On Sun, Nov 04, 2018 at 01:21:28AM +0100, mpan wrote:
>
> >>> It states MIT/BSD are special cases, just out of curiousity, what makes
> >>> them special that they cannot be added?
> >> Because there is no MIT or 1/2/3-clause BSD license. There are
> >> hundreds of independent, barely related
>>> It states MIT/BSD are special cases, just out of curiousity, what makes
>>> them special that they cannot be added?
>> Because there is no MIT or 1/2/3-clause BSD license. There are
>> hundreds of independent, barely related licenses that are quite similar
>> and, therefore, are considere
On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 00:24:14 +0100
mpan wrote:
> > It states MIT/BSD are special cases, just out of curiousity, what makes
> > them special that they cannot be added?
> Because there is no MIT or 1/2/3-clause BSD license. There are
> hundreds of independent, barely related licenses that are q
> It states MIT/BSD are special cases, just out of curiousity, what makes them
> special that they cannot be added?
Because there is no MIT or 1/2/3-clause BSD license. There are
hundreds of independent, barely related licenses that are quite similar
and, therefore, are considered together as a
Saturday, November 3, 2018 6:47 PM, Andrey Ponomarenko via arch-general
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Good news for everyone interested in Linux-compatibility and reliability of
> hardware!
>
> The Linux-Hardware.org database has been divided into a set of databases, one
> per each Linux distro. You can now
On Sat, 03 Nov 2018 20:47:17 +0300
Andrey Ponomarenko via arch-general wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Good news for everyone interested in Linux-compatibility and
> reliability of hardware!
>
> The Linux-Hardware.org database has been divided into a set of
> databases, one per each Linux distro. You can now
Saturday, November 3, 2018 7:53 PM, John Ramsden via arch-general
dixit:
> It states MIT/BSD are special cases, just out of curiousity, what makes them
> special that they cannot be added?
Look at them: https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause
https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT
For one,
On Sat, Nov 03, 2018 at 11:53:45AM -0700, John Ramsden via arch-general wrote:
> It states MIT/BSD are special cases, just out of curiousity, what makes them
> special that they cannot be added?
>
I believe the reasoning for that is they include program-specific
copyright information, so you can'
It states MIT/BSD are special cases, just out of curiousity, what makes them
special that they cannot be added?
--
John Ramsden
On Sat, Nov 3, 2018, at 1:22 AM, Bruno Pagani via arch-general wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Le 03/11/2018 à 08:46, Stephen Gregoratto via arch-general a écrit :
> > I'm in the
On Saturday, November 3, 2018 10:57:53 AM MST, Hunter Jozwiak via
arch-general wrote:
Hello,
[snip]
Does anyone who has had experience with Nuvola know of the solution to this
problem? Is there a package missing that didn't get added to the
dependencies?
The issue is an old version of waf tha
Hello,
I am having the following problem in building the nuvolaplayer-git package.
:: Checking for conflicts... :: Checking for inner conflicts... [Aur: 1]
nuvolaplayer-git-r1020.78b0333-1 1 nuvolaplayer-git (Build Files Exist) ==>
Packages to cleanBuild? ==> [N]one [A]ll [Ab]ort [I]nstalled [No]
Hi,
Good news for everyone interested in Linux-compatibility and reliability of
hardware!
The Linux-Hardware.org database has been divided into a set of databases, one
per each Linux distro. You can now select your favorite distro on the front
page:
https://linux-hardware.org/?d=Arch
In this
Hmm, sorry for the noise. You can safely ignore the mail. The problem was
caused by incompatible configuration in other operating systems, not ArchLinux.
--
Cheers
Jayesh Badwaik
https://jayeshbadwaik.github.io
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Fixed the link:
https://git.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/tree/trunk/PKGBUILD?h=packages/sdl2#n50
--
Jayesh Badwaik
https://jayeshbadwaik.github.io
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Hi,
As I currently notice here (line 32)
https://git.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/tree/trunk/PKGBUILD?
h=packages/sdl2#n31
The SDL2 library is not build with a static component. This is useful for a
lot of development and hence, it would be nice if it is build with static
component. Als
El sáb., 3 nov. 2018 0:34, Joan Figueras via arch-general <
arch-general@archlinux.org> escribió:
> On 26/9/18 10:47, Maykel Franco via arch-general wrote:
> > Hi, I received this error when compile the program shrew vpn client:
> >
> > yaourt -S shrew-vpn-client
> >
> >
> /tmp/yaourt-tmp-maykel/a
Hi,
Le 03/11/2018 à 08:46, Stephen Gregoratto via arch-general a écrit :
> I'm in the process of adding a new package to the AUR, when I noticed
> that the MIT Licence - which this program is licensed under - is not
> available under /usr/share/licenses/common. Seeing that it's a fairly
> popul
cGee
pkgname=licenses
-pkgver=20171006
+pkgver=20181103
pkgrel=1
pkgdesc='Standard licenses distribution package'
arch=('any')
@@ -38,7 +38,8 @@
ZopePublicLicense.txt
mpl-1.1.txt::https://www.mozilla.org/media/MPL/1.1/index.txt
mpl-2.0.txt::ht
18 matches
Mail list logo
