Re: [gentoo-user] another grub problem
* Allan Gottlieb ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [07.07.08 02:03]: grub find /boot/grub/stage1 (hd0,2) As expected hd0 is the disk grub setup (hd TAB Possible disks are: hd0 hd1 Again confirming that hd0 is a valid disk (as is hd1, but that is an external scsi that does not contain stage1) But now comes the problem. (I want grub in the MBR.) grub setup (hd0) What is wrong? maybe you just forgot: grub root hd(hd0,2) to say grub where the stages should end up? Sebastian -- Religion ist das Opium des Volkes. Karl Marx [EMAIL PROTECTED]@N GÜNTHER mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpkAfv6odQQU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] grub boot problem
Am Sonntag, 6. Juli 2008 schrieb ext Volker Armin Hemmann: On Sonntag, 6. Juli 2008, Dirk Heinrichs wrote: Am Sonntag, 6. Juli 2008 schrieb Volker Armin Hemmann: On Sonntag, 6. Juli 2008, Dirk Heinrichs wrote: What's this nmi_watchdog=0 good for (just curious)? to make sure it is off ;) Got me ;) So what's this nmi_watchdog good for? in theory it should be able to 'break' some kinds of lockups. just read this: /usr/src/linux/Documentation/nmi_watchdog.txt its a good read. Ok. Thanks for the clarification. Bye... Dirk -- Dirk Heinrichs | Tel: +49 (0)162 234 3408 Configuration Manager | Fax: +49 (0)211 47068 111 Capgemini Deutschland | Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wanheimerstraße 68 | Web: http://www.capgemini.com D-40468 Düsseldorf | ICQ#: 110037733 GPG Public Key C2E467BB | Keyserver: wwwkeys.pgp.net signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] another grub problem
On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 20:02:08 -0400, Allan Gottlieb wrote: grub find /boot/grub/stage1 (hd0,2) As expected hd0 is the disk You should now run root (hd0,2) grub setup (hd TAB Possible disks are: hd0 hd1 Again confirming that hd0 is a valid disk (as is hd1, but that is an external scsi that does not contain stage1) But now comes the problem. (I want grub in the MBR.) grub setup (hd0) Error 12: Invalid device requested What is wrong? GRUB can't find its files because you haven't told it which partition contains them. Only the stage1 goes into the MBR, along with a pointer to the partition that contains everything else. -- Neil Bothwick Q. How do you identify a blind man in a nudist colony? A. It's not hard. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit emerge -av cdrtools
Mark Kirkwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you know what defamation and slander is? If people did not believe in unproven and untrue claims, there was no problem. It therefore seems to be important to prevent underlying messages... Do you understand opinion? This is the heart of the matter. Your mention of lawyers does not change this - as legal opinion is merely an opinion that costs some money! (if your lawyer says !Z it does not stop another one saying Z)... Short answer: in a democracy, your freedom ends where you may start to influence the freedom of others. Long answer: If you repeat the opinion of other people, you make it _your_ opinion and if your opinion may harm other people, you are not allowed to publish it unless you are able to definitely prove it! I am the author and I tell you that there is no problem. I am the only person who could sue you and I can't if I did tell you before that there is no problem. Also note that these people from Debian (whose claims have been repeated) have ZERO credibiltiy. In September 2006, when they started cdrkit, they claimed that there were exactly two problems: Claim 1:The CDDL is not a free license Reality:The CDDL was accepted by the _whole_ ODD community at the end of January 2005. Everybody had the change to send his remarks, Debian did not. Even Debian officially accepted the CDDL as a definitive free license in August 2006. Claim 2:The build system for a GPLd program needs to be under GPL Reality:The people around Bloch took the last GPLd cdrtools source and replaced the original build system by a build system that is definitely not under GPL (it is under a four clause BSDl). All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others? You should be very careful when you repeat the claims from people who repeatedly published _obvious_ false claims in order to harm the cdrtools project. BTW: The claims from the people around Bloch are _not_ made by lawyers but by laymen. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit emerge -av cdrtools
* Joerg Schilling ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [07.07.08 11:17]: Short answer: in a democracy, your freedom ends where you may start to influence the freedom of others. No, that's anarchy you describing, in democracy the majority decides were your personal freedom ends. Long answer: If you repeat the opinion of other people, you make it _your_ opinion and if your opinion may harm other people, you are not allowed to publish it unless you are able to definitely prove it! What!? If I state the opinion of, let's say Angela Merkel, in an discussion were only her opposites were mentioned, to let the reader build her own opinion, I make it my opinion? Just because I hold the reader from a long googling session? This is not correct: As long as I quote, indirect speech *is* quoting, this is not my opinion. BTW: I repeat your opinion by quoting you, do I therefor make it to my opinion? I am the author and I tell you that there is no problem. I am the only person who could sue you and I can't if I did tell you before that there is no problem. Also note that these people from Debian (whose claims have been repeated) have ZERO credibiltiy. In September 2006, when they started cdrkit, they claimed that there were exactly two problems: Claim 1: The CDDL is not a free license Please referrence where that claim is made, i could not find it. Reality: The CDDL was accepted by the _whole_ ODD community at the end of January 2005. Everybody had the change to send his remarks, Debian did not. Even Debian officially accepted the CDDL as a definitive free license in August 2006. There is no approval process for free licenses within Debian: Please note however, that the Debian project decides on particular packages rather than licenses in abstract, and the lists are general explanations. It is possible to have a package containing software under a free license with some other aspect that makes it non-free. http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/index.en.html Claim 2: The build system for a GPLd program needs to be under GPL It is about linking, as part of the build process. Reality: The people around Bloch took the last GPLd cdrtools source and replaced the original build system by a build system that is definitely not under GPL (it is under a four clause BSDl). All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others? 4clauseBSD *is* compatible with GPL, whereas CDDL is not. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#CDDL http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ModifiedBSD BTW: The claims from the people around Bloch are _not_ made by lawyers but by laymen. As long as you not provide *any* other proove to a lawyers opinion, than your own word, I see this as your opinion, which is also a claim by a laymen. (A link would do...) Jörg Sebastian -- Religion ist das Opium des Volkes. Karl Marx [EMAIL PROTECTED]@N GÜNTHER mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] pgp45Uz3jtpZ7.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit emerge -av cdrtools
