Re: [gobolinux-devel] [gobolinux-commits] tools/BuildLiveCD/bin MakeSystemSettings
2007/9/14, Lucas C. Villa Real <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 9/13/07, Hisham Muhammad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 9/13/07, Lucas C. Villa Real <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 9/13/07, Hisham Muhammad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > CVSROOT:/sources/goboscripts > > > > Module name:tools > > > > Changes by: Hisham Muhammad 07/09/13 23:29:37 > > > > > > > > Modified files: > > > > BuildLiveCD/bin: MakeSystemSettings > > > > > > > > Log message: > > > > Add missing groups > > > > > > While you're on it, I remember having problems with the shipped DBus > > > package due to missing messagebus (or was it dbus?) user/group.. > > > What's the best way to deal with these packages that require special > > > user/groups? Should we just have them by default in passwd/group? > > > > That's a good question. I noticed some problems today caused by our > > use of the Gentoo udev rules; they had some groups like "cdrw" and > > "usb". I simplified the rules to use more generic groups like "cdrom". > > Still, I peeked into an Ubuntu system and they do have lots of groups > > there. > > > > I'm guessing shipping as many predefined groups as possible would keep > > things simple with regard to maintenance and compatibility. I didn't > > copy the whole bunch of groups from other distros, but I wonder if > > that wouldn't be beneficial. > > > > I understand that conceptually having less groups is cleaner, but > > fighting an uphill battle against a lot of packages expecting groups > > to be there is not worth it. The existance of all these groups can > > normally be just ignored in normal desktop use, anyway. > > Ok, I second that. I'll ensure to add any missing group required by > packages in the iso to the cvs. > I agree. That's a good workaround until (if?) we find a dynamic solution - add 'httpd', 'mysql', 'messagebus' etc to the shipped passwd. A grep for useradd¨and groupadd in trunk should give the needed groups and users. -- /Jonas ___ gobolinux-devel mailing list gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
Re: [gobolinux-devel] Proposal of new option: '--quiet/-q'
2007/9/13, Lucas C. Villa Real <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 9/12/07, Hisham Muhammad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 9/12/07, Lucas C. Villa Real <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 9/12/07, Jonas Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > I thought that it would be nice to have an option to suppress output,
> > > > so I
> > > > created two new options: '--quiet/-q' and '--very-quiet/-Q'. I would
> > > > have
> > > > commited this directly unless there were collisions with the use of the
> > > > '-q' option, namingly that SystemFind and UpdateSettings use it as short
> > > > option of '--quick'. My proposal is to change that to '-k' instead.
> > > > Therefore I've attached the patch for review and test so that nothing
> > > > breaks.
> > >
> > > I just don't see the point in having -q / -Q. IMO only one level of
> > > quiet is necessary ("completely quiet"), as we already have normal and
> > > verbose.
> >
> > Completely quiet is >/dev/null.
>
> Still, only one quiet level makes sense to me..
>
I thought that it would be good to have one level that suppressed
normal output, but showed terse/warnings, and one level that
suppressed everything but errors.
--
/Jonas
___
gobolinux-devel mailing list
gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org
http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
[gobolinux-devel] Drop the Ion package?
I think I spotted a package for Ion appear. If that's the one from http://modeemi.fi/~tuomov/ion/download.html be aware that the author claims Ion is a trademark and is generally pretty offensive about distribution packages. The debian changelog includes: ion3 (20070506-1) unstable; urgency=low * Per Olofsson retired as co-maintainer * New upstream release - closes: #422527 * Changed to meet conditions on the use of the 'Ion' name, claimed to be an unregistered trademark: - Added upstream version check on first installation and requirement that the user acknowledge that bugs in old versions should not be reported upstream - Moved to non-free section The bug report contains more detail and can be seen at http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=422527 I'd just drop it and deny this uncooperative author any assistance, but it's not my call. Regards, -- MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Experienced webmaster-developers for hire http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ Also: statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, workers co-op. Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ ___ gobolinux-devel mailing list gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
Re: [gobolinux-devel] Drop the Ion package?
2007/9/14, Aitor Pérez Iturri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > El Fri, 14 Sep 2007 09:36:19 +0100 > MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió > > > I think I spotted a package for Ion appear. If that's the one from > > http://modeemi.fi/~tuomov/ion/download.html > > be aware that the author claims Ion is a trademark and is generally > > pretty offensive about distribution packages. > > > > I think we don't add any significant addition, but i can't understand > ver well if we should call our packages Ion or Ion3, I think that we > agree with the intence of the license, but we can ask the autor > directly. > > what do you think about? > I think that if we should keep Ion as a package (and I do think we should as imo it's not up to us to make poilitical decisions) we need to change the names. To comply with the license the latest version Ion3 should be called just Ion3. The "Ion" name should only be used for the stable release, which is Ion2 at this time. -- /Jonas ___ gobolinux-devel mailing list gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
Re: [gobolinux-devel] Drop the Ion package?
El Fri, 14 Sep 2007 09:36:19 +0100 MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió > I think I spotted a package for Ion appear. If that's the one from > http://modeemi.fi/~tuomov/ion/download.html > be aware that the author claims Ion is a trademark and is generally > pretty offensive about distribution packages. > I think we don't add any significant addition, but i can't understand ver well if we should call our packages Ion or Ion3, I think that we agree with the intence of the license, but we can ask the autor directly. what do you think about? Here the Ion license: The code of this project is "essentially" licensed under the LGPL, version 2.1, unless otherwise indicated in components taken from elsewhere. It is reproduced below. Additionally, the following terms apply to the use of the name of the project, Ion(tm), names of particular "branches" such as Ion3(tm), and other derived names: 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 original author's versions must be provided by default. - When there are no further prominent notices of possible out-datedness, and no prominent original author's version qualifiers present (resp. only branch qualifier is present), then 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). The holders of physical distribution media must be provided ways to upgrade to the latest release within this delay. - 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 original author. The version string displayed by the program must describe these modifications and the "support void" status. Derived works that do not satisfy the above terms 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 original author's version, and this author may not be referred to for support. Modules and other (standalone) extensions to Ion must also be named so that they can not be confused to be supported by the original author. If "Ion" occurs in the name, it must be in the form "Foo for Ion" instead of "Ion Foo", etc. This name policy notice may not be altered, and must be included in any altered versions and binary redistributions. It may only be removed when using small portions of the code in unrelated projects. The original author and the Ion project retain the same rights to your modifications that it would have under the LGPL or GPL without these or similar additional terms. If you fail to follow these terms, you lose the rights granted to you by the LGPL. Explanations: Significant change: Bug fixes are a priori insignificant as additions. Basic changes that are needed to install or run the software on a target platform are a priori insignificant. Additionally, basic configuration changes to better integrate the software with the target platform, without obstructing the standard behaviour, are a priori insignificant. Everything else is significant. The author reserves the right to refine the definition of significant changes on a per-case basis. Please consult when in doubt. Distributions: For example, suppose an aggregate distribution of software provides an `installpkg` command for installing packages. Then the action `installpkg ion3` (resp. `installpkg ion`) should within a reasonable delay install the latest release of Ion3 (resp. the latest stable release), or prominently notify the user that the provided version is not or may not be the latest. The action `installpkg ion-3ds-20070318` may at any date install this particular mentioned release. Likewise, the action `installpkg --support-void-featurex ion3` may apply additional patches to the latest Ion3, within the further constraints set above. The intent of these terms is to curb the power that "distributions", as the primary sources of software for many users, have in defining what is perceived as Ion. By providing significantly modified versions and out-dated development snapshots without prominently mentioning this fact, they do not present the work in a light that the author can agree with, and create a burden of dealing with (new) users seeking for support for such versions. --- -- If the kids are united they will never be divided! -- Get a free email account with anti spam protection. http://www.bluebottle.com/tag/2 ___ gobolinux-devel mailing list gobolinux-devel@lists.gob
Re: [gobolinux-devel] Drop the Ion package?
Aitor Pérez Iturri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think we don't add any significant addition, but i can't understand > ver well if we should call our packages Ion or Ion3, I think that we > agree with the intence of the license, but we can ask the autor > directly. > > what do you think about? I think you're likely to get a rude reply, but ask away if you want. My main worry isn't the significant addition bit, but the termination clause where we seem to have to produce a new CD release within 28 days of his release. You might prefer to ask [EMAIL PROTECTED] whether ion3 is free software (with links to the licence and homepage) because they understand the LGPL 2.1 better than most. > The code of this project is "essentially" licensed under the LGPL, > version 2.1, unless otherwise indicated in components taken from > elsewhere. It is reproduced below. Additionally, the following terms > apply to the use of [...] This seems self-contradictory to me, because LGPL-2.1 says "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." By saying we may not impose any further restrictions *and* requiring us to apply additional terms, the author has not granted us a usable license and so we shouldn't distribute his work at all. Puzzled, -- MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Experienced webmaster-developers for hire http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ Also: statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, workers co-op. Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ ___ gobolinux-devel mailing list gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
Re: [gobolinux-devel] Drop the Ion package?
2007/9/14, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Aitor Pérez Iturri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think we don't add any significant addition, but i can't understand > > ver well if we should call our packages Ion or Ion3, I think that we > > agree with the intence of the license, but we can ask the autor > > directly. > > > > what do you think about? > > I think you're likely to get a rude reply, but ask away if you want. > My main worry isn't the significant addition bit, but the termination > clause where we seem to have to produce a new CD release within 28 > days of his release. > Only if we distribute it on the CD, which is *very* unlikely. > > The code of this project is "essentially" licensed under the LGPL, > > version 2.1, unless otherwise indicated in components taken from > > elsewhere. It is reproduced below. Additionally, the following terms > > apply to the use of [...] > > This seems self-contradictory to me, because LGPL-2.1 says "You may > not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the > rights granted herein." That's a nice contradiction. I think a clarification from the author of Ion is required. > By saying we may not impose any further > restrictions *and* requiring us to apply additional terms, the author > has not granted us a usable license and so we shouldn't distribute his > work at all. > Valid point, but I do not know how a Recipe should be considered in form of distribution as wwe still do not have a package. -- /Jonas ___ gobolinux-devel mailing list gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
Re: [gobolinux-devel] Drop the Ion package?
"Jonas Karlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [...] but I do not know how a Recipe should be considered in > form of distribution as wwe still do not have a package. Worst case, it's a derived work, depending on the creativity of the internals of the upstream package. Best case, we only need worry about this if we try to auto-compile the recipes archive, but there are other problems with doing that too. Regards, -- MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Experienced webmaster-developers for hire http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ Also: statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, workers co-op. Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ ___ gobolinux-devel mailing list gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
Re: [gobolinux-devel] Drop the Ion package?
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 13:50:08 +0100 MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This seems self-contradictory to me, because LGPL-2.1 says "You may > not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the > rights granted herein." By saying we may not impose any further > restrictions *and* requiring us to apply additional terms, the author > has not granted us a usable license and so we shouldn't distribute his > work at all. Being so, nuke it. Does Ion really worth the hassle of possible legal problems in the future? -- Ricardo Nabinger Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] Powered by FreeBSD "Left to themselves, things tend to go from bad to worse." ___ gobolinux-devel mailing list gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
Re: [gobolinux-devel] [gobolinux-users] Udev errors
Hisham Muhammad wrote: > On 9/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hisham, >> Any ideas on this yet? I haven't gone through the differences in the Udev >> rules but it looks like something has changed which is not letting my >> system boot off the USB disk? Not a good bug to continue, IMHO > > Hi, > > Sorry about the late reply. I removed the console references, please > see if it fixes the issue: > > http://hisham.gobolinux.org/Udev--115--recipe.tar.bz2 > > Thanks, > > -- Hisham > [snip] Hello Hisham, This recipe seems to be better to me but I still need some help: even thought I ask to use all new config files when I "Compile Udev--115--recipe.tar.bz2" , - I still have messages udevd complaining of "console group" (unfortunatley I don't know how to start my box from a serial port to grab accurate messages) - I couldn't setup my eth0 or eth1 (iirc devices not found?) - finaly init boot scripts hung on "Set console font" (need Ctrl-Alt-Del ;-( ) Sorry no clue on udev to help more (simply because my linux boxes are a bit too old to need or to be able to play with udev) Tx, r. ___ gobolinux-devel mailing list gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
Re: [gobolinux-devel] Drop the Ion package?
On 9/14/07, Ricardo Nabinger Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 13:50:08 +0100 > MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > This seems self-contradictory to me, because LGPL-2.1 says "You may > > not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the > > rights granted herein." By saying we may not impose any further > > restrictions *and* requiring us to apply additional terms, the author > > has not granted us a usable license and so we shouldn't distribute his > > work at all. > > Being so, nuke it. Does Ion really worth the hassle of possible legal > problems in the future? Agreed. I suspect this contradiction will eventually be sorted out (either by the author reverting back to a standard license, by adopting a non-contradictory non-free license, or by a fork). In the mean time, as is the license is unusable. I believe we can keep the last LGPL-2.1 version in the recipe store and ignore these problematic versions until the situation comes to a conclusion. -- Hisham ___ gobolinux-devel mailing list gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
Re: [gobolinux-devel] signature problems
Jonas Karlsson wrote: > 2007/9/13, Jonatan Liljedahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Things like this happens quite often: >> > Apparantly it does, but I have never been able to duplicate it. So > hunting donw this bug is quite difficult. > >> InstallPackage: Downloading package to >> /System/Variable/tmp/Firefox--2.0.0.3-r1--i686.tar.bz2. >> --13:12:10-- >> http://kundor.org/gobo/packages/official/Firefox--2.0.0.3-r1--i686.tar.bz2 >> => `/System/Variable/tmp/Firefox--2.0.0.3-r1--i686.tar.bz2' >> ...snip... >> InstallPackage: Installing Firefox, version 2.0.0.3. >> InstallPackage: Uncompressing to /Programs... >> InstallPackage: Invalid signature. Package has been modified >> InstallPackage: Suspect package in /Programs/Firefox/2.0.0.3 >> InstallPackage: Removing downloaded package >> /System/Variable/tmp/Firefox--2.0.0.3-r1--i686.tar.bz2. >> > Interesting enough, someone has had problem with exactly that package, > so I have tried to verify it with both my cvs snapshot as well as > Scripts 2.6.5. I have, just now, done a commit to the cvs repository > to separate signature check error from FileHash check error (I have > attached the patch at the bottom of this message). Could you either > check out a fresh cvs copy or apply this patch to your version? Btw, > which version of Scripts do you use? I'm using Scripts 2.6.2. Do you mean that my error could actually be a filehash check error? In either case, an official downloaded gobo-package should not produce any error, ideally... -- /Jonatan [ http://kymatica.com ] ___ gobolinux-devel mailing list gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
Re: [gobolinux-devel] signature problems
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:25:50 +0200, Jonatan Liljedahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jonas Karlsson wrote: >> 2007/9/13, Jonatan Liljedahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> Things like this happens quite often: >>> >> Apparantly it does, but I have never been able to duplicate it. So >> hunting donw this bug is quite difficult. >> >>> InstallPackage: Downloading package to >>> /System/Variable/tmp/Firefox--2.0.0.3-r1--i686.tar.bz2. >>> --13:12:10-- >>> http://kundor.org/gobo/packages/official/Firefox--2.0.0.3-r1--i686.tar.bz2 >>> => `/System/Variable/tmp/Firefox--2.0.0.3-r1--i686.tar.bz2' >>> ...snip... >>> InstallPackage: Installing Firefox, version 2.0.0.3. >>> InstallPackage: Uncompressing to /Programs... >>> InstallPackage: Invalid signature. Package has been modified >>> InstallPackage: Suspect package in /Programs/Firefox/2.0.0.3 >>> InstallPackage: Removing downloaded package >>> /System/Variable/tmp/Firefox--2.0.0.3-r1--i686.tar.bz2. >>> >> Interesting enough, someone has had problem with exactly that package, >> so I have tried to verify it with both my cvs snapshot as well as >> Scripts 2.6.5. I have, just now, done a commit to the cvs repository >> to separate signature check error from FileHash check error (I have >> attached the patch at the bottom of this message). Could you either >> check out a fresh cvs copy or apply this patch to your version? Btw, >> which version of Scripts do you use? > > I'm using Scripts 2.6.2. Do you mean that my error could actually be a > filehash check error? In either case, an official downloaded > gobo-package should not produce any error, ideally... > The thing is that there has been bugs, and therefore changes, in how files are listed when the FileHash is computed. Therefore earlier versions of Scripts might fail on packages created by newer versions, because different files are listed. Always try to use the latest release of Scripts. If you really like to find what causes the error on your version you can run 'VerifyProgram ' on the Firefox tarball, but I suggest you upgrade to Scripts 2.7.0. -- /Jonas -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ ___ gobolinux-devel mailing list gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
Re: [gobolinux-devel] Request for updated driver in 014
MLA-Gobo wrote: > Since 014 is delayed, could the kernel be compiled using the latest > forcedeth driver (available at > http://www.nvidia.com/object/linux_nforce_1.23.html)? It should just be a > drop-in replacement for whatever version of forcedeth.c is currently in the > kernel source. It's rather selfish of me, but I would it very much if my lan > connection would work. :) Ooh, yes please! ___ gobolinux-devel mailing list gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
