Angel Velasquez wrote:
> Why you didn't reply on the thread ? :S now this thread is splitted
> without reason
Sorry, Re: somehow slipped out from Subject line. :-(
Nicky
--
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got
Till it's gone
(Joni Mitchell)
On 02/07/11 04:06, Nicky726 wrote:
Angel Velasquez wrote:
Why you didn't reply on the thread ? :S now this thread is splitted
without reason
Sorry, Re: somehow slipped out from Subject line. :-(
Nicky
Actually, I think your e-mail client is misconfigured/broken somehow;
let's debug. It loo
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 23:06, Nicky726 wrote:
> If I may add my two cents, I would go for GPL for PKGBUILDs, as it ensures
> stuff remains OSS. Though some broader discussion/voting may be good. And a
> compromise in form of selection from OSS licences when uploading, defaulting
> to one could not
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 09:35, Isaac Dupree
wrote:
> On 02/07/11 04:06, Nicky726 wrote:
>>
>> Angel Velasquez wrote:
>>>
>>> Why you didn't reply on the thread ? :S now this thread is splitted
>>> without reason
>>
>> Sorry, Re: somehow slipped out from Subject line. :-(
>> Nicky
>
> Actually, I th
I think Creative Commons is a good choice for PKGBUILDs in AUR. It can
be almost as permissible as public domain while still valid in most
jurisdictions (actually I don't know any where it isn't).
Or on a less serious side WTFPL [1] or Poetic License [2] can be used
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wi
2011/2/7 Lukáš Jirkovský :
> I think Creative Commons is a good choice for PKGBUILDs in AUR. It can
> be almost as permissible as public domain while still valid in most
> jurisdictions (actually I don't know any where it isn't).
Creative Commons itself does not recommend CC licences for software
On 7 February 2011 11:22, Sebastian Wiesner wrote:
> 2011/2/7 Lukáš Jirkovský :
>> I think Creative Commons is a good choice for PKGBUILDs in AUR. It can
>> be almost as permissible as public domain while still valid in most
>> jurisdictions (actually I don't know any where it isn't).
>
> Creative
2011/2/7 Lukáš Jirkovský :
> I think most PKGBUILDs are too simple to be considered software.
Simple or not, PKGBUILDs are scripts, and hence software. IMNSHO if
you must apply a license to PKGBUILDs, it should be that of makepkg's
OR the distribution's (for another distribution using makepkg and
2011/2/6 Ray Rashif :
> # Copyright 1999-2011 Gentoo Foundation
> # Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2
But Arch is a legal entity? Can we put "Arch" as the copyright holder?
2011/2/7 Bernardo Barros :
> 2011/2/6 Ray Rashif :
>> # Copyright 1999-2011 Gentoo Foundation
>> # Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2
>
> But Arch is a legal entity? Can we put "Arch" as the copyright holder?
Whoever name is there, GPL seems just right, I think.
On 7 February 2011 11:58, Ray Rashif wrote:
> 2011/2/7 Lukáš Jirkovský :
>> I think most PKGBUILDs are too simple to be considered software.
>
> Simple or not, PKGBUILDs are scripts, and hence software.
I don't think it matters whether PKGBUILDs are software or not.
> Magnus Therming mentioned t
2011/2/7 Lukáš Jirkovský :
> I don't think it matters whether PKGBUILDs are software or not.
It never did, but now it does :)
> That sounds to me like saying "all bash scripts have to be under GPL,
> because BASH is licensed under GPL".
If you want to look at it that way, then sure.
Hi,
just wanted to notify that I am orphaning some ruby packages that I
don't need anymore.
I'll leave to the TUs the decision on what to do with them.
I guess they could be deleted after a grace period if nobody wants to
adopt them.
Package list:
ruby-cgi_multipart_eof_fix http://aur.archlinux.o
On Monday 07 February 2011 11:23:01 Ray Rashif wrote:
> 2011/2/7 Lukáš Jirkovský :
> > I don't think it matters whether PKGBUILDs are software or not.