2008/7/7, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Also note that these people from Debian (whose claims have been repeated) have ZERO credibiltiy. In September 2006, when they started cdrkit, they claimed that there were exactly two problems: Claim 1:The CDDL is not a free license Reality:The CDDL was accepted by the _whole_ ODD community at the end of January 2005. Everybody had the change to send his remarks, Debian did not. Even Debian officially accepted the CDDL as a definitive free license in August 2006. Claim 2:The build system for a GPLd program needs to be under GPL Reality:The people around Bloch took the last GPLd cdrtools source and replaced the original build system by a build system that is definitely not under GPL (it is under a four clause BSDl). All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others? You should be very careful when you repeat the claims from people who repeatedly published _obvious_ false claims in order to harm the cdrtools project. BTW: The claims from the people around Bloch are _not_ made by lawyers but by laymen. Sorry, Jörg, cdrkit does not claim any of this above. The only claim they have is that the CDDL is not compatible with the GPL [1] _according to the FSF_. According to _cdrkits own document_ [1] they do not claim that the CDDL is not a free license. I also don't think the cmake build system can not be used with cdrkit as the 4clause BSD licencse has been declared compatible with the GPL [2] _by the FSF_ in contrary to the CDDL. So the only thing is that the debian people are FSF oriented and thus have dropped cdrtools. But as far as i know Debian was always a bit fanatic in such concerns and I don't give much about this as I don't think the FSF is the ultimate source of all truth. [1] http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/debburn/cdrkit/trunk/FORK?op=filerev=0sc=0 [2] http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/
Re: [gentoo-user] DVD and large files
Sebastian Günther wrote: Everthing looks OK, but if there were more than 4 million files in that tarball, then you could run into trouble ;-) Only thing, what comes in mind, is that the filesystem, where the tarball itself resides, has problems with files bigger than 2,2 GB and the tarball is currupt, because it was not copied completely. And then my Latin is at the end Sebastian I am having trouble burning a 4Gb tarball at the moment. Not sure what all the problem is but I had another DVD with one. This is the command I use and the error less the looong list of files: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / # tar -xvf /media/hdd/Data_2008.07.04-14.50.23_2.tar -C /backup/test/ data/Gentoo-stuff/livecd-i686-installer-2007.0.iso.bz2 tar: Skipping to next header SNIP tar: Error exit delayed from previous errors [EMAIL PROTECTED] / # ls of the file: -r--r--r-- 1 root root 4295060992 2008-07-04 19:07 Data_2008.07.04-14.50.23_2.tar Any idea what that is all about? Dale :-) :-) -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: SCG (was: Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit emerge -av cdrtools)
2008/7/5, Daniel Pielmeier [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Joerg Schilling schrieb: This is a really bad idea. /usr/include/scg/ is a planned directory that is known to be unique. cdrkit does not deliver anything that is even approximately useful as a replacement for libscg. Installing the includefiles from libscg into /usr/include/scsilib/scg makes them unusable as there is no software that is aware of this location. It seems that the only result is that it makes it harder to install cdrtools instread of cdrkit. Jörg Out of curiosity I tried a manual install and /usr/include/scg/ was not created at all. The command i used was ./Gmake INS_BASE=/home/billie/cdrtools-test/ install Returning to the technical side, I would really want to know why /usr/include/scg is not installed. I tried Gmake and also tried smake, but in both cases the libscg includes are not installed to the target directory! Am I doing something wrong here? Regards, Daniel
Re: [gentoo-user] DVD and large files
Dale [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am having trouble burning a 4Gb tarball at the moment. Not sure what all the problem is but I had another DVD with one. This is the command I use and the error less the looong list of files: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / # tar -xvf /media/hdd/Data_2008.07.04-14.50.23_2.tar -C /backup/test/ data/Gentoo-stuff/livecd-i686-installer-2007.0.iso.bz2 tar: Skipping to next header SNIP tar: Error exit delayed from previous errors [EMAIL PROTECTED] / # ls of the file: -r--r--r-- 1 root root 4295060992 2008-07-04 19:07 Data_2008.07.04-14.50.23_2.tar Any idea what that is all about? There are many possible reasons: 1) A well known bug in GNU tar (self incompatibility to GNU tar archives). I recommend you to use star to check the archive for correctness. 2) You did not use a recent original mkisofs to create the image 3) There is a bug in your Linux kernel. You would first need to check with a tar implementation that is kown to work (star). Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit emerge -av cdrtools
On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 11:16:33 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote: If you repeat the opinion of other people, you make it _your_ opinion and if your opinion may harm other people, you are not allowed to publish it unless you are able to definitely prove it! There is a difference between repeating and reporting. Reporting the opinions of others is legal in most Western countries, with certain, usually reasonable, constraints. -- Neil Bothwick Top Oxymorons Number 2: Exact estimate signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit emerge -av cdrtools
On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 11:16:33 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joerg Schilling) wrote: Mark Kirkwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you know what defamation and slander is? If people did not believe in unproven and untrue claims, there was no problem. It therefore seems to be important to prevent underlying messages... Do you understand opinion? This is the heart of the matter. Your mention of lawyers does not change this - as legal opinion is merely an opinion that costs some money! (if your lawyer says !Z it does not stop another one saying Z)... Short answer: in a democracy, your freedom ends where you may start to influence the freedom of others. How about stopping these reoccurring advertisements of cdrtools on gentoo-user? They influence my freedom to use the list for what it is meant to be used: Gentoo-only related stuff. Long answer: If you repeat the opinion of other people, you make it _your_ opinion and if your opinion may harm other people, you are not allowed to publish it unless you are able to definitely prove it! Here is a fact for you: Every mainstream binary distro dropped cdrtools. It is their right to choose which packets they want to distribute and they don't owe you an explanation. You claim (unfortunately on this list) that it is an attack against you and there is no problem with your precious package. Care to definitely prove it? I am the author and I tell you that there is no problem. I am the only person who could sue you and I can't if I did tell you before that there is no problem. You may tell whatever you want but... You are not the ONLY author. There is other people's copyrighted work in cdrtools. Are you authorized to speak on their behalf? -- Best regards, Daniel -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit emerge -av cdrtools
