Nice to get your suggestions. I'd better try git, since many recommend. As for svn, just "svnadmin create "a repository does work? PS: Sorry for my stupidity. I'm new to mailing list, and don't know how to reply a certain post. Thank you all 2010/8/27

Send arch-general mailing list submissions to arch-general@archlinux.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://mailman.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-general or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to arch-general-request@archlinux.org

You can reach the person managing the list at arch-general-owner@archlinux.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of arch-general digest..."

Today's Topics:

1. Re: version control system for normal user (Magnus Therning) 2. Re: version control system for normal user (Magnus Therning) 3. Re: version control system for normal user (Philipp ?berbacher) 4. Re: version control system for normal user (fons@kokkinizita.net) 5. Re: version control system for normal user (Chris Bannister) 6. Re: [arch-dev-public] [aur-general] Licenses, GPL3 only (Tavian Barnes) 7. Re: version control system for normal user (John Holbrook) 8. Re: rc.conf man page (Joe(theWordy)Philbrook)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:02:40 +0100 From: Magnus Therning Subject: Re: [arch-general] version control system for normal user To: General Discussion about Arch Linux Message-ID:

...

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 15:58, Florian Pritz wrote:

...

On 26.08.2010 16:56, jewelshaw wrote:

...

Hi, ? ? I'm a normal user on a workstation, without root privilege. Usually, I have to test and revise the source code, while after lots of revisions, I get confused about what's new and what's old. I tried subversion, but a svn server with root privilege is required as daemon. So I wonder if there's a version control system which I can run as a normal user. Any recommendations? Thanks in advance.

Depending on your needs git or rcs (perfect for single files). Git is what the use for kernel develoment ;)

Or darcs, or hg (mercurial), or monotone... pretty much any modern de-centralised (disconnected) VCS will do.

/M

-- Magnus Therning? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus?therning?org? ? ? ? ? Jabber: magnus?therning?org http://therning.org/magnus? ? ? ?? identi.ca|twitter: magthe

------------------------------

Message: 2 Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:05:13 +0100 From: Magnus Therning Subject: Re: [arch-general] version control system for normal user To: General Discussion about Arch Linux Message-ID:

...

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 16:02, David Rosenstrauch wrote:

...

On 08/26/2010 10:56 AM, jewelshaw wrote:

...

Hi, ? ? I'm a normal user on a workstation, without root privilege. Usually,

I

...

have to test and revise the source code, while after lots of revisions, I get confused about what's new and what's old. I tried subversion, but a svn server with root privilege is required as daemon. So I wonder if there's a version control system which I can run as a normal user. Any recommendations? Thanks in advance.

Jiawei Shao

darcs?

Indeed http://darcs.net/

/M

-- Magnus Therning? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus?therning?org? ? ? ? ? Jabber: magnus?therning?org http://therning.org/magnus? ? ? ?? identi.ca|twitter: magthe

------------------------------

Message: 3 Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:05:27 +0200 From: Philipp ?berbacher Subject: Re: [arch-general] version control system for normal user To: arch-general Message-ID: <1282835019-sup-308@eris> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Excerpts from Florian Pritz's message of 2010-08-26 16:58:39 +0200:

...

On 26.08.2010 16:56, jewelshaw wrote:

...

Hi, I'm a normal user on a workstation, without root privilege. Usually, I have to test and revise the source code, while after lots of revisions, I get confused about what's new and what's old. I tried subversion, but a svn server with root privilege is required as daemon. So I wonder if there's a version control system which I can run as a normal user. Any recommendations? Thanks in advance.

Depending on your needs git or rcs (perfect for single files). Git is what the use for kernel develoment ;)

I was surprised seeing rcs in the repos, given its age.

git is really handy. I don't know whether/how to install it without root privileges, but I imagine it's possible. -- Philipp

-- "Wir stehen selbst entt?uscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu und alle Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan

------------------------------

Message: 4 Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:02:40 +0200 From: fons@kokkinizita.net Subject: Re: [arch-general] version control system for normal user To: arch-general@archlinux.org Message-ID: <20100826150240.GC4151@zita2> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 10:56:45PM +0800, jewelshaw wrote:

...

