On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 19:07:17 -0700
per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
> Janne Snabb wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
> > > One issue with either Git or Mercurial is that they are GPL.
> > > AFAIK FreeBSD prefers to avoid GPL in the base or in critical
> > > widely-used in
Smells like Debian.
Smells like Slashdot.
I give up.
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 7:11 AM, Adam Vande More wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 4:10 AM, Jeremy Chadwick
> wrote:
>
>> Given the amount of GPL'd software in the base system, why are we
>> already fighting over licensing? What is it with the
22.09.2010, 14:11, "Adam Vande More" :
> BSD license
> has a particular advantage in embedded/black box systems, so not polluting
> base with more viral licensing is pretty important to project as whole I
> think.
Do embedded systems really need to use ports tree? I guess no, or only during
init
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 4:10 AM, Jeremy Chadwick
wrote:
> Given the amount of GPL'd software in the base system, why are we
> already fighting over licensing? What is it with the open-source world
> and obsessing with licensing? It should be up for discussion after
> alternatives have been deter
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 03:50:37AM -0500, Adam Vande More wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 3:27 AM, wrote:
>
> > As I understand it, what is being suggested is the adoption of a
> > new code base for a significant piece of infrastructure. I think
> > the proposal is at less risk of being summari
> This dvcs is BSD licensed:
IMHO, if it's worth to change VCS, it would be much wiser to use well-known one
--
Regards,
Konstantin
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 3:27 AM, wrote:
> As I understand it, what is being suggested is the adoption of a
> new code base for a significant piece of infrastructure. I think
> the proposal is at less risk of being summarily rejected if it can
> viably be based on BSD-licensed code rather than on
jhell wrote:
> Feel free to correct me if I am wrong but it is not going to
> matter much to what extent a license has to do with this besides
> ease of mind maybe. We would not be using the source for the VCS
> in a repo that holds the source that is being distributed and
> none of the containe
On 09/20/2010 22:07, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
> Janne Snabb wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
>>> One issue with either Git or Mercurial is that they are GPL.
>>> AFAIK FreeBSD prefers to avoid GPL in the base or in critical
>>> widely-used infrastructure if a viab
Janne Snabb wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
> > One issue with either Git or Mercurial is that they are GPL.
> > AFAIK FreeBSD prefers to avoid GPL in the base or in critical
> > widely-used infrastructure if a viable non-GPL alternative
> > exists.
>
> The project curr
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
> One issue with either Git or Mercurial is that they are GPL.
> AFAIK FreeBSD prefers to avoid GPL in the base or in critical
> widely-used infrastructure if a viable non-GPL alternative
> exists.
The project currently uses Perforce for many sub-
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 05:20:39AM -0700, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
> SVN [...] is GPL;
nope, it's under Apache License 2.0, see:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/trunk/LICENSE
--
Romain Tartière http://romain.blogreen.org/
pgp: 8234 9A78 E7C0 B807 0B59 80FF BA4D 1D95 5112 3
Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
> Why not Git?
One issue with either Git or Mercurial is that they are GPL.
AFAIK FreeBSD prefers to avoid GPL in the base or in critical
widely-used infrastructure if a viable non-GPL alternative
exists. Granted SVN, currently used to manage src, is GPL;
but its criti
On 20/09/2010 03:01, Carlos A. M. dos Santos wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 6:34 AM, Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
>
Is this just my impression or are we trying to build a bikeshed
here?
I think we all agree, that the stage is not set for a VCS change.
Regards
--
A: Because it fouls the order in
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 03:17, Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
In Message-Id: <174981284967...@web24.yandex.ru>
1). http://bit.ly/d5UrtN
2). http://www.keltia.net/BSDCan/paper.pdf
3). http://bit.ly/97Y8Xi
4). Because CVS just does not do any of this.
Make your final comparison here:
http://bit.ly/
>
> 1). http://bit.ly/d5UrtN
>
> 2). http://www.keltia.net/BSDCan/paper.pdf
>
> 3). http://bit.ly/97Y8Xi
>
> 4). Because CVS just does not do any of this.
>
> Make your final comparison here:
> http://bit.ly/cyQBn8
>
> For the sake of argument can you think of any reason to not switch ?
Why not
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 6:34 AM, Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 02:38:28 -0400
> jhell wrote:
>
>> On 09/18/2010 07:17, Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
>> >
>> > I'm still to see a concise, clear, precise, listing of advantages
>> > that switching from CVS would bring us,
>> > that would ove
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 02:38:28 -0400
jhell wrote:
> On 09/18/2010 07:17, Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
> >
> > I'm still to see a concise, clear, precise, listing of advantages
> > that switching from CVS would bring us,
> > that would overcome the effort needed to do it (committers, users,
> > infrastru
On 09/18/2010 07:17, Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
>
> I'm still to see a concise, clear, precise, listing of advantages that
> switching from CVS would bring us, that would overcome the effort
> needed to do it (committers, users, infrastructure, tools).