Neil Bothwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 11:16:33 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote: If you repeat the opinion of other people, you make it _your_ opinion and if your opinion may harm other people, you are not allowed to publish it unless you are able to definitely prove it! There is a difference between repeating and reporting. Reporting the opinions of others is legal in most Western countries, with certain, usually reasonable, constraints. Sorry, you missunderstand this at an important point: You are not allowed to report other opinions if they are known to be be wrong. This obviously applies to the claims from Bloch Co. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit emerge -av cdrtools
Daniel Iliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know I should not feed trolls but Here is a fact for you: Every mainstream binary distro dropped cdrtools. It is their right to choose which packets they want to distribute and they don't owe you an explanation. Solaris (the only distribution where lawyers checked the license) happily distributes the original cdrtools. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit emerge -av cdrtools
On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 13:11:59 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joerg Schilling) wrote: Daniel Iliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know I should not feed trolls but ...otherwise, you'd starve to death. Here is a fact for you: Every mainstream binary distro dropped cdrtools. It is their right to choose which packets they want to distribute and they don't owe you an explanation. Solaris (the only distribution where lawyers checked the license) happily distributes the original cdrtools. Jörg Hurray! You proved you are right! Now will you stop, please, reopening this topic on gentoo-user? -- Best regards, Daniel -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
Enrico Weigelt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It just says that it echoes the data to /dev/dsp (or another given device). So it's bound to exactly that device interface :( Well, if you did read the man paghe, you know that cdda2wav knows the correct names for all supported platforms and in addition allows to define the name by use of an option. Maybe we're talking about different versions. Mine doesn't state this ... Are you using cdrkit instead of the original? The text is in the man page since September 2007. But still the problem remains: you need explicit support for each audio interface you want to use. Which is no problem. This is code that has been verified to work on all known platforms since 1998 ;-) Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] OT: intentionally broken media
Enrico Weigelt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK, I forgot that you might have contact to a competitor. In this case, it should be possible to force shops to clearly separate the selling point for non-standard products from the products that behave as expected. Yep, my advocate is also music producer, so he can do this :) Then you may think about another interesting case: I am not sure about today, but a few years ago, Sony did definitely do something real strange: They sold CDs that flip the copy control bit in the subchannel data with a frequency of 9.375 Hz. This is an indication for: The creator of this copy is not the copyright holder. So Sony sold something illegal. . Well, they did this in order to prevent home stereeo appliances from allowing copies if the disk, but the SCM is intended to mark home made copies. Sony did sell media that contain a marker for Sony does not own the copyright on this media. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit emerge -av cdrtools
On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 13:07:44 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote: There is a difference between repeating and reporting. Reporting the opinions of others is legal in most Western countries, with certain, usually reasonable, constraints. Sorry, you missunderstand this at an important point: You are not allowed to report other opinions if they are known to be be wrong. Of course you are, as long as you are reporting that the person holds the opinion without endorsing it, you may even be doing it to show how ill-informed that person is. You have done exactly that on this list, posted what Bloch et al believe to be true before stating that it is not true. What you are not allowed to do, at least in the UK, is use this to spread defamatory material under the guise of decrying said material, but that has not been done on this list. -- Neil Bothwick Mmmm, trouble with grammer have I, yes? - Yoda signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: SCG (was: Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit emerge -av cdrtools)
Daniel Pielmeier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Out of curiosity I tried a manual install and /usr/include/scg/ was not created at all. The command i used was ./Gmake INS_BASE=/home/billie/cdrtools-test/ install Is this intended to be a joke or do you really like to ask me why it did not do something while you told it to do something else? Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: SCG (was: Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit emerge -av cdrtools)
2008/7/7, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Daniel Pielmeier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Out of curiosity I tried a manual install and /usr/include/scg/ was not created at all. The command i used was ./Gmake INS_BASE=/home/billie/cdrtools-test/ install Is this intended to be a joke or do you really like to ask me why it did not do something while you told it to do something else? No this is no joke at all! I should have said $INS_BASE/include/scg was not created at all. What i meant with the first question is that the libscg headers are not copied to the install destination.Sorry if I expressed this wrong in my first question. Regards, Daniel -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit emerge -av cdrtools