I'm a normal user on a workstation, without root privilege. Usually,

I

...

have to test and revise the source code, while after lots of revisions, I get confused about what's new and what's old. I tried subversion, but a svn server with root privilege is required as daemon. So I wonder if there's a version control system which I can run as a normal user. Any recommendations? Thanks in advance.

If you are the only user of an SVN repo you can just put it in your private file space, you don't need to run a server to use SVN.

The alternative is GIT, quite different in the way it works, but some people prefer it.

Ciao,

-- FA

There are three of them, and Alleline.

------------------------------

Message: 5 Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:31:27 +0100 From: Chris Bannister Subject: Re: [arch-general] version control system for normal user To: General Discussion about Arch Linux Message-ID:

...

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

I used SVN at first then moved to git and havnt looked back since, fantastic all round. Check out http://githup.com

On 26 August 2010 16:02, wrote:

...

On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 10:56:45PM +0800, jewelshaw wrote:

...

? ? I'm a normal user on a workstation, without root privilege. Usually, I have to test and revise the source code, while after lots of revisions, I get confused about what's new and what's old. I tried subversion, but a svn server with root privilege is required as daemon. So I wonder if there's a version control system which I can run as a normal user. Any recommendations? Thanks in advance.

If you are the only user of an SVN repo you can just put it in your private file space, you don't need to run a server to use SVN.

The alternative is GIT, quite different in the way it works, but some people prefer it.

Ciao,

-- FA

There are three of them, and Alleline.

------------------------------

Message: 6 Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 09:53:54 -0600 From: Tavian Barnes Subject: Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [aur-general] Licenses, GPL3 only To: General Discusson about Arch Linux Message-ID:

...

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On 26 August 2010 06:23, Ray Rashif wrote:

...

On 26 August 2010 19:16, Roberto Alsina wrote:

...

On Thursday 26 August 2010 08:12:23 Ronald van Haren wrote:

...

My second point was that we don't know what the future will bring. Will new applications being licensed under GPL2 or later, GPL3 or later, GPL4, GPL4 or later... there are lots of options. There are lots of possibilities and I'm wondering if it is at all feasible to create a naming scheme which will fit all.

Sure:

GPL2 GPL2+ GPL3 GPL3+ etc.

For convenience, you may want to make GPL the equivalent of GPL2+

Here's what is currently being done:

ln -s GPL2 GPL

So in fact, we don't even have the text of the "only" version. Neither does the FSF.

There is no proper "example", "template" or "draft" for a GPLn-only license. For eg. the kernel has this in its COPYING:

<quote> NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel ?services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use ?of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work". ?Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software ?Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux ?kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.

?Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel ?is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not ?v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Linus Torvalds </quote>

That is the only difference between that license text and the one in /usr/share/common, i.e it is a special case, a GPL2 license with an "exception clause". Otherwise, both have exactly 2 occurences of "any later version".

== GPL2 == If we want to honour cases like that, we would have to encourage the inclusion of the license. So, our kernel should mention:

license=('custom:GPL2')

And include /usr/share/licenses/kernel26/COPYING. All cases of "custom" should naturally imply that there is a license text to check out.

All other "normal" GPL software should have:

license=('GPL')

Which needs no intervention.

== GPL3 == Now, because the texts of the GPL2 and GPL3 are different, we cannot, for eg. symlink anything to GPL3. But in the above manner, software like the kernel need to have:

license=('custom:GPL3')

And include /usr/share/licenses/foobar/COPYING.

While the rest of the GPL3 software can just have:

license=('GPL3')

== TL;DR == Basically, we just standardise the use of:

license=('custom:GPLn')

For software with GPL exception texts, and include the license. Only the kernel (and mysql? [1]) package needs to be changed to conform to this; nothing else needs to be done. Very "future proof", IMO.

