On Sat, Dec 23, 2006 at 12:10:44AM +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Friday 22 December 2006 23:43, Alec Warner wrote:
> > Say I approve only GPL-3 packages (cause' I hate patents, and I dislike
> > having a working system too!). This would encompass anything strictly
> > GPL-3 and also
Andrew Gaffney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Fri, 22 Dec 2006 17:08:45 -0600:
> Roy Marples wrote:
>> Hi list.
>>
>> Not often I issue a last rites, but here we go!
>> rt2x00-beta3 driver is going to be masked over the next few days and
>> then removed from po
Guys,
Please take this discussion to gentoo-user or some such place - it
doesn't belong on this list.
--
-Charlie
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Saturday, 23 December 2006 10:08, Sven Köhler wrote:
> Raymond Lewis Rebbeck schrieb:
> > On Saturday, 23 December 2006 2:40, Sven Köhler wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> so as you plugin a USB-disk, the kernel will recognize it, and it will
> >> be called sda, sdb, sdc or whatever ...
> >>
> >> I don'
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> Comments, ideas, proposals?
currently we have all those under GPL-2. Now when GPL-3 becomes available
people have the option to use GPL-3. However that will still allow people
to use GPL-2 if their patents, etc need it. SO it is not much difference.
The big diff
Raymond Lewis Rebbeck schrieb:
> On Saturday, 23 December 2006 2:40, Sven Köhler wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> so as you plugin a USB-disk, the kernel will recognize it, and it will
>> be called sda, sdb, sdc or whatever ...
>>
>> I don't like that - why doesn't it get some more usefull device-name?
>> Some
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 23:31:04 +0100
"Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 22 December 2006 22:53, Yuri Vasilevski wrote:
> > While for the ones that support v2 or later (this is actually a
> > special case of multiple licensing) we do:
> >
> > LICENSE="GPL-2 GPL-3"
> >
On Friday 22 December 2006 23:43, Alec Warner wrote:
> Say I approve only GPL-3 packages (cause' I hate patents, and I dislike
> having a working system too!). This would encompass anything strictly
> GPL-3 and also anything GPL-2+ (which would then be under 3 at my option
> in this case).
Not rea
Roy Marples wrote:
Hi list.
Not often I issue a last rites, but here we go!
rt2x00-beta3 driver is going to be masked over the next few days and
then removed from portage around the end of January.
This is at the request of upstream as they're mainly bored of fixing
compile and useability error
Hi list.
Not often I issue a last rites, but here we go!
rt2x00-beta3 driver is going to be masked over the next few days and
then removed from portage around the end of January.
This is at the request of upstream as they're mainly bored of fixing
compile and useability errors in beta3 with new k
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
On Friday 22 December 2006 22:53, Yuri Vasilevski wrote:
While for the ones that support v2 or later (this is actually a special
case of multiple licensing) we do:
LICENSE="GPL-2 GPL-3"
when it becomes available?
There is one problem at least for this: to apply
On Friday 22 December 2006 22:53, Yuri Vasilevski wrote:
> While for the ones that support v2 or later (this is actually a special
> case of multiple licensing) we do:
>
> LICENSE="GPL-2 GPL-3"
>
> when it becomes available?
There is one problem at least for this: to apply this method you'd have to
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 17:06:32 -0500
Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yuri Vasilevski wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 21:56:54 +0100
> > "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> At the moment we represent the software we consider under GNU
> >> General Pub
Yuri Vasilevski wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 21:56:54 +0100
"Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At the moment we represent the software we consider under GNU General
Public License, version 2 of the license, but we cannot be sure it's
alright to license it to "any later ve
Hi,
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 21:56:54 +0100
"Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At the moment we represent the software we consider under GNU General
> Public License, version 2 of the license, but we cannot be sure it's
> alright to license it to "any later version". Linux kernel
On Saturday, 23 December 2006 7:44, Rémi Cardona wrote:
> On second thoughts, I'll raise a small objection to the removal. Latest
> gentoo version is 1.2.0 while the kernel (gentoo-sources-2.6.19-r2) says
> to contain 1.1.4. I know that difference isn't exactly huge, but still,
> it's a step backwa
Christian Heim a écrit :
Heya,
net-wireless/ipw2100 and net-wireless/ipw2200 are both kernel drivers built as
an external package through portage. The codebase currently in portage is the
same that is present in any up-to-date kernel tarball (2.6.x).
For this reason I am suggesting, everyone
Christian Heim a écrit :
Furthermore, many users have a much easier time using the
externally-built module than the in-kernel drivers. I, personally, found
it to "just work" whereas the kernel drivers would not work without lots
of troubleshooting.
I haven't been in this situation, and I've ne
At the moment we represent the software we consider under GNU General Public
License, version 2 of the license, but we cannot be sure it's alright to
license it to "any later version". Linux kernel for instance is licensed
_only_ under GPLv2, but not any later version.
What I propose is to copy
Trying to cleanup the faad/faac situation, I ended up thinking about a little
situation with Amarok.
Right now the aac useflag enable support for MP4v2 tags writing through
libmp4v2; the problem is that the library is licensed under MPL, while Amarok
is licensed under GPL, and they are likely n
On Friday, 22. December. 2006 16:24, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-12-21 at 00:42 +0100, Christian Heim wrote:
> > net-wireless/ipw2100 and net-wireless/ipw2200 are both kernel drivers
> > built as an external package through portage. The codebase currently in
> > portage is the same that
Sven Köhler kirjoitti:
> Hi,
>
> so as you plugin a USB-disk, the kernel will recognize it, and it will
> be called sda, sdb, sdc or whatever ...
>
> I don't like that - why doesn't it get some more usefull device-name?
> Some device name, that
> a) indicates, that it is usb (for example put them
Sven Köhler napsal(a):
> Hi,
>
> so as you plugin a USB-disk, the kernel will recognize it, and it will
> be called sda, sdb, sdc or whatever ...
>
> I don't like that - why doesn't it get some more usefull device-name?
Completely off-topic here. Write yourself an UDEV rule, such as:
BUS=="usb"
On Saturday, 23 December 2006 2:40, Sven Köhler wrote:
> Hi,
>
> so as you plugin a USB-disk, the kernel will recognize it, and it will
> be called sda, sdb, sdc or whatever ...
>
> I don't like that - why doesn't it get some more usefull device-name?
> Some device name, that
> a) indicates, that i
Hi,
so as you plugin a USB-disk, the kernel will recognize it, and it will
be called sda, sdb, sdc or whatever ...
I don't like that - why doesn't it get some more usefull device-name?
Some device name, that
a) indicates, that it is usb (for example put them to /dev/usb) and
b) uses a numering no
On Thu, 2006-12-21 at 00:42 +0100, Christian Heim wrote:
> net-wireless/ipw2100 and net-wireless/ipw2200 are both kernel drivers built
> as
> an external package through portage. The codebase currently in portage is the
> same that is present in any up-to-date kernel tarball (2.6.x).
Just curio
On Friday, 22. December. 2006 01:36, you wrote:
> Hi Christian.
>
> * On Dec 21 0:42, Christian Heim (gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org) wrote:
> > net-wireless/ipw2100 and net-wireless/ipw2200 are both kernel drivers
> > built as an external package through portage. The codebase currently in
> > portag
27 matches
Mail list logo
