Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: QA issue: No stable skype in Tree
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Steve Long wrote: > As for potentially useful, so was Internet Explorer, last time I looked at > what you could do with its Object Model. I still ain't voting to bring it > to Gentoo.. ;) Looks like you lost your vote :) # ChangeLog for app-emulation/ies4linux *ies4linux-2.0.5 (21 Jun 2007) 21 Jun 2007; Jurek Bartuszek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> +ies4linux-2.0.5.ebuild: Initial version (closing bug #143798), credit goes Mathieu Bonnet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for providing the ebuilds. - -- Vlastimil Babka (Caster) Gentoo/Java -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGev2/tbrAj05h3oQRAvBeAJ95RW2XbmVLHYTQHSvoEl91THr4yACdE7aX 3H6Xsw407WrZc//h9Pq7n2g= =uXox -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: QA issue: No stable skype in Tree
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Mon, 18 Jun 2007 11:50:51 -0700: > On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 08:58 +, Duncan wrote: >> So at this point it's pretty much up to the maintainer. Why are the >> rest of us still discussing it? > > Because, like everything else, too many people on this list have to get > in the last word. > > Also, there's nothing in our policy that really keeps skype from going > stable, as I see it. It doesn't *have* to remain in testing, it would > just end up more convenient for the maintainer that way, and if he > decides to go that route, I fully support it, even though it does mean > dropping stable KEYWORDS on a package in the tree (which *is* against > policy and I suspect the reason this discussion was started). Voice of clarity and reason. Thanks. =8^) -- 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 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: QA issue: No stable skype in Tree
On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 21:11 +0200, Wernfried Haas wrote: > On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 11:39:26AM -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > Internet Explorer doesn't even *run* on Gentoo. If it did, it > > would likely be in the tree since quite a few people would likely use > > it, even if just for testing. I know that if I were able to test things > > on IE from Linux without having to fire up VMware that I would be quite > > happy. > > Haven't tried it, nor do i care about IE, but i ran into that a while ago: > http://www.tatanka.com.br/ies4linux/page/Main_Page > > cheers, > Wernfried > > PS: No, i'm not posting this for the sake of proving IE works on > Gentoo, just as information for people who may need it. Funny as it may be, and 100% off topic, so yes this is just noise, I use ie6 under wine via ies4linux every day...and yes...it makes me feel very very very dirty. --Dan signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: QA issue: No stable skype in Tree
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 11:39:26AM -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > Internet Explorer doesn't even *run* on Gentoo. If it did, it > would likely be in the tree since quite a few people would likely use > it, even if just for testing. I know that if I were able to test things > on IE from Linux without having to fire up VMware that I would be quite > happy. Haven't tried it, nor do i care about IE, but i ran into that a while ago: http://www.tatanka.com.br/ies4linux/page/Main_Page cheers, Wernfried PS: No, i'm not posting this for the sake of proving IE works on Gentoo, just as information for people who may need it. -- Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne (at) gentoo.org Gentoo Forums - http://forums.gentoo.org forum-mods (at) gentoo.org #gentoo-forums (freenode) pgpLyiyrWpFln.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: QA issue: No stable skype in Tree
On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 08:58 +, Duncan wrote: > So at this point it's pretty much up to the maintainer. Why are the rest > of us still discussing it? Because, like everything else, too many people on this list have to get in the last word. Also, there's nothing in our policy that really keeps skype from going stable, as I see it. It doesn't *have* to remain in testing, it would just end up more convenient for the maintainer that way, and if he decides to go that route, I fully support it, even though it does mean dropping stable KEYWORDS on a package in the tree (which *is* against policy and I suspect the reason this discussion was started). -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: QA issue: No stable skype in Tree
On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 06:01 +0100, Steve Long wrote: > Stephen Bennett wrote: > > Not everyone sees that as a reason not to use a potentially useful > > piece of software. We're not debian. > > Could you clarify whether this is indeed a Gentoo QA issue, or in fact a > licensing issue? If the latter case, this discussion should prob'y go to > the new -project ml if and when, or indeed the user forums. The "problem" with skype is really a problem with our policy. The policy is really designed for open source software which we can actually "fix" when we find a problem. With the closed-source stuff, our policy should be a bit more lax since we're at the mercy of the upstream. Also, remember that our policy says that 30 days is *suggested* before stabilization. The maintainer has the authority to ask for stabilization sooner, even the same day the package is put into the tree, if there is sufficient reason for doing so. > As for potentially useful, so was Internet Explorer, last time I looked at > what you could do with its Object Model. I still ain't voting to bring it > to Gentoo.. ;) Please refrain from these kinds of "arguments" that have no technical bearing. Internet Explorer doesn't even *run* on Gentoo. If it did, it would likely be in the tree since quite a few people would likely use it, even if just for testing. I know that if I were able to test things on IE from Linux without having to fire up VMware that I would be quite happy. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: QA issue: No stable skype in Tree
On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 20:05 +0100, Steve Long wrote: > keep. Or is it that Skype are a big company so we have to kowtow? /me is > well-confused. It has nothing to do with money or the company, and everything to do with the number of people using it. While ion3 is uncommonly used, skype is much more popular. Also, the only real "problem" here is actually our own policy. There's nothing keeping the new skype from being added to the tree, whereas the new licensing for ion3 makes it pretty much impossible, masked or not. > (This is not for games, where practical consideration means updates are > needed quickly, and are thus usually kept in ~ as noted. Although, using > one of tuomov's ideas could change that too.. teh sigh.) In this case, I would put skype on par with games like eternal lands or other multiplayer-only games that need quick updates. Yes, older skype is still usable for people that have it installed, but for new users, they'll need a newer version. Also, remember that stabilization is *supposed* to be about the stabilization of the *ebuild* and not the *package* itself. Sure, we also use the stability of the package to determine if we want to stabilize an ebuild, but in the case of binary-only closed-source packages, there's nothing we can do if something is broken, anyway, so its stabilization status doesn't matter nearly as much. If the ebuild works fine, the package can be stable (or not) and there's nothing we can do about the actual quality of the package. Having a working and usable package, in this case, is more important than some policy which is really designed for open source software. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: QA issue: No stable skype in Tree
