Hi,
My name is Paulo Matias. I'm 19 years old, and I'm currently at the third year of a four-year Bachelor of Computational Physics course at University of Sao Paulo, Brazil.
I'm a Linux user since 1998, when I started using Conectiva Linux. This was my main distribution until 2003, when I changed to Debian-based distributions. Then I switched to Gentoo at 2005. Finally, since about one year, Arch Linux has become my distribution of choice. I was very attracted by the lack of bureaucracy and by the warm and friendly community.
I'm a programmer experienced in C, C++, Python, Ruby, JavaScript, AWK, PHP, Java and Fortran77 languages. I've learned something about Lua and Haskell, too. I have written some open source projects: trayion, samsutools, qvm, opensvs, pycyber, fastsight, ziprecv, gcbq, stegomaster, ruby-v4l, The Damn Small OS's VM, MPBot addons, BRNews and K-Lite Linux.
I currently mantain some packages at AUR, notably the VirtualBox PUEL edition packages and Open Sound System (OSS) related packages, among others. My packages are listed at http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?SeB=m&K=thotypous. I often contribute to packages not maintained by me. I had recently contributed to the iverilog, vmware-player-modules and qc-usb packages.
I was already experienced at packaging software for NetBSD, as a pkgsrc-wip project contributor. My packages at pkgsrc are listed at http://pkgsrc.se/bbmaint.php?maint=matias%7Ca%7Cdotbsd.org. I had packaged software there whose packages are currently maintained by others too, such as gnash and ghc.
I recently started to develop some projects directly related to Arch Linux, namely arch-sheriff and pkgbuildtools. The arch-sheriff project is security-related and was recently presented at Arch mailing lists by our friend Hugo Doria. The pkgbuildtools project is currently being planned, and will provide some tools inspired by pkgsrc pkgtools and infrastructure.
I'm an official member of the ArchLinux Brasil group, and have a blog (in Portuguese) at http://matias.archlinux-br.org and some stuff at http://matias.archlinux-br.org/files.
Hugo Doria has offered to be my sponsor as a Trusted User. I hope to bring more useful packages to community and to help managing AUR.
Currently, I sadly don't own any x86_64 capable machine.
I will be happy to answer any question.
Best regards,
Paulo Matias
Paulo Matias ha scritto:
Hi,
My name is Paulo Matias. I'm 19 years old, and I'm currently at the third year of a four-year Bachelor of Computational Physics course at University of Sao Paulo, Brazil.
I'm a Linux user since 1998, when I started using Conectiva Linux. This was my main distribution until 2003, when I changed to Debian-based distributions. Then I switched to Gentoo at 2005. Finally, since about one year, Arch Linux has become my distribution of choice. I was very attracted by the lack of bureaucracy and by the warm and friendly community.
I'm a programmer experienced in C, C++, Python, Ruby, JavaScript, AWK, PHP, Java and Fortran77 languages. I've learned something about Lua and Haskell, too. I have written some open source projects: trayion, samsutools, qvm, opensvs, pycyber, fastsight, ziprecv, gcbq, stegomaster, ruby-v4l, The Damn Small OS's VM, MPBot addons, BRNews and K-Lite Linux.
I currently mantain some packages at AUR, notably the VirtualBox PUEL edition packages and Open Sound System (OSS) related packages, among others. My packages are listed at http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?SeB=m&K=thotypous. I often contribute to packages not maintained by me. I had recently contributed to the iverilog, vmware-player-modules and qc-usb packages.
I was already experienced at packaging software for NetBSD, as a pkgsrc-wip project contributor. My packages at pkgsrc are listed at http://pkgsrc.se/bbmaint.php?maint=matias%7Ca%7Cdotbsd.org. I had packaged software there whose packages are currently maintained by others too, such as gnash and ghc.
I recently started to develop some projects directly related to Arch Linux, namely arch-sheriff and pkgbuildtools. The arch-sheriff project is security-related and was recently presented at Arch mailing lists by our friend Hugo Doria. The pkgbuildtools project is currently being planned, and will provide some tools inspired by pkgsrc pkgtools and infrastructure.
I'm an official member of the ArchLinux Brasil group, and have a blog (in Portuguese) at http://matias.archlinux-br.org and some stuff at http://matias.archlinux-br.org/files.
Hugo Doria has offered to be my sponsor as a Trusted User. I hope to bring more useful packages to community and to help managing AUR.
Currently, I sadly don't own any x86_64 capable machine.
I will be happy to answer any question.
Best regards,
Paulo Matias
O Paulo, i know very well this guy, he is very active with the brazilian community like dsa, hdoria, and even, they really do a great job.
I like to know that you people are encouraged to be TUs.
I will wait until the discussion period *officialy* starts to contribute with this thread.
P.S: Good to know that you like Ruby, we had many packages in community that were moved to unsupported recently, maybe you should applied before! ;] (I told the same to even btw!)
Paulo Matias wrote:
Hi,
My name is Paulo Matias.
<snip>
I had a quick look at your PKGBUILDs in the AUR and they all look good as expected. My only comment is that sourceforge download URLs should be in the form http://downloads.sourceforge.net/.
