From michael at knox.net.nz Tue Aug 1 02:51:55 2006 From: michael at knox.net.nz (Michael J. Knox) Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 14:51:55 +1200 Subject: On leave. Message-ID: <44CEC1CB.5020708@knox.net.nz> Just a heads up. I will be relocating to Auckland this coming weekend. So as of AUgust the 4th, I will be offically on leave/holiday/whatever you want to call it. I hope not to be with out a DSL connection for too long, but at this stage about 10 - 14 days is to be expected. Thanks! Michael From dennis at ausil.us Tue Aug 1 05:38:02 2006 From: dennis at ausil.us (Dennis Gilmore) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 00:38:02 -0500 Subject: Extras Buildsys Update Message-ID: <200608010038.03674.dennis@ausil.us> Hey Guys, all of the builders are now updated. They all now implement the minimal buildroot as approved by FESCO. So for those maintainers out there that have done nothing about the broken builds by Matt Domsch. You need to fix your packages before we ask everyone to rebuild for FC6 very soon now. -- Dennis Gilmore, RHCE Proud Australian From rdieter at math.unl.edu Tue Aug 1 16:19:15 2006 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 11:19:15 -0500 Subject: interest in qt-4.2.0(tp1)? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44CF7F03.3060009@math.unl.edu> Rex Dieter wrote on fedora-extras-list: > For Extras/devel, is there any interest in upgrading qt4-4.1 to qt-4.2.0-tp1 > (tech preview 1)? According to > http://www.trolltech.com/company/newsroom/announcements/press.2006-06-26.0683224314/ > (and qt4-4.2.0-tp1's README), > "We plan to enter the beta phase in Q3, 2006 and release the final Qt 4.2 in > early Q4, 2006." > > The final release matches *pretty* close to fc6 final release date of Early > October (according to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Core/Schedule ) > > Opinions? > > AFAIC, I'm leaning toward doing it especially since qt4-4.2 includes some > new/nice features including dbus bindings. FYI, the deed is done. qt4-4.2.0-tp1 has been imported into FE/devel. -- Rex From katzj at redhat.com Wed Aug 2 16:05:01 2006 From: katzj at redhat.com (Jeremy Katz) Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 12:05:01 -0400 Subject: Updated Fedora Core 6 Schedule Message-ID: <1154534701.20100.68.camel@aglarond.local> Later than expected, we have now gotten to where Xen is working with current kernels and are ready to actually freeze and release test2. We are currently working with the already frozen bits to get a tree ready and plan to release to the world on Monday, 7 August 2006. The relevant changes to the rest of the schedule have been made to the official schedule page at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Core/Schedule Thanks for being patient as we've worked through some of this! Jeremy From andreas.bierfert at lowlatency.de Thu Aug 3 09:28:25 2006 From: andreas.bierfert at lowlatency.de (Andreas Bierfert) Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 11:28:25 +0200 Subject: libpqxx upgrade Message-ID: <20060803112825.6df20d49@alkaid.a.lan> Hi, I will push an libpqxx today which will change the libversion from libpqxx-2.6.6.so to libpqxx-2.6.7.so. To my knowledge koffice is the only app with a dependency on it (an I will push an koffice upgrade anyway after the libpqxx build has completed). If not take this as an heads up... - Andreas -- Andreas Bierfert | http://awbsworld.de | GPG: C58CF1CB andreas.bierfert at lowlatency.de | http://lowlatency.de | signed/encrypted phone: +49 2402 102373 | cell: +49 173 5803043 | mail preferred -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ville.skytta at iki.fi Thu Aug 3 16:00:51 2006 From: ville.skytta at iki.fi (Ville =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Skytt=E4?=) Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 19:00:51 +0300 Subject: libpqxx upgrade In-Reply-To: <20060803112825.6df20d49@alkaid.a.lan> References: <20060803112825.6df20d49@alkaid.a.lan> Message-ID: <1154620851.2743.99.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 11:28 +0200, Andreas Bierfert wrote: > I will push an libpqxx today which will change the libversion from > libpqxx-2.6.6.so to libpqxx-2.6.7.so. To my knowledge koffice is the only app > with a dependency on it (an I will push an koffice upgrade anyway after the > libpqxx build has completed). If not take this as an heads up... Which distro version(s) this is planned for? From katzj at redhat.com Fri Aug 4 03:16:05 2006 From: katzj at redhat.com (Jeremy Katz) Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 05:16:05 +0200 Subject: Updated Fedora Core 6 Schedule Message-ID: <000501c6b774$52ad3450$ba00000a@grecom.local> Later than expected, we have now gotten to where Xen is working with current kernels and are ready to actually freeze and release test2. We are currently working with the already frozen bits to get a tree ready and plan to release to the world on Monday, 7 August 2006. The relevant changes to the rest of the schedule have been made to the official schedule page at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Core/Schedule Thanks for being patient as we've worked through some of this! Jeremy -- fedora-announce-list mailing list fedora-announce-list at redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-announce-list From katzj at redhat.com Fri Aug 4 03:16:05 2006 From: katzj at redhat.com (Jeremy Katz) Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 05:16:05 +0200 Subject: Updated Fedora Core 6 Schedule Message-ID: <000601c6b774$52af7e40$ba00000a@grecom.local> Later than expected, we have now gotten to where Xen is working with current kernels and are ready to actually freeze and release test2. We are currently working with the already frozen bits to get a tree ready and plan to release to the world on Monday, 7 August 2006. The relevant changes to the rest of the schedule have been made to the official schedule page at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Core/Schedule Thanks for being patient as we've worked through some of this! Jeremy -- fedora-announce-list mailing list fedora-announce-list at redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-announce-list From Christian.Iseli at licr.org Fri Aug 4 22:50:11 2006 From: Christian.Iseli at licr.org (Christian Iseli) Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2006 00:50:11 +0200 Subject: Legacy in Build Roots In-Reply-To: <20060702124644.12b28a88.bugs.michael@gmx.net> References: <200607012223.47065.dennis@ausil.us> <20060702124644.12b28a88.bugs.michael@gmx.net> Message-ID: <20060805005011.59097ce4@ludwig-alpha> On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 12:46:44 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > Any FE packager, who still wants to support all his FE packages, now must > track Legacy and test current and future packages appropriately as legacy > upgrades may break things at run-time and/or build-time. Unless Legacy > Updates remain in a separate repository and are not merged with FC > Updates. In that case, FE packagers would face two targets, however. > > Conclusively, we would need a policy that Fedora Legacy becomes mandatory > for old FE branches, which are in maintenance state. When the FE buildsys > enables Legacy packages, it must be mandatory that the packagers track > Legacy Updates and test their packages appropriately. > > With regard to > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-April/msg01650.html > there doesn't seem to be any signs of the security team in the Wiki yet. > Who is on the security team and will take over maintenance of old FE > branches? I'd like FE packagers to be able to drop their old FE packages > and re-assign incoming bug reports to those, who will keep them current > with Legacy. > > Previously, the Fedora Legacy team has not shown any interest in doing or > participating in legacy updates for FE. But now that the FE buildsys would > include their packages, they would have a direct influence on old FE > branches both at build-time and run-time. Unlike before, the Fedora Legacy > maintainers need to take extra precautions that they don't break FE > because they look only at FC. It is vital that there is a clear > announcement about who will take care of any induced breakage in FE > (including broken upgrade paths due to inappropriate EVR, and upgrades > requiring a chain of upgrades in FE). Enabling legacy packages in the buildroot was discussed at the last FESCo meeting. There was some disagreement, but I think the general feeling went along the following lines: a. the FL team takes over maintainership of FC when the FC team EOLs it. Given that FL is a component of the Fedora project, I see no reason not to trust them and their better judgement to maintain those packages b. FL is mainly about security fixes c. there is no such thing as Extras Legacy, and likely won't be in the foreseeable future d. the impression is that most users keeping old Fedora releases running subscribe to FL Taking a-d into account, I see a reasonable case to take advantage of FL security fixes for those maintainers still interested in maintaining packages for old FE releases. It's far from perfect, but I think it's better than not using FL. The main problems I see: - users need to subscribe to FL. IMHO, the proper solution is to add FL packages to the FC updates like would seem natural. But that's not FESCo's call. FAB maybe ? - some FE maintainers don't want to maintain old releases. IMHO, co-maintainership should help in that case. Or maybe the security SIG, but they probably have enough on their plate already. Cheers, Christian From cweyl at alumni.drew.edu Sat Aug 5 00:12:28 2006 From: cweyl at alumni.drew.edu (Chris Weyl) Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 17:12:28 -0700 Subject: Legacy in Build Roots In-Reply-To: <20060805005011.59097ce4@ludwig-alpha> References: <200607012223.47065.dennis@ausil.us> <20060702124644.12b28a88.