Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs due mobile herd removal

[Pacho Ramos]

El lun, 19-11-2012 a las 19:13 -0500, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina escribió:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 11/18/2012 06:52 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> 
> Please be more careful declaring packages as "up for grabs".  I am
> personally maintainer of a number of these packages and I will be
> extremely unhappy to be removed from such, even more unhappy with
> someone touching and breaking a package because they thought no one else
> was working on it.
> 
> tl;dr no herd != no maintainer
> 
> - -Zero

That was caused by me losing the mail I was writing while dropping herd,
then, I needed to get old list from my old portage tree and that
included all packages


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [gentoo-dev] Copyright issues

[Ulrich Mueller]

> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012, Anthony G Basile wrote:

> The other levels are files and projects. So this leads to the other
> confusion, do you touch every file in the project when forking etc.

> The answer appears to be that a file is the unit, but from practice
> I've seen all three. What is correct is what passes in the courts
> and I do not want to, nor have I ever, tested that. [...]

The FSF appears to take the standpoint that the project as a whole is
the unit. In their "Information for maintainers of GNU software" [1]
there is the following paragraph:

| To update the list of year numbers, add each year in which you have
| made nontrivial changes to the package.  [...]  When you add the new
| year, it is not required to keep track of which files have seen
| significant changes in the new year and which have not.  It is
| recommended and simpler to add the new year to all files in the
| package, and be done with it for the rest of the year.

I've also found [2] which says that the above is based on legal advice
from Eben Moglen.

Ulrich

[1] 

[2] 

Re: [gentoo-dev] Copyright issues

[Anthony G. Basile]

On 11/20/2012 04:26 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:

On Mon, 19 Nov 2012, Anthony G Basile wrote:

The other levels are files and projects. So this leads to the other
confusion, do you touch every file in the project when forking etc.
The answer appears to be that a file is the unit, but from practice
I've seen all three. What is correct is what passes in the courts
and I do not want to, nor have I ever, tested that. [...]

The FSF appears to take the standpoint that the project as a whole is
the unit. In their "Information for maintainers of GNU software" [1]
there is the following paragraph:

| To update the list of year numbers, add each year in which you have
| made nontrivial changes to the package.  [...]  When you add the new
| year, it is not required to keep track of which files have seen
| significant changes in the new year and which have not.  It is
| recommended and simpler to add the new year to all files in the
| package, and be done with it for the rest of the year.

I've also found [2] which says that the above is based on legal advice
from Eben Moglen.

Ulrich

[1]
[2]


Thank you Ulrich.  We'll read that carefully and we'll act accordingly.

--
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D.
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened]
E-Mail: bluen...@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP  : 8040 5A4D 8709 21B1 1A88  33CE 979C AF40 D045 5535
GnuPG ID  : D0455535

Re: [gentoo-dev] Copyright issues

[Ian Stakenvicius]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

On 20/11/12 04:26 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012, Anthony G Basile wrote:
> 
>> The other levels are files and projects. So this leads to the
>> other confusion, do you touch every file in the project when
>> forking etc.
> 
>> The answer appears to be that a file is the unit, but from
>> practice I've seen all three. What is correct is what passes in
>> the courts and I do not want to, nor have I ever, tested that.
>> [...]
> 
> The FSF appears to take the standpoint that the project as a whole
> is the unit. In their "Information for maintainers of GNU software"
> [1] there is the following paragraph:
> 
> | To update the list of year numbers, add each year in which you
> have | made nontrivial changes to the package.  [...]  When you add
> the new | year, it is not required to keep track of which files
> have seen | significant changes in the new year and which have not.
> It is | recommended and simpler to add the new year to all files in
> the | package, and be done with it for the rest of the year.
> 
> I've also found [2] which says that the above is based on legal
> advice from Eben Moglen.
> 
> Ulrich
> 
> [1]
> 
>
> 
[2] 
> 

I did a quick scan; it seems though that this relates to updating the
scope of a copyright that someone already holds?  IE, not necessarily
relating to the transfer of copyright
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAlCriGMACgkQ2ugaI38ACPCJXgEAkQK/EIYoqGWFOhy1tz0Di2zY
eV/Gg3w698Qz7f4iZygA/1hfBqd2vcVTyG2gaBw0G+/NnRjZkC6Ob/Njsivi5ZBv
=msje
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-office/lyx: lyx-2.0.5.ebuild ChangeLog

[Alexis Ballier]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 09:10:51 + (UTC)
"Patrick Lauer (patrick)"  wrote:

> patrick 12/11/16 09:10:51
> 
>   Modified: ChangeLog
>   Added:lyx-2.0.5.ebuild
>   Log:
>   Bump
>   



While the bump was fine, please read the damn metadata.xml when you
touch a package you're not used to. Pavel has been doing a very good
job in (proxy) maintaining lyx since years and you do not seem to have
contacted him before doing the bump, which is a bit disrespectful for
him IMHO.
If you want to help in having things done quicker because I'm not
always responsive enough, then please do it correctly and ask Pavel to
CC you when he sends me instructions for lyx.

Thanks,

A.

