Re: [packman] New packages for packman (Walter Fey)

[Walter Fey]

Hallo,

it is better to end this thread.

I do not intend any longer to submit my hamradio packages to Packman. In 
order to free the limited resources of PMBS  the packages will be 
removed very soon from my home project.


I will continue to update all packages necessary for my daily "busyness" 
as hamradio operator in my home project at the openSUSE build service. 
But I will not continue to maintain the hamradio project and remove 
myself as user/maintainer. If somebody is interested to do this work in 
future he can contact the remaining users/maintainers.


My suggestion to the Packman Team is to rework the point "What is the 
Packman team doing" on your homepage. I understand the text "More 
specifically, we do so for software that is not shipped as part of 
distributions or that are shipped as an outdated version."  that the 
hamradio packages would fit exactly to this.


For openSUSE it would be better to find somebody who is able and willing 
to maintain the hamradio packages. Very often, when I talked to other 
hamradio operators, they told me that openSUSE is no solution for them, 
since there are no hamradio packages available like for Fedora and 
Ubuntu. They always were astonished to hear about the hamradio project. 
To publish these packages in official releases is a good idea as long as 
they are kept really up to date. Very often, only the latest code from 
github or sourceforge.net fulfills this. For example, hamlib has to 
support transceivers/receivers, which are new on the market, as soon as 
the update is available at 
https://github.com/N0NB/hamlib/commits/master. A step back to the last 
release, as it was done in hardware/sdr, was a bad idea. Fldigi should 
not be a standalone package in a distribution. All Fl... packages from 
http://www.w1hkj.com/ should be published together, since they all work 
together as a NBEMS /(Narrow Band Emergency Messaging S/oftware) suite.


73, Walter DL8FCL

(73 = Ham lingo for "best regards." Used on phone, morse and digital 
modes toward the end of a contact bettwen hamradio operators) - 
http://www.arrl.org/ham-radio-glossary




___
Packman mailing list
Packman@links2linux.de
http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman

[packman] Kodi+42.3+SMB - does it work for someone? repeatedly? reproducably?

[Manfred Hollstein]

Hi there,

I believe I have some very strange phenomenon here. I upgraded my 42.2
boxes using "zypper dup --no-recommends; zypper dup --no-recommends
--from packman.essentials --from packman.multimedia" to an up2date Leap
42.3 installation. From what I can tell, everything works as before, but
Kodi _most_ of the times is having problems to access my
Picture/Music/Video shares imported from some of my internal servers.
All internal PCs use the same class-C network, and this class-C network
is added to FW_TRUSTED_NETS, so I _think_ that all internal traffic
should just go through - this is how it used to work on 42.2, 42.1,
13.2, 13.1, ...

However, when I start Kodi on any of the new machines, it happens in
_most_ cases, that access to those pre-defined shares just hangs the
program. I ran "tcpdump" from another not-involved computer to just
track the traffic between the client and the host, but I cannot see any
difference to what happens on 42.2. Disabling the SuSEfirewall2 and
rebooting the client makes it work, like it did before. I checked all
potential settings of SF2 regarding broadcasts, trusted nets, netbios
etc., but nothing has a persistent benefit. What's worse it, sometime it
starts and works well once, but when the program gets restarted it hangs
again. In the meantime I made a copy of a _working_ ~/.kodi directory,
and comparing its content with the one that fails, only shows binary
diffs in the usual media DB files. FWIW, rebooting into 42.2 or 42.1 and
starting Kodi with the exact same ~/.kodi directory simply works without
any trouble.

Does accessing SMB shares over the internal net (host and client may
even reside on the same host) work repeatedly and consistently for
others on a configuration similar to the following one?

  - Leap 42.3 x86_64 with or without PulseAudio (I actually have one
dedicated installation for DTS and the like without PA)
  - all packages dup'ed from Packman.Essentials and Packman.Multimedia
  - kodi-17.3-2.1.x86_64
  - SF2 enabled
  - Samba shares enabled

FWIW2, clicking on the "Add source->Windows (SMB)" goes into an endless
loop with one core running at 100% utilization.

I am completely uncertain whether this is a Kodi bug or something is
wrong with SF2; but, as all other Multimedia programs using SMB (such as
Rhythmbox) simply work OK as before, I thought I'd ask for other
experiences.

