On Thu, 23 May 2019 19:08:22 -0400, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote:
> On 5/23/19 3:15 PM, Andy Pieters wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > This is something I gotten used to live with for a very long time
> > now, patching the shadow package every time it is updated to allow
> > capitals in the user/group
On 5/23/19 6:48 PM, ProgAndy wrote:
> Am 24.05.19 um 00:21 schrieb mar77i via arch-general:
> ...
>>
>> To answer my own question, of course I screwed it up already.
>> Okay, so license=('custom:MIT'), license=('MIT') or license=('custom')?
>>
>> manual says: put licenses from
On 5/23/19 3:15 PM, Andy Pieters wrote:
> Hi
>
> This is something I gotten used to live with for a very long time now,
> patching the shadow package every time it is updated to allow capitals in
> the user/group names.
>
> I've often meant to write in to ask why and this is that glorious day.
>
Am 24.05.19 um 00:21 schrieb mar77i via arch-general:
...
>
> To answer my own question, of course I screwed it up already.
> Okay, so license=('custom:MIT'), license=('MIT') or license=('custom')?
>
> manual says: put licenses from /usr/share/licenses/common into the license
> array, otherwise
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Friday, May 24, 2019 12:14 AM, Lone_Wolf wrote:
> People,
>
> I forgot to tell ashark the primary reason why I felt a thread in arch
> general ML was needed.
>
> Almost every file in libdrm tree has it's own copyright notice, I've
> listed 4 examples at the
> I have read that article in ArchWiki. I understand that point that MIT
> licences are all custom because of individual copyright line. But then I do
> not understand when should I use license=('MIT') instead of
> license=('custom')?
> I have read that MIT is a set of licenses, but it is kinda
People,
I forgot to tell ashark the primary reason why I felt a thread in arch
general ML was needed.
Almost every file in libdrm tree has it's own copyright notice, I've
listed 4 examples at the bottom of the mail.
The COPYING file we include with libdrm doesn't list any of those 4
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Thursday, May 23, 2019 11:15 PM, mpan wrote:
>
> I talked about the topic on #archlinux and it seems that the accepted
> solution is to use 'MIT' in the `license` array, despite there is no
> corresponding text in the “licenses” package, and put the text into
>
On 5/23/19 5:15 PM, mpan wrote:
>> I have read that article in ArchWiki. I understand that point that MIT
>> licences are all custom because of individual copyright line. But then I do
>> not understand when should I use license=('MIT') instead of
>> license=('custom')?
>> I have read that MIT
> I have read that article in ArchWiki. I understand that point that MIT
> licences are all custom because of individual copyright line. But then I do
> not understand when should I use license=('MIT') instead of
> license=('custom')?
> I have read that MIT is a set of licenses, but it is kinda
Hi
This is something I gotten used to live with for a very long time now,
patching the shadow package every time it is updated to allow capitals in
the user/group names.
I've often meant to write in to ask why and this is that glorious day.
Why is it that uppercase letters are not allowed in
I have read that article in ArchWiki. I understand that point that MIT licences
are all custom because of individual copyright line. But then I do not
understand when should I use license=('MIT') instead of license=('custom')?
I have read that MIT is a set of licenses, but it is kinda unclear. I
> Hello. I was repacking amdgpu-pro deb files and when I started converting
> licences, I have noticed that libdrm* packages have a MIT Licence text in
> copyright file. I decided to check if AUR/libdrm-git and Extra/libdrm uses
> MIT licence, but they don't. I contacted Lone_Wolf (maintainer
Hello. I was repacking amdgpu-pro deb files and when I started converting
licences, I have noticed that libdrm* packages have a MIT Licence text in
copyright file. I decided to check if AUR/libdrm-git and Extra/libdrm uses MIT
licence, but they don't. I contacted Lone_Wolf (maintainer of
Oh!.. these features are also available??!!!.. great yeah..
On Thu, 23 May 2019, 2:18 pm Ralf Mardorf via arch-general, <
arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2019 09:01:49 +0100, Ralph Corderoy wrote:
> >The SSD drive also reports its own personal view of lifetime remaining
>
On Thu, 23 May 2019 09:01:49 +0100, Ralph Corderoy wrote:
>The SSD drive also reports its own personal view of lifetime remaining
>and other interesting statistics using
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.M.A.R.T%2E.
>
>173 Ave_Block-Erase_Count -O--CK 095 095 000-77
>202
Hi David,
> In normal desktop/laptop use, you rarely write more than 1-2GB a day
> on average -- so that would translate into a 190-95 year wear-life for
> the drive under normal use. Even at 10GB a day, that would be a 19
> year life for the drive.
The SSD drive also reports its own personal
Excelent, thanks
Now my next immediate task will be to install Arch on Ssd and begin using
it...
On Thu, 23 May 2019, 9:47 am David C. Rankin, <
drankina...@suddenlinkmail.com> wrote:
> On 05/22/2019 10:12 PM, Ram Kumar via arch-general wrote:
> > Nice,
> > Thanks a lot guys. My first job for
18 matches
Mail list logo
