Re: Ion3 license violation
On 2007-12-12, Mark Linimon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: === NOTICE: And this would also stop binary package from being generated for the releases? This is normally as fast as we pull out the rug from under existing users' feet. Umm.. how would it do that? -- Tuomo ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ion3 license violation
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 07:22:50AM +, Tuomo Valkonen wrote: Since the so-called package maintainer seems to have gone AWOL (as is typical): Have a look at http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/x11-wm/ion-3/Makefile. There have been 8 updates of this piece of software in that time. You state the version distributed online may not significantly differ from the original author's latest stable release (resp. latest release on the branch) within a reasonable delay (normally 28 days). You don't say Not more than 28 days, you suggest 28 days as a reasonable delay for you. Due to the ports freeze there have been no normal software updates for about month in the FreeBSD ports tree. That is a normal delay in the lifecycle of the FreeBSD software. Not everybody is agreeing on it, but it is considered a normal delay. To quote a friend: cvs rm -rf blah; cvs commit -m Your license sucks. Your code sucks. You suck. Happy Christmas. I hope that is not what you were after... Edwin -- Edwin Groothuis |Personal website: http://www.mavetju.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]| Weblog: http://www.mavetju.org/weblog/ ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ion3 license violation
On 2007-12-12, Edwin Groothuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You don't say Not more than 28 days, you suggest 28 days as a reasonable delay for you. Frisbee/the package maintainer not bothering to communicating with me how long the actual delay might be, and would the package end up in a megafrozen state in the new releases, does not sound like a reasonable delay. But no, in the Distro Code of Conduct, it is forbidden to communicate with upstream, to reach an agreement etc. Distros want to do whatever they will, including fucking the author in the arse -- that's what the freedom in free software is about. It's not freedom for the author: it's freedom/power for the RIAA and MPAA and Sony and BMG and Warner of FOSS -- the distros. To quote a friend: cvs rm -rf blah; cvs commit -m Your license sucks. Your code sucks. You suck. Happy Christmas. I hope that is not what you were after... Whatever it takes for distros to either start behaving better (communicating with and taking consideration of authors), or simply perishing. -- Tuomo ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ion3 license violation
On 2007-12-12, Mark Linimon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, the release packages were already built. You see, part of the problem of software Quality Assurance is that it takes some Distro Quality Assurance... ROTFLMAO. I have fixed numerous bugs since 20070927 was released. What have you done? I bet there has been _zero_ quality assurance done by you (Frisbee) wrt. Ion3. No, you just throw it in, freeze it, and call that quality assurance, and then expect the authors to deal with the users using the buggy releases that you distribute, and that the authors themselves have fixed ages ago in their real quality assurance -- the RC stage. The distros don't even bother checking whether the software is in development snapshot stage -- the still distribute megafrozen snapshots without prominently mentioning this. That's distro quality assurance for you. your software will descend even further into complete irrelevance. That's quite appropriate, since FOSS has become completely irrelevant to me. Windows is simply the better OS nowadays. -- Tuomo ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ion3 license violation
Folks, don't reply any further to this thread. The packages are in the process of being removed, no further software from this author will be accepted, no more drama will be had. Nothing to see here, move along. mcl ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ion3 license violation
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 08:25:17AM +, Tuomo Valkonen wrote: On 2007-12-12, Mark Linimon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: === NOTICE: And this would also stop binary package from being generated for the releases? No, the release packages were already built. You see, part of the problem of software Quality Assurance is that it takes some period of time to get final packages made and tested -- a time that no one can guarantee will necessarily be less than 28 days. From the discussion I followed on the pkgsrc mailing list, you obviously either don't understand, or don't care, about this asepct of trying to produce the best working packages for the users of a particular OS. But, I tell you what, as a special favor to you, I'll personally rip ion-3 out of the already-prepared package sets, check to make sure that the port is removed from the Ports Collection, and promulgate a new policy that NO software from you will in the future be accepted into the Ports Collection. Thus, your licenses will be honored, and as an inevitable result, your software will descend even further into complete irrelevance. Will that be acceptable, or is there something else that you would like from me this fine evening? mcl ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ion3 license violation
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 08:34:00AM +, Tuomo Valkonen wrote: On 2007-12-12, Edwin Groothuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You don't say Not more than 28 days, you suggest 28 days as a reasonable delay for you. Frisbee/the package maintainer not bothering to communicating with me how long the actual delay might be, and would the package end up in a megafrozen state in the new releases, does not sound like a reasonable delay. But no, in the Distro Code of Conduct, it is forbidden to communicate with upstream, to reach an agreement etc. Distros want to do whatever they will, including fucking the author in the arse -- that's what the freedom in free software is about. It's not freedom for the author: it's freedom/power for the RIAA and MPAA and Sony and BMG and Warner of FOSS -- the distros. To quote a friend: cvs rm -rf blah; cvs commit -m Your license sucks. Your code sucks. You suck. Happy Christmas. I hope that is not what you were after... Whatever it takes for distros to either start behaving better (communicating with and taking consideration of authors), or simply perishing. I don't use Ion3, and I never intend to, but to be honest, this licence of yours really seems to be very unreasonable. It's just silly, nothing more. Sincerely, Gergely Czuczy mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Weenies test. Geniuses solve problems that arise. pgp6fZT9E5dLg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Ion3 license violation
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 First of all this is not a criticism of you but of the FreeBSD and FOSS community Tuomo Valkonen wrote: On 2007-12-12, Gergely CZUCZY [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't use Ion3, and I never intend to, but to be honest, this licence of yours really seems to be very unreasonable. It's just silly, nothing more. I could make it GPLv3 and nagware at the same time. Sistros would still have modify and consequently rename it to distribute something worth using. Taking the project closed source and/or in some other way denying open access to the code is not your only option to protect your legit rights as a developer. There is a middle ground that my company and several other MicroISV's have developed over the last few years with one of them doing over a million in sales using the model.The basic idea is find an appropriate mix of restrictions on tech free loaders and the legitimate right of users to not be completely locked into your internal development model. Specifically you are allowed to charge for copies of your work, even modified ones, as long you pass certain rewards onto to contributors for more info see the following blogs I wrote on the subject (and they contain links to the rest of the community): http://www.flosoft-systems.com/flosoft_systems_community/blogs/aryeh/FOSS.php http://www.flosoft-systems.com/flosoft_systems_community/blogs/aryeh/SIW_Background.php http://www.flosoft-systems.com/flosoft_systems_community/blogs/aryeh/RCS.php -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHX6kCzIOMjAek4JIRAogeAJoCC9vLTZ9Pl/nm/hK5/zT+LgeBMgCeKq2t OZrj7+BdPvO6+lQ8ridv+5I= =OCsN -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ion3 license violation
On 2007-12-12 03:04 -0600, Mark Linimon wrote: (Free hint: they already have a windows manager built-in. Get it?) That's the only thing FOSS operating systems have going for them... and no thanks to FOSS herd. I bet that if the desktop herd were to redesign X, they'd take away the possibility for a separate WM. They are making life for alternative WMs harder all the time, after all. -- Tuomo ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ion3 license violation
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 08:47:03AM +, Tuomo Valkonen wrote: I could make it GPLv3 and nagware at the same time. Yes, and you could put on makeup, shave your armpits, put on a ballerina's dress, and declare yourself Queen of Saturn And All Its Moons for all it matters to FreeBSD now. We can make enough of our own drama here, thanks. Please take your own, and see what a wonderful reception it will get in the Windows world. (Free hint: they already have a windows manager built-in. Get it?) mcl ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ion3 license violation
