Re: does a new port have to be the latest version?
On 2020/06/04 22:28, Alex Free wrote: > Does everything look ok on the email I sent to ports? > > https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=159123552330253&w=2 Not had time to look closely yet. I think the | characters in PERMIT_* are a problem. And please just send a tar.gz not a diff for new ports
Re: does a new port have to be the latest version?
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2020 at 4:05 PM > From: "Stuart Henderson" > To: "Alex Free" > Cc: "Renaud Allard" , ports@openbsd.org > Subject: Re: does a new port have to be the latest version? > > On 2020/06/03 14:58, Alex Free wrote: > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2020 at 2:24 PM > > > From: "Stuart Henderson" > > > To: "Renaud Allard" > > > Cc: ports@openbsd.org > > > Subject: Re: does a new port have to be the latest version? > > > > > > On 2020/06/03 14:17, Renaud Allard wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6/3/20 2:11 PM, Stuart Henderson wrote: > > > > > On 2020/06/03 13:54, Alex Free wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is the program? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CDIrip, the current GitHub is at https://github.com/jozip/cdirip . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yes 0.6.3 looks to be a bit of a step backwards there. looking at the > > > > > diff > > > > > it did also remove a duplicate write of &aCommSize though. > > > > > > > > > > Note that it doesn't have proper licensing so will need to be marked > > > > > as > > > > > PERMIT_PACKAGE/PERMIT_DISTFILES=no license (some mention of "version > > > > > developed on sourceforge under gpl" isn't a valid license grant). > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/jozip/cdirip/blob/master/LICENSE > > > > > > > > Mentions GPLV2 > > > > > > > > > > That is just a file in the distribution of the version on github. There's > > > no > > > indication that it was added by the original author of the code and the > > > "How > > > to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs" section hasn't been followed > > > in particular there is no "Copyright XXX you can redistribute it" etc. > > > The only valid copyright information I see in the whole distribution is > > > the one in https://github.com/jozip/cdirip/blob/master/audio.c which says > > > > > > /* Copyright (C) 1988-1991 Apple Computer, Inc. > > > * All rights reserved. > > > > > > and does not grant redistribution. > > > > > > > > > > Previous versions were not under the GPL, but the > > original author released 0.6.3 under the GPL. > > Just saying "released under GPL" without doing other steps isn't enough. > It needs at least a copyright line with a license grant somewhere > preferably on each file, that's why the license goes to some lengths to > explain how to do it. > > Also releasing some version under GPL doesn't mean that previous versions > are also automatically released under GPL. > > > Source for all previous versions were always > > available, and still are on the wayback machine of > > the original homepage. > > > > Essentially pre 0.6.3 is just source available. > > > > Dist file mirroring is okay right? Besides the > > I don't think it is OK for OpenBSD to do this (as in PERMIT_* etc can't > be set to Yes and it would need building from ports not installing from > packages). If you want to mirror the distfile yourself that would be your > responsibility. > > > wayback machine there is exactly one place I can > > find 0.6.2, and it’s on a gnome related mirror > > and in zip format. Right now I have the port’s > > master site set to my own with a .tar.gz of the > > source. > > I found it at > https://nold.in/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=projects:consoles:dreamcast:cdirip-0.6.2-linux.tar.bz2 > (a path like this requires certain fiddling to use as a source in ports, > should be possible but is annoying!). > > ... > > > Is the code actually invalid GPL due to the Apple code? NetBSD is > > hosting dist files containing the Apple code so is it ok? License > > newbie, thanks for your patience. > > IANAL and it may vary between jurisdictions anyway but my understanding > is "if you don't include a Copyright line and grant some specific rights > to allow redistribution then it can't be redistributed". Some OS care > more about this for things in packages than others (Debian in particular > usually get this right) some others seem to rely on "meh nobody's really > going to complain are they". > > Does everything look ok on the email I sent to ports? https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=159123552330253&w=2
Re: does a new port have to be the latest version?
On 6/3/20 2:11 PM, Stuart Henderson wrote: On 2020/06/03 13:54, Alex Free wrote: What is the program? CDIrip, the current GitHub is at https://github.com/jozip/cdirip . yes 0.6.3 looks to be a bit of a step backwards there. looking at the diff it did also remove a duplicate write of &aCommSize though. Note that it doesn't have proper licensing so will need to be marked as PERMIT_PACKAGE/PERMIT_DISTFILES=no license (some mention of "version developed on sourceforge under gpl" isn't a valid license grant). https://github.com/jozip/cdirip/blob/master/LICENSE Mentions GPLV2 smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: does a new port have to be the latest version?