Joerg Schilling wrote: Neil Bothwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 11:16:33 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote: If you repeat the opinion of other people, you make it _your_ opinion and if your opinion may harm other people, you are not allowed to publish it unless you are able to definitely prove it! There is a difference between repeating and reporting. Reporting the opinions of others is legal in most Western countries, with certain, usually reasonable, constraints. Sorry, you missunderstand this at an important point: You are not allowed to report other opinions if they are known to be be wrong. Please be careful not to apply the legal free speech/publication standards of your country to the rest of the world. In the USA, for example, it is most certainly legal to publish known-false opinions as long as you clearly label them as opinion, not fact. Our presidential campains would be much nicer if it *was* illegal, but it is not. You have thrown out the words slander and defamation at least once. Again, I only know first-hand about the USA, but here, nothing I've seen so far would even come close to legally actionable slander. Even making factually incorrect statements of *fact* can be protected speech, to the extent that the person making the statements believes them to be true. And, conspiracy theories aside, I highly doubt the people making the claims about licensing issues honestly believe them to be false. There is certainly enough complex legal technicalities with cross-licensing issues to raise a genuine issue of good-faith belief in such claims. The reality, regardless of what Debian, or the FSF, or you, or any lawyers say, is that the licensing issue has not been tested in court yet. Unless and until that happens, the whole debate is pure theory. Debian is clearly not willing to take the risk of being sued by someone for violating their copyright. If Debian is willing to settle for a far inferior product just to avoid that risk, that's their right as distributors. You have made it abundantly clear that you disagree with their position, so there is not much else to do. --K -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Ekiga not finding v4l
On Sun, 2008-07-06 at 16:31 -0400, Michael Pobega wrote: Yessir, it does... dev-libs/pwlib-1.10.10-r1 USE=alsa ldap sdl ssl v4l xml -debug -ieee1394 -ipv6 -oss -sasl -v4l2 Is there anything else I should check? Perhaps I should enable OSS support as well...? I mean, it may work, considering I have ALSA doing OSS emulation. I'm not sure if it's even worth a try though. You shouldn't neeed OSS support (is it still even in the kernel?) or even OSS emulation AFAIK. Does arecord even work? Start with the basics. -a -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit emerge -av cdrtools
Sebastian Günther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is no approval process for free licenses within Debian: Please note however, that the Debian project decides on particular packages rather than licenses in abstract, and the lists are general explanations. It is possible to have a package containing software under a free license with some other aspect that makes it non-free. http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/index.en.html Why then did Debian decide around August 2006 that the CDDL is generally accepted? Claim 2:The build system for a GPLd program needs to be under GPL It is about linking, as part of the build process. Please do not try to confuse people with FUD. The main claim from Eduard Bloch on why there should be a problem with cdrtools was of course: Claim 2:The build system for a GPLd program needs to be under GPL Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit emerge -av cdrtools
Daniel Pielmeier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am sorry to see that you try to write FUD: http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/debburn/cdrkit/trunk/FORK?op=filerev=0sc=0 of course verifies my claim. They claimed that the official build system was not legal but they replaced it with a build system that definitely is not legal because it is not included in the source. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit emerge -av cdrtools
* Joerg Schilling ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [07.07.08 13:14]: Daniel Iliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know I should not feed trolls but Here is a fact for you: Every mainstream binary distro dropped cdrtools. It is their right to choose which packets they want to distribute and they don't owe you an explanation. Solaris (the only distribution where lawyers checked the license) happily distributes the original cdrtools. No wonder: OpenSolaris is mainly under CDDL. *There* you have anything needed zu circumvent the licence issue. This distro hardly counts for the issue stated. Jörg Sebastian -- Religion ist das Opium des Volkes. Karl Marx [EMAIL PROTECTED]@N GÜNTHER mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpNl2Bm2d2Uo.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit emerge -av cdrtools
Neil Bothwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 13:07:44 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote: There is a difference between repeating and reporting. Reporting the opinions of others is legal in most Western countries, with certain, usually reasonable, constraints. Sorry, you missunderstand this at an important point: You are not allowed to report other opinions if they are known to be be wrong. Of course you are, as long as you are reporting that the person holds the opinion without endorsing it, you may even be doing it to show how ill-informed that person is. You have done exactly that on this list, posted what Bloch et al believe to be true before stating that it is not true. Nice to see that we have the same opinion here. The problem with the quote in question was that is has been done uncommented. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: SCG (was: Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit emerge -av cdrtools)
Daniel Pielmeier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2008/7/7, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Daniel Pielmeier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Out of curiosity I tried a manual install and /usr/include/scg/ was not created at all. The command i used was ./Gmake INS_BASE=/home/billie/cdrtools-test/ install Is this intended to be a joke or do you really like to ask me why it did not do something while you told it to do something else? No this is no joke at all! I should have said $INS_BASE/include/scg was not created at all. What i meant with the first question is that the libscg headers are not copied to the install destination.Sorry if I expressed this wrong in my first question. OK, this is a missing makefile. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit emerge -av cdrtools