>
> It never did, but now it does :)
>
> > That sounds to me like saying "all bash scripts have to be under GPL,
> > because BASH is licensed unde
On Sun, 6 Feb 2011 17:43:59 -0500, Loui Chang
wrote:
You probably want to grab the tarballs, and extract what's in those.
The next release of the AUR will only have tarballs and PKGBUILDs.
The other files won't be extracted.
Would it be possible to also extract .install scripts? I usually
re
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 11:59, Peter Lewis wrote:
> On Monday 07 February 2011 11:23:01 Ray Rashif wrote:
>> 2011/2/7 Lukáš Jirkovský :
>> > I don't think it matters whether PKGBUILDs are software or not.
>>
>> It never did, but now it does :)
>>
>> > That sounds to me like saying "all bash scripts
Dne pondělí 07 února 2011 10:35:19 jste napsal(a):
> On 02/07/11 04:06, Nicky726 wrote:
> > Angel Velasquez wrote:
> >> Why you didn't reply on the thread ? :S now this thread is splitted
> >> without reason
> >
> > Sorry, Re: somehow slipped out from Subject line. :-(
> > Nicky
>
> Actually, I
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 13:49, Nicky726 wrote:
> Dne pondělí 07 února 2011 10:35:19 jste napsal(a):
>> On 02/07/11 04:06, Nicky726 wrote:
>> > Angel Velasquez wrote:
>> >> Why you didn't reply on the thread ? :S now this thread is splitted
>> >> without reason
>> >
>> > Sorry, Re: somehow slipped o
On 02/07/2011 11:06 AM, Lukáš Jirkovský wrote:
I think Creative Commons is a good choice for PKGBUILDs in AUR. It can
be almost as permissible as public domain while still valid in most
jurisdictions (actually I don't know any where it isn't).
There is a CC-license that waives all rights, and t
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 14:20, Ray Rashif wrote:
> 2011/2/7 Cédric Girard :
>> On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 8:47 PM, Ray Rashif wrote:
>>
>>> Err..it is as relaxed as the wiki. I don't see why any question about
>>> ownership should arise. If someone wants to claim ownership and not be
>>> willing to sh
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 6:22 PM, Loui Chang wrote:
> On Sun 06 Feb 2011 17:52 -0600, Thomas Dziedzic wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 4:58 PM, keenerd wrote:
>> > On 2/6/11, Loui Chang wrote:
>> >> You probably want to grab the tarballs, and extract what's in those.
>> >> The next release of the
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Michael Witten wrote:
> See my gcc-svn PKGBUILD:
>
>http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=24849
>
> Nobody likes it anyway, so who cares! :-)
>
Dude please don't try to make any policy decisions on your own. We still
haven't decided what the policy will be
On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 14:03 +, Magnus Therning wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 13:49, Nicky726 wrote:
> >
> > Could that be that I get Arch's mailing lists as diggests and reply to them
> > in
> > the client and copy the subject of the particular message. Am I supposed to
> > do
> > it in a
Hello official and inofficial maintainers and AUR devs.
Following the discussion in aur-general, I think some automation could
solve many issues at once here. Justin Davis' community-blacklist
patch is an approach in about the right direction although in
relation to the discussion concerning t
On Saturday, February 05, 2011 14:49:49 Ángel Velásquez wrote:
> 2011/2/5 Nicky726 :
> > To Angel Velasquez: the nature of the relation is not like an ownership,
> > but more like an authorship. Is it that much to show your respect to the
> > author by a polite question? After all we are people, no
On Sunday, February 06, 2011 15:48:53 Bernardo Barros wrote:
> Yes, but since you can't change a licence (from BSD to GPL), then
> Apple can just download the entire Arch repository code to adapt and
> use in their AppStore code, for example. Very unlikely, but possible
> since you can use PKGBUILD
2011/2/7 Yaro Kasear :
> Sure you can change licenses if you own (Hold copyright to.) all the relevant
> code involved.
That's way OT, but I'm curious now... :-).
Then if I did a BSD code that a company used in their proprietary
code, and then I change it to GPL, what happens then? The company wi
On Monday 07 February 2011 17:46:08 Bernardo Barros wrote:
> 2011/2/7 Yaro Kasear :
> > Sure you can change licenses if you own (Hold copyright to.) all the
> > relevant code involved.
