I see codemac upgraded ion3 in extra yesterday, which forces us to release any upgrade to the package to be available within 3 weeks after an official release. The is unacceptable, and looking at the discussion with the author of this piece of software on the tur-users list, we should remove it.
Yupp, I think Jeff missed that discussion, while he was taking some time off. So yepp we should just remove it.
- T
On 6/6/07, Tobias Kieslich tobias@justdreams.de wrote:
Yupp, I think Jeff missed that discussion, while he was taking some time off. So yepp we should just remove it.
I didn't miss the discussion, I checked up on it after the fact.
I published it with the correct license, and I'm on the ion list and the #ion channel on freenode. I usually know the day of if it has been released.
I've told tuomo to email me directly with complaints, so no one else should have to deal with it. I think it's a non-issue when we all ready were distributing the [extra] version of ion correctly. I don't see why you guys who don't maintain it want to delete it.
I'll handle the rebuilds, it's really ok. I like the software a lot.
// jeff
So when you're out for a long while like you did a while ago, we're forced to update your packages, because it's illegal to leave it outdated. Multiple distributions don't ship ion3 due to this or ship the latest version under the old license. I don't think we should handle that different. Though the source is available, ion3 is non-free software, because it takes away the distributors freedom.
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: arch-dev-public-bounces@archlinux.org [mailto:arch-dev-public-bounces@archlinux.org] Namens Jeff Mickey Verzonden: woensdag 6 juni 2007 23:00 Aan: \Public mailing list for ArchLinux development Onderwerp: Re: [arch-dev-public] ion3 in extra: licensing issues
On 6/6/07, Tobias Kieslich tobias@justdreams.de wrote:
Yupp, I think Jeff missed that discussion, while he was taking some time off. So yepp we should just remove it.
I didn't miss the discussion, I checked up on it after the fact.
I published it with the correct license, and I'm on the ion list and the #ion channel on freenode. I usually know the day of if it has been released.
I've told tuomo to email me directly with complaints, so no one else should have to deal with it. I think it's a non-issue when we all ready were distributing the [extra] version of ion correctly. I don't see why you guys who don't maintain it want to delete it.
I'll handle the rebuilds, it's really ok. I like the software a lot.
// jeff
Am Thu, 7 Jun 2007 08:14:10 +0200 schrieb "Jan de Groot" jan@jgc.homeip.net:
So when you're out for a long while like you did a while ago, we're forced to update your packages, because it's illegal to leave it outdated. Multiple distributions don't ship ion3 due to this or ship the latest version under the old license. I don't think we should handle that different. Though the source is available, ion3 is non-free software, because it takes away the distributors freedom.
+1 for removal
how should x86_64 handle that? codemac might have the ability to handle the license issues. we from the port cannot make sure to rebuild it quick enough all the time. also think off ppc?
there's much more real open source software waiting to be maintained. just put this unfree crap into AUR and maintain it there.
AndyRTR
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Andreas Radke wrote:
Am Thu, 7 Jun 2007 08:14:10 +0200 schrieb "Jan de Groot" jan@jgc.homeip.net:
So when you're out for a long while like you did a while ago, we're forced to update your packages, because it's illegal to leave it outdated. Multiple distributions don't ship ion3 due to this or ship the latest version under the old license. I don't think we should handle that different. Though the source is available, ion3 is non-free software, because it takes away the distributors freedom.
+1 for removal
how should x86_64 handle that? codemac might have the ability to handle the license issues. we from the port cannot make sure to rebuild it quick enough all the time. also think off ppc?
there's much more real open source software waiting to be maintained. just put this unfree crap into AUR and maintain it there.
AndyRTR
I was initially for the removal of ion but as codemac seems to be still interested in maintaining it, I don't see any problem in keeping it in the repo.
About the x86_64 port, I'm willing to maintain it if ion3 remains in the repo. It's already updated to the latest version. All I ask from codemac, is at least a week to do build the port. So ion should be updated for i686 within the first 2 weeks after the release, of course, earlier the better. If maintaining the port would become a problem, it can always be removed.
Eric
You can always remove the package for x86_64. Just remove it from arch=() and don't ship the package for your architecture and you're fine. You don't have to port a package to both architectures ;)
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: arch-dev-public-bounces@archlinux.org [mailto:arch-dev-public-bounces@archlinux.org] Namens Andreas Radke Verzonden: donderdag 7 juni 2007 17:38 Aan: arch-dev-public@archlinux.org Onderwerp: Re: [arch-dev-public] ion3 in extra: licensing issues
Am Thu, 7 Jun 2007 08:14:10 +0200 schrieb "Jan de Groot" jan@jgc.homeip.net:
So when you're out for a long while like you did a while ago, we're forced to update your packages, because it's illegal to leave it outdated. Multiple distributions don't ship ion3 due to this or ship the latest version under the old license. I don't think we should handle that different. Though the source is available, ion3 is non-free software, because it takes away the distributors freedom.
+1 for removal
how should x86_64 handle that? codemac might have the ability to handle the license issues. we from the port cannot make sure to rebuild it quick enough all the time. also think off ppc?
there's much more real open source software waiting to be maintained. just put this unfree crap into AUR and maintain it there.
AndyRTR
_______________________________________________ arch-dev-public mailing list arch-dev-public@archlinux.org http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-dev-public
Jan de Groot wrote:
You can always remove the package for x86_64. Just remove it from arch=() and don't ship the package for your architecture and you're fine. You don't have to port a package to both architectures ;)
Agreed. I don't see any need to remove it either.
Varun
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 05:00:04PM -0400, Jeff Mickey wrote:
On 6/6/07, Tobias Kieslich tobias@justdreams.de wrote:
Yupp, I think Jeff missed that discussion, while he was taking some time off. So yepp we should just remove it.
I didn't miss the discussion, I checked up on it after the fact.
I published it with the correct license, and I'm on the ion list and the #ion channel on freenode. I usually know the day of if it has been released.
I've told tuomo to email me directly with complaints, so no one else should have to deal with it. I think it's a non-issue when we all ready were distributing the [extra] version of ion correctly. I don't see why you guys who don't maintain it want to delete it.
I'll handle the rebuilds, it's really ok. I like the software a lot.
The question is not whether we can distribute it. The question is "should we distribute it?". It's Tuomovs decision to take away freedom from distributions and thus end users. But it's our decision to obey and thus support unfree software.
I vote for removal.
Jürgen
Jürgen Hötzel wrote:
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 05:00:04PM -0400, Jeff Mickey wrote:
On 6/6/07, Tobias Kieslich tobias@justdreams.de wrote:
Yupp, I think Jeff missed that discussion, while he was taking some time off. So yepp we should just remove it.
I didn't miss the discussion, I checked up on it after the fact.
I published it with the correct license, and I'm on the ion list and the #ion channel on freenode. I usually know the day of if it has been released.
I've told tuomo to email me directly with complaints, so no one else should have to deal with it. I think it's a non-issue when we all ready were distributing the [extra] version of ion correctly. I don't see why you guys who don't maintain it want to delete it.
I'll handle the rebuilds, it's really ok. I like the software a lot.
The question is not whether we can distribute it. The question is "should we distribute it?". It's Tuomovs decision to take away freedom from distributions and thus end users. But it's our decision to obey and thus support unfree software.
I think we should leave the calculus up to codemac who will be bearing the burden of maintaining it. As long as he is interested in keeping it up to date, those goals align with Tuomo's. As soon as that is no longer true, we should drop it immediately.
Since codemac wishes to keep an up-to-date ion3 package anyway, I don't see why others shouldn't benefit from that. If and when it becomes a burden, then we should drop it.
- P
On 6/7/07, Paul Mattal paul@mattal.com wrote:
Jürgen Hötzel wrote:
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 05:00:04PM -0400, Jeff Mickey wrote:
On 6/6/07, Tobias Kieslich tobias@justdreams.de wrote:
Yupp, I think Jeff missed that discussion, while he was taking some time off. So yepp we should just remove it.
I didn't miss the discussion, I checked up on it after the fact.
I published it with the correct license, and I'm on the ion list and the #ion channel on freenode. I usually know the day of if it has been released.
I've told tuomo to email me directly with complaints, so no one else should have to deal with it. I think it's a non-issue when we all ready were distributing the [extra] version of ion correctly. I don't see why you guys who don't maintain it want to delete it.
I'll handle the rebuilds, it's really ok. I like the software a lot.
The question is not whether we can distribute it. The question is "should we distribute it?". It's Tuomovs decision to take away freedom from distributions and thus end users. But it's our decision to obey and thus support unfree software.
I think we should leave the calculus up to codemac who will be bearing the burden of maintaining it. As long as he is interested in keeping it up to date, those goals align with Tuomo's. As soon as that is no longer true, we should drop it immediately.
Since codemac wishes to keep an up-to-date ion3 package anyway, I don't see why others shouldn't benefit from that. If and when it becomes a burden, then we should drop it.
I thought this would happen. codemac is a user of ion3, hence his reluctance to drop it. So long as codemac is using it, and maintaining it, that's ok. But if we get another run-in with tuomo, we ought to just drop it.
James
Am Wed, 6 Jun 2007 17:00:04 -0400 schrieb "Jeff Mickey" jeff@archlinux.org:
On 6/6/07, Tobias Kieslich tobias@justdreams.de wrote:
Yupp, I think Jeff missed that discussion, while he was taking some time off. So yepp we should just remove it.
I didn't miss the discussion, I checked up on it after the fact.
I published it with the correct license, and I'm on the ion list and the #ion channel on freenode. I usually know the day of if it has been released.
I've told tuomo to email me directly with complaints, so no one else should have to deal with it. I think it's a non-issue when we all ready were distributing the [extra] version of ion correctly. I don't see why you guys who don't maintain it want to delete it.
I'll handle the rebuilds, it's really ok. I like the software a lot.
// jeff
Warnung: ion: Lokale Version (20070203-1) ist neuer als extra (3rc_20070506-1)
="local version is newer..."
have you forgotten to add force=y ?
btw: is this still the way we go for pkg downgrades?
AndyRTR
have you forgotten to add force=y ?
Yea. After all that I didn't even get it to update on people's systems. ugh. Thanks for the heads up. I don't usually notice this because I update the package locally to check that everything is working fine.
// codemac
arch-dev-public@lists.archlinux.org