Re: [gentoo-dev] paper on oss-qm project

2010-05-16 Thread Enrico Weigelt
* Sebastian Pipping sp...@gentoo.org schrieb: Hi, what problems do you see w/ licensing ? IMHO, each branch simply has to follow the upstream's license. i have yet to see easy cases with licensing. i haven't thought about it in detail yet, tough, to be honest. well, let's just see if

Re: [gentoo-dev] paper on oss-qm project

2010-05-09 Thread Sebastian Pipping
On 05/08/10 22:11, Enrico Weigelt wrote: what problems do you see w/ licensing ? IMHO, each branch simply has to follow the upstream's license. i have yet to see easy cases with licensing. i haven't thought about it in detail yet, tough, to be honest. simply normalize: don't use letters

Re: [gentoo-dev] paper on oss-qm project

2010-05-08 Thread Enrico Weigelt
* Sebastian Pipping sp...@gentoo.org schrieb: Hi, interesting concept. i'd like to comment on a few details: - licensing seems not be addressed, yet. licensing can kill everything, it needs consideration. what problems do you see w/ licensing ? IMHO, each branch simply has to follow

Re: [gentoo-dev] paper on oss-qm project

2010-05-03 Thread Sebastian Pipping
hello enrico, interesting concept. i'd like to comment on a few details: - licensing seems not be addressed, yet. licensing can kill everything, it needs consideration. - branch and tag namespaces as currently defined have a few problems: - versioning: - the A.B.C.D scheme

[gentoo-dev] paper on oss-qm project

2010-05-02 Thread Enrico Weigelt
hi folks, just in case anybody's interested: I've written a little paper on the OSS-QM project, which aims to provide fixed sourcetrees to many packages+versions and so offload much of the QM/patching work from individual distros to a common place: