On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 02:14:01 -0200, Bruno =?UTF-8?B?RsOpbGl4?= Rezende Ribeiro
wrote:
Another strange thing is that your only technical proposition was to
replace the imake build systems with GNU Autotools, a proposition that
was already made 1 year ago, but not accepted.
That isn't
On 11/22/2014 09:46 PM, Isaac Dunham wrote:
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 07:34:36PM -0200, Bruno Félix Rezende Ribeiro wrote:
Em Sat, 22 Nov 2014 12:17:34 +
David Mackay davidj...@gmail.com escreveu:
If you are the copyright holder that can't possibly be a concern!
Just ignore the violations.
On Fri, 21 Nov 2014, Bruno Félix Rezende Ribeiro wrote:
Em Wed, 19 Nov 2014 14:05:53 -0700 (MST)
Jon Trulson j...@radscan.com escreveu:
I have no objection to supporting autotool builds for CDE (but we need
to not break or remove Imake support either).
Nice to hear it. Naturally, for the
On Sat, 22 Nov 2014, Edmond Orignac wrote:
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 07:39:09PM -0200, Bruno Félix Rezende Ribeiro wrote:
Em Wed, 19 Nov 2014 14:05:53 -0700 (MST)
Jon Trulsonj...@radscan.com escreveu:
Now CDE is an open source project, but we would *really* like to avoid
being forced into a
Em Sat, 22 Nov 2014 13:53:01 +0100
Edmond Orignac edmond.orig...@wanadoo.fr escreveu:
Here we have a problem. In the GNU project we are mainly concerned
with user's freedom.
As opposed to programmer's freedom.
Freedom to subjugate other people is not freedom, it's power[1].
You seem
It's perfectly legal to just ignore your request.
This is your right, but it's also incredibly impolite and abrasive. It
will not facilitate good relationship with those who are actually
/contributing/ to CDE.
If you are the copyright holder that can't possibly be a concern!
Just ignore the
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 07:39:09PM -0200, Bruno Félix Rezende Ribeiro wrote:
Em Wed, 19 Nov 2014 14:05:53 -0700 (MST)
Jon Trulsonj...@radscan.com escreveu:
Now CDE is an open source project, but we would *really* like to avoid
being forced into a specific license if at all possible - this
On Saturday, November 22, 2014 01:53:01 PM Edmond Orignac wrote:
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 07:39:09PM -0200, Bruno Félix Rezende Ribeiro wrote:
Em Wed, 19 Nov 2014 14:05:53 -0700 (MST)
Jon Trulsonj...@radscan.com escreveu:
Now CDE is an open source project, but we would *really* like to
I've been with the CDE project pretty much from the start. 75% of the wiki is
my work and despite my absence on IRC (new job, less time for the Internet) I
still use CDE everyday.
I don't really understand why it's so important to fork CDE. If you have deep
philosophical differences with the
On Sat, 22 Nov 2014, Lennert Van Alboom wrote:
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 12:17:34PM +, David Mackay wrote:
On the topic of the Autotools: I do hope we will steer as far clear
from autotools as possible. CDE's build system is somewhat antiquated,
and a rehaul would be a prudent idea, but
On Sat, 22 Nov 2014, Rob Tomsick wrote:
On Saturday, November 22, 2014 01:53:01 PM Edmond Orignac wrote:
I believed the GNOME project (contrarily to KDE) fitted perfectly the
aims of the GNU organization by being based on the non-proprietary
toolkit GTK. Moreover, in order to improve the
On 11/22/2014 04:50 PM, Brent Busby wrote:
Totally agree. I agree in spirit with the GPL, that software that is
left completely free tends to end up becoming the basis of commercial
projects that embrace, extend, and extinguish open ones...but does
anyone who still wants to run CDE in 2014
Em Wed, 19 Nov 2014 14:05:53 -0700 (MST)
Jon Trulson j...@radscan.com escreveu:
I have no objection to supporting autotool builds for CDE (but we need
to not break or remove Imake support either).
Nice to hear it. Naturally, for the GNU build system, I'm thinking in
an approach different of
Em Fri, 21 Nov 2014 19:46:42 -0800
Isaac Dunham ibid...@gmail.com escrow:
At least one minor contribution (the script desktop2dt, which converts
some *.desktop files to the type of file CDE expects) is under a
permissive MIT license:
# Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014, Bruno Félix Rezende Ribeiro wrote:
Hello Steven!
Em Mon, 17 Nov 2014 23:54:43 -0800
Steven Edwards winehac...@gmail.com escreveu:
I couldn't find any information on if anyone else is working on
either of these but I've started hacking on it in my local tree and
am making
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014, Steven Edwards wrote:
Hi Bruno,
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 3:43 AM, Bruno Félix Rezende Ribeiro
oitofe...@gnu.org wrote:
I sent a message a few days ago to this very mailing list
expressing my desire of migrating CDE's build system to GNU
Autotools[0]. Unfortunately, CDE
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014, Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
Copyleft vs permissive license arguments get in the way of making good
technical decisions IMO - except when the distinction is needed for
NON-ideological arguments.
+1
Backwards compatibility has a couple of points to commend it:
* not
On Nov 19, 2014, at 4:12 PM, Jon Trulson j...@radscan.com wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014, Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
[…]
My immediate interest is getting CDE on OS X and Solaris 11. AFAIK,
both of those either have automake/autoconf from the vendor, or
have it in a reasonably well-supported
On 20/11/2014 13:53, Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
You’re quite right, I didn’t have that package installed. It quite surprises
me that a full desktop install didn’t include even the motif lib and headers
anymore. :-/
Do we know whether a build of CDE should work with the vendor Motif libs?
Hmm…if you have a writeup of what you did to build Motif and then CDE, I can
certainly take a shot at replicating it on my T5240, although it may be next
week before I can get much done; didn’t realize the scarcity of modern SPARC in
hands free to use it as they wished. :-) (I’ve way too many
Hi Bruno,
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 3:43 AM, Bruno Félix Rezende Ribeiro
oitofe...@gnu.org wrote:
I sent a message a few days ago to this very mailing list
expressing my desire of migrating CDE's build system to GNU
Autotools[0]. Unfortunately, CDE developers don't seem very receptive
to
Copyleft vs permissive license arguments get in the way of making good
technical decisions IMO - except when the distinction is needed for
NON-ideological arguments.
Backwards compatibility has a couple of points to commend it:
* not alienating existing base in the hopes of pursuing a new base
22 matches
Mail list logo