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <20060805005011.59097ce4@ludwig-alpha> Message-ID: <7dd7ab490608041712s73039c56j8be2df9e75157935@mail.gmail.com> On 8/4/06, Christian Iseli wrote: > Taking a-d into account, I see a reasonable case to take > advantage of FL security fixes for those maintainers still interested > in maintaining packages for old FE releases. It's far from perfect, > but I think it's better than not using FL. +1. It seems to me that running a core release once passed over to legacy w/o legacy updates is akin to using a current core release and disabling the updates repo. > The main problems I see: > - users need to subscribe to FL. IMHO, the proper solution is to add > FL packages to the FC updates like would seem natural. But that's not > FESCo's call. FAB maybe ? One idea -- just brainstorming here -- would be for the last core-released update to a distro going legacy to install & enable the legacy yum repos. > - some FE maintainers don't want to maintain old releases. IMHO, > co-maintainership should help in that case. Or maybe the security SIG, > but they probably have enough on their plate already. Personal opinion here: maintainers/packagers aren't making a lifetime commitment to keeping extras packages for legacy distros up to date. (That being said, I'll probably try to respond to security-related/critical issues with mine.) Co-maintainers (including SIGs acting as such), or maintainers for legacy branches, can help out significantly here. -Chris -- Chris Weyl Ex astris, scientia From toshio at tiki-lounge.com Sat Aug 5 00:50:03 2006 From: toshio at tiki-lounge.com (Toshio Kuratomi) Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 17:50:03 -0700 Subject: Legacy in Build Roots In-Reply-To: <20060805005011.59097ce4@ludwig-alpha> References: <200607012223.47065.dennis@ausil.us> <20060702124644.12b28a88.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <20060805005011.59097ce4@ludwig-alpha> Message-ID: <1154739003.2978.34.camel@localhost> On Sat, 2006-08-05 at 00:50 +0200, Christian Iseli wrote: > Enabling legacy packages in the buildroot was discussed at the last > FESCo meeting. There was some disagreement, but I think the general > feeling went along the following lines: > > a. the FL team takes over maintainership of FC when the FC team EOLs > it. Given that FL is a component of the Fedora project, I see no > reason not to trust them and their better judgement to maintain those > packages > > b. FL is mainly about security fixes > > c. there is no such thing as Extras Legacy, and likely won't be in the > foreseeable future > > d. the impression is that most users keeping old Fedora releases > running subscribe to FL > > Taking a-d into account, I see a reasonable case to take > advantage of FL security fixes for those maintainers still interested > in maintaining packages for old FE releases. It's far from perfect, > but I think it's better than not using FL. > > The main problems I see: > - users need to subscribe to FL. IMHO, the proper solution is to add > FL packages to the FC updates like would seem natural. But that's not > FESCo's call. FAB maybe ? And Fedora Legacy.... > - some FE maintainers don't want to maintain old releases. IMHO, > co-maintainership should help in that case. Or maybe the security SIG, > but they probably have enough on their plate already. If a Fedora Legacy update ends up breaking FE packages, who is going to fix it? Ideally it needs to be someone that wants to fix it. Right now there are a large number of groups which do not want to fix it and a handful of individuals who do. Having those individuals "co-maintain" the packages needing Legacy rebuilds is inefficient. What we need is to organize those individuals into a group that can respond to Legacy issues. There has been a strong contingent against having an FE-Legacy group that mirrors FC-Legacy. The argument seems to be that an FE-Legacy group encourages maintainers to give up maintenance of older releases and assume that the FE-Legacy group will pick up the pieces. The counter arguments are that FC hands off to FL so it is 1) this example which prompts maintainers to expect to stop maintaining at that point and 2) unfair to require volunteer FE packagers to do more work than paid FC packagers. As long as there is a split between Fedora Core and Fedora Legacy there is a precedent for FE packagers to only maintain for the current releases. I think we need to look at long term and short term plans. Long term we might want to get rid of a separate Fedora Legacy -- instead maintainers of both Core and Extras packages (and their teams of co-maintainers) will continue to provide security and major bugfixes to the Legacy releases. A possible short term solution is to start a Legacy SIG which fixes things that break in Legacy FE releases. -Toshio -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From jkeating at redhat.com Sat Aug 5 01:07:17 2006 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 21:07:17 -0400 Subject: Legacy in Build Roots In-Reply-To: <7dd7ab490608041712s73039c56j8be2df9e75157935@mail.gmail.com> References: <200607012223.47065.dennis@ausil.us> <20060805005011.59097ce4@ludwig-alpha> <7dd7ab490608041712s73039c56j8be2df9e75157935@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200608042107.22967.jkeating@redhat.com> On Friday 04 August 2006 20:12, Chris Weyl wrote: > One idea -- just brainstorming here -- would be for the last > core-released update to a distro going legacy to install & enable the > legacy yum repos. With Fedora Core 5, the legacy repo is installed in the fedora-release package. However it is not enabled at this time. I chose not to enable it as we weren't sure where the updates would be published, as my long term goal is to publish into the same place that Fedora updates is published, making the extra Legacy repo unnecessary. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jkeating at redhat.com Sat Aug 5 01:09:11 2006 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 21:09:11 -0400 Subject: Legacy in Build Roots In-Reply-To: <20060805005011.59097ce4@ludwig-alpha> References: <200607012223.47065.dennis@ausil.us> <20060702124644.12b28a88.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <20060805005011.59097ce4@ludwig-alpha> Message-ID: <200608042109.11468.jkeating@redhat.com> On Friday 04 August 2006 18:50, Christian Iseli wrote: > ?- users need to subscribe to FL. ?IMHO, the proper solution is to add > FL packages to the FC updates like would seem natural. ?But that's not > FESCo's call. ?FAB maybe ? This is my long term goal. Getting there is difficult, and I'm working toward it. The first part is getting a CVS system to use, done. Next is moving into the Fedora infrastructure. That work is in progress. Further on we'll be looking into how we can publish our updates into the existing updates directory and prevent the need for extra repos and configurations. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From notting at redhat.com Sat Aug 5 03:07:09 2006 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 23:07:09 -0400 Subject: Drunk on power: FC1 and before.... [was: A Heads-Up: moving all FC3 bugs to "needinfo"] In-Reply-To: <20060713024809.GA27340@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <20060712155848.GA20076@jadzia.bu.edu> <80d7e4090607120916l55c718b1y41a5a558522c227c@mail.gmail.com> <20060712174107.GA25617@jadzia.bu.edu> <20060712175045.GA30012@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <20060712175532.GA26268@jadzia.bu.edu> <20060712195452.GA3323@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <20060712204650.GA1928@jadzia.bu.edu> <20060712221637.GA24754@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <20060712235734.GA8421@jadzia.bu.edu> <20060713024809.GA27340@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <20060805030709.GA3629@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Bill Nottingham (notting at redhat.com) said: > Matthew Miller (mattdm at mattdm.org) said: > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 06:16:37PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: Red Hat > > > Linux was a Red Hat product, sold and supported; if we're going to close > > > out bugs in that, we should really point to the official Red Hat, um, > > > 'descendants.' > > > > Yeah, but ignoring the business side (which I recognize as an important > > side), CentOS is often the best choice for many people stuck on RHL 9 or > > 7.3. And my goal is really to do the best thing for the people who went to > > all the trouble to report a bug. > > Yeah, but really, these could very well be bugs from people who paid Red > Hat money. The more I think about it, I feel it's best that someone from > Red Hat take the task to do this, as it's really our responsiblity. > > Heck, I'll do it, but it may not be tonight. Starting now. Wheee. Bill From mattdm at mattdm.org Sat Aug 5 03:23:06 2006 From: mattdm at mattdm.org (Matthew Miller) Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 23:23:06 -0400 Subject: Drunk on power: FC1 and before.... [was: A Heads-Up: moving all FC3 bugs to "needinfo"] In-Reply-To: <20060805030709.GA3629@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <80d7e4090607120916l55c718b1y41a5a558522c227c@mail.gmail.com> <20060712174107.GA25617@jadzia.bu.edu> <20060712175045.GA30012@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <20060712175532.GA26268@jadzia.bu.edu> <20060712195452.GA3323@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <20060712204650.GA1928@jadzia.bu.edu> <20060712221637.GA24754@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <20060712235734.GA8421@jadzia.bu.edu> <20060713024809.GA27340@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <20060805030709.GA3629@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <20060805032306.GA12381@jadzia.bu.edu> On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 11:07:09PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Starting now. Wheee. Yeah, my inbox noticed. :) -- Matthew Miller mattdm at mattdm.org Boston University Linux ------> From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Sat Aug 5 09:16:03 2006 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2006 11:16:03 +0200 Subject: Legacy in Build Roots In-Reply-To: <1154739003.2978.34.camel@localhost> References: <200607012223.47065.dennis@ausil.us> <20060702124644.12b28a88.