On 2007-12-12, Aryeh M. Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Taking the project closed source and/or in some other way denying open access to the code is not your only option to protect your legit rights as a developer. I'm not denying access to the code (not yet anyway; I'll probably move to license-free closed-source -- for windows -- in future projects). I just want distros to behave a bit better: to call things by their real names, and mark obsolete versions as obsolete. The present variant of the terms of license are: --- Copyright (c) Tuomo Valkonen 1999-2007. Unless otherwise indicated in components taken from elsewhere, this software is licensed under the GNU Lesser General Public License, version 2.1 (LGPL, reproduced below), extended and modified with the following terms: If the name Ion(tm) or other names that can be associated with the Ion project are used to distribute this software, then: - A version that does not significantly differ from one of the copyright holder's releases, must be provided by default. - Versions not based on the copyright holder's latest release (on the corresponding branch, such as Ion3(tm)), must within 28 days of this release, be prominently marked as (potentially) obsolete and unsupported. - Significantly altered versions may be provided only if the user explicitly requests for those modifications to be applied, and is prominently notified that the software is no longer considered the standard version, and is not supported by the copyright holder. The version string displayed by the program must describe these modifications and the support void status. Versions for which the above conditions are not satisfied, must be renamed so that they can not be associated with the Ion project, their executables must be given names that do not conflict with the copyright holder's version, and neither the copyright holder nor the Ion project may be referred to for support. In the text of sections 0-2, 4-12, and 14-16 of the LGPL, this License is to be understood to refer to the LGPL extended with these terms and, where applicable, possible similar terms related to the names of other works forming a whole. Sections 3 and 13 of the LGPL are void. Where contradictory, these additional terms are primary to the LGPL. End of terms. --- So, these terms only affect distros, not users. You're also free to use the code; you just have to pay attention to how you call it when you distribute it. But even modified versions can be distributed as Ion provided that the user explicitly requests for those modifications (typically in source-based package systems). -- Tuomo ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ion3 license violation
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 09:45:39AM +, Tuomo Valkonen wrote: The present variant of the terms of license are: Have you considered the WTFPL alternative? http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/ -- | Jeremy Chadwickjdc at parodius.com | | Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ | | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA | | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB | ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: results of ports re-engineering survey
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ade Lovett wrote: [admin note: cut down on ridiculous crossposting] On Dec 11, 2007, at 21:37 , Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: Number of responses: roughly 30 I just wanted to pick up on this particular number. Your survey went to (at least) freebsd-ports, freebsd-current, freebsd-stable, and freebsd-questions. Judging by the original cc's on this message, it would appear that freebsd-chat and freebsd-hackers were also somehow involved, but not being subscribed to those lists, I wouldn't know. The orginal survey was posted to all the cc'ed groups and while I didn't track it the responses seemed to be evenly spread across all of them. Now, would you care to guess at the number of subscribers on those lists? Hint, total number is in the thousands. Let's, for the sake of argument, call it 3,000. (It is, of course, much higher) But, given this finger-in-the-air readership number, by your own admission, you have hit exactly 1% of a self-selected group (by virtue of being subscribed to the lists in question). Let's not even mention the bazillions (technical term) of FreeBSD consumers that don't subscribe to any list. And from this, you extrapolate new concepts which conveniently involve others doing the heavy lifting. First of all excuse my language but I have about had it with certain people... where the *HELL* do you get the idea that I am attempting to get other people to do the heavy lifting or have you not learned a single f***'ing thing from the last 30 years of software engineering (i.e. involve the user from the very beginning)... I said right in the f***'ing disclaimer that this is not an attempt to get permission from anyone to do anything and/or any type of project plan as of yet it is *ONLY* an attempt to define the problem so that a good (instead of one I think is good) solution can be designed and no to what ever fantasy land you live in I am not asking anyone to do anything I am not able and willing to do (I am going to send you a private reply after this to show why for my own personal well being this is a very bad idea) I'm done being nice with you. Get a grip. Show some code. Heck, show some *prototypes* of code. But don't hide behind I don't want my views to color things when it is patently obvious to anyone at or above the sentient level of a single celled organism that you really have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I only said that during the survey while I still want to gather more data to pin down the exact requirements the general outline of the solutions seems to be shaping up to be: * 100% backwards compatibility * Avoid the issues raised in Miller97 (see previous posts for URL) * Allow for mult-layered dependancies (i.e. base dependancies on port name only not on version number *BUT* allow specific versions to be listed as depends) * Depending on the results of the scope survey extend this to all *BSD's if possible to make it so if anyone ports something then everyone gets it also * A few other minor tweaks that really aren't large enough for a general discussion of the issue Now a question for you if the goal is truly improve the system not what I think it means to improve it how the hell am I supposed to do this with out some information gathering. The cast-off line at this point would be to point you in the direction of random Linux distro. Only, in this case, I wouldn't wish that on my penguin-orientated friends. Hint: I have used linux for perhaps a total of a week and hated every minute of it I would rather use NT, but I have used FreeBSD since '95 and except for jerks like you have really enjoyed it. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHX6wezIOMjAek4JIRAoD5AJ9Mzcp5S+JScnqPadNeMPZG1hUPggCcCuaD x1u10QapYNgg5/uOuhyZh5Y= =W0ri -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ion3 license violation
On 2007-12-12 01:55 -0800, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: Have you considered the WTFPL alternative? http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/ No, but I've considered simply having no license. No, not public domain, but license-free as djb distributes his stuff. Aka. the Piratic License: Do what the fuck you want as long as you don't piss me off. -- Tuomo ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ion3 license violation
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 12:08:46PM +0200, Tuomo Valkonen wrote: Do what the fuck you want as long as you don't piss me off. I personally consider this to be the null set. No one but you seems to be able to figure out what this is. It certainly doesn't seem to consist of do whatever you want with this (theoretcially) GPLed software, but don't contact me -- which, after all, would in and of itself be a reasonable position. (IMHO) Look, dude: we deleted your software -- all of it -- and two hours later you're still trying to find something to throw a fit about. It's gone, over, done, flushed, dead, buried, down the Sewey Hole, out with the used kitty litter, sent to /dev/null, pushing up the daisies, dwelling with Elvis on his UFO, gone Across The Ocean with Bilbo, on Amelia Earhart's last flight, in Judge Crater's suitcase, in Jimmy Hoffa's day-planner, gone to be with St. Francis, and singing in the Choir Invisible. The intersection of ion-3 and FreeBSD is now congruent to the Vacuum Of Deep Space. Except with less free hydrogen atoms. So, please go away now. I am out of similes. mcl ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ion3 license violation
On 2007-12-12, Garrett Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm sorry but I really beg to differ with you. Vista sucks it long and sucks it hard... There are some improvements in Vista UI-wise (within the suffocating confines of WIMPshit). But unfortunately it has also falling victim to the industry-wide trend of anti-aliasing fascism. XP was the last OS with good-looking fonts: in Vista you can't disable them completely (at least not easily), fontconfit/Xft are well-known to be AA/XML-fascist, it being practically impossible to configure to get decent fonts, especially if you don't have root access. OS X also AFAIK needs special hacky extensions to disable blurring and still afaik doesn't support hinting, so the fonts rasterise poorly. There's a reason why I recommend Macs to new customers :). Macs are too much like Gnome. Between Mac/Gnome and Windows/KDE, I'll take the latter. -- Tuomo ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ion3 license violation
On Dec 12, 2007, at 12:44 AM, Tuomo Valkonen wrote: On 2007-12-12, Mark Linimon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, the release packages were already built. You see, part of the problem of software Quality Assurance is that it takes some Distro Quality Assurance... ROTFLMAO. I have fixed numerous bugs since 20070927 was released. What have you done? I bet there has been _zero_ quality assurance done by you (Frisbee) wrt. Ion3. No, you just throw it in, freeze it, and call that quality assurance, and then expect the authors to deal with the users using the buggy releases that you distribute, and that the authors themselves have fixed ages ago in their real quality assurance -- the RC stage. The distros don't even bother checking whether the software is in development snapshot stage -- the still distribute megafrozen snapshots without prominently mentioning this. That's distro quality assurance for you. your software will descend even further into complete irrelevance. That's quite appropriate, since FOSS has become completely irrelevant to me. Windows is simply the better OS nowadays. -- Tuomo I'm sorry but I really beg to differ with you. Vista sucks it long and sucks it hard... I install/personalize that OS on many PCs for Geek Squad, and I tell you it's really lame... The fact that one needs to install virus / spyware protection on any OS.. it's really, really sad. Microsoft is improving their development / use model, but it still ain't there (poetically). Some devs (in a different respect) are being egocentric and are making things shiny instead of usable. There's a reason why I recommend Macs to new customers :). -Garrett ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ion3 license violation
On 2007-12-12, Mark Linimon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 12:08:46PM +0200, Tuomo Valkonen wrote: Do what the fuck you want as long as you don't piss me off. I personally consider this to be the null set. No one but you seems to be able to figure out what this is. If I don't even know that you're even using my software, you can't individually piss me off. Big and powerful distros can, easily. -- Tuomo ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ion3 license violation
Tuomo Valkonen ha scritto: No, but I've considered simply having no license. No, not public domain, but license-free as djb distributes his stuff. FYI, djb switched to public domain a few weeks ago :-) -- Alex Dupre ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ion3 license violation