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

[Greg KH]

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 08:08:38PM -0500, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 09:08:52AM -0800, Greg KH wrote
> 
> > Again, any specific pointer to a commit in the tree that caused this?
> 
>   See http://wiki.gentoo.org/index.php?title=Udev/upgrade&redirect=no
> Comments?

As I don't know who made those wiki changes, I don't know, but this
seems to be a choice made by the gentoo udev maintainers, not
necessarily the upstream developer's choice.

Do you see any problems when running udev in such a situation that
points at being a udev package, or udev upstream problem?

> > Since this version udev depends on files in /usr. If you have /usr
> > on a separate partition, you must boot your system with an initramfs
> > which pre-mounts /usr.
> 
>   I understand that one option being considered is patching the build to
> not depend on files in /usr.  Showing my age here, I remember when IBM
> patched Windows 3.1 on-the-fly, to make it a DPMI client of OS/2.  MS
> released Windows 3.11, which vas very slightly different, and the patch
> broke.  IBM had to rush out a new patch.

Binary patching is worlds different from source/build script patching.
Those of us who have been doing this for a while can handle source
patching quite easily.

>   Given how cavalierly Kay & Lennart broke firmware driver loading,

Wait, no, first off, Lennart had nothing to do with this, and secondly,
it was a kernel change that caused this to happen.  Thirdly, it's fixed
now, see my previous comments about this.

Oh, also, did this affect your systems?  Again, it was only for one type
of device that was not used by a lot of people.

That dead horse is long gone, please stop flogging it.

greg k-h

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

[Michael Mol]

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Greg KH  wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 08:08:38PM -0500, Walter Dnes wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 09:08:52AM -0800, Greg KH wrote
>>
>> > Again, any specific pointer to a commit in the tree that caused this?
>>
>>   See http://wiki.gentoo.org/index.php?title=Udev/upgrade&redirect=no
>> Comments?
>
> As I don't know who made those wiki changes, I don't know, but this
> seems to be a choice made by the gentoo udev maintainers, not
> necessarily the upstream developer's choice.

http://wiki.gentoo.org/index.php?title=Udev/upgrade&action=history
http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:Astaecker

Best ask him, I suppose.

--
:wq

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

[Walter Dnes]

  I jumped off udev before I was pushed off...
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Mdev
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Mdev/Automount_USB

  While the Gentoo council meeting was looking at patches to udev on an
ongoing basis, I was planning for a worst-case scenario where a separate
/usr without initramfs is deprecated.  Maybe not tomorrow or next month,
but somewhere down the road.

  The only thing that will get me back onto udev is a separate fork,
like Richard Yao's, where I don't have to worry about Lennart Poettering
ramming his ideas into it.  Lennart Poettering was very clear about
standalone udev being "a dead end".  As for your statement that he isn't
involved in udev, please read his post
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2012-August/006066.html
where I've highlighted some words...

> Well, ***WE*** intent to continue to make it possible to run udevd
> outside of systemd. But that's about it.  ***WE*** will not polish
> that, or add new features to that or anything.
> 
> OTOH ***WE*** do polish behaviour of udev when used *within* systemd
> however, and that's ***OUR*** primary focus.
> 
> And what ***WE*** will certainly not do is compromise the uniform
> integration into systemd for some cosmetic improvements for
> non-systemd systems.
> 
> (Yes, udev on non-systemd systems is in ***OUR*** eyes a dead end,
> in case you haven't noticed it yet. I am looking forward to the day
> when ***WE*** can drop that support entirely.)

  If you think the statement that Lennart is at least unofficially
involved in udev is  don't complain to me, complain to Lennart.

-- 
Walter Dnes 
We are apparently better off trying to avoid udev like the plague.
Linus Torvalds; 2012/10/03 https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/3/349

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

[Markos Chandras]

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Michael Mol  wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Greg KH  wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 08:08:38PM -0500, Walter Dnes wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 09:08:52AM -0800, Greg KH wrote
>>>
>>> > Again, any specific pointer to a commit in the tree that caused this?
>>>
>>>   See http://wiki.gentoo.org/index.php?title=Udev/upgrade&redirect=no
>>> Comments?
>>
>> As I don't know who made those wiki changes, I don't know, but this
>> seems to be a choice made by the gentoo udev maintainers, not
>> necessarily the upstream developer's choice.
>
> http://wiki.gentoo.org/index.php?title=Udev/upgrade&action=history
> http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:Astaecker
>
> Best ask him, I suppose.
>
> --
> :wq
>

This drives the whole discussion off-topic so lets just stop here.

-- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2

[gentoo-dev] media-sound/ardour needs a maintainer

[Pacho Ramos]

Hello

After talking with Alexis about ardour maintenance, looks like nobody in
proaudio herd has time to take care of it and, then, would be nice if it
could get a maintainer.

Thanks a lot


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[gentoo-dev] An apology for some of my earlier comments

[Richard Yao]

Dear Greg,

The eudev project has suffered a fair number of psychological attacks
against project members. I know that you are a strong supporter of
systemd. When you emailed gentoo-dev@, I assumed that you were trying to
harm the project and treated you as such. After seeing your responses to
people on Google+, I have realized that you are a person of greater
integrity than I had assumed and I must apologize for my defensive
behavior.

Yours truly,
Richard Yao



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature