the unstable skype The first option will trigger portage errors and prompt users to open bugs until we have a stable 1.4, the second gives us a chance to expla= in the issue. Any alternatives? --=20 Gustavo Felisberto (HumpBack) Web: http://dev.gentoo.org/~humpback Blog: http://blog.felisberto.net/ It's most certainly GNU/Linux, not Linux. Read more at http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html . - Let's remove it from portage. why should we use it? I run it for a bit = I can say it's awful... it is closed-source, is not it? so I think it's better not to install it... As we've established earlier, being closed-source is not sufficient reason for removing any program from Portage; you should have read the rest of the thread. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 16:06:32 +0200 _JusSx_ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let's remove it from portage. why should we use it? I run it for a bit I can say it's awful... it is closed-source, is not it? so I think it's better not to install it... Not everyone sees that as a reason not to use a potentially useful piece of software. We're not debian. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree
Abhay Kedia wrote: I am involved in this thread since its very beginning but looks like I am not being able to understand the problems. Would you please be kind enough to enumerate the issues discussed in this thread that warrant complete removal of Skype (rather than masking it) from the tree? We have a policy that ebuilds should be in the tree for at least 30 days before we mark them stable. Skype uses funny license that forbids us to mirror the installer file. Skype wants to remove that older file from their mirrors in less than 30 days after they release a new version. Current Gentoo stable would be unistallable. New version can't be marked as stable because it won't have been properly tested yet. Users will see that stuff that used to work for them is broken now. That's a regression that could have been avoided if Skype wasn't marked stable. It could be interesting to evaluate a new rule fetch/mirror restricted package can't be marked stable :). Cheers, -jkt -- cd /local/pub more beer /dev/mouth signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jan Kundrát wrote: Abhay Kedia wrote: I am involved in this thread since its very beginning but looks like I am not being able to understand the problems. Would you please be kind enough to enumerate the issues discussed in this thread that warrant complete removal of Skype (rather than masking it) from the tree? We have a policy that ebuilds should be in the tree for at least 30 days before we mark them stable. Skype uses funny license that forbids us to mirror the installer file. Skype wants to remove that older file from their mirrors in less than 30 days after they release a new version. Current Gentoo stable would be unistallable. New version can't be marked as stable because it won't have been properly tested yet. Users will see that stuff that used to work for them is broken now. That's a regression that could have been avoided if Skype wasn't marked stable. It could be interesting to evaluate a new rule fetch/mirror restricted package can't be marked stable :). I believe common sense and per-package experience is better than such general rules :) - -- Vlastimil Babka (Caster) Gentoo/Java -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGco4HtbrAj05h3oQRAi+rAJ92CyJ80p8JXWpIM1mJCnMrCFSXQQCgn6Ej JSWpRQFMvCCL6LM3MR9FEjQ= =sc5A -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree
Gustavo Felisberto [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Any alternatives? Ask Skype/upstream to change their behavior? For either the installer mirroring or historical-version removal date. If they're going through the trouble of producing a linux version, they probably understand how distros work, and may be sympathetic. -- ...jsled http://asynchronous.org/ - a=jsled; b=asynchronous.org; echo [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgp4SnK5YRnJ1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree
Vlastimil Babka wrote: Maybe you could (either when final 1.4 hits ~arch or on 19th) change the RESTRICT=mirror to RESTRICT=fetch in 1.4 and explain the situation in pkg_nofetch() via einfo, telling users they either find the distfile themselves (might have it on another computer, or get from a friend or just maybe have luck with google) or use the ~arch 1.4. This won't affect users that already have 1.4 installed, or just have the distfile. As a current user of skype, I like that idea. Greetings, Jean-Marc Hengen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree
Vlastimil Babka wrote: Jan Kundrát wrote: It could be interesting to evaluate a new rule fetch/mirror restricted package can't be marked stable :). I believe common sense and per-package experience is better than such general rules :) Agreed, although I think most people would agree with the principle being alluded to. I don't think many people had issues with making users fetch their java files, as they generally had stable URLs and were hosted for a long time. The real issue is with software where old versions are completely deprecated a day after something newer is available. Many games fall into this zone, and as a result they rarely become stable packages. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree
On 6/14/07, Abhay Kedia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 14 Jun 2007 1:54:51 am Vlastimil Babka wrote:
But maybe Skype is not so pressing to upgrade, just doesn't provide
distfiles anymore. Then maybe we don't have to obey, but still it's
really questionable if it should be marked stable at all.
