It's a good idea to put this in the wiki. Might I recommend (since it
appeared previously on this list Legitimate FTP Mirrors Module
Distribution Rights Question) that the following be added:
Modules specifically licensed to Crosswire may not be redistributed. For
all others, as long as the
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 3:06 PM, DM Smith dmsm...@crosswire.org wrote:
If someone posts to sword-support a problem with the text in a module (we
get these all the time), having mirrors complicates support.
If Fedora can have many dozen mirrors, and Debian can have many dozen
mirrors and so can
There are two separate issues here.
1- The fact that we retrieve the closest match to a strong number is IMHO
rather obscure and confusing in itself. I've hit this several times and
found through rather laborious investigation that a module was using a bad
strong number, or some piece of code
Ben,
I just made a series of commits which further improve handling of
Python builds. They do the following:
1) Move handling of bindings configuration up a directory level so
CMake can include support for bindings other than SWIG in the future
(unrelated to your complaint)
2) Add detection for
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 4:06 PM, DM Smith dmsm...@crosswire.org wrote:
Andrew,
I was careful not to say what you proposed. The quote you suggest is
technically/true/correct/good as far as it goes. The other bullets I gave
are why we discourage mirroring even for those.
You're (licensing)
On Jan 4, 2013, at 4:34 PM, Chris Burrell ch...@burrell.me.uk wrote:
There are two separate issues here.
1- The fact that we retrieve the closest match to a strong number is IMHO
rather obscure and confusing in itself. I've hit this several times and found
through rather laborious
Regarding Fedora, I find that the mirrors differ significantly. Some have old
releases, but no new releases. Some have the latest release but no updates.
Some may have the alphas and/or the betas. Using yum, I have had some updates
fail because they have dependencies that have not reached the
And, a lot of the the tools using mirrors are generally addressed to a
fairly technical community. The other big difference is obviously that the
linux community is massive, and we are small in comparison. But I'm all up
for more resilience if that's something we've had an issue with?
On 4
Andrew,
How do you handle modules that are removed from CrossWire? Do you use rsync w/
--delete?
-- DM
On Jan 4, 2013, at 4:49 PM, Andrew Thule thules...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 4:06 PM, DM Smith dmsm...@crosswire.org wrote:
Andrew,
I was careful not to say what you
On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 12:51 PM, crick...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 9:06 PM, Greg Hellings greg.helli...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 9:27 PM, crick...@gmail.com wrote:
Here's a patch that helps some with osistest. I still get the
following error when I run
Sounds good. A few notes,
- the STEP interlinear functionality tries (tried?) to use this
functionality to provide better interlinears. We currently don't use the
x-split/or src, but could do either.
- With H00, it was accepted that H00 almost always referred to the next
tag,
I don't actually have ssh access to CrossWire, so I'm not using the rsync
protocol, rather I do have ftp access so using ftp, if a module is removed
from CrossWire, the change is detected and removed from my mirror.
Basically I'm using FTP to replicate RSYNC functionality, but yes -
additions,
I'm curious, why do people seem to prefer cmake to make? Is that a python
thing?
~A
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Greg Hellings greg.helli...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 12:51 PM, crick...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 9:06 PM, Greg Hellings
On Fri, 2013-01-04 at 16:49 -0500, Andrew Thule wrote:
That said, whatever you decided to do with respect to (re)distribution
rights will be honoured, but it needs to be clearly communicated. If
modules are not to be redistributed, impose that constraint and be
transparent about it.
It is
Peter, please temper your judgement with mercy. Your claims here are
neither correct nor fair.
On Friday, January 4, 2013, Peter von Kaehne wrote:
On Fri, 2013-01-04 at 16:49 -0500, Andrew Thule wrote:
It is clear. Your lack of respect for what is expressed in the conf file
re Distribution
On 1/4/2013 12:11 PM, Andrew Thule wrote:
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Chris Little chris...@crosswire.org
mailto:chris...@crosswire.org wrote:
We've actually had specific discussions with you about our not
wanting you to redistribute our modules, specifically because of
16 matches
Mail list logo
