Re: Re: [opensuse-packaging] Request for creating ntfs-config package
Great. Thank you very much. Regards, Rasťo >-Pôvodná správa- >Od: Pavol Rusnak [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Komu: opensuse-packaging@opensuse.org >Predmet: Re: [opensuse-packaging] Request for creating ntfs-config package > > >Marcus Rueckert wrote: >> i copied the package. the package is still yours (in the filesystem >> project). feel free to delete it into your home. > >Done. Rastislav, ntfs-config RPMs are thus available from >http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/filesystems/ > >-- >Best Regards / S pozdravom, > >Pavol RUSNAK SUSE LINUX, s.r.o >Package MaintainerLihovarska 1060/12 >PGP 0xA6917144 19000 Praha 9, CR >prusnak[at]suse.czhttp://www.suse.cz >- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] Request for creating ntfs-config package
Marcus Rueckert wrote: > i copied the package. the package is still yours (in the filesystem > project). feel free to delete it into your home. Done. Rastislav, ntfs-config RPMs are thus available from http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/filesystems/ -- Best Regards / S pozdravom, Pavol RUSNAK SUSE LINUX, s.r.o Package MaintainerLihovarska 1060/12 PGP 0xA6917144 19000 Praha 9, CR prusnak[at]suse.czhttp://www.suse.cz - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] Request for creating ntfs-config package
On 2007-07-31 15:00:37 +0200, Pavol Rusnak wrote: > Krupanský Rastislav wrote: > > I think it is very good and simple tool for ntfs-3g driver. > > I have created ntfs-config package in my home:prusnak project. Darix, > Christoph, Jeff, feel free to link or copy package to filesystem > project. (Package is building against SLE10, 10.0-10.2 and Factory > repositories). i copied the package. the package is still yours (in the filesystem project). feel free to delete it into your home. darix -- openSUSE - SUSE Linux is my linux openSUSE is good for you www.opensuse.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] Request for creating ntfs-config package
Krupanský Rastislav wrote: > I think it is very good and simple tool for ntfs-3g driver. I have created ntfs-config package in my home:prusnak project. Darix, Christoph, Jeff, feel free to link or copy package to filesystem project. (Package is building against SLE10, 10.0-10.2 and Factory repositories). -- Best Regards / S pozdravom, Pavol RUSNAK SUSE LINUX, s.r.o Package MaintainerLihovarska 1060/12 PGP 0xA6917144 19000 Praha 9, CR prusnak[at]suse.czhttp://www.suse.cz - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] Split licenses.rpm (based on 'Building packages with linking a license from licenses.rpm')
Marcus Rueckert wrote:
> On 2007-07-31 13:35:59 +0200, Petr Cerny wrote:
>> Johannes Meixner wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> On Jul 30 17:26 Juergen Weigert wrote (shortened):
The point in having /usr/share/doc/licenses is that this
establishes one single location where all licenses used in a
product are visible.
>>> Might this cause confusion for some users when they find out that
>>> they have many special licenses installed but not the software
>>> which belongs to those special licenses?
>> I agree. Moreover I have to say, I'm confused: who should profit
>> from the licenses.rpm packgage? If this is intended for users it's
>> IMHO superfluous: to find what license has some package, users will
>> either use 'rpm -qi' (or equivalent) or go to
>> /usr/share/doc/packages/. If this is because of us as
>> distributors, I really don't see any significant advantages (if
>> size question is insignificant).
>>
>> In any case, licenses for not installed products are confusing and
>> I regard the obligation to install such package a bloat.
>
> it is less bloat than having the same file multiple times on the
> system. this package is not about "having all licenses" installed. it
> is about having a way to save space _and_ still have the license file
> available for symlinking.
Juergen Weigert wrote:
> No. The point in having /usr/share/doc/licenses is that this
> establishes one single location where all licenses used in a product
> are visible. So the content of the licenses.rpm should not only be
> comprehensive, but also exact.
>
> We can easily ignore any space saving effects.
Please consult previous posts: this "space saving" makes sense for small
distribution (USB, PDA). Then however you would probably bzip2 each
license file to really gain as much space as possible. On a fully-blown
desktop distro the space saving would be visible, yet less needed.
Moreover on a desktop with some 2000 packages you would save more space
by uninstalling the packages you really don't need yet the got there
because installer thought you might use them.
> i dont see an issue of having a documentation packaging around that
> carries all used licenses. as a comparison: should an RFC package
> only install the files, which contain infos about my installed
> services?
>
> i dont think so.
Wrong types in comparision. Installing rfc package is much more like
installing *-devel or *-debuginfo packages than licenses.
>>> I.e. what about "my installed licenses" versus "all licenses
>>> which are somewhere used by whatever software in the product"?
>>>
>>> (Yes, I know, the obvious technical solution is to check to which
>>> installed license a symlink points ;-)
>> Isn't it the same effort as scanning /usr/share/doc/packages for
>> license files (rather than for symlinks pointing to
>> /usr/share/doc/licenses)?
>
> this is all about saving space. so a symlink will definitely help us.
I would say it differently:
*If* this is all about saving space a symlink will *usually* help us.
AFAIK on some (if not most) filesystems symlink takes one block (1KB at
least) if the referenced filename takes more than 60B (e.g.
strlen("/usr/share/doc/license/license-")=64 *in 1byte
encoding*). MIT license is small (600B) so it occupies the same space as
the symlink - one block. With GPL symlink helps.