Then don't mark it stable but dropping it from the tree altogether? That is
taking it a bit too far imho.
And yeah I'm a Java dev but at least Java is now open (I admit that the
stable VM's in tree are not, yet) and I don't see that coming for Skype.
Also Java (and your examples of closed source stuff) are not infamous
for the bad stuff mentioned above.
Has any one done the same kind of analysis on all the closed source
applications we have in tree? If we take an alternate view on the wikipedia
link then it can be said that it is just an attempt for spreading FUD while
trying to pimp Open Source alternatives?
Don't get me wrong...I love open source and that is one of the reasons why I
have been using GNU/Linux for many years but acting paranoid and dropping
popular packages from tree is not something, I as a common user, would like
to see. This is the only reason I am poking my nose in the workings of devs.
Indeed, if you were to drop all non-opensource _games_ from the tree
you'd loose most, if not all of your popular mainstream games, and
we'd have become another debian ;), and one of the big 'gotchas' i've
loathed about debian for many years is their zomg!..its not 'free'!..
extradite it to the abyss! , and thus for many years MP3 support and
many other applications were just the same as red hat, ... either
broken, limited functionality due to 'freeness' , or downright missing
altogether. ( anyone remember the pre-sun-java-in-debian days? )
I love free software as much as the next guy, but sometimes you want
to use something non-free, regardless of status, and regardless of how
much it sucks ;)
*ducks*
Gentoo is about choices, one of those choices is the choice to install
closed-source software, or software with well documented evils, the
best thing we can do is warn users what they're getting themselves
into and let them make an informed decision IMO.
--
Kent
ruby -e '[1, 2, 4, 7, 0, 9, 5, 8, 3, 10, 11, 6, 12, 13].each{|x|
print enNOSPicAMreil [EMAIL PROTECTED][(2*x)..(2*x+1)]}'
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree
Abhay Kedia wrote: Don't get me wrong...I love open source and that is one of the reasons why I have been using GNU/Linux for many years but acting paranoid and dropping popular packages from tree is not something, I as a common user, would like to see. This is the only reason I am poking my nose in the workings of devs. If is broken we need to fix it, if is unfixable we HAVE to drop/p.mask it. lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree
On Thursday 14 Jun 2007 8:18:27 pm Luca Barbato wrote: If is broken we need to fix it, if is unfixable we HAVE to drop/p.mask it. ...but then that remains true for open source programs as well. XMMS is a wonderful example of the same. I saw alsaplayer going out and then in again for the same reason. Why pin point on the closed source thing? Also, is Skype really becoming unfixable? I see only 3 open bugs in my search on bugzilla, none of which are security related. -- Regards, Abhay signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree
Abhay Kedia wrote: On Thursday 14 Jun 2007 8:18:27 pm Luca Barbato wrote: If is broken we need to fix it, if is unfixable we HAVE to drop/p.mask it. ...but then that remains true for open source programs as well. XMMS is a wonderful example of the same. I saw alsaplayer going out and then in again for the same reason. Why pin point on the closed source thing? Also, is Skype really becoming unfixable? I see only 3 open bugs in my search on bugzilla, none of which are security related. Please ensure you read the entire thread to get a grasp on the issues at hand before replying. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree
On Friday 15 Jun 2007 3:15:28 am Doug Goldstein wrote: Please ensure you read the entire thread to get a grasp on the issues at hand before replying. I am involved in this thread since its very beginning but looks like I am not being able to understand the problems. Would you please be kind enough to enumerate the issues discussed in this thread that warrant complete removal of Skype (rather than masking it) from the tree? -- Regards, Abhay signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
[gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree
