- Arch-dev-public - lists.archlinux.org

[arch-dev-public] License updates (was: rebuilding the whole core repo)
by Dan McGee 22 Oct '07

22 Oct '07

On 10/22/07, Travis Willard <travisw(a)wmpub.ca> wrote: > On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 15:00:59 +0200, Damir Perisa wrote > > Sunday 21 October 2007, Travis Willard wrote: > > | If we're feeling REALLY ambitious, this would be a great time to > > | fix all the licenses in our packages - we still have over 1000 bad > > | licenses in extra - attached file shows packages that need work. > > > > good idea... regarding your list i have some items: > > > > * we should have the MIT licence in our common licences folder > > > > * we should add all possible CC licences in our common licences > > folder ... maybe informing creative commons that we support their > > full scheme of licencing in our licence handling (public relations, > > networking *g*) > > Regarding the above two, I'm all for adding common licenses (MIT, CC) to the > licenses package, provided we can - I remember some licenses that are pretty > common actually differ in their text from package to package (ie. the devs of > the software need to add their own info for copyrights or something) - we can't > really provide a common license for those. For BSD, MIT, etc. the difference is that the license text changes based on the package, unlike the GPL which has the same text always. I know for BSD we are supposed to (according to the wiki page) list the license as 'BSD' but still include the text of the license. I would think the same applies for MIT and anything else where the text differs. I've kind of taken ownership of the licenses package, so feel free to shoot me suggestions as to what should be included and I'll gladly update it. > > * LGPL2 = LGPL2.1 ? and if some pkg uses 2.0? our LGPL2 is indeed the > > 2.1 version > > How significant are the differences between 2.0 and 2.1? Isn't our GPL2 license > 2.1 as well? I would say yes, they are in fact equivalent. > > * some pkgs have licence-formatting issues (Apache instead of APACHE > > or gpl instead of GPL ... we change the formating? licences are > > all-caps always?) It seems the precident is for common licenses, list them as all caps- of course, this makes sense for things that are abbreviations such as the GPL but not so much for APACHE. I'd be up for change, but we *really* need to document this. Our wiki article should have hard and fast guidelines for things like this. > The script I used to generate that list checked, for each license in licenses, > is it "custom"? If not, then does a folder structure exist at > /usr/share/licenses/common/${license}? If no, then it's invalid. Since the > folders in /usr/share/licenses/common are capitalized, I think the entries in > the license array should be as well. Looking at it this way, caps seems stupid for licenses unless it is intended to be that way (e.g. GPL, BSD). There are a few other sticky issues, such as whether BSD/MIT should be listed as 'BSD' or 'custom:BSD' (I know I've read somewhere that we should use the former, which I agree with- it is a standard license, but the text differs between packages). -Dan

4 4

[arch-dev-public] Kerberos support for OpenSSH
by Aaron Griffin 22 Oct '07

22 Oct '07

Hey guys, I'm not all that versed in this stuff, so I want to open the floor here: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/8373 Please give me your insight. Thanks, Aaron

1 0

Re: [arch-dev-public] [arch-commits] CVS update of extra/system/archboot (3 files)
by Jan de Groot 22 Oct '07

22 Oct '07

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: arch-commits-bounces(a)archlinux.org [mailto:arch-commits- > bounces(a)archlinux.org] Namens Tobias Powalowski > Verzonden: maandag 22 oktober 2007 13:25 > Aan: arch-commits(a)archlinux.org > Onderwerp: [arch-commits] CVS update of extra/system/archboot (3 files) > > Date: Monday, October 22, 2007 @ 07:24:43 > Author: tpowa > Path: /home/cvs-extra/extra/system/archboot > > Added: archboot-2007.11-1.tar.bz2 (1.1) > Modified: PKGBUILD (1.54 -> 1.55) > Removed: archboot-0.4.27.tar.bz2 (1.1) > > 'upgpkg: update to new Core Dump release' > > >... > > Index: extra/system/archboot/archboot-0.4.27.tar.bz2 > <<Binary file>> > Index: extra/system/archboot/archboot-2007.11-1.tar.bz2 > <<Binary file>> > Why do we still store these big binaries in CVS? There's no sane version tracking for binary files and these things make checkouts very big (users who run abs get all this shit downloaded). I've enabled write access to /other/ for the ftp-arch group yesterday, please use that directory for such things. IMHO this directory should also replace the ~tpowa/, ~alexander/ and ~jgc/ things we're using at this moment to store unofficial source tarballs for packages (xulrunner comes to my mind).

3 2

[arch-dev-public] [signoff] filesystem/initscripts 2007.11-1
by Thomas Bächler 22 Oct '07

22 Oct '07

For initscripts, we need a new ncurses package: tput needs to be moved from /usr/bin to /bin, and thus libncursesw.so.5 needs to be moved from /usr/lib to /lib. This has to be done before we move this to core, but I don't have time now, so anyone feel free to do it.

3 4

[arch-dev-public] [signoff] madwifi / madwifi-utils
by Tobias Powalowski 22 Oct '07

22 Oct '07

Hi madwifi / madwifi-utils for both arches in testing, please signoff greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa(a)archlinux.org

4 4

[arch-dev-public] [signoff] ndiswrapper / ndiswrapper-utils
by Tobias Powalowski 22 Oct '07

22 Oct '07

Hi ndiswrapper /ndiswrapper-utils for both arches in testing, please signoff greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa(a)archlinux.org

3 3

[arch-dev-public] Git Projects
by Aaron Griffin 22 Oct '07

22 Oct '07

Just a few things here. I'm setting up owners and all that fun stuff for our code projects, but I have a few important things. a) Let's not do personal repos up here - gitweb is a single cgi file, it should run fine in your ~/public_html if you want personal stuff. This means I removed the 2 symlinks in there and moved the AUR repo up to /srv/projects. Please update your checkouts appropriately. b) I've assigned owners to everything as I saw appropriate. Please let me know if I botched any of this, or if you don't want ownership of the project. c) Each project will have a set of committers. I'm not trying to say that everyone here isn't qualified to commit to these projects, but I just want to ensure we have SOME quality control. Please talk to me if you want to be part of the groups with commit rights to a give project. Thanks Aaron

3 3

[arch-dev-public] [signoff] kbd
by Tobias Powalowski 22 Oct '07

22 Oct '07

Hi i put new kbd for both arches to testing, please signoff greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa(a)archlinux.org

3 3

[arch-dev-public] [signoff] fuse 2.7.1
by Thomas Bächler 21 Oct '07

21 Oct '07

fuse is in testing. I moved the libfuse to /lib, due to a warning from ntfs-3g, which puts its binaries in /{sbin,bin,lib} as well so it is available before /usr is mounted. Particularly, this ensures that you can use a fuse-based filesystem for /usr.

2 1

[arch-dev-public] pending initscripts tasks
by Tobias Powalowski 21 Oct '07

21 Oct '07

Hi those 2 bugs would be great if thomas(brain0) would test till sunday: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/7714 http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/7267 the utf bug would be cool if roman(romashka) could take care of till sunday: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/7641 this feature request at least a comment from aaron or anyone else on this: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/7369 greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa(a)archlinux.org

4 7