Mike Edenfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The reality, regardless of what Debian, or the FSF, or you, or any lawyers say, is that the licensing issue has not been tested in court yet. Unless and until that happens, the whole debate is pure theory. Debian is clearly not willing to take the risk of being sued by someone for violating their copyright. If Debian is willing to settle for a far inferior product just to avoid that risk, that's their right as distributors. You have made it abundantly clear that you disagree with their position, so there is not much else to do. This is not true! There are license violations in other packages from Debian where I _could_ sue Debian. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: another grub problem: SOLVED
(Summary: I had a problem with installing grub into the MBR. Two thoughtful replies set me straight) At Mon, 07 Jul 2008 08:46:34 +0100 Neil Bothwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 20:02:08 -0400, Allan Gottlieb wrote: grub find /boot/grub/stage1 (hd0,2) As expected hd0 is the disk You should now run root (hd0,2) grub setup (hd TAB Possible disks are: hd0 hd1 Again confirming that hd0 is a valid disk (as is hd1, but that is an external scsi that does not contain stage1) But now comes the problem. (I want grub in the MBR.) grub setup (hd0) Error 12: Invalid device requested What is wrong? GRUB can't find its files because you haven't told it which partition contains them. Only the stage1 goes into the MBR, along with a pointer to the partition that contains everything else. At Mon, 07 Jul 2008 08:47:44 +0200 Sebastian Günther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Allan Gottlieb ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [07.07.08 02:03]: grub find /boot/grub/stage1 (hd0,2) As expected hd0 is the disk grub setup (hd TAB Possible disks are: hd0 hd1 Again confirming that hd0 is a valid disk (as is hd1, but that is an external scsi that does not contain stage1) But now comes the problem. (I want grub in the MBR.) grub setup (hd0) What is wrong? maybe you just forgot: grub root hd(hd0,2) to say grub where the stages should end up? Thank you sebastian and neil for your clear responses, which worked perfectly. allan -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit emerge -av cdrtools
Sebastian Günther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Joerg Schilling ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [07.07.08 13:14]: Daniel Iliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know I should not feed trolls but Here is a fact for you: Every mainstream binary distro dropped cdrtools. It is their right to choose which packets they want to distribute and they don't owe you an explanation. Solaris (the only distribution where lawyers checked the license) happily distributes the original cdrtools. No wonder: OpenSolaris is mainly under CDDL. *There* you have anything needed zu circumvent the licence issue. Please finally stop your FUD! The CDDL definitely is a free license and Sun will definitely not publish any packages that could create problems. This is why Sun e.g. stopped publishing libcdio a year ago in order to avoid a license violation from this lib. Sun cares about publishing only 100% legal software. Linux distributors did not even stop publishing libcdio. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit emerge -av cdrtools
Sascha Hlusiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They claimed that the official build system was not legal but they replaced it with a build system that definitely is not legal because it is not included in the source. Of course the files needed to build cdrkit are in the source (CMakeLists.txt). Does any program that uses autotools come with the complete build system? Where does the GPL say that the buildsystem has to be included in the distributed source package? cdrkit uses cmake to build and that's available under a 3-clause BSD license which is said to be GPL compatible. Please point to a cmake with a 3 clause BSDl! Also note: They claim that the build system needs to be published under the GPL. But it is obviously illegal to change the license of other people's software. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit emerge -av cdrtools
* Joerg Schilling ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [07.07.08 17:28]: Sebastian Günther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Joerg Schilling ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [07.07.08 13:14]: Daniel Iliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know I should not feed trolls but Here is a fact for you: Every mainstream binary distro dropped cdrtools. It is their right to choose which packets they want to distribute and they don't owe you an explanation. Solaris (the only distribution where lawyers checked the license) happily distributes the original cdrtools. No wonder: OpenSolaris is mainly under CDDL. *There* you have anything needed zu circumvent the licence issue. Please finally stop your FUD! The CDDL definitely is a free license and Sun will definitely not publish any packages that could create problems. I *never* stated that CDDL is unfree. What I stated a couple of days ago, is that in *my opinion* the CDDL undermines freedom. Back to my statement: iirc the Debian people refused to establish a whole new build chain to circumvent the problem, that they saw when distributing cdrtools. What I just stated in my previous mail: There *is* the appropiate build chain within OpenSolaris cdrtools, so there isn't the problem, that the Debian people have with the whole issue. Sebastian -- Religion ist das Opium des Volkes. Karl Marx [EMAIL PROTECTED]@N GÜNTHER mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpG2ZV5dSt8a.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit emerge -av cdrtools
Sebastian Günther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please finally stop your FUD! The CDDL definitely is a free license and Sun will definitely not publish any packages that could create problems. I *never* stated that CDDL is unfree. What I stated a couple of days ago, is that in *my opinion* the CDDL undermines freedom. You are confused: the CDDL does not undermine freedom. It may be that you wanted to mention the GPL instead ;-) Back to my statement: iirc the Debian people refused to establish a whole new build chain to circumvent the problem, that they saw when distributing cdrtools. The original build system in cdrtools is not GPL but it is included in the source. The build system replacement made by debian is not GPL either! In addition parts of the build system are missing. As Debian claimed that the problem is a non GPL build system, Debian is obviously spreading FUD. What I just stated in my previous mail: There *is* the appropiate build chain within OpenSolaris cdrtools, so there isn't the problem, that the Debian people have with the whole issue. You again start with FUD, please stop this nonsense. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing (was: emerge -avC cdrkit emerge -av cdrtools)
