[arch-general] repo update
Hi, I have heard Google Chrome (chromium) for linux and mac is out of beta. When is it coming to arch repo? Thanks
Re: [arch-general] repo update
On 26/05/10 10:20, Madhurya Kakati wrote: Hi, I have heard Google Chrome (chromium) for linux and mac is out of beta. When is it coming to arch repo? Thanks It's already been in [extra] for some time now. :) http://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/i686/chromium/
Re: [arch-general] regression in nouveau ?
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 2:08 AM, Philipp Überbacher hollun...@lavabit.com wrote: Sadly audio performance / locks /latency seems to be not on graphics driver developers minds at all. It's definitely not their primary focus. But if you open a bug report saying that commit greatly increased latency and you can prove it, you can be sure they will do something about it. The work to provide good, detailed, and useful bug reports is in user's hands, not developers'. When the users don't do their homework, regressions remain.
Re: [arch-general] Script to check monitor blank state
On 25.05.2010 19:17, Jérôme M. Berger wrote:
Here, xset q has a line that says: Monitor is On. Couldn't you
use that?
Jerome
Yes this seems actually very useful,
i had dpms inactive, but ScreenSaver blanking on.
Maybe someone knows what the difference between these two is all about.
It looks totally equal from the outside ;-)
Now that I activated dpms, there is this line indicating the state.
xset q | awk '{if (match($0,Monitor is On)) {print notblanked}}'
I am going to use this little check for my script.
Thank you for your help!
Markus
Re: [arch-general] regression in nouveau ?
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 09:54:26AM +0200, Xavier Chantry wrote: On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 2:08 AM, Philipp Überbacher hollun...@lavabit.com wrote: Sadly audio performance / locks /latency seems to be not on graphics driver developers minds at all. It's definitely not their primary focus. But if you open a bug report saying that commit greatly increased latency and you can prove it, you can be sure they will do something about it. I will. But my first concern ATM is to get this system in a usable state - that's what the customer pays me for. On of the many things I tried before even posting was to use the nv driver. Modified the xorg.conf, but for some reason, the system goes on using nouveau regardless. ** Is it still possible to use nv on today's Arch ? ** I've used nv for years without any problem. The reason to prefer it over nvidia was not ideological - nvidia has latency problems as well, and I never needed 3D acceleration. Looking at the xrun statistics in function of audio period size, it looks like current nouveau is blocking audio (either by dis- abling interrupts, or by locking a shared HW resource) for about 3-4 ms. *No* driver today should ever do that - it's really late 1990's performance. The work to provide good, detailed, and useful bug reports is in user's hands, not developers'. When the users don't do their homework, regressions remain. Agreed. Ciao, -- FA O tu, che porte, correndo si ? E guerra e morte !
Re: [arch-general] intel video amp; suspend
Now from time to time (≈ once a week) when I wake it up, the screen remains black in both X and text console. Nothing can bring it back, but everything else works just fine. No errors in logs either. I am having the same problem on my Fujitsu T900, 64-bit ArchLinux. Tried both pm-suspend and s2ram, and while s2ram *appeared* to not cause this problem as much, it still happened. At first I thought my screen was entirely blank, but on closer inspection realized my screen was simply very dim--flashing a flashlight at the screen helped a lot. Was able to navigate to my brightness settings, and the brightness was on max, as it was before suspend. I have the testing repo enabled, and everything is up-to-date. I don't know if this problem occurred with older kernel versions on the Fujitsu, as this is a recent install. Sara
Re: [arch-general] Running Mozilla Prism?
On Tuesday 25 May 2010 at 14:30 Magnus Therning wrote: Anyone out there using Prism successfully on Arch 64bit? After reading this thread I just took a look - I hadn't heard of it before. It seems the PKGBUILD pulls in an i686 binary (there's a complementary bin32- version). Is there a reason why it's not a source package? Pete.
Re: [arch-general] regression in nouveau ?
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 11:42 PM, Xavier Chantry chantry.xav...@gmail.com wrote: Also note the first item about latency on this page : http://nouveau.freedesktop.org/wiki/ToDo Ah now I remember where this latency TODO came from, there actually was one report about bad latency earlier that month (february) : You could read the following thread : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/nouveau/2010-February/004960.html There were several tips about modifying xorg driver to improve things and get more debug information. Did you also switch from UMS - KMS between 2.6.32 and 2.6.33 ? It's easy to tell, it brings you native (high) resolution in tty / consoles. Maybe the problem always existed in the KMS path, and it's the only way now.
Re: [arch-general] Running Mozilla Prism?
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:03, Peter Lewis p...@muddygoat.org wrote: On Tuesday 25 May 2010 at 14:30 Magnus Therning wrote: Anyone out there using Prism successfully on Arch 64bit? After reading this thread I just took a look - I hadn't heard of it before. It seems the PKGBUILD pulls in an i686 binary (there's a complementary bin32- version). Is there a reason why it's not a source package? This is where the confusion may be. I'm using the Firefox extension[1]. The stand-alone app is only built for 32bit by upstream (that seems to be a common situation for Mozilla stuff, rather sad if you ask me ;-). The code is available in an SVN repo so it ought to be possible to do a build from source. /M [1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/6665/ -- Magnus Therning(OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe
Re: [arch-general] Running Mozilla Prism?
On Wednesday 26 May 2010 at 10:16 Magnus Therning wrote: On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:03, Peter Lewis p...@muddygoat.org wrote: On Tuesday 25 May 2010 at 14:30 Magnus Therning wrote: Anyone out there using Prism successfully on Arch 64bit? After reading this thread I just took a look - I hadn't heard of it before. It seems the PKGBUILD pulls in an i686 binary (there's a complementary bin32- version). Is there a reason why it's not a source package? This is where the confusion may be. I'm using the Firefox extension[1]. Ah, I haven't tried that. The stand-alone app is only built for 32bit by upstream (that seems to be a common situation for Mozilla stuff, rather sad if you ask me ;-). The code is available in an SVN repo so it ought to be possible to do a build from source. Yes, I could only find a 32-bit binary from Mozilla. But, things in the AUR usually build from source unless there's a reason not to, right? I don't know if there is a policy to this effect, or if it's just common practice... but PKGBUILDS should /build/, right? :-) I just checked out Prism from SVN, but there isn't a readme on how to build it and I don't have any experience with building mozilla's code. Also the Prism wiki doesn't provide any information either. Will post back if I get anywhere... Pete.
Re: [arch-general] Running Mozilla Prism?
On Wednesday 26 May 2010 at 11:31 Peter Lewis wrote: The stand-alone app is only built for 32bit by upstream (that seems to be a common situation for Mozilla stuff, rather sad if you ask me ;-). The code is available in an SVN repo so it ought to be possible to do a build from source. I just checked out Prism from SVN, but there isn't a readme on how to build it and I don't have any experience with building mozilla's code. Also the Prism wiki doesn't provide any information either. Will post back if I get anywhere... Okay, the build instructions are here: https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Prism/Build And it seems that it needs to be built inside of xulrunner and then separated out :-( I don't have time to do this right now, but if anyone fancies turning these instructions into a prism-svn package, then I'd be happy to help test. Cheers, Pete.
