On 2007-12-12, Mark Linimon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
=== NOTICE:
And this would also stop binary package from being generated
for the releases?
This is normally as fast as we pull out the rug from under existing
users' feet.
Umm.. how would it do that?
--
Tuomo
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 07:22:50AM +, Tuomo Valkonen wrote:
Since the so-called package maintainer seems to have gone AWOL
(as is typical):
Have a look at
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/x11-wm/ion-3/Makefile.
There have been 8 updates of this piece of software in that time.
On 2007-12-12, Edwin Groothuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You don't say Not more than 28 days, you suggest 28 days as a
reasonable delay for you.
Frisbee/the package maintainer not bothering to communicating with
me how long the actual delay might be, and would the package end
up in a megafrozen
On 2007-12-12, Mark Linimon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, the release packages were already built. You see, part of
the problem of software Quality Assurance is that it takes some
Distro Quality Assurance... ROTFLMAO.
I have fixed numerous bugs since 20070927 was released. What have
you done?
Folks, don't reply any further to this thread. The packages are
in the process of being removed, no further software from this
author will be accepted, no more drama will be had. Nothing to
see here, move along.
mcl
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 08:25:17AM +, Tuomo Valkonen wrote:
On 2007-12-12, Mark Linimon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
=== NOTICE:
And this would also stop binary package from being generated
for the releases?
No, the release packages were already built. You see, part of
the problem of
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 08:34:00AM +, Tuomo Valkonen wrote:
On 2007-12-12, Edwin Groothuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You don't say Not more than 28 days, you suggest 28 days as a
reasonable delay for you.
Frisbee/the package maintainer not bothering to communicating with
me how long
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
First of all this is not a criticism of you but of the FreeBSD and
FOSS community
Tuomo Valkonen wrote:
On 2007-12-12, Gergely CZUCZY [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't use Ion3, and I never intend to, but to be honest, this
licence of yours really
On 2007-12-12 03:04 -0600, Mark Linimon wrote:
(Free hint: they already have a windows manager built-in. Get it?)
That's the only thing FOSS operating systems have going for
them... and no thanks to FOSS herd. I bet that if the desktop
herd were to redesign X, they'd take away the possibility
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 08:47:03AM +, Tuomo Valkonen wrote:
I could make it GPLv3 and nagware at the same time.
Yes, and you could put on makeup, shave your armpits, put on a ballerina's
dress, and declare yourself Queen of Saturn And All Its Moons for all it
matters to FreeBSD now.
We can
On 2007-12-12, Aryeh M. Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Taking the project closed source and/or in some other way denying open
access to the code is not your only option to protect your legit
rights as a developer.
I'm not denying access to the code (not yet anyway; I'll probably
move to
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 09:45:39AM +, Tuomo Valkonen wrote:
The present variant of the terms of license are:
Have you considered the WTFPL alternative? http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/
--
| Jeremy Chadwickjdc at parodius.com |
| Parodius Networking
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ade Lovett wrote:
[admin note: cut down on ridiculous crossposting]
On Dec 11, 2007, at 21:37 , Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
Number of responses: roughly 30
I just wanted to pick up on this particular number.
Your survey went to (at least)
On 2007-12-12 01:55 -0800, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
Have you considered the WTFPL alternative? http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/
No, but I've considered simply having no license. No, not public
domain, but license-free as djb distributes his stuff. Aka.
the Piratic License: Do what the fuck you want as
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 12:08:46PM +0200, Tuomo Valkonen wrote:
Do what the fuck you want as long as you don't piss me off.
I personally consider this to be the null set. No one but you
seems to be able to figure out what this is. It certainly doesn't
seem to consist of do whatever you want
On 2007-12-12, Garrett Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm sorry but I really beg to differ with you. Vista sucks it long
and sucks it hard...
There are some improvements in Vista UI-wise (within the suffocating
confines of WIMPshit). But unfortunately it has also falling victim
to the
On Dec 12, 2007, at 12:44 AM, Tuomo Valkonen wrote:
On 2007-12-12, Mark Linimon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, the release packages were already built. You see, part of
the problem of software Quality Assurance is that it takes some
Distro Quality Assurance... ROTFLMAO.