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 10:36:23AM +, Tuomo Valkonen wrote: Big and powerful distros can [piss me off], easily. Ah, that should let FreeBSD off the hook, then. mcl ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: results of ports re-engineering survey
On Dec 12, 2007, at 01:38 , Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: First of all excuse my language but I have about had it with certain people... Presumably that would be me. where the *HELL* do you get the idea that I am attempting to get other people to do the heavy lifting or have you not learned a single f***'ing thing from the last 30 years of software engineering (i.e. involve the user from the very beginning).. And you've involved, at best, 1% of the user base. More likely 0.01%. Do we need to talk statistics again? I said right in the f***'ing disclaimer that this is not an attempt to get permission from anyone to do anything and/or any type of project plan as of yet it is *ONLY* an attempt to define the problem so that a good (instead of one I think is good) solution can be designed I have yet to see any coherent definition that a problem even exists. That's not to say the current situation is perfect, it certainly isn't. Those of us that have dealt with the ports tree for any length of time are well aware of its shortcomings. We're also well aware that making anything but baby-step changes along a larger path is destined to failure. Now, if y'all have concrete and plausible solutions for actual problems, we're all ears. But in the meantime, it's just another re- run of this sucks, it can be done better, without any concrete *proof* of the latter. We *know* it can be done better. We *know* the scaling limits of the current system, and most of us are completely amazed it even still works. If y'all want to make a difference, concepts and ideas we have plenty of. Code talks. -aDe ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
FreeBSD Port: enlightenment-20070223_1,1
Hi, I see from the FreeBSD ports page that you are the maintainer of the Enlightenment package and I was just wondering if there were any plans for an update. Thank you, Lance ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: results of ports re-engineering survey
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 04:38:39AM -0500, Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: I have used FreeBSD since '95 and except for jerks like you have really enjoyed it. Are you quite sure it would be there to enjoy if not for jerks like us? :) ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: scope of the port re-engineering project
Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Disclaimer: This does not commit me, anyone else and/or FreeBSD to an course of action nor does it imply such a commitment. Assuming that the following is true: 1. There is a proven need to re-engineer the ports system as demostrated by posts to -ports@ and the results of the survey on re-engineering the ports system 2. Any system will correct your own personal worst aspect of the ports system but will not do so at the expense of breaking any high level functionality Please answer the following questions: 1. Using the items listed in the next section please select the best scope of the project assuming that 100% backwards compatibility with the current ports system is maintained? 2. Using the items listed in the next section please select the best scope of the project assuming that 100% backwards compatibility with the current ports system is *NOT* maintained? Possible project scopes: a. Refactor the current system only b. Redesign and recoding of the current system c. Attempt to unify all methods of FreeBSD software installation into a single system d. Same as c but for all BSD like OS's I'm not sure what the words refactor and recode mean here. If I had lots of time on my hands, I think I would redo ports _without_ using make as its primary scripting tool. Mind you, I'm not sure what I would use in its place - perhaps its own scripting tool written from scratch? The difficulty with using make is that it isn't linear. For example (and this was my bugbear), to figure out make -V PKGNAME the program has to read and process every single line of the makefile, including all of its .includes. And while perhaps this issue is a bit frivolous, nevertheless I bet that this is one of the reasons why people creating ports make mistakes setting up the dependencies. Finally, I really do like the difference between ports and packages. Please keep both of the build from source and install binaries capabilities. If you really do all the heavy lifting, it is something I will admire. Not least because you might do all this work and find people are too conservative to use it. Stephen ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ion3 license violation
In response to Tuomo Valkonen [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 2007-12-12, Mark Linimon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, the release packages were already built. You see, part of the problem of software Quality Assurance is that it takes some Distro Quality Assurance... ROTFLMAO. If we're taking a vote, I vote for the following: a) We ban Tuomo from our lists. b) We remove all his software from the ports and refuse to accept any more by him. The guy is obviously just around to start flame wars. -- Bill Moran http://www.potentialtech.com ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD Port: ossp-uuid-1.6.0
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 16:21:10 -0700, Bradford Castalia wrote: The current distribution package does not include the C++ API support. This is important for those of us depending on this API for support of applications that we are building and distributing. When building this package please include the --with-cxx configure option so the resulting package will be complete. Done. -- Vasil Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED]Software Developer @ Oracle/Innobase Oy [EMAIL PROTECTED]Committer @ FreeBSD.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]Home @ Sofia, Bulgaria pgpYhLMnEnN1c.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: results of ports re-engineering survey
--On Wednesday, December 12, 2007 04:38:39 -0500 Aryeh M. Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ..while I still want to gather more data to pin down the exact requirements Don't you get it? You're not GATHERING DATA. You're eliciting responses from a TINY percentage of the people who use FreeBSD and ports and *extrapolating* from that tiny sample that 1) something is wrong with ports and 2) something actually needs to be done about it. You haven't even BEGUN to gather data. Yet you're already moving on to your second phase! Furthermore, you take it upon yourself to insult the very people who actually *do* write the code and make this thing work while polluting this list (and several others as well) with stuff that *very few* (very few is defined as less than 1% of the readership which represents perhaps 1% of the total users of FreeBSD) people care about. And you wonder why others' patience grows short? Have you even noticed that the sharpest criticism of your ideas has all come from people with @freebsd.org in their email address? Do you know what it takes to get one of those? Please, please, spare us all the pain. Go write some code. Submit a PR. Then argue the validity of your code on the developer's list. You're already in my killfile. I'm about to put you in /dev/null. -- Paul Schmehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Senior Information Security Analyst The University of Texas at Dallas http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/ ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: results of ports re-engineering survey
Im not really reading this threads.. But.. has this something to do with this? http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2007-April/039802.html :P -- Phillip N. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
xmule port
Hi! I have noticed that xMule has been removed from our ports tree. Could someone say me why? I uses xmule and worked for me, but now i cant install it from ports. Thank you. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: xmule port
Gonzalo Martinez - Sanjuan Sanchez wrote: Hi! I have noticed that xMule has been removed from our ports tree. Could someone say me why? I uses xmule and worked for me, but now i cant install it from ports. Thank you. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/net-p2p/xmule/Attic/ Suggests that it's no longer in active development. HTH, Mike. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ion3 license violation
Mark Linimon wrote: On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 08:25:17AM +, Tuomo Valkonen wrote: On 2007-12-12, Mark Linimon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: === NOTICE: And this would also stop binary package from being generated for the releases? No, the release packages were already built. You see, part of the problem of software Quality Assurance is that it takes some period of time to get final packages made and tested -- a time that no one can guarantee will necessarily be less than 28 days. From the discussion I followed on the pkgsrc mailing list, you obviously either don't understand, or don't care, about this asepct of trying to produce the best working packages for the users of a particular OS. But, I tell you what, as a special favor to you, I'll personally rip ion-3 out of the already-prepared package sets, check to make sure that the port is removed from the Ports Collection, and promulgate a new policy that NO software from you will in the future be accepted into the Ports Collection. Thus, your licenses will be honored, and as an inevitable result, your software will descend even further into complete irrelevance. Will that be acceptable, or is there something else that you would like from me this fine evening? Damn it. I use this software, and I even feel somewhat responsible for perhaps possibly Tuomo here after I reported a crash under FreeBSD 7 on the ion list that wound up having something to do with the mod_xinerama extension -- something that I haven't had time to further look into. Tuomo, I wasn't running the version in ports CVS. I was running a modified local port that did pull the latest ion sources. I also had to explicitly enable mod_xinerama with a make define; so, it isn't part of the the binary package or a default port install. I really don't see why the extreme action of removing it from ports was necessary. :sigh: -- Russell A. Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Network Analyst California State University, Bakersfield It is easier to get forgiveness than permission. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Ion3 license violation
Russell Jackson wrote: Damn it. I use this software, and I even feel somewhat responsible for perhaps possibly Tuomo here after I reported a crash under FreeBSD 7 on the ion list that wound up having something to do with the mod_xinerama extension -- something that I haven't had time to further look into. s/perhaps possibly/possibly luring/ -- Russell A. Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Network Analyst California State University, Bakersfield It is easier to get forgiveness than permission. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Ion3 license violation
Hi there, On 12/12/2007, Bill Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In response to Tuomo Valkonen [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 2007-12-12, Mark Linimon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, the release packages were already built. You see, part of the problem of software Quality Assurance is that it takes some Distro Quality Assurance... ROTFLMAO. If we're taking a vote, I vote for the following: a) We ban Tuomo from our lists. b) We remove all his software from the ports and refuse to accept any more by him. The guy is obviously just around to start flame wars. Up to now I was a happy user of ion3. So it makes me sad to see that ion3 is gone. I can understand why the author is frustated - sometimes behaviour of certain users doesn't make life easy. On the other hand these users are just the minority, while the bigger group is able of doing RTFM - including manuals and mailing archives. So there's even a third group of people that do all this, and wait for the port to be updated within a couple of days. Which up to now did work pretty well. Thanks, Mark! And by the way: It's not only a FOSS problem, it doesn't matter how one distributes code in source or binary form. It's a general problem that can't be dealt with by changing some license. That being said I can understand why the port maintainer decided to remove the port - and I second his decission. Let me put it this way: ion3 is great. FreeBSD is great. The ports system is great. Building software from scratch sucks. This is why I'll remove ion3 from all my machines (including some Solaris boxes at work, but I don't bother with maintaining several configurations that are supposed to do the same). There are alternatives, after all. Thanks Mark for maintaining the port. And thanks Tuomo for enlightening the world with a new method of interacting with GUIs. I really apreciate your opinion on GUI design and window management, and I even agree with some of your opinions regarding FOSS. Bye Christian ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: results of ports re-engineering survey
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ade Lovett wrote: On Dec 12, 2007, at 01:38 , Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: First of all excuse my language but I have about had it with certain people... Presumably that would be me. While your the main one your not the only one. where the *HELL* do you get the idea that I am attempting to get other people to do the heavy lifting or have you not learned a single f***'ing thing from the last 30 years of software engineering (i.e. involve the user from the very beginning).. And you've involved, at best, 1% of the user base. More likely 0.01%. Do we need to talk statistics again? Did you read the disclaimer where I specifically state that no mathematical/scientific validity should be placed on the results. Translation for the literal minded: I have made no claims that these results are in any way representative of the community as a whole only that they are representative of the people who elected to respond (which is clearly not a random sample and thus could not be considered to statistically valid no matter the sample size [unless the sample size is proven to be the same as the population which is impossible due to no existing user census of FreeBSD]) I said right in the f***'ing disclaimer that this is not an attempt to get permission from anyone to do anything and/or any type of project plan as of yet it is *ONLY* an attempt to define the problem so that a good (instead of one I think is good) solution can be designed I have yet to see any coherent definition that a problem even exists. That's not to say the current situation is perfect, it certainly isn't. Those of us that have dealt with the ports tree for any length of time are well aware of its shortcomings. We're also well aware that making anything but baby-step changes along a larger path is destined to failure. 1. One of the goals of the survey was to determine if any further work was warrented and clearly it is. 2. Using fairly standard software architicure methods enumerating what problems are being solved in detail is usually done after the need for the project is established and the second was the only goal of the survey. The next steps are: a. Decide on the scope of the project b. Gather detailed requirements c. Produce a very light weight design (with assumption it is just to structure the thought process and not to be the final implimented design) d. Begin implementation and testing (at the same time instead of in sequence) e. Iterate over c d until something is testable by the larger user community f. After substantial field testing decide what role, if any, FreeBSD will have in the final implementation of the project Now, if y'all have concrete and plausible solutions for actual problems, we're all ears. But in the meantime, it's just another re-run of this sucks, it can be done better, without any concrete *proof* of the latter. How exactly do you purpose to do that with out a complete understanding of the issues involved first and since personal experience always varies and illuminates different subsystems it is critical to gather data beyond ones own experience to understand the issues We *know* it can be done better. We *know* the scaling limits of the current system, and most of us are completely amazed it even still works. If you know that and feel that I am doomed to failure then let me fail... but on the other hand if I succeed then the community will be enriched... the only thing you're doing in this thread is attempting to kill the effort before any results can possibelly be shown. If y'all want to make a difference, concepts and ideas we have plenty of. Code talks. And bad code is worse then no code at all. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHYDkDzIOMjAek4JIRAvWHAJ0RJ6sNaioZEPDWIa0h3BhACvJyywCbBOh1 +jSqdFv0RpDO+vzBCdIzxBI= =cJa7 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ion3 license violation
On 2007-12-12, Russell Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Damn it. I use this software, and I even feel somewhat responsible Don't worry, you're not responsible (much). I'd been monitoring the situation having heard of a ports freeze, and nothing having been done to mark the Ion package as (potentially) obsolete or anything. Not much asked, but it seems distros don't like to admit that they distribute obsolete and buggy software. I wasn't running the version in ports CVS. I was running a modified local port that did pull the latest ion sources. I also had to explicitly enable mod_xinerama with a make define; so, it isn't part of the the binary package or a default port install. The option doesn't seem Ion-specific and isn't documented to add unsupported features. A much better place for the module would in any case be, say, x11-wm/ion-3-extras/mod_shit-o-rama. You could also have mod_xrandr, mod_ionflux, and etc. under that kind of setup. There's no reason why the module should deceivingly (and inconveniently) be distributed hidden within the ion-3 package. I really don't see why the extreme action of removing it from ports was necessary. :sigh: Distro folks are not reasonable; they think authors should be their undemanding and unquestioning slaves. I think we have learned that already. -- Tuomo ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: results of ports re-engineering survey
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Paul Schmehl wrote: --On Wednesday, December 12, 2007 04:38:39 -0500 Aryeh M. Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ..while I still want to gather more data to pin down the exact requirements Don't you get it? You're not GATHERING DATA. You're eliciting responses from a TINY percentage of the people who use FreeBSD and ports and *extrapolating* from that tiny sample that 1) something is wrong with ports and 2) something actually needs to be done about it. You haven't even BEGUN to gather data. Yet you're already moving on to your second phase! Furthermore, you take it upon yourself to insult the very people who actually *do* write the code and make this thing work while polluting this list (and several others as well) with stuff that *very few* (very few is defined as less than 1% of the readership which represents perhaps 1% of the total users of FreeBSD) people care about. And you wonder why others' patience grows short? Have you even noticed that the sharpest criticism of your ideas has all come from people with @freebsd.org in their email address? Do you know what it takes to get one of those? Please, please, spare us all the pain. Go write some code. Submit a PR. Then argue the validity of your code on the developer's list. Although I was one who was initially critical of Aryeh, I must admit that I am becoming puzzled as to why his initiative is attracting such hostility. I can understand people being dismissive of his efforts, but not the hostility. Aryeh has made it extremely clear what his goals are, and at worst all it will be is a failed project, and at best it might really contribute. People are saying again and again that they want to see the code, but he has said that he plans to do the heavy lifting by himself, and it should be obvious that he has taken on a very ambitious plan and code won't be seen for quite a while. Next, I don't get all this talk about the need for his data to satisfy some kind of significance test. Even professional polsters find this task extremely difficult and expensive. Obviously all Aryeh is trying to do is to get some anecdotal evidence. And in his situation I would say that (a) it is by far the best he can hope for, and (b) certainly has potential to be extremely useful. Come on guys, get off his back. You might disagree with him, but his comments are most certainly relevant to this mailing list. Kill the message, but don't kill the messenger. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ion3 license violation
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 10:39:04AM -0800, Russell Jackson wrote: I really don't see why the extreme action of removing it from ports was necessary. :sigh: An alternative is to simply keep the last released version that had a sane license. AFAIK OpenBSD did that, see: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-portsm=119522869306969w=2 http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-portsm=119523415116636w=2 -- stefan http://stsp.name PGP Key: 0xF59D25F0 pgpbCpF8OIVX6.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Ion3 license violation
