On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 11:56 PM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 28/07/12 09:46, Davide Pesavento wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Ben de Groot wrote:
>>>
>>> On 28 July 2012 13:59, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
[...]
So what would be the methodology of making sure a
On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 14:27:49 +0800
Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 28 July 2012 13:59, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> > On 28/07/12 08:22, Ben de Groot wrote:
> >>
> >> In preparation for that, we want to ask maintainers of all ebuilds
> >> in the tree with dependencies on Qt4, to make sure that they have
On 28 July 2012 15:43, Ralph Sennhauser wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 14:27:49 +0800
> Ben de Groot wrote:
>
>> On 28 July 2012 13:59, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>> > On 28/07/12 08:22, Ben de Groot wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In preparation for that, we want to ask maintainers of all ebuilds
>> >> in the t
On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 15:54:07 +0800
Ben de Groot wrote:
> We do not have (nor want to support) a qt useflag. We have opted
> for "qt4" and "qt5" useflags as the most straightforward and least
> confusing.
Indeed, the flag qt has almost disappeared from the tree. Good to know.
On 28/07/12 12:27, Ralph Sennhauser wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 15:54:07 +0800
Ben de Groot wrote:
We do not have (nor want to support) a qt useflag. We have opted
for "qt4" and "qt5" useflags as the most straightforward and least
confusing.
Indeed, the flag qt has almost disappeared from the
Nikos Chantziaras posted on Sat, 28 Jul 2012 13:07:08 +0300 as excerpted:
> On 28/07/12 12:27, Ralph Sennhauser wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 15:54:07 +0800 Ben de Groot
>> wrote:
>>
>>> We do not have (nor want to support) a qt useflag. We have opted for
>>> "qt4" and "qt5" useflags as the most
On 2012.07.27 03:37, Duncan wrote:
[snip]
>
> Not that such promises hold much credibility anyway... see the kde
> promise (from Aaron S when he was president of KDE e.v. so as
> credible a spokesperson as it gets) continued kde3 support as long
> as there were
> users. (AFAIK, at least gnom
On 07/26/2012 12:45 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>>> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012, Luca Barbato wrote:
>>> I'd add it, it is a gpl incompatible opensource license.
>>
>> No problem to add it. But IMHO the usage restriction in section 3
>> makes it non-free:
>>
>> "You may use this FDK AAC Codec softwar
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2012, Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 07/26/2012 12:45 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>> Indeed, and this opens another can of worms since (as far as I can see)
>> there
>> are no specific license clauses in the AAC patent license for applications
>> that may be distributed without
Roy Bamford posted on Sat, 28 Jul 2012 17:51:47 +0100 as excerpted:
> You don't want to listen to Presidents too much. Look at other real
> life examples.
>
> Would you claim that the President of the Gentoo Foundation speaks for
> Gentoo?
If he were making claims of that nature, yes, barring i
Duncan wrote:
> the responsibility of whatever organization to either follow
> thru or repudiate, as it's the reputation and credibility of
> that organization on the line if they don't.
I think it's unreasonable to expect any third party to accept
responsibility for a receiver which is over-trus
11 matches
Mail list logo