I have fixed numerous
On 2007-12-12, Mark Linimon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 12:08:46PM +0200, Tuomo Valkonen wrote:
Do what the fuck you want as long as you don't piss me off.
I personally consider this to be the null set. No one but you
seems to be able to figure out what this is.
If I
Tuomo Valkonen ha scritto:
No, but I've considered simply having no license. No, not public
domain, but license-free as djb distributes his stuff.
FYI, djb switched to public domain a few weeks ago :-)
--
Alex Dupre
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 10:36:23AM +, Tuomo Valkonen wrote:
Big and powerful distros can [piss me off], easily.
Ah, that should let FreeBSD off the hook, then.
mcl
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
On Dec 12, 2007, at 01:38 , Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
First of all excuse my language but I have about had it with certain
people...
Presumably that would be me.
where the *HELL* do you get the idea that I am attempting to
get other people to do the heavy lifting or have you not learned a
Hi,
I see from the FreeBSD ports page that you are the maintainer of the
Enlightenment package and I was just wondering if there were any plans for
an update.
Thank you,
Lance
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 04:38:39AM -0500, Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
I have used FreeBSD since '95 and except for jerks like you
have really enjoyed it.
Are you quite sure it would be there to enjoy if not for jerks
like us? :)
___
Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Disclaimer:
This does not commit me, anyone else and/or FreeBSD to an course
of action nor does it imply such a commitment.
Assuming that the following is true:
1. There is a proven need to re-engineer the ports
In response to Tuomo Valkonen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 2007-12-12, Mark Linimon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, the release packages were already built. You see, part of
the problem of software Quality Assurance is that it takes some
Distro Quality Assurance... ROTFLMAO.
If we're taking a
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 16:21:10 -0700, Bradford Castalia wrote:
The current distribution package does not include the C++ API support.
This is important for those of us depending on this API for support of
applications that we are building and distributing.
When building this package please
--On Wednesday, December 12, 2007 04:38:39 -0500 Aryeh M. Friedman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
..while I still want to gather more data to pin down the exact
requirements
Don't you get it? You're not GATHERING DATA. You're eliciting responses
from a TINY percentage of the people who use
Im not really reading this threads..
But.. has this something to do with this?
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2007-April/039802.html
:P
--
Phillip N. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
Hi!
I have noticed that xMule has been removed from our ports tree.
Could someone say me why? I uses xmule and worked for me, but now i
cant install it from ports.
Thank you.
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
Gonzalo Martinez - Sanjuan Sanchez wrote:
Hi!
I have noticed that xMule has been removed from our ports tree.
Could someone say me why? I uses xmule and worked for me, but now i cant
install it from ports.
Thank you.
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Mark Linimon wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 08:25:17AM +, Tuomo Valkonen wrote:
On 2007-12-12, Mark Linimon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
=== NOTICE:
And this would also stop binary package from being generated
for the releases?
No, the release packages were already built. You see, part
Russell Jackson wrote:
Damn it. I use this software, and I even feel somewhat responsible for
perhaps possibly
Tuomo here after I reported a crash under FreeBSD 7 on the ion list that
wound up having
something to do with the mod_xinerama extension -- something that I haven't
had time to
Hi there,
On 12/12/2007, Bill Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In response to Tuomo Valkonen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 2007-12-12, Mark Linimon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, the release packages were already built. You see, part of
the problem of software Quality Assurance is that it takes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ade Lovett wrote:
On Dec 12, 2007, at 01:38 , Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
First of all excuse my language but I have about had it with
certain people...
Presumably that would be me.
While your the main one your not the only one.
where the *HELL*
On 2007-12-12, Russell Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Damn it. I use this software, and I even feel somewhat responsible
Don't worry, you're not responsible (much). I'd been monitoring the
situation having heard of a ports freeze, and nothing having been
done to mark the Ion package as
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Paul Schmehl wrote:
--On Wednesday, December 12, 2007 04:38:39 -0500 Aryeh M. Friedman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
..while I still want to gather more data to pin down the exact
requirements
Don't you get it? You're not GATHERING DATA. You're eliciting responses
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 10:39:04AM -0800, Russell Jackson wrote:
I really don't see why the extreme action of removing it from ports was
necessary. :sigh:
An alternative is to simply keep the last released version
that had a sane license.