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
Daenyth Blank daenyth+a...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 22:49, Nilesh Govindarajan li...@itech7.com wrote: What ? Is that really true ?!?!? State some link where it is officially declared by the developers. Joerg is the author of the software he recommends, so not exactly unbiased... I am also the main author and the Copyright holder of the dead fork. The problem with the so called fork is that some people did take a very old version of cdrtools, added bugs and then stopped working on it. There was nothing but typo-corrections since May 6th 2007 in the fork. The original cdrtools project did however introduce more code and more features (since those people copied the old version) than during it's whole life before. Do you really like to use extremely outdated, buggy and dead code? Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
Rasmus Steinke r...@xssn.at wrote: The ONLY reason cdrkit is used in many distributions is the license of cdrtools. Jörg mentions on his website that suns lawyers have analyzed the legal issues. Unfortunately there is no link to that analysis which makes this a pure claim. Well, the license of the original software has been verified by Sun lawyers. People who are interested in more information may ask e.g. Simon Phipps and everybody can easily check that Solaris ships with halfway recent original software. I am sure that Solaris will switch soon to cdrtools-3.0 once it has been published next week. Just to make clear how picky license violations are handled with Solaris, check that libcdio has been removed from Solaris distributions in 2007 because of the license violations in libcdio that have been found by Sun lawyers in the Sun legal department. Do you know of a single Linux distro that dropped libcdio because of the obvious licence violations in libcdio? Why does e.g. Debian still ship libcdio? Every unbiased person should have no problem to understand that what Debian did was just a slander campaign against an OpenSource project. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 13:35 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote: ust to make clear how picky license violations are handled with Solaris, check that libcdio has been removed from Solaris distributions in 2007 because of the license violations in libcdio that have been found by Sun lawyers in the Sun legal department. Do you know of a single Linux distro that dropped libcdio because of the obvious licence violations in libcdio? Libcdio doesn't violate any license, but it's GPL, while Sun doesn't want GPL'ed libraries in Solaris. GPL for libraries is very restrictive. In fact, everything you link against libcdio will have all restrictions applied by the GPL license, even if that software is LGPL. Please stop spreading this nonsense.
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
Xavier Chantry chantry.xav...@gmail.com wrote: Jorg also mentioned that Eben Moglen approved the original software : http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2010-January/010380.html which was proved to be wrong from Eben Moglen himself : http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2010-February/010989.html Just don't believe claims from Moglen that have been proven to be wrong. I never had a phone call with Moglen and the rest of his claims is wrong too. I know Moglen as a person who frequently spreads wrong claims to the public :-( and I know him this way since 2001 when I was the first person who did ever try to sue companies that violate the GPL. This is why I warned Mark Shuttleworth about Moglen before he asked him. For obvious reasons, I only believe a claim from Moglen as long as it has been verified to be aligned with statements from other lawyers. With respect to Moglens public claims quoted above, Moglen is in conflict with many other lawyers, so I can't take him for serious here :-( Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
Jan de Groot j...@jgc.homeip.net wrote: Sun legal department. Do you know of a single Linux distro that dropped libcdio because of the obvious licence violations in libcdio? Libcdio doesn't violate any license, but it's GPL, while Sun doesn't want GPL'ed libraries in Solaris. GPL for libraries is very restrictive. In fact, everything you link against libcdio will have all restrictions applied by the GPL license, even if that software is LGPL. You are obviously not correct, check Solaris. libcdio has two legal problems: 1) It claims to be under GPL but it is called from LGPL code. Most people believe that this is not permitted. 2) libcdio is based on code that is available under - GPLv2 _only_ - CDDL The related code was never made available under a different license. The Autor of libcdio first claimed that the code is GPLv2 or any later now he claims it is GPLv3. He did however never ask the real author of the related code for permission to do this license change and he now as a result of his violations would definitely not get this permission. Please stop spreading this nonsense. It is you who spreads nonsense :-( Please stop this! Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
Am Wed, 26 May 2010 13:35:55 +0200 schrieb joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling): Well, the license of the original software has been verified by Sun lawyers. People who are interested in more information may ask e.g. Simon Phipps and everybody can easily check that Solaris ships with halfway recent original software. I am sure that Solaris will switch soon to cdrtools-3.0 once it has been published next week. Just to make clear how picky license violations are handled with Solaris, check that libcdio has been removed from Solaris distributions in 2007 because of the license violations in libcdio that have been found by Sun lawyers in the Sun legal department. Do you know of a single Linux distro that dropped libcdio because of the obvious licence violations in libcdio? Why does e.g. Debian still ship libcdio? Every unbiased person should have no problem to understand that what Debian did was just a slander campaign against an OpenSource project. Jörg Jörg, why don't you just change the license of your cdrtools to a licensing scheme - either change every part of it to the GPL, set it under a dual license or whatever - which is indisputable and doubtless instead of arguing with the distributors all the time over years? It's really annoying to always read your nonsense regarding the licensing. If a distributor, if many distributors tell you that they have a problem with your licensing, and you want them to ship your package instead of cdrkit, then change your license so that every doubt is removed. Or pay a lawyer, who will publish his assessment, to prove that there are no legal issues with your licenses. Otherwise keep your licenses, accept that the distributors don't ship your cdrtools in their official repositories and stop arguing and discussing. It's just up to you, not to any distributors or lawyers. It's really annoying, to always read the same. I doubt, btw., that arguing persistently with the distributors and package maintainers will win them over and encourage them to include your software to their official repositories. If you have a problem with Debian and/or the cdrkit developers, discuss it with them directly, but not on mailing lists or forums which are not related to both. Or go to court and sue them. Then you will get the proof, which licensing model and which software fork is legal and which is not. And this proof will automatically be made public. As I said before, it's just up to you. It's your software, you want it to be included into the distributions' official repositories. So build and license it in a way, that the distributors and package maintainers don't have any doubt, or proof - not claim - them publicly that there are no legal issues with your licenses. And, btw., there is a cdrtools package in AUR. So every Arch user who wants to use it, can easily build and install it. Heiko
Re: [arch-general] repo update
On 5/26/2010 1:11 PM, Evangelos Foutras wrote: On 26/05/10 10:20, Madhurya Kakati wrote: Hi, I have heard Google Chrome (chromium) for linux and mac is out of beta. When is it coming to arch repo? Thanks It's already been in [extra] for some time now. :) http://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/i686/chromium/ but i guess thats beta right?
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 14:29 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote: Jan de Groot j...@jgc.homeip.net wrote: Sun legal department. Do you know of a single Linux distro that dropped libcdio because of the obvious licence violations in libcdio? Libcdio doesn't violate any license, but it's GPL, while Sun doesn't want GPL'ed libraries in Solaris. GPL for libraries is very restrictive. In fact, everything you link against libcdio will have all restrictions applied by the GPL license, even if that software is LGPL. You are obviously not correct, check Solaris. libcdio has two legal problems: 1)It claims to be under GPL but it is called from LGPL code. Most people believe that this is not permitted. 2)libcdio is based on code that is available under - GPLv2 _only_ - CDDL The related code was never made available under a different license. The Autor of libcdio first claimed that the code is GPLv2 or any later now he claims it is GPLv3. He did however never ask the real author of the related code for permission to do this license change and he now as a result of his violations would definitely not get this permission. Please stop spreading this nonsense. It is you who spreads nonsense :-( Please stop this! 1) This is permitted, though it turns the complete package into GPL. This is also why libcdio has moved from gst-plugins-good to gst-plugins-ugly. Note that LGPL gives permission to change the license to ordinary GPL in section 3. 2) I found some bugreport on launchpad with that claim from you, but besides that, I can't find any information. The bugreport says you should take it up with the FSF, but somehow I can't find any reference about that. If linking GPL and CDDL code together isn't a problem for you and your lawyers, then I don't know why 1) would be a problem for you either. As for your claims, there's still an open question for you: http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2010-February/011082.html
Re: [arch-general] Off-topic: Good laptop to run Arch on?