A little background info: Right now there are three versions of net-im/skype in the tree: 1 - the 1.2 series (with a stable version) 2- the 1.3 series also with a stable version 3- the 1.4 series with a ~/hardmask version Also the skype license states that we cannot mirror it's files (this will be need later) The 1.4 series will have a version released soon that skype wants to become the standard stable version, it has many new features and better audio quality. I as Gentoo Dev and Skype Betatester was informed that starting on June 19th Skype will no longer provide downloads for the 1.2 and 1.3 version, and that means that 1.4 will be released some time before. For Gentoo that means that starting from the 19th users on the stable profile will not be able to install skype as no files will be available from upstream. So the thing is, as soon as Skype releases the 1.4 stable version I'm going to have it in tree and we need to have it tested ASAP on the stable profile. My thing is with the time between, we will have 5 days tops or users will not be able to install. Suggestions: 1- in the 19th remove skype 1.4 from the tree 2- Make 1.4 ebuilds empty and leave them on the tree and ewarn the users to use the unstable skype The first option will trigger portage errors and prompt users to open bugs until we have a stable 1.4, the second gives us a chance to explain the issue. Any alternatives? -- Gustavo Felisberto (HumpBack) Web: http://dev.gentoo.org/~humpback Blog: http://blog.felisberto.net/ It's most certainly GNU/Linux, not Linux. Read more at http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html . - signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Gustavo Felisberto wrote: Any alternatives? Drop it from stable completely, possibly package.mask or move to overlay. Why should this closed-source rootkit be in stable? - -- Vlastimil Babka (Caster) Gentoo/Java -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGcB4ztbrAj05h3oQRAoVMAKCg9kpnE0wPRI5SCNOh00n2eVXC5ACdE+8B v1PFWyt5iFbKcdlP8Eq+V1s= =UGYh -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree
On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 17:36 +0100, Gustavo Felisberto wrote: A little background info: Right now there are three versions of net-im/skype in the tree: 1 - the 1.2 series (with a stable version) 2- the 1.3 series also with a stable version 3- the 1.4 series with a ~/hardmask version Also the skype license states that we cannot mirror it's files (this will be need later) The 1.4 series will have a version released soon that skype wants to become the standard stable version, it has many new features and better audio quality. snip Suggestions: 1- in the 19th remove skype 1.4 from the tree 2- Make 1.4 ebuilds empty and leave them on the tree and ewarn the users to use the unstable skype The first option will trigger portage errors and prompt users to open bugs until we have a stable 1.4, the second gives us a chance to explain the issue. Any alternatives? 3. Mask 1.4 on the 19th with a descriptive message. That should have the effect of 1 and 2, without breaking anything necessarily? Sounds like we have a lose-lose situation here, and the best we can do is make it not horrible. Daniel -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree
Vlastimil Babka wrote: Gustavo Felisberto wrote: Any alternatives? Drop it from stable completely, possibly package.mask or move to overlay. Why should this closed-source rootkit be in stable? Said the java dev Personally, I'd say if upstream doesn't provide downloads, nothing we can do, and yeah, suggest to users to try the unstable version until such a time that it could become stable... -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree
Wednesday, 13. June 2007, Daniel Gryniewicz Ви написали: The first option will trigger portage errors and prompt users to open bugs until we have a stable 1.4, the second gives us a chance to explain the issue. Any alternatives? 3. Mask 1.4 on the 19th with a descriptive message. That should have the effect of 1 and 2, without breaking anything necessarily? I'd say mask 1. as soon as anything 1.4 hits the tree (even p-masekd). This way we warn users but also give them a chance to save a local copy of their favorite version. *We* cannot mirror sources, but as I understand, nothing prohibits end users from saving their stuff locally. Is this right? Yes, this would be against any policy we have, but then the whole situation is kind of against anything that was ever considered when policies were developed.. George -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree
Steev Klimaszewski kirjoitti: Vlastimil Babka wrote: Gustavo Felisberto wrote: Any alternatives? Drop it from stable completely, possibly package.mask or move to overlay. Why should this closed-source rootkit be in stable? Said the java dev We all use OpenJDK nowadays, don't we :) Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 George Shapovalov wrote: Wednesday, 13. June 2007, Daniel Gryniewicz Ви написали: The first option will trigger portage errors and prompt users to open bugs until we have a stable 1.4, the second gives us a chance to explain the issue. Any alternatives? 3. Mask 1.4 on the 19th with a descriptive message. That should have the effect of 1 and 2, without breaking anything necessarily? I'd say mask 1. as soon as anything 1.4 hits the tree (even p-masekd). This way we warn users but also give them a chance to save a local copy of their favorite version. *We* cannot mirror sources, but as I understand, nothing prohibits end users from saving their stuff locally. Is this right? This will show warnings about all versions masked or removed for stable users that already installed 1.4 version before, and cause confusion. Maybe you could (either when final 1.4 hits ~arch or on 19th) change the RESTRICT=mirror to RESTRICT=fetch in 1.4 and explain the situation in pkg_nofetch() via einfo, telling users they either find the distfile themselves (might have it on another computer, or get from a friend or just maybe have luck with google) or use the ~arch 1.4. This won't affect users that already have 1.4 installed, or just have the distfile. - -- Vlastimil Babka (Caster) Gentoo/Java -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGcDdAtbrAj05h3oQRAilcAJ0flzyZXqhYVpNyD8287fbyEBdzrACgikyT lP540mMlV8t/zcFq6Ixkh6o= =qKJI -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Vlastimil Babka wrote: Gustavo Felisberto wrote: Any alternatives? Drop it from stable completely, possibly package.mask or move to overlay. Why should this closed-source rootkit be in stable? ++ Marijn -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGcEklp/VmCx0OL2wRAhxUAKC0MbhuIU5OCtuW9BX72x+AxHEi9ACgov62 I3y4Lqxb6OfulRntvUVIYFQ= =bRUk -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree
On Wednesday 13 Jun 2007 10:11:24 pm Vlastimil Babka wrote: Drop it from stable completely, possibly package.mask or move to overlay. Why should this closed-source rootkit be in stable? If closed source is the criteria of getting dropped from stable status or tree, than are we dropping netscape-flash, vmware and NVIDIA etc. as well? -- Regards, Abhay signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree
Abhay Kedia wrote: On Wednesday 13 Jun 2007 10:11:24 pm Vlastimil Babka wrote: Drop it from stable completely, possibly package.mask or move to overlay. Why should this closed-source rootkit be in stable? If closed source is the criteria of getting dropped from stable status or tree, than are we dropping netscape-flash, vmware and NVIDIA etc. as well? NO NO NO. The criteria are: - if you cannot fix it - if you cannot workaround it mask it till you can do something. being closed source reduces the possibility to workaround the problems not to mention fix them properly. lu - cinelerra is opensource, but quite hard to handle, guess what happened... -- Luca Barbato Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Abhay Kedia wrote: On Wednesday 13 Jun 2007 10:11:24 pm Vlastimil Babka wrote: Drop it from stable completely, possibly package.mask or move to overlay. Why should this closed-source rootkit be in stable? If closed source is the criteria of getting dropped from stable status or tree, than are we dropping netscape-flash, vmware and NVIDIA etc. as well? Nah it's not the only criteria, the focus is on the rootkit :) part [1] Also, ion3 was IIRC removed recently also for upstream trying to force new versions against our stable policy. And that was opensource. But maybe Skype is not so pressing to upgrade, just doesn't provide distfiles anymore. Then maybe we don't have to obey, but still it's really questionable if it should be marked stable at all. And yeah I'm a Java dev but at least Java is now open (I admit that the stable VM's in tree are not, yet) and I don't see that coming for Skype. Also Java (and your examples of closed source stuff) are not infamous for the bad stuff mentioned above. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skype#Criticisms [2] [2] Oh noes I cited wikipedia, unreliable source of arbitrary information. - -- Vlastimil Babka (Caster) Gentoo/Java -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGcFKStbrAj05h3oQRArJMAJ9dAajoI7l1tde7/FvKzrubw0TCmgCfYrNj dCiD3UU7fiGY0YRFox/KXfw= =96ut -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree
On 6/14/07, Vlastimil Babka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, ion3 was IIRC removed recently also for upstream trying to force
new versions against our stable policy. And that was opensource.
