Re: [gentoo-dev] About XFCE, renames, eclass, etc
Jeremy Olexa wrote: [. . .] Thanks for the message, Jeremy; it's informative and appreciated! - xfce-config.xml: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/xfce-config.xml Josh (nightmorph) updated this, basically an after thought by us so thanks Josh! - xfce4-meta : former name xfce-base/xfce4. Renamed to reflect reality. This meta package is the *core* of XFCE, it *only* has in it what is required to run. Thus, returning XFCE to a minimalistic status in Gentoo Linux. This is desired because most XFCE users are looking for a lightweight WM, not a heavy DE. So, users will have to add a terminal, orage, thunar, etc to the world file instead of relying on a meta package. I made sure to mention this in the Xfce guide after finding all this out on my own . . . the hard way. :) Take a look at emerge -p --depclean output and go over the world file to see what's up on your system, using emerge --noreplace foo to add stuff back in. And be sure to re-read the Xfce guide if you're wondering which packages should prolly be kept. (http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/xfce-config.xml) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] About XFCE, renames, eclass, etc
On 03.09.2009 05:38, Jeremy Olexa wrote: - xfce4-meta : former name xfce-base/xfce4. Renamed to reflect reality. This meta package is the *core* of XFCE, it *only* has in it what is required to run. Thus, returning XFCE to a minimalistic status in Gentoo Linux. This is desired because most XFCE users are looking for a lightweight WM, not a heavy DE. So, users will have to add a terminal, orage, thunar, etc to the world file instead of relying on a meta package. Thanks a lot for the update and for the awesome work. One note for the future: An ewarn would have been nice for the above point. emerge --depclean output was a surprise (wanted to unmerge terminal etc) and surprise is bad. We don't want any surprises. Thanks again. -- Eray
[gentoo-dev] Re: Multimedia overlay
On 08/11/2009 01:28 AM, Ben de Groot wrote: [...] So hereby we announce the Gentoo Multimedia overlay. It is located at http://gitorious.org/gentoo-multimedia and any developers who want to join can let us know their gitorious account name, so they can be added. Administration of the overlay will be shared among the participating Gentoo devs, so new committers can quickly be added. Any users that want commit status can get access after their work is found to be of sufficient quality. We encourage this, as the overlay is also a training ground for new contributors to Gentoo. Is this dead before it even began? I'm getting no replies from yng...@gentoo.org.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Multimedia overlay
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Nikos Chantziarasrea...@arcor.de wrote: Is this dead before it even began? I'm getting no replies from yng...@gentoo.org. He is away: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/roll-call/devaway.xml?select=yngwin#yngwin
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Add operator + for licenses (EAPI-4 ?)
Rémi Cardona wrote: Le 01/09/2009 00:12, Mounir Lamouri a écrit : Hi, As you should know, GLEP 23 [1] introduced USE flags conditions in LICENSE variable and || operator in addition of licenses groups and ACCEPT_LICENSE variable. [1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0023.html /me still thinks LICENSE should be informational _at_best_. Users who rely on LICENSE to build an FSF-approved system will simply be mislead. If we want to support this sort of things properly, we should have a treewide license audit. Anything short of that will just be a disservice to our users. I don't think your argument is valid. LICENSE is not informational so we have to deal with it and as GLEP-23 has an issue, we should fix it. I know even with this feature building a free-only system with ACCEPT_LICENSE will not be easy but the tree cleaning or anything else is a next step. Let's focus on what we can do now and what I propose is clearly doable and it will not break anything. -- Mounir
[gentoo-dev] SourceForge changed all Git URLs
This is a heads-up to all devs who provide/maintain live ebuilds of projects hosted on SourceForge. Live ebuilds won't work anymore. EGIT_REPO_URI has to updated on all ebuilds. Appending /projectname should be enough (for example, git://lmms.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/lmms should become git://lmms.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/lmms/lmms).
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Add operator + for licenses (EAPI-4 ?)
Sebastian Pipping wrote: Mounir Lamouri wrote: It's even worst when we try to use ACCEPT_LICENSE to have a free operating system. Let's suppose 'free' in fsf free and osf free, LGPL-2.1 is free for both but LGPL-2 isn't and we can suppose, most LGPL-2 licensed packages in the tree are LGPL-2+ actually. Are you aware that we have license groups like @FSF-APPROVED? It's set up in /usr/portage/profiles/license_groups. Groups are not fixing the problem even for free aspect. If I have a package licensed to LGPL-2, it's not free approved but if it's LGPL-2+, it is. So I can't add LGPL-2 to @FSF-APPROVED, we agree ? So, what I propose is to let a license to be suffixed by the + operator. In this case, if a newer license is accepted by ACCEPT_LICENSE, the PM should not filter the package. My vote is against it. It feels like black magic to me and many licenses are not versioned, at least not their reference names in Gentoo. However I do notice that GPL-2+ could make things easier. Why not introduce a license group for it like @GPL-2+ or so, instead? That would be transparent and use existing means. What do you think? I don't understand where the black magic is. I agree not so much licenses are versioned but they probably are the most used (LGPL, GPL, MPL, Apache, ...). GPL-2+ as a group make the filtering with ACCEPT_LICENSE easy (even if we have to suppose license groups are always up-to-date. However, a group will not add the information in the ebuild. In other words, I will have GPL-2 and GPL-3 with GPL-2+ in ACCEPT_LICENSE but I will not have GPL-2+ packages if i set only GPL-3 in ACCEPT_LICENSE. Anyway, I've seen an issue for licenses already named foo-NUMBER because with this feature, PM will consider them as versioned. Not a big deal for most of them but it could be weird like BSD-2+ to have BSD-2 and BSD-4. ls | grep -e -[0123456789.]*$ in the licenses directory to see the concerned licenses As it has to come with a new EAPI, we can rename some licenses before. -- Mounir
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Add operator + for licenses (EAPI-4 ?)
