Re: readline update?
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 03:24:30PM +0200, Miroslav Lichvar wrote: Review requst for compat-readline5: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=510022 After the package is accepted, I'll start patching the packages (except gnu-smalltalk and kdeedu) to build correctly with the compat package. It turned out that I can no longer commit to other packages, so I'll file bugs with patches instead. However, it seems that more of the packages I posted in the original mail are not GPLv2. calc (can be relicensed to GPLv3?) cgdb (GPLv2+?) gnubg (GPLv3?) grass (GPLv2+?) gnuplot (not compatible with any GPL?) ktechlab (GPLv2+?) Can someone confirm this? Thanks, -- Miroslav Lichvar -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: readline update?
On Thu, 2009-07-09 at 01:14 +0200, Bernie Innocenti wrote: On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 12:27 +0200, Miroslav Lichvar wrote: devtodo-0.1.20-3.fc12 I maintain this package in Fedora. Just wrote the author asking for a clarification on licensing. FYI, I got this reply: Forwarded Message From: Alec Thomas a...@swapoff.org To: Bernie Innocenti ber...@codewiz.org Subject: Re: License clarification for devtodo Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 12:02:04 +1000 I haven't looked at the GPLv3 to determine whether I'd actually want to license devtodo under it, but I'll take a look when I get a chance. Unfortunately I'm going on holidays for a month, so likely won't be able to until mid-August or so. 2009/7/9 Bernie Innocenti ber...@codewiz.org: Hello, I'm packaging devtodo in Fedora. We can't link it against readline 6 because it is GPLv3 and devtodo appears to be GPLv2 only. Is that right? If your intention actually was to make devtodo GPLv2 or later, could you please release an updated source package with this fact explained explicitly? -- // Bernie Innocenti - http://codewiz.org/ \X/ Sugar Labs - http://sugarlabs.org/ -- // Bernie Innocenti - http://codewiz.org/ \X/ Sugar Labs - http://sugarlabs.org/ -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: readline update?
On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 12:27 +0200, Miroslav Lichvar wrote: devtodo-0.1.20-3.fc12 I maintain this package in Fedora. Just wrote the author asking for a clarification on licensing. -- // Bernie Innocenti - http://codewiz.org/ \X/ Sugar Labs - http://sugarlabs.org/ -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: readline update?
On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 05:55:21PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: Miroslav Lichvar (mlich...@redhat.com) said: I'd like to update readline to the latest version 6.0. The problem is that the license was changed to GPLv3+ and we have some GPLv2 packages using readline. A possible replacement is the editline library which provides a compatible interface and is licensed under BSD, unfortunately it doesn't handle UTF-8. Are we stuck with readline 5.2? Suggestions? I suppose the first question is whether or not 5.2 and 6.0 are ABI-compatible; if they're not, a parallel intsall would be simplest. They use different sonames, so parallel install will be probably the least painful way. Review requst for compat-readline5: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=510022 After the package is accepted, I'll start patching the packages (except gnu-smalltalk and kdeedu) to build correctly with the compat package. Let me know if you don't want me to touch your package or want to use editline instead. Thanks, -- Miroslav Lichvar -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: readline update?
On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 02:48:47PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: Miroslav Lichvar wrote: kdeedu-4.2.95-1.fc12 kdeedu only uses readline in KAlgebra which is GPLv2+ (and only in the command-line version (calgebra) at that), so no problems there. (I also verified that calgebra doesn't use any GPL v2 only libraries.) Thanks. Can you please add it to the license tag? -- Miroslav Lichvar -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: readline update?
Miroslav Lichvar wrote: On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 02:48:47PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: Miroslav Lichvar wrote: kdeedu-4.2.95-1.fc12 kdeedu only uses readline in KAlgebra which is GPLv2+ (and only in the command-line version (calgebra) at that), so no problems there. (I also verified that calgebra doesn't use any GPL v2 only libraries.) Thanks. Can you please add it to the license tag? The kde stack could use some License tag updates, surely, since upstream policy is to be explicitly gplv3 compatible, per http://techbase.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy -- Rex -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: readline update?
