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
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
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
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
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 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
-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, 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
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
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 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
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 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
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 8:15 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
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 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 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
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 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
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 9:51 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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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, 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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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
43 matches
Mail list logo
