Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Mkinitcpio replacement with Dracut

Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote: > I think Chet Ramey did a pretty good explanation in the linked mailing > list about why this is a fundamental misunderstanding of what "POSIX" > means, but just to be extra sure... you are aware that POSIX defines > `command ^` as the only true, correct

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Mkinitcpio replacement with Dracut

Neven Sajko via arch-general wrote: > Regarding using bash as sh: > > > Bash runs POSIX scripts just fine. > > Bash does not run some POSIX scripts fine. See > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-bash/2017-08/msg00087.html , > for example. In that case an executable named ^ can not be called.

Re: [arch-general] Opinions on PowerShell?

Jayesh Badwaik wrote: > systemd is GPL and not patented by Red Hat (I won't be surprised if it does > potentially > probably violates some patents somewhere on the earth anyway), Chromium is > BSD, MIT If Sun owned patents on SMF, then it probably violates

Re: [arch-general] Opinions on PowerShell?

Hunter Connelly via arch-general wrote: > Here's an example I found on Reddit in the thread about this on /r/linux. > Both of the following commands find the size and name of the three largest > files > in a directory. > > Bash:ls -l | sed 's/ \+/,/g' | cut

Re: [arch-general] Opinions on PowerShell?

Jeroen Mathon via arch-general wrote: > A lot of standard scripts will not function correctly. The same applies if you install "csh" as your shell. UNIX allows you to shoot you into your foot if you like. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.net(home)

Re: [arch-general] Is there a burning tool able to replace K3b?

Simon Hanna simon.ha...@jesus.de wrote: you can check the list of applications in the wiki [1] No, you are not the only one who doesn't like GNOME, KDE, XFCE, ... have you tried i3? about replacement software: try using command line tools, just search the link below for all sorts of

Re: [arch-general] Is there a burning tool able to replace K3b?

Hussam Al-Tayeb hus...@visp.net.lb wrote: On Tuesday 21 January 2014 12:28:35 Joerg Schilling wrote: cdrtools- last release: yesterday ;-) Speaking of cdrtools, do you have some git or svn or something similar repository of cdrtools so people can monitor development or do you simply

Re: [arch-general] Default value of j in makeflags of makepkg.conf

Isaac Dupree m...@isaac.cedarswampstudios.org wrote: Probably most code doesn't consume 256 MB RAM per GCC invocation. C++'s templates and lack of module system... Correct...also in special for C and other compilers. Important is to create more parallel instances then the number of

Re: [arch-general] Super weird dd problem.

Thomas Bächler tho...@archlinux.org wrote: Am 10.06.2013 05:18, schrieb Anatol Pomozov: sync is not a workaround, it is a right solution. You are wrong. Under the hood copying in linux works following way. Every time you read something from disk the file information will stay cached in

Re: [arch-general] /bin symlink breaking fetchmail

Scott Lawrence byt...@gmail.com wrote: Hey all, In short, the latest upgrade seems to have borked fetchmail: fetchmail: Error writing to MDA: Broken pipe Deleting the /bin symlink and creating a /bin directory containing only a symlink /bin/sh pointing to /usr/bin/bash, makes

Re: [arch-general] Installing Arch Linux on pure ZFS root

Tom Gundersen t...@jklm.no wrote: My guess is that this would be painful at least until a grub2 version with zfs support is released. A simple solution would be to use a separate /boot partition with a more standard filesystem. I'd suggest FAT32 or ext4. grub1 supports ZFS since years, you

Re: [arch-general] lib - usr/lib

Ian Fleming itremm...@gmail.com wrote: I beleive its a question of How is the filesytem structure and its distributed nature/capabilities relevant today i.e the need for /bin or /lib even. /bin has been removed in 1987 already - in favor of a symlink to /usr/bin and a few programs in

Re: [arch-general] lib - usr/lib

Ken CC ken.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 09:48:00PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: I laugh away this trouble. Is there any information about the advantages of lib - usr/lib? anyone likes to answer this question? The advantage is that you no longer can boot with a small root

Re: [arch-general] lib - usr/lib

Ralf Mardorf ralf.mard...@alice-dsl.net wrote: On Thu, 2012-07-26 at 14:18 +0530, Jayesh Badwaik wrote: Well, then: /opt - /usr/opt And everyone will be happy :) No, I guess not, /usr is for vendor-supplied stuff. /opt is for personal stuff. That is the conflict.

