This is your monthly friendly reminder ! Same bat time (typically the
2nd Thursday once a month), same bat channel (#gentoo-council @
irc.freenode.net) !
If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
Gentoo dev
Hi,
Repoman needs to check for deprecated eclasses, see
http://bugs.gentoo.org/141677
As a result of the discussion in the bug, we would like to add
$PORTDIR/qa-data/eclass.deprecated
to allow to deprecate eclasses properly and make repoman fail.
This will allow us to avoid problems with new
As discussed here¹, the author of cdrtools, Jörg Schilling, violates the GPL
in his application, by building GPL software with CDDL licensed makefiles as
well as linking mkisofs to libscg, which he relicensed to CDDL lately. Debian
seems to fork² cdrtools therefore.
Imho we have to remove the
* Carsten Lohrke [EMAIL PROTECTED] [06/09/01 14:44 +0200]:
Imho we have to remove the partly and incompatible relicensed
cdrtools-2.01.01
alpha ebuilds from the tree.
I don't think so.
We have a lot of other applications in the tree, which is
not free. The only problem I see is, that you
I'm the first to not like Schilling's ways, but...
On Friday 01 September 2006 14:44, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
building GPL software with CDDL licensed
makefiles
Can't see how this is pertinent, I can build BSD licensed software with
autoconf that is GPL, and use GCC to compile..
as well as
Tach Diego, 0x2B859DE3 (PGP-PK-ID)
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò schrieb:
as well as linking mkisofs to libscg, which he relicensed to CDDL
lately.
This is a bit more debatable, he *can* link it, if he can change mkisofs
license to allow linking to
On Friday 01 September 2006 14:51, Lars Weiler wrote:
We have a lot of other applications in the tree, which is
not free.
The problem is not that it's not free*, but that linking GPL and CDDL code
violates the GPL. If the whole cdrtools code were CDDL, there were no
problem.
*The OSI
On Friday 01 September 2006 15:08, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
I'm the first to not like Schilling's ways, but...
On Friday 01 September 2006 14:44, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
building GPL software with CDDL licensed
makefiles
Can't see how this is pertinent, I can build BSD licensed
On Fri, 2006-09-01 at 05:51 +, Mike Frysinger wrote:
This is your monthly friendly reminder ! Same bat time (typically the
2nd Thursday once a month), same bat channel (#gentoo-council @
irc.freenode.net) !
If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
vote on, let
On Fri, 2006-09-01 at 15:24 +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
On Friday 01 September 2006 14:51, Lars Weiler wrote:
We have a lot of other applications in the tree, which is
not free.
The problem is not that it's not free*, but that linking GPL and CDDL code
violates the GPL. If the whole
On Friday 01 September 2006 15:36, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
The build scripts are part of the source code. And as such must be licensed
under the GPL.
It's opinable, as you don't mix them with the actual code. I think it's one of
the gray points.
Still it does not make any sense to ship the
On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 16:31:51 +0200 Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| On Friday 01 September 2006 15:36, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
| The build scripts are part of the source code. And as such must be
| licensed under the GPL.
|
| It's opinable, as you don't mix them with the actual
On Friday 01 September 2006 16:31, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
On Friday 01 September 2006 15:36, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
The build scripts are part of the source code. And as such must be
licensed under the GPL.
It's opinable, as you don't mix them with the actual code. I think it's one
On Friday 01 September 2006 15:53, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
I have a proposal for an agenda item.
I would like the council to decide on the removal of the requirement
that everything must come as an agenda item so they can be allowed to
make decisions in a timely manner, if necessary. Of
On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 04:45:04PM +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
I would like to second this. I particularly find the notification 7 days
before setting the agenda troublesome. It basically means that decisions can
only be made half a month after the discussion has finished on -dev.
As far i
Stefan Schweizer wrote:
Hi,
Repoman needs to check for deprecated eclasses, see
http://bugs.gentoo.org/141677
As a result of the discussion in the bug, we would like to add
$PORTDIR/qa-data/eclass.deprecated
to allow to deprecate eclasses properly and make repoman fail.
This will
The file listing the derecated overlays is fine. What about revdep-rebuild and
emerge regarding installed stuff and overlays?
Carsten
pgpMpDspMcPVc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hey everyone :-)
Saturday (that would be tomorrow), it's bugday again, and we would like
to see you in #gentoo-bugs on irc.freenode.net :-)
We hope to see as many people as possible, and to get as many bugs as
possible fixed :-)
Bjarke AKA
On Friday 01 September 2006 15:45, Luis Medinas wrote:
I'm sure that situation will be fixed by the upstream (Jörg) since it
violates GPL license. About the debian fork we will take a look at it
and see where's going.
Read the Debian bug. Jörg Schilling is badmouthing Debian developers and
Am Freitag, 1. September 2006 17:05 schrieb Alec Warner:
Stefan Schweizer wrote:
Hi,
Repoman needs to check for deprecated eclasses, see
http://bugs.gentoo.org/141677
As a result of the discussion in the bug, we would like to add
$PORTDIR/qa-data/eclass.deprecated
to allow to
On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 06:57:22PM +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote:
Am Freitag, 1. September 2006 17:05 schrieb Alec Warner:
Stefan Schweizer wrote:
Hi,
Repoman needs to check for deprecated eclasses, see
http://bugs.gentoo.org/141677
As a result of the discussion in the bug, we
On Friday 01 September 2006 11:26, Greg KH wrote:
No, we should just stop distributing the prebuild image in our release
and live cds. We do not have to do anything with the package in
portage, as it is the user who builds cdrtools that does the violating
(and only if they then redistribute
Chris White wrote:
We have an alternative stated [1]. I think we need to focus more on the
problems of using the alternative, then dealing with what some consider to be
a rather sketchy legal dispute.
