On Thu, 23 May 2019 19:08:22 -0400, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote:
> On 5/23/19 3:15 PM, Andy Pieters wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > This is something I gotten used to live with for a very long time
> > now, patching the shadow package every time it is updated to allow
> > capitals in the user/group
On 5/23/19 6:48 PM, ProgAndy wrote:
> Am 24.05.19 um 00:21 schrieb mar77i via arch-general:
> ...
>>
>> To answer my own question, of course I screwed it up already.
>> Okay, so license=('custom:MIT'), license=('MIT') or license=('custom')?
>>
>> manual says: put licenses from /usr/share/licenses/c
On 5/23/19 3:15 PM, Andy Pieters wrote:
> Hi
>
> This is something I gotten used to live with for a very long time now,
> patching the shadow package every time it is updated to allow capitals in
> the user/group names.
>
> I've often meant to write in to ask why and this is that glorious day.
>
Am 24.05.19 um 00:21 schrieb mar77i via arch-general:
...
>
> To answer my own question, of course I screwed it up already.
> Okay, so license=('custom:MIT'), license=('MIT') or license=('custom')?
>
> manual says: put licenses from /usr/share/licenses/common into the license
> array, otherwise u
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Friday, May 24, 2019 12:14 AM, Lone_Wolf wrote:
> People,
>
> I forgot to tell ashark the primary reason why I felt a thread in arch
> general ML was needed.
>
> Almost every file in libdrm tree has it's own copyright notice, I've
> listed 4 examples at the bot
> I have read that article in ArchWiki. I understand that point that MIT
> licences are all custom because of individual copyright line. But then I do
> not understand when should I use license=('MIT') instead of
> license=('custom')?
> I have read that MIT is a set of licenses, but it is kinda u
People,
I forgot to tell ashark the primary reason why I felt a thread in arch
general ML was needed.
Almost every file in libdrm tree has it's own copyright notice, I've
listed 4 examples at the bottom of the mail.
The COPYING file we include with libdrm doesn't list any of those 4
notice
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Thursday, May 23, 2019 11:15 PM, mpan wrote:
>
> I talked about the topic on #archlinux and it seems that the accepted
> solution is to use 'MIT' in the `license` array, despite there is no
> corresponding text in the “licenses” package, and put the text into
>
On 5/23/19 5:15 PM, mpan wrote:
>> I have read that article in ArchWiki. I understand that point that MIT
>> licences are all custom because of individual copyright line. But then I do
>> not understand when should I use license=('MIT') instead of
>> license=('custom')?
>> I have read that MIT i
> I have read that article in ArchWiki. I understand that point that MIT
> licences are all custom because of individual copyright line. But then I do
> not understand when should I use license=('MIT') instead of
> license=('custom')?
> I have read that MIT is a set of licenses, but it is kinda
Hi
This is something I gotten used to live with for a very long time now,
patching the shadow package every time it is updated to allow capitals in
the user/group names.
I've often meant to write in to ask why and this is that glorious day.
Why is it that uppercase letters are not allowed in use
I have read that article in ArchWiki. I understand that point that MIT licences
are all custom because of individual copyright line. But then I do not
understand when should I use license=('MIT') instead of license=('custom')?
I have read that MIT is a set of licenses, but it is kinda unclear. I
> Hello. I was repacking amdgpu-pro deb files and when I started converting
> licences, I have noticed that libdrm* packages have a MIT Licence text in
> copyright file. I decided to check if AUR/libdrm-git and Extra/libdrm uses
> MIT licence, but they don't. I contacted Lone_Wolf (maintainer of
Hello. I was repacking amdgpu-pro deb files and when I started converting
licences, I have noticed that libdrm* packages have a MIT Licence text in
copyright file. I decided to check if AUR/libdrm-git and Extra/libdrm uses MIT
licence, but they don't. I contacted Lone_Wolf (maintainer of libdrm-
Oh!.. these features are also available??!!!.. great yeah..
On Thu, 23 May 2019, 2:18 pm Ralf Mardorf via arch-general, <
arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2019 09:01:49 +0100, Ralph Corderoy wrote:
> >The SSD drive also reports its own personal view of lifetime remaining
> >and
On Thu, 23 May 2019 09:01:49 +0100, Ralph Corderoy wrote:
>The SSD drive also reports its own personal view of lifetime remaining
>and other interesting statistics using
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.M.A.R.T%2E.
>
>173 Ave_Block-Erase_Count -O--CK 095 095 000-77
>202 Perc
Hi David,
> In normal desktop/laptop use, you rarely write more than 1-2GB a day
> on average -- so that would translate into a 190-95 year wear-life for
> the drive under normal use. Even at 10GB a day, that would be a 19
> year life for the drive.
The SSD drive also reports its own personal vie
17 matches
Mail list logo
