18.11.2012 22:51, Fabian Groffen пишет:
You end up with a symlink (e.g. bin - ./usr/bin) from one place to the
other regardless, so it doesn't matter much.
So, why not to make /usr/bin - ../bin (or, maybe even /usr/bin - /bin
(notice the «/»)) ? :D
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital
On 18.11.2012 15:37, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 18/11/12 16:11, hasufell wrote:
On 11/18/2012 03:08 PM, Peter Alfredsen wrote:
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 10:43 AM, justin j...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 16/11/12 09:48, Samuli Suominen wrote:
does this mean it puts the binary-only package,
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:30 PM, Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote:
Talk to a lawyer if you disagree with this. The area of copyright law,
and software, is very well defined (with one exception of the major
change to add your copyright, and even then, there's an agreed apon
standard to
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 3:20 AM, Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov m...@mva.name
wrote:
18.11.2012 22:51, Fabian Groffen пишет:
You end up with a symlink (e.g. bin - ./usr/bin) from one place to the
other regardless, so it doesn't matter much.
So, why not to make /usr/bin - ../bin (or, maybe even
On 11/18/2012 11:34 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:21:20PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
On 11/18/2012 11:22 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:05:05PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
On 11/18/2012 09:58 PM, Greg KH wrote:
an on-topic discussion about copyright thread
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 05:16:18PM +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote:
I'm still happy enough with building udev out from systemd tree and
letting sep. /usr consept from 90s to finally die in favour of
simplifying the system.
It's from a lot earlier than the 90s. Perhaps we should get rid of
On 19-11-2012 15:20:56 +0700, Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov wrote:
18.11.2012 22:51, Fabian Groffen пишет:
You end up with a symlink (e.g. bin - ./usr/bin) from one place to the
other regardless, so it doesn't matter much.
So, why not to make /usr/bin - ../bin (or, maybe even /usr/bin - /bin
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Joshua Kinard ku...@gentoo.org wrote:
Correct me if wrong, but didn't the issue start with udev wanting to put the
PCI ID database/file into /usr/share from /etc?
Well, I can't vouch for what the first issue that arose was, but I do
recall discussion that
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 09:39:59AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Joshua Kinard ku...@gentoo.org wrote:
Correct me if wrong, but didn't the issue start with udev wanting to put the
PCI ID database/file into /usr/share from /etc?
Well, I can't vouch for what
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 9:59 AM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
I'm glad someone else on this list finally realizes that udev did not break
separate /usr on its own. I've been trying to explain this to people
here for ages.
It isn't just programs that use libraries in /usr/lib that
On 19/11/12 16:59, William Hubbs wrote:
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 09:39:59AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Joshua Kinard ku...@gentoo.org wrote:
Correct me if wrong, but didn't the issue start with udev wanting to put the
PCI ID database/file into /usr/share from
Anthony G. Basile wrote:
The answer appears to be that a file is the unit
I personally consider it to be smaller; a number of lines within
a file, or even a single line, all depending on things.
//Peter
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:06:04PM -0800, Greg KH wrote
Again, udev isn't the problem here. It hasn't broken the standalone
/usr issue at all.
systemd-udev supporters have an interesting definition of broken.
I plead not guilty to vandalism your honour. The complainant's window
has
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 5:07 AM, Steven J. Long
sl...@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 05:16:18PM +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote:
I'm still happy enough with building udev out from systemd tree and
letting sep. /usr consept from 90s to finally die in favour of
simplifying the
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote:
Anthony G. Basile wrote:
The answer appears to be that a file is the unit
I personally consider it to be smaller; a number of lines within
a file, or even a single line, all depending on things.
Yup - any creative expression
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:11:13PM -0800, Greg KH wrote
And note, Kay and Lennart are _not_ treating udev as a second-class
citizen.
I said *STAND-ALONE* udev. Please re-read the two posts...
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2012-August/006066.html
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org wrote:
Debian / Ubuntu have a tool that basically does this. Its
update-initramfs. I believe it is called from..the postinst of
packages that are supposed to be in the initramfs? honestly I'd have
to look up how they implemented
On 19/11/2012 08:52, Rich Freeman wrote:
Not a bad idea, with a corresponding eselect tool to control what kind
of initramfs you have (dracut, genkernel, none,
remind-me-but-I-roll-my-own, etc). The ebuild would just call the
function, and the function would handle it accordingly.
Glad to
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 07:41:54AM -0500, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
Thank you for these responses because they did help me understand
copyright/left better. I appreciate your expertise in the matter
and would hope I can draw on it again in the future, because despite
what you said a few emails
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 07:03:12AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:30 PM, Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote:
Talk to a lawyer if you disagree with this. The area of copyright law,
and software, is very well defined (with one exception of the major
change to add your
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 11:30:58AM -0500, Walter Dnes wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:06:04PM -0800, Greg KH wrote
There isn't anything in udev to change for this. I don't understand
why you are thinking that udev has anything to do with this issue
at all.
Before version 181, udev
On 19/11/2012 09:02, Greg KH wrote:
I'm curious as to why this is? Didn't you learn about this in school
(if you went to school for software development), or from any company
you have worked for? At numerous companies I have worked for, it was
part of the introduction to company FOO, here's
Greg KH wrote:
this isn't obvious at first glance, go consult a copyright lawyer
for the specific details if you are curious about it.
Which, again, I strongly feel that the Foundation needs to do
+1
before anymore Copyright Gentoo Foundation marks get added to
_any_ files in our tree.
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 09:08:52AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 11:30:58AM -0500, Walter Dnes wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:06:04PM -0800, Greg KH wrote
There isn't anything in udev to change for this. I don't understand
why you are thinking that udev has anything to
Steven J. Long wrote:
Nor should Gentoo projects suddenly change what they are because
the internet doesn't understand them. That's a ridiculous basis
for any change.
