On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:10:48 +0100 (CET)
> lx...@gentoo.org wrote:
>
>> let's discuss concerns here (actually I don't see any and I am
>> willing to fix all the ebuilds and close all my bugs if you ack).
>
> If they are genuine bugs, then th
Rémi Cardona wrote:
> Unless people dedicate time and effort, ACCEPT_LICENSE is useless.
Well, I think an incomplete tool is better than no tool at all. Even
though it's far from perfect, I still found it very useful to create a
free system. I'm certainly interested in helping to improve it.
> I'
On 12/28/2009 05:53 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
You're wrong there. The kernel does contain additional licenses, and
EXPLICITLY mentions them. Go and read 'firmware/WHENCE'.
The licenses listed therein range from use-permitted only
no-modification, to GPL-compliant and BSD-like.
I stand corre
2009/12/28 Doug Goldstein :
> Why not provide some actual meat and potatoes here instead of a
> useless e-mail with bug numbers and some stupid attempt at humor at
> the expense of the x11 herd?
That hostility was totally uncalled for. Please try to remain civil.
Cheers,
--
Ben de Groot
Gentoo L
Le 28/12/2009 23:53, Fabio Erculiani a écrit :
> Interesting, eventually somebody gave me a detailed and technical
> explanation without [bla bla snip]. Thanks Rémi.
> Yes, I agree with you that the best (and the one I would go for, too)
> solution is adding support to a new *DEPEND, perhaps one th
On Monday 28 December 2009 21:04:01 Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> To me you are saying that DEPEND would work just fine. No?
Setting the proto as DEPEND for the library wouldn't work because a user could
install the library, remove every DEPEND-only package and legitimately expect
the library to cont
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 05:15:06PM -0500, Richard Freeman wrote:
> On 12/28/2009 01:56 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> >Actually, this is a case where the license on the ebuild is wrong, not
> >the license group. The kernel ebuilds should have GPL-2 and something
> >else, and by definition should not
Interesting, eventually somebody gave me a detailed and technical
explanation without [bla bla snip]. Thanks Rémi.
Yes, I agree with you that the best (and the one I would go for, too)
solution is adding support to a new *DEPEND, perhaps one that could
"host" build-deps only. It looks weird that ot
2009/12/28 Diego E. 'Flameeyes' :
> Since I've stopped using some of them, I've decided to leave up for
> grabs some packages:
>
> app-forensics/zzuf *
> app-text/convertlit *
> app-text/ssddiff *
> app-text/libxmlpatch *
> gnome-extra/gnome-color-chooser ♥
> x11-themes/gtk-engines-nimbus
I'll tak
Le 28/12/2009 22:04, Fabio Erculiani a écrit :
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 9:51 PM, David Leverton
> wrote:
>> On Monday 28 December 2009 20:50:17 Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>>> What all this has to do with the fact that they are just build
>>> dependencies? Just wondering.
>>
>> They're not just build
On 12/28/2009 01:56 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
Actually, this is a case where the license on the ebuild is wrong, not
the license group. The kernel ebuilds should have GPL-2 and something
else, and by definition should not pass @FSF-APPROVED alone.
Is this appropriate? The kernel sources indi
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 10:48 PM, Gokdeniz Karadag wrote:
>
> X preprocesses some files at each startup(using the C preprocessor(cpp) via
> xrdb configuration tool) Strange but true.
>
> Macros defined by these .h files might be used during this configuration.
That's the missing bit! Thanks for t
On 12/28/2009 11:47 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 10:32 PM, Samuli Suominen
> wrote:
>> On 12/28/2009 10:51 PM, David Leverton wrote:
>>> On Monday 28 December 2009 20:50:17 Fabio Erculiani wrote:
What all this has to do with the fact that they are just build
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 22:54:42 +0100 (CET)
Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> In any case, I think that this situation should be addressed, and
> perhaps a comment from PMS might help.
The PMS side is that we know that the current three DEPEND variables
are nowhere near enough, and there are proposals for fi
Fabio Erculiani demis ki::
> How comes,
> this is the list of files owned by xproto:
>
> /usr/include/X11/extensions/dmxext.h
> /usr/include/X11/extensions/dmxproto.h
> /usr/share/doc/dmxproto-2.2.2/ChangeLog.bz2
> /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/dmxproto.pc
> /usr/include/X11/DECkeysym.h
.
