pkg_create changes
I've been doing a lot of small changes to pkg_create, mostly to clean up and unify the code. There should be very little change in behavior, but the internal logic is simpler and more uniform. In particular, various special modes, such as pkg_create -n, or pkg_create -f /var/db/pkg/name/+CONTENTS will perform more sensible checks For instance, all files are now treated the same way, including special stuff like +DISPLAY and friends. Also, in pkg regen mode, pkg_create more or less ignores most options except -f.
Remove x11/ion
As can be seen in http://tinyurl.com/2pelmo [1], the author of x11/ion
recently changed the software's license to something obscure, completely
open to misinterpretation, and in my opinion incompatible with our ports
tree.
Therefore, I'd like to propose the complete removal of the port.
-p.
[1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.window-managers.ion.general/7701
Index: Makefile
===
RCS file: /cvs/ports/x11/Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.274
diff -u -r1.274 Makefile
--- Makefile11 Apr 2007 16:20:39 - 1.274
+++ Makefile30 Apr 2007 13:49:41 -
@@ -85,7 +85,6 @@
SUBDIR += icewm
SUBDIR += icon-naming-utils
SUBDIR += idesk
- SUBDIR += ion
SUBDIR += itk
SUBDIR += iwidgets
SUBDIR += jmk-fonts
Index: ion/Makefile
===
RCS file: ion/Makefile
diff -N ion/Makefile
--- ion/Makefile25 Apr 2007 09:46:43 - 1.47
+++ /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -
@@ -1,29 +0,0 @@
-# $OpenBSD: Makefile,v 1.47 2007/04/25 09:46:43 pedro Exp $
-
-COMMENT= light, keyboard friendly window manager
-
-V= 20070318
-DISTNAME= ion-3ds-${V}
-PKGNAME= ion-${V}p0
-CATEGORIES=x11
-
-HOMEPAGE= http://modeemi.cs.tut.fi/~tuomov/ion/
-MASTER_SITES= http://modeemi.cs.tut.fi/~tuomov/dl/
-
-MAINTAINER=Pedro Martelletto [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
-# LGPL
-PERMIT_PACKAGE_CDROM= Yes
-PERMIT_PACKAGE_FTP=Yes
-PERMIT_DISTFILES_CDROM=Yes
-PERMIT_DISTFILES_FTP= Yes
-
-WANTLIB= ICE X11 m c SM Xext
-MODULES= devel/gettext
-LIB_DEPENDS= lua.=5.1::lang/lua
-
-USE_GMAKE= Yes
-USE_X11= Yes
-NO_REGRESS=Yes
-
-.include bsd.port.mk
Index: ion/distinfo
===
RCS file: ion/distinfo
diff -N ion/distinfo
--- ion/distinfo5 Apr 2007 17:36:22 - 1.25
+++ /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -
@@ -1,5 +0,0 @@
-MD5 (ion-3ds-20070318.tar.gz) = 8CJkq37MmQws0yL1el6KTQ==
-RMD160 (ion-3ds-20070318.tar.gz) = p8ybrqNiSw7YQP3IL8XbKsEBjZo=
-SHA1 (ion-3ds-20070318.tar.gz) = 81Khx/b0ZUeBQdU4sqTD8+gaTzA=
-SHA256 (ion-3ds-20070318.tar.gz) = cS2gJ/sSd09n2TPZWpVFLZilZYYX/FUVARynm2A1JYo=
-SIZE (ion-3ds-20070318.tar.gz) = 657282
Index: ion/patches/patch-etc_cfg_ioncore_lua
===
RCS file: ion/patches/patch-etc_cfg_ioncore_lua
diff -N ion/patches/patch-etc_cfg_ioncore_lua
--- ion/patches/patch-etc_cfg_ioncore_lua 28 Mar 2007 19:33:04 -
1.6
+++ /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -
@@ -1,36 +0,0 @@
-$OpenBSD: patch-etc_cfg_ioncore_lua,v 1.6 2007/03/28 19:33:04 pedro Exp $
etc/cfg_ioncore.lua.orig Sun Dec 24 08:45:26 2006
-+++ etc/cfg_ioncore.luaSun Dec 24 08:48:23 2006
-@@ -63,8 +63,8 @@ defbindings(WScreen, {
- kpress(META..F9, ioncore.create_ws(_)),
-
- bdoc(Display the main menu.),
--kpress(ALTMETA..F12, mod_query.query_menu(_, _sub, 'mainmenu', 'Main
menu:')),
----kpress(ALTMETA..F12, mod_menu.menu(_, _sub, 'mainmenu',
{big=true})),
-+--kpress(ALTMETA..F12, mod_query.query_menu(_, _sub, 'mainmenu', 'Main
