jhell jh...@dataix.net wrote:
Feel free to correct me if I am wrong but it is not going to
matter much to what extent a license has to do with this besides
ease of mind maybe. We would not be using the source for the VCS
in a repo that holds the source that is being distributed and
none of
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 3:27 AM, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
As I understand it, what is being suggested is the adoption of a
new code base for a significant piece of infrastructure. I think
the proposal is at less risk of being summarily rejected if it can
viably be based on BSD-licensed
This dvcs is BSD licensed:
IMHO, if it's worth to change VCS, it would be much wiser to use well-known one
--
Regards,
Konstantin
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 4:10 AM, Jeremy Chadwick
free...@jdc.parodius.comwrote:
Given the amount of GPL'd software in the base system, why are we
already fighting over licensing? What is it with the open-source world
and obsessing with licensing? It should be up for discussion after
22.09.2010, 14:11, Adam Vande More amvandem...@gmail.com:
BSD license
has a particular advantage in embedded/black box systems, so not polluting
base with more viral licensing is pretty important to project as whole I
think.
Do embedded systems really need to use ports tree? I guess no, or
Smells like Debian.
Smells like Slashdot.
I give up.
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 7:11 AM, Adam Vande More amvandem...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 4:10 AM, Jeremy Chadwick
free...@jdc.parodius.comwrote:
Given the amount of GPL'd software in the base system, why are we
already
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 19:07:17 -0700
per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
Janne Snabb sn...@epipe.com wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
One issue with either Git or Mercurial is that they are GPL.
AFAIK FreeBSD prefers to avoid GPL in the base or in critical
widely-used
1). http://bit.ly/d5UrtN
2). http://www.keltia.net/BSDCan/paper.pdf
3). http://bit.ly/97Y8Xi
4). Because CVS just does not do any of this.
Make your final comparison here:
http://bit.ly/cyQBn8
For the sake of argument can you think of any reason to not switch ?
Why not Git?
Or you
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 03:17, Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
In Message-Id: 174981284967...@web24.yandex.ru
1). http://bit.ly/d5UrtN
2). http://www.keltia.net/BSDCan/paper.pdf
3). http://bit.ly/97Y8Xi
4). Because CVS just does not do any of this.
Make your final comparison here:
On 20/09/2010 03:01, Carlos A. M. dos Santos wrote:
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 6:34 AM, Ion-Mihai Tetcu ite...@freebsd.org wrote:
Insert VCS discussion here
Is this just my impression or are we trying to build a bikeshed
here?
I think we all agree, that the stage is not set for a VCS change.
Konstantin Tokarev annu...@yandex.ru wrote:
Why not Git?
One issue with either Git or Mercurial is that they are GPL.
AFAIK FreeBSD prefers to avoid GPL in the base or in critical
widely-used infrastructure if a viable non-GPL alternative
exists. Granted SVN, currently used to manage src, is
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 05:20:39AM -0700, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
SVN [...] is GPL;
nope, it's under Apache License 2.0, see:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/trunk/LICENSE
--
Romain Tartière rom...@blogreen.orghttp://romain.blogreen.org/
pgp: 8234 9A78 E7C0 B807 0B59
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
One issue with either Git or Mercurial is that they are GPL.
AFAIK FreeBSD prefers to avoid GPL in the base or in critical
widely-used infrastructure if a viable non-GPL alternative
exists.
The project currently uses Perforce for many
Janne Snabb sn...@epipe.com wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
One issue with either Git or Mercurial is that they are GPL.
AFAIK FreeBSD prefers to avoid GPL in the base or in critical
widely-used infrastructure if a viable non-GPL alternative
exists.
The project
On 09/20/2010 22:07, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
Janne Snabb sn...@epipe.com wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
One issue with either Git or Mercurial is that they are GPL.
AFAIK FreeBSD prefers to avoid GPL in the base or in critical
widely-used infrastructure if a
On 09/18/2010 07:17, Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
I'm still to see a concise, clear, precise, listing of advantages that
switching from CVS would bring us, that would overcome the effort
needed to do it (committers, users, infrastructure, tools).
1). http://bit.ly/d5UrtN
2).
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 02:38:28 -0400
jhell jh...@dataix.net wrote:
On 09/18/2010 07:17, Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
I'm still to see a concise, clear, precise, listing of advantages
that switching from CVS would bring us,
that would overcome the effort needed to do it (committers, users,
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 6:34 AM, Ion-Mihai Tetcu ite...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 02:38:28 -0400
jhell jh...@dataix.net wrote:
On 09/18/2010 07:17, Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
I'm still to see a concise, clear, precise, listing of advantages
that switching from CVS would bring
:
* Dominic Fandrey (kamik...@bsdforen.de) wrote:
Just out of curiosity, why a version bump because of a build
dependency?
I don't think an autoconf update should have an effect on any
/running/ software but build systems. And I don't see how
rebuilding all the software improves
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 08:51:39 +0200
Dominic Fandrey kamik...@bsdforen.de wrote:
On 18/09/2010 01:13, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
jhell jh...@dataix.net wrote:
... Mercurial being the distributed version control that it is
allows you to clone, make the changes you need to the clone test
On 17/09/2010 00:35, Anonymous wrote:
Dominic Fandrey kamik...@bsdforen.de writes:
On 16/09/2010 19:17, Dmitry Marakasov wrote:
* Dominic Fandrey (kamik...@bsdforen.de) wrote:
Just out of curiosity, why a version bump because of a build
dependency?
I don't think an autoconf update should
a version bump because of a build
dependency?
I don't think an autoconf update should have an effect on any
/running/ software but build systems. And I don't see how rebuilding
all the software improves it.
This is not a criticism - I just think there is something I don't
understand
a version bump because of a build
dependency?
I don't think an autoconf update should have an effect on any
/running/ software but build systems. And I don't see how rebuilding
all the software improves it.
This is not a criticism - I just think there is something I don't
understand
jhell jh...@dataix.net wrote:
... Mercurial being the distributed version control that it is
allows you to clone, make the changes you need to the clone test it
thoroughly and then either push or pull them to the main tree ...
At the risk of starting the VCS variant of the vi vs emacs wars :)
* Dominic Fandrey (kamik...@bsdforen.de) wrote:
Just out of curiosity, why a version bump because of a build
dependency?
I don't think an autoconf update should have an effect on any
/running/ software but build systems. And I don't see how rebuilding
all the software improves
On 16/09/2010 19:17, Dmitry Marakasov wrote:
* Dominic Fandrey (kamik...@bsdforen.de) wrote:
Just out of curiosity, why a version bump because of a build
dependency?
I don't think an autoconf update should have an effect on any
/running/ software but build systems. And I don't see how
Just out of curiosity, why a version bump because of a build
dependency?
I don't think an autoconf update should have an effect on any
/running/ software but build systems. And I don't see how rebuilding
all the software improves it.
This is not a criticism - I just think there is something I
27 matches
Mail list logo