AFAIK OpenBSD did that, see:
In response to Russell Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Russell Jackson wrote:
Damn it. I use this software, and I even feel somewhat responsible for
perhaps possibly
Tuomo here after I reported a crash under FreeBSD 7 on the ion list that
wound up having
something to do with the
On 2007-12-12, Bill Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you were watching, why didn't you point this out back at the
beginning of the ports freeze?
What makes you think I'd been watching that long?
Don't you people read the licenses of the software you distribute?
Either you didn't understand
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
I'm not sure what the words refactor and recode mean here.
Refacoring is to use the
On 2007-12-12, Bill Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's impossible for the FreeBSD ports system to guarantee compliance with
his arbitrarily chosen 28 days rule.
There is no 28 days rule. There is a latest release in 28 days or
prominently mark (potentially) obsolete rule. You can make the
In response to Tuomo Valkonen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 2007-12-12, Russell Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Damn it. I use this software, and I even feel somewhat responsible
Don't worry, you're not responsible (much). I'd been monitoring the
situation having heard of a ports freeze, and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Philipp Ost wrote:
Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: [...]
c. Attempt to unify all methods of FreeBSD software installation
into a single system d. Same as c but for all BSD like OS's
Wouldn't you clone pkgsrc if you decide on going for d.?
Most likelly
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 07:59:34PM +, Tuomo Valkonen wrote:
Even if I made the number 280 days, distros would still complain. It's
It's not so much that distributions complain, it's more the author
of the software who has a set of misconnected wires in his head.
Edwin
--
Edwin Groothuis
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
Disclaimer:
This does not commit me, anyone else and/or FreeBSD to an course
of action nor does it imply such a commitment.
Assuming that
In response to Tuomo Valkonen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 2007-12-12, Bill Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's impossible for the FreeBSD ports system to guarantee compliance with
his arbitrarily chosen 28 days rule.
There is no 28 days rule. There is a latest release in 28 days or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
I'm not sure
Stefan Sperling wrote:
An alternative is to simply keep the last released version
that had a sane license. AFAIK OpenBSD did that, see:
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-portsm=119522869306969w=2
Sounds like a fair solution.
Ciao,
Johan
pgpKKzw6X0dHN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Hallo,
for a few weeks i become this error message ** Port marked as IGNORE:
security/krb5:
is marked as broken: fails to install. If i uncomment this in
Makefile I can not install postfix with kerberos.
Is there a solution for this problem ?
Thanks for help
Joachim
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi ...
I have my /etc/make.conf setup as:
DISTDIR=/home/ports/distfiles
WRKDIRPREFIX=/home/ports
INDEXDIR=/home/ports
so that any distfiles that need to be downloaded, can be ... but, is there
some way I can set thing sup so that anything
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 05:12:52PM -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
I have my /etc/make.conf setup as:
DISTDIR=/home/ports/distfiles
WRKDIRPREFIX=/home/ports
INDEXDIR=/home/ports
so that any distfiles that need to be downloaded, can be ... but, is there
some way I can set thing sup so
The simple fact is that Tuomo has some strange desire to blame packagers
for all his problems with software and users.
Yes, license-crafting lawyers are usually more polite and don't engage in
direct communications with forums such as ours. Their licenses suck much
more, however -- think
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 08:01:27PM +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote:
I really don't see why the extreme action of removing it from ports was
necessary. :sigh:
An alternative is to simply keep the last released version
that had a sane license.
Or simply use any of the freely available,
David E. Thiel wrote:
Or simply use any of the freely available, cleanly licensed and more
functional alternatives, many of which are written by programmers
posessing an at least marginal semblance of sanity:
Sorry David, but I'm going to pick on this reply as an example of a more
general
Mikhail Teterin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The simple fact is that Tuomo has some strange desire to blame packagers
for all his problems with software and users.