Joerg Schilling wrote: They claimed that the official build system was not legal but they replaced it with a build system that definitely is not legal because it is not included in the source. You keep saying this, but I just don't see where it's coming from. Firstly, the cdrkit source ships with all of the cmake scripts that are needed by cmake to build the project. This is all that is required by the GPL. And before you tell me to look again or go read something or whatever -- I did. I have the cdrkit source tarball right here, and I'm looking at the files in question. I also have a copy of the GPL, which says exactly this: plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. Note there is no requirement that the actual *build tools* be included, only the scripts used to control them. Otherwise it would be illegal to ship any GPL'd program without the entire source to make, gcc, binutils, sed, awk, cat, etc. Secondly, even if they were required to include cmake in the cdrkit package, they can legally ship cmake and cdrkit in a single package under the GPL -- the modified BSD license allows this exact combination. They don't do this because they don't *need* to, but if they did need to, it would be perfectly legitimate. I may not be convinced of truth of their argument that cdrtools has licensing issues. That depends entirely on where you draw the line between a compilation, which is a derivative work under copyright law, and a mere aggregation, which is not. But I *am* absolutely convinced that your counter-argument about cdrkit is absolutely false. --K -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit emerge -av cdrtools
Am Montag 07 Juli 2008 17:30:06 schwätzte Joerg Schilling: Sascha Hlusiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They claimed that the official build system was not legal but they replaced it with a build system that definitely is not legal because it is not included in the source. Of course the files needed to build cdrkit are in the source (CMakeLists.txt). Does any program that uses autotools come with the complete build system? Where does the GPL say that the buildsystem has to be included in the distributed source package? cdrkit uses cmake to build and that's available under a 3-clause BSD license which is said to be GPL compatible. Please point to a cmake with a 3 clause BSDl! http://www.cmake.org Click on License. It's also in the file Copyright.txt in cmake-2.4.8.tar.gz, for example. Now please point to a cmake with a 4 clause BSDl! Please Jörg, tell us where you see a legal problem with cdrkit. Also note: They claim that the build system needs to be published under the GPL. But it is obviously illegal to change the license of other people's software. Who is they? And can you please quote them and give a reference? AFAIK the build system does not need to be GPL and it's not illegal to change a license if the license itself permits it. But that's not the issue here. Sascha signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit emerge -av cdrtools
Joerg Schilling wrote: Sascha Hlusiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They claimed that the official build system was not legal but they replaced it with a build system that definitely is not legal because it is not included in the source. Of course the files needed to build cdrkit are in the source (CMakeLists.txt). Does any program that uses autotools come with the complete build system? Where does the GPL say that the buildsystem has to be included in the distributed source package? cdrkit uses cmake to build and that's available under a 3-clause BSD license which is said to be GPL compatible. Please point to a cmake with a 3 clause BSDl! http://www.cmake.org/HTML/index.html, under License, says: CMake is distributed under BSD License Copyright (c) 2008, Kitware, Inc. All rights reserved. Also note: They claim that the build system needs to be published under the GPL. But it is obviously illegal to change the license of other people's software. 1. The email that *you* quoted in *your* defense clearly points out the incorrectness of your claim. The exact words were: For our fork we used the last GPL-licensed version of the program code from Cdrtools [5] and killed the incompatibly licensed build system. I assume that your build scripts, like everything else in your cdrtools package that you have control over, are licensed under the CDDL. (I can't confirm as the tarballs seem to be missing from your FTP site.) That is what the Debian maintainers are referring to as the incompatible build system. They have replaced it with CMake *build scripts* that are GPL licensed. 2. The BSD license makes it legal to re-release the code under a different license as long as the copyright notice is retained, so you're wrong on *both* counts. Before you accuse others of spreading FUD about your project, perhaps you should stop the practice yourself. --K -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit emerge -av cdrtools
Am Montag 07 Juli 2008 17:45:37 flamete Joerg Schilling: Back to my statement: iirc the Debian people refused to establish a whole new build chain to circumvent the problem, that they saw when distributing cdrtools. The original build system in cdrtools is not GPL but it is included in the source. The build system replacement made by debian is not GPL either! In addition parts of the build system are missing. Now come on, what parts are missing?? In what cases am I unable to build cdrkit because I lack some build scripts or part of the build system? Don't you think we'd like to know that? Don't make this thread longer and more pointless than it already is. Sascha signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit emerge -av cdrtools
Joerg Schilling wrote: Mike Edenfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The reality, regardless of what Debian, or the FSF, or you, or any lawyers say, is that the licensing issue has not been tested in court yet. Unless and until that happens, the whole debate is pure theory. Debian is clearly not willing to take the risk of being sued by someone for violating their copyright. If Debian is willing to settle for a far inferior product just to avoid that risk, that's their right as distributors. You have made it abundantly clear that you disagree with their position, so there is not much else to do. This is not true! There are license violations in other packages from Debian where I _could_ sue Debian. So sue them and put an end to this whole ridiculous debate. -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Firefox 3 stability
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 04:16:23PM +0100, Penguin Lover Graham Murray squawked: Willie Wong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Where is this suggestion mentioned? Is there a bug number? The Gentoo bug is http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=221141 Ah! Thanks. I see that there is another work-around suggested. I'll give that a try later today. W -- There is a penguin sitting on the top left corner of my monitor... He's watching you! Sortir en Pantoufles: up 577 days, 14:58 -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit emerge -av cdrtools