Duncan wrote: Sebastian Pipping posted on Tue, 01 Sep 2009 04:21:49 +0200 as excerpted: However I do notice that GPL-2+ could make things easier. Why not introduce a license group for it like @GPL-2+ or so, instead? That would be transparent and use existing means. I've always thought Gentoo needed plus versions of the versioned licenses, anyway. GPL-2, GPL-2+, GPL-3, and GPL-3+, should all be different licenses, because really, they are. AFAIK, GPL-2 and GPL-2+ are not different, may you tell me more about that ? Thanks, Mounir
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Add operator + for licenses (EAPI-4 ?)
Le 03/09/2009 23:10, Mounir Lamouri a écrit : Duncan wrote: Sebastian Pipping posted on Tue, 01 Sep 2009 04:21:49 +0200 as excerpted: However I do notice that GPL-2+ could make things easier. Why not introduce a license group for it like @GPL-2+ or so, instead? That would be transparent and use existing means. I've always thought Gentoo needed plus versions of the versioned licenses, anyway. GPL-2, GPL-2+, GPL-3, and GPL-3+, should all be different licenses, because really, they are. AFAIK, GPL-2 and GPL-2+ are not different, may you tell me more about that ? GPL-2+ means GPL-2 GPL-3 GPL-4 ... Not quite the same thing as just GPL-2 Rémi
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Add operator + for licenses (EAPI-4 ?)
Rémi Cardona wrote: Le 03/09/2009 23:10, Mounir Lamouri a écrit : Duncan wrote: Sebastian Pipping posted on Tue, 01 Sep 2009 04:21:49 +0200 as excerpted: However I do notice that GPL-2+ could make things easier. Why not introduce a license group for it like @GPL-2+ or so, instead? That would be transparent and use existing means. I've always thought Gentoo needed plus versions of the versioned licenses, anyway. GPL-2, GPL-2+, GPL-3, and GPL-3+, should all be different licenses, because really, they are. AFAIK, GPL-2 and GPL-2+ are not different, may you tell me more about that ? GPL-2+ means GPL-2 GPL-3 GPL-4 ... Not quite the same thing as just GPL-2 But the content of the license is the same. That only means you can use a newer one. I mean we do not need a new license file for that. It's up to upstream to write somewhere if it's GPL-2 or GPL-2+, am I right ? -- Mounir
Re: [gentoo-dev] About XFCE, renames, eclass, etc
Eray Aslan wrote: On 03.09.2009 05:38, Jeremy Olexa wrote: - xfce4-meta : former name xfce-base/xfce4. Renamed to reflect reality. This meta package is the *core* of XFCE, it *only* has in it what is required to run. Thus, returning XFCE to a minimalistic status in Gentoo Linux. This is desired because most XFCE users are looking for a lightweight WM, not a heavy DE. So, users will have to add a terminal, orage, thunar, etc to the world file instead of relying on a meta package. Thanks a lot for the update and for the awesome work. One note for the future: An ewarn would have been nice for the above point. emerge --depclean output was a surprise (wanted to unmerge terminal etc) and surprise is bad. We don't want any surprises. Thanks again. I just added this: * xfce4-meta will just provide a minimal set of packages. You may also * want to emerge x11-terms/terminal, app-editors/mousepad, * app-office/orage, etc or similar packages. * More info can be found at: * http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/xfce-config.xml Hope that helps. -Jeremy
[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Add operator + for licenses (EAPI-4 ?)
Mounir Lamouri posted on Thu, 03 Sep 2009 23:27:34 +0200 as excerpted: Rémi Cardona wrote: Mounir Lamouri a écrit : Duncan wrote: Sebastian Pipping posted: However I do notice that GPL-2+ could make things easier. Why not introduce a license group for it like @GPL-2+ I've always thought Gentoo needed plus versions of the versioned licenses, anyway. GPL-2, GPL-2+, GPL-3, and GPL-3+, should all be different licenses, because really, they are. AFAIK, GPL-2 and GPL-2+ are not different, may you tell me more about that ? GPL-2+ means GPL-2 GPL-3 GPL-4 ... Not quite the same thing as just GPL-2 But the content of the license is the same. That only means you can use a newer one. I mean we do not need a new license file for that. It's up to upstream to write somewhere if it's GPL-2 or GPL-2+, am I right ? Let me quote a different reply of yours: Groups are not fixing the problem even for free aspect. If I have a package licensed to LGPL-2, it's not free approved but if it's LGPL-2+, it is. So I can't add LGPL-2 to @FSF-APPROVED, we agree ? While the license text is the same, but for the condition or greater which may be written before or after the license, as you point out, the effective difference can be quite large indeed. It's this difference that in practice, we're worried about here. And our labels don't specifically mean anything (aren't legally valid) anyway. Thus, IMO we need a GPL2+ license description (and others similar), which would incorporate the GPL2 license, with, probably, a clearly delineated explanation at the top, Gentoo license note: The authors license these works under the GPL-2 or later license. Following is the GPL-2 version. See also GPL-3, etc. Then a line of underscores or the like, clearly separating that note from the license. That would eliminate ambiguity and grouping problems such as you mention above, while, I believe, being legally solid -- as long as our note is clearly delineated from the actual license. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman
