Re: [Fink-devel] Re: binary release plans
On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 10:23:48PM -0500, Dave Vasilevsky wrote: Okay, Vasi and I have gotten the lame -dev and dependency mess cleaned up in 10.3, and I cleaned up the atk1 BDOnly mess in 10.3. Should 10.2-gcc3 get the same treatment, or is that tree not going into the bindist? dan -- Daniel Macks [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.netspace.org/~dmacks --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Re: binary release plans
On Mar 2, 2004, at 8:47 AM, David R. Morrison wrote: Is bioperl-pm581 ready to go to stable? (i.e., are all the dependencies already in stable?) No, these still need to be moved (last time I checked they weren't). I have emailed the maintainers. graph-pm heap-pm xml-node-pm text-shellwords-pm gd-pm io-string-pm io-stringy-pm mailtools-pm mime-tools-pm unicode-map-pm xml-twig-pm html-tagset-pm getopt-long-pm mime-lite-pm soap-lite-pm xml-dom-pm xml-regexp-pm xml-writer-pm Also the -pm581 if they exist. Under my proposed new policy, we wouldn't want the package called "bioperl-pm" in the long run, anyway, and virtually all 10.3 users are going to be using perl 5.8.1. So moving bioperl-pm581 to stable now, and waiting until later to worry about the old perl variants, may be the way to go. That sound like a good plan, thanks, - Koen. --- SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now. Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id=3438&op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: LAME licensing (was Re: [Fink-devel] Re: binary release plans)
The fink .info file for LAME does mention a possible problem with a patent, not a copyright, regarding commercial distribution of encoders. To the extent that this applies to LAME, it seems to me that the license isn't free. But I'm no expert on this, which is why I want someone who is active to take responsibility for the package. -- Dave --- SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now. Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id=3438&op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: LAME licensing (was Re: [Fink-devel] Re: binary release plans)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 David R. Morrison wrote: Alexander Strange <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: LAME should not be included in the binary distribution, unless you feel like buying Fink an unlimited MP3 license (distribution of decoders is OK, or at least not actively acted upon, but distributing encoders is not allowed; see http://mp3licensing.com/). Actually the story is a tad bit more Complicated. The initial "copyright Holder" of the mp3 Technologie is the Frauenhofer Institut. Their implementation of the Algortihm and the psychoacoustic model is licensed to them and also trademarked. Yet LAME does not use that exact same model, nor do they use the same exact technique to encode the files. The end result still conforms with the Specs of MP3 though, thus it is a valid MP3 file. So unless the LAME developers themselves say that we cannot redistribute the LAME stuff as binaries I see no point in what is on that web-site. So to me that web-site very much looks like the usual Industry-FUD as they are not very detailed. I would also like to mention that the Theory behind MP3 and the algorithms used is PUBLIC, no one ever licensed nor trademarked that. Only the implementations into working software usually are - -d -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (Darwin) iD8DBQFARKLTPMoaMn4kKR4RA7OJAJ9sAAMwqhRqmYp19j1hxUYXWIVf0gCfR5Uh aw5kBzwz/t6QNJaMn7Vlxf8= =um+t -END PGP SIGNATURE- --- SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now. Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id=3438&op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
LAME licensing (was Re: [Fink-devel] Re: binary release plans)
Alexander Strange <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > LAME should not be included in the binary distribution, unless you feel > like buying Fink an unlimited MP3 license (distribution of decoders is > OK, or at least not actively acted upon, but distributing encoders is > not allowed; see http://mp3licensing.com/). If this is correct, the License: field in the fink package needs to be changed to "License: Restrictive". I'm not sure if Sylvain Cuaz (the original maintainer) is around these days. If not, for a package with an issue like this we need somebody to step up and take responsibility for this package and be very careful about the licensing question. -- Dave --- SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now. Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id=3438&op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Re: binary release plans
Koen, Is bioperl-pm581 ready to go to stable? (i.e., are all the dependencies already in stable?) Under my proposed new policy, we wouldn't want the package called "bioperl-pm" in the long run, anyway, and virtually all 10.3 users are going to be using perl 5.8.1. So moving bioperl-pm581 to stable now, and waiting until later to worry about the old perl variants, may be the way to go. -- Dave --- SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now. Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id=3438&op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Re: binary release plans