Sascha Hlusiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please point to a cmake with a 3 clause BSDl! http://www.cmake.org Click on License. It's also in the file Copyright.txt in cmake-2.4.8.tar.gz, for example. Let me quote _this_ file to verify that there is a 4 clause BSDL. The fact that cmake may have been changed a few weeks ago does not matter. At the time when Bloch and Co. did replace the original buildsystem by cmake, cmake was definitely under a 4 clause BSDL. I am sorry that you do not see that Bloch Co. is just ridiculous with his claims. Instead of understanding that _I_ do not have a problem with a non GPL buildsystem (in contrary to Mr. Bloch, I did read the GPL) you and others started a ridiculous thread. Could you please finally stop this ridiculous discussion? We will end up nowhere if we follow the false claims from Mr. Bloch. If you however like to have a fruitful discussion, you should know that a way to disprove a claim is to verify that conclusions from the claim are wrong. What I did is nothing but to prove that Mr. Bloch is highly self contradicting. You need to learn that this disproves his credibility and should finally understand that the other claims from Mr. Bloch are the same nonsense as his claim with the build system. cmake-2.4.8/Copyright.txt /*--*/ CMake was initially developed by Kitware with the following sponsorship: * National Library of Medicine at the National Institutes of Health as part of the Insight Segmentation and Registration Toolkit (ITK). * US National Labs (Los Alamos, Livermore, Sandia) ASC Parallel Visualization Initiative. * National Alliance for Medical Image Computing (NAMIC) is funded by the National Institutes of Health through the NIH Roadmap for Medical Research, Grant U54 EB005149. * Kitware, Inc. The CMake copyright is as follows: Copyright (c) 2002 Kitware, Inc., Insight Consortium All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. * The names of Kitware, Inc., the Insight Consortium, or the names of any consortium members, or of any contributors, may not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. * Modified source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be misrepresented as being the original software. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. See also the CMake web site: http://www.cmake.org for more information. /*--*/ Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit emerge -av cdrtools
On 7/7/08, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let me quote _this_ file to verify that there is a 4 clause BSDL. Jörg, there are indeed four asterisks/clauses to count. But which clause represents the original GPL-incompatible advertising clause? IANAL, but I cannot see that clause in there. What I think they've done is they've made their yet another own fork of the BSDL by slicing the last clause of the 3-clause BSDL into two and sprinkling some Apache-licensisch do not smear original name stuff in there. Stupid, possibly, confusing, certainly, but most likely *not* the original 4-clause BSDL. -- Arttu V. -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit emerge -av cdrtools
Heyho, Click on License. It's also in the file Copyright.txt in cmake-2.4.8.tar.gz, for example. Let me quote _this_ file to verify that there is a 4 clause BSDL. The fact that cmake may have been changed a few weeks ago does not matter. At the time when Bloch and Co. did replace the original buildsystem by cmake, cmake was definitely under a 4 clause BSDL. This is the 4th clause: * Modified source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be misrepresented as being the original software. It does NOT make it the incompatible 4 clause BSDl. And I doubt that makes it incompatible with the GPL at all. Please read http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_Lizenz and compare. Do you still hold your claim? If you however like to have a fruitful discussion, you should know that a way to disprove a claim is to verify that conclusions from the claim are wrong. What I did is nothing but to prove that Mr. Bloch is highly self contradicting. You did not prove anything yet. You still need to prove that cdrkit is illegal otherwise me and others will still believe that it's just a lot of FUD from you. Feel free to prove us wrong. You need to learn that this disproves his credibility and should finally understand that the other claims from Mr. Bloch are the same nonsense as his claim with the build system. While you still need to provide some proof of the single fact that you base your whole flame on, I won't believe anything. Especially I won't mistrust a whole person because of that. I don't have an opinion until I'm convinced. - Sascha signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit emerge -av cdrtools
Sascha Hlusiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Heyho, ... a lot of new FUD you. Feel free to prove us wrong. I am sorry, but I cannot see any sense in talking to a person who uses majestatis pluralis for his claims. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit emerge -av cdrtools
Am Montag 07 Juli 2008 21:04:15 schrieb Joerg Schilling: Sascha Hlusiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Heyho, ... a lot of new FUD you. Feel free to prove us wrong. I am sorry, but I cannot see any sense in talking to a person who uses majestatis pluralis for his claims. I does not make much sense to answer persons either, that does not read and understand all the sentences I wrote. I wrote me and others so the us is grammatically correct. Would you please come back to the topic now? - Sascha signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
[gentoo-user] drive configuration changes on reboot; blkid.tab defeats UUIDs
I had cause to reboot my gentoo box this morning, and it was an unexpected disaster. For some reason, my two PCI-X SATA controllers decided to switch places in the /dev/sd* lists. My /etc/fstab had explicit drive paths hard-coded, and they tried to mount stuff that didn't exist, and naturally failed. I wound up in a root shell under instructions to clean this up. I decided to go with UUIDs in /etc/fstab. After a half-hour or so pfutzing around with these (how do you find the UUID of an unmounted partition when you're not even really sure what kind of filesystem it has), I got everything to mount with mount -a, and I rebooted. The drives had changed names again, the sort of thing that UUIDs were designed to deal with, but the mount command was stubbornly using the old names. Bootup failed and I was back in a root shell. Thank goodness my root directory is still on an HDA drive. But where did these names come from -- they weren't in /etc/fstab any more. I did a system call trace on mount(1) to find out. There's a file I never heard of or noticed before: /etc/blkid.tab, and a backup, that seem to override the UUIDs, putting us back in the world we were in before Labels and UUIDs. G. I can get a good boot if I rm blkid.tab and its backup before I shut down. So: 1) Can I disable blkid.tab? In the presence of UUIDs this seems sensible. 2) Does anyone know if labels are also defeated? I don't feel like rebooting any more today just to find out. 3) Can we just stop this madness somehow? ++ kevin -- Kevin O'Gorman, PhD -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit emerge -av cdrtools
