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?
> Since this version udev depends on files in /usr. If you have /usr
> on a separate par
-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 t
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 12:22:14AM +0100, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> In my humble opinion, the real question is: why systemd got merged into udev?
> I would love to hear a clear technical reason for that.
I recall this was discussed on the systemd mailing list when it
happened, so you might want to
In my humble opinion, the real question is: why systemd got merged into udev?
I would love to hear a clear technical reason for that.
--
Fabio Erculiani
Hi everyone,
My name is Kevin Carillo. I am a PhD student currently living in Wellington
(New Zealand) and I am doing some research on Free/Open Source Software
communities.
If you have joined the Gentoo community after January 2010 (within
approximately the last 3 years), I would like to kind
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
> One of the functions of the foundation exists to handle legal matters.
> Is there anything that prevents the foundation from claiming ownership
> over work done on Gentoo Infrastructure in the same sense that a
> corporation would for its emplo
On 19/11/2012 14:45, Richard Yao wrote:
> Is there anything that prevents the foundation from claiming ownership
> over work done on Gentoo Infrastructure in the same sense that a
> corporation would for its employees?
Lots.
> Alternatively, do people working for companies in Europe retain
> copy
On 11/19/2012 01:16 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> On 19/11/2012 10:06, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> So, I give you a file. Then I tell you IN WRITING that you can go
>> ahead and remove my name from the copyright line if you want to.
>>
>> I think it would be hard for me to argue that I should be able
On 11/19/2012 02:40 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 05:35:22PM +0100, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
> (klondike) wrote:
>> El 18/11/12 04:39, Greg KH escribió:
>>> Anyway, I now see a _very_ dangerous commit in the "Copyright" branch
>>> that better not get merged into the tree, as i
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> Anyway, the commit is gone, which is good, thank you for deleting the
> branch. Please be more careful about doing such things in the future.
> We really don't want to get the Foundation in trouble by doing this type
> of thing.
Honestly, much of
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 05:35:22PM +0100, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
(klondike) wrote:
> El 18/11/12 04:39, Greg KH escribió:
> > Anyway, I now see a _very_ dangerous commit in the "Copyright" branch
> > that better not get merged into the tree, as it's wrong, and illegal
> > under all countri
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 01:06:17PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 07:03:12AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> >> That's my main concern here. Can somebody say, "sure, go ahead and
> >> remove my name from the copyright line" a
On 19.11.2012 19.02, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 07:41:54AM -0500, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
>> Thank you for these responses because they did help me understand
>> copyright/left better. I appreciate your expertise in the matter
>> and would hope I can draw on it again in the future,
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 06:23:44PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 09:06:53 -0800
> Greg KH wrote:
> > No one has to "fight" at all here, the law is very clear, and a quick
> > consultation with a copyright lawyer can provide us with a very good
> > set of rules and boundry con
On 18.11.2012 6.28, Greg KH wrote:
>
> Also, you can not assign copyright to a third party, unless you have a
> copyright assignment form. Do the developers doing this work have such
> a form assigned? And in what country and state is that form valid for?
> Different countries, and states, have
On 19.11.2012 18.33, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
>> Anthony G. Basile wrote:
>>> The answer appears to be that a file is the unit
>>
>> I personally consider it to be smaller; a number of lines within
>> a file, or even a single line, all depending on
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò
wrote:
> Sorry Rich, are you freaking kidding me? Europe would need to change
> laws? ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME?