Re: [arch-general] lib - usr/lib

Kevin Chadwick ma1l1i...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: hmmm, I think I've brought this up before and forgotten the response, something along the lines of they are not static anymore anyway. They are atleast majoratively on OpenBSD. *BSD ignored most FHS agreements from 1987 and unfortunately Linux

Re: [arch-general] [cdrecord] Problems with original cdrecord on latest linux kernel

Tom Gundersen t...@jklm.no wrote: On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Joerg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: Why should someone call an important driver legacy? I assume it is because it has some problems, and has been replaced by something else. But you'd have to take

Re: [arch-general] [cdrecord] Problems with original cdrecord on latest linux kernel

Luká?? Jirkovský l.jirkov...@gmail.com wrote: Yeah, I'm pretty surprised that the developer arguments with cdrecord without contacting Jörg beforehand. Anyway, the motivation might be to use the SCSI numbers instead of random numbers determined by udev. Not asking the right people seems to be

Re: [arch-general] [cdrecord] Problems with original cdrecord on latest linux kernel

). When I try to identify the cd/dvd writers: % cdrecord -scanbus Cdrecord-ProDVD-ProBD-Clone 3.01a07 (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) Copyright (C) 1995-2012 Joerg Schilling cdrecord: No such file or directory. Cannot open '/dev/pg*'. Cannot open or use SCSI driver. cdrecord: For possible

Re: [arch-general] [cdrecord] Problems with original cdrecord on latest linux kernel

Tom Gundersen t...@jklm.no wrote: Jörg, Luká??, On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Joerg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: Looks like a missconfigured kernel that does not include support for or for some strange reason does not load the SCSI generic driver Our kernel

Re: [arch-general] a couple cdrecord questions

Jude DaShiell jdash...@shellworld.net wrote: This is NEC hardware here and I'm always issued two warnings whenever I try to burn anything. The first is that input buffer cannot be read and the second is that the dma speed test is skipped. What things can I change in order to clear these

Re: [arch-general] mkisofs question

Jude DaShiell jdash...@shellworld.net wrote: Can any options be used with mkisofs to tell it if an single image will have a size larger than 1 dvd can hold, make as many additional images as necessary so that everything will fit on more than a single dvd? Mkisofs -print-size Jörg --

Re: [arch-general] wodim unuseable

gt static.vor...@gmx.com wrote: Joerg, will you recommend cdrtools over growisofs for dvds? As apparently both mkisofs and growisofs do the same thing. Not correct, growisofs needs mkisofs and (at least) if you like to write DVDs, you should use a recent mkisofs that is not installed when you

Re: [arch-general] wodim unuseable

Thomas Bächler tho...@archlinux.org wrote: That reminds me, I was going to re-add cdrtools to the repositories, but I forgot, because I never write CDs or DVDs anyway (and when I do, it works with what I have installed right now). If you rarely use it and if you only use very basic

Re: [arch-general] wodim unuseable

gt static.vor...@gmx.com wrote: I know that growisofs uses mkisofs, but didn't know that the present version is 4+ years old. The present version of mkisofs is much more recent. The last changes happened in June 2011. If you however install genisoimage, you usually have mkisofs as link to

Re: [arch-general] wodim unuseable

gt static.vor...@gmx.com wrote: I do have cdrtools installed, and k3b does detect cdrecord, mkisofs, readcd etc. But still k3b says this on startup: Unable to find growisofs executable K3b uses growisofs to actually write DVDs. Without growisofs you will not be able to write DVDs. Make

Re: [arch-general] wodim unuseable

gt static.vor...@gmx.com wrote: Unable to find dvd+rw-format executable K3b uses dvd+rw-format to format DVD-RWs and DVD+RWs. Solution: Install the dvd+rw-tools package. Do you use an old version of k3b? Do you use a modified version of k3b? an unmodified k3b prevers to

