Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Supporting this would be a huge policy violation, and not so merely as
a technicality.
How's that? I agree that this timely response clause will mean ion-3 will
never go stable. That's the only thing i could envision to be a policy
violation.
I suggest
On Sun, 13 May 2007 09:57:05 +0200
Matti Bickel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Supporting this would be a huge policy violation, and not so merely
as a technicality.
How's that? I agree that this timely response clause will mean ion-3
will never go
On Sunday, May 13, 2007 09:57:05 AM Matti Bickel wrote:
If the general feeling is that ion is
unacceptable in the tree, i'll mask it pending removal.
Having read the threads you referenced, I don't think there's much room
for a compromise.
In the conversation with you, Matti, he argues that
Maybe the following are also interesting in this context:
Debian:
http://womble.decadent.org.uk/blog/renaming-of-ion3
http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?p=69522
Archlinux:
http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/tur-users/2007-April/004634.html
I wonder if a package should be kept whose
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matti Bickel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How's that? I agree that this timely response clause will mean ion-3
will never go stable. That's the only thing i could envision to be a
policy violation.
Right, and packages that aren't aiming for stable
Wulf C. Krueger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the conversation with you, Matti, he argues that elog is
not prominent enough, users don't read USE flag descriptions, etc.
So those issues seem unresolved.
Well, this arguments are nothing new, just read this ml..
However, i don't think think his
On Sun, 13 May 2007 10:34:42 +0200
Matti Bickel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If he doesn't want to hinder distributions, get him to fix his
licence. The way it is now makes it impossible for distributions to
do their job.
We all agree it's retarded. However, i can't change the way it is.
Ulrich Mueller napsal(a):
Maybe the following are also interesting in this context:
Debian:
http://womble.decadent.org.uk/blog/renaming-of-ion3
http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?p=69522
Archlinux:
http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/tur-users/2007-April/004634.html
I wonder
On 13/05/07, Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ulrich Mueller napsal(a):
Maybe the following are also interesting in this context:
Debian:
http://womble.decadent.org.uk/blog/renaming-of-ion3
http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?p=69522
Archlinux:
Rob C a écrit :
Just my 0.02 chf
+0.02eur from me too.
This is going waaay beyond the FireFox/IceWeasle trademark issue. Even
closed source apps are less painful license-wise.
I'd advise all ion3 users from Gentoo (and maybe other distros) to get
together and fork it (à la dhcpcd), doing
On Saturday 12 May 2007, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Jan Kundrát wrote:
Matti Bickel wrote:
It's main additions are a timely response clause, which
requires us to get the same keywords for a newly released version as the
previous had within 28 days. Another point is the no patches clause,
On Saturday 12 May 2007, Matti Bickel wrote:
recently, there's been some worries about the changes and new
requirements the ion upstream, tuomov, put forth in a new LICENSE for
ion-3. It's main additions are a timely response clause, which
requires us to get the same keywords for a newly
Hi,
recently, there's been some worries about the changes and new
requirements the ion upstream, tuomov, put forth in a new LICENSE for
ion-3. It's main additions are a timely response clause, which
requires us to get the same keywords for a newly released version as the
previous had within 28
On Sun, 2007-05-13 at 00:41 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
Well, one could ask why we should provide ebuild for stuff that has
apparently insane upstream, instead of just dropping such junk until the
upstream guy realizes that the world doesn't spin around him.
But if we did this, we'd have no
Jan Kundrát napsal(a):
Matti Bickel wrote:
It's main additions are a timely response clause, which
requires us to get the same keywords for a newly released version as the
previous had within 28 days. Another point is the no patches clause,
which prohibits distributions from carrying a
Matti Bickel wrote:
It's main additions are a timely response clause, which
requires us to get the same keywords for a newly released version as the
previous had within 28 days. Another point is the no patches clause,
which prohibits distributions from carrying a significantly modified
ion-3
Jan Kundrát wrote:
Matti Bickel wrote:
It's main additions are a timely response clause, which
requires us to get the same keywords for a newly released version as the
previous had within 28 days. Another point is the no patches clause,
which prohibits distributions from carrying a
Peter Gordon napsal(a):
On Sun, 2007-05-13 at 00:41 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
Well, one could ask why we should provide ebuild for stuff that has
apparently insane upstream, instead of just dropping such junk until the
upstream guy realizes that the world doesn't spin around him.
But if we
On Sun, 13 May 2007 00:13:57 +0200
Matti Bickel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
recently, there's been some worries about the changes and new
requirements the ion upstream, tuomov, put forth in a new LICENSE for
ion-3. It's main additions are a timely response clause, which
requires us to get the
On Sat, 12 May 2007 18:22:41 -0700
Peter Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could we not simply rename it, as has been suggested many times thus
far? Then we could mask ion3 and let people know why and what it was
renamed to, et al.
Presumably this would require maintaining updated documentation,
Peter Gordon wrote:
On Sun, 2007-05-13 at 01:19 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Supporting this would be a huge policy violation, and not so merely as
a technicality. I suggest simply removing ion support from the main
tree, and sticking it in an overlay that comes with a big warning
telling
21 matches
Mail list logo