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <20060805005011.59097ce4@ludwig-alpha> <1154739003.2978.34.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <1154769363.5840.16.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Le vendredi 04 ao?t 2006 ? 17:50 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi a ?crit : > There has been a strong contingent against having an FE-Legacy group > that mirrors FC-Legacy. The argument seems to be that an FE-Legacy > group encourages maintainers to give up maintenance of older releases > and assume that the FE-Legacy group will pick up the pieces. The > counter arguments are that FC hands off to FL so it is 1) this example > which prompts maintainers to expect to stop maintaining at that point > and 2) unfair to require volunteer FE packagers to do more work than > paid FC packagers. As long as there is a split between Fedora Core and > Fedora Legacy there is a precedent for FE packagers to only maintain for > the current releases. I think both you and the Legacy people misunderstand the meaning of the split for packagers. It's not "since there is a split I'll only maintain current releases" but "I'll only maintain current releases and since there is a split I'll do so till the legacy handover". Without the split I for example would not have been maintaining my packages forever but would have stopped maintenance much sooner (only doing rawhide + current). The split is not a "stop there" but "do at least so much" > Long term we > might want to get rid of a separate Fedora Legacy -- instead maintainers > of both Core and Extras packages (and their teams of co-maintainers) > will continue to provide security and major bugfixes to the Legacy > releases. The current situation has nice commitment limits (granted legacy should move closer to extras but that's a legacy not extras problem). I'll personally oppose at my low maintainer level lifting them. However should they be lifted I think you totally misunderstand what the effect will be. People committed to maintaining every Fedora release under the Sun will continue to do so. Other people (because more releases is more work, which sucks) will probably shift their commitment, either doing less updates to address more releases or less updated releases than now. Either way you look at it Extras quality will go down since maintainers won't be focused on the same releases anymore. In a volunteer project rules do not affect the amount of work people do. They only affect how the volunteers whose to allocate it. Spreading the available work budget over more releases will only benefit Legacy. The Legacy people should remember however a smaller Extras will mean less Fedora users and less Legacy users. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e URL: From toshio at tiki-lounge.com Sat Aug 5 15:38:17 2006 From: toshio at tiki-lounge.com (Toshio Kuratomi) Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2006 08:38:17 -0700 Subject: Legacy in Build Roots In-Reply-To: <1154769363.5840.16.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> References: <200607012223.47065.dennis@ausil.us> <20060702124644.12b28a88.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <20060805005011.59097ce4@ludwig-alpha> <1154739003.2978.34.camel@localhost> <1154769363.5840.16.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <1154792297.3765.56.camel@localhost> On Sat, 2006-08-05 at 11:16 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Le vendredi 04 ao?t 2006 ? 17:50 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi a ?crit : > > I think both you and the Legacy people misunderstand the meaning of the > split for packagers. It's not "since there is a split I'll only maintain > current releases" but "I'll only maintain current releases and since > there is a split I'll do so till the legacy handover". I see your difference in emphasis. This is a policy difference, though. If we define what a packager's responsibilities are (as Michael Schwendt has been pushing for ages) then we will have expectations that align with one of those phrases. The important thing is in drafting that policy we need to be sure we're confirming what Extras Packagers already want. Since packagers are volunteering to do the work the policy has to address what work they are willing to volunteer to do. > Without the split I for example would not have been maintaining my > packages forever but would have stopped maintenance much sooner (only > doing rawhide + current). > Is this true even if there was a split in the level of support? The same packager owns the package from inception to True EOL but there's a place in the middle where maintenance goes from "new features, bugfixes, upgrades" to "fix security issues only"? There is definitely a different mindset and motivation for maintaining packages on each side of that divide; I'm wondering if the difference in audience and mindset is large enough that most packages will require two owners or if "fix security issues" is a small enough amount of work and important enough issue that packagers for current releases would be willing to be responsible for that. In other words what should be our default expectations? Do we need an FE-Legacy group and any current packagers that want to can step in to help or do we have the kind of setup we have now: Package owners are the primary line of defense in fixing security issues (and breakage that falls out of that) and other groups (Security team and Dennis Gilmore currently) step in when the owners bow out? Also note: If Extras packagers are expected to fix issues on Legacy builds Extras packagers should get input on how long Legacy releases were to last. Legacy is not forever, there is a true EOL. If Extras packagers are doing work on Legacy, then they need to have a voice in how long Legacy lasts. > The split is not a "stop there" but "do at least so much" > I think this depends on the packager. That said, I also view it as "do at least so much". > > Long term we > > might want to get rid of a separate Fedora Legacy -- instead maintainers > > of both Core and Extras packages (and their teams of co-maintainers) > > will continue to provide security and major bugfixes to the Legacy > > releases. > > The current situation has nice commitment limits (granted legacy should > move closer to extras but that's a legacy not extras problem). I'll > personally oppose at my low maintainer level lifting them. Could you sum up your reasons? I have: 1) It takes energy away from maintaining packages for the current releases. 2) It is well placed to make maintainers feel comfortable with the level of commitment. > However should they be lifted I think you totally misunderstand what the > effect will be. People committed to maintaining every Fedora release > under the Sun will continue to do so. Other people (because more > releases is more work, which sucks) will probably shift their > commitment, either doing less updates to address more releases or less > updated releases than now. Either way you look at it Extras quality will > go down since maintainers won't be focused on the same releases anymore. > I don't understand your two alternate scenarios for "other people". > In a volunteer project rules do not affect the amount of work people do. > They only affect how the volunteers whose to allocate it. Spreading the > available work budget over more releases will only benefit Legacy. The > Legacy people should remember however a smaller Extras will mean less > Fedora users and less Legacy users. I agree with this. So another way of phrasing this debate would be: Do Extras packagers want to spend their time fixing older releases or creating more packages? -Toshio -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Tue Aug 8 13:28:08 2006 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 15:28:08 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Legacy in Build Roots In-Reply-To: <1154792297.3765.56.camel@localhost> References: <200607012223.47065.dennis@ausil.us> <20060702124644.12b28a88.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <20060805005011.59097ce4@ludwig-alpha> <1154739003.2978.34.camel@localhost> <1154769363.5840.16.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <1154792297.3765.56.