If a friend whom I care about and respect tells me that they don't
understand something I do then I try to consider if maybe I
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 07:03:12AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
That's my main concern here. Can somebody say, sure, go ahead and
remove my name from the copyright line and then sue you for doing it?
Just removing the name
On 19/11/2012 10:06, Rich Freeman wrote:
So, I give you a file. Then I tell you IN WRITING that you can go
ahead and remove my name from the copyright line if you want to.
I think it would be hard for me to argue that I should be able to
obtain damages when I gave you authorization to
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote:
Steven J. Long wrote:
Nor should Gentoo projects suddenly change what they are because
the internet doesn't understand them. That's a ridiculous basis
for any change.
It doesn't always matter what others think, but it is
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 09:06:53 -0800
Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote:
No one has to fight at all here, the law is very clear, and a quick
consultation with a copyright lawyer can provide us with a very good
set of rules and boundry conditions that all of us need to follow in
order to ensure that
Rich Freeman wrote:
Nor should Gentoo projects suddenly change what they are because
the internet doesn't understand them. That's a ridiculous basis
for any change.
It doesn't always matter what others think, but it is always worth
considering. It matters a lot for how one is
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
a quick consultation with a copyright lawyer can provide us with
a very good set of rules and boundry conditions
The last time someone from Gentoo spoke to a copyright lawyer, it
resulted in a year-or-so-long ban on recruiting anyone, and everyone
was supposed to
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 1:23 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
The last time someone from Gentoo spoke to a copyright lawyer, it
resulted in a year-or-so-long ban on recruiting anyone, and everyone
was supposed to sign a piece of paper agreeing to turn over all their
On 19/11/2012 10:44, Rich Freeman wrote:
If Gentoo were trying to monetize/dual-license/etc then the benefits
of airtight copyright assignments would be greater, as would be the
benefit of telling anybody in the EU that their help simply isn't
needed unless they can convince their parliaments
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò
flamee...@flameeyes.eu wrote:
Sorry Rich, are you freaking kidding me? Europe would need to change
laws? ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME?
There's a very simple way to handle this and it doesn't require changing
laws that are perfectly fine for
On 19.11.2012 18.33, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote:
Anthony G. Basile wrote:
The answer appears to be that a file is the unit
I personally consider it to be smaller; a number of lines within
a file, or even a single line, all depending
On 18.11.2012 6.28, Greg KH wrote:
Also, you can not assign copyright to a third party, unless you have a
copyright assignment form. Do the developers doing this work have such
a form assigned? And in what country and state is that form valid for?
Different countries, and states, have
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 06:23:44PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 09:06:53 -0800
Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote:
No one has to fight at all here, the law is very clear, and a quick
consultation with a copyright lawyer can provide us with a very good
set of rules and
On 19.11.2012 19.02, Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 07:41:54AM -0500, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
Thank you for these responses because they did help me understand
copyright/left better. I appreciate your expertise in the matter
and would hope I can draw on it again in the future,
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 01:06:17PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 07:03:12AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
That's my main concern here. Can somebody say, sure, go ahead and
remove my name from the copyright
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 05:35:22PM +0100, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
(klondike) wrote:
El 18/11/12 04:39, Greg KH escribió:
Anyway, I now see a _very_ dangerous commit in the Copyright branch
that better not get merged into the tree, as it's wrong, and illegal
under all countries that
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote:
Anyway, the commit is gone, which is good, thank you for deleting the
branch. Please be more careful about doing such things in the future.
We really don't want to get the Foundation in trouble by doing this type
of thing.
On 11/19/2012 02:40 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 05:35:22PM +0100, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
(klondike) wrote:
El 18/11/12 04:39, Greg KH escribió:
Anyway, I now see a _very_ dangerous commit in the Copyright branch
that better not get merged into the tree, as it's wrong,
On 11/19/2012 01:16 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
On 19/11/2012 10:06, Rich Freeman wrote:
So, I give you a file. Then I tell you IN WRITING that you can go
ahead and remove my name from the copyright line if you want to.
I think it would be hard for me to argue that I should be able to
On 19/11/2012 14:45, Richard Yao wrote:
Is there anything that prevents the foundation from claiming ownership
over work done on Gentoo Infrastructure in the same sense that a
corporation would for its employees?
Lots.
Alternatively, do people working for companies in Europe retain
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote:
One of the functions of the foundation exists to handle legal matters.
Is there anything that prevents the foundation from claiming ownership
over work done on Gentoo Infrastructure in the same sense that a
corporation would
Hi everyone,
My name is Kevin Carillo. I am a PhD student currently living in Wellington
(New Zealand) and I am doing some research on Free/Open Source Software
communities.
If you have joined the Gentoo community after January 2010 (within
approximately the last 3 years), I would like to
In my humble opinion, the real question is: why systemd got merged into udev?
I would love to hear a clear technical reason for that.
--
Fabio Erculiani
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 12:22:14AM +0100, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
In my humble opinion, the real question is: why systemd got merged into udev?
I would love to hear a clear technical reason for that.
I recall this was discussed on the systemd mailing list when it
happened, so you might want to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/18/2012 06:52 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
Please be more careful declaring packages as up for grabs. I am
personally maintainer of a number of these packages and I will be
extremely unhappy to be removed from such, even more unhappy with
someone
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 09:08:52AM -0800, Greg KH wrote
Again, any specific pointer to a commit in the tree that caused this?
See http://wiki.gentoo.org/index.php?title=Udev/upgraderedirect=no
Comments?
Since this version udev depends on files in /usr. If you have /usr
on a separate
50 matches
Mail list logo