> Just saying "released under GPL" without doing other steps isn't enough. > It needs at least a copyright line with a license grant somewhere > preferably on each file, that's why the license goes to some lengths to > explain how to do it. > > Also releasing some version under GPL doesn't mean that previous versions > are also automatically released under GPL. > > > Source for all previous versions were always > > available, and still are on the wayback machine of > > the original homepage. > > > > Essentially pre 0.6.3 is just source available. > > > > Dist file mirroring is okay right? Besides the > > I don't think it is OK for OpenBSD to do this (as in PERMIT_* etc can't > be set to Yes and it would need building from ports not installing from > packages). If you want to mirror the distfile yourself that would be your > responsibility. > > > wayback machine there is exactly one place I can > > find 0.6.2, and it’s on a gnome related mirror > > and in zip format. Right now I have the port’s > > master site set to my own with a .tar.gz of the > > source. > > I found it at > https://nold.in/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=projects:consoles:dreamcast:cdirip-0.6.2-linux.tar.bz2 > (a path like this requires certain fiddling to use as a source in ports, > should be possible but is annoying!). > > ... > > > Is the code actually invalid GPL due to the Apple code? NetBSD is > > hosting dist files containing the Apple code so is it ok? License > > newbie, thanks for your patience. > > IANAL and it may vary between jurisdictions anyway but my understanding > is "if you don't include a Copyright line and grant some specific rights > to allow redistribution then it can't be redistributed". Some OS care > more about this for things in packages than others (Debian in particular > usually get this right) some others seem to rely on "meh nobody's really > going to complain are they". > > I just changed the permit values to no. I just checked your link and that build is indeed broken on big endian. The only version not broken is the one I found on that mirror. Another thing about that Nold guy, he seems to be throwing on his own license to version 0.6.2? https://github.com/Nold360/mksdiso/blob/master/COPYRIGHT Can I proceed with version 0.6.2? Just want to make sure everything is in order and correct. I’ll host it on my own site and have that ftp as a second master since it’s soo slow. Original site is below if you want to take a look. https://web.archive.org/web/20051127193031/http://cdirip.cjb.net:80/
Re: does a new port have to be the latest version?
On 2020/06/03 14:58, Alex Free wrote: > > Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2020 at 2:24 PM > > From: "Stuart Henderson" > > To: "Renaud Allard" > > Cc: ports@openbsd.org > > Subject: Re: does a new port have to be the latest version? > > > > On 2020/06/03 14:17, Renaud Allard wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 6/3/20 2:11 PM, Stuart Henderson wrote: > > > > On 2020/06/03 13:54, Alex Free wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > What is the program? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CDIrip, the current GitHub is at https://github.com/jozip/cdirip . > > > > > > > > > > > > > yes 0.6.3 looks to be a bit of a step backwards there. looking at the > > > > diff > > > > it did also remove a duplicate write of &aCommSize though. > > > > > > > > Note that it doesn't have proper licensing so will need to be marked as > > > > PERMIT_PACKAGE/PERMIT_DISTFILES=no license (some mention of "version > > > > developed on sourceforge under gpl" isn't a valid license grant). > > > > > > > https://github.com/jozip/cdirip/blob/master/LICENSE > > > > > > Mentions GPLV2 > > > > > > > That is just a file in the distribution of the version on github. There's no > > indication that it was added by the original author of the code and the "How > > to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs" section hasn't been followed > > in particular there is no "Copyright XXX you can redistribute it" etc. > > The only valid copyright information I see in the whole distribution is > > the one in https://github.com/jozip/cdirip/blob/master/audio.c which says > > > > /* Copyright (C) 1988-1991 Apple Computer, Inc. > > * All rights reserved. > > > > and does not grant redistribution. > > > > > > Previous versions were not under the GPL, but the > original author released 0.6.3 under the GPL. Just saying "released under GPL" without doing other steps isn't enough. It needs at least a copyright line with a license grant somewhere preferably on each file, that's why the license goes to some lengths to explain how to do it. Also releasing some version under GPL doesn't mean that previous versions are also automatically released under GPL. > Source for all previous versions were always > available, and still are on the wayback machine of > the original homepage. > > Essentially pre 0.6.3 is just source available. > > Dist file mirroring is okay right? Besides the I don't think it is OK for OpenBSD to do this (as in PERMIT_* etc can't be set to Yes and it would need building from ports not installing from packages). If you want to mirror the distfile yourself that would be your responsibility. > wayback machine there is exactly one place I can > find 0.6.2, and it’s on a gnome related mirror > and in zip format. Right now I have the port’s > master site set to my own with a .tar.gz of the > source. I found it at https://nold.in/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=projects:consoles:dreamcast:cdirip-0.6.2-linux.tar.bz2 (a path like this requires certain fiddling to use as a source in ports, should be possible but is annoying!). ... > Is the code actually invalid GPL due to the Apple code? NetBSD is > hosting dist files containing the Apple code so is it ok? License > newbie, thanks for your patience. IANAL and it may vary between jurisdictions anyway but my understanding is "if you don't include a Copyright line and grant some specific rights to allow redistribution then it can't be redistributed". Some OS care more about this for things in packages than others (Debian in particular usually get this right) some others seem to rely on "meh nobody's really going to complain are they".