[1] http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/debburn
WTH is debburn??? Geeez, make the folk respect
On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 05:51:07AM +, Mike Frysinger wrote:
This is your monthly friendly reminder ! Same bat time (typically the
2nd Thursday once a month), same bat channel (#gentoo-council @
irc.freenode.net) !
Is this the new council for which the voting should have just ended, or
the
On Fri, 2006-09-01 at 17:08 -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 05:51:07AM +, Mike Frysinger wrote:
This is your monthly friendly reminder ! Same bat time (typically the
2nd Thursday once a month), same bat channel (#gentoo-council @
irc.freenode.net) !
Is this the
Chris White wrote:
On Friday 01 September 2006 12:46, Jakub Moc wrote:
WTH is debburn??? Geeez, make the folk respect GPL like everyone else, I
don't want any debburn. Besides, we don't distribute any binaries (if we
do on release media, we'll have to stop until JS regains a bit of mental
On Friday 01 September 2006 14:26, Greg KH wrote:
On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 02:44:59PM +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
As discussed here?, the author of cdrtools, J?rg Schilling, violates the
GPL in his application, by building GPL software with CDDL licensed
makefiles as well as linking mkisofs
On Friday 01 September 2006 15:18, Chris White wrote:
On Friday 01 September 2006 11:26, Greg KH wrote:
No, we should just stop distributing the prebuild image in our release
and live cds. We do not have to do anything with the package in
portage, as it is the user who builds cdrtools that
On Friday 01 September 2006 13:20, Mike Frysinger wrote:
set the LICENSE variable and/or add an ewarn to the ebuild ... pushing your
ideals by removing the package is wrong
-mike
Ok, where the hell did I even say to remove it. People that are saying that
just need to stop, wtf. I'd rather
On Fri, 2006-01-09 at 16:20 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Friday 01 September 2006 15:18, Chris White wrote:
On Friday 01 September 2006 11:26, Greg KH wrote:
No, we should just stop distributing the prebuild image in our release
and live cds. We do not have to do anything with the
On Friday 01 September 2006 16:28, Chris White wrote:
On Friday 01 September 2006 13:20, Mike Frysinger wrote:
set the LICENSE variable and/or add an ewarn to the ebuild ... pushing
your ideals by removing the package is wrong
-mike
Ok, where the hell did I even say to remove it. People
On Friday 01 September 2006 13:43, Mike Frysinger wrote:
if you werent implying remove the package when you said not give a user
the option, then what else could you possibly be talking about
-mike
Working on an the presented alternative, debburn, like I've been saying in
pretty much all my
Wernfried Haas wrote:
As far i am concerned, i find seperate sections quite good as it's a
clear solution as it's easy to see who is an official Gentoo monkey
who did all the quiz stuff etc. May be subject to personal taste though.
Some of the unofficial monkeys have also done the quiz stuff
On Friday 01 September 2006 14:47, Jakub Moc wrote:
Yeah, that's the previous fork that's been package.masked recently
(homepage returns nifty internal server error now, we sure can expect a
rapid development there).
Hey ruby's had their entire server down for 2 days! We sure can expect
Carsten Lohrke wrote [2006-08-31 15:16:31]:
On Thursday 31 August 2006 16:58, Simon Stelling wrote:
About the udev, there's one package that doesn't share the effect:
sys-apps/pcmciautils:udev - Install as an udev helper instead of a
hotplug helper
Which is different from the other 5 Enable
On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 06:13:51PM -0700, Peter Gordon wrote:
Carsten Lohrke wrote:
Imho we have to remove the partly and incompatible relicensed
cdrtools-2.01.01
alpha ebuilds from the tree.
I completely agree. In fact, Fedora Development also had to revert this change
due to the
Greg KH wrote:
I completely agree. In fact, Fedora Development also had to revert this
change
due to the same licensing issues a couple of weeks ago. (See the thread
spawned
from the 20060817 rawhide report [1].)
No, they had to do this because they are distributing a built binary,
same
Am Freitag, 1. September 2006 19:37 schrieb Brian Harring:
old new
- --
foo.eclassnew-foo.eclass
We don't need a new file for that IMHO. I'd propose to add
something like
ECLASS_DEPRECATED=${ECLASS_DEPRECATED}
On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 01:37:26AM +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote:
Am Freitag, 1. September 2006 19:37 schrieb Brian Harring:
old new
- --
foo.eclass new-foo.eclass
We don't need a new file for that IMHO. I'd propose to
Greg KH wrote:
On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 06:13:51PM -0700, Peter Gordon wrote:
Carsten Lohrke wrote:
Imho we have to remove the partly and incompatible relicensed
cdrtools-2.01.01
alpha ebuilds from the tree.
I completely agree. In fact, Fedora Development also had to revert this
change
snip
I like this option better than sticking another file into the public
tree that no user will ever need.
Instead, modifying the eclass metadata and adding two new keys, that
users will never need is fine? :)
This isn't really user data, tiz developer data; thus the user bit
On Saturday 02 September 2006 00:01, Alec Warner wrote:
and the tinderbox[1.5]
[1.5] http://tinderbox.x86.dev.gentoo.org/default-linux/x86/app-cdr/
fixed
-mike
pgpaAQeW2iVd6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 09:54:09PM -0700, Daniel Ostrow wrote:
snip
I like this option better than sticking another file into the public
tree that no user will ever need.
Instead, modifying the eclass metadata and adding two new keys, that
users will never need is fine? :)
43 matches
Mail list logo