So I will ask the usual question of what packages do you think you will bring into [community]? Not wanting to get into the debate here, but ion3 is problematic as you know and have (partially) addressed in your pkgbuild but putting the binary in [community] is still probably not the best idea...
BTW, is there any more of the Arch Linux Brazil people out there going to apply. It seems we are being taken over!
Allan
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 12:27 AM, Allan McRae allan@archlinux.org wrote:
I had a quick look at your PKGBUILDs in the AUR and they all look good as expected. My only comment is that sourceforge download URLs should be in the form http://downloads.sourceforge.net/.
Thanks! I had just changed the download url in the pstreams PKGBUILD.
So I will ask the usual question of what packages do you think you will bring into [community]? Not wanting to get into the debate here, but ion3 is problematic as you know and have (partially) addressed in your pkgbuild but putting the binary in [community] is still probably not the best idea...
I know about the past issues with ion3, so I plan to ask Tuomov if everything is OK with the package before moving it to [community]. I would like to bring it to [community], but I will only do this if Tuomov confirms everything is OK.
Another thing I plan to do is trying to get permission from Sun to bring virtualbox_bin to [community].
Besides that, I really want to bring Open Sound System related packages to [community]. It's kinda a priority, as some users are eager for that.
BTW, is there any more of the Arch Linux Brazil people out there going to apply. It seems we are being taken over!
:D
Best regards,
Paulo Matias
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 00:22, Paulo Matias matias@archlinux-br.org wrote:
I know about the past issues with ion3
http://archlinux.org/news/374/
I would highly prefer you not put Ion3 in binary format anywhere for official ArchLinux repos. The developers already had this discussion about Ion, there is no need to have it again with the TU's. Putting this package in a repo disregards the decision already made, and inevitably will lead to the package being out of date and violating it's license. Trust me, it will happen. Maybe not in the next year, but at some point. It's non-free, and not something we choose to deal with. You can have it in your own repo on your own hosting, but don't put it in Archlinux repos.
I'm fine with it being in the AUR as I don't think his license holds for build instructions, but that is off the top of my head, not a researched opinion.
// jeff
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Jeff Mickey jeff@archlinux.org wrote:
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 00:22, Paulo Matias matias@archlinux-br.org wrote:
I know about the past issues with ion3
http://archlinux.org/news/374/
I would highly prefer you not put Ion3 in binary format anywhere for official ArchLinux repos.
Surely I will only add it to [community] if I get explicit permission from the copyright holder (Tuomov), and if he confirms everything complies with the trademark license. As I said, I don't want to disrespect anyone's license.
Sorry if I seemed to mean something else.
Thanks for advice and best regards,
Paulo Matias
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 11:41, Paulo Matias matias@archlinux-br.org wrote:
Surely I will only add it to [community] if I get explicit permission from the copyright holder (Tuomov), and if he confirms everything complies with the trademark license. As I said, I don't want to disrespect anyone's license.
You are not disrespecting the license of Ion3, you are just ignoring the decision that has already been made. Don't put ion3 in [community]. If a package is removed from [core]/[extra] because of a change in it's license, don't go putting it back in [community].
Please reply directly to me if you still don't understand.
// jeff
Hi,
I never knew there was a list of packages banned from Arch. Where can I get a copy of this list?
I'm just curious!
2008/9/12 Jeff Mickey jeff@archlinux.org
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 11:41, Paulo Matias matias@archlinux-br.org wrote:
Surely I will only add it to [community] if I get explicit permission from the copyright holder (Tuomov), and if he confirms everything complies with the trademark license. As I said, I don't want to disrespect anyone's license.
You are not disrespecting the license of Ion3, you are just ignoring the decision that has already been made. Don't put ion3 in [community]. If a package is removed from [core]/[extra] because of a change in it's license, don't go putting it back in [community].
Please reply directly to me if you still don't understand.
// jeff
. : [ + carpe diem totus tuus + ] : .
Hi bardo,
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 3:15 PM, bardo ilbardo@gmail.com wrote:
So this means that the two systems can't coexist... I can't say I like it (I may prefer to use a particular sound system for a certain feature the other one misses) but at the moment I don't think there are other solutions.
There are plans to make them coexist (namely the cuckoo driver), but currently, yes, they can't coexist by now.
We'll have to talk about that file (maybe in private, I'm hijacking the thread and it isn't nice), in particular about the removal of libflashsupport, which is also provided in libflashsupport-pulse, a package I've been wanting to move to [community] for a while.
You are right, I was already thinking about that. I will contact you in private so we can think about a good solution. I was already thinking about splitting libflashsupport in a separate package anyway, because of the lib32-* dependency it would need to work in x86_64 architecture.
---
Hi Jeff,
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Jeff Mickey jeff@archlinux.org wrote:
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 11:41, Paulo Matias matias@archlinux-br.org wrote:
Surely I will only add it to [community] if I get explicit permission from the copyright holder (Tuomov), and if he confirms everything complies with the trademark license. As I said, I don't want to disrespect anyone's license.