Daniel Iliev wrote: On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 11:16:33 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joerg Schilling) wrote: I am the author and I tell you that there is no problem. I am the only person who could sue you and I can't if I did tell you before that there is no problem. You may tell whatever you want but... You are not the ONLY author. There is other people's copyrighted work in cdrtools. Are you authorized to speak on their behalf? Exactly - Joerg, you have a certain opinion... and that is all it is! Other people, some of them Debian maintainers have a different one. This is a common situation, and it is allowed - in fact desirable in many situations. If said opinions are believed to effect someones livelihood, then there can be a court case where one set of opinions becomes the one that everyone within the jurisdiction of that court must (at least in public) agree to. That has *not* happened with respect your cdrtools license change, hence (many) differing opinions about it. regards Mark -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] libselinux.so.1 dependency problems
Hi, Vladimir G. Ivanovic wrote: [...] It turns out that many, many executables require libselinux.so.1, despite what the documentation of --depclean in man emerge says (or what I think it says -- is this a bug or operator error?) Sadly sys-apps/coreutils is one of them. Recent versions - including stable - do an autodetection for libselinux and link against it even when emerged with USE=-selinux[1]. This should be no problem for systems which never saw libselinux (i.e. installed from 2008.0) but unmerging this library on older systems can be quite problematic. I cobbled together a system that limps along thanks to the 2008.0 beta LiveCD (which does not depend on libselinux.so.1), but I am unable to emerge a large number of packages that seem to silently depend on libselinux.so.1: the ebuilds fail when ld cannot find -lselinux. [...] What gives? Where does the -lselinux come from? How can I get rid of this maddening dependency? I think that libtool is the main offender here. At least on my system somehow '-lselinux' made its way into a bunch of .la files and provoked these errors. So I searched for the packages with broken libtool archive files and manually emerged them (with --oneshot). I figured out the correct order by using the trial-and-error method but you could do something like the get_build_order() function in the revdep-rebuild script. The command I've used for searching is as follows (requires app-portage/portage-utils): grep -l -r --include='*.la' selinux /usr/lib | qfile --nocolor -f - | \ cut -d' ' -f 1 | sort | uniq Another way might be to look at the line before the error message and rebuild the package containing the library right before the '-lselinux' flag. hth, Andi [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=230073 -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Ekiga not finding v4l
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 08:09:38AM -0500, Albert Hopkins wrote: On Sun, 2008-07-06 at 16:31 -0400, Michael Pobega wrote: Yessir, it does... dev-libs/pwlib-1.10.10-r1 USE=alsa ldap sdl ssl v4l xml -debug -ieee1394 -ipv6 -oss -sasl -v4l2 Is there anything else I should check? Perhaps I should enable OSS support as well...? I mean, it may work, considering I have ALSA doing OSS emulation. I'm not sure if it's even worth a try though. You shouldn't neeed OSS support (is it still even in the kernel?) or even OSS emulation AFAIK. Does arecord even work? Start with the basics. -a No matter what I do arecord doesn't want to work, and I don't understand how to apply the output of `arecord -L` with the -D flag ... Any ideas? -- If programmers deserve to be rewarded for creating innovative programs, by the same token they deserve to be punished if they restrict the use of these programs. - Richard Stallman pgp3NzYAzzhxW.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-user] Gentoo on Tablet-PC...
Hello, Simple question; has anyone installed Gentoo on a tablet-pc? I am thinking about it but wanted to hear advice and/or stories. I have a Gateway M280E. Works OK with Windows Vista Business ... Thanks for the time... -- Regards, Christopher Koeber
[gentoo-user] [ot] python + http authentication (with cherrypy)
Hi All, I'm writing a web application in CherryPy. What a beautiful thing it is to write Python code and get a simple yet powerful web output. :) The web application needs to have some decent level of security and authentication implemented. The big issue here is that the user password is stored in a database and algorithmically calculated as follows: md5( md5( $password ) + salt ) ) The salt is also stored in the database (which I have full access to). I can easily use the md5 library to compare what a user gives me and see if that's the correct password (based on the salt and the stored password in the database). I'm unsure, however, how to go about implementing security into my web application. CherryPy obviously has a 'session' library in it. But in the periods of time I've researched writing web applications in the past (primarily when dealing with PHP), there was always great debate in how to write a good secure web application. (i.e., it becomes tricky when determining what precisely you should be passing around in terms of session variables). Thoughts? Am I going about this the wrong way? It would be much easier to use either digest or basic http authentication mechanisms, but I don't think that this is possible because of the fact that the password is double-hashed in the database (or am I wrong?). Any help appreciated. :o) -j -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] [ot] python + http authentication (with cherrypy)
did you tried django as web framework ??? El lun, 07-07-2008 a las 21:15 -0400, James escribió: Hi All, I'm writing a web application in CherryPy. What a beautiful thing it is to write Python code and get a simple yet powerful web output. :) The web application needs to have some decent level of security and authentication implemented. The big issue here is that the user password is stored in a database and algorithmically calculated as follows: md5( md5( $password ) + salt ) ) The salt is also stored in the database (which I have full access to). I can easily use the md5 library to compare what a user gives me and see if that's the correct password (based on the salt and the stored password in the database). I'm unsure, however, how to go about implementing security into my web application. CherryPy obviously has a 'session' library in it. But in the periods of time I've researched writing web applications in the past (primarily when dealing with PHP), there was always great debate in how to write a good secure web application. (i.e., it becomes tricky when determining what precisely you should be passing around in terms of session variables). Thoughts? Am I going about this the wrong way? It would be much easier to use either digest or basic http authentication mechanisms, but I don't think that this is possible because of the fact that the password is double-hashed in the database (or am I wrong?). Any help appreciated. :o) -j -- Ing. Anielkis Herrera González Desarrollador de Nova Linux User #377809 Universidad de las Ciencias Informáticas Cuba smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