On Tue, 25 May 2010 22:19:28 -0400 Gregory Eric Sanderson gzou2...@gmail.com wrote: I have a lenovo thinkpad T500 with optional intel 5100 AGN wireless card and HL-DT-ST DVDRAM GSA-U20N dvd recorder, and overall i'm quite satisfied. But I did get a few quirks : - Graphics card is a switchable intel/ATI gpu, and I had to force the BIOS to only use either ATI or Intel. For what it's worth, GPU switching is currently being worked on. I'm not sure if it's in .34, but .35 seems to look good for it. You will still need to restart X, but rummaging around in the BIOS might soon be a thing of the past.
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
On 26/05/10 22:21, Joerg Schilling wrote: Xavier Chantrychantry.xav...@gmail.com wrote: Jorg also mentioned that Eben Moglen approved the original software : http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2010-January/010380.html which was proved to be wrong from Eben Moglen himself : http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2010-February/010989.html Just don't believe claims from Moglen that have been proven to be wrong. I never had a phone call with Moglen and the rest of his claims is wrong too. I know Moglen as a person who frequently spreads wrong claims to the public :-( and I know him this way since 2001 when I was the first person who did ever try to sue companies that violate the GPL. This is why I warned Mark Shuttleworth about Moglen before he asked him. For obvious reasons, I only believe a claim from Moglen as long as it has been verified to be aligned with statements from other lawyers. With respect to Moglens public claims quoted above, Moglen is in conflict with many other lawyers, so I can't take him for serious here :-( So you used him as an example of someone who supported you conclusions when they agreed with yours, but when his opinion conflicts with yours he becomes someone who can not be trusted... Very convenient!
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
Heiko Baums li...@baums-on-web.de wrote: Why does e.g. Debian still ship libcdio? Every unbiased person should have no problem to understand that what Debian did was just a slander campaign against an OpenSource project. Jörg Jörg, why don't you just change the license of your cdrtools to a licensing scheme - either change every part of it to the GPL, set it under a dual license or whatever - which is indisputable and doubtless instead of arguing with the distributors all the time over years? It's really annoying to always read your nonsense regarding the licensing. The problem seems to be only that people believe the liensing nonsense FUD spread by Debian. Distributors who did ask their lawyers did either never change to the broken and illegal cod from Debian (Sun) or do again ship cdrtools (Suse). I still don't understand why you ask mee to introduce a solution for a non-existent problem. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Re: [arch-general] Running Mozilla Prism?
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 11:31, Peter Lewis p...@muddygoat.org wrote: On Wednesday 26 May 2010 at 10:16 Magnus Therning wrote: On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:03, Peter Lewis p...@muddygoat.org wrote: On Tuesday 25 May 2010 at 14:30 Magnus Therning wrote: Anyone out there using Prism successfully on Arch 64bit? After reading this thread I just took a look - I hadn't heard of it before. It seems the PKGBUILD pulls in an i686 binary (there's a complementary bin32-version). Is there a reason why it's not a source package? This is where the confusion may be. I'm using the Firefox extension[1]. Ah, I haven't tried that. I decided to try that mostly because the only pre-built versions were 32-bit, and AUR didn't have a build-from-source package, just as you noticed ;-) I also liked the idea of a FF extension on a matter of principles; why install XulRunner for Prism when I already have a perfectly working XulRunner for FF already? Anyway, I can report that the FF Prism Extension works equally well on a 32-bit Ubuntu system I have access to :-( The only system were it works as expected is a WinXP system I have here :-( I wonder if there's something in the FF build in Arch (and Ubuntu) that prevents it from working properly. I'll report more after I've tried the Mozilla build of FF. /M -- Magnus Therning(OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 7:42 AM, Joerg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: Heiko Baums li...@baums-on-web.de wrote: Why does e.g. Debian still ship libcdio? Every unbiased person should have no problem to understand that what Debian did was just a slander campaign against an OpenSource project. Jörg Jörg, why don't you just change the license of your cdrtools to a licensing scheme - either change every part of it to the GPL, set it under a dual license or whatever - which is indisputable and doubtless instead of arguing with the distributors all the time over years? It's really annoying to always read your nonsense regarding the licensing. The problem seems to be only that people believe the liensing nonsense FUD spread by Debian. Distributors who did ask their lawyers did either never change to the broken and illegal cod from Debian (Sun) or do again ship cdrtools (Suse). I still don't understand why you ask mee to introduce a solution for a non-existent problem. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.deemail%3ajo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de(home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ * * *Korean Guide: Korean start - Trucha bug - Korean extra - The basics - Update* *Other Languages: Dutch* * * *Latest update: April 24th 2010 -- Images have not been made by us, please don't credit us for them!* URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily How does any of this relate to the initial thread question whatsoever? Turning a simple question about burning an iso from CLI into an ongoing debate that was just on the Arch ML not a few months ago is rather annoying. I am sure I am not the only one that would like to see this debate taken elsewhere, and please let the thread die.
