Re: [opensuse-packaging] Building packages with linking a license from licenses.rpm
Johannes Meixner wrote: Hello, On Jul 24 18:31 Reinhard Max wrote (shortened): As packages can be downloaded and installed without also downloading the licenses package, people could view this as a license violation. This is what I am talking about all the time. The whole issue is not a technical issue it is a legal issue. Are we allowed to remove a license text (or whatever legal stuff) form a package and provide it via a totally other package which is made from totally other sources? AFAIK with e.g. GPL v2 this is possible (although not welcome). Yet I think there are licenses which *must* be included with either binaries or source (if not both). If this is assumed to be space saving it is IMHO at wrong place (not mentioning that having files like license-7484ec123119be81a1ab4da3bba47ba9 is a little bit strange). Best regards Petr - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] Building packages with linking a license from licenses.rpm
Reinhard Max wrote: BTW, how does the license package approach fit with licenses that require that the license text be included in any binary distribution? As packages can be downloaded and installed without also downloading the licenses package, people could view this as a license violation. You wouldn't be able to install the package without breaking dependencies. That's annoying at least. I don't remember anymore what kind of space saving the target of those shared licenses was. If it's about saving space in the installed system what about replacing actual files with hardlinks in %post? RPM doesn't seem to care about hardlink counts in %verify. At install time a recommended dependency on the license package would be sufficient then. cu Ludwig -- (o_ Ludwig Nussel //\ V_/_ http://www.suse.de/ SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] Building packages with linking a license from licenses.rpm
On 2007-07-25 12:00:44 +0200, Ludwig Nussel wrote: Reinhard Max wrote: BTW, how does the license package approach fit with licenses that require that the license text be included in any binary distribution? As packages can be downloaded and installed without also downloading the licenses package, people could view this as a license violation. You wouldn't be able to install the package without breaking dependencies. That's annoying at least. I don't remember anymore what kind of space saving the target of those shared licenses was. If it's about saving space in the installed system what about replacing actual files with hardlinks in %post? RPM doesn't seem to care about hardlink counts in %verify. At install time a recommended dependency on the license package would be sufficient then. as the licenses package will be in the default package set of the distro it wouldnt be a problem that you cant install other packages without it. and replacing something in %post would be ugly and slow down the installation process. 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] Building packages with linking a license from licenses.rpm
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 at 12:00, Ludwig Nussel wrote: You wouldn't be able to install the package without breaking dependencies. That's annoying at least. Right, but that wouldn't matter from a legal point of view. If a license requires us to include the license text with the binary package, we might break the license no matter how hard we make it to install the package without the license file being installed as well. GPLv2 says (section 1.) [...] and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program. So, is setting a symlink to a file and adding a dependency to the package enough to fulfill the along with the Program requirement? cu Reinhard - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] Building packages with linking a license from licenses.rpm
* Reinhard Max [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-07-25 12:36]: On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 at 12:00, Ludwig Nussel wrote: You wouldn't be able to install the package without breaking dependencies. That's annoying at least. Right, but that wouldn't matter from a legal point of view. If a license requires us to include the license text with the binary package, we might break the license no matter how hard we make it to install the package without the license file being installed as well. GPLv2 says (section 1.) [...] and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program. So, is setting a symlink to a file and adding a dependency to the package enough to fulfill the along with the Program requirement? Why not ask our legals? :) Thanks, Bernhard - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] Building packages with linking a license from licenses.rpm
Reinhard Max wrote: On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 at 12:00, Ludwig Nussel wrote: You wouldn't be able to install the package without breaking dependencies. That's annoying at least. Right, but that wouldn't matter from a legal point of view. If a license requires us to include the license text with the binary package, we might break the license no matter how hard we make it to install the package without the license file being installed as well. GPLv2 says (section 1.) [...] and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program. So, is setting a symlink to a file and adding a dependency to the package enough to fulfill the along with the Program requirement? When I saw this discussion, I decided to ask JW and Coolo if the solution is legal and Coolo wrote me this: --- cut --- Well, as Jürgen is both maintainer of that package and part of our license review team, I don't feel any need to play lawyer. So stop worrying :) --- cut --- Let's accept that, please :) Bye Lukas signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [opensuse-packaging] Building packages with linking a license from licenses.rpm
