e have quite a number of patches to the pine package,
and the U of W wants them upstream (at least according to the license).
But in practice we failed to etablish an upstream contact. Any pointers?
Thanks for bringing this up again.
cheers,
Jw.
--
o \ Juergen
tra cost.
cheers,
Jw.
--
o \ Juergen Weigert paint it green! __/ _===.===_
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] wide open suse_/_---|\/
\ | 0911 74053-508 (tm)__/ (//\
(/) | __/ _/ \_
proposing that package maintainers have a clue ;)
No. Especially cluelessness needs documentation.
Example:
"# I don't care about this gconf stuff. Remove seems to help."
This is a very useful comment.
It pinpoints the actual problem that the maintainer has.
cheers,
hit end of the spectrum than not.
With a high noise level around it, even the good comments become useless.
So -- let us fight against those comments, that repeat just the obvious.
cheers,
Jw.
--
o \ Juergen Weigert paint it green! __/ _===.=
On Mar 15, 07 13:39:55 -0400, Joe Shaw wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 2007-03-15 at 18:17 +0100, Juergen Weigert wrote:
> > Good point. Mandatory comments are counter productive.
> >
> > If comments are mandatory, they will be more often at the
> > bullshit end of t
CC.
Legal bugs are completly closed, and opend individually on a need to know
basis.
Arun, adding Richard et al. to CC was 100% correct here.
Thanks.
Jw.
--
o \ Juergen Weigert paint it green! __/ _===.===_
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] wide open
y 'GNU General Public License', now we
have four entries:
'GPLv2 only', 'GPLv2 or later',
'GPLv3 only', 'GPLv3 or later'.
Most GPL packages are now listed as 'GPLv2 or later',
please adjust or let us know (again [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Jul 09, 07 13:33:22 +0200, Bernhard Walle wrote:
> * Juergen Weigert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-07-09 13:22]:
> >
> > Please check the exact version of the GPL and LGPL.
> > We used to have one general entry 'GNU General Public License', now we
> &
ne more dependency.
It is simply an incomplete package, unless licenses.rpm is also installed.
If the FSF insists on having a copy in each RPM, we can simply stop doing
symlinks for GPL, and still have saved a tree with all the other licenses
symlinked.
cheers,
Jw.
-
On Jul 25, 07 15:40:26 +0200, Petr Cerny wrote:
> Juergen Weigert wrote:
> > Due to the symlink, the package has now one more dependency.
> > It is simply an incomplete package, unless licenses.rpm is also installed.
> > If the FSF insists on having a copy in each RPM, we
move the "YaST License" to the licenses package.
-au contraire.
> BTW: I'm curious about the legal status of packages with
> License: No license agreement found in package
> ... ;-)
This is an error.
If you spot any of these after Alpha6, please file a bug.
ch
ck to the state we had before?
cheers,
Jw.
--
o \ Juergen Weigert paint it green! __/ _===.===_
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] wide open suse_/_---|\/
\ | 0911 74053-508 (tm)__/ (//\
(/) | __/
files but the COPYING file would also be a licensing violation.
A distributor must ship the COPYING file, a user may ignore it.
If our default installers fail to install it, then we may have a GPL violation.
If a user explicitly disables its installation, he is fine.
cheers,
; developers.
This article sounds strangely affirmative.
I am not aware of any decision to ignore Jeff Johnson.
Actually, I remember that mls and jeff always have
extensive conversations, whenever they meet. :-)
Anybody to set up an rpm5 buildservice repo?
cheers,
o unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
--
o \ Juergen Weigert paint it green! __/ _===.===_
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] wide open suse_/_---|\/
\ | 0911 74053-508 (tm)__/ (/
> currently arguing with olh to rename it to something like powerlilo or
> plilo.
Yes. Please rename.
thanks,
Jw.
--
o \ Juergen Weigert paint it green! __/ _===.===_
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] wide open suse_/_---|
16 matches
Mail list logo