>
> There's a very simple way to handle this and it doesn't require changing
> laws that are perfectly fine for most people living
On 19/11/2012 10:44, Rich Freeman wrote:
> If Gentoo were trying to monetize/dual-license/etc then the benefits
> of airtight copyright assignments would be greater, as would be the
> benefit of telling anybody in the EU that their help simply isn't
> needed unless they can convince their parliamen
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 1:23 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> The last time someone from Gentoo spoke to a copyright lawyer, it
> resulted in a year-or-so-long ban on recruiting anyone, and everyone
> was supposed to sign a piece of paper agreeing to turn over all their
> floppy disks and monitors to
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > a quick consultation with a copyright lawyer can provide us with
> > a very good set of rules and boundry conditions
>
> The last time someone from Gentoo spoke to a copyright lawyer, it
> resulted in a year-or-so-long ban on recruiting anyone, and everyone
> was suppose
Rich Freeman wrote:
> >> Nor should Gentoo projects suddenly change what they are because
> >> "the internet" doesn't understand them. That's a ridiculous basis
> >> for any change.
> >
> > It doesn't always matter what others think, but it is always worth
> > considering. It matters a lot for how
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 09:06:53 -0800
Greg KH wrote:
> No one has to "fight" at all here, the law is very clear, and a quick
> consultation with a copyright lawyer can provide us with a very good
> set of rules and boundry conditions that all of us need to follow in
> order to ensure that the Foundat
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Steven J. Long wrote:
>> Nor should Gentoo projects suddenly change what they are because
>> "the internet" doesn't understand them. That's a ridiculous basis
>> for any change.
>
> It doesn't always matter what others think, but it is always
On 19/11/2012 10:06, Rich Freeman wrote:
> So, I give you a file. Then I tell you IN WRITING that you can go
> ahead and remove my name from the copyright line if you want to.
>
> I think it would be hard for me to argue that I should be able to
> obtain damages when I gave you authorization to r
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 07:03:12AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> That's my main concern here. Can somebody say, "sure, go ahead and
>> remove my name from the copyright line" and then sue you for doing it?
>
> Just removing the name doesn't remov
Steven J. Long wrote:
> Nor should Gentoo projects suddenly change what they are because
> "the internet" doesn't understand them. That's a ridiculous basis
> for any change.
If a friend whom I care about and respect tells me that they don't
understand something I do then I try to consider if mayb
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 09:08:52AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 11:30:58AM -0500, Walter Dnes wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:06:04PM -0800, Greg KH wrote
> > > There isn't anything in udev to change for this. I don't understand
> > > why you are thinking that udev has any
Greg KH wrote:
> this isn't obvious at first glance, go consult a copyright lawyer
> for the specific details if you are curious about it.
>
> Which, again, I strongly feel that the Foundation needs to do
+1
> before anymore "Copyright Gentoo Foundation" marks get added to
> _any_ files in our
On 19/11/2012 09:02, Greg KH wrote:
> I'm curious as to why this is? Didn't you learn about this in school
> (if you went to school for software development), or from any company
> you have worked for? At numerous companies I have worked for, it was
> part of the "introduction to company FOO, her
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 11:30:58AM -0500, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:06:04PM -0800, Greg KH wrote
> > There isn't anything in udev to change for this. I don't understand
> > why you are thinking that udev has anything to do with this issue
> > at all.
>
> Before version 181
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 07:03:12AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:30 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> >
> > Talk to a lawyer if you disagree with this. The area of copyright law,
> > and software, is very well defined (with one exception of the "major
> > change to add your copyright
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 07:41:54AM -0500, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> Thank you for these responses because they did help me understand
> copyright/left better. I appreciate your expertise in the matter
> and would hope I can draw on it again in the future, because despite
> what you said a few ema
On 19/11/2012 08:52, Rich Freeman wrote:
> Not a bad idea, with a corresponding eselect tool to control what kind
> of initramfs you have (dracut, genkernel, none,
> remind-me-but-I-roll-my-own, etc). The ebuild would just call the
> function, and the function would handle it accordingly.
Glad to
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Alec Warner wrote:
>
> Debian / Ubuntu have a tool that basically does this. Its
> update-initramfs. I believe it is called from..the postinst of
> packages that are supposed to be in the initramfs? honestly I'd have
> to look up how they implemented it.
Not a ba
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:11:13PM -0800, Greg KH wrote
> And note, Kay and Lennart are _not_ treating udev as a second-class
> citizen.