>
> That's way OT, but I'm curious now... :-).
>
> Then if I did a BSD code that a company used in their proprie
On Monday, February 07, 2011 11:46:08 Bernardo Barros wrote:
> 2011/2/7 Yaro Kasear :
> > Sure you can change licenses if you own (Hold copyright to.) all the
> > relevant code involved.
>
> That's way OT, but I'm curious now... :-).
Well, it was in response to a reply in this thread a coupe days
2011/2/7 Yaro Kasear :
> On Saturday, February 05, 2011 14:49:49 Ángel Velásquez wrote:
>> 2011/2/5 Nicky726 :
>> > To Angel Velasquez: the nature of the relation is not like an ownership,
>> > but more like an authorship. Is it that much to show your respect to the
>> > author by a polite question
On Monday, February 07, 2011 12:22:41 Ángel Velásquez wrote:
> 2011/2/7 Yaro Kasear :
> > On Saturday, February 05, 2011 14:49:49 Ángel Velásquez wrote:
> >> 2011/2/5 Nicky726 :
> >> > To Angel Velasquez: the nature of the relation is not like an
> >> > ownership, but more like an authorship. Is it
2011/2/7 Yaro Kasear :
> On Monday, February 07, 2011 12:22:41 Ángel Velásquez wrote:
>> 2011/2/7 Yaro Kasear :
>> > On Saturday, February 05, 2011 14:49:49 Ángel Velásquez wrote:
>> >> 2011/2/5 Nicky726 :
>> >> > To Angel Velasquez: the nature of the relation is not like an
>> >> > ownership, but
Ok, some of the messages from this thread started to became offtopic.
Here is my 2 cents and consider this being my last message.
We always had an unspoken rule about sending a "thank you" note but we
are all humans and forgot. Have my word that I spoke with the members
that forgot and this wo
Angel,
If AUR is a sucessgul project, it is not because of this kind of
language you use. Be friendly to your fellow Arch friends. I'm sure
that if the other TU would share this language, another project
similar to AUR would pop up elsewhere.
On Monday 07 February 2011 17:12:03 Ángel Velásquez wrote:
> Ok please somebody bring a toy for the kid.
>
> I've repeated on *this* thread (several times) that a `courtesy note`
> is in the most cases sent when a package is moved to binary form on
> our official repos, and this should be enough,
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Bernardo Barros
wrote:
> Angel,
>
> If AUR is a sucessgul project, it is not because of this kind of
> language you use. Be friendly to your fellow Arch friends. I'm sure
> that if the other TU would share this language, another project
> similar to AUR would pop up
Hi TUs,
it's my time to leave the [community] repo.
I orphaned more packages in the last year and now I orphan the rest:
- choqok
- quoauth
- oxygen-gtk
- rekonq
- wtf
Has been an honour to work with all you guys.
Thank you all.
--
Andrea
Op maandag 7 februari 2011 20:25:03 schreef Andrea Scarpino:
> Hi TUs,
> it's my time to leave the [community] repo.
>
> I orphaned more packages in the last year and now I orphan the rest:
> - choqok
> - quoauth
> - oxygen-gtk
> - rekonq
> - wtf
>
> Has been an honour to work with all you guys.
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 09:29, Kaiting Chen wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Michael Witten wrote:
>
>> See my gcc-svn PKGBUILD:
>>
>> http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=24849
>>
>> Nobody likes it anyway, so who cares! :-)
>>
>
> Dude please don't try to make any policy decisions
On 8 February 2011 03:23, Thomas Dziedzic wrote:
> Side note:
> Although TUs are a great bunch, I don't think that's the main reason
> why people use the AUR. :)
As much as I'd like for this thread to die, because the main issue was
settled very many replies ago (we all agree that it's bad and we
On 8 February 2011 03:47, Michael Witten wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 09:29, Kaiting Chen wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Michael Witten wrote:
>>
>>> See my gcc-svn PKGBUILD:
>>>
>>> http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=24849
>>>
>>> Nobody likes it anyway, so who cares! :-)
Hi Andrea,
On Monday 07 February 2011 19:25:03 Andrea Scarpino wrote:
> Hi TUs,
> it's my time to leave the [community] repo.
