On 1/4/2013 12:11 PM, Andrew Thule wrote:
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Chris Little mailto:chris...@crosswire.org>> wrote:
We've actually had specific discussions with you about our not
wanting you to redistribute our modules, specifically because of
copyrighted content such as
Peter, please temper your judgement with mercy. Your claims here are
neither correct nor fair.
On Friday, January 4, 2013, Peter von Kaehne wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-01-04 at 16:49 -0500, Andrew Thule wrote:
>
> It is clear. Your lack of respect for what is expressed in the conf file
> re Distributi
On Fri, 2013-01-04 at 16:49 -0500, Andrew Thule wrote:
> That said, whatever you decided to do with respect to (re)distribution
> rights will be honoured, but it needs to be clearly communicated. If
> modules are not to be redistributed, impose that constraint and be
> transparent about it.
It
I'm curious, why do people seem to prefer cmake to make? Is that a python
thing?
~A
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Greg Hellings wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 12:51 PM, wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 9:06 PM, Greg Hellings
> wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 9:27 PM, wrote:
> >
I don't actually have ssh access to CrossWire, so I'm not using the rsync
protocol, rather I do have ftp access so using ftp, if a module is removed
from CrossWire, the change is detected and removed from my mirror.
Basically I'm using FTP to replicate RSYNC functionality, but yes -
additions, cha
Sounds good. A few notes,
- the STEP interlinear functionality tries (tried?) to use this
functionality to provide better interlinears. We currently don't use the
x-split/or src, but could do either.
- With H00, it was accepted that H00 almost always referred to the next
tag, when
On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 12:51 PM, wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 9:06 PM, Greg Hellings
> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 9:27 PM, wrote:
>>> Here's a patch that helps some with osistest. I still get the
>>> following error when I run osistest, though:
>>> UTF8Transliterator: ICU: no res
Andrew,
How do you handle modules that are removed from CrossWire? Do you use rsync w/
--delete?
-- DM
On Jan 4, 2013, at 4:49 PM, Andrew Thule wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 4:06 PM, DM Smith wrote:
> Andrew,
>
> I was careful not to say what you proposed. The quote you suggest i
And, a lot of the the tools using mirrors are generally addressed to a
fairly technical community. The other big difference is obviously that the
linux community is massive, and we are small in comparison. But I'm all up
for more resilience if that's something we've had an issue with?
On 4 Januar
Regarding Fedora, I find that the mirrors differ significantly. Some have old
releases, but no new releases. Some have the latest release but no updates.
Some may have the alphas and/or the betas. Using yum, I have had some updates
fail because they have dependencies that have not reached the mi
On Jan 4, 2013, at 4:34 PM, Chris Burrell wrote:
> There are two separate issues here.
>
> 1- The fact that we retrieve the closest match to a strong number is IMHO
> rather obscure and confusing in itself. I've hit this several times and found
> through rather laborious investigation that a m
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 4:06 PM, DM Smith wrote:
> Andrew,
>
> I was careful not to say what you proposed. The quote you suggest is
> technically/true/correct/good as far as it goes. The other bullets I gave
> are why we discourage mirroring even for those.
>
You're (licensing) reasons for wantin
Ben,
I just made a series of commits which further improve handling of
Python builds. They do the following:
1) Move handling of bindings configuration up a directory level so
CMake can include support for bindings other than SWIG in the future
(unrelated to your complaint)
2) Add detection for t
There are two separate issues here.
1- The fact that we retrieve the closest match to a strong number is IMHO
rather obscure and confusing in itself. I've hit this several times and
found through rather laborious investigation that a module was using a bad
strong number, or some piece of code hadn
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 3:06 PM, DM Smith wrote:
> If someone posts to sword-support a problem with the text in a module (we
> get these all the time), having mirrors complicates support.
If Fedora can have many dozen mirrors, and Debian can have many dozen
mirrors and so can every Linux distribut
Andrew,
I was careful not to say what you proposed. The quote you suggest is
technically/true/correct/good as far as it goes. The other bullets I gave are
why we discourage mirroring even for those.
For example, in your mirror (I think you still have it available), are there
any modules that a
It's a good idea to put this in the wiki. Might I recommend (since it
appeared previously on this list "Legitimate FTP Mirrors & Module
Distribution Rights Question") that the following be added:
"Modules specifically licensed to Crosswire may not be redistributed. For
all others, as long as the
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Chris Little wrote:
> We've actually had specific discussions with you about our not wanting you
> to redistribute our modules, specifically because of copyrighted content
> such as this for which WE have permission. YOU are not CrossWire. Any
> reasonable person w
From time to time, interest has been expressed in mirroring CrossWire's SWORD
modules. I thought I'd reiterate our policy.
We strongly, very strongly, discourage mirroring of the SWORD module repository.
Those modules for which CrossWire has obtained distribution permission from
copyright holde
19 matches
Mail list logo