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <52505.192.54.193.51.1155043688.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Le Sam 5 ao?t 2006 17:38, Toshio Kuratomi a ?crit : > On Sat, 2006-08-05 at 11:16 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: >> Le vendredi 04 ao?t 2006 ? 17:50 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi a ?crit : Hi Toshio, I'm sorry I took so long to answer, I've spent all too much time contemplating the inadequacy of my answers given the time I could spend on them these days. So in the end I decided a bad reply was better than no reply at all. >> Without the split I for example would not have been maintaining my >> packages forever but would have stopped maintenance much sooner (only >> doing rawhide + current). >> > Is this true even if there was a split in the level of support? The > same packager owns the package from inception to True EOL but there's a > place in the middle where maintenance goes from "new features, bugfixes, > upgrades" to "fix security issues only"? Even "fix security issues only" requires tracking the project and how it interacts with old Fedora releases. Given that a lot of Extra packagers to not patch code this "low level support" is probably almost as much work than "normal level support". Third party repos which do support old releases support them the same way as new releases for this reason. > I'm wondering if the difference in audience and mindset > is large enough that most packages will require two owners or if "fix > security issues" is a small enough amount of work and important enough > issue that packagers for current releases would be willing to be > responsible for that. I'd qualify a security issue release twice the work (or more) of a normal package release, so commiting to doing them is no light decision. (speaking as someone who did make CERT-related package releases) A security alert won't happen at a convenient time. It will require immediate action. It will require tracking upstream and other distro forums closely to get the right fix. It may require good CS skills to evaluate/apply the fix. It will wreak havoc in the personnal life of anyone not doing Fedora packaging as his day job. > In other words what should be our default expectations? Do we need an > FE-Legacy group and any current packagers that want to can step in to > help or do we have the kind of setup we have now: Package owners are the > primary line of defense in fixing security issues (and breakage that > falls out of that) and other groups (Security team and Dennis Gilmore > currently) step in when the owners bow out? There is little to no reward for people not interested in Legacy for doing Legacy work (in fact there is a serious disencentive exactly as for core as it will make more people use releases the packager does not care about instead of the ones he uses/needs) Legacy takes commitment, and unvoluntary commitment (like getting everyone in Legacy instead of making the effort to recruit actual volunteers) will only lead to orphan discoveries at the most inconvenient times. > Also note: If Extras packagers are expected to fix issues on Legacy > builds Extras packagers should get input on how long Legacy releases > were to last. Legacy is not forever, there is a true EOL. If Extras > packagers are doing work on Legacy, then they need to have a voice in > how long Legacy lasts. In other words one way or another Extra packagers doing Legacy work needs to be part of an Extras Legacy group. Honestly at this point I feel refusing to create Extras Legacy is just refusing to admit how few people are interested in such a group. Unmotivated people won't ever make a rapid response force in case of security problems >> In a volunteer project rules do not affect the amount of work people do. >> They only affect how the volunteers whose to allocate it. Spreading the >> available work budget over more releases will only benefit Legacy. The >> Legacy people should remember however a smaller Extras will mean less >> Fedora users and less Legacy users. > > I agree with this. So another way of phrasing this debate would be: Do > Extras packagers want to spend their time fixing older releases or > creating more packages? The only realistic way to know it is create a formal Extras Legacy group, and let people who want to spend their time fixing older releases join it. If you don't create it you won't get any more motivated people and (as a bonus) will lose any level of consistency between the support level of packages for the releases Extras covers today. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot From toshio at tiki-lounge.com Fri Aug 11 00:37:36 2006 From: toshio at tiki-lounge.com (Toshio Kuratomi) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 17:37:36 -0700 Subject: Packaging Guidelines change for python .pyo files Message-ID: <1155256656.3034.74.camel@localhost> Greetings All, In the past the Packaging Guidelines have recommended packagers of python files include the .py and .pyc files directly in the package and %ghost the .pyo files. In a recent discussion on fedora-extras-list[1]_ two problems were found with this. 1) When a .pyo file is not included on the filesystem and a user runs python -O [APP] SELinux will log an AVC Denial into audit.log. From the discussion it seems SELinux rules cannot be adapted to not log this as expected behaviour without also filtering out other behaviour that may not be so benign. 2) If a system administrator runs a python application at the second optimization level (python -OO [APP]) they will create .pyo files that do not have docstrings. Certain applications might break when this happens. Rerunning python at the first optimization level won't overwrite the .pyo file so the application would remain broken until the pyos were manually removed. To solve this, the recommendations for Python Packages are being updated to include .pyos directly and not attempt to %ghost them. [1]_: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-August/msg00208.html This message is both to inform packagers of guidelines changes that they should follow in the future and to allow for discussion if someone knows of a reason this change is not desirable. Thank you, Toshio -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From jkeating at redhat.com Fri Aug 11 15:00:34 2006 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 11:00:34 -0400 Subject: Reminder, Fedora Core 6 is under Feature Freeze Message-ID: <200608111100.34598.jkeating@redhat.com> That means no new features for Core 6. We'll be spending the remaining development time fixing the bugs that have accumulated for the versions of software we're shipping. There are some obvious exceptions to this list. Kernel is steaming forward, and we are continuing to move toward the next gnome release. These should be the only exceptions. Please make an effort to make sure you aren't introducing new features in your package updates. Thank you! -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From fedora at leemhuis.info Fri Aug 11 16:28:31 2006 From: fedora at leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 18:28:31 +0200 Subject: FYI: Fedora Extras 4 in Maintenance state, FC-4 branches need to be permitted by FESCo Message-ID: <44DCB02F.8070605@leemhuis.info> Replies to fedora-extras-list only please to avoid confusion. Hi all! just a heads up: Now that Fedora Core 4 was transfered to Fedora Legacy Fedora Extras 4 is in Maintenance state now, too. See http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Security/EOLPolicy for details. That why http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/CVSSyncNeeded now contains: > FC-3 and FC-4 branches require FESCo approval and are generally > discouraged. There are still some branch requests for FC-4. I suggest we create those and stop from now on. Further please keep the following in mind now when building for FE3 or FE4 (quoted from the EOL Policy page): > In this [Maintenance] state maintainers will be allowed to issue updates to > existing packages, but Maintainers are strongly urged to only issue > severe bugfix or security fixes. New software versions should be > avoided except when necessary for resolving issues with the the > current version. Thanks for your attention and your work in Fedora Extras. CU thl From tcallawa at redhat.com Tue Aug 15 16:43:12 2006 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom Callaway) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 11:43:12 -0500 Subject: Package Removal: macutils Message-ID: <1155660192.4727.12.camel@dhcp83-191.boston.redhat.com> As part of Fedora's ongoing commitment to Free Software, we have been undergoing a license audit of the packages contained in Fedora Core. The macutils package was found to have no valid license or copyright, and questionable lineage. Since nothing depends on macutils, this was a trivial package to remove, and it has been taken out of Fedora Core starting with FC-6. Full details are in the bugzilla report here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202518 ~spot -- Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Technical Team Lead || GPG ID: 93054260 Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices) Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my! From orion at cora.nwra.com Tue Aug 15 16:47:56 2006 From: orion at cora.nwra.com (Orion Poplawski) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 10:47:56 -0600 Subject: Package Removal: macutils In-Reply-To: <1155660192.4727.12.camel@dhcp83-191.boston.redhat.com> References: <1155660192.4727.12.camel@dhcp83-191.boston.redhat.com> Message-ID: <44E1FABC.3060403@cora.nwra.com> Tom Callaway wrote: > As part of Fedora's ongoing commitment to Free Software, we have been > undergoing a license audit of the packages contained in Fedora Core. > > The macutils package was found to have no valid license or copyright, > and questionable lineage. Since nothing depends on macutils, this was a > trivial package to remove, and it has been taken out of Fedora Core > starting with FC-6. > > Full details are in the bugzilla report here: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202518 > > ~spot I've made use of it in the past as an end user. Is there any kind of replacement out there for dealing with Mac format files? -- Orion Poplawski System Administrator 303-415-9701 x222 NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane orion at cora.nwra.com Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com From tcallawa at redhat.com Tue Aug 15 16:58:49 2006 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom Callaway) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 11:58:49 -0500 Subject: Package Removal: macutils In-Reply-To: <44E1FABC.3060403@cora.nwra.com> References: <1155660192.4727.12.camel@dhcp83-191.boston.redhat.com> <44E1FABC.3060403@cora.nwra.com> Message-ID: <1155661129.4727.17.camel@dhcp83-191.boston.redhat.com> On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 10:47 -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote: > Tom Callaway wrote: > > As part of Fedora's ongoing commitment to Free Software, we have been > > undergoing a license audit of the packages contained in Fedora Core. > > > > The macutils package was found to have no valid license or copyright, > > and questionable lineage. Since nothing depends on macutils, this was a > > trivial package to remove, and it has been taken out of Fedora Core > > starting with FC-6. > > > > Full details are in the bugzilla report here: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202518 > > > > ~spot > > I've made use of it in the past as an end user. Is there any kind of > replacement out there for dealing with Mac format files? macutils has: - bin/hex converters (perl has Convert::Binhex) - apps to send files to and from OLD macs (I'm not aware of any other apps) ~spot From pertusus at free.fr Tue Aug 15 16:58:04 2006 From: pertusus at free.fr (Patrice Dumas) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 18:58:04 +0200 Subject: Package Removal: macutils In-Reply-To: <1155660192.4727.12.camel@dhcp83-191.boston.redhat.com> References: <1155660192.4727.12.camel@dhcp83-191.boston.redhat.com> Message-ID: <20060815165804.GB21075@free.fr> On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 11:43:12AM -0500, Tom Callaway wrote: > As part of Fedora's ongoing commitment to Free Software, we have been > undergoing a license audit of the packages contained in Fedora Core. I guess almost everybody knows that allready, but openmotif isn't free software while lesstif is. As far as I know everything that links against motif is known to work when linked against lesstif, but I may be wrong. (and sorry to disturb the thread, but I couldn't resist...). -- Pat From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Tue Aug 15 17:20:59 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 22:50:59 +0530 Subject: Package Removal: macutils In-Reply-To: <20060815165804.GB21075@free.fr> References: <1155660192.4727.12.camel@dhcp83-191.boston.redhat.com> <20060815165804.GB21075@free.fr> Message-ID: <44E2027B.1000001@fedoraproject.org> Patrice Dumas wrote: > On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 11:43:12AM -0500, Tom Callaway wrote: >> As part of Fedora's ongoing commitment to Free Software, we have been >> undergoing a license audit of the packages contained in Fedora Core. > > I guess almost everybody knows that allready, but openmotif isn't free > software while lesstif is. As far as I know everything that links against > motif is known to work when linked against lesstif, but I may be wrong. > > (and sorry to disturb the thread, but I couldn't resist...). > Yes, Openmotif is the list of packages getting chucked out of Fedora Core https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2006-August/msg00227.html Rahul From dcantrell at redhat.com Tue Aug 15 19:24:45 2006 From: dcantrell at redhat.com (David Cantrell) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 15:24:45 -0400 Subject: Package Removal: macutils In-Reply-To: <1155661129.4727.17.camel@dhcp83-191.boston.redhat.com> References: <1155660192.4727.12.camel@dhcp83-191.boston.redhat.com> <44E1FABC.3060403@cora.nwra.com> <1155661129.4727.17.camel@dhcp83-191.boston.redhat.com> Message-ID: <44E21F7D.8050005@redhat.com> Tom Callaway wrote: > On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 10:47 -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote: >> Tom Callaway wrote: >>> As part of Fedora's ongoing commitment to Free Software, we have been >>> undergoing a license audit of the packages contained in Fedora Core. >>> >>> The macutils package was found to have no valid license or copyright, >>> and questionable lineage. Since nothing depends on macutils, this was a >>> trivial package to remove, and it has been taken out of Fedora Core >>> starting with FC-6. >>> >>> Full details are in the bugzilla report here: >>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202518 >>> >>> ~spot >> I've made use of it in the past as an end user. Is there any kind of >> replacement out there for dealing with Mac format files? > > macutils has: > > - bin/hex converters (perl has Convert::Binhex) > - apps to send files to and from OLD macs (I'm not aware of any other > apps) There's hfsutils for reading/writing high density HFS floppies (and other HFS media). netatalk was useful in the past to share files with pre-OSX Macs. -- David Cantrell Red Hat / Westford, MA From jkeating at redhat.com Thu Aug 17 19:31:12 2006 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 15:31:12 -0400 Subject: It's time to play that Name Game again! Message-ID: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> We need to get a good list of names that we can push through legal as acceptable. Once we have a list of 8 or so names, then we could do some voting by donating. You as the maintainers get to generate the list of names to vote in, just a small way of saying Thank You. It is less of a secret now that names are related to each other. FC2 was Tettnang, FC3 was Heidelberg, FC4 was Stentz, and FC5 is Bordeaux What we need is a name that is related to Bordeaux, but not in the same way that Bordeaux is related to Stentz. Extra credit if there is a semi-easy way out of the name for FC7. Please start discussing, I'd like to have a list of good names to throw at Legal later next week. PS: The suggestion that won last year was: Why not "Bordeaux" ? In France, Aim? Stentz is a pretty big wine producer.. :) So obviously can't really be an Alcohol theme. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mattdm at mattdm.org Thu Aug 17 19:31:37 2006 From: mattdm at mattdm.org (Matthew Miller) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 15:31:37 -0400 Subject: It's time to play that Name Game again! In-Reply-To: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20060817193137.GA4605@jadzia.bu.edu> On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 03:31:12PM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > FC2 was Tettnang, FC3 was Heidelberg, FC4 was Stentz, and FC5 is Bordeaux > What we need is a name that is related to Bordeaux, but not in the same > way that Bordeaux is related to Stentz. Extra credit if there is a > semi-easy way out of the name for FC7. "Checkmate"? -- Matthew Miller mattdm at mattdm.org Boston University Linux ------> From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org Thu Aug 17 19:32:18 2006 From: jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org (Josh Boyer) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 14:32:18 -0500 Subject: It's time to play that Name Game again! In-Reply-To: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1155843139.6626.6.