Re: does a new port have to be the latest version?
> > > Note that it doesn't have proper licensing so will need to be marked as > > > PERMIT_PACKAGE/PERMIT_DISTFILES=no license (some mention of "version > > > developed on sourceforge under gpl" isn't a valid license grant). > > > > > https://github.com/jozip/cdirip/blob/master/LICENSE > > > > Mentions GPLV2 > > > > That is just a file in the distribution of the version on github. There's no > indication that it was added by the original author of the code and the "How > to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs" section hasn't been followed > in particular there is no "Copyright XXX you can redistribute it" etc. > The only valid copyright information I see in the whole distribution is > the one in https://github.com/jozip/cdirip/blob/master/audio.c which says > > /* Copyright (C) 1988-1991 Apple Computer, Inc. > * All rights reserved. > > and does not grant redistribution. > > So should I try to patch 0.6.3 to work on big endian? I’d rather not but if we can’t proceed with 0.6.2 I guess I have to try. Is the code actually invalid GPL due to the Apple code? NetBSD is hosting dist files containing the Apple code so is it ok? License newbie, thanks for your patience. Here is where I found cdirip 0.6.2 originally on that gnome related mirror https://ftp.gnome.org/mirror/archive/ftp.sunet.se/pub/mac/fink/?C=M;O=A (warning very slow) . Here’s the original site on archive.org https://web.archive.org/web/20050706012759/http://cdirip.cjb.net:80/ The original SourceForge page https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdimagetools/files/CDIRip/
Re: does a new port have to be the latest version?
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2020 at 2:24 PM > From: "Stuart Henderson" > To: "Renaud Allard" > Cc: ports@openbsd.org > Subject: Re: does a new port have to be the latest version? > > On 2020/06/03 14:17, Renaud Allard wrote: > > > > > > On 6/3/20 2:11 PM, Stuart Henderson wrote: > > > On 2020/06/03 13:54, Alex Free wrote: > > > > > > > > > > What is the program? > > > > > > > > > > > > > CDIrip, the current GitHub is at https://github.com/jozip/cdirip . > > > > > > > > > > yes 0.6.3 looks to be a bit of a step backwards there. looking at the diff > > > it did also remove a duplicate write of &aCommSize though. > > > > > > Note that it doesn't have proper licensing so will need to be marked as > > > PERMIT_PACKAGE/PERMIT_DISTFILES=no license (some mention of "version > > > developed on sourceforge under gpl" isn't a valid license grant). > > > > > https://github.com/jozip/cdirip/blob/master/LICENSE > > > > Mentions GPLV2 > > > > That is just a file in the distribution of the version on github. There's no > indication that it was added by the original author of the code and the "How > to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs" section hasn't been followed > in particular there is no "Copyright XXX you can redistribute it" etc. > The only valid copyright information I see in the whole distribution is > the one in https://github.com/jozip/cdirip/blob/master/audio.c which says > > /* Copyright (C) 1988-1991 Apple Computer, Inc. > * All rights reserved. > > and does not grant redistribution. > > Previous versions were not under the GPL, but the original author released 0.6.3 under the GPL. Source for all previous versions were always available, and still are on the wayback machine of the original homepage. Essentially pre 0.6.3 is just source available. Dist file mirroring is okay right? Besides the wayback machine there is exactly one place I can find 0.6.2, and it’s on a gnome related mirror and in zip format. Right now I have the port’s master site set to my own with a .tar.gz of the source.
Re: does a new port have to be the latest version?
On 2020/06/03 14:17, Renaud Allard wrote: > > > On 6/3/20 2:11 PM, Stuart Henderson wrote: > > On 2020/06/03 13:54, Alex Free wrote: > > > > > > > > What is the program? > > > > > > > > > > CDIrip, the current GitHub is at https://github.com/jozip/cdirip . > > > > > > > yes 0.6.3 looks to be a bit of a step backwards there. looking at the diff > > it did also remove a duplicate write of &aCommSize though. > > > > Note that it doesn't have proper licensing so will need to be marked as > > PERMIT_PACKAGE/PERMIT_DISTFILES=no license (some mention of "version > > developed on sourceforge under gpl" isn't a valid license grant). > > > https://github.com/jozip/cdirip/blob/master/LICENSE > > Mentions GPLV2 > That is just a file in the distribution of the version on github. There's no indication that it was added by the original author of the code and the "How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs" section hasn't been followed in particular there is no "Copyright XXX you can redistribute it" etc. The only valid copyright information I see in the whole distribution is the one in https://github.com/jozip/cdirip/blob/master/audio.c which says /* Copyright (C) 1988-1991 Apple Computer, Inc. * All rights reserved. and does not grant redistribution.