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org wrote: For obvious reasons, I only believe a claim from Moglen as long as it has been verified to be aligned with statements from other lawyers. With respect to Moglens public claims quoted above, Moglen is in conflict with many other lawyers, so I can't take him for serious here :-( So you used him as an example of someone who supported you conclusions when they agreed with yours, but when his opinion conflicts with yours he becomes someone who can not be trusted... I explained to you that I know since 2001 that he is not trustworthy. His recent actions just confirm this old knowledge. We have the lawyers from Sun legal, we have my German lawyers and we have Lawrence Rosen (the legal advisor of the OpenSOurce Initiatice OpenSource.org) that all confirm my statements. It is obvious to distrust a single person like Moglen that did stuck out with wrong claims long time before in special as he first confirmed to me in private that there is no problem with cdrtools. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Re: [arch-general] intel video amp; suspend
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 4:55 AM, Sara Fauzia s...@archlinux.us wrote: Now from time to time (≈ once a week) when I wake it up, the screen remains black in both X and text console. Nothing can bring it back, but everything else works just fine. No errors in logs either. I am having the same problem on my Fujitsu T900, 64-bit ArchLinux. Tried both pm-suspend and s2ram, and while s2ram *appeared* to not cause this problem as much, it still happened. At first I thought my screen was entirely blank, but on closer inspection realized my screen was simply very dim--flashing a flashlight at the screen helped a lot. Was able to navigate to my brightness settings, and the brightness was on max, as it was before suspend. I have the testing repo enabled, and everything is up-to-date. I don't know if this problem occurred with older kernel versions on the Fujitsu, as this is a recent install. Sara You should try looking into vbetool. It can turn the backlight on if necessary. -- Alexander Lam
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
Jan de Groot j...@jgc.homeip.net wrote: 1) This is permitted, though it turns the complete package into GPL. This is also why libcdio has moved from gst-plugins-good to gst-plugins-ugly. Note that LGPL gives permission to change the license to ordinary GPL in section 3. You can't do this as such a change would be unrevocable and effective for the whole distro. There are other users of the LGPL libs that need them to be under LGPL. Conclusion: Not a useful solution. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
Am Wed, 26 May 2010 14:42:57 +0200 schrieb joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling): The problem seems to be only that people believe the liensing nonsense FUD spread by Debian. Distributors who did ask their lawyers did either never change to the broken and illegal cod from Debian (Sun) or do again ship cdrtools (Suse). I still don't understand why you ask mee to introduce a solution for a non-existent problem. Because you are always discussing and arguing this. You keep arguing, you always persist on having cdrtools added to the repos in favor of cdrkit. You always claim, that cdrkit has legal issues. You have been asked many times to prove your opinion and your claims, and to publish at least one assessment of these lawyers, which shall exist as you always claim. You have never done this. Instead you blame one of the lawyers, who is cited by the distributors. And if the problem wouldn't exist, then the distributors incl. the Arch developers wouldn't have any doubts and would switch from cdrkit to cdrtools. As long as there are doubts about your claims and the licenses, there is a problem. And as I said before, it's really annoying. Either remove the doubts as you are asked for, sue the cdrkit developers, if you think, they violate your licenses by this fork, or accept the situation as it is. Heiko
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
Heiko Baums li...@baums-on-web.de wrote: You keep arguing, you always persist on having cdrtools added to the repos in favor of cdrkit. You always claim, that cdrkit has legal issues. At the same time you claim that you believe the slander from Debian. Is there any hope to have a reasonable discussion? And if the problem wouldn't exist, then the distributors incl. the Arch developers wouldn't have any doubts and would switch from cdrkit to cdrtools. As long as there are doubts about your claims and the licenses, there is a problem. If you have doubts, I recommend you to ask an independent specialized laywer but please to not follow the slander from Debian. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Joerg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: Is there any hope to have a reasonable discussion? No. -- Guilherme M. Nogueira Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. - Arthur C. Clarke
[arch-general] cdrtools again... yay! - Was: Burning From Command Line
[about time we changed the subject] Joerg, Even given you are correct about licensing terms (which I do not care to dispute), currently all risk lies on the distributor. Given many distributions have (perhaps wrongly) chosen not to package cdrtools, there is obviously some implied risk. This is to your disadvantage. No amount of emails from you is going to nullify that risk. Note that of all the people you have at some point claimed agree with you about cdrtools licensing, Eben Moglen is the only one to actually make a public statement and he did not back you up. Even if you now say he was always untrustworty, given you have used him as an example of someone who supported your interpretation makes all other claims of support from other people seem less reliable. As has been repeatedly asked, we need either 1) a public statement from a laywer who agrees that the license is fine, or 2) a change of license. _Nothing else_ is going to be considered enough for distributions to consider the implied risk distributing your software nullified. Until that point, any further discussion is futile. Just to be clear, replying without 1) or 2) above is futile. futile: serving no useful purpose; completely ineffective efforts to convince him were futile Futile... Allan
Re: [arch-general] cdrtools again... yay! - Was: Burning From Command Line
Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org wrote: [about time we changed the subject] Joerg, Even given you are correct about licensing terms (which I do not care to dispute), currently all risk lies on the distributor. Given many distributions have (perhaps wrongly) chosen not to package cdrtools, there is obviously some implied risk. This is to your disadvantage. No amount of emails from you is going to nullify that risk. If you would act at least be halfway consistent to what you claim, Arch needs to immediately drop the fork as there is a hint that there is a definite Copyright violation in the fork. I am happy to discuss things _after_ you prove a consistent behavior.. For now we need to take the claim from Nilesh Govindaraja mase in O66492 Nilesh Govindaraja Sat May 22 06:25 117/5416 Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line as another attempt to start a trolling thread :-( Unless someposts something serious in this threa, I'll ignore it. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
Am Wed, 26 May 2010 15:48:29 +0200 schrieb joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling): Heiko Baums li...@baums-on-web.de wrote: You keep arguing, you always persist on having cdrtools added to the repos in favor of cdrkit. You always claim, that cdrkit has legal issues. At the same time you claim that you believe the slander from Debian. Is there any hope to have a reasonable discussion? I don't claim anything. I just tell you, that you claim that Debian doesn't tell the truth and don't prove this as you have been asked for many times. Just publish at least one of the assessments of the several lawyers you always mention and everything could be well. If they don't want their statements to be publish in a mailing list, just send them privately to the devs and/or package maintainers so that they can read them and form an opinion about them. And there we have one of the annoying discussions. If Debian tells the truth or slenders anyone, is only related to Debian and not to other distributions. So you should discuss this with Debian directly and not on other forums and mailing lists. If you have doubts, I recommend you to ask an independent specialized laywer but please to not follow the slander from Debian. I'm not really interested in it. For me cdrkit is working more or less, even if I believe you, that cdrtools would be technically better. And it's not my job to care about licenses as I'm just a normal user and not a dev. And as a normal user who is not concerned in these licensing stuff, I'm pretty annoyed about this permanently repeating endless and useless discussion. Heiko
Re: [arch-general] repo update
The Package in Extra is is flagged out of date since weeks without any update. the repo version is 5.0.342.9 whereas stable version[1] is 5.0.375.55. The latest version has security fixes so its suggested that repo version should be updated. [1]http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.com/2010/05/stable-channel-update.html Regards, Gaurish Sharma www.gaurishsharma.com
Re: [arch-general] repo update
On 5/26/2010 8:01 PM, Gaurish Sharma wrote: The Package in Extra is is flagged out of date since weeks without any update. the repo version is 5.0.342.9 whereas stable version[1] is 5.0.375.55. The latest version has security fixes so its suggested that repo version should be updated. [1]http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.com/2010/05/stable-channel-update.html Regards, Gaurish Sharma www.gaurishsharma.com thats what i wanted to say. the google guys have removed beta from chrome so i guess arch should update chromium in repos.
Re: [arch-general] cdrtools again... yay! - Was: Burning From Command Line
On 27/05/10 00:04, Joerg Schilling wrote: Allan McRaeal...@archlinux.org wrote: [about time we changed the subject] Joerg, Even given you are correct about licensing terms (which I do not care to dispute), currently all risk lies on the distributor. Given many distributions have (perhaps wrongly) chosen not to package cdrtools, there is obviously some implied risk. This is to your disadvantage. No amount of emails from you is going to nullify that risk. If you would act at least be halfway consistent to what you claim, Arch needs to immediately drop the fork as there is a hint that there is a definite Copyright violation in the fork. I am happy to discuss things _after_ you prove a consistent behavior.. A lot of people make claims against cdrtools. I do not care that they all stem from slander at Debian, those claims have spread. One person makes claims about cdrkit.We will consistently ignore the claims of single people, dismissing them as crackpots. And the license of cdrtools is not even the reason that cdrtools is not packaged in Arch. On the edge license cases like this have never really been considered by Arch developers as an issue. They are all free licenses in spirit. Only clear cases of licenses prohibiting distribution have prevented us from packaging something we wanted to in the past (e.g. acrobat, opera). As far as I know, there is no official decision stating cdrtools can not be packaged for Arch, just no-one has the motivation to do so. So lets be blunt here, because doing otherwise is getting us nowhere. I do not speak for the other Arch developers, but the reason why I will not officially package cdrtools for Arch is you. My impression of you is that you are very, very annoying and irritating. If there was a bug report made about the cdrtools package in Arch, then I would have to deal with you. I do not particularly want to do that, so I will not package cdrtools. I have heard similar opinions expressed by developers from various other distributions while at Linux meetings, so I am not alone here, even though I might be the only one blunt enough to say it directly. Allan
Re: [arch-general] Running Mozilla Prism?