>
> How ca
In any case, I think that this situation should be addressed, and perhaps a
comment from PMS might help.
Regards,
--
Fabio Erculiani
http://www.sabayon.org
http://www.gentoo.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 10:32 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 12/28/2009 10:51 PM, David Leverton wrote:
On Monday 28 December 2009 20:50:17 Fabio Erculiani wrote:
What all this has to do with the fact that they are just build
dependencies? Just wondering.
They're not just build dependencies
On 12/28/2009 10:51 PM, David Leverton wrote:
> On Monday 28 December 2009 20:50:17 Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>> What all this has to do with the fact that they are just build
>> dependencies? Just wondering.
>
> They're not just build dependencies. They're required to use the library in
> a
> cer
Sorry, some more bits here:
AFAIK, Portage considers DEPEND when used as "source-based package manager"
(and emerge --depclean stuff) while it ignores them when binpkgs come into play.
So, (I ask Zac to correct me), putting x11-protos to DEPEND doesn't really change much for 99% of
Portage users
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 9:51 PM, David Leverton
wrote:
> On Monday 28 December 2009 20:50:17 Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>> What all this has to do with the fact that they are just build
>> dependencies? Just wondering.
>
> They're not just build dependencies. They're required to use the library in a
On Monday 28 December 2009 20:50:17 Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> What all this has to do with the fact that they are just build
> dependencies? Just wondering.
They're not just build dependencies. They're required to use the library in a
certain way, namely to compile other programs against it. As
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 9:06 PM, Rémi Cardona wrote:
RESOLVED -> WONTFIX
Others and myself have spent considerable time making those deps the way
they are because :
1) upstream packaging is a bit uncommon
2) ebuild deps don't fit with upstream deps
3) a few embedded devs told me they wiped
Le 28/12/2009 10:10, lx...@gentoo.org a écrit :
> List of Gentoo bugs:
> 298616
> 298618
> 298620
> 298621
> 298623
> 298624
> 298626
> 298627
> 298629
> 298631
> 298633
> 298634
> 298636
> 298638
> 298640
> 298642
> 298644
> 298645
> 298646
> 298648
> 298649
> 298653
> 298654
> 298656
> 298657
> 2
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 12:36:34AM -0500, Vincent Launchbury wrote:
> 1) Not all of the licenses are completely accurate. For example, the
> Linux kernels are listed as soley GPL-2, yet they contain blobs of
> non-free firmware. Perhaps a general-purpose "not-free" license could be
> appended to su
On 12/28/2009 11:10 AM, lx...@gentoo.org wrote:
> To x11, just don't get angry (eheh), let's discuss concerns here
> (actually I don't see any and I am willing to fix all the ebuilds and
> close all my bugs if you ack).
>
Filing bugs first and then opening discussion here doesn't make sense.
It
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 12:54 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> Xdbe.h is part of libXext:
>
> Xdbe.h:#include
>
> x11-libs/libXext (/usr/include/X11/extensions/Xdbe.h)
>
> Where dbe.h is coming from xextproto:
>
> x11-proto/xextproto (/usr/include/X11/extensions/dbe.h)
>
> As such, xextproto should b
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 8:15 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:10:48 +0100 (CET)
> lx...@gentoo.org wrote:
>
>> let's discuss concerns here (actually I don't see any and I am
>> willing to fix all the ebuilds and close all my bugs if you ack).
>
> If they are genuine bugs, then th
On 12/28/2009 11:10 AM, lx...@gentoo.org wrote:
> In the aim of improving binpkgs status, I filed a bunch of bugs against
> all the libX* available in tree that contain wrong RDEPEND bits pointing
> to x11-proto/* stuff.
> To x11, just don't get angry (eheh), let's discuss concerns here
> (actually
I discussed this a few weeks ago with some devs on IRC and the general
answer was, file bugs.
I filed bugs. About the rest, I decline any comment. Have fun.