Re: does a new port have to be the latest version?
On 2020/06/03 13:54, Alex Free wrote: > > > > What is the program? > > > > CDIrip, the current GitHub is at https://github.com/jozip/cdirip . > yes 0.6.3 looks to be a bit of a step backwards there. looking at the diff it did also remove a duplicate write of &aCommSize though. Note that it doesn't have proper licensing so will need to be marked as PERMIT_PACKAGE/PERMIT_DISTFILES=no license (some mention of "version developed on sourceforge under gpl" isn't a valid license grant).
Re: does a new port have to be the latest version?
> > What is the program? > CDIrip, the current GitHub is at https://github.com/jozip/cdirip .
Re: does a new port have to be the latest version?
On 2020/06/03 11:33, ale...@mail.com wrote: > I am working on my first port, and version 0.6.3 broke big endian > support. The software’s latest version is still broken on big endian. > The reason for this is stated in the change log as removing endian > specific code. The software compiles fine but does not function > correctly, giving errors. What is the program? > Version 0.6.2 works on big endian, which is what I’ll be using this > software on a lot. > > NetBSD has a port of the newest version of this software. It looks like > it wasn’t properly tested because they use no patches in their port > yet produce PowerPC binaries. This is unconfirmed however because I > don’t use NetBSD. >
Re: does a new port have to be the latest version?
> > Version 0.6.2 works on big endian, which is what I’ll be using this > > software on a lot. > If you worked on a 0.6.2 port and 0.6.3 gets out before your port > submission, this is by no means any blocker. > This isn’t the case. 0.6.2 was released in 2002 and the latest version in 2018. However there was only one release in between the 2, in 2004 and there have not been massive changes to the core program. If there was a currently supported option for what this software does I would use it instead however this is the only option for big endian. > We encourage using the latest versions where possible, but if known > breakage is on the roadmap, there's little point in updating until > upstream fixed it - afterall, I even consider it a good sign that you > spotted the regression and hold back on updating it. > > On the other hand, ports stuck at a specific version without updates in > sight tend to be removed after longer periods of time without updates. > Even if they work 100% fine this is the case? > > NetBSD has a port of the newest version of this software. It looks like > > it wasn’t properly tested because they use no patches in their port > > yet produce PowerPC binaries. This is unconfirmed however because I > > don’t use NetBSD. > Reach out to them and ask. > > I’ve emailed NetBSD on this and am waiting for a response, I almost did so before writing this email to ports.
Re: does a new port have to be the latest version?
> I guess this depend of the port and how old the release you want to > include is. For a network daemon it's better if it's up to date but for > a game or non network tool, I think it's possible to have an older > version. > Well that’s good news. Version 0.6.2 is from 2002. Version 0.6.3 is from 2004, and 0.6.4 is the latest from 2018. This is a non network tool to extract a specific file type. A program like this doesn’t need constant updates.
Re: does a new port have to be the latest version?
On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 11:33:08AM +0200, ale...@mail.com wrote: > I am working on my first port, and version 0.6.3 broke big endian > support. The software’s latest version is still broken on big endian. > The reason for this is stated in the change log as removing endian > specific code. The software compiles fine but does not function > correctly, giving errors. > > Version 0.6.2 works on big endian, which is what I’ll be using this > software on a lot. If you worked on a 0.6.2 port and 0.6.3 gets out before your port submission, this is by no means any blocker. We encourage using the latest versions where possible, but if known breakage is on the roadmap, there's little point in updating until upstream fixed it - afterall, I even consider it a good sign that you spotted the regression and hold back on updating it. On the other hand, ports stuck at a specific version without updates in sight tend to be removed after longer periods of time without updates. > NetBSD has a port of the newest version of this software. It looks like > it wasn’t properly tested because they use no patches in their port > yet produce PowerPC binaries. This is unconfirmed however because I > don’t use NetBSD. Reach out to them and ask.
Re: does a new port have to be the latest version?
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 11:33:08 +0200 ale...@mail.com: > I am working on my first port, and version 0.6.3 broke big endian > support. The software’s latest version is still broken on big endian. > The reason for this is stated in the change log as removing endian > specific code. The software compiles fine but does not function > correctly, giving errors. > > Version 0.6.2 works on big endian, which is what I’ll be using this > software on a lot. > > NetBSD has a port of the newest version of this software. It looks > like it wasn’t properly tested because they use no patches in their > port yet produce PowerPC binaries. This is unconfirmed however > because I don’t use NetBSD. > I guess this depend of the port and how old the release you want to include is. For a network daemon it's better if it's up to date but for a game or non network tool, I think it's possible to have an older version.