On Sat, Jul 04, 2009 at 04:10:15PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: Those applications are obsolete by definition. Such a sentence doesn't make sense. As long as there are users and maintainers for those applications they are not obsolete. I personnally use xfig, xpdf, gv, grace, and I am far from being alone in that case. -- Pat -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: readline update?
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 12:27:47 +0200, you wrote: gnu-smalltalk-3.1-5.fc12 I have revisited this package for a license check and changed the license tag to GPLv2+ with exceptions Best Regards: Jochen Schmitt -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: readline update?
Matej Cepl wrote: Ralf Corsepius, Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:29:46 +0200: I thought, we banned all non-utf-8 aware packages? I agree, who needs grep after all :) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=194471 /kidding That package WORKS with UTF-8, it's just very slow with it on some extreme testcases. Kevin Kofler -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: readline update?
Matej Cepl wrote: Ralf Corsepius, Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:29:46 +0200: I thought, we banned all non-utf-8 aware packages? And BTW zsh has been fixed not to corrupt non-ASCII filenames? Bash FTW! :-p Kevin Kofler -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: readline update?
Ralf Corsepius wrote: I thought, we banned all non-utf-8 aware packages? Unfortunately, a lot of that crap went in anyway because some reviewers just don't care. I agree with you that it's a showstopper. Applications which don't support UTF-8 WILL NOT WORK properly in Fedora's default locales. Not even in English. But it's especially apparent in languages actually using non-ASCII characters (i.e. most non-English languages). We really need to fix editline to properly support UTF-8, then these readline licensing issues might also just go away. (Sadly, this inconsiderate upgrade to GPLv3 looks to me like an own goal by the FSF. They always present readline like a library which is intentionally GPL to provide an advantage to Free Software and proudly show how some programs chose the GPL because of readline. Now this license change is actually going to help editline and thus a BSD-licensed implementation.) Kevin Kofler -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: readline update?
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Kevin Koflerkevin.kof...@chello.at wrote: Patrice Dumas wrote: Certainly not. Many very useful package are not utf8 aware Those packages need to be fixed. It is not acceptable that we ship applications which don't work properly in our default locales. You can't even open your files with those broken applications if they're in a directory containing special characters. at least many that use motif or the athena widget set. Those applications are obsolete by definition. Sure for most people they are .. same as old gtk1 apps. But who is forcing anybody to use them? They are not installed by default, and adding unicode support to legacy frameworks means breaking API/ABI and the apps would have to be ported. In this case we could as well port them to newer frameworks and be done with it. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: readline update?
Ralf Corsepius, Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:29:46 +0200: I thought, we banned all non-utf-8 aware packages? I agree, who needs grep after all :) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=194471 /kidding Matěj -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: readline update?
Ralf Corsepius, Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:29:46 +0200: I thought, we banned all non-utf-8 aware packages? And BTW zsh has been fixed not to corrupt non-ASCII filenames? Matěj -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
readline update?
I'd like to update readline to the latest version 6.0. The problem is that the license was changed to GPLv3+ and we have some GPLv2 packages using readline. A possible replacement is the editline library which provides a compatible interface and is licensed under BSD, unfortunately it doesn't handle UTF-8. Are we stuck with readline 5.2? Suggestions? The package list is: GMT-4.4.0-2.fc11 Macaulay2-1.2-4.fc12 afpfs-ng-0.8.1-2.fc11 bti-015-1.fc11 calc-2.12.2.1-13.fc11 callweaver-1.2.0.1-3.fc11 cgdb-0.6.4-4.fc11 chrony-1.23-5.20081106gitbe42b4.fc12 clisp-2.47-3.fc11 coda-6.9.4-2.fc11 devtodo-0.1.20-3.fc12 fityk-0.8.1-14.fc10 gnu-smalltalk-3.1-5.fc12 gnubg-0.9.0.1-7.fc11 gnuplot-4.2.5-4.fc12 grass-6.3.0-12.fc11 kdeedu-4.2.95-1.fc12 ktechlab-0.3.70-1.20090304svn.fc11 lvm2-2.02.48-1.fc12 maxima-5.18.1-3.fc12 ocfs2-tools-1.3.9-10.20080221git.fc11 socat-1.7.0.0-2.fc11 -- Miroslav Lichvar -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: readline update?