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> On Thu, 2006-08-17 at 15:31 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > We need to get a good list of names that we can push through legal as > acceptable. Once we have a list of 8 or so names, then we could do some > voting by donating. You as the maintainers get to generate the list of > names to vote in, just a small way of saying Thank You. > > It is less of a secret now that names are related to each other. > > FC2 was Tettnang, FC3 was Heidelberg, FC4 was Stentz, and FC5 is Bordeaux > What we need is a name that is related to Bordeaux, but not in the same way > that Bordeaux is related to Stentz. Extra credit if there is a semi-easy way > out of the name for FC7. > > Please start discussing, I'd like to have a list of good names to throw > at Legal later next week. Zod. Relationship: Zod rules everything, including Bordeaux. /me runs. josh From jkeating at redhat.com Thu Aug 17 19:39:13 2006 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 15:39:13 -0400 Subject: It's time to play that Name Game again! In-Reply-To: <20060817193137.GA4605@jadzia.bu.edu> References: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> <20060817193137.GA4605@jadzia.bu.edu> Message-ID: <200608171539.13476.jkeating@redhat.com> On Thursday 17 August 2006 15:31, Matthew Miller wrote: > "Checkmate"? Relationship? -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From notting at redhat.com Thu Aug 17 19:36:08 2006 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 15:36:08 -0400 Subject: It's time to play that Name Game again! In-Reply-To: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20060817193608.GA23485@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Bordeaux is ... - a city in France Paris, Lyon, Nice, Nancy, Le Mans, etc. - a dog breed Retriever, Pointer, Greyhound, Shitzu - a suburb of Johannesburg, SA Sorry, I've got nothing - a DC comics character Batman, Joker... ZOD! Hee. Bill From gdk at redhat.com Thu Aug 17 19:35:01 2006 From: gdk at redhat.com (Greg DeKoenigsberg) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 15:35:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: It's time to play that Name Game again! In-Reply-To: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: My $0.02: FC5 Bordeaux => FC6 Nancy (cities in France) FC6 Nancy => FC7 Sluggo (characters in the comic strip "Nancy") --g ------------------------------------------------------------- Greg DeKoenigsberg || Fedora Project || fedoraproject.org Be an Ambassador || http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors ------------------------------------------------------------- On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Jesse Keating wrote: > We need to get a good list of names that we can push through legal as > acceptable. Once we have a list of 8 or so names, then we could do some > voting by donating. You as the maintainers get to generate the list of > names to vote in, just a small way of saying Thank You. > > It is less of a secret now that names are related to each other. > > FC2 was Tettnang, FC3 was Heidelberg, FC4 was Stentz, and FC5 is Bordeaux > What we need is a name that is related to Bordeaux, but not in the same way > that Bordeaux is related to Stentz. Extra credit if there is a semi-easy way > out of the name for FC7. > > Please start discussing, I'd like to have a list of good names to throw > at Legal later next week. > > PS: The suggestion that won last year was: > > Why not "Bordeaux" ? > > In France, Aim? Stentz is a pretty big wine producer.. :) > > So obviously can't really be an Alcohol theme. > > > -- > Jesse Keating > Release Engineer: Fedora > From mattdm at mattdm.org Thu Aug 17 19:39:57 2006 From: mattdm at mattdm.org (Matthew Miller) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 15:39:57 -0400 Subject: It's time to play that Name Game again! In-Reply-To: <200608171539.13476.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> <20060817193137.GA4605@jadzia.bu.edu> <200608171539.13476.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20060817193957.GA5385@jadzia.bu.edu> On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 03:39:13PM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > > "Checkmate"? > Relationship? What, I have to tell? :) Actually.... -- Matthew Miller mattdm at mattdm.org Boston University Linux ------> From jkeating at redhat.com Thu Aug 17 19:44:21 2006 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 15:44:21 -0400 Subject: It's time to play that Name Game again! In-Reply-To: References: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <200608171544.21924.jkeating@redhat.com> On Thursday 17 August 2006 15:35, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > ? (cities in France) Bah. Cities are so overdone. Lets get more creative this time around.... -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Aug 17 19:46:11 2006 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom 'spot' Callaway) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 14:46:11 -0500 Subject: It's time to play that Name Game again! In-Reply-To: <200608171544.21924.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> <200608171544.21924.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1155843971.2578.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2006-08-17 at 15:44 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Thursday 17 August 2006 15:35, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > > (cities in France) > > Bah. Cities are so overdone. Lets get more creative this time around.... Just do Zod. We can always go from him to _any_ movie character ever. ;) ~spot -- Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Technical Team Lead || GPG ID: 93054260 Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices) Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my! From gdk at redhat.com Thu Aug 17 19:43:44 2006 From: gdk at redhat.com (Greg DeKoenigsberg) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 15:43:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: It's time to play that Name Game again! In-Reply-To: <200608171544.21924.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> <200608171544.21924.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Thursday 17 August 2006 15:35, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > > ? (cities in France) > > Bah. Cities are so overdone. Lets get more creative this time around.... I just wanted to get to Sluggo. I think that Sluggo will be a *perfect* name for FC7. --g ------------------------------------------------------------- Greg DeKoenigsberg || Fedora Project || fedoraproject.org Be an Ambassador || http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors ------------------------------------------------------------- From garrick at usc.edu Thu Aug 17 19:46:17 2006 From: garrick at usc.edu (Garrick Staples) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:46:17 -0700 Subject: It's time to play that Name Game again! In-Reply-To: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20060817194617.GL4324@polop.usc.edu> On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 03:31:12PM -0400, Jesse Keating alleged: > We need to get a good list of names that we can push through legal as > acceptable. Once we have a list of 8 or so names, then we could do some > voting by donating. You as the maintainers get to generate the list of > names to vote in, just a small way of saying Thank You. > > It is less of a secret now that names are related to each other. > > FC2 was Tettnang, FC3 was Heidelberg, FC4 was Stentz, and FC5 is Bordeaux > What we need is a name that is related to Bordeaux, but not in the same way > that Bordeaux is related to Stentz. Extra credit if there is a semi-easy way > out of the name for FC7. > > Please start discussing, I'd like to have a list of good names to throw > at Legal later next week. Garonne. The city of Bordeaux is built on the Garonne River. Aquitaine. That is the name of the region in France. (probably will be misspelled often.) -- Garrick Staples, Linux/HPCC Administrator University of Southern California -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dcantrell at redhat.com Thu Aug 17 19:55:29 2006 From: dcantrell at redhat.com (David Cantrell) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 15:55:29 -0400 Subject: It's time to play that Name Game again! In-Reply-To: <200608171544.21924.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> <200608171544.21924.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <44E4C9B1.3010209@redhat.com> Jesse Keating wrote: > On Thursday 17 August 2006 15:35, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: >> (cities in France) > > Bah. Cities are so overdone. Lets get more creative this time around.... Hypnotoad -- David Cantrell Red Hat / Westford, MA From notting at redhat.com Thu Aug 17 20:00:17 2006 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:00:17 -0400 Subject: It's time to play that Name Game again! In-Reply-To: <20060817193608.GA23485@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> <20060817193608.GA23485@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <20060817200017.GB23485@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Bill Nottingham (notting at redhat.com) said: > - a dog breed > Retriever, Pointer, Greyhound, Shitzu More dog breeds that sound reasonably interesting (to me at least): Briard, Papillon, Boxer, Malamute, Dacshund, Chug, Bloodhound, Harrier, Dingo, Saluki, Puggle... Bill From ajackson at redhat.com Thu Aug 17 20:00:40 2006 From: ajackson at redhat.com (Adam Jackson) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:00:40 -0400 Subject: It's time to play that Name Game again! In-Reply-To: <20060817193608.GA23485@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> <20060817193608.GA23485@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <44E4CAE8.2010905@redhat.com> Bill Nottingham wrote: > Bordeaux is ... > > - a city in France > Paris, Lyon, Nice, Nancy, Le Mans, etc. > - a dog breed > Retriever, Pointer, Greyhound, Shitzu > - a suburb of Johannesburg, SA > Sorry, I've got nothing > - a DC comics character > Batman, Joker... ZOD! - Cerise (also a Marvel comics character) - Cardinal (birds) - ajax (not a synonym for red) From jamatos at fc.up.pt Thu Aug 17 20:07:26 2006 From: jamatos at fc.up.pt (=?iso-8859-1?q?Jos=E9_Matos?=) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 21:07:26 +0100 Subject: It's time to play that Name Game again! In-Reply-To: <20060817193608.GA23485@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> <20060817193608.GA23485@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <200608172107.26911.jamatos@fc.up.pt> On Thursday 17 August 2006 20:36, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Bordeaux is ... > > - a city in France > ? Paris, Lyon, Nice, Nancy, Le Mans, etc. > - a dog breed > ? Retriever, Pointer, Greyhound, Shitzu > - a suburb of Johannesburg, SA > ? Sorry, I've got nothing > - a DC comics character > ? Batman, Joker... ZOD! - a colo(u)r :-) the same as the red version of the wine - (bordeaux mixture) a fungicide made by reaction of copper sulfate, lime, and water, this is usually used to treat the vineyards. It is still used in the last application before collecting the grapes, at least it was done last time I did that (some years ago). :-) > Hee. > > Bill -- Jos? Ab?lio From chris.stone at gmail.com Thu Aug 17 20:11:41 2006 From: chris.stone at gmail.com (Christopher Stone) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 13:11:41 -0700 Subject: It's time to play that Name Game again! In-Reply-To: <200608172107.26911.jamatos@fc.up.pt> References: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> <20060817193608.GA23485@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <200608172107.26911.jamatos@fc.up.pt> Message-ID: +1 for zod/sluggo ;-) From jjohnstn at redhat.com Thu Aug 17 20:12:52 2006 From: jjohnstn at redhat.com (Jeff Johnston) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:12:52 -0400 Subject: It's time to play that Name Game again! In-Reply-To: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <44E4CDC4.2050605@redhat.com> Bordeaux cherry -> Maraschino Jesse Keating wrote: > We need to get a good list of names that we can push through legal as > acceptable. Once we have a list of 8 or so names, then we could do some > voting by donating. You as the maintainers get to generate the list of > names to vote in, just a small way of saying Thank You. > > It is less of a secret now that names are related to each other. > > FC2 was Tettnang, FC3 was Heidelberg, FC4 was Stentz, and FC5 is Bordeaux > What we need is a name that is related to Bordeaux, but not in the same way > that Bordeaux is related to Stentz. Extra credit if there is a semi-easy way > out of the name for FC7. > > Please start discussing, I'd like to have a list of good names to throw > at Legal later next week. > > PS: The suggestion that won last year was: > > Why not "Bordeaux" ? > > In France, Aim? Stentz is a pretty big wine producer.. :) > > So obviously can't really be an Alcohol theme. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > -- > Fedora-maintainers mailing list > Fedora-maintainers at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers From notting at redhat.com Thu Aug 17 20:17:13 2006 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:17:13 -0400 Subject: It's time to play that Name Game again! In-Reply-To: <200608172107.26911.jamatos@fc.up.pt> References: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> <20060817193608.GA23485@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <200608172107.26911.jamatos@fc.up.pt> Message-ID: <20060817201713.GA23949@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Jos? Matos (jamatos at fc.up.pt) said: > - (bordeaux mixture) a fungicide made by reaction of copper sulfate, lime, > and water, this is usually used to treat the vineyards. It is still used in > the last application before collecting the grapes, at least it was done last > time I did that (some years ago). :-) Ooh, Agent Orange! Bill From misa at redhat.com Thu Aug 17 20:30:14 2006 From: misa at redhat.com (Mihai Ibanescu) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:30:14 -0400 Subject: It's time to play that Name Game again! In-Reply-To: <20060817193608.GA23485@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> <20060817193608.GA23485@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <20060817203014.GI9424@abulafia.devel.redhat.com> On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 03:36:08PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Bordeaux is ... > > - a city in France > Paris, Lyon, Nice, Nancy, Le Mans, etc. > - a dog breed > Retriever, Pointer, Greyhound, Shitzu > - a suburb of Johannesburg, SA > Sorry, I've got nothing > - a DC comics character > Batman, Joker... ZOD! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mayors_of_Bordeaux There are some good ones: Sandwich, Brandenburg, Cousteau Soccer (football) players for FC Girondins de Bordeaux: Ferrari, Zidane (hehe), Tresor, Dropsy Suburbs in Region 3 of Johannesburg: Riviera, Melrose, Victoria, Norwood, Fontainebleu, Sandown (also a motor racing circuit in Australia) Misa From paul at city-fan.org Thu Aug 17 20:35:09 2006 From: paul at city-fan.org (Paul Howarth) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 21:35:09 +0100 Subject: It's time to play that Name Game again! In-Reply-To: <20060817203014.GI9424@abulafia.devel.redhat.com> References: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> <20060817193608.GA23485@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <20060817203014.GI9424@abulafia.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1155846909.12345.7.camel@metropolis.intra.city-fan.org> On Thu, 2006-08-17 at 16:30 -0400, Mihai Ibanescu wrote: > On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 03:36:08PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > > Bordeaux is ... > > > > - a city in France > > Paris, Lyon, Nice, Nancy, Le Mans, etc. > > - a dog breed > > Retriever, Pointer, Greyhound, Shitzu > > - a suburb of Johannesburg, SA > > Sorry, I've got nothing > > - a DC comics character > > Batman, Joker... ZOD! > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mayors_of_Bordeaux > > There are some good ones: > Sandwich, Brandenburg, Cousteau > > Soccer (football) players for FC Girondins de Bordeaux: > Ferrari, Zidane (hehe), Tresor, Dropsy Zidane would be particularly appropriate for FC6 given that he's retired after the World Cup final recently. One of the all-time greats despite his misdemeanor in that last game. Paul. From jkeating at redhat.com Thu Aug 17 20:40:09 2006 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:40:09 -0400 Subject: It's time to play that Name Game again! In-Reply-To: <1155846909.12345.7.camel@metropolis.intra.city-fan.org> References: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> <20060817203014.GI9424@abulafia.devel.redhat.com> <1155846909.12345.7.camel@metropolis.intra.city-fan.org> Message-ID: <200608171640.10129.jkeating@redhat.com> On Thursday 17 August 2006 16:35, Paul Howarth wrote: > Zidane would be particularly appropriate for FC6 given that he's retired > after the World Cup final recently. One of the all-time greats despite > his misdemeanor in that last game. Will we be headbutting the competition with this release? -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From oliver at linux-kernel.at Thu Aug 17 20:43:34 2006 From: oliver at linux-kernel.at (Oliver Falk) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 22:43:34 +0200 Subject: It's time to play that Name Game again! In-Reply-To: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <44E4D4F6.9010604@linux-kernel.at> Jesse Keating wrote: > We need to get a good list of names that we can push through legal as > acceptable. Once we have a list of 8 or so names, then we could do some > voting by donating. You as the maintainers get to generate the list of > names to vote in, just a small way of saying Thank You. > > It is less of a secret now that names are related to each other. > > FC2 was Tettnang, FC3 was Heidelberg, FC4 was Stentz, and FC5 is Bordeaux > What we need is a name that is related to Bordeaux, but not in the same way > that Bordeaux is related to Stentz. Extra credit if there is a semi-easy way > out of the name for FC7. > > Please start discussing, I'd like to have a list of good names to throw > at Legal later next week. > > PS: The suggestion that won last year was: > > Why not "Bordeaux" ? > > In France, Aim? Stentz is a pretty big wine producer.. :) > > So obviously can't really be an Alcohol theme. Bad. No beer. :-) Have a few in mind: - Goethe (after the Goethe Institute Bordeaux - http://www.goethe.de) - Margaux - don't need to explain. Simple google. same with Pauillac or Fronsac and Pomerol - Vienna (I used to live there - it's a city, you know; in Austria :-)) Oh yes, that's it. -of From gdk at redhat.com Thu Aug 17 20:48:20 2006 From: gdk at redhat.com (Greg DeKoenigsberg) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:48:20 -0400 (EDT) Subject: It's time to play that Name Game again! In-Reply-To: <44E4D4F6.9010604@linux-kernel.at> References: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> <44E4D4F6.9010604@linux-kernel.at> Message-ID: On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Oliver Falk wrote: > - Vienna (I used to live there - it's a city, you know; in Austria :-)) Isn't that near Sydney? I hear they make great sausages. :) --g (ugly American) ------------------------------------------------------------- Greg DeKoenigsberg || Fedora Project || fedoraproject.org Be an Ambassador || http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors ------------------------------------------------------------- From oliver at linux-kernel.at Thu Aug 17 20:51:43 2006 From: oliver at linux-kernel.at (Oliver Falk) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 22:51:43 +0200 Subject: It's time to play that Name Game again! In-Reply-To: <20060817193137.GA4605@jadzia.bu.edu> References: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> <20060817193137.GA4605@jadzia.bu.edu> Message-ID: <44E4D6DF.4080208@linux-kernel.at> Matthew