>
1). http://bit.ly/d5UrtN
2). http://www.kel
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 08:51:39 +0200
Dominic Fandrey wrote:
> On 18/09/2010 01:13, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
> > jhell wrote:
> >
> >> ... Mercurial being the distributed version control that it is
> >> allows you to clone, make the changes you need to the clone test it
> >> thoroughly and the
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 08:12:02 +0200
Dominic Fandrey wrote:
> On 17/09/2010 06:41, Doug Barton wrote:
> > On 9/16/2010 6:15 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> >> On 9/16/2010 3:35 PM, Anonymous wrote:
> >>> Dominic Fandrey writes:
> >>>
> On 16/09/2010 19:17, Dmitry Marakasov wrote:
> > * Dominic Fa
On 18/09/2010 01:13, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
> jhell wrote:
>
>> ... Mercurial being the distributed version control that it is
>> allows you to clone, make the changes you need to the clone test it
>> thoroughly and then either push or pull them to the main tree ...
>
> At the risk of star
jhell wrote:
> ... Mercurial being the distributed version control that it is
> allows you to clone, make the changes you need to the clone test it
> thoroughly and then either push or pull them to the main tree ...
At the risk of starting the VCS variant of the vi vs emacs wars :)
why Mercurial
On 09/17/2010 00:41, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 9/16/2010 6:15 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
>> On 9/16/2010 3:35 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>>> Dominic Fandrey writes:
>>>
On 16/09/2010 19:17, Dmitry Marakasov wrote:
> * Dominic Fandrey (kamik...@bsdforen.de) wrote:
>
>> Just out of curiosity, wh
On 17/09/2010 06:41, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 9/16/2010 6:15 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
>> On 9/16/2010 3:35 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>>> Dominic Fandrey writes:
>>>
On 16/09/2010 19:17, Dmitry Marakasov wrote:
> * Dominic Fandrey (kamik...@bsdforen.de) wrote:
>
>> Just out of curiosity, wh
On 17/09/2010 00:35, Anonymous wrote:
> Dominic Fandrey writes:
>
>> On 16/09/2010 19:17, Dmitry Marakasov wrote:
>>> * Dominic Fandrey (kamik...@bsdforen.de) wrote:
>>>
Just out of curiosity, why a version bump because of a build
dependency?
I don't think an autoconf update s
* Anonymous (swel...@gmail.com) wrote:
> My guess is to uncover *early* build failures that exp-run didn't catch.
> Example is the breakage of databases/postgresql84-server + WITH_ICU.
I never thought we make all users uselessly rebuild stuff just to test
whether it builds.
--
Dmitry Marakasov
On 9/16/2010 6:15 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 9/16/2010 3:35 PM, Anonymous wrote:
Dominic Fandrey writes:
On 16/09/2010 19:17, Dmitry Marakasov wrote:
* Dominic Fandrey (kamik...@bsdforen.de) wrote:
Just out of curiosity, why a version bump because of a build
dependency?
I don't think an aut
On 9/16/2010 3:35 PM, Anonymous wrote:
Dominic Fandrey writes:
On 16/09/2010 19:17, Dmitry Marakasov wrote:
* Dominic Fandrey (kamik...@bsdforen.de) wrote:
Just out of curiosity, why a version bump because of a build
dependency?
I don't think an autoconf update should have an effect on any
Dominic Fandrey writes:
> On 16/09/2010 19:17, Dmitry Marakasov wrote:
>> * Dominic Fandrey (kamik...@bsdforen.de) wrote:
>>
>>> Just out of curiosity, why a version bump because of a build
>>> dependency?
>>>
>>> I don't think an autoconf update should have an effect on any
>>> /running/ softwa
On 16/09/2010 19:17, Dmitry Marakasov wrote:
> * Dominic Fandrey (kamik...@bsdforen.de) wrote:
>
>> Just out of curiosity, why a version bump because of a build
>> dependency?
>>
>> I don't think an autoconf update should have an effect on any
>> /running/ software but build systems. And I don't s
* Dominic Fandrey (kamik...@bsdforen.de) wrote:
> Just out of curiosity, why a version bump because of a build
> dependency?
>
> I don't think an autoconf update should have an effect on any
> /running/ software but build systems. And I don't see how rebuilding
> all the software improves it.
>
32 matches
Mail list logo