Ah! Well, thanks for all your work. More time to focus on KDE in [extra],
eh? :-D
> I orphaned more packages in the last year and now I orphan the rest:
> - choqok
> - q
Not that I wouldn't mind the credit but it was Lukas Fleischer who
implemented the official repo checking code and not me. He is also
hosting the git repository for his branch of the AUR.
Your idea sort of sounds like "retiring" a package to me. That seems
like an interesting idea but I am not sur
Dne Po 7. února 2011 16:31:22 Ng Oon-Ee napsal(a):
> On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 14:03 +, Magnus Therning wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 13:49, Nicky726 wrote:
> > > Could that be that I get Arch's mailing lists as diggests and reply to
> > > them in the client and copy the subject of the particu
On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 23:13 +0100, Nicky726 wrote:
> Dne Po 7. února 2011 16:31:22 Ng Oon-Ee napsal(a):
> > On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 14:03 +, Magnus Therning wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 13:49, Nicky726 wrote:
> > > > Could that be that I get Arch's mailing lists as diggests and reply to
>
Hi there.
I tried to have the maintainer of *lib32-gtk-engines* and *lib32-libidl2* to
fix the PKGBUILDs to comply Multilib, but got no answer by email for 10 days
now. I got it ready to upload.
Please disown these 2 packages?
Thanks
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 5:22 PM, rafael ff1 wrote:
> Hi there.
>
> I tried to have the maintainer of *lib32-gtk-engines* and *lib32-libidl2*
> to
> fix the PKGBUILDs to comply Multilib, but got no answer by email for 10
> days
> now. I got it ready to upload.
> Please disown these 2 packages?
>
>
2011/2/7 Thomas S Hatch
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 5:22 PM, rafael ff1 wrote:
>
> > Hi there.
> >
> > I tried to have the maintainer of *lib32-gtk-engines* and *lib32-libidl2*
> > to
> > fix the PKGBUILDs to comply Multilib, but got no answer by email for 10
> > days
> > now. I got it ready to upl
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 5:28 PM, rafael ff1 wrote:
> 2011/2/7 Thomas S Hatch
>
> > On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 5:22 PM, rafael ff1
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi there.
> > >
> > > I tried to have the maintainer of *lib32-gtk-engines* and
> *lib32-libidl2*
> > > to
> > > fix the PKGBUILDs to comply Multilib,
2011/2/7 Thomas S Hatch
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 5:28 PM, rafael ff1 wrote:
>
> > 2011/2/7 Thomas S Hatch
> >
> > > On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 5:22 PM, rafael ff1
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi there.
> > > >
> > > > I tried to have the maintainer of *lib32-gtk-engines* and
> > *lib32-libidl2*
> > >
Please remove fbpdf:
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=46240
I've replaced it with fbpdf-git:
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=46304
I uploaded the package as fbpdf, but it is a git package, so to fix my
mistake, I created the fbpdf-git package.
Sara
--
"Nothing is too wonderfu
Deleted, thanks for letting us know!
Greetings,
The following packages need to be deleted:
1) ezquake-skins: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=7069
2) ezquake-textures: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=7068
These packages have a bunch of random, out of date, some no longer
relevant assets, which should never have be
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Slash wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> The following packages need to be deleted:
>
> 1) ezquake-skins: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=7069
>
> 2) ezquake-textures: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=7068
>
> These packages have a bunch of random, out of dat
Comments were added last week, forgot to post that to the ML. Get
them in JSON form at aur3.org/mirror/pkgname/comments.gz
The new thing is uploads to AUR3. I was stuck on a few parts,
like how to split a .sig from a .gpg (for single file uploads) and
then after than how to PUT more than one fil
On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 13:47 -0600, Michael Witten wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 09:29, Kaiting Chen wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Michael Witten wrote:
> >
> >> See my gcc-svn PKGBUILD:
> >>
> >>http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=24849
> >>
> >> Nobody likes it anyway, so
56 matches
Mail list logo