You are not disrespecting the license of Ion3, you are just ignoring the decision that has already been made. Don't put ion3 in [community]. If a package is removed from [core]/[extra] because of a change in it's license, don't go putting it back in [community].
OK, sorry for misunderstanding, I thought the problem was only license-related.
---
Best regards,
Paulo Matias
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 12:41:10PM -0300, Paulo Matias wrote:
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Jeff Mickey jeff@archlinux.org wrote:
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 00:22, Paulo Matias matias@archlinux-br.org wrote:
I know about the past issues with ion3
http://archlinux.org/news/374/
I would highly prefer you not put Ion3 in binary format anywhere for official ArchLinux repos.
Surely I will only add it to [community] if I get explicit permission from the copyright holder (Tuomov), and if he confirms everything complies with the trademark license. As I said, I don't want to disrespect anyone's license.
Sorry if I seemed to mean something else.
I'd also prefer that ion3 not appear in [community]. I'd rather not make Arch Linux devs and TUs accountable for Tuomo's special desires and opinions.
Here's one discussion between him and the Arch community. http://archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2007-April/004634.html
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Loui louipc.ist@gmail.com wrote:
I'd also prefer that ion3 not appear in [community]. I'd rather not make Arch Linux devs and TUs accountable for Tuomo's special desires and opinions.
Sorry for all this confusion.
I'm not going to include ion3 in [community] anymore. Let it in AUR unsupported.
I only started the subject about ion3 because people asked, but I never thought it would generate that controversy even after I got package approval from Tuomo V.
So please consider this subject closed and let's discuss another things.
Best regards,
Paulo Matias
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 6:22 AM, Paulo Matias matias@archlinux-br.org wrote:
Besides that, I really want to bring Open Sound System related packages to [community]. It's kinda a priority, as some users are eager for that.
I gave OSS a shot, since it's free again and it seems to be technically superior to ALSA in many ways, but I noticed it is "a bit" aggressive with ALSA itself... to be clear: it killed my alsa modules. All of them. I had to reinstall the kernel to get it fixed. It's obvious that a package conflicting with kernel26 is less than ideal. I don't know if there's a way to prevent this behaviour, I got too upset to check and abandoned the whole thing. Do you know if the problem still exists? If yes, how do you plan to solve it?
Thanks, Corrado
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 1:27 PM, bardo ilbardo@gmail.com wrote:
I gave OSS a shot, since it's free again and it seems to be technically superior to ALSA in many ways, but I noticed it is "a bit" aggressive with ALSA itself... to be clear: it killed my alsa modules. All of them. I had to reinstall the kernel to get it fixed. It's obvious that a package conflicting with kernel26 is less than ideal. I don't know if there's a way to prevent this behaviour, I got too upset to check and abandoned the whole thing. Do you know if the problem still exists? If yes, how do you plan to solve it?
OSS scripts automatically move the ALSA modules to a /lib/modules/2.6.26-ARCH/sound-preoss.tar.bz2 file if they are found when OSS is started (e.g. at the boot time). This way, when OSS is installed, and every time kernel26 is updated, the ALSA modules are automatically moved to the sound-preoss.tar.bz2 file before starting OSS.
If the user wants ALSA back, she only needs to remove the OSS package. In the install script (take a look at http://aur.archlinux.org/packages/oss-testing/oss-testing/oss.install), in the pre_remove function, I call /usr/lib/oss/scripts/restore_drv.sh. The restore_drv.sh script will restore the ALSA modules from the sound-preoss.tar.bz2 file.
Please note that all these scripts come by default with OSS. I only call them when they were supposed to be called.
No users had complained about problems restoring ALSA, so I think this problem was present only in old packages, packaged by past maintainers.
I'm often in touch with OSS developer community and I will ask them to review the packages before moving to [community], to be sure everything is done correctly.
Best regards,
Paulo Matias
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 7:22 PM, Paulo Matias matias@archlinux-br.org wrote:
If the user wants ALSA back, she only needs to remove the OSS package.
So this means that the two systems can't coexist... I can't say I like it (I may prefer to use a particular sound system for a certain feature the other one misses) but at the moment I don't think there are other solutions.
In the install script (take a look at http://aur.archlinux.org/packages/oss-testing/oss-testing/oss.install),
We'll have to talk about that file (maybe in private, I'm hijacking the thread and it isn't nice), in particular about the removal of libflashsupport, which is also provided in libflashsupport-pulse, a package I've been wanting to move to [community] for a while.
No users had complained about problems restoring ALSA, so I think this problem was present only in old packages, packaged by past maintainers.
Yeah, I got it with oss-linux-free, IIRC. Anyway, I *personally* think that no package should touch files owned by other packages, even though it seems harmless and reversible. I'd like to hear from others about this, though.
Corrado
Paulo is a great friend and has great technical skills. We have some projects together and he does contributes a lot with Arch Linux Brazil. I'm sure he will be a great TU.
And this starts the discussion period. :)
-- Hugo
aur-general@lists.archlinux.org