Best regards
Petr
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] Split licenses.rpm (based on 'Building packages with linking a license from licenses.rpm')
Hello, On Jul 31 13:45 Marcus Rueckert wrote (shortened): > i dont see an issue of having a documentation packaging around that > carries all used licenses. as a comparison: should an RFC package only > install the files, which contain infos about my installed services? Don't mix up usual documentation with legal stuff. A package license file is not just "documentation". Often a license file is a contract between the user and the manufacturer of the software. I don't know (IANAL) what it means from the legal point of view if such a contract is installed but the associated software is not, e.g. when the contract or license talks only about "the software". Again and again: This is not a technical issue. It is a legal issue. Kind Regards Johannes Meixner -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstrasse 5, 90409 Nuernberg, Germany AG Nuernberg, HRB 16746, GF: Markus Rex - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] Split licenses.rpm (based on 'Building packages with linking a license from licenses.rpm')
On 2007-07-31 13:35:59 +0200, Petr Cerny wrote: > Johannes Meixner wrote: > > Hello, > > > > On Jul 30 17:26 Juergen Weigert wrote (shortened): > >> The point in having /usr/share/doc/licenses is that this establishes > >> one single location where all licenses used in a product are visible. > > > > Might this cause confusion for some users when they find out > > that they have many special licenses installed but not the > > software which belongs to those special licenses? > > I agree. Moreover I have to say, I'm confused: who should profit from > the licenses.rpm packgage? If this is intended for users it's IMHO > superfluous: to find what license has some package, users will either > use 'rpm -qi' (or equivalent) or go to /usr/share/doc/packages/. If > this is because of us as distributors, I really don't see any > significant advantages (if size question is insignificant). > > In any case, licenses for not installed products are confusing and I > regard the obligation to install such package a bloat. it is less bloat than having the same file multiple times on the system. this package is not about "having all licenses" installed. it is about having a way to save space _and_ still have the license file available for symlinking. i dont see an issue of having a documentation packaging around that carries all used licenses. as a comparison: should an RFC package only install the files, which contain infos about my installed services? i dont think so. > > I.e. what about "my installed licenses" versus "all licenses > > which are somewhere used by whatever software in the product"? > > > > (Yes, I know, the obvious technical solution is to check > > to which installed license a symlink points ;-) > > Isn't it the same effort as scanning /usr/share/doc/packages for license > files (rather than for symlinks pointing to /usr/share/doc/licenses)? this is all about saving space. so a symlink will definitely help us. darix -- openSUSE - SUSE Linux is my linux openSUSE is good for you www.opensuse.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] Split licenses.rpm (based on 'Building packages with linking a license from licenses.rpm')
Johannes Meixner wrote: > Hello, > > On Jul 30 17:26 Juergen Weigert wrote (shortened): >> The point in having /usr/share/doc/licenses is that this establishes >> one single location where all licenses used in a product are visible. > > Might this cause confusion for some users when they find out > that they have many special licenses installed but not the > software which belongs to those special licenses? I agree. Moreover I have to say, I'm confused: who should profit from the licenses.rpm packgage? If this is intended for users it's IMHO superfluous: to find what license has some package, users will either use 'rpm -qi' (or equivalent) or go to /usr/share/doc/packages/. If this is because of us as distributors, I really don't see any significant advantages (if size question is insignificant). In any case, licenses for not installed products are confusing and I regard the obligation to install such package a bloat. > I.e. what about "my installed licenses" versus "all licenses > which are somewhere used by whatever software in the product"? > > (Yes, I know, the obvious technical solution is to check > to which installed license a symlink points ;-) Isn't it the same effort as scanning /usr/share/doc/packages for license files (rather than for symlinks pointing to /usr/share/doc/licenses)? Best regards Petr Cerny - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[opensuse-packaging] Request for creating ntfs-config package
Hello. I don´t know who and how creates packages for example in http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/filesystems/ And i don´t have any experience with creating of packages, so i´d like to ask for favour, whether someone would be able to created a package ntfs-config (from http://flomertens.free.fr/ntfs-config/ ).Of course, if it is possible. I think it is very good and simple tool for ntfs-3g driver. I know that you are going to plane integrate r/w support in openSUSE 10.3, but this could be for older 10.1, 10.2... Thanks. Regards. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] Split licenses.rpm (based on 'Building packages with linking a license from licenses.rpm')
Hello, On Jul 30 17:26 Juergen Weigert wrote (shortened): > The point in having /usr/share/doc/licenses is that this establishes > one single location where all licenses used in a product are visible. Might this cause confusion for some users when they find out that they have many special licenses installed but not the software which belongs to those special licenses? I.e. what about "my installed licenses" versus "all licenses which are somewhere used by whatever software in the product"? (Yes, I know, the obvious technical solution is to check to which installed license a symlink points ;-) Kind Regards Johannes Meixner -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstrasse 5, 90409 Nuernberg, Germany AG Nuernberg, HRB 16746, GF: Markus Rex - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: [Research] No more /sbin/getcfg]
Christian Zoz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi all, > > 1) /sbin/getcfg* has gone! (Alpha 7) It came too late for Alpha7, your change was not checked in yet, Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, Director Platform / openSUSE, [EMAIL PROTECTED] SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126 pgp2WTcPxjVNM.pgp Description: PGP signature