Re: [arch-general] wodim unuseable

Jude DaShiell jdash...@shellworld.net wrote: Track01 on dvd's always comes up with unknown length when trying to burn a dvd with wodim. That's out of two different containers of dvd's too. These dvd's are single-sided so no danger of blue ray being used here. Fortunately I can do the

Re: [arch-general] ejecting after cdparanoia

Jorge Almeida jjalme...@gmail.com wrote: I just used cdparanoia (for the very first time) and I tried to eject the CD by pressing the button. Nothing happens. I can eject the CD with eject /dev/sr0, so it's not really a big problem. I just wonder whether this behavior is normal. I'm used to

Re: [arch-general] ejecting after cdparanoia

Heiko Baums li...@baums-on-web.de wrote: Am Wed, 14 Sep 2011 10:44:05 +0200 schrieb joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling): As the cdparanoia development stopped in 2001, And that's why the latest upstream release is from 2008, the latest SVN commit was 15 months ago

Re: [arch-general] ejecting after cdparanoia

Heiko Baums li...@baums-on-web.de wrote: And, btw., neither cdrecord nor cdda2wav are in the repos, not even in the AUR anymore. This looks like a bug as these programs are part of the standard optical media support package. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg

Re: [arch-general] ejecting after cdparanoia

Karol Blazewicz karol.blazew...@gmail.com wrote: Read the posting with the suggestion to using cdrecord and cdda2wav again and look who has written this posting. ;-P Heiko Ah, I get it now :-) BTW: a note cdrkit cannot be legally distributed and preserves a buggy state (+ extra

Re: [arch-general] ejecting after cdparanoia

Jorge Almeida jjalme...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Joerg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: cdparanoia is a cdda2wav version from 1997 with some modifications. Even the recent version? Cdparanoia Correct, Monty did take a cdda2wav release from

Re: [arch-general] ejecting after cdparanoia

Jorge Almeida jjalme...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Joerg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: results. If you like to most agressive parameters, I recommend to call:        cdda2wav paraopts=proof I'll keep this one in mind for next time

Re: [arch-general] ejecting after cdparanoia

Jorge Almeida jjalme...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Joerg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: ng to '+' ( Unreported loss of streaming/other error in read), which disappeared when I repeated the ripping with speed 1. Did you also tell cdda2wav

Re: [arch-general] ejecting after cdparanoia

Jorge Almeida jjalme...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 7:29 PM, Joerg Schilling Are you sure those smileys won't get into the log file? I just tried a track of a CD which got errors in _all_ tracks with cdda2wav (it's one of a boxed set, and it is the only one that has this problem

Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line

Mauro Santos registo.maill...@gmail.com wrote: Later, some religuous crowd came up and claimed that Earth is flat. I encourage you to just ignore those people who claim that Earth is flat and that there is a supposed legal problem with cdrtools. Sure I can ignore people who say

Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line

C Anthony Risinger anth...@extof.me wrote: in the spirit of open licenses, mildly incompatible or not, include the best tool for the job = cdrtools. on a final note, Jeorg, it would be extremely beneficial if you could cite a hard resource regarding the legalities involved here, as you seem

Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line

Attila vodoo0...@sonnenkinder.org wrote: Sorry to say but until there is no decision from a law court i see this only as a interpersonal problem and therefore i prefer to discuss about technical things. Perhaps this is because i'm a former OS/2 user but what i really don't understand

Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line

Adam Lantos h...@playma.org wrote: On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Damjan Georgievski gdam...@gmail.com wrote:  - it will put to an END to any possible misinterpretations and uncertainties - now and in the future he certainly is not interested in ending these pointless battles :) Let

Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line

Daenyth Blank daenyth+a...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 22:49, Nilesh Govindarajan li...@itech7.com wrote: What ? Is that really true ?!?!? State some link where it is officially declared by the developers. Joerg is the author of the software he recommends, so not exactly

Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line

Rasmus Steinke r...@xssn.at wrote: The ONLY reason cdrkit is used in many distributions is the license of cdrtools. Jörg mentions on his website that suns lawyers have analyzed the legal issues. Unfortunately there is no link to that analysis which makes this a pure claim. Well, the

Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line

Xavier Chantry chantry.xav...@gmail.com wrote: Jorg also mentioned that Eben Moglen approved the original software : http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2010-January/010380.html which was proved to be wrong from Eben Moglen himself :

Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line

Jan de Groot j...@jgc.homeip.net wrote: Sun legal department. Do you know of a single Linux distro that dropped libcdio because of the obvious licence violations in libcdio? Libcdio doesn't violate any license, but it's GPL, while Sun doesn't want GPL'ed libraries in Solaris. GPL for

Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line

Heiko Baums li...@baums-on-web.de wrote: Why does e.g. Debian still ship libcdio? Every unbiased person should have no problem to understand that what Debian did was just a slander campaign against an OpenSource project. Jörg Jörg, why don't you just change the license of your

Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line

Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org wrote: For obvious reasons, I only believe a claim from Moglen as long as it has been verified to be aligned with statements from other lawyers. With respect to Moglens public claims quoted above, Moglen is in conflict with many other lawyers, so I

Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line

Jan de Groot j...@jgc.homeip.net wrote: 1) This is permitted, though it turns the complete package into GPL. This is also why libcdio has moved from gst-plugins-good to gst-plugins-ugly. Note that LGPL gives permission to change the license to ordinary GPL in section 3. You can't do this as

Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line

Heiko Baums li...@baums-on-web.de wrote: You keep arguing, you always persist on having cdrtools added to the repos in favor of cdrkit. You always claim, that cdrkit has legal issues. At the same time you claim that you believe the slander from Debian. Is there any hope to have a reasonable

Re: [arch-general] cdrtools again... yay! - Was: Burning From Command Line

Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org wrote: [about time we changed the subject] Joerg, Even given you are correct about licensing terms (which I do not care to dispute), currently all risk lies on the distributor. Given many distributions have (perhaps wrongly) chosen not to package

Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line

Mauro Santos registo.maill...@gmail.com wrote: Because I say so is not a valid backup for your claims, Earth used to be flat and the center of the universe because the experts of that time said so. This behavior gets people mad at you and invariably Good point! Since more than 3000 years men

Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line

Armando M. Baratti ambaratti.lis...@gmail.com wrote: On 22-05-2010 01:24, Nilesh Govindarajan wrote: On 05/21/2010 08:14 PM, Armando M. Baratti wrote: In fact I *use* cdrecord. I've just pointed to the wiki page as it was handy and the options are (at most) the same. My fault not

Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line

Armando M. Baratti ambaratti.lis...@gmail.com wrote: Arch Linux Wiki: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/CD_Burning#Command-line_CD-burning (see Burning an iso image) The URL you mention gives bad advise as it encourages you to use software that is unmaintained since many years and full of

Re: [arch-general] HAL dependencies

Thomas Bächler tho...@archlinux.org wrote: Has anyone else stripped HAL completely out of their Arch install? Would be too nice, but it looks like KDE 4.5 won't be HAL-free yet and we'll have to wait for 4.6 - so I will keep HAL around for at least half a year. The important question is:

Re: [arch-general] Eben Moglen's view on mkisofs GPL (non-)compliance

Xavier Chantry chantry.xav...@gmail.com wrote: Eben just sent me this summary of his discussion with Jörg Schilling on the subject of the cdrtools mkisofs.  He said that it can be republished/posted anywhere.  When/if you do that, please do so *in its entirety*.  All too easy for things to be

Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit - tone it down

Gaurish Sharma cont...@gaurishsharma.com wrote: Hi, On the Wiki, Add a small note about cdrtools. proposing it as alternate over cdkit.so let the user decide: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/CD_Burning_Tips Just a note: cdrecord has a more complete CDRWIN CUE support than cdrdao. Jörg

Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit - tone it down

Armando M. Baratti ambaratti.lis...@gmail.com wrote: Strange, I have had the opposite experience. Trying to burn some CDs with cdrkit (on CentOS) give some problem with not being able to generate Joliet system and I have had trouble with utf-8 too. First I thought I was making some stupid

Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit - tone it down

Baho Utot baho-u...@columbus.rr.com wrote: I have preformed some tests and guess what cdrkit works! Imagine that. It burnt the iso's for Slackware distribution, and using md5sum to sum both a Slackware distribution disk burned by both cdrkit and cdrtools and they are the same, how did that

Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit

virus_found vir.fo...@gmail.com wrote: Now you know about several of those cases, for I wasn't able to burn my CD on a modern device (Lenovo SL500's DVD device) with cdrtools (alpha67, IIRC), but I was able to do it with cdrkit without an issue. There is a 99.9% chance that you are

Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit

Damjan Georgievski gdam...@gmail.com wrote: Would it be worth to do so? I am not convinced. The GPL was intentionally opened against any kind of libraries after it turned out that the first GCC version was legally unusable. I was part of this discussion and thus I know about this fact.

Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit - tone it down

Baho Utot baho-u...@columbus.rr.com wrote: Joerg Schilling wrote: Baho Utot baho-u...@columbus.rr.com wrote: I have preformed some tests and guess what cdrkit works! Imagine that. It burnt the iso's for Slackware distribution, and using md5sum to sum both a Slackware

Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit - tone it down

Gaurish Sharma cont...@gaurishsharma.com wrote: Hi, On the Wiki, Add a small note about cdrtools. proposing it as alternate over cdkit.so let the user decide: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/CD_Burning_Tips This is of course better than doing nothing. Please note however that this

Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit - tone it down

Nathan Wayde kum...@konnichi.com wrote: @Joerg Schilling This is not another attack against you so please to not try and make yourself appear as some kinda of victim here as well. Let me give some basic explanations: In German we have the word Streitkultur, there is no equlvalent

Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit - tone it down

Daenyth Blank daenyth+a...@gmail.com wrote: I have been reading this mailing list for several years, and can think of maybe one or two discussions that got like this. The vast majority of them are quite civil technical discussions. Don't blame the language for your lack of competence. If you

Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit - tone it down

Heiko Baums li...@baums-on-web.de wrote: I mean I assume that you have a big technical knowledge. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to write such a program and build such an Open Solaris LiveCD. But I also can understand that some people feel being attacked by you. On the other hand I can

Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit

Attila vodoo0...@sonnenkinder.org wrote: At Donnerstag, 28. Januar 2010 10:22 Joerg Schilling wrote: I don't find the most of your sugestions in man 7 capabilities. file_dac_read Permission to open any device file = cap_dac_readsearch ?? Most likely CAP_DAC_OVERRIDE sys_devices

Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit

Attila vodoo0...@sonnenkinder.org wrote: At Donnerstag, 28. Januar 2010 08:35 Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi wrote: Hi, don't need all root privileges/capabilities. Only cap_sys_admin, cap_sys_rawio for some special SCSI commands and cap_sys_resource for incresing resource limits. setcap

Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit

ludovic coues cou...@gmail.com wrote: Dev don't care about technical basis. They are ok with the fact that 13 releases per year is better than only one each single year. During the past 4 years, the average was 176.5 releases per year ;-) Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de

Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit

joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) wrote: ludovic coues cou...@gmail.com wrote: Dev don't care about technical basis. They are ok with the fact that 13 releases per year is better than only one each single year. During the past 4 years, the average was 176.5 releases

Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit

Pierre Schmitz pie...@archlinux.de wrote: Finally some interesting discussion came out of this. I am not an expert on linux capability support, but Thomas has posted two blog entries about this in Arch: http://archlinux.me/brain0/2009/07/28/using-posix-capabilities-in-linux- part-one/ and

Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit

Pierre Schmitz pie...@archlinux.de wrote: Am Freitag, 29. Januar 2010 17:58:42 schrieb Jan de Groot: On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 14:35 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: I am not sure whether this is the best solution. I recommend to use star as star is the oldest free tar implementation

Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit

joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) wrote: This might be related: http://code.google.com/p/libarchive/wiki/TarPosix1eACLs This does just describe what I defined 10 years ago ;-) I forgot, the complete documentation is here: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/man/star

Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit

Attila vodoo0...@sonnenkinder.org wrote: At Freitag, 29. Januar 2010 11:39 Joerg Schilling wrote: Thanks for your nice informations and with this line for setcap cap_dac_override,cap_sys_rawio,cap_ipc_lock,cap_sys_nice,cap_net_bind_service+ep a cdrecord --scanbus works as normal user

Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit

Steve Holmes steve.holme...@gmail.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 I don't know much about the licenses differences and all that crap but I experienced a problem with cdrecord several years ago where it would not work with my CD burner. I kept getting wiere I/O

Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit

Xavier Chantry chantry.xav...@gmail.com wrote: That could be the reason of this new project... https://savannah.gnu.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=6137 This is an attack against OpenSource. How do you judge on an entity that starts to publish source tar archives with names and revisions numbers

Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit

Christos Nouskas n...@archlinux.us wrote: Herr Schilling, why don't you dual-license (or, best, single-license to GPL) cdrtools? I thought you should be able to find this by your own. I cannot use a license that is extremely restrictive while most of the restrictions do not stand in court.

Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit

Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi vmlinuz...@yahoo.com.ar wrote: On 01/28/2010 03:48 AM, Attila wrote: I change the permissions in the install file in this way: /bin/echo Change Owner, Group and Permission to root.optical (4710) ... Hi, don't need all root privileges/capabilities. Only

Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit

Johann Peter Dirichlet peterdirichlet.freesoftw...@gmail.com wrote: There are two possible solutions: 1)      Look at the turkish Linux distro that delivers a complete        uncastrated Linux, create a linux distro that includes the        needed features (make sure that these features

Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit

Denis A. Altoé Falqueto denisfalqu...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 8:05 PM, Damjan Georgievski gdam...@gmail.com wrote: There was a very simple suggestion some message ago, why not dual-license the CDDL parts of cdrtools and be done with any and all the FUD (from any side), all

Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit

Aaron Griffin aaronmgrif...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Kitty seca...@gmail.com wrote: Well, if nothing else, I've learned a couple of things from this thread: 1) FUD works, especially if the FUDer is with a notable distro. 2) AUR is my friend. Well, if nothing

Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit

Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org wrote: The only thing that will definitely change our minds with regards to this is actually seeing a copy of the report saying the linking performed with cdrtools is not an issue due to license restrictions. Until that time, this discussion is going nowhere

Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit

Johann Peter Dirichlet peterdirichlet.freesoftw...@gmail.com wrote: Just burning the question: what about other operating systems (yes, FreeBSD and family) about it? It appears to be the cdrtools VS cdrkit issue doesn't affect them, and in fact FreeBSD guys keep cdrtools as precompiled

Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit

Thomas Bächler tho...@archlinux.org wrote: I disagree. It seems that most of the mkisofs code was actually written by Jörg himself or written while the package was under Jörg's maintainership (only a small portion is from the original author, who has no interest in it anymore), so I would

Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit

Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org wrote: On 27/01/10 20:02, Joerg Schilling wrote: There was nothing but a social attack from a hostile person. Please show me a report from a single lawyer that proves that there is a legal problem with the original software. Please provide a report

Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit

Johann Peter Dirichlet peterdirichlet.freesoftw...@gmail.com wrote: Well, after thinking about it (and talk with some friends, none lawyer), I just vote for community cdrtools and dump cdrkit. I always think about supporting other operating systems, mainly FreeBSD and NetBSD, before taking

Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit

Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org wrote: On 27/01/10 22:40, Joerg Schilling wrote: Allan McRaeal...@archlinux.org wrote: On 27/01/10 20:02, Joerg Schilling wrote: There was nothing but a social attack from a hostile person. Please show me a report from a single lawyer that proves

Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit

Pierre Schmitz pie...@archlinux.de wrote: The point is that nobody of us can proof for sure if it's legal or not. So it's quite pointless to continue arguing here. We will not be able to advance in case that a single person insists in applying rules that are in conflict with legal basics.

Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit

Jan de Groot j...@jgc.homeip.net wrote: On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 10:29 -0200, Johann Peter Dirichlet wrote: Well, there are some lawyer we can just consult to put a thombstone on this discussion? It will going to nowhere if we can't do this single clearing of legal issues. In fact, this is

Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit

Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org wrote: Nice avoidance yet again of the request to provide some legal backing to your assertion that it is legal to distribute cdrtools. You still did not prove that it is illegal. I sit back and relax unless you can prove your claims. Yes you

Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit

Jan de Groot j...@jgc.homeip.net wrote: On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 15:45 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: Just to make it clear: There is not a single claim from a lawyer that confirms the claims from the hostile downstram packager. Looking through the thread on the fedora list they claim

Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit

Thomas Jost thomas.j...@gmail.com wrote: Le 27/01/2010 15:12, Joerg Schilling a écrit : Well, it seems that you decided to use a model that is highly vulnerable for FUD and you are even in conflict with your own statements: Just a (not so) funny thought about FUD from hostile people

Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit

Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org wrote: On 28/01/10 00:31, Joerg Schilling wrote: The GPL claims to be a valid OSS license. In order to become a valid OSS license, a license must not only follow the weak rules from the FSF but also follow the more stringent rules from the OpenSource

Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit

Thomas Jost thomas.j...@gmail.com wrote: You said earlier that _you_ would first need to prove that there is a legal problem with the original software. You are telling cdrkit is illegal. Follow your own rule. Prove cdrkit to be illegal. If you can't, there's no point in continuing this

Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit

Johann Peter Dirichlet peterdirichlet.freesoftw...@gmail.com wrote: That is not the case for cdrkit. It has a lower quality than the original software. In fact, I lost some DVD discs with wodim :( but it is just with me (many people say that cdrkit is buggy, many people say that is good).

Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit

Xavier Chantry chantry.xav...@gmail.com wrote: Joerg on the other hand seems to care a lot about the inclusion of his software in the official Arch repository. Actually, I really wonder like pyther : What is in this for him?. The software is already in AUR, which every Arch users know and

Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit

Attila vodoo0...@sonnenkinder.org wrote: Sorry ,if i makes you angry because this is NOT my intention. But what i really miss during this most useless discussion about a software for linux is that no one of both sides hire a laywer and see what happens in reality inf front of a court

Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit

Gaurish Sharma cont...@gaurishsharma.com wrote: Hi, Leaving all the licenses and legal issues aside, Q) Which is better out of the two? please respond purely on technical basis. Everything has been said, you just need to read it. Users demand working software and thus request cdrtools.

Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit

Gaurish Sharma cont...@gaurishsharma.com wrote: One more thing cdrtools required it to be run as root, isn't that dangerous. any method by which we give the required permissions to normal user? There are two possible solutions: 1) Look at the turkish Linux distro that delivers a

Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit

Loui Chang louipc@gmail.com wrote: If there are outstanding licensing or legal issues they may decide to avoid that particular software. This would be a reason to avoid cdrkit. Cdrkit is in a clear conflict with the Copyright law and I as the owner of the rights on the software did

Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit

Allan McRae wrote: Not anything recent: http://lwn.net/Articles/195167/ . Debian thinks about these things a lot more than we do so I usually would defer to them. But given they essentially created the cdrkit fork, I'm not sure they are ever going to reassess the situation. The article you

Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit

Jan de Groot wrote: It seems that GPL and CDDL have some conflicting paragraphs, so even if CDDL allows linking to GPL with this exception, GPL doesn't allow the other way around. I am not sure where you have this idea from The CDDL allows to combine CDDL code with other code and the GPL

Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit

Heiko Baums wrote: I don't know anything about the technical differences between cdrkit and cdrtools but http://cdrkit.org says: News 2009/10/11 Cdrkit 1.1.10 has been released. So the last stable release was not a year but only three months ago. This looks like an active development for me.

  1   2   >