Quoting Nicolás Reynolds fa...@kiwwwi.com.ar: Wed, May 26, 2010 at 11:44:03AM +0100, Peter Lewis dijo: On Wednesday 26 May 2010 at 11:31 Peter Lewis wrote: The stand-alone app is only built for 32bit by upstream (that seems to be a common situation for Mozilla stuff, rather sad if you ask me ;-). The code is available in an SVN repo so it ought to be possible to do a build from source. I just checked out Prism from SVN, but there isn't a readme on how to build it and I don't have any experience with building mozilla's code. Also the Prism wiki doesn't provide any information either. Will post back if I get anywhere... Okay, the build instructions are here: https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Prism/Build And it seems that it needs to be built inside of xulrunner and then separated out :-( I don't have time to do this right now, but if anyone fancies turning these instructions into a prism-svn package, then I'd be happy to help test. Cheers, Pete. hey, a few weeks ago i made a pkgbuild that builds prism from source. let me look for it and i'll share it. i send it to the aur maintainer, but he never replied :( -- Salud! Nicolás Reynolds, xmpp:fa...@jabber.org omb:http://identi.ca/fauno blog:http://selfdandi.com.ar/
Re: [arch-general] regression in nouveau ?
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 01:32:39AM +0200, Xavier Chantry wrote: On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 12:32 AM, f...@kokkinizita.net wrote: I don't mind having to tweak things, do a lot of configuration manually, etc. etc., but I do expect things to work when they go into core/extra, or at least have a fallback available. There is none, AFAICS. I don't know what you are saying. Just use nvidia. or nv or vesafb. If you can tell me how to install nv on current Arch I'd be most obliged. I installed the package, and modprobe (and all others) just tell me there's no such module. Ciao, -- FA O tu, che porte, correndo si ? E guerra e morte !
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
On 05/26/2010 02:48 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote: Heiko Baums li...@baums-on-web.de wrote: You keep arguing, you always persist on having cdrtools added to the repos in favor of cdrkit. You always claim, that cdrkit has legal issues. At the same time you claim that you believe the slander from Debian. Is there any hope to have a reasonable discussion? Just like you have been told before in the other thread a few months ago, people are just covering their asses, there is a big number of distros using cdrkit so in case of doubt just use what everyone else uses. And if the problem wouldn't exist, then the distributors incl. the Arch developers wouldn't have any doubts and would switch from cdrkit to cdrtools. As long as there are doubts about your claims and the licenses, there is a problem. If you have doubts, I recommend you to ask an independent specialized laywer but please to not follow the slander from Debian. Lawyers are expensive and smaller distros like Arch can't afford to spend money on lawyers because of someone else's quarrel. Because I say so is not a valid backup for your claims, Earth used to be flat and the center of the universe because the experts of that time said so. This behavior gets people mad at you and invariably leads to the same result, which is, keep distributing cdrkit. If you want to change that, concede to what people ask of you. If you had done that already most probably we wouldn't be having this huge déjà vu thread. -- Mauro Santos
Re: [arch-general] regression in nouveau ?
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 05:33:36PM -0600, Tavian Barnes wrote: The binary nvidia driver? Has latency problems as well, which is why people doing serious audio are using nv. If someone can tell me how to get it installed on current Arch I'd be most happy to use nv. Also, I seriously doubt that the devs would have let this go to extra if they personally experienced this problem. And, nouveau is still in development, so you get what you sign up for, to some extent. True, and that it not a real problem. But as long as nouveau is still in this state, it would be wise to provide an alternative. AFAICS, you just can't use nv anymore with current Arch. Ciao, -- FA O tu, che porte, correndo si ? E guerra e morte !
Re: [arch-general] cdrtools again... yay! - Was: Burning From Command Line
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 9:41 AM, Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org wrote: I do not speak for the other Arch developers, but the reason why I will not officially package cdrtools for Arch is you. My impression of you is that you are very, very annoying and irritating. If there was a bug report made about the cdrtools package in Arch, then I would have to deal with you. I do not particularly want to do that, so I will not package cdrtools. I have heard similar opinions expressed by developers from various other distributions while at Linux meetings, so I am not alone here, even though I might be the only one blunt enough to say it directly. I agree. Deficient upstream is a completely valid reason for excluding things. i.e. Ion3
Re: [arch-general] regression in nouveau ?
On 26 May 2010 08:56, f...@kokkinizita.net wrote: On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 05:33:36PM -0600, Tavian Barnes wrote: The binary nvidia driver? Has latency problems as well, which is why people doing serious audio are using nv. If someone can tell me how to get it installed on current Arch I'd be most happy to use nv. Also, I seriously doubt that the devs would have let this go to extra if they personally experienced this problem. And, nouveau is still in development, so you get what you sign up for, to some extent. True, and that it not a real problem. But as long as nouveau is still in this state, it would be wise to provide an alternative. AFAICS, you just can't use nv anymore with current Arch. Yeah you can. nv isn't a kernel module though, it's just an Xorg driver, still using UMS. To use it, 1) Blacklist nouveau and nvidia 2) Install xf86-video-nv 3) Set Driver to nv in xorg.conf And, even if nv doesn't work for you, there's always xf86-video-vesa and xf86-video-fbdev. Ciao, -- FA O tu, che porte, correndo si ? E guerra e morte ! -- Tavian Barnes
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
Mauro Santos registo.maill...@gmail.com wrote: Because I say so is not a valid backup for your claims, Earth used to be flat and the center of the universe because the experts of that time said so. This behavior gets people mad at you and invariably Good point! Since more than 3000 years men know that Earth is a spehere (from watching ships that appear on the horizon with their sails first). Since aprox. 2200 years men know the diameter of Earth with an error of 8%. Later, some religuous crowd came up and claimed that Earth is flat. I encourage you to just ignore those people who claim that Earth is flat and that there is a supposed legal problem with cdrtools. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
On 26/05/10 16:59, Joerg Schilling wrote: Mauro Santosregisto.maill...@gmail.com wrote: Because I say so is not a valid backup for your claims, Earth used to be flat and the center of the universe because the experts of that time said so. This behavior gets people mad at you and invariably Good point! Since more than 3000 years men know that Earth is a spehere (from watching ships that appear on the horizon with their sails first). Since aprox. 2200 years men know the diameter of Earth with an error of 8%. Later, some religuous crowd came up and claimed that Earth is flat. I encourage you to just ignore those people who claim that Earth is flat and that there is a supposed legal problem with cdrtools. Jörg lol, you're obviously a troll...
Re: [arch-general] cdrtools again... yay! - Was: Burning From Command Line
On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 10:06 -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote: On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 9:41 AM, Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org wrote: I do not speak for the other Arch developers, but the reason why I will not officially package cdrtools for Arch is you. My impression of you is that you are very, very annoying and irritating. If there was a bug report made about the cdrtools package in Arch, then I would have to deal with you. I do not particularly want to do that, so I will not package cdrtools. I have heard similar opinions expressed by developers from various other distributions while at Linux meetings, so I am not alone here, even though I might be the only one blunt enough to say it directly. I agree. Deficient upstream is a completely valid reason for excluding things. i.e. Ion3 Well said Allan. I considered filtering out all emails with 'cdrtools' in the body, but haven't gotten round to logging in to gmail's interface to do that.