On 07/03/2009 03:57 PM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote: I'd like to update readline to the latest version 6.0. The problem is that the license was changed to GPLv3+ and we have some GPLv2 packages using readline. A possible replacement is the editline library which provides a compatible interface and is licensed under BSD, unfortunately it doesn't handle UTF-8. Are we stuck with readline 5.2? Suggestions? Have you talked to upstream and checked on what they suggest that we do about this? Rahul -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: readline update?
On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 04:00:02PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: On 07/03/2009 03:57 PM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote: I'd like to update readline to the latest version 6.0. The problem is that the license was changed to GPLv3+ and we have some GPLv2 packages using readline. A possible replacement is the editline library which provides a compatible interface and is licensed under BSD, unfortunately it doesn't handle UTF-8. Are we stuck with readline 5.2? Suggestions? Have you talked to upstream and checked on what they suggest that we do about this? No. Some time ago they asked if there were any GPLv2 projects, I gave them a list, but they changed the license anyway. -- Miroslav Lichvar -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: readline update?
Miroslav Lichvar wrote: kdeedu-4.2.95-1.fc12 kdeedu only uses readline in KAlgebra which is GPLv2+ (and only in the command-line version (calgebra) at that), so no problems there. (I also verified that calgebra doesn't use any GPL v2 only libraries.) Kevin Kofler -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: readline update?
On 03/07/09 11:27, Miroslav Lichvar wrote: I'd like to update readline to the latest version 6.0. The problem is that the license was changed to GPLv3+ and we have some GPLv2 packages using readline. A possible replacement is the editline library which provides a compatible interface and is licensed under BSD, unfortunately it doesn't handle UTF-8. Are we stuck with readline 5.2? Suggestions? The package list is: GMT-4.4.0-2.fc11 Macaulay2-1.2-4.fc12 afpfs-ng-0.8.1-2.fc11 bti-015-1.fc11 calc-2.12.2.1-13.fc11 callweaver-1.2.0.1-3.fc11 cgdb-0.6.4-4.fc11 chrony-1.23-5.20081106gitbe42b4.fc12 clisp-2.47-3.fc11 coda-6.9.4-2.fc11 devtodo-0.1.20-3.fc12 fityk-0.8.1-14.fc10 gnu-smalltalk-3.1-5.fc12 gnubg-0.9.0.1-7.fc11 gnuplot-4.2.5-4.fc12 grass-6.3.0-12.fc11 kdeedu-4.2.95-1.fc12 ktechlab-0.3.70-1.20090304svn.fc11 lvm2-2.02.48-1.fc12 maxima-5.18.1-3.fc12 ocfs2-tools-1.3.9-10.20080221git.fc11 socat-1.7.0.0-2.fc11 You've missed perl-Term-ReadLine-Gnu (and I wonder how many other packages?) but that one's OK as it's GPL+. Paul. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: readline update?
On 07/03/2009 03:27 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote: I'd like to update readline to the latest version 6.0. The problem is that the license was changed to GPLv3+ and we have some GPLv2 packages using readline. A possible replacement is the editline library which provides a compatible interface and is licensed under BSD, unfortunately it doesn't handle UTF-8. Are we stuck with readline 5.2? Suggestions? Can we parallel install readline5 and readline6? -Toshio signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: readline update?
Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com writes: On 07/03/2009 03:27 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote: I'd like to update readline to the latest version 6.0. The problem is that the license was changed to GPLv3+ and we have some GPLv2 packages using readline. A possible replacement is the editline library which provides a compatible interface and is licensed under BSD, unfortunately it doesn't handle UTF-8. Are we stuck with readline 5.2? Suggestions? Can we parallel install readline5 and readline6? Maybe somebody should work on fixing whatever editline deficiencies are seen as showstoppers. regards, tom lane -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: readline update?