menu:')),
-+kpress(ALTMETA..F12, mod_menu.menu(_, _sub, 'mainmenu', {big=true})),
- mpress(Button3, mod_menu.pmenu(_, _sub, 'mainmenu')),
-
- bdoc(Display the window list menu.),
-@@ -139,10 +139,10 @@ defbindings(WMPlex.toplevel, {
- kpress(META..T, WRegion.set_tagged(_sub, 'toggle'), _sub:non-nil),
-
- bdoc(Query for manual page to be displayed.),
--kpress(ALTMETA..F1, mod_query.query_man(_, ':man')),
-+kpress(ALTMETA..F1, mod_query.query_man(_, '::man')),
-
- bdoc(Show the Ion manual page.),
--kpress(META..F1, ioncore.exec_on(_, ':man ion3')),
-+kpress(META..F1, ioncore.exec_on(_, '::man ion3')),
-
- bdoc(Run a terminal emulator.),
- kpress(ALTMETA..F2, ioncore.exec_on(_, XTERM or 'xterm')),
-@@ -158,7 +158,7 @@ defbindings(WMPlex.toplevel, {
-
- bdoc(Query for file to edit.),
- kpress(ALTMETA..F5,
-- mod_query.query_editfile(_, 'run-mailcap --action=edit')),
-+ mod_query.query_editfile(_, ':vi')),
-
- bdoc(Query for file to view.),
- kpress(ALTMETA..F6,
Index: ion/patches/patch-mod_statusbar_ion-statusd_statusd_mail_lua
===
RCS file: ion/patches/patch-mod_statusbar_ion-statusd_statusd_mail_lua
diff -N ion/patches/patch-mod_statusbar_ion-statusd_statusd_mail_lua
--- ion/patches/patch-mod_statusbar_ion-statusd_statusd_mail_lua8 Jun
2005 12:45:55 - 1.2
+++ /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -
@@ -1,12 +0,0 @@
-$OpenBSD: patch-mod_statusbar_ion-statusd_statusd_mail_lua,v 1.2 2005/06/08
12:45:55 pedro Exp $
mod_statusbar/ion-statusd/statusd_mail.lua.origTue Jun 7 10:06:02 2005
-+++ mod_statusbar/ion-statusd/statusd_mail.lua Wed
Re: Remove x11/ion
pedro: As can be seen in http://tinyurl.com/2pelmo [1], the author of x11/ion recently changed the software's license to something obscure, completely open to misinterpretation, and in my opinion incompatible with our ports tree. Therefore, I'd like to propose the complete removal of the port. -p. [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.window-managers.ion.general/7701 Urgh. Tuomo is weird sometimes. More reasons to move to wmii / dwmhttp://www.suckless.org/wiki/dwm (MIT/X) or xmonad http://xmonad.org/ (BSD3) -- Don
Re: Remove x11/ion
On Monday 30 April 2007 15:58:02 Pedro Martelletto wrote: As can be seen in http://tinyurl.com/2pelmo [1], the author of x11/ion recently changed the software's license to something obscure, completely open to misinterpretation, and in my opinion incompatible with our ports tree. Well, the licence is still LGPL, right? Only the use of the name Ion* is restricted in a very weird way. Can't you get in touch with the author to see if this can be fixed in some way, something ala firefox? Therefore, I'd like to propose the complete removal of the port. If no solution can be found, then yes, I'd agree with that. -- Antoine
Re: [+] Re: Remove x11/ion
On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 04:17:15PM +0200, Antoine Jacoutot wrote: Well, the licence is still LGPL, right? Only the use of the name Ion* is restricted in a very weird way. Can't you get in touch with the author to see if this can be fixed in some way, something ala firefox? What we could do is to distribute the software under a different name, like 'anion'. This way we would not be affected by the restrictions. I don't believe talking to the author would help. Besides the fact that he was quite firm in his decision, I'm not willing to do that myself. -p.