On Mar 1, 2004, at 3:38 AM, Daniel Macks wrote: SplitOff: << Package: %N-shlibs Replaces: %N << SplitOff2: << Package: %N-dev Replaces: %N (<= 3.93.1-10) << Should SplitOff:Replaces:%N also have versioning? Otherwise it doesn't make much sense. That's true. It seems lame-shlibs has had that for almost two years. Nice catch! I modified that to point to the right version (not that it matters, since it's in the 10.1 tree, but can't hurt). The current lame version in /stable is identical to this new .info except for the BDO fix and a dependency fix, so I'll be committing this to both 10.3/stable and 10.3/unstable unless there are any objections. If someone with access to a 10.2 system would fix things up for 10.2-gcc3.3, that would be great. Dave PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [Fink-devel] Re: binary release plans
On Mar 1, 2004, at 3:33 AM, Daniel Macks wrote: Did you take the approach I was going to do, or something else? Either way, if you want additional eyes looking it over before committing, post it here (if it's short:) or email me. Or commit it and we'll all just see it in fink-commits... dan LAME should not be included in the binary distribution, unless you feel like buying Fink an unlimited MP3 license (distribution of decoders is OK, or at least not actively acted upon, but distributing encoders is not allowed; see http://mp3licensing.com/). --- SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now. Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id=3438&op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Re: binary release plans
On Feb 29, 2004, at 4:21 PM, David R. Morrison wrote: So I'm removing bioperl-pm from stable for now, and suggeesting that the various dependencies of the unstable version need to be fixed up before it can be moved to stable. It turns out that bioperl-pm depends on many perlmodules which only have a -pm and -pm581 info file. The maintainer doesn't want to maintain the -pm560 and -pm580 ones, which I can understand. So I could just copy the-pm581 info files into -pm560 and -pm580 info files, and submit those to the tracker. But I cannot test those myself (only have 10.3), and it could take a while before they get added, because either they don't work (I couldn't test it) or people monitoring the tracker are too busy. Besides that I rather not maintain a lot more packages that didn't actually write the info files for. So I see a few options: - I submit the new info files to the tracker and sit back and wait - I mail the new info files directly to someone with cvs access so they can be added asap - I get cvs access and take care of it myself :-) - bioperl-pm560 and bioperl-pm580 are no longer supported by me, so only people with 10.3 and unstable enabled can use bioperl. - ... ? I also saw Dave Morrison's email about the perl-modules, so the solution from Dan Macks could maybe solve the whole problem. Any suggestions what the way to go is now? Bioperl is a really useful set of perlmodules used in bioinformatics , and I think it would be great if it became available to wider audience of Mac OS X users by moving it to stable. thanks, - Koen. --- SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now. Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id=3438&op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Re: binary release plans
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 11:29:40PM -0500, Dave Vasilevsky wrote: > >>The packages for lame and atk1 do not follow shlibs policy. They have > >>both userland run-time programs and compile-time headers and .dylib > >>links in %N which is BDOnly. > > I have a fixed version of lame that I have been using privately for the > past while. I sent it to Sylvain, either he's too busy or my email > didn't get through. Should I simply commit this to CVS? Whoops, I see you did attach a new .info for lame... SplitOff: << Package: %N-shlibs Replaces: %N << SplitOff2: << Package: %N-dev Replaces: %N (<= 3.93.1-10) << Should SplitOff:Replaces:%N also have versioning? Otherwise it doesn't make much sense. dan -- Daniel Macks [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.netspace.org/~dmacks --- SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now. Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id=3438&op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Re: binary release plans
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 11:29:40PM -0500, Dave Vasilevsky wrote: > >>The packages for lame and atk1 do not follow shlibs policy. They have > >>both userland run-time programs and compile-time headers and .dylib > >>links in %N which is BDOnly. > > I have a fixed version of lame that I have been using privately for the > past while. I sent it to Sylvain, either he's too busy or my email > didn't get through. Should I simply commit this to CVS? Did you take the approach I was going to do, or something else? Either way, if you want additional eyes looking it over before committing, post it here (if it's short:) or email me. Or commit it and we'll all just see it in fink-commits... dan -- Daniel Macks [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.netspace.org/~dmacks --- SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now. Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id=3438&op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Re: binary release plans