--
Fabio Erculiani
http://www.sabayon.org
http://www.gentoo.org
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:10:48 +0100 (CET)
lx...@gentoo.org wrote:
> let's discuss concerns here (actually I don't see any and I am
> willing to fix all the ebuilds and close all my bugs if you ack).
If they are genuine bugs, then there isn't anything to discuss.
> List of Gentoo bugs:
Tracker bu
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> [...snip...]
Samuli I know, but actually Zac told me that as of now RDEPENDs are
not considered that way. I knew that you were going to comment here
(hence why I posted), maybe it's a good time to clear out our mind and
eventually decide h
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 3:10 AM, wrote:
> In the aim of improving binpkgs status, I filed a bunch of bugs against all
> the libX* available in tree that contain wrong RDEPEND bits pointing to
> x11-proto/* stuff.
> To x11, just don't get angry (eheh), let's discuss concerns here (actually I
> don
On 12/28/2009 06:23 AM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
we should ENFORCE it, not just fill bugs about it, because mostly people
tend to ignore that things.
Agreed, although some presumption of innocence should be assumed. If a
dev is ignoring repoman output that is a fairly big violation, but if a
de
Vincent Launchbury wrote:
Hi,
I recently emailed the Gentoo PR team, voicing my concerns about the
amount of non-free software within Gentoo. I got an interesting response
from Sebastian Pipping, who said that while Gentoo is all about choice,
including the choice to install non-free software, t
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Rémi Cardona wrote:
> Le 28/12/2009 06:36, Vincent Launchbury a écrit :
>> 1) Not all of the licenses are completely accurate. For example, the
>> Linux kernels are listed as soley GPL-2, yet they contain blobs of
>> non-free firmware.
>
> Indeed, that's a very goo
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 3:43 AM, Richard Freeman wrote:
> [..]
>
> Don't get me wrong - the QA team is doing a great job and I love Diego's
> work on the tinderbox. I've had a bug or two filed by them, and I've found
> that they've only been helpful when somebody actually bothers to try to
> reso
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dne 28.12.2009 03:43, Richard Freeman napsal(a):
>
> Could this include documenting QA policies a bit better? Some are
> documented in scattered docs, some are in the ebuild quiz answers (which
> of course no two developers have the exact same answer
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 00:36:34 -0500
Vincent Launchbury wrote:
> Also relating to this, what is freedist? The package app-text/dos2unix
> lists 'freedist' as its license, and /usr/portage/licenses/freedist
> says only "Freely Distributable". Several other packages do this, and
> I'm sure it's not c
On Friday 18 December 2009 14:00:06 Fabian Groffen wrote:
> As promised, here is the slimmed down version of the Prefix quiz. As
> requested, I'll post the answers on -core.
>
>
> Prefix development quiz (Zero taste)
>
> ** when porting ebuilds for Gentoo Prefix, one will get confronted with
>
On 12/28/2009 11:46 AM, Gokdeniz Karadag wrote:
> Samuli Suominen demis ki::
>> # Samuli Suominen (27 Dec 2009)
>> # KDE3-only, no porting being done for KDE4.
>> # Replaced by e.g. gtkguitune, gtick, kmetronome
>> # Masked for removal
>> media-sound/k3guitune
>
> The message can be a little more
Samuli Suominen demis ki::
> # Samuli Suominen (27 Dec 2009)
> # KDE3-only, no porting being done for KDE4.
> # Replaced by e.g. gtkguitune, gtick, kmetronome
> # Masked for removal
> media-sound/k3guitune
The message can be a little more helpful to users.
qpitch is a Qt4 tuning application whic
In the aim of improving binpkgs status, I filed a bunch of bugs against all the
libX* available in tree that contain wrong RDEPEND bits pointing to x11-proto/*
stuff.
To x11, just don't get angry (eheh), let's discuss concerns here (actually I
don't see any and I am willing to fix all the ebuil
Le 28/12/2009 06:36, Vincent Launchbury a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I recently emailed the Gentoo PR team, voicing my concerns about the
> amount of non-free software within Gentoo. I got an interesting response
> from Sebastian Pipping, who said that while Gentoo is all about choice,
> including the choi
43 matches
Mail list logo