In response to Russell Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Russell Jackson wrote: Damn it. I use this software, and I even feel somewhat responsible for perhaps possibly Tuomo here after I reported a crash under FreeBSD 7 on the ion list that wound up having something to do with the mod_xinerama extension -- something that I haven't had time to further look into. The simple fact is that Tuomo has some strange desire to blame packagers for all his problems with software and users. It's impossible for the FreeBSD ports system to guarantee compliance with his arbitrarily chosen 28 days rule. If he's going to demand that his terms be followed, then it has to come out of the ports. -- Bill Moran http://www.potentialtech.com ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ion3 license violation
On 2007-12-12, Bill Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you were watching, why didn't you point this out back at the beginning of the ports freeze? What makes you think I'd been watching that long? Don't you people read the licenses of the software you distribute? Either you didn't understand Russell's comment ... or you haven't read the license. Remind the voices that FreeBSD isn't a Linux distro, and maybe they'll start feeding you accurate information instead of making you look insane. It's a distribution of various third party software. You may split hairs by insisting that FreeBSD ports is the distribution, but it is still a distribution. (There are no Linux distributions either: there are GNU/Linux distributions, if you get into hair-splitting.) -- Tuomo ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: scope of the port re-engineering project
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I'm not sure what the words refactor and recode mean here. Refacoring is to use the existing framework and make tweaks to it. Recoding is to start with a fresh piece of paper and see what emerges. ... If you really do all the heavy lifting, it is something I will admire. Not least because you might do all this work and find people are too conservative to use it. I have my own personal reasons for wanting to do most of the work my self (prototype for a commerical package I am looking at developing... note there will be no functional diff between the two systems just the addition of some smoothing of rough UI edges in the commerical one) If I were going to do this (and I most certainly am not!) I would opt for the recoding from scratch, but doing so in a very backwards compatible fashion. I would create a framework in which ports could be created with configuration files similar to, but more straightforward, to the current Makefiles. Then I would work hard on creating a script that automatically converts the existing ports into the new ports system. This means that people should be free to switch to your system whenever they like. Most people will keep using the existing system because of fear (and reasonable fear) that your new system will have a lot of bugs (that any new project will have) and that it might even ultimately fail. Then if your system really is noticeably superior, people will begin switching to yours and eventually the existing structure will fall to the wayside. One more thing. I personally am very impressed with the existing structure of var/db/pkg. If you can preserve that as well, then people will be able to switch back and forth willy nilly, and they will be even more willing to try out your system. Finally, don't get depressed when (or if) you roll out your new system, that it has a lot of problems and/or detractors. Remember, for example, those early ugly days when Netscape had just been made open-source, and it looked likely to bite the dust. And now it is threatening IE! And even if your new system doesn't get adopted, when FreeBSD does eventually get a complete rehaul of the ports, many of your ideas will be there. But I am getting ahead of myself. I'll wait until you have the product before doing more cheerleading. Stephen ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ion3 license violation
On 2007-12-12, Bill Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's impossible for the FreeBSD ports system to guarantee compliance with his arbitrarily chosen 28 days rule. There is no 28 days rule. There is a latest release in 28 days or prominently mark (potentially) obsolete rule. You can make the marking permanent, always requiring users to acknowledge a message. You can make the marking automatic, by checking the website for a new release (as Debian presently does), or by some more sophisticated means or dead man triggers. You may not be able to distribute such binary packages with your present setup, but source should be enough. You may even simply have the package download and install http://iki.fi/tuomov/dl/ion-3-latest.tar.gz (signature in http://iki.fi/tuomov/dl/ion-3-latest.tar.gz.asc). Even if I made the number 280 days, distros would still complain. It's not about the days. The greatest difficulty to complying with the license are the idealist blockages in your head. -- Tuomo ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ion3 license violation
In response to Tuomo Valkonen [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 2007-12-12, Russell Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Damn it. I use this software, and I even feel somewhat responsible Don't worry, you're not responsible (much). I'd been monitoring the situation having heard of a ports freeze, and nothing having been done to mark the Ion package as (potentially) obsolete or anything. Not much asked, but it seems distros don't like to admit that they distribute obsolete and buggy software. Translation: Tuomo was just waiting around in the hopes that he could start bitching and cause trouble. He could have pre-emptivly offered his assistance to ensure that the FreeBSD ports tree didn't drift too far out of sync, but instead he just waited around until the opportune moment to start bitching and crying like a baby. If you were watching, why didn't you point this out back at the beginning of the ports freeze? I wasn't running the version in ports CVS. I was running a modified local port that did pull the latest ion sources. I also had to explicitly enable mod_xinerama with a make define; so, it isn't part of the the binary package or a default port install. The option doesn't seem Ion-specific and isn't documented to add unsupported features. A much better place for the module would in any case be, say, x11-wm/ion-3-extras/mod_shit-o-rama. You could also have mod_xrandr, mod_ionflux, and etc. under that kind of setup. There's no reason why the module should deceivingly (and inconveniently) be distributed hidden within the ion-3 package. Either you didn't understand Russell's comment, or you're so bent on blaming folks problems on distro folks that you're redirecting the conversation in an attempt to prove your point, whatever it is. I really don't see why the extreme action of removing it from ports was necessary. :sigh: Distro folks are not reasonable; they think authors should be their undemanding and unquestioning slaves. I think we have learned that already. Who's we? You and all the voices in your head? Remind the voices that FreeBSD isn't a Linux distro, and maybe they'll start feeding you accurate information instead of making you look insane. -- Bill Moran http://www.potentialtech.com ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: scope of the port re-engineering project
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Philipp Ost wrote: Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: [...] c. Attempt to unify all methods of FreeBSD software installation into a single system d. Same as c but for all BSD like OS's Wouldn't you clone pkgsrc if you decide on going for d.? Most likelly not since I understand it has many of same flaws ports does due to its common lineage -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHYD9ezIOMjAek4JIRAo+MAJ9sTRO6D5HA2ZHSCxxDmuSHyM+G5gCgpuQR 5Vzdx+bA4dEjVOAyklJ1UDw= =2v/S -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ion3 license violation
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 07:59:34PM +, Tuomo Valkonen wrote: Even if I made the number 280 days, distros would still complain. It's It's not so much that distributions complain, it's more the author of the software who has a set of misconnected wires in his head. Edwin -- Edwin Groothuis |Personal website: http://www.mavetju.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]| Weblog: http://www.mavetju.org/weblog/ ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: scope of the port re-engineering project
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Disclaimer: This does not commit me, anyone else and/or FreeBSD to an course of action nor does it imply such a commitment. Assuming that the following is true: 1. There is a proven need to re-engineer the ports system as demostrated by posts to -ports@ and the results of the survey on re-engineering the ports system 2. Any system will correct your own personal worst aspect of the ports system but will not do so at the expense of breaking any high level functionality Please answer the following questions: 1. Using the items listed in the next section please select the best scope of the project assuming that 100% backwards compatibility with the current ports system is maintained? 2. Using the items listed in the next section please select the best scope of the project assuming that 100% backwards compatibility with the current ports system is *NOT* maintained? Possible project scopes: a. Refactor the current system only b. Redesign and recoding of the current system c. Attempt to unify all methods of FreeBSD software installation into a single system d. Same as c but for all BSD like OS's I'm not sure what the words refactor and recode mean here. Refacoring is to use the existing framework and make tweaks to it. Recoding is to start with a fresh piece of paper and see what emerges. If I had lots of time on my hands, I think I would redo ports _without_ using make as its primary scripting tool. Mind you, I'm not sure what I would use in its place - perhaps its own scripting tool written from scratch? The difficulty with using make is that it isn't linear. For example (and this was my bugbear), to figure out make -V PKGNAME the program has to read and process every single line of the makefile, including all of its .includes. And while perhaps this issue is a bit frivolous, nevertheless I bet that this is one of the reasons why people creating ports make mistakes setting up the dependencies. Cook, scons, ant and several other modern dependency tools offer a good framework for per package methods for handling this (see Miller97) but as far I can tell there is no good tool that solves this at the inter-project level and thus the final result would be likely modeled on one of the above DMT's but would be home grown. Finally, I really do like the difference between ports and packages. Please keep both of the build from source and install binaries capabilities. Even though we are not in the requirements phase this is one of the requirements I think is a must I would even go a step further and say the two should be completely interchangeable (which they aren't right now... i.e. you use one or the other exclusivally for all packages) If you really do all the heavy lifting, it is something I will admire. Not least because you might do all this work and find people are too conservative to use it. I have my own personal reasons for wanting to do most of the work my self (prototype for a commerical package I am looking at developing... note there will be no functional diff between the two systems just the addition of some smoothing of rough UI edges in the commerical one) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHYD7NzIOMjAek4JIRAvzsAKCKubnQxw7EbVHJ1LdCS+Cadq24EQCfe6gx z1JZPbCahjsmhn/+bsaIRJQ= =Fo8B -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ion3 license violation