On Feb 29, 2004, at 4:21 PM, David R. Morrison wrote: So I'm removing bioperl-pm from stable for now, and suggeesting that the various dependencies of the unstable version need to be fixed up before it can be moved to stable. Thanks, I have notified the maintainers of io-string-pm and xml-writer-pm. - Koen. --- SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now. Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id=3438&op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Re: binary release plans
Koen van der Drift <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > bioperl-pm (and versioned ones) as well, but then all the perlmodules > it depends on need to be moved too. Well, there are some problems here. For example, bioperl-pm560 depends on xml-writer-pm, but xml-writer-pm is a placeholder package, and it's a placeholder for xml-writer-pm581 only. This means that, among other problems, to have a functioning bioperl-pm560 package someone would need to create and maintain an xml-writer-pm560 package. I've also noticed that the version of bioperl-pm currently in 10.3/stable has a problem: it depends on io-string-pm, but io-string-pm is only in the unstable tree. So I'm removing bioperl-pm from stable for now, and suggeesting that the various dependencies of the unstable version need to be fixed up before it can be moved to stable. -- Dave --- SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now. Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id=3438&op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Re: binary release plans
Hi, These can be moved to stable: graph-pm heap-pm text-shellwords-pm xml-node-pm (+ versioned ones) emboss emboss-kaptain kaptain bioperl-pm (and versioned ones) as well, but then all the perlmodules it depends on need to be moved too. thanks, - Koen. On Feb 28, 2004, at 5:24 PM, David R. Morrison wrote: "Daniel E. Macks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The packages for lame and atk1 do not follow shlibs policy. They have both userland run-time programs and compile-time headers and .dylib links in %N which is BDOnly. Probably the easiest solution is to move the compile stuff into a new BDOnly %N-dev splitoff, remove BDOnly from %N, and then make any package that has any dependency on %N and/or %N-shlibs to be BuildDepends:%N-dev and Depends:%N,%N-shlibs. I think I'm pretty swamped with work until Monday but can take a look then. That would be great, thanks. -- Dave --- SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now. Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id=3438&op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel --- SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now. Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id=3438&op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Re: binary release plans
The packages for lame and atk1 do not follow shlibs policy. They have both userland run-time programs and compile-time headers and .dylib links in %N which is BDOnly. I have a fixed version of lame that I have been using privately for the past while. I sent it to Sylvain, either he's too busy or my email didn't get through. Should I simply commit this to CVS? lame.info Description: Binary data Dave PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [Fink-devel] Re: binary release plans
"Daniel E. Macks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The packages for lame and atk1 do not follow shlibs policy. They have > both userland run-time programs and compile-time headers and .dylib > links in %N which is BDOnly. > > Probably the easiest solution is to move the compile stuff into a new > BDOnly %N-dev splitoff, remove BDOnly from %N, and then make any > package that has any dependency on %N and/or %N-shlibs to be > BuildDepends:%N-dev and Depends:%N,%N-shlibs. I think I'm pretty > swamped with work until Monday but can take a look then. > That would be great, thanks. -- Dave --- SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now. Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id=3438&op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
[Fink-devel] Re: binary release plans
David R. Morrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > I plan to start creating a binary release for 10.3 in about a week. > > If you are aware of any of your packages in the 10.3/stable tree which are > *not* suitable for binary release, please either fix them or remove them > from that tree. The packages for lame and atk1 do not follow shlibs policy. They have both userland run-time programs and compile-time headers and .dylib links in %N which is BDOnly. Probably the easiest solution is to move the compile stuff into a new BDOnly %N-dev splitoff, remove BDOnly from %N, and then make any package that has any dependency on %N and/or %N-shlibs to be BuildDepends:%N-dev and Depends:%N,%N-shlibs. I think I'm pretty swamped with work until Monday but can take a look then. dan -- Daniel Macks [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.netspace.org/~dmacks --- SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now. Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id=3438&op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