[U] x11-wm/ion3
Available versions: (~)20060326 (~)20061223 (~)20070318-r2 (~)20070506-r1
{doc ion3-voidupstreamsupport-truetype unicode xinerama}
*waves finger at humourously* didn't even eix? .. or do i need to
sync again on this slow connection to witness insanity of pain :(
But maybe Skype is not so pressing to upgrade, just doesn't provide
distfiles anymore. Then maybe we don't have to obey, but still it's
really questionable if it should be marked stable at all.
And yeah I'm a Java dev but at least Java is now open (I admit that the
stable VM's in tree are not, yet) and I don't see that coming for Skype.
Also Java (and your examples of closed source stuff) are not infamous
for the bad stuff mentioned above.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skype#Criticisms [2][3]
[2] Oh noes I cited wikipedia, unreliable source of arbitrary information.
[3] Oh noes, you cited ( essentially ) open-source arbitrary information :P
- --
Vlastimil Babka (Caster)
Gentoo/Java
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFGcFKStbrAj05h3oQRArJMAJ9dAajoI7l1tde7/FvKzrubw0TCmgCfYrNj
dCiD3UU7fiGY0YRFox/KXfw=
=96ut
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
--
Kent
ruby -e '[1, 2, 4, 7, 0, 9, 5, 8, 3, 10, 11, 6, 12, 13].each{|x|
print enNOSPicAMreil [EMAIL PROTECTED][(2*x)..(2*x+1)]}'
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kent Fredric wrote:
On 6/14/07, Vlastimil Babka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, ion3 was IIRC removed recently also for upstream trying to force
new versions against our stable policy. And that was opensource.
[U] x11-wm/ion3
Available versions: (~)20060326 (~)20061223 (~)20070318-r2
(~)20070506-r1
{doc ion3-voidupstreamsupport-truetype unicode xinerama}
*waves finger at humourously* didn't even eix? .. or do i need to
sync again on this slow connection to witness insanity of pain :(
Yes you need to sync :)
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/x11-wm/ion3/ChangeLog?hideattic=0rev=1.56view=log
- --
Vlastimil Babka (Caster)
Gentoo/Java
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFGcFcWtbrAj05h3oQRAhipAJ93T+PRRsN5Zdu6r+h22Ywgn1OGsACghlX9
1eB5gqvrc1n5Il3KLJH4bjQ=
=NAPB
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree
On Thursday 14 Jun 2007 1:54:51 am Vlastimil Babka wrote: But maybe Skype is not so pressing to upgrade, just doesn't provide distfiles anymore. Then maybe we don't have to obey, but still it's really questionable if it should be marked stable at all. Then don't mark it stable but dropping it from the tree altogether? That is taking it a bit too far imho. And yeah I'm a Java dev but at least Java is now open (I admit that the stable VM's in tree are not, yet) and I don't see that coming for Skype. Also Java (and your examples of closed source stuff) are not infamous for the bad stuff mentioned above. Has any one done the same kind of analysis on all the closed source applications we have in tree? If we take an alternate view on the wikipedia link then it can be said that it is just an attempt for spreading FUD while trying to pimp Open Source alternatives? Don't get me wrong...I love open source and that is one of the reasons why I have been using GNU/Linux for many years but acting paranoid and dropping popular packages from tree is not something, I as a common user, would like to see. This is the only reason I am poking my nose in the workings of devs. -- Regards, Abhay signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