Re: [+] Re: Remove x11/ion
On Monday 30 April 2007 16:55:21 Pedro Martelletto wrote: What we could do is to distribute the software under a different name, like 'anion'. This way we would not be affected by the restrictions. Yeah, I though about it at first, but I found it weird. I mean, most people will think there's no package for Ion whereas there is. I don't believe talking to the author would help. Besides the fact that he was quite firm in his decision, I'm not willing to do that myself. +1 Then we should just remove the damn software. -- Antoine
Re: Remove x11/ion
* Pedro Martelletto [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-04-30 15:58:02]: As can be seen in http://tinyurl.com/2pelmo [1], the author of x11/ion recently changed the software's license to something obscure, completely open to misinterpretation, and in my opinion incompatible with our ports tree. Therefore, I'd like to propose the complete removal of the port. How about no. We can easily keep around a compatible version; I find ion3 to be quite stable anyhow. Besides, OpenBSD has been known to keep 6 year old WM code around. Point is, the unencumbered port works, no point in removing it over spite. -- Travers Buda
Re: Remove x11/ion
On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 10:20:37AM -0500, Travers Buda wrote: Point is, the unencumbered port works, no point in removing it over spite. http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.window-managers.ion.general/7694 The author believes the license change to be retroactive (even though that's clearly not possible). Consequentially, there is no way we can keep the port without either starting a fight with him (something I honestly don't have the time or patience to endure) or 'violating' his restrictions. -p.
Re: [+] Re: Remove x11/ion
Anion sounds great to me. Please don't kill the port over a name. On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 04:55:21PM +0200, Pedro Martelletto wrote: On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 04:17:15PM +0200, Antoine Jacoutot wrote: Well, the licence is still LGPL, right? Only the use of the name Ion* is restricted in a very weird way. Can't you get in touch with the author to see if this can be fixed in some way, something ala firefox? What we could do is to distribute the software under a different name, like 'anion'. This way we would not be affected by the restrictions. I don't believe talking to the author would help. Besides the fact that he was quite firm in his decision, I'm not willing to do that myself. -p.
x11/dwm (was: Remove x11/ion)
On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 12:07:37AM +1000, Donald Bruce Stewart wrote: Urgh. Tuomo is weird sometimes. More reasons to move to wmii / dwmhttp://www.suckless.org/wiki/dwm (MIT/X) For dwm, see attachment. xmonad http://xmonad.org/ (BSD3) If this needs a recent ghc, it still has to wait some days (ghc-6.6.1 is work in progress here). Ciao, Kili -- Was soll ich in New York - ich war schon zweimal in Hannover. -- Arno Schmidt (1914-79), dt. Schriftsteller dwm.tgz Description: application/tar-gz
Re: Remove x11/ion
On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 10:20:37AM -0500, Travers Buda wrote: Point is, the unencumbered port works, no point in removing it over spite. http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.window-managers.ion.general/7694 The author believes the license change to be retroactive (even though that's clearly not possible). Consequentially, there is no way we can keep the port without either starting a fight with him (something I honestly don't have the time or patience to endure) or 'violating' his restrictions. I think a better fight against such balony is to keep his code in the ports tree under the existing (previous) license, and let it rot at that level, if need be. Once you release something under a copyright, there is no retroactive right. That's just not how it works. Leaving stuff available in some way for people to do forks is a good idea, of course.
Re: Remove x11/ion
On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 09:45:37AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: I think a better fight against such balony is to keep his code in the ports tree under the existing (previous) license, and let it rot at that level, if need be. Once you release something under a copyright, there is no retroactive right. That's just not how it works. Leaving stuff available in some way for people to do forks is a good idea, of course. Okay, let's do that then. Marco, are you fine with this? -p.
Re: Remove x11/ion
Sure we can keep ion3 ad is but I'd like to pick up the new changes in a forked project called bananawm :-) On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 05:52:04PM +0200, Pedro Martelletto wrote: On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 09:45:37AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: I think a better fight against such balony is to keep his code in the ports tree under the existing (previous) license, and let it rot at that level, if need be. Once you release something under a copyright, there is no retroactive right. That's just not how it works. Leaving stuff available in some way for people to do forks is a good idea, of course. Okay, let's do that then. Marco, are you fine with this? -p.
Re: Remove x11/ion
On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 06:25:21PM +0200, Marc Balmer wrote: The ports tree is here for our users convenience. If a port has a strange license, you can always set the PERMIT_xy fields. Many users use ion, so why should we harrass them? It was not a simple question of removing the port because we didn't like the license. It was a question of conformance, at least towards what the author believes the rules now are. The ports tree is the wrong area to fight license battles, imo. That said, I am obviously against the removal of ion. That's precisely why I didn't want to fight any. -p.
Re: [+] Re: Remove x11/ion
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007, Marc Balmer wrote: Then we should just remove the damn software. No. lol, I love the way you argue... -- Antoine
Re: Remove x11/ion
On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 06:25:21PM +0200, Marc Balmer wrote: The ports tree is here for our users convenience. If a port has a strange license, you can always set the PERMIT_xy fields. Many users use ion, so why should we harrass them? It was not a simple question of removing the port because we didn't like the license. It was a question of conformance, at least towards what the author believes the rules now are. Actually, it is not a matter of conformance against what the author believes. Authors believe the most retarded things from time to time. The same thing happened with qmail before. djb thought we could have his code in the ports tree, but since he specifically does not copyright his code visibly, no rights are granted, so we could not include it, and had to delete it. It's more about conformance with the laws, than about whatever fantasy the author has.