On Wednesday, 25. July 2007, Reinhard Max wrote: GPLv2 says (section 1.) [...] and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program. So are we distributing a program or are we distributing a distribution? If it is the latter, why do you think in the granularity level of a RPM package? But assuming that you read the whole paragraph which you quoted and which the program above is referring to: you may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's *source code*. Dirk - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] Building packages with linking a license from licenses.rpm
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 at 13:39, Dirk Mueller wrote: So are we distributing a program or are we distributing a distribution? We'd be distributing a distribution, if we only made it available as a physical DVD, or ISO image, but as the RPMs can be downloaded individually, we are distributing individual programs. you may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's *source code*. I must admit, that I had overlooked that part, but it doesn't matter, because section 3, which talks about distributing the program in binary form explicitly includes the terms of section 1. cu Reinhard - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] Building packages with linking a license from licenses.rpm
On Jul 25, 07 12:36:46 +0200, Reinhard Max wrote: On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 at 12:00, Ludwig Nussel wrote: You wouldn't be able to install the package without breaking dependencies. That's annoying at least. Right, but that wouldn't matter from a legal point of view. If a license requires us to include the license text with the binary package, we might break the license no matter how hard we make it to install the package without the license file being installed as well. GPLv2 says (section 1.) [...] and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program. So, is setting a symlink to a file and adding a dependency to the package enough to fulfill the along with the Program requirement? Due to the symlink, the package has now one more dependency. It is simply an incomplete package, unless licenses.rpm is also installed. If the FSF insists on having a copy in each RPM, we can simply stop doing symlinks for GPL, and still have saved a tree with all the other licenses symlinked. cheers, Jw. -- o \ Juergen Weigert paint it green! __/ _===.===_ V | [EMAIL PROTECTED] wide open suse_/_---|\/ \ | 0911 74053-508 (tm)__/ (//\ (/) | __/ _/ \_ vim:set sw=2 wm=8 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg) Oral agreements are worth about as much as the paper they are written on. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] Building packages with linking a license from licenses.rpm
On Wednesday 25 July 2007 15:20:10 wrote Juergen Weigert: On Jul 25, 07 12:36:46 +0200, Reinhard Max wrote: On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 at 12:00, Ludwig Nussel wrote: You wouldn't be able to install the package without breaking dependencies. That's annoying at least. Right, but that wouldn't matter from a legal point of view. If a license requires us to include the license text with the binary package, we might break the license no matter how hard we make it to install the package without the license file being installed as well. GPLv2 says (section 1.) [...] and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program. So, is setting a symlink to a file and adding a dependency to the package enough to fulfill the along with the Program requirement? Due to the symlink, the package has now one more dependency. It is simply an incomplete package, unless licenses.rpm is also installed. If the FSF insists on having a copy in each RPM, we can simply stop doing symlinks for GPL, and still have saved a tree with all the other licenses symlinked. Can you ask the FSF please before we do it what their opinion about that is ? -- Adrian Schroeter SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] Building packages with linking a license from licenses.rpm
Juergen Weigert wrote: Due to the symlink, the package has now one more dependency. It is simply an incomplete package, unless licenses.rpm is also installed. If the FSF insists on having a copy in each RPM, we can simply stop doing symlinks for GPL, and still have saved a tree with all the other licenses symlinked. As GPL is (by guess) in most of our packages, it wouldn't make sense to create license-package without GPL in it. Best regards Petr - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] Building packages with linking a license from licenses.rpm
Hi, On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, Petr Cerny wrote: Johannes Meixner wrote: Hello, On Jul 24 18:31 Reinhard Max wrote (shortened): As packages can be downloaded and installed without also downloading the licenses package, people could view this as a license violation. This is what I am talking about all the time. The whole issue is not a technical issue it is a legal issue. Are we allowed to remove a license text (or whatever legal stuff) form a package and provide it via a totally other package which is made from totally other sources? AFAIK with e.g. GPL v2 this is possible (although not welcome). Yet I think there are licenses which *must* be included with either binaries or source (if not both). If this is assumed to be space saving it is IMHO at wrong place (not mentioning that having files like license-7484ec123119be81a1ab4da3bba47ba9 is a little bit strange). Sigh. The filenames of the packages themself would still just be named COPYING (or whatever the original names was). They will just happen to be symlinks to strangely named files. If we're adventurous we could even use hardlinks if possible, and then there actually would just be the link count which would make the user see that the files are shared between different packages. Ciao, Michael. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] Building packages with linking a license from licenses.rpm
Hello, On Jul 24 10:46 Lukas Ocilka wrote (shortened): I've found that we have a 'licenses' package that contains all known/used licenses. The intention seems to be to save some space by not including own copy of license in each package but linking it (and to clean the system up a bit). ... Could someone, please point me (us) to some documentation, howto? And in particular some explanation how to make sure that the license in the 'licenses' package is still exactly the right one even after whatever kind of update of the referring package. What I like to point out is that I would not touch any license if there is no 100% safe automatism which checks that the licenses are 100% correct in any case. 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] Building packages with linking a license from licenses.rpm
Hello, On Jul 24 12:47 Lars Vogdt wrote (shortened): http://en.opensuse.org/Licenses The plain Requires: licenses can cause invalid licenses when another version of the package (with different licenses) is installed but the licenses package is not upgraded accordingly. I am speaking about the run-time system, not the build-time system. But even a strict Requires: licenses = 1.2.3 where 1.2.3 is the exact version of the licenses package which was used during build-time may cause problems: Assume there are two packages foo and bar which both use the license batz in licenses 1.2.3 but then license batz is upgraded and also package foo is upgraded (using the upgraded license batz in licenses 1.2.4). Then there would have to be licenses 1.2.3 (for package bar) and licenses 1.2.4 (for upgraded package foo) installed. 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] Building packages with linking a license from licenses.rpm
On 2007-07-24 14:12:22 +0200, Johannes Meixner wrote: On Jul 24 12:47 Lars Vogdt wrote (shortened): http://en.opensuse.org/Licenses The plain Requires: licenses can cause invalid licenses when another version of the package (with different licenses) is installed but the licenses package is not upgraded accordingly. I am speaking about the run-time system, not the build-time system. But even a strict Requires: licenses = 1.2.3 where 1.2.3 is the exact version of the licenses package which was used during build-time may cause problems: Assume there are two packages foo and bar which both use the license batz in licenses 1.2.3 but then license batz is upgraded and also package foo is upgraded (using the upgraded license batz in licenses 1.2.4). Then there would have to be licenses 1.2.3 (for package bar) and licenses 1.2.4 (for upgraded package foo) installed. as the symlink points to filenames which is the md5sum of the license itself. i think this is not an issue. 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] Building packages with linking a license from licenses.rpm
Marcus Rueckert wrote: as the symlink points to filenames which is the md5sum of the license itself. i think this is not an issue. Bravo! Great idea and clever solution :) -- 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] Building packages with linking a license from licenses.rpm
Johannes Meixner wrote: Hello, On Jul 24 14:17 Marcus Rueckert wrote: as the symlink points to filenames which is the md5sum of the license itself. i think this is not an issue. Can you explain in a bit more detail how such symlinks and filenames make sure that the right license texts are installed in the run-time system in any case? The filename is an md5sum of the license text. So a new version of the same (as in same name) license will have a different filename. So if you link to /.../ebf4e8b49780ab187d51bd26aaa022c6, it will allways be that exact version of the GPL2 license. Michal - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] Building packages with linking a license from licenses.rpm
Michal Marek wrote: Johannes Meixner wrote: Hello, On Jul 24 14:17 Marcus Rueckert wrote: as the symlink points to filenames which is the md5sum of the license itself. i think this is not an issue. Can you explain in a bit more detail how such symlinks and filenames make sure that the right license texts are installed in the run-time system in any case? The filename is an md5sum of the license text. So a new version of the same (as in same name) license will have a different filename. So if you link to /.../ebf4e8b49780ab187d51bd26aaa022c6, it will allways be that exact version of the GPL2 license. What if in the source package, the license file contains (by mistake) an additional newline? Who should do the actual checking, that the license is really GPL (whatever else)? In this hash scheme, how can user display license using pager or editor? Also note that some packages have slightly modified licenses (like: author allows linking against some non-GPLed library) - will these licenses be bundled together with those standard ones? Petr p.s.: gzipped GPL2 = 7kB - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] Building packages with linking a license from licenses.rpm
Hello, On Jul 24 15:10 Pavol Rusnak wrote (shortened): MD5 (or any other hash) guarantees that link is not pointing to wrong license file but it does not assure that such file license-hash.txt is installed on system. I think that's the issue Johannes wanted to point out. Exactly. By the way: Does anybody know about RFC 1925? (in particular its items (6a) and (8) ;-) 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] Building packages with linking a license from licenses.rpm
Hi, On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 at 15:29, Johannes Meixner wrote: Does anybody know about RFC 1925? (in particular its items (6a) and (8) ;-) yes, but did you notice the date on which this RFC was published? cu Reinhard - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] Building packages with linking a license from licenses.rpm
Hi, On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Johannes Meixner wrote: On Jul 24 15:10 Pavol Rusnak wrote (shortened): MD5 (or any other hash) guarantees that link is not pointing to wrong license file but it does not assure that such file license-hash.txt is installed on system. I think that's the issue Johannes wanted to point out. Exactly. The solution was already proposed by Richard. Make the license rpm provide the md5sums of included licenses, make the packages require the md5 sum of its licenses, let the solver do the rest. Ciao, Michael. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] Building packages with linking a license from licenses.rpm