Miroslav Lichvar wrote: I'd like to update readline to the latest version 6.0. The problem is that the license was changed to GPLv3+ and we have some GPLv2 packages using readline. A possible replacement is the editline library which provides a compatible interface and is licensed under BSD, unfortunately it doesn't handle UTF-8. Are we stuck with readline 5.2? Suggestions? The package list is: latest xfsprogs uses libreadline too (it can also be configured to use editline) -Eric GMT-4.4.0-2.fc11 Macaulay2-1.2-4.fc12 afpfs-ng-0.8.1-2.fc11 bti-015-1.fc11 calc-2.12.2.1-13.fc11 callweaver-1.2.0.1-3.fc11 cgdb-0.6.4-4.fc11 chrony-1.23-5.20081106gitbe42b4.fc12 clisp-2.47-3.fc11 coda-6.9.4-2.fc11 devtodo-0.1.20-3.fc12 fityk-0.8.1-14.fc10 gnu-smalltalk-3.1-5.fc12 gnubg-0.9.0.1-7.fc11 gnuplot-4.2.5-4.fc12 grass-6.3.0-12.fc11 kdeedu-4.2.95-1.fc12 ktechlab-0.3.70-1.20090304svn.fc11 lvm2-2.02.48-1.fc12 maxima-5.18.1-3.fc12 ocfs2-tools-1.3.9-10.20080221git.fc11 socat-1.7.0.0-2.fc11 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: readline update?
Miroslav Lichvar wrote: I'd like to update readline to the latest version 6.0. The problem is that the license was changed to GPLv3+ and we have some GPLv2 packages using readline. A possible replacement is the editline library which provides a compatible interface and is licensed under BSD, unfortunately it doesn't handle UTF-8. I thought, we banned all non-utf-8 aware packages? Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: readline update?
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Ralf Corsepiusrc040...@freenet.de wrote: Miroslav Lichvar wrote: I'd like to update readline to the latest version 6.0. The problem is that the license was changed to GPLv3+ and we have some GPLv2 packages using readline. A possible replacement is the editline library which provides a compatible interface and is licensed under BSD, unfortunately it doesn't handle UTF-8. I thought, we banned all non-utf-8 aware packages? err .. what? no we still have a lot of them... -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: readline update?
Miroslav Lichvar (mlich...@redhat.com) said: I'd like to update readline to the latest version 6.0. The problem is that the license was changed to GPLv3+ and we have some GPLv2 packages using readline. A possible replacement is the editline library which provides a compatible interface and is licensed under BSD, unfortunately it doesn't handle UTF-8. Are we stuck with readline 5.2? Suggestions? I suppose the first question is whether or not 5.2 and 6.0 are ABI-compatible; if they're not, a parallel intsall would be simplest. Bill -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: readline update?
Jussi Lehtola wrote: Quoting Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de: drago01 wrote: On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Ralf Corsepiusrc040...@freenet.de wrote: Miroslav Lichvar wrote: A possible replacement is the editline library which provides a compatible interface and is licensed under BSD, unfortunately it doesn't handle UTF-8. I thought, we banned all non-utf-8 aware packages? err .. what? Yes, utf-8 awareness had been a review criterion since the earliest Fedora days. No. What you are thinking of is spec files and rpm filenames (and documentation that is in non-ASCII character set). No, I am talking about applications and libraries, not about documentation. no we still have a lot of them... Packages to get rid off ... did somebody say Fedora is leading edge? Just because a program doesn't support UTF8 doesn't make it broken. Wrong, it is broken. I can state a lot of programs that aren't UTF8 compatible but still offer a lot of functionality and are important for daily work. Most programs automatically are utf8 compatible on Linux and don't need further treatment. Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: readline update?
On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 12:27 +0200, Miroslav Lichvar wrote: bti-015-1.fc11 lvm2-2.02.48-1.fc12 I mailed Greg and Alasdair about these just so they know. Jon. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