Re: Remove x11/ion
On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 10:44:50AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: Actually, it is not a matter of conformance against what the author believes. Authors believe the most retarded things from time to time. Sure, but it _was_ due to a possible conformance problem that I suggested the removal of the port, and not because I didn't like the license. That's what I wanted to point out. -p.
Re: Remove x11/ion
On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 11:24:07AM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote: Sure we can keep ion3 ad is but I'd like to pick up the new changes in a forked project called bananawm :-) bananawm? I don't get it. How about FreeIon for a fork: FreeIon: if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate -- Darrin Chandler| Phoenix BSD User Group | MetaBUG [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://phxbug.org/ | http://metabug.org/ http://www.stilyagin.com/ | Daemons in the Desert | Global BUG Federation
Re: Remove x11/ion
* Pedro Martelletto wrote: As can be seen in http://tinyurl.com/2pelmo [1], the author of x11/ion recently changed the software's license to something obscure, completely open to misinterpretation, and in my opinion incompatible with our ports tree. Therefore, I'd like to propose the complete removal of the port. There is other software in the ports that has or had obscure licenses. E.g we have Apache 2, we had graphviz etc. The ports tree is here for our users convenience. If a port has a strange license, you can always set the PERMIT_xy fields. Many users use ion, so why should we harrass them? The ports tree is the wrong area to fight license battles, imo. That said, I am obviously against the removal of ion.
Re: [+] Re: Remove x11/ion
* Antoine Jacoutot wrote: On Monday 30 April 2007 16:55:21 Pedro Martelletto wrote: What we could do is to distribute the software under a different name, like 'anion'. This way we would not be affected by the restrictions. Yeah, I though about it at first, but I found it weird. I mean, most people will think there's no package for Ion whereas there is. I don't believe talking to the author would help. Besides the fact that he was quite firm in his decision, I'm not willing to do that myself. +1 Then we should just remove the damn software. No. -- Antoine
Re: Update www/sarg
Douglas Santos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Update sarg-2.1 - 2.2.3.1 gd disabled for now. Why is it disabled for now? Alek -- - Chcę zrozumieć wszystko - oświadczył Miro. - Chcę wiedzieć wszystko, a potem zestawić razem i zbadać, co się tam kryje. - Znakomity projekt - przyznała. - Będzie dobrze wyglądał w twoim resume. -- Orson Scott Card, Mówca Umarłych.
Proftpd port
I am using proftpd and would like to make the package of it, because I did not find in the ports tree. I can construct it and send to list for testing? Thks, -- Rafael
Re: Proftpd port
On Monday 30 April 2007 20:31:47 Rafael wrote: Why was pulled? Security, Bugs? No maintainer? 2007/4/30, Josh Grosse [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 09:05:14PM -0300, Rafael wrote: I am using proftpd and would like to make the package of it, because I did not find in the ports tree. I can construct it and send to list for testing? Proftpd entered the ports tree in 1998, and was pulled (finally) in 2002: http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/ports/net/proftpd/Attic/Makefile Security issues. Take a look at http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-portsm=107325746223524w=2 In general, looking at the mailing list archives is a really good thing to do before asking about something. One way you can get to the archives is by going to the openbsd web site, and looking for mailing lists on the front page, and then following down to the list of archives. I use the MARC archive, and looked in the ports list for the above pointer. The archives almost always answer my questions on things. --STeve Andre'
Re: Proftpd port
STeve Andre' ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) shaped the electrons to say: Security issues. Take a look at http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-portsm=107325746223524w=2 In all fairness to Proftpd, the proftpd nowadays isn't really the same animal as the proftpd of old. I remember, and I think I even contributed to, the discussion of yanking Proftpd from the ports tree back in the old days when MacGuyver (what a name!) was maintaining Proftpd. I know the current maintainer, TJ Saunders, and mentioned the whole thing to him over beers one night and he was and is fully commited to the security of Proftpd. He was pretty bummed to hear that Proftpd has such a bad rap with the OpenBSD community. Especially since he takes the security of Proftpd very seriously. I'm not saying that we should definitely include it, only that just because it was bad at some point in the past, doesn't mean it has remained that way for 6 years. AFAIK, it has been rewritten. Just my $.02, -Dave