I said *STAND-ALONE* udev. Please re-read the two posts...
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2012-August/006066.html
http://lists.freedeskt
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Anthony G. Basile wrote:
>> The answer appears to be that a file is the unit
>
> I personally consider it to be smaller; a number of lines within
> a file, or even a single line, all depending on things.
Yup - any creative expression is copyr
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 5:07 AM, Steven J. Long
wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 05:16:18PM +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> I'm still happy enough with building udev out from systemd tree and
>> letting sep. /usr consept from 90s to finally die in favour of
>> simplifying the system.
>
> It's fr
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:06:04PM -0800, Greg KH wrote
> Again, udev isn't the problem here. It hasn't broken the standalone
> /usr issue at all.
systemd-udev supporters have an "interesting" definition of broken.
"I plead not guilty to vandalism your honour. The complainant's window
has act
Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> The answer appears to be that a file is the unit
I personally consider it to be smaller; a number of lines within
a file, or even a single line, all depending on things.
//Peter
On 19/11/12 16:59, William Hubbs wrote:
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 09:39:59AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Joshua Kinard wrote:
Correct me if wrong, but didn't the issue start with udev wanting to put the
PCI ID database/file into /usr/share from /etc?
Well, I ca
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 9:59 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
> I'm glad someone else on this list finally realizes that udev did not break
> separate /usr on its own. I've been trying to explain this to people
> here for ages.
>
> It isn't just programs that use libraries in /usr/lib that are broken.
> A
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 09:39:59AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Joshua Kinard wrote:
> > Correct me if wrong, but didn't the issue start with udev wanting to put the
> > PCI ID database/file into /usr/share from /etc?
>
> Well, I can't vouch for what the first is
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Joshua Kinard wrote:
> Correct me if wrong, but didn't the issue start with udev wanting to put the
> PCI ID database/file into /usr/share from /etc?
Well, I can't vouch for what the first issue that arose was, but I do
recall discussion that bluetooth keyboards
On 19-11-2012 15:20:56 +0700, Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov wrote:
> 18.11.2012 22:51, Fabian Groffen пишет:
> > You end up with a symlink (e.g. bin -> ./usr/bin) from one place to the
> > other regardless, so it doesn't matter much.
>
> So, why not to make /usr/bin -> ../bin (or, maybe even /usr/bin
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 05:16:18PM +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> I'm still happy enough with building udev out from systemd tree and
> letting sep. /usr consept from 90s to finally die in favour of
> simplifying the system.
It's from a lot earlier than the 90s. Perhaps we should get rid of pi
On 11/18/2012 11:34 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:21:20PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
On 11/18/2012 11:22 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:05:05PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
On 11/18/2012 09:58 PM, Greg KH wrote:
We develop open source software in public reposito
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 3:20 AM, Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov
wrote:
> 18.11.2012 22:51, Fabian Groffen пишет:
>> You end up with a symlink (e.g. bin -> ./usr/bin) from one place to the
>> other regardless, so it doesn't matter much.
>
> So, why not to make /usr/bin -> ../bin (or, maybe even /usr/bi
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:30 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>
> Talk to a lawyer if you disagree with this. The area of copyright law,
> and software, is very well defined (with one exception of the "major
> change to add your copyright, and even then, there's an agreed apon
> standard to follow). Because
On 18.11.2012 15:37, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 18/11/12 16:11, hasufell wrote:
>> On 11/18/2012 03:08 PM, Peter Alfredsen wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 10:43 AM, justin wrote:
On 16/11/12 09:48, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>>
> does this mean it puts the binary-only package, nvidia-cg-
18.11.2012 22:51, Fabian Groffen пишет:
> You end up with a symlink (e.g. bin -> ./usr/bin) from one place to the
> other regardless, so it doesn't matter much.
So, why not to make /usr/bin -> ../bin (or, maybe even /usr/bin -> /bin
(notice the «/»)) ? :D
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digi
50 matches
Mail list logo