Re: [arch-general] [*] Re: cdrtools again... yay! - Was: Burning From Command Line
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:06:36AM -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote: On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 9:41 AM, Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org wrote: I do not speak for the other Arch developers, but the reason why I will not officially package cdrtools for Arch is you. My impression of you is that you are very, very annoying and irritating. If there was a bug report made about the cdrtools package in Arch, then I would have to deal with you. I do not particularly want to do that, so I will not package cdrtools. I have heard similar opinions expressed by developers from various other distributions while at Linux meetings, so I am not alone here, even though I might be the only one blunt enough to say it directly. I agree. Deficient upstream is a completely valid reason for excluding things. i.e. Ion3 I like this thread. Burning CD on command line looks like a long ``burning'' issue. ppk
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
On 05/26/2010 04:59 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote: Mauro Santos registo.maill...@gmail.com wrote: Because I say so is not a valid backup for your claims, Earth used to be flat and the center of the universe because the experts of that time said so. This behavior gets people mad at you and invariably Good point! Since more than 3000 years men know that Earth is a spehere (from watching ships that appear on the horizon with their sails first). Since aprox. 2200 years men know the diameter of Earth with an error of 8%. Later, some religuous crowd came up and claimed that Earth is flat. I encourage you to just ignore those people who claim that Earth is flat and that there is a supposed legal problem with cdrtools. Sure I can ignore people who say that Earth is flat. The other people did backup their claims of Earth being round by publishing their reasoning and methods of determining Earth's radius, it has been peer reviewed and agreed upon that those claims are without fault given the knowledge available at the time of publication. On top of that, if they have referenced some other work to backup their claims, the references must be accessible to anyone wishing to review the claims. To be of any value, the work being referenced must have been itself peer reviewed and accepted as accurate. Your references are only available to the ones that wrote it and to you. This unavailability, even upon insistent request, makes those references irrelevant and unacceptable to backup your claims. This is how everyone else does things, somehow it seems that you don't want these rules to apply to you. If the debian people are just spreading FUD as you say they are, then _prove_ them wrong once and for all with hard evidence regarding the legal matters, then let people make up their own minds instead of wanting people to believe something because you say so. -- Mauro Santos
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Mauro Santos registo.maill...@gmail.com wrote: On 05/26/2010 04:59 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote: Mauro Santos registo.maill...@gmail.com wrote: Because I say so is not a valid backup for your claims, Earth used to be flat and the center of the universe because the experts of that time said so. This behavior gets people mad at you and invariably Good point! Since more than 3000 years men know that Earth is a spehere (from watching ships that appear on the horizon with their sails first). Since aprox. 2200 years men know the diameter of Earth with an error of 8%. Later, some religuous crowd came up and claimed that Earth is flat. I encourage you to just ignore those people who claim that Earth is flat and that there is a supposed legal problem with cdrtools. Sure I can ignore people who say that Earth is flat. The other people did backup their claims of Earth being round by publishing their reasoning and methods of determining Earth's radius, it has been peer reviewed and agreed upon that those claims are without fault given the knowledge available at the time of publication. On top of that, if they have referenced some other work to backup their claims, the references must be accessible to anyone wishing to review the claims. To be of any value, the work being referenced must have been itself peer reviewed and accepted as accurate. Your references are only available to the ones that wrote it and to you. This unavailability, even upon insistent request, makes those references irrelevant and unacceptable to backup your claims. This is how everyone else does things, somehow it seems that you don't want these rules to apply to you. If the debian people are just spreading FUD as you say they are, then _prove_ them wrong once and for all with hard evidence regarding the legal matters, then let people make up their own minds instead of wanting people to believe something because you say so. -- Mauro Santos at the possibility of playing devils advocate, i don't see anything outrageous by Jeorg's claims... even after reading the full 40+ messages twice and the yay thread started afterwards. seriously, nobody is going to sue us for using the cdrtools package... who? the guy that more or less owns it and is trying to get us to use it? doubtful. this seems like a bunch of political/personal nonsense, with a fair amount of personal jabs and condescending attitudes toward Jeorg. mind, i am entering this conflict without prior knowledge or bias. i did not even know there was a difference between wodim and cdrtools/cdrecord... as Jeorg pointed out this is a _problem_. his software's reputation is most assuredly suffering from this misinformation. if Arch was truly worries about legal issues (which seems to be a complete moot point from my experience here), surely this package: http://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/i686/libdvdcss/ would not even be REMOTELY close to an OFFICIAL repo! am i right? i don't know ANY other distro that includes it. in the spirit of open licenses, mildly incompatible or not, include the best tool for the job = cdrtools. on a final note, Jeorg, it would be extremely beneficial if you could cite a hard resource regarding the legalities involved here, as you seem to have a resource. or maybe just dual license cdrtools (why not?). why was the license changed to CDDL exclusive anyways? i've been in lengthy license discussion over on Phoronix, and i must admit, the more i get into software as a living [6+ yrs now], the less i like the GPLv* (notice nobody moves TO the GPL, they only move AWAY... this, CouchDB [apache], etc... GPL is too purist IMO) C Anthony
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 8:32 PM, C Anthony Risinger anth...@extof.me wrote: at the possibility of playing devils advocate, i don't see anything outrageous by Jeorg's claims... even after reading the full 40+ messages twice and the yay thread started afterwards. Sorry to inform you that you did not read enough. seriously, nobody is going to sue us for using the cdrtools package... who? the guy that more or less owns it and is trying to get us to use it? doubtful. this seems like a bunch of political/personal nonsense, with a fair amount of personal jabs and condescending attitudes toward Jeorg. mind, i am entering this conflict without prior knowledge or bias. i did not even know there was a difference between wodim and cdrtools/cdrecord... as Jeorg pointed out this is a _problem_. his software's reputation is most assuredly suffering from this misinformation. If you think I had any bias towards Joerg before reading this mailing list, well, you are wrong. Any judgments I might have is based on what he posted here. I don't see why other people should be biased either, Arch ML was spammed well enough on this topic that any reader can make his own opinion. if Arch was truly worries about legal issues (which seems to be a complete moot point from my experience here), surely this package: http://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/i686/libdvdcss/ would not even be REMOTELY close to an OFFICIAL repo! am i right? i don't know ANY other distro that includes it. in the spirit of open licenses, mildly incompatible or not, include the best tool for the job = cdrtools. It's not the only issue. What we need is a Arch developer that is : 1) willing to package cdrtools despite the license doubts 2) willing to work with Joerg as upstream (see http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2010-May/013557.html) That possibility was never completely excluded. But by endlessly trolling on our Mailing List and not showing much co-operation, Joerg is making more enemies than friends among Arch community and developers. IMO he would do himself a big favor by staying quiet. Since his software is technically superior, and is not completely unknown, people should recognize that and start using it by themselves. If a Arch user reports recording troubles with wodim, it's likely that another Arch user will recommend him to try out cdrecord, which is documented in Arch wiki and available in AUR. The good reputation of the software is built by the community, not the words of wisdom of the software's author. on a final note, Jeorg, it would be extremely beneficial if you could cite a hard resource regarding the legalities involved here, as you seem to have a resource. or maybe just dual license cdrtools (why not?). why was the license changed to CDDL exclusive anyways? i've been in lengthy license discussion over on Phoronix, and i must admit, the more i get into software as a living [6+ yrs now], the less i like the GPLv* (notice nobody moves TO the GPL, they only move AWAY... this, CouchDB [apache], etc... GPL is too purist IMO) 20 people asked this before you on this very same mailing list. Why do you think you are so special that he would listen to you ? And if you had read this : http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2010-February/010989.html You would know there is not even a need for a dual license or a license change, just a simple clause : After speaking to Jörg we began our review of the complete source of cdrtools, and soon verified that GPL compliance on mkisofs was broken. We told Jörg that as far as we could see he was the only copyright holder on the CDDL'd libraries, which he confirmed. In that case, I pointed out, he could give all the permission necessary to solve the problem, without any license changes: he simply needed to give permission as the relevant copyright holder on the CDDL's libraries for combination with mkisofs and distribution of the binary and source under the terms of GPL, without any additional restrictions. We drafted for him the thirty-nine words needed: You are permitted to link or otherwise combine this library with the program mkisofs, which is licensed under the GNU General Public License (GPL). If You do, you may distribute the combined work under the terms of the GPL.