In response to Tuomo Valkonen [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 2007-12-12, Bill Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's impossible for the FreeBSD ports system to guarantee compliance with his arbitrarily chosen 28 days rule. There is no 28 days rule. There is a latest release in 28 days or prominently mark (potentially) obsolete rule. You can make the marking permanent, always requiring users to acknowledge a message. You can make the marking automatic, by checking the website for a new release (as Debian presently does), or by some more sophisticated means or dead man triggers. There you go. I had no idea it would be this easy. Please open a PR and attach a patch. -- Bill Moran http://www.potentialtech.com ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: scope of the port re-engineering project
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I'm not sure what the words refactor and recode mean here. Refacoring is to use the existing framework and make tweaks to it. Recoding is to start with a fresh piece of paper and see what emerges. ... If you really do all the heavy lifting, it is something I will admire. Not least because you might do all this work and find people are too conservative to use it. I have my own personal reasons for wanting to do most of the work my self (prototype for a commerical package I am looking at developing... note there will be no functional diff between the two systems just the addition of some smoothing of rough UI edges in the commerical one) Forgot to mention the target platform for the commercial tool is not any variant of Unix (though it could be ported trivially) If I were going to do this (and I most certainly am not!) I would opt for the recoding from scratch, but doing so in a very backwards compatible fashion. I would create a framework in which ports could be created with configuration files similar to, but more straightforward, to the current Makefiles. The only requirement I consider to be in stone right now is 100% backwards compatibility Then I would work hard on creating a script that automatically converts the existing ports into the new ports system. That will have to be worked out in detail but obviously some conversion tool is needed. This means that people should be free to switch to your system whenever they like. Most people will keep using the existing system because of fear (and reasonable fear) that your new system will have a lot of bugs (that any new project will have) and that it might even ultimately fail. Then if your system really is noticeably superior, people will begin switching to yours and eventually the existing structure will fall to the wayside. I never expected a wholesale switch over even though the details are not clear yet I expect the two to live side by side several years at least. One more thing. I personally am very impressed with the existing structure of var/db/pkg. If you can preserve that as well, then people will be able to switch back and forth willy nilly, and they will be even more willing to try out your system. That is part of backwards compatibility. Finally, don't get depressed when (or if) you roll out your new system, that it has a lot of problems and/or detractors. Remember, for example, those early ugly days when Netscape had just been made open-source, and it looked likely to bite the dust. And now it is threatening IE! And even if your new system doesn't get adopted, when FreeBSD does eventually get a complete rehaul of the ports, many of your ideas will be there. Part of the reason for the drawn out process vs. me just getting in there and hacking code is attempting to make those mistakes as cost efficient as possible. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHYEtwzIOMjAek4JIRAihAAKCECtdoE7cecxYuoNRl3X9ARTwp3ACfa0Zx /kTJJH3uD64T4t9ncmzvsIg= =QJQp -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ion3 license violation
Stefan Sperling wrote: An alternative is to simply keep the last released version that had a sane license. AFAIK OpenBSD did that, see: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-portsm=119522869306969w=2 Sounds like a fair solution. Ciao, Johan pgpKKzw6X0dHN.pgp Description: PGP signature
Port marked as IGNORE: security/krb5
Hallo, for a few weeks i become this error message ** Port marked as IGNORE: security/krb5: is marked as broken: fails to install. If i uncomment this in Makefile I can not install postfix with kerberos. Is there a solution for this problem ? Thanks for help Joachim ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Read-only ports, but shared distfiles ...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi ... I have my /etc/make.conf setup as: DISTDIR=/home/ports/distfiles WRKDIRPREFIX=/home/ports INDEXDIR=/home/ports so that any distfiles that need to be downloaded, can be ... but, is there some way I can set thing sup so that anything that already exists *in* /usr/ports/distfiles will get used before downloading a whole new copy? Thanks ... - Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . [EMAIL PROTECTED] MSN . [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.orgICQ . 7615664 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFHYE7U4QvfyHIvDvMRAlTnAJ91QV/1MYQZsWbgxB68GLQnuF0u2ACgpnVk nsd4FUnK9/xOqR5sRimVrMg= =8vdJ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Read-only ports, but shared distfiles ...
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 05:12:52PM -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
I have my /etc/make.conf setup as:
DISTDIR=/home/ports/distfiles
WRKDIRPREFIX=/home/ports
INDEXDIR=/home/ports
so that any distfiles that need to be downloaded, can be ... but, is there
some way I can set thing sup so that anything that already exists *in*
/usr/ports/distfiles will get used before downloading a whole new copy?
You might want to try CD_MOUNTPTS, or
MASTER_SITE_OVERRIDE=file:/usr/ports/distfiles/${DIST_SUBDIR},
and FETCH_SYMLINK_DISTFILES
Edwin
--
Edwin Groothuis |Personal website: http://www.mavetju.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]| Weblog: http://www.mavetju.org/weblog/
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ion3 removal (Re: Ion3 license violation)
The simple fact is that Tuomo has some strange desire to blame packagers for all his problems with software and users. Yes, license-crafting lawyers are usually more polite and don't engage in direct communications with forums such as ours. Their licenses suck much more, however -- think Java, cdrtools, or Skype, and all the other closed-source packages. Put Tuomo's demands in perspective, for crying out loud... It's impossible for the FreeBSD ports system to guarantee compliance with his arbitrarily chosen 28 days rule. If he's going to demand that his terms be followed, then it has to come out of the ports. Actually, it can be done -- when building the port, the date on the distfile (or that on the most recent source-file /extracted/ therefrom) can be checked against the current date and a prominent message can be issued warning of possible obsoleteness (sp?)... I just wish we avoided the rash decisions like let's remove everything written by the guy we don't like NOW -- if only in the name of ports slush... In the hurry to spite the admittedly unpleasant-sounding author, the needs and expectations of the users were neglected. I've never used ion, but, judging from some responses here, it is an appreciated piece of software. -mi ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ion3 license violation
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 08:01:27PM +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote: I really don't see why the extreme action of removing it from ports was necessary. :sigh: An alternative is to simply keep the last released version that had a sane license. Or simply use any of the freely available, cleanly licensed and more functional alternatives, many of which are written by programmers posessing an at least marginal semblance of sanity: - wmii - dwm - xmonad - larswm - awesome (my personal favorite) They all have their cranky peculiarities, but at least the authors aren't balls-out insane, and don't habitually harass OS distributors with their paranoid ravings. There's no reason to use ion anymore, much less let an old version rot in the ports tree. If people still want to for some reason, they can just keep a copy of the old port or build it from scratch. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ion3 license violation
David E. Thiel wrote: Or simply use any of the freely available, cleanly licensed and more functional alternatives, many of which are written by programmers posessing an at least marginal semblance of sanity: Sorry David, but I'm going to pick on this reply as an example of a more general case. It ought to be possible for us to discuss these issues without resorting to ad hominem attacks. Even if we may personally find someone's perspective unreasonable, the question for public discussion is _only_ whether the software author's license/perspective/demands are compatible with the FreeBSD ports system. If the answer is no, then no harm, no foul, everyone moves on with their lives. Regardless of the outcome however it is a hard and fast requirement that we conduct ourselves as professionals, especially if we feel compelled to criticize another party for not doing so. I've written three original pieces of software for FreeBSD now, and even though I have complete control over the software itself, and the ports for the 2 in the ports tree, I still get a non-trivial number of what I will politely refer to as wacky user questions. Therefore I have a certain amount of sympathy with Tuomo's position here. I think it's unfortunate that we could not reach an accommodation for this particular case, but I wish Tuomo the best of luck in his future endeavors. Doug PS, I do not in any way wish to discourage users from sending me questions about my stuff, although I find that not-infrequently my reply is, You might want to give the man page another look ... :) -- This .signature sanitized for your protection ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ion3 removal (Re: Ion3 license violation)