Steev Klimaszewski wrote: Steve Long wrote: Stephen Bennett wrote: Not everyone sees that as a reason not to use a potentially useful piece of software. We're not debian. Could you clarify whether this is indeed a Gentoo QA issue, or in fact a licensing issue? If the latter case, this discussion should prob'y go to the new -project ml if and when, or indeed the user forums. As for potentially useful, so was Internet Explorer, last time I looked at what you could do with its Object Model. I still ain't voting to bring it to Gentoo.. ;) It is neither a QA nor license issue, its an issue of the download being unavailable. Please read the full thread. And to reply to myself - its a licensing issue since we cannot mirror the distfile. However, I hardly find that "facist" - my own opinion, others vary of course - the main issue is simply that the download won't be available - if you even throw out the licensing issue of not mirroring, have you tried to install 2006.0 lately? (Yes, I know 2007.0 is out) - you can't even do a 2006.0 install if you use the portage and stage3 tarballs from the cd because those distfiles are no longer available. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: QA issue: No stable skype in Tree
Steve Long wrote: Stephen Bennett wrote: Not everyone sees that as a reason not to use a potentially useful piece of software. We're not debian. Could you clarify whether this is indeed a Gentoo QA issue, or in fact a licensing issue? If the latter case, this discussion should prob'y go to the new -project ml if and when, or indeed the user forums. As for potentially useful, so was Internet Explorer, last time I looked at what you could do with its Object Model. I still ain't voting to bring it to Gentoo.. ;) It is neither a QA nor license issue, its an issue of the download being unavailable. Please read the full thread. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: QA issue: No stable skype in Tree
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sun, 17 Jun 2007 20:08:13 +0100: > Josh Saddler wrote: >> As we've established earlier, being closed-source is not sufficient >> reason for removing any program from Portage; you should have read the >> rest of the thread. > > No but fascist license conditions are; you should have read the ion3 > discussion. Personal feelings about fascist licenses aside (sig says it well enough), it seems to me the resolution is pretty much settled, so there's little more to discuss. 1) Given the current situation, permanent unstable would seem the best possible Gentoo could do. How could one sanely argue for stable? 2) Someone mentioned actually, you know, /asking/ them!We'll never know if they'll change until we do. 3) Beyond that, it would seem to be up to the package maintainer. If he wishes to ask, and gets a positive response, great. If not, well, is it worth it to him to continue dealing with it in the tree as permanently unstable? There doesn't seem to be any huge Gentoo policy conflict in it remaining in the tree as long as there's a maintainer wishing to do the dirty work on it, as long as /is/ clearly permanently unstable. If upstream won't work with us, well, I guess users have yet another use for package.keywords, if they wish to continue using it. The Gentoo policy should be clear enough (and can be made clearer with appropriate ewarn or the like messages, if necessary). 4) Another alternative would be to remove it from the tree, but maintain it in the official VoIP overlay. Again, if they maintainer wishes, I don't see a policy preventing that, either. 5) Again, beyond the permanent unstable if it /does/ remain in the tree, it's primarily up to the maintainer. Thus, if they don't wish to handle it, they can drop it, and if no one else does either, well, it'll be out of the tree /and/ official overlay. Someone could then put in in an unofficial overlay, or possibly it could go in Sunrise or other supervised user contributed overlay.* So at this point it's pretty much up to the maintainer. Why are the rest of us still discussing it? ___ * Did the discussion on a sunset overlay or the equivalent ever go anywhere, or did that get merged into sunrise, or... ? -- 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 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: QA issue: No stable skype in Tree
Stephen Bennett wrote: > Not everyone sees that as a reason not to use a potentially useful > piece of software. We're not debian. Could you clarify whether this is indeed a Gentoo QA issue, or in fact a licensing issue? If the latter case, this discussion should prob'y go to the new -project ml if and when, or indeed the user forums. As for potentially useful, so was Internet Explorer, last time I looked at what you could do with its Object Model. I still ain't voting to bring it to Gentoo.. ;) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: QA issue: No stable skype in Tree
Josh Saddler wrote: > As we've established earlier, being closed-source is not sufficient > reason for removing any program from Portage; you should have read the > rest of the thread. No but fascist license conditions are; you should have read the ion3 discussion. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: QA issue: No stable skype in Tree
Richard Freeman wrote: > Agreed, although I think most people would agree with the principle > being alluded to. I don't think many people had issues with making > users fetch their java files, as they generally had stable URLs and were > hosted for a long time. The real issue is with software where old > versions are completely deprecated a day after something newer is > available. Many games fall into this zone, and as a result they rarely > become stable packages. > Good point; it seems to me to imply that this isn't in fact a QA issue, but a license one. In which case, it comes down to: if a provider wants their software in Gentoo, they either accept it will be forever unstable, or forget about their nonsensical license terms. As usual, this is only my opinion. I believe skype in fact make money from their software being in Gentoo? I really cannot understand why there is more sympathy for their position and so little for the ion3 author (apart from his insane mail to arch of course ;) who afaict hasn't made a lot from his work, apart from the odd paypal donation, which many users want to keep. Or is it that Skype are a big company so we have to kowtow? /me is well-confused. (This is not for games, where practical consideration means updates are needed quickly, and are thus usually kept in ~ as noted. Although, using one of tuomov's ideas could change that too.. teh sigh.) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