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Xavier Chantry chantry.xav...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 8:32 PM, C Anthony Risinger anth...@extof.me wrote: at the possibility of playing devils advocate, i don't see anything outrageous by Jeorg's claims... even after reading the full 40+ messages twice and the yay thread started afterwards. Sorry to inform you that you did not read enough. right on. seriously, nobody is going to sue us for using the cdrtools package... who? the guy that more or less owns it and is trying to get us to use it? doubtful. this seems like a bunch of political/personal nonsense, with a fair amount of personal jabs and condescending attitudes toward Jeorg. mind, i am entering this conflict without prior knowledge or bias. i did not even know there was a difference between wodim and cdrtools/cdrecord... as Jeorg pointed out this is a _problem_. his software's reputation is most assuredly suffering from this misinformation. If you think I had any bias towards Joerg before reading this mailing list, well, you are wrong. Any judgments I might have is based on what he posted here. I don't see why other people should be biased either, Arch ML was spammed well enough on this topic that any reader can make his own opinion. if you can't recognize the poor attitudes, them i'm afraid sir that it is yourself who has not read enough. i'm not going to cite anyone specifically (and i wasn't referencing you in particular), but some of the responses by even devs/forum admins are rather pointless and do little more than provide more energy for further banter, on _both_ sides. additionally, i would hardly classify the defense of one's position as spam. if Arch was truly worries about legal issues (which seems to be a complete moot point from my experience here), surely this package: http://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/i686/libdvdcss/ would not even be REMOTELY close to an OFFICIAL repo! am i right? i don't know ANY other distro that includes it. in the spirit of open licenses, mildly incompatible or not, include the best tool for the job = cdrtools. It's not the only issue. What we need is a Arch developer that is : 1) willing to package cdrtools despite the license doubts 2) willing to work with Joerg as upstream (see http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2010-May/013557.html) sorry but that link is a prime example of said pointlessness: My impression of you is that you are very, very annoying and irritating. gee, thanks. i see showers of rainbows and lollipops in the near future. That possibility was never completely excluded. But by endlessly trolling on our Mailing List and not showing much co-operation, Joerg is making more enemies than friends among Arch community and developers. IMO he would do himself a big favor by staying quiet. perhaps. but dealing with a conflict like this for nearly a decade is bound to make any weary, disgruntled, and probably somewhat bitter that it happened at all. you do not know what the experience was like or how deep the story runs any more than i do. constantly telling the guy that does know how he should stay quiet and accept it, well i'd probably tell you exactly where to stick it if i were him :-) Since his software is technically superior, and is not completely unknown, people should recognize that and start using it by themselves. If a Arch user reports recording troubles with wodim, it's likely that another Arch user will recommend him to try out cdrecord, which is documented in Arch wiki and available in AUR. The good reputation of the software is built by the community, not the words of wisdom of the software's author. for sure; let's package them both up. dude's probably an alright guy that is just passionate about his creation and his position. hell, make me a dev right now and i package the damn thing today. on a final note, Jeorg, it would be extremely beneficial if you could cite a hard resource regarding the legalities involved here, as you seem to have a resource. or maybe just dual license cdrtools (why not?). why was the license changed to CDDL exclusive anyways? i've been in lengthy license discussion over on Phoronix, and i must admit, the more i get into software as a living [6+ yrs now], the less i like the GPLv* (notice nobody moves TO the GPL, they only move AWAY... this, CouchDB [apache], etc... GPL is too purist IMO) 20 people asked this before you on this very same mailing list. Why do you think you are so special that he would listen to you ? maybe because i'm not an asshat about it in the process. and because i'm 40% special, and 60% that righteous mineral dolomite baby! people are more responsive when they don't feel threatened; that goes for anyone. And if you had read this : http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2010-February/010989.html You would know there is not even a need for a dual license or a
Re: [arch-general] cdrtools again... yay!
On Wed 26 May 2010 21:59 +0530, Piyush P Kurur wrote: On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:06:36AM -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote: On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 9:41 AM, Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org wrote: I do not speak for the other Arch developers, but the reason why I will not officially package cdrtools for Arch is you. My impression of you is that you are very, very annoying and irritating. If there was a bug report made about the cdrtools package in Arch, then I would have to deal with you. I do not particularly want to do that, so I will not package cdrtools. I have heard similar opinions expressed by developers from various other distributions while at Linux meetings, so I am not alone here, even though I might be the only one blunt enough to say it directly. I agree. Deficient upstream is a completely valid reason for excluding things. i.e. Ion3 I like this thread. Burning CD on command line looks like a long ``burning'' issue. Ba dum, ting!
Re: [arch-general] extra/tomcat is out of date
On 05/26/2010 01:12 AM, Guillaume ALAUX wrote: Hi, Tested on my x64 (and changed the pkgrel that was wrong): that works. So... anyone interested in this up-to-date version of a masterpiece of the Java world? :) updated. thanks -- Ionut
Re: [arch-general] new pc; keep arch installation?
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Vincent Schut sc...@sarvision.nl wrote: Could anyone give me an idea about the chance of luck for such an operation? Tips, hints? Or would you just advise a clean install and install and reconfigure all software again? I would advise disabling anything that starts X automatically (such as gdm and kdm) until you've tested. If the video is in any way shape or form buggy you don't want to be booting to a locked up system. -- Caleb Cushing http://xenoterracide.blogspot.com
Re: [arch-general] regression in nouveau ?
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 09:22:15AM -0600, Tavian Barnes wrote: Yeah you can. nv isn't a kernel module though, it's just an Xorg driver, still using UMS. To use it, 1) Blacklist nouveau and nvidia 2) Install xf86-video-nv 3) Set Driver to nv in xorg.conf And, even if nv doesn't work for you, there's always xf86-video-vesa and xf86-video-fbdev. Many thanks ! I did as you suggested. Booting the default image failed with what looked like a very long backtrace and froze the machine. But booting fallback worked, and after an mkinitcpio also the default worked. Result: rock-stable audio, and the display is a fast as it needs to be. Again many thanks, finally I can start using this system. BTW, what is the official advantage of KMS ? Having RL 3 and ttys that do not depend on a video driver seems like a good thing (TM) to me. Ciao, -- FA O tu, che porte, correndo si ? E guerra e morte !