Mikhail Teterin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The simple fact is that Tuomo has some strange desire to blame packagers for all his problems with software and users. Yes, license-crafting lawyers are usually more polite and don't engage in direct communications with forums such as ours. Their licenses suck much more, however -- think Java, cdrtools, or Skype, and all the other closed-source packages. Put Tuomo's demands in perspective, for crying out loud... What perspective? The port does not meet his license requirements. Nobody has submitted patches to make it meet said requirements. The project has to remove it. What perspective do I have to keep? Oh, you mean the part where he comes onto the FreeBSD lists and insults all the hard-working ports maintainers? Sure, I'll keep that in perspective. It's impossible for the FreeBSD ports system to guarantee compliance with his arbitrarily chosen 28 days rule. If he's going to demand that his terms be followed, then it has to come out of the ports. Actually, it can be done -- when building the port, the date on the distfile (or that on the most recent source-file /extracted/ therefrom) can be checked against the current date and a prominent message can be issued warning of possible obsoleteness (sp?)... Sure. As I already stated: please submit a patch. Without someone who actually cares enough to patch the port, it must be removed do to license problems. This is _no_ different than any other port with similar conflicts between licensing and available manpower to meet those licensing requirements. The _only_ difference is that Tuomo thought it necessary to come onto our lists and make a big stink about it, filling my inbox to overflowing. I just wish we avoided the rash decisions like let's remove everything written by the guy we don't like NOW -- if only in the name of ports slush... In the hurry to spite the admittedly unpleasant-sounding author, the needs and expectations of the users were neglected. Well, I said that because the guy irritates me. Let me be clear on this point. I maintain a few ports. I am _NOT_ in a position to dictate policy, I was only stating my opinion -- which _MUST_ not be construed to be the overall opinion of the FreeBSD community. There are far too many quality hackers out there who _do_ care about the community to tolerate one who seems to be in conflict with his community. I've never used ion, but, judging from some responses here, it is an appreciated piece of software. Fair enough. In that case, those who appreciate it should submit patches that meet Tuomo's requirements. This is how it's done. This is how it's _always_ been done. If the original maintainer is no longer keeping up with the software, then someone else needs to step up. It's his software. If his requirements can't be met, then the port comes out of the tree. What else do you expect to happen? -- Bill Moran http://www.potentialtech.com ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ion3 removal (Re: Ion3 license violation)
On 2007-12-12, Bill Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are far too many quality hackers out there who _do_ care about the community to tolerate one who seems to be in conflict with his community. Since when have I been part of some purported community? There's just me, a handful of other people with some traces of sanity, and a herd that keeps turning FOSS and *nix into a big pile of steaming shit. That's not a community. Maybe the herd feels they're one, but I'm not in it. -- Tuomo ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ion3 removal (Re: Ion3 license violation)
середа 12 грудень 2007 06:35 по, Bill Moran Ви написали: It's his software. If his requirements can't be met, then the port comes out of the tree. What else do you expect to happen? I expect the port-removal to be initiated/done in an orderly fashion. This includes marking it FORBIDDEN (or IGNORE, or BROKEN): FORBIDDEN= Violates licensing requirements of the author and: EXPIRATION_DATE=Some date a few months from now This would give those people, whom you expect to submit patches, some time to, actually, create them... Only if nothing materializes by the expiration date, should the port be deleted. -mi ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ion3 removal (Re: Ion3 license violation)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Mikhail Teterin wrote: середа 12 грудень 2007 06:35 по, Bill Moran Ви написали: It's his software. If his requirements can't be met, then the port comes out of the tree. What else do you expect to happen? I expect the port-removal to be initiated/done in an orderly fashion. This includes marking it FORBIDDEN (or IGNORE, or BROKEN): No who ever did the removal just summarily removed it from the cvs repo. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHYH3OzIOMjAek4JIRAr3GAJ9VJZGMB4M2ULfejOnuA6OEjsgD1ACgo3/t UIewehvvOOQrWmEQeHlLgc4= =bXLe -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ion3 removal (Re: Ion3 license violation)
Mikhail Teterin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: середа 12 грудень 2007 06:35 по, Bill Moran Ви написали: It's his software. If his requirements can't be met, then the port comes out of the tree. What else do you expect to happen? I expect the port-removal to be initiated/done in an orderly fashion. This includes marking it FORBIDDEN (or IGNORE, or BROKEN): FORBIDDEN= Violates licensing requirements of the author and: EXPIRATION_DATE=Some date a few months from now This would give those people, whom you expect to submit patches, some time to, actually, create them... Only if nothing materializes by the expiration date, should the port be deleted. It's absolutely a shame that couldn't be done, but he demanded that the port be fixed prior to release. Without a fix to hand, the only way to guarantee that FreeBSD wouldn't be in violation of the license agreement was to pull the port. Generate a patch and submit it. I'm sure the port will be reinstated as soon as somebody does so. -- Bill Moran http://www.potentialtech.com ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ion3 removal (Re: Ion3 license violation)
On Wednesday 12 December 2007, Mikhail Teterin said: The simple fact is that Tuomo has some strange desire to blame packagers for all his problems with software and users. Yes, license-crafting lawyers are usually more polite and don't engage in direct communications with forums such as ours. Their licenses suck much more, however -- think Java, cdrtools, or Skype, and all the other closed-source packages. Put Tuomo's demands in perspective, for crying out loud... Lets not pick on Skype. While they may be closed source, they are very accommodating and interested in FreeBSD and FreeBSD users. They certainly don't put unreasonable demands on me as maintainer or the FreeBSD Project itself. I have direct access to their developers and they in fact rolled the new OSS version mostly for our benefit. There are no 28 day or rename it something else provisions anywhere in their license. That to me is a completely unreasonable demand. Beech -- --- Beech Rintoul - FreeBSD Developer - [EMAIL PROTECTED] /\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | FreeBSD Since 4.x \ / - NO HTML/RTF in e-mail | http://www.freebsd.org X - NO Word docs in e-mail | Latest Release: / \ - http://www.FreeBSD.org/releases/6.2R/announce.html --- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: xmule port
Hi, I have noticed that xMule has been removed from our ports tree. Could someone say me why? I uses xmule and worked for me, but now i cant install it from ports. I removed it due to lack of development. The last update happened on 09/11/2006, more than a year ago. Since the de facto standard for edonkey p2p communication is emule, a client is of no help if it does not follow emule's development. xmule implements none of the last year worth of emule protocol development. You are better off trying either net-p2p/amule or net-p2p/mldonkey (which I personally recommend). If you still want to use xmule, I'll revive the port with no maintainer. Regards, -- Mario S F Ferreira - DF - Brazil - I guess this is a signature. feature, n: a documented bug | bug, n: an undocumented feature ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ion3 removal (Re: Ion3 license violation)
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 08:12:17PM -0600, Mark Linimon wrote: http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-pkg/2007/10/28/.html Anyone interested in this thread needs to go read that one first. As well as http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/tur-users/2007-April/004634.html, which contains the history of the author's legal threat against ArchLinux. mcl ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ion3 removal (Re: Ion3 license violation)
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 07:56:13PM -0500, Bill Moran wrote: Mikhail Teterin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 12 ?? 2007 06:35 , Bill Moran : It's his software. ??If his requirements can't be met, then the port comes out of the tree. ??What else do you expect to happen? I expect the port-removal to be initiated/done in an orderly fashion. This includes marking it FORBIDDEN (or IGNORE, or BROKEN): FORBIDDEN= Violates licensing requirements of the author and: EXPIRATION_DATE=Some date a few months from now This would give those people, whom you expect to submit patches, some time to, actually, create them... Only if nothing materializes by the expiration date, should the port be deleted. It's absolutely a shame that couldn't be done, but he demanded that the port be fixed prior to release. Without a fix to hand, the only way to guarantee that FreeBSD wouldn't be in violation of the license agreement was to pull the port. Generate a patch and submit it. I'm sure the port will be reinstated as soon as somebody does so. I am one of those users of Ion and after reading this thread I went and looked around at alternatives, only to find out that I still liked Ion the best. I was willing to submit patches to bring the port in line with Tuomo's wishes, until I read: http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/tur-users/2007-April/004634.html My understanding of this thread is that if xinerama option is enabled the package name must be changed to indicate it is not an official release. Apparently changing the package name to be ion-OMG-YOU-ENABLED-XINERAMA-THIS-IS-NOT-A-SUPPORTED-PACKAGE is not acceptable by him. It is at this point that I decided his requests will not be able to be met within the ports framework and it's better left off dead. I'll be maintaining my own copy of the port for my personal use, but I don't see how the port can ever be revived given the statements he has made in the link given above. Let it die, please. -- WXS ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD Port: enlightenment-20070223_1,1
