On 18.11.2012 18:55, Michael Meskes wrote:
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 04:28:01PM +0100, Felix Geyer wrote:
Removing the Open Watcom source files would be a GPL violation unless
upstream
explicitly adds a license to the generated assembler files.
IANAL but wouldn't the general license from the
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 04:28:01PM +0100, Felix Geyer wrote:
Removing the Open Watcom source files would be a GPL violation unless upstream
explicitly adds a license to the generated assembler files.
IANAL but wouldn't the general license from the package kick in if there is no
license
Well, you can change the assembler file directly. I wonder what happened if we
just remove the OpenWatcom source files from the tarball? Or if the developers
hadn't told us but instead said they created the assembler file by hand?
Removing OpenWatcom files sounds like a possibility.
--
On 14.11.2012 15:30, Michael Meskes wrote:
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 10:56:50AM +0100, Felix Geyer wrote:
When you want to modify the BIOS you change the code in the files of the
first variant so only that is considered the source code of the BIOS.
Well, you can change the assembler file
On Friday 16 November 2012 16:28:01 Felix Geyer wrote:
On 14.11.2012 15:30, Michael Meskes wrote:
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 10:56:50AM +0100, Felix Geyer wrote:
When you want to modify the BIOS you change the code in the files of the
first variant so only that is considered the source code of
On Tuesday 13 November 2012 17:55:14 Felix Geyer wrote:
On 12.11.2012 12:19, Frank Mehnert wrote:
It is correct that we switched from bcc to Open Watcom to compile
the PC BIOS as well as the VGA BIOS. The reason is indeed that bcc
is unmaintained since years, has many bugs and creates code
On 14.11.2012 08:27, Frank Mehnert wrote:
On Tuesday 13 November 2012 17:55:14 Felix Geyer wrote:
On 12.11.2012 12:19, Frank Mehnert wrote:
It is correct that we switched from bcc to Open Watcom to compile the PC
BIOS as well as
the VGA BIOS. The reason is indeed that bcc is unmaintained
Can Debian apply an anti patch ? i.e. the BIOS changeset patch in reverse,
so it will become buildable again with bcc ?
--
-Alexey Eromenko Technologov
On Wednesday 14 November 2012 11:08:22 Alexey Eromenko wrote:
Can Debian apply an anti patch ? i.e. the BIOS changeset patch in reverse,
so it will become buildable again with bcc ?
Just try it. Using the VBox 4.2 BIOS with bcc is not possible. You could
probably use the VBox 4.1 BIOS with VBox
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 10:56:50AM +0100, Felix Geyer wrote:
When you want to modify the BIOS you change the code in the files of the
first variant so only that is considered the source code of the BIOS.
Well, you can change the assembler file directly. I wonder what happened if we
just remove
On 12.11.2012 12:19, Frank Mehnert wrote:
It is correct that we switched from bcc to Open Watcom to compile
the PC BIOS as well as the VGA BIOS. The reason is indeed that bcc
is unmaintained since years, has many bugs and creates code which
is far away from being optimized. And we didn't find
On 22.10.2012 09:49, Sjoerd Simons wrote:
Package: virtualbox
Version: 4.1.18-dfsg-1.1
Severity: wishlist
Hey,
While virtualbox 4.1.18 seems to work well, its guest additions can't cope
with
newer kernels (e.g. 3.5) and newere Xorg (1.13). Even though these aren't
the default in debian
Agreed, though virtualbox 4.2 is not DFSG-free [1] anymore which doesn't
exactly
motivate me to invest time into this package.
Can you elaborate ?
I'm not aware of any changes in the VBox BIOS.
AFAIK VBox BIOS was always based on the bochs BIOS, not anymore ?
--
-Alexey Eromenko
On 12.11.2012 11:28, Alexey Eromenko wrote:
Agreed, though virtualbox 4.2 is not DFSG-free [1] anymore which doesn't
exactly
motivate me to invest time into this package.
Can you elaborate ?
I'm not aware of any changes in the VBox BIOS.
AFAIK VBox BIOS was always based on the bochs BIOS,
It is correct that we switched from bcc to Open Watcom to compile
the PC BIOS as well as the VGA BIOS. The reason is indeed that bcc
is unmaintained since years, has many bugs and creates code which
is far away from being optimized. And we didn't find an appropriate
alternative to Open Watcom.
Package: virtualbox
Version: 4.1.18-dfsg-1.1
Severity: wishlist
Hey,
While virtualbox 4.1.18 seems to work well, its guest additions can't cope with
newer kernels (e.g. 3.5) and newere Xorg (1.13). Even though these aren't
the default in debian yet, this makes it hard to run a virtualbox iwth
16 matches
Mail list logo