Re: [arch-general] regression in nouveau ?
Excerpts from fons's message of 2010-05-26 22:50:43 +0200: On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 09:22:15AM -0600, Tavian Barnes wrote: Yeah you can. nv isn't a kernel module though, it's just an Xorg driver, still using UMS. To use it, 1) Blacklist nouveau and nvidia 2) Install xf86-video-nv 3) Set Driver to nv in xorg.conf And, even if nv doesn't work for you, there's always xf86-video-vesa and xf86-video-fbdev. Many thanks ! I did as you suggested. Booting the default image failed with what looked like a very long backtrace and froze the machine. But booting fallback worked, and after an mkinitcpio also the default worked. Result: rock-stable audio, and the display is a fast as it needs to be. Again many thanks, finally I can start using this system. BTW, what is the official advantage of KMS ? Having RL 3 and ttys that do not depend on a video driver seems like a good thing (TM) to me. Ciao, Glad it works for you now. KMS was advertised mainly with he following features: - TTY in native resolution and hence nicer to look at - shorter delay when switching from X to TTY -- Regards, Philipp - Wir stehen selbst enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu und alle Fragen offen. Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan
Re: [arch-general] extra/tomcat is out of date
My pleasure ! On 26 May 2010 22:31, Ionut Biru biru.io...@gmail.com wrote: On 05/26/2010 01:12 AM, Guillaume ALAUX wrote: Hi, Tested on my x64 (and changed the pkgrel that was wrong): that works. So... anyone interested in this up-to-date version of a masterpiece of the Java world? :) updated. thanks -- Ionut
Re: [arch-general] regression in nouveau ?
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:46 AM, f...@kokkinizita.net wrote: Looking at the xrun statistics in function of audio period size, it looks like current nouveau is blocking audio (either by dis- abling interrupts, or by locking a shared HW resource) for about 3-4 ms. *No* driver today should ever do that - it's really late 1990's performance. As I said, there are some people who are willing to help in that area. But without people like you reporting and testing, it's never going to happen. We need audio guys and graphics/drivers guys allocating some times to work together and resolve the issues. There was at least one nouveau developer trying to help out : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/nouveau/2010-February/004981.html But the reporter just disappeared. I just talked to him on IRC #nouveau, here are some extracts : 23:01 stillunknown you need someone with the time and the itch to pursue this 23:02 stillunknown because the magic solution isn't going to drop from the sky 23:02 stillunknown we can help, but that goes for anyone 23:07 stillunknown shining: my first guess is that we disable irq's in a few code paths 23:14 stillunknown my guess is the irq disabling around fences, since that is the only thing that i suspect will trigger frequently when rendering 23:16 stillunknown makes me wonder why we disable irq's there 23:16 stillunknown mailinglist time :-) 23:18 stillunknown ah for nv04 i can understand, but for the rest not so much If there is no one to test / experiment, I am afraid the situation won't improve anytime soon. And just a reminder that these people help/work for free in their limited spare time :)
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
On 05/26/10 07:27, Joerg Schilling wrote: Do you really like to use extremely outdated, buggy and dead code? Jörg Yes
Re: [arch-general] regression in nouveau ?
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 11:26:58PM +0200, Xavier Chantry wrote: As I said, there are some people who are willing to help in that area. But without people like you reporting and testing, it's never going to happen. We need audio guys and graphics/drivers guys allocating some times to work together and resolve the issues. There was at least one nouveau developer trying to help out : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/nouveau/2010-February/004981.html But the reporter just disappeared. The name (Adrian Knoth) rings a bell, he's probably on one of Linux Audio lists. And if he's using firewire audio he must be one of the 'brave ones' - it's not obvious at all ATM. So Maarten Maathuis looks like the one to get in contact with. And just a reminder that these people help/work for free in their limited spare time :) Most of us who write and contribute things are in that situation... Isn't there any contact/overlap between the nv and nouveau teams ? The nv devs got this right (it also took them some time IIRC), but that shows it's possible. As you have probably been reading, meanwhile I've been able to get nv in place instead of nouveau, and things just work. The 'blacklist' trick should be documented somewhere - it's obvious once you know it but it surely didn't pop up by itself. Ciao, -- FA O tu, che porte, correndo si ? E guerra e morte !
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Baho Utot baho-u...@columbus.rr.comwrote: On 05/26/10 07:27, Joerg Schilling wrote: Do you really like to use extremely outdated, buggy and dead code? Jörg Yes Here here ! After all, this is open source ! Tts the *community *that decides what they want to do, not the other way around. If the community decides to use a buggy piece of software, so be it. Besides, (even though what i'm about to say is contradictory to 'the arch way' that uses a rolling release model and delivers the latest stable software) new, up-to-date, latest generation software doesn't necessarily mean its good software. I myself must confess that I didn't even know which package I was using for burning CDs from the command line. But after reading through this thread, I will definetily go reserach the differences compare them (both technical and legal sides) for myself. P.S: I am sorry for adding yet another post to a thread that should just be left alone -- All musicians are drug addicts, no question about it. The ecstasy we get during a concert is proof enough. yet there is a slight difference between us, the musicians, and the typical 'street-junkie'... Instead of consuming powder, we consume vibrations Will et/ou Gregory Eric Sanderson Turcot Temlett MacDonnell Forbes et/ou Touffa! :)
Re: [arch-general] Problems suspending since 2.6.33
I think ATI KMS (kernel mode-setting) was merged or enabled in 2.6.33? That would explain why this kernel; why the same issue happens suspending from the console; why that graphics-quirk doesn't work the same (I don't have s2ram installed since I use pm-suspend (via GNOME), but I guess that's what you meant in regards to -f, -p or -m). Suspend ought to work though (did you try testing 'echo mem /sys/power/state' too? I think that's mostly the same as pm-suspend nowadays, maybe), but it's understandable since there are new code-paths, if indeed it's graphics that are at issue. If you want to debug I'd suggest try grabbing 2.6.34 kernel26 and -firmware from testing (e.g. you can download the packages from online), as there's a chance it's been fixed there (my Intel KMS-related issues were, for example) Also Did you search? A quick search for 2.6.33 suspend ATI Radeon HD 3600 led me to e.g. a bug here that links to an archlinux thread that contains a couple suggested workarounds to try (e.g. does disabling networking before suspending fix your resume?) http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=573118#10 -- those may be completely unrelated issues or then again they may not.
Re: [arch-general] regression in nouveau ?
On 05/26/10 17:01, Philipp Überbacher wrote: KMS was advertised mainly with he following features: - TTY in native resolution and hence nicer to look at - shorter delay when switching from X to TTY - can implement power-saving features - ability to run X as non-root - ...probably some more things that google would tell us quickly
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
At Mittwoch, 26. Mai 2010 19:18 Mauro Santos wrote: If the debian people are just spreading FUD as you say they are, then prove them wrong once and for all with hard evidence regarding the legal matters, then let people make up their own minds instead of wanting people to believe something because you say so. This is not a one direction way because i must not believe the words of debian too.-) Sorry to say but until there is no decision from a law court i see this only as a interpersonal problem and therefore i prefer to discuss about technical things. Perhaps this is because i'm a former OS/2 user but what i really don't understand is the support for software which is a fork of old software and which don't support the same count of platforms as the original. Aside of this juristic discussions from laypersons i can't recognize for what the world need cdrkit. See you, Attila