you can try http://people.freebsd.org/~vanilla/e.tgz I sended this patch to stas@ about 3 month ago. 2007/12/12, Lance Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi, I see from the FreeBSD ports page that you are the maintainer of the Enlightenment package and I was just wondering if there were any plans for an update. Thank you, Lance ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: scope of the port re-engineering project
Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: [...] c. Attempt to unify all methods of FreeBSD software installation into a single system d. Same as c but for all BSD like OS's Wouldn't you clone pkgsrc if you decide on going for d.? Philipp ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ion3 removal (Re: Ion3 license violation)
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 07:30:46PM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote: I expect the port-removal to be initiated/done in an orderly fashion. Claims of license violations absolutely trump any process requirements. portmgr has the explicit task of keeping the Ports Collection in as best a legal state as possible. Further, note that my initial commit tried to do this, and I asked the author if it was acceptable. It was clear from his reply that it was not -- especially considering the following history: http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-pkg/2007/10/28/.html Anyone interested in this thread needs to go read that one first. mcl ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ion3 removal (Re: Ion3 license violation)
On Wednesday 12 December 2007 23:01:57 Mikhail Teterin wrote: The simple fact is that Tuomo has some strange desire to blame packagers for all his problems with software and users. Yes, license-crafting lawyers are usually more polite and don't engage in direct communications with forums such as ours. Their licenses suck much more, however -- think Java, cdrtools, or Skype, and all the other closed-source packages. Put Tuomo's demands in perspective, for crying out loud... It's impossible for the FreeBSD ports system to guarantee compliance with his arbitrarily chosen 28 days rule. If he's going to demand that his terms be followed, then it has to come out of the ports. Actually, it can be done -- when building the port, the date on the distfile (or that on the most recent source-file /extracted/ therefrom) can be checked against the current date and a prominent message can be issued warning of possible obsoleteness (sp?)... I just wish we avoided the rash decisions like let's remove everything written by the guy we don't like NOW -- if only in the name of ports slush... In the hurry to spite the admittedly unpleasant-sounding author, the needs and expectations of the users were neglected. Google a bit: ArchLinux (well, it was in the user-submitted ports tree that they have), Gentoo, Debian/ubuntu, NetBSD, OpenBSD. The latter had a pre license-change version and it was decided to stick with that. The others dumped it. The guy was never trying to find any compromise. He wants to go close sourced or something and move to windows xp in a few years, on which apparently there's a need for his software. Also, it's worth noting that there seems to be no trademark at all, the author is under the impression that a trademark doesn't have to be applied for (of course that goes for copyright, not trademarks). This is from early in the ML thread over at Archlinux, dated april 2007. The guy's got a huge grudge or something, maybe even a serious mental problem (that is not meant as hyperbole -- look through some of the above distros ML archives). You can't do OSS and be a control freak at the same time. It just doesn't work like that. mlc has handled this exactly how he should have. With a swagger! I promise not to reply to this thread any more :) Dan I've never used ion, but, judging from some responses here, it is an appreciated piece of software. -mi ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: results of ports re-engineering survey
Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 *PLEASE ONLY REPLY TO ME OR [EMAIL PROTECTED] Omigod!! For Gods sake, could you PLEASE not have folks reply to the list! We have been sufficiently bombarded with this already. If you must have the replies public, then send them to freebsd-chat, but plesae stop polluting the list (as you are clearly asking people to do above). A few disclaimers: Neither I or anyone else is asking for FreeBSD to incorparate any modifications to the current base system and/or ports collection. If and when any code is developed from this process it will be committed using normal commit and review processes. The following summary of results is based on my eyeballing of answers and should not be interpreted as being any sort of mathematically and/or scientifically valid in any manner. Number of responses: roughly 30 Summary of results: 1. Most respondents stated that both the underlaying OS and the ports collection are equally important. When a preference was shown it was for the underlaying OS in most cases. 2. On average people tend to interact with the port system once or twice a week 3. The single best aspect of the ports system according to respondents is dependency tracking when installing new ports 4. The single worst aspect of the ports system according to respondents is dependency tracking when updating or deleting existing ports 5. Most respondents would not change there answers tothe survey if they where new to FreeBSD 6. Almost all respondents would use a new system if it fixed their personal worst aspect of the current system 7. About 50% of respondents would use a new system if it broke the best aspect of the ports system but fixed the worst aspect 8. Length of FreeBSD usage: rough avr. of 8 years with roughly 3 year std. dev. 9. Prefered install method: ports 10. Usage roughly evenly spread among desktop, development and servers 11. Subsystem ratings (rough avr's): UI: 6 Constancy: 9 Dependancy tracking: 7 Record keeping: 9 Granularity: 9 12. Most users are either sysadmins and/or developers Orginial Survey: As has been hashed out in -ports@ over the last few days there is at least a need to examine weither or not the current ports system should remain as is or potentially be re-engineered in the future (estimates if and when needed vary from ASAP to 10-15 years). I have volunteered to undertake a feasibility/pilot project to examine what changes (if any) are needed in the system (for the purposes of this thread I will not venture any of my own suggestions). I have the following broad questions for people: 1. What is more important to your personal use of FreeBSD (the ports system, the underlaying OS, some other aspect)? 2. How frequently do you interact with the ports systems and what is the most common interaction you have with it? 3. What is the single best aspect of the current system? 4. What is the single worst aspect of the current system? 5. If you where a new FreeBSD user how would your answers above change? If you where brand new to UNIX how whould they change? 6. Assuming that there was no additional work on your behalf would you use a new system if it corrected your answer to number 4? 7. Same as question 6 but for your answer on question 3? 8. How long have you used FreeBSD and/or UNIX in general? 9. That is your primary use(s) for your FreeBSD machine(s) (name upto 3)? 10. Assuming there is no functional difference what is your preferred installation method for 3rd party software? 11. On a scale from 1 to 10 (10 being the best) please rate the importance of the following aspects of the ports system? a. User Interface b. Consistency of behaviors and interactions c. Accuracy in dependant port installations d. Internal record keeping e. Granularity's of the port management system 12. Please rate your personal technical skill level? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHX3MyzIOMjAek4JIRAqqjAJ9YlNJW9Uqa21yK+sm1IST+KmO7QACfeum+ 9rhuEkdKX6BKkFZr6WGmbDU= =jhg0 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ion3 removal (Re: Ion3 license violation)
It was pulled from Debian, as well: http://packages.qa.debian.org/i/ion3/news/20070310T233909Z.html As far as I'm concerned, the matter is closed. When 4 different* OS groups come to the same conclusion, I think there's not much else to say. mcl * pkgsrc, ArchLinux, Debian, and now FreeBSD ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ion3 removal (Re: Ion3 license violation)
- Original Message - From: Mark Linimon [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 08:12:17PM -0600, Mark Linimon wrote: http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-pkg/2007/10/28/.html Anyone interested in this thread needs to go read that one first. As well as http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/tur-users/2007-April/004634.html, which contains the history of the author's legal threat against ArchLinux. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_%28window_manager%29#Controversy Regards Steve This e.mail is private and confidential between Multiplay (UK) Ltd. and the person or entity to whom it is addressed. In the event of misdirection, the recipient is prohibited from using, copying, printing or otherwise disseminating it or any information contained in it. In the event of misdirection, illegible or incomplete transmission please telephone +44 845 868 1337 or return the E.mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ion3 removal (Re: Ion3 license violation)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 an't do OSS and be a control freak at the same time. It just doesn't work like that. mlc has handled this exactly how he should have. With a swagger! Recent experiences have shown me that this is not necessarly true... usually the control freak side comes out in that is a bad idea don't waste your time type comments on purposals. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHYKSRzIOMjAek4JIRAnmBAJ9I+DG+Lr1eDWRVhvk+0PcLN4gVegCfc3vE xfX4pGb87eopVNtM2SwNepc= =2Ojn -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ion3 removal (Re: Ion3 license violation)
On 2007-12-13, Mark Linimon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Further, note that my initial commit tried to do this, and I asked the author if it was acceptable. It was clear from his reply that it was not -- especially considering the following history: It seemed acceptable wrt. the source package; I was querying the effect on binary packages. Also read again what I have written about the Xinerama module. Why is it not a separate package? What is it disguised as part of Ion, when it is not? -- Tuomo ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