TIA, cheers.

l8er
manfred


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Packman mailing list
Packman@links2linux.de
http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman

Re: [packman] New packages for packman (Walter Fey) (Walter Fey)

[Martin Pluskal]

On Thu, 2017-08-03 at 09:47 +0200, Luigi Baldoni wrote:
> Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2017 at 12:23 AM
> From: "Walter Fey" 
> > 
> > I agreed to this and informed him, that due to serious legal
> > concerns,
> > I cannot publish the copyright remark that is pointing to SUSE
> > LINUX GmbH,
> > Nuernberg, Germany without a  written approval from this company.
> 
> This is the part I understand the least.
> What would be the legal ramifications or even just the risks in
> attributing copyright to a third party? Or is mentioning a trademark
> that
> concerns you?
> 
> Furthermore, you wouldn't even have to use the "Copyright SUSE GmbH"
> line.
> Several other packagers just put in their name, current year and
> everyone
> who adds something to it would add his own.
> 
I also do not understand this - and in hardware:sdr some packages have
copyright attributet to SUSE, some just author of package, some both.

Apart from this I fail to understand resistance to having hamradio in
Leap and Factory as seen in [1] - there is nothing preventing creation
of maintenance updates updating packages released in Leap if there is
sound reason for doing so, and for Factory - it is by definition kept
up to date.

1. https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/477291

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Packman mailing list
Packman@links2linux.de
http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman

Re: [packman] New packages for packman (Walter Fey) (Walter Fey)

[Richard Brown]

On 3 August 2017 at 09:47, Luigi Baldoni  wrote:
> Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2017 at 12:23 AM
> From: "Walter Fey" 
>>
>> I agreed to this and informed him, that due to serious legal concerns,
>> I cannot publish the copyright remark that is pointing to SUSE LINUX GmbH,
>> Nuernberg, Germany without a  written approval from this company.
>
> This is the part I understand the least.
> What would be the legal ramifications or even just the risks in
> attributing copyright to a third party? Or is mentioning a trademark that
> concerns you?

I also don't understand this part - especially as most FOSS licenses
require a copyright attribution for involved authors and require them
to be preserved when redistributing

eg: from https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT

"The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software."

eg. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.en.html

"Whichever license you plan to use, the process involves adding two
elements to each source file of your program: a copyright notice (such
as “Copyright 1999 Terry Jones”), and a statement of copying
permission, saying that the program is distributed under the terms of
the GNU General Public License (or the Lesser GPL)."

"If you have copied code from other programs covered by the same
license, copy their copyright notices too. Put all the copyright
notices together, right near the top of each file."

In addition to many licenses requiring an explicit copyright notice
and the preservation of it, Germany, UK and the US (as the three most
relevant legal authorities which OBS operates under) are all
signatories to the Berne convention which gives "automatic protection"
to copyrightable works under their jurisdiction.

This complicates matters with FOSS licenses which consider copyright
attribution as 'optional' but require it's preservation when source is
being redistributed. An 'implied' copyright assignment might not be
enforceable in all countries, and yet openSUSE's OBS can, and does,
redistribute software & source in all countries.

It's the openSUSE's projects opinion that to ensure the software's
free distributability the best approach is to require the explicit
declaration of copyright attribution in all specfiles. That copyright
attribution should include all of the involved parties who authored
that specfile.

> Furthermore, you wouldn't even have to use the "Copyright SUSE GmbH" line.
> Several other packagers just put in their name, current year and everyone
> who adds something to it would add his own.

Exactly, and the openSUSE Project is _perfectly_ happy with that. We
encourage our contributors to share their copyright attributions when
there is more than one party that wants to be recognised as a
copyright holder on the work they have contributed to the openSUSE
Project.

> Also, I understand the principle of wanting one's work to be recognised,
> but is it worth the trouble for something that can be trivially reimplemented
> and it's MIT licensed so anyone could reuse it in the first place?

And as linked above, the MIT license already requires an explicit
copyright declaration in order to be MIT licensed. Without a copyright
declaration, a file claiming to be MIT licensed is breaching the terms
of it's own license, and therefore is not legally redistributable.

___
Packman mailing list
Packman@links2linux.de
http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman

Re: [packman] New packages for packman (Walter Fey) (Walter Fey)

[Luigi Baldoni]

Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2017 at 12:23 AM
From: "Walter Fey" 
> 
> I agreed to this and informed him, that due to serious legal concerns,
> I cannot publish the copyright remark that is pointing to SUSE LINUX GmbH,
> Nuernberg, Germany without a  written approval from this company.

This is the part I understand the least.
What would be the legal ramifications or even just the risks in
attributing copyright to a third party? Or is mentioning a trademark that
concerns you?

Furthermore, you wouldn't even have to use the "Copyright SUSE GmbH" line.
Several other packagers just put in their name, current year and everyone
who adds something to it would add his own.

Also, I understand the principle of wanting one's work to be recognised,
but is it worth the trouble for something that can be trivially reimplemented
and it's MIT licensed so anyone could reuse it in the first place?

Regards

___
Packman mailing list
Packman@links2linux.de
http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman