On 12/3/18 8:48 AM, Ankur Sinha wrote:
On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 12:41:41 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Since correctness is really important here, if upstream does not test
the toolboxes against Octave, we shouldn't either
I think that if it runs at all, we should ship it.
Some upstreams seem pretty
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> It's a two-level decision: if legal says "no", then we don't have much
> choice. If legal says "ok", fesco could still say "no". But I don't
> see any reason for fesco to do this.
The software is almost certainly not illegal to distribute. The question is
On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 06:58:39AM -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 07:39:31PM +, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> >> On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 12:56:37 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
> >> > Christian Glombek wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > This is an interesting
On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 14:12:35 +0100, Ben Rosser wrote:
>
>
> I think this has been brought up before, and it was concluded that
> this language in the copr guidelines is much too broad and we should
> look at changing the wording. In this thread from September, for
> instance:
>
>
On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 9:52 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 07:39:31PM +, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 12:56:37 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
> > > https://docs.pagure.org/copr.copr/user_documentation.html#what-i-can-build-in-copr
> > >
> > > "You
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 07:39:31PM +, Ankur Sinha wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 12:56:37 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
>> > Christian Glombek wrote:
>> >
>> > > This is an interesting question and I would like to back the idea of
>> > > making this available
On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 22:03:57 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 09:05:58PM +, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 13:50:58 -0700, stan wrote:
> > > Isn't this kind of thing a question for legal? Is there any liability
> > > for fedora that arises from
On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 09:05:58PM +, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 13:50:58 -0700, stan wrote:
> > Isn't this kind of thing a question for legal? Is there any liability
> > for fedora that arises from using encumbered software from FOSS? I've
> > seen other people refer to
On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 13:50:58 -0700, stan wrote:
> Isn't this kind of thing a question for legal? Is there any liability
> for fedora that arises from using encumbered software from FOSS? I've
> seen other people refer to running things by legal on this list. I'm
> not sure how to do it,
On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 07:39:31PM +, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 12:56:37 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
> > Christian Glombek wrote:
> >
> > > This is an interesting question and I would like to back the idea of
> > > making this available on COPR.
> > > My 2 cents:
> > > The
On Mon, 3 Dec 2018 19:39:31 +
Ankur Sinha wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 12:56:37 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
> > Christian Glombek wrote:
> >
> > > This is an interesting question and I would like to back the idea
> > > of making this available on COPR.
> > > My 2 cents:
> > > The package
On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 12:56:37 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Christian Glombek wrote:
>
> > This is an interesting question and I would like to back the idea of
> > making this available on COPR.
> > My 2 cents:
> > The package *itself* complies to COPR's licensing guidelines, making it
> > eligible
Christian Glombek wrote:
> This is an interesting question and I would like to back the idea of
> making this available on COPR.
> My 2 cents:
> The package *itself* complies to COPR's licensing guidelines, making it
> eligible for distribution via that service, while the runtime dependency
> of
This is an interesting question and I would like to back the idea of making
this available on COPR.
My 2 cents:
The package *itself* complies to COPR's licensing guidelines, making it
eligible for distribution via that service, while the runtime dependency of
MatLAB makes it an uneligible
On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 12:41:41 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Ankur Sinha wrote:
> > Since correctness is really important here, if upstream does not test
> > the toolboxes against Octave, we shouldn't either
>
> I think that if it runs at all, we should ship it.
>
> Some upstreams seem pretty
Ankur Sinha wrote:
> Since correctness is really important here, if upstream does not test
> the toolboxes against Octave, we shouldn't either
I think that if it runs at all, we should ship it.
Some upstreams seem pretty conservative. E.g., SPM seems to have done a lot
of work on Octave
Hello,
On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 00:44:15 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
>
> The rule in Fedora is: If you want this to be in Fedora, this has to be
> packaged for Octave with a Requires: octave, even if upstream does not
> support it. Software in Fedora cannot depend on software that is not part of
Ankur Sinha wrote:
> While packaging software for NeuroFedora[1], we've got quite a few
> MATLab toolboxes that are commonly used in scientific research on our
> list. SPM[2] is a good example. It is *widely* used in NeuroImaging
> research. While it is somewhat compatible with Octave, upstream
Ankur Sinha wrote:
> Hello,
>
> While packaging software for NeuroFedora[1], we've got quite a few
> MATLab toolboxes that are commonly used in scientific research on our
> list. SPM[2] is a good example. It is *widely* used in NeuroImaging
> research. While it is somewhat compatible with
Hello,
While packaging software for NeuroFedora[1], we've got quite a few
MATLab toolboxes that are commonly used in scientific research on our
list. SPM[2] is a good example. It is *widely* used in NeuroImaging
research. While it is somewhat compatible with Octave, upstream does not
support
20 matches
Mail list logo
