2012/10/4 Johnny A. Solbu coo...@solbu.net:
On Wednesday 03 October 2012 16:07, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
- how many people for using 'non-free' ?
I vote for non-free
And I vote for tainted.
My position about mixing non-free into the core repository with a filter:
That may be technically
Le 04/10/2012 06:31, Johnny A. Solbu a écrit :
On Wednesday 03 October 2012 16:07, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
My only concern here is that we should not start to mingle free and nonfree
packages in the same folder.
Which means using 'nonfree' repository instead of 'tainted'...
Or spliting
On 4 October 2012 09:06, rtp buildsystem-dae...@mageia.org wrote:
rtp rtp 9.0.0-0.git20120929.3.mga3:
+ Revision: 302732
- enable some dri drivers on arm to workaround ftbfs.
You forgot to upload taitned/release
Le 03/10/2012 20:37, Thierry Vignaud a écrit :
On 3 October 2012 20:34, malo buildsystem-dae...@mageia.org wrote:
Description :
Bluetooth(TM) Firmware. Package contains firmware images for some
Bluetooth(TM) adapters. Currently supported are:
* Broadcom Corporation BCM2033
* AVM
Hi, anyone any ideas on the issue below?
Liutauras
-- Forwarded message --
From: Liutauras Adomaitis liutauras.adomai...@gmail.com
Date: Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:29 AM
Subject: build problems with x86_64-mageia-linux-gnu-ar
To: Mageia development mailing-list mageia-dev@mageia.org
Liutauras Adomaitis skrev 4.10.2012 11:45:
Hi, anyone any ideas on the issue below?
Liutauras
Seems a broken gcc packaging...
I'll fix it up soon...
--
Thomas
Hi there,
I accidentally submitted new shapelib packages, which are completely
broken and need some more work.
Could you please remove:
libshapelib1-1.3.0-1.mga3.i586.rpm
libshapelib-devel-1.3.0-1.mga3.i586.rpm
shapelib-1.3.0-1.mga3.i586.rpm
shapelib-debug-1.3.0-1.mga3.i586.rpm
and the
On 10/04/2012 02:29 AM, Wolfgang Bornath wrote:
My position about mixing non-free into the core repository with a
filter: That may be technically possible to integrate into urpm* and
rpmdrake. But it will create confusion and problems.
1. Problems for mirror maintainers who do not want to
Le 04/10/2012 13:23, Frank Griffin a écrit :
On 10/04/2012 02:29 AM, Wolfgang Bornath wrote:
My position about mixing non-free into the core repository with a
filter: That may be technically possible to integrate into urpm* and
rpmdrake. But it will create confusion and problems.
1. Problems
2012/10/4 Frank Griffin f...@roadrunner.com:
On 10/04/2012 02:29 AM, Wolfgang Bornath wrote:
My position about mixing non-free into the core repository with a filter:
That may be technically possible to integrate into urpm* and rpmdrake. But
it will create confusion and problems.
1.
2012/10/4 Guillaume Rousse guillomovi...@gmail.com:
This kind of hypothetical 'selective mirror admin' is quite similar for me
to the mythical 'average joe user': a practical justification to any kind of
argument :)
Pardon me but do vou know all mirror maintainers that you can say
that? We
On Thursday 04 October 2012 13:23, Frank Griffin wrote:
2. Problems for users who may not trust the filter system, they rather
trust a visual separation.
I can't see this. If they trust us to place the package correctly to
start with, why wouldn't they trust a filter we write ?
On Thursday 04 October 2012 16:46, Wolfgang Bornath wrote:
That's a good point, but are there actually any of these ? Was there any
PLF mirror that only hosted free ?
There are/were enough Mandriva mirrors who did not mirror PLF at all.
I believe that was not his point.
His point was,
On 10/04/2012 10:46 AM, Wolfgang Bornath wrote:
There are/were enough Mandriva mirrors who did not mirror PLF at all.
I'm well aware of that, since PLF wouldn't have existed otherwise. The
question concerned mirroring nonfree, not tainted. The reasons for not
mirroring each of these is
Le 04/10/2012 16:50, Wolfgang Bornath a écrit :
2012/10/4 Guillaume Rousse guillomovi...@gmail.com:
This kind of hypothetical 'selective mirror admin' is quite similar for me
to the mythical 'average joe user': a practical justification to any kind of
argument :)
Pardon me but do vou know
2012/10/4 Frank Griffin f...@roadrunner.com:
On 10/04/2012 10:46 AM, Wolfgang Bornath wrote:
There are/were enough Mandriva mirrors who did not mirror PLF at all.
I'm well aware of that, since PLF wouldn't have existed otherwise. The
question concerned mirroring nonfree, not tainted. The
On 10/04/2012 11:11 AM, Wolfgang Bornath wrote:
Or he just forgot to add the tag - that's easier than to chose a
repository on intention.
Doesn't the name of the license already appear in the packaging ? Why
would you need a new separate tag which could be forgotten ?
2012/10/4 Frank Griffin f...@roadrunner.com:
On 10/04/2012 10:54 AM, Johnny A. Solbu wrote:
Because software have bugs, even filters, whereas physical separation is
not prone to the same errors.
Sure it is. See my response to Wolfgang.
And if they don't trust us, they're reading the
2012/10/4 Frank Griffin f...@roadrunner.com:
On 10/04/2012 11:11 AM, Wolfgang Bornath wrote:
Or he just forgot to add the tag - that's easier than to chose a
repository on intention.
Doesn't the name of the license already appear in the packaging ? Why would
you need a new separate tag
On 10/04/2012 11:29 AM, Wolfgang Bornath wrote:
Still the trust on a software filter is not the same as the trust in a
visible separation. If you think there is no technical difference,
this discussion is not just on technical of the issue. If I go into an
empty room which is dark, everybody
2012/10/4 Frank Griffin f...@roadrunner.com:
On 10/04/2012 11:29 AM, Wolfgang Bornath wrote:
Still the trust on a software filter is not the same as the trust in a
visible separation. If you think there is no technical difference, this
discussion is not just on technical of the issue. If I go
On 10/04/2012 12:22 PM, Wolfgang Bornath wrote:
Yes, that's why I prefer the separation of free and non-free repos.
IMHO opinion it is easier to have non-free visually out of the way for
the FOSS enthousiasts and it's just one click (actually 2 including
non-free/updates) for the users who want
As I guess all new packagers make the mistake, as I did recently too;
please check out:
https://wiki.mageia.org/en/Packaging_guidelines#Version_and_Release
once the mistake done; it is either package removal of adding an epoch
number (that can not be removed later)
Cheers,
chris.
On Thursday 04 October 2012 10:56, EatDirt wrote:
adding an epoch number
(that can not be removed later)
I'm sure I'm not the only one confused about this epoch thing, so I'll ask.
What is an epoch? (I think I know it's function, but still)
And why can it not be removed once instated? No,
24 matches
Mail list logo
