On Wed, 04 May 2011 10:55:26 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> But one point of all this is to make life easier for those poor people
> who have check a qemu source package before redistribution for included
> licenses. The clearer the terms are expressed, the easier these
> "unproductive" processes beco
On 2011-05-04 19:58, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 04.05.2011 um 12:28 schrieb Jan Kiszka:
>
>> On 2011-05-03 22:22, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> On 3 May 2011 17:48, Jan Kiszka wrote:
+++ b/scripts/update-linux-headers.sh
>
+rm -rf $output/include/linux/*
>>>
>>> Given that updating the kern
Am 04.05.2011 um 12:28 schrieb Jan Kiszka:
On 2011-05-03 22:22, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 3 May 2011 17:48, Jan Kiszka wrote:
+++ b/scripts/update-linux-headers.sh
+rm -rf $output/include/linux/*
Given that updating the kernel headers will blow away large
subsets of include/ like this, may
On 2011-05-03 22:22, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 3 May 2011 17:48, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> +++ b/scripts/update-linux-headers.sh
>> @@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
>> +#!/bin/sh
>
> No -e ?
>
>> +rm -rf $output/include/linux/*
>
> Given that updating the kernel headers will blow away large
> subsets of include/ li
On 2011-05-03 23:37, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 12:59:06PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> On 05/03/2011 12:55 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> On 2011-05-03 19:45, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 05/03/2011 12:30 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 3 May 2011 17:48, Jan Kiszka wr
On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 12:59:06PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 05/03/2011 12:55 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >On 2011-05-03 19:45, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>On 05/03/2011 12:30 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >>>On 3 May 2011 17:48, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Kernel headers were automatically imported
On 3 May 2011 17:48, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> +++ b/scripts/update-linux-headers.sh
> @@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
> +#!/bin/sh
No -e ?
> +rm -rf $output/include/linux/*
Given that updating the kernel headers will blow away large
subsets of include/ like this, maybe we should use a less generic
name than "inclu
On Tuesday 03 May 2011 19:57:18 Scott Wood wrote:
> > I agree, it doesn't feel quite right to bring in the headers. I don't have
> > any alternative suggestions (besides better HOWTOs/Documentation) though.
>
> If you try to use the non-sanitized kernel headers, you'll get this warning
> from lin
On 05/03/2011 12:55 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-05-03 19:45, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 05/03/2011 12:30 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 3 May 2011 17:48, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Kernel headers were automatically imported from current kvm.git,
93c016c8c4. Some are not covered by any license and can b
On Tue, 3 May 2011 19:32:00 +0200
"Edgar E. Iglesias" wrote:
> On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 08:13:04PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > On 05/03/2011 08:09 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Reluctant ack.
> > >
> > > What downsides do you see?
> >
> > The usual "it shouldn't be this way". Every oth
On 2011-05-03 19:45, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 05/03/2011 12:30 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 3 May 2011 17:48, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> Kernel headers were automatically imported from current kvm.git,
>>> 93c016c8c4. Some are not covered by any license and can be considered
>>> GPLv2 with user sp
On 05/03/2011 12:30 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 3 May 2011 17:48, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Kernel headers were automatically imported from current kvm.git,
93c016c8c4. Some are not covered by any license and can be considered
GPLv2 with user space exception.
Hmm. Can't we just get whoever owns those
On 2011-05-03 19:30, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 3 May 2011 17:48, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Kernel headers were automatically imported from current kvm.git,
>> 93c016c8c4. Some are not covered by any license and can be considered
>> GPLv2 with user space exception.
>
> Hmm. Can't we just get whoever ow
On 2011-05-03 19:32, Edgar E. Iglesias wrote:
> On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 08:13:04PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> On 05/03/2011 08:09 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Reluctant ack.
>>>
>>> What downsides do you see?
>>
>> The usual "it shouldn't be this way". Every other package (including, I
>> th
On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 08:13:04PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 05/03/2011 08:09 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > >
> > > Reluctant ack.
> >
> > What downsides do you see?
>
> The usual "it shouldn't be this way". Every other package (including, I
> think, glibc) uses the sanitized system headers. E
On 3 May 2011 17:48, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Kernel headers were automatically imported from current kvm.git,
> 93c016c8c4. Some are not covered by any license and can be considered
> GPLv2 with user space exception.
Hmm. Can't we just get whoever owns those files to apply a suitable
copyright and li
16 matches
Mail list logo
