Re: Modifying software written to a Standards document - was Re: DRM in xpdf

2008-05-01 Thread Ian McWilliam
On 26 Apr 2008, at 9:30 PM, Marc Espie wrote: We're talking about stupid, evil, legal DRM here. The pdf document basically says `oh, you're not supposed to do things with this document, because I say so'. There's nothing that prevents anyone from doing anything with the document. If

Re: Modifying software written to a Standards document - was Re: DRM in xpdf

2008-05-01 Thread Ian McWilliam
On 26 Apr 2008, at 1:34 PM, Iruata Souza wrote: On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 11:25 PM, Ian McWilliam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stephan Andre' wrote: On Friday 25 April 2008 20:49:00 Ian McWilliam wrote: Ok, Not really wanting to comment on this call me a troll, call me want you want

Re: Modifying software written to a Standards document - was Re: DRM in xpdf

2008-05-01 Thread Ian McWilliam
On 26 Apr 2008, at 2:30 PM, Nick Holland wrote: Ian McWilliam wrote: ... Can anybody explain why is it acceptable to modify a standard for ports but not not for base? I think Standards is a bogus argument here. That's not what this is about. Try this way of looking at it: The author of

Re: Modifying software written to a Standards document - was Re: DRM in xpdf

2008-05-01 Thread Deanna Phillips
Ian McWilliam [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The real issue for me at least is the fact that one is prepared to modify (in this case xpdf) away for what ever standard it is written against, modified away from the original software distribution without documenting the change, informing the end

Re: Modifying software written to a Standards document - was Re: DRM in xpdf

2008-05-01 Thread Marc Espie
On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 08:43:36PM +1000, Ian McWilliam wrote: Finally, some sense, thanks. The real issue for me at least is the fact that one is prepared to modify (in this case xpdf) away for what ever standard it is written against, modified away from the original software distribution

Update: security/integrit (3.02.00 - 4.1)

2008-05-01 Thread Oliver Klima
Hi, here's an update for security/integrit. Apart from switching to RMD-160 for checksums it includes a couple of bug fixes. In addition to the update I tweaked the port a bit: - build with SEPARATE_BUILD=simple - include the (small) test-suite as regression test - include original install

Re: NEW: math/wxMaxima

2008-05-01 Thread Iruata Souza
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Iruata Souza [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: wxWidgets GUI for math/maxima. tested on i386. http://iru.oitobits.net/src/openbsd/ports/wxmaxima.tgz needs maxima which needs common lisp. iru

Re: clisp: clx flavor

2008-05-01 Thread fulvio ciriaco
From: Michael Small [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: clisp: clx flavor Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:11:55 -0400 On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 11:12:58PM +0200, fulvio ciriaco wrote: Hallo, I added a clx flavor to clisp, clx is a foreign interface to Xlib allowing for use of X programs in clisp.

Re: vlc bug

2008-05-01 Thread Unix Fan
Hello, I just updated to 4.3 and noticed this odd VLC volume bar visual bug, it's rather distracting... :( -Nix Fan.

current or stable?

2008-05-01 Thread Daniel Thomas Nevistic
I am working on learning how to port, c. and am trying to figure out which flavor of OpenBSD that I need to run. Does it need to be current if I want to help with porting? Sorry if this is somewhere in the documentation. I did not see it clearly in any place that I have read so far. -Dan

Re: current or stable?

2008-05-01 Thread Steve Shockley
Daniel Thomas Nevistic wrote: I am working on learning how to port, c. and am trying to figure out which flavor of OpenBSD that I need to run. Does it need to be current if I want to help with porting? If you want a port to be committed, it needs to compile against -current.

Re: current or stable?

2008-05-01 Thread Mike Erdely
On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 05:52:02PM -0700, Daniel Thomas Nevistic wrote: I am working on learning how to port, c. and am trying to figure out which flavor of OpenBSD that I need to run. Does it need to be current if I want to help with porting? You should run -current for working on ports.

Re: current or stable?

2008-05-01 Thread Will Maier
On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 05:52:02PM -0700, Daniel Thomas Nevistic wrote: I am working on learning how to port, c. and am trying to figure out which flavor of OpenBSD that I need to run. Does it need to be current if I want to help with porting? Changes to the ports tree occur in -current, so

Re: NEW (again): x11/tcltutor

2008-05-01 Thread Stuart Cassoff
A happy porting story: When I was working on this port I asked the author about the license. He informed me that not only was he going to release a new version of TclTutor, he was also changing the license to a BSD-style license. I looked at the license ... it was OK, not great ... there was

NEW: devel/sparse

2008-05-01 Thread Daniel Dickman
Here's a port of sparse which I've tested on i386. From pkg/DESCR: Sparse, the semantic parser, provides a compiler frontend capable of parsing most of ANSI C as well as many GCC extensions, and a collection of sample compiler backends, including a static analyzer also called sparse. Sparse