Yes, license-crafting lawyers are usually more polite and don't engage in
direct communications with forums such as ours. Their
On 2007-12-12, Bill Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are far too many quality hackers out there who _do_ care about the
community to tolerate one who seems to be in conflict with his community.
Since when have I been part of some purported community? There's
just me, a handful of other
середа 12 грудень 2007 06:35 по, Bill Moran Ви написали:
It's his software. If his requirements can't be met, then the port comes
out of the tree. What else do you expect to happen?
I expect the port-removal to be initiated/done in an orderly fashion. This
includes marking it FORBIDDEN (or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mikhail Teterin wrote:
середа 12 грудень 2007 06:35 по, Bill Moran Ви написали:
It's his software. If his requirements can't be met, then the
port comes out of the tree. What else do you expect to happen?
I expect the port-removal to be
Mikhail Teterin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
середа 12 грудень 2007 06:35 по, Bill Moran Ви написали:
It's his software. If his requirements can't be met, then the port comes
out of the tree. What else do you expect to happen?
I expect the port-removal to be initiated/done in an orderly
On Wednesday 12 December 2007, Mikhail Teterin said:
The simple fact is that Tuomo has some strange desire to blame
packagers for all his problems with software and users.
Yes, license-crafting lawyers are usually more polite and don't
engage in direct communications with forums such as
Hi,
I have noticed that xMule has been removed from our ports tree.
Could someone say me why? I uses xmule and worked for me, but now i
cant install it from ports.
I removed it due to lack of development. The last update happened on
09/11/2006, more than a year ago. Since the de facto
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 08:12:17PM -0600, Mark Linimon wrote:
http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-pkg/2007/10/28/.html
Anyone interested in this thread needs to go read that one first.
As well as http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/tur-users/2007-April/004634.html,
which contains the history
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 07:56:13PM -0500, Bill Moran wrote:
Mikhail Teterin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
12 ?? 2007 06:35 , Bill Moran
:
It's his software. ??If his requirements can't be met, then the port comes
out of the tree. ??What
you can try http://people.freebsd.org/~vanilla/e.tgz
I sended this patch to stas@ about 3 month ago.
2007/12/12, Lance Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi,
I see from the FreeBSD ports page that you are the maintainer of the
Enlightenment package and I was just wondering if there were any plans for
Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
[...]
c. Attempt to unify all methods of FreeBSD software installation into
a single system
d. Same as c but for all BSD like OS's
Wouldn't you clone pkgsrc if you decide on going for d.?
Philipp
___
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 07:30:46PM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
I expect the port-removal to be initiated/done in an orderly fashion.
Claims of license violations absolutely trump any process requirements.
portmgr has the explicit task of keeping the Ports Collection in as
best a legal state as
On Wednesday 12 December 2007 23:01:57 Mikhail Teterin wrote:
The simple fact is that Tuomo has some strange desire to blame packagers
for all his problems with software and users.
Yes, license-crafting lawyers are usually more polite and don't engage in
direct communications with forums
Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
*PLEASE ONLY REPLY TO ME OR [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Omigod!!
For Gods sake, could you PLEASE not have folks reply to the list! We
have been sufficiently bombarded with this already. If you must have
the replies public, then
It was pulled from Debian, as well:
http://packages.qa.debian.org/i/ion3/news/20070310T233909Z.html
As far as I'm concerned, the matter is closed. When 4 different* OS groups
come to the same conclusion, I think there's not much else to say.
mcl
* pkgsrc, ArchLinux, Debian, and now FreeBSD
- Original Message -
From: Mark Linimon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 08:12:17PM -0600, Mark Linimon wrote:
http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-pkg/2007/10/28/.html
Anyone interested in this thread needs to go read that one first.
As well as
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
an't do OSS and be a control freak at the same time. It just
doesn't work like that. mlc has handled this exactly how he should
have. With a swagger!
Recent experiences have shown me that this is not necessarly true...
usually the control freak
On 2007-12-13, Mark Linimon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Further, note that my initial commit tried to do this, and I asked the
author if it was acceptable. It was clear from his reply that it was
not -- especially considering the following history:
It seemed acceptable wrt. the source package; I
72 matches
Mail list logo