[1] http://www.downloadsquad.com/2007/01/04/mysqls-license-is-now-gpl-2-only/

-- GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD

...

From my understanding of copyright, it seems to me that we don't have to treat GPL2-only and GPL2+ works any differently. Both were distributed under the GPLv2, and can obviously be redistributed under the same license. Whether a package decides to add the "or any later version" extension isn't really our problem; we correctly identify the licence under which the software was _actually_ released. If someone wants to relicense it, they can go and get the actual source (which they'll need anyway) and it'll say that they are free to distribute it under later GPL versions. But of course, IANAL.

-- Tavian Barnes

------------------------------

Message: 7 Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 09:02:54 -0700 From: John Holbrook Subject: Re: [arch-general] version control system for normal user To: General Discussion about Arch Linux Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

"I used SVN at first then moved to git and havnt looked back since, fantastic all round. Check out http://githup.com"

I think you meant github.com

----

www.linuxgeek.ca

------------------------------

Message: 8 Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:32:19 -0400 From: "Joe(theWordy)Philbrook" Subject: Re: [arch-general] rc.conf man page To: arch-general@archlinux.org Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

It would appear that on Aug 26, Dave Reisner did say:

...

...

As a mere arch user who happens to think that the concept of well commented configuration files such as Arch's rc.conf are WONDERFUL. Especially when they include examples for beginners and those of us who have difficulty remembering. ;-7

My only concerns about having a man page is that eventually the configuration file (in this case rc.conf) might gradually become less well commented, or it's comments become outdated. And that man pages tend to be long on highly technical explanations that I for one have a hard time understanding and are often short on examples. So rather than having

On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 01:35:33PM -0400, Joe(theWordy)Philbrook wrote: the

...

rc.conf refer to a man page for instruction on how to use it. I'd much prefer that the primary method of "guidance" remain in the rc.local and perhaps include in any man page a url from which one can download a current rc.local.example file.

I don't follow -- how does relocating comments to a man page make them inherently any more technical? If you have specific concerns about the verbiage I've used, I'm happy to address them.

Please don't misunderstand me to mean that I take exception to the your "verbiage". In fact _IF_ I had to depend on a man page rather than a well commented rc.config file someday, I rather hope the man page is very much like yours.

...

I'm not opposed to the idea of leaving them in the file itself as well, but as brought up earlier, it then exposes the chance for the man page and the comments to be out of sync. I'll propose a middle ground -- syntax exists in both places (as its much less likely to change), but more detailed explanations are provided only in the man page.

Now that might be good. A man page should have fully detailed explanations as well as syntax (and I think at least some examples)... Where as an actual config file should be rich in commented out examples but as far as explanations go, I think concise one liners that rely on the examples to impart a goodly part of the instruction, are the way to go. Especially if it's practical to include in the config file a hint that the man file exists...

I also think that the idea of including in the man page a url to an example config file that is as 'up to date', and as 'in sync' with the man page as possible, would be a good hedge against the mutable nature of the config file.

My feelings about man pages (and info documents) in general, stem from years of scratching my head while trying to figure out how to do one unfamiliar task or another with only such documentation to go by. I would not really be surprised to find that most of the man pages found on an Arch system might well be better written than the ones that made me feel like they were meant to impress some professor rather than to impart knowledge to those that don't already have a good grasp of the subject. I know the Arch wiki at least does a real good job of imparting knowledge (once you find the right document)... Which makes me wonder if at the end of the man page, in addition to a url for a current version of the commented config file, would it possibly be a good idea to also reference any applicable wiki pages?

-- | --- ___ | <0> <-> Joe (theWordy) Philbrook | ^ J(tWdy)P | ~\___/~ <>

------------------------------

_______________________________________________ arch-general mailing list arch-general@archlinux.org http://mailman.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-general

End of arch-general Digest, Vol 70, Issue 80 ********************************************