Am Dienstag, 24. Juli 2007 16:55 schrieb Stanislav Brabec: This is what I use just now in my packages: for FILE in COPYING COPYING.LIB ; do MD5SUM=$(md5sum $FILE | sed 's/ .*//') if test -f /usr/share/doc/licenses/md5/$MD5SUM ; then ln -sf /usr/share/doc/licenses/md5/$MD5SUM $FILE fi done If you will replace list in the first line by an argument, you have a macro. You can also use shopt -s nullglob and add complete list of possible names. Thanks Stanislav ! Michael: is this something we can add as rpm macro in 10.3 ? Note that rpmlint check is incomplete and does not check less common names for license. And dangling check in the rpmlint is broken and reports each link to license as a dangling link. = bugzila, please... ;-) Lars - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] Building packages with linking a license from licenses.rpm
On 2007-07-24 17:08:34 +0200, Lars Vogdt wrote: Am Dienstag, 24. Juli 2007 16:55 schrieb Stanislav Brabec: This is what I use just now in my packages: for FILE in COPYING COPYING.LIB ; do MD5SUM=$(md5sum $FILE | sed 's/ .*//') if test -f /usr/share/doc/licenses/md5/$MD5SUM ; then ln -sf /usr/share/doc/licenses/md5/$MD5SUM $FILE fi done If you will replace list in the first line by an argument, you have a macro. You can also use shopt -s nullglob and add complete list of possible names. Thanks Stanislav ! Michael: is this something we can add as rpm macro in 10.3 ? s/macro/brp-fix/ 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] Building packages with linking a license from licenses.rpm
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 04:49:36PM +0200, Michael Matz wrote:
The solution was already proposed by Richard. Make the license rpm
provide the md5sums of included licenses, make the packages require the
md5 sum of its licenses, let the solver do the rest.
Poor solver, so many dependencies, so little time...
Btw, a0b00c == a00b0c for the solver, so you can't guarantee
the md5sums are really the same. But chances are good ;-)
Cheers,
Michael.
--
Michael Schroeder [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF Markus Rex, HRB 16746 AG Nuernberg
main(_){while(_=~getchar())putchar(~_-1/(~(_|32)/13*2-11)*13);}
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] Building packages with linking a license from licenses.rpm
Michael Schroeder wrote: Btw, a0b00c == a00b0c for the solver, so you can't guarantee the md5sums are really the same. But chances are good ;-) Even in names (not versions or releases)? Michal - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] Building packages with linking a license from licenses.rpm
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 at 17:59, Stanislav Brabec wrote: If it will be done for all packages, then you need to auto add licenses to Requires, if at least one link was created. Wouldn't that better be a dependency on the particular license file used by that package, rather than the whole licenses package? cu Reinhard P.S. Can somebody please configure this list to add a proper Reply-To: header to avoid bulding up needless Cc lists? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] Building packages with linking a license from licenses.rpm
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 at 17:53, Michael Schroeder wrote: Oh, sorry, no it doesn't do that in names. (But I wouldn't do it in names, Provide: licensemd5 = md5sum is cleaner. See the kernel provides.) What about using the full path names for the symbolic dependencies? Using only the md5sum still has the risc of ending up with dangling symlinks in case the licenses package ever reorganises it's directory structure. BTW, how does the license package approach fit with licenses that require that the license text be included in any binary distribution? As packages can be downloaded and installed without also downloading the licenses package, people could view this as a license violation. cu Reinhard - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] Building packages with linking a license from licenses.rpm
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 06:31:17PM +0200, Reinhard Max wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 at 17:53, Michael Schroeder wrote:
Oh, sorry, no it doesn't do that in names. (But I wouldn't do it in
names, Provide: licensemd5 = md5sum is cleaner. See the kernel
provides.)
What about using the full path names for the symbolic dependencies?
You mean a md5 file assertion, like this one?
Requires: md5(/bin/bash) = 1a721bf3db58ee74b38dbf79408609b3
Cheers,
Michael.
--
Michael Schroeder [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF Markus Rex, HRB 16746 AG Nuernberg
main(_){while(_=~getchar())putchar(~_-1/(~(_|32)/13*2-11)*13);}
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] Building packages with linking a license from licenses.rpm
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 at 18:36, Michael Schroeder wrote: You mean a md5 file assertion, like this one? Requires: md5(/bin/bash) = 1a721bf3db58ee74b38dbf79408609b3 No, I mean the license package should provide unversioned symbols consisting of the qualifued names of the license files, because that's the property that is acually required per the symlinks. The other package could then do: Requires: /usr/share/doc/licenses/md5/fd6c32a44ff3cf3efd167ddb697b9eb1 Oh - I just realise that the fully qualified file names of all contained files are provided by a package anyways, so this would have the additional benefit, that there is no additional effort in generating the provides list for the licenses package. Only the requires list for the other packages would have to be generated out of the targets of the (hopefully also auto-generated) symlinks. cu Reinhard - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