Miller wrote: > On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 03:31:12PM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: >> FC2 was Tettnang, FC3 was Heidelberg, FC4 was Stentz, and FC5 is Bordeaux >> What we need is a name that is related to Bordeaux, but not in the same >> way that Bordeaux is related to Stentz. Extra credit if there is a >> semi-easy way out of the name for FC7. > > "Checkmate"? Explanation? -of From mattdm at mattdm.org Thu Aug 17 20:53:46 2006 From: mattdm at mattdm.org (Matthew Miller) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:53:46 -0400 Subject: It's time to play that Name Game again! In-Reply-To: <1155846909.12345.7.camel@metropolis.intra.city-fan.org> References: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> <20060817193608.GA23485@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <20060817203014.GI9424@abulafia.devel.redhat.com> <1155846909.12345.7.camel@metropolis.intra.city-fan.org> Message-ID: <20060817205346.GA9447@jadzia.bu.edu> On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 09:35:09PM +0100, Paul Howarth wrote: > > Soccer (football) players for FC Girondins de Bordeaux: > > Ferrari, Zidane (hehe), Tresor, Dropsy > Zidane would be particularly appropriate for FC6 given that he's retired > after the World Cup final recently. One of the all-time greats despite > his misdemeanor in that last game. Ooh, that's good. -- Matthew Miller mattdm at mattdm.org Boston University Linux ------> From alan at redhat.com Thu Aug 17 21:02:18 2006 From: alan at redhat.com (Alan Cox) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 17:02:18 -0400 Subject: It's time to play that Name Game again! In-Reply-To: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20060817210218.GC22884@devserv.devel.redhat.com> On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 03:31:12PM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > FC2 was Tettnang, FC3 was Heidelberg, FC4 was Stentz, and FC5 is Bordeaux > What we need is a name that is related to Bordeaux, but not in the same way > that Bordeaux is related to Stentz. Extra credit if there is a semi-easy way > out of the name for FC7. > > Please start discussing, I'd like to have a list of good names to throw > at Legal later next week. > > PS: The suggestion that won last year was: > > Why not "Bordeaux" ? > > In France, Aim? Stentz is a pretty big wine producer.. :) > > So obviously can't really be an Alcohol theme. Edinburgh ? (Film festivals) Bourget (French writers) Wayne (Sasha Bordeaux->Bruce Wayne) (and then we can go to rhapsody (bo'rap from Waynes world) Zod (Because) SanJose (Places whose mayors had to resign in scandals) [lots of options there ;)] (Ideally somewhere where it was also an ex PM tho...) Pitbull (Dogue de Bordeaux - dog fighting dogs) rottweiler tosa boxer From alan at redhat.com Thu Aug 17 21:03:33 2006 From: alan at redhat.com (Alan Cox) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 17:03:33 -0400 Subject: It's time to play that Name Game again! In-Reply-To: <20060817193957.GA5385@jadzia.bu.edu> References: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> <20060817193137.GA4605@jadzia.bu.edu> <200608171539.13476.jkeating@redhat.com> <20060817193957.GA5385@jadzia.bu.edu> Message-ID: <20060817210333.GD22884@devserv.devel.redhat.com> On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 03:39:57PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 03:39:13PM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > > > "Checkmate"? > > Relationship? > > What, I have to tell? :) > > Actually.... And I was thinking something literary like Huon of Bordeaux 8) From oliver at linux-kernel.at Thu Aug 17 21:05:41 2006 From: oliver at linux-kernel.at (Oliver Falk) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 23:05:41 +0200 Subject: It's time to play that Name Game again! In-Reply-To: <20060817210333.GD22884@devserv.devel.redhat.com> References: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> <20060817193137.GA4605@jadzia.bu.edu> <200608171539.13476.jkeating@redhat.com> <20060817193957.GA5385@jadzia.bu.edu> <20060817210333.GD22884@devserv.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <44E4DA25.6070108@linux-kernel.at> Alan Cox wrote: > On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 03:39:57PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 03:39:13PM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: >>>> "Checkmate"? >>> Relationship? >> What, I have to tell? :) >> >> Actually.... > > And I was thinking something literary like Huon of Bordeaux 8) Alan's still the best :-) -of From alan at redhat.com Thu Aug 17 21:06:29 2006 From: alan at redhat.com (Alan Cox) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 17:06:29 -0400 Subject: It's time to play that Name Game again! In-Reply-To: References: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> <200608171544.21924.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20060817210629.GE22884@devserv.devel.redhat.com> On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 03:43:44PM -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > > Bah. Cities are so overdone. Lets get more creative this time around.... > > I just wanted to get to Sluggo. I think that Sluggo will be a *perfect* > name for FC7. There are so many Sluggo trademarks in the database - and some are computing related (its a font) or would get in the way (t shirts etc) I find it funny its a trademark for a slug killer and a resturant 8) Alan From bressers at redhat.com Thu Aug 17 21:21:49 2006 From: bressers at redhat.com (Josh Bressers) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 17:21:49 -0400 Subject: It's time to play that Name Game again! In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:00:17 EDT." <20060817200017.GB23485@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <200608172121.k7HLLnnw028939@devserv.devel.redhat.com> > Bill Nottingham (notting at redhat.com) said: > > - a dog breed > > Retriever, Pointer, Greyhound, Shitzu > > More dog breeds that sound reasonably interesting (to me at least): > > Briard, Papillon, Boxer, Malamute, Dacshund, Chug, Bloodhound, Harrier, > Dingo, Saluki, Puggle... > Mutt or Mongrel :) /me runs -- JB From icon at fedoraproject.org Thu Aug 17 21:07:20 2006 From: icon at fedoraproject.org (Konstantin Ryabitsev) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 17:07:20 -0400 Subject: It's time to play that Name Game again! In-Reply-To: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: On 8/17/06, Jesse Keating wrote: > PS: The suggestion that won last year was: > > Why not "Bordeaux" ? I'm still bitter about *that* winning over "Trance." Hmph. :) I'll throw in: Bordeaux -> Sienna (colours) Sienna -> Jade (PvP characters*) and Jade is easy to tie to stones. [*] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PvP#Characters -- Konstantin Ryabitsev Montr?al, Qu?bec From oliver at linux-kernel.at Thu Aug 17 21:41:17 2006 From: oliver at linux-kernel.at (Oliver Falk) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 23:41:17 +0200 Subject: It's time to play that Name Game again! In-Reply-To: References: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <44E4E27D.3090407@linux-kernel.at> Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote: > On 8/17/06, Jesse Keating wrote: >> PS: The suggestion that won last year was: >> >> Why not "Bordeaux" ? > > I'm still bitter about *that* winning over "Trance." Hmph. :) Me too. My idea. :-\ -of From jamatos at fc.up.pt Thu Aug 17 21:57:11 2006 From: jamatos at fc.up.pt (=?utf-8?q?Jos=C3=A9_Matos?=) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 22:57:11 +0100 Subject: It's time to play that Name Game again! In-Reply-To: <44E4E27D.3090407@linux-kernel.at> References: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> <44E4E27D.3090407@linux-kernel.at> Message-ID: <200608172257.11788.jamatos@fc.up.pt> On Thursday 17 August 2006 22:41, Oliver Falk wrote: > > I'm still bitter about *that* winning over "Trance." Hmph. :) > > Me too. My idea. :-\ Count me in. ;-) Does that means that we can take a beverage while looking to a melancholic sunset? ;-) > -of -- Jos? Ab?lio From fedora at camperquake.de Thu Aug 17 22:03:22 2006 From: fedora at camperquake.de (Ralf Ertzinger) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 00:03:22 +0200 Subject: It's time to play that Name Game again! In-Reply-To: <20060817210218.GC22884@devserv.devel.redhat.com> References: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> <20060817210218.GC22884@devserv.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <20060818000322.4cfc6a36@nausicaa.camperquake.de> Hi. Alan Cox wrote: > Wayne (Sasha Bordeaux->Bruce Wayne) Oooh, I like that one. -- "The Lambada is just having sex without taking your clothes off first." -- Paul Menage From wolters.liste at gmx.net Thu Aug 17 22:13:46 2006 From: wolters.liste at gmx.net (Roland Wolters) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 00:13:46 +0200 Subject: It's time to play that Name Game again! In-Reply-To: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <200608180014.03280.wolters.liste@gmx.net> Once upon a time Jesse Keating wrote: > FC2 was Tettnang, FC3 was Heidelberg, FC4 was Stentz, and FC5 is Bordeaux > What we need is a name that is related to Bordeaux, but not in the same way > that Bordeaux is related to Stentz. Extra credit if there is a semi-easy > way out of the name for FC7. > About the names: is there a good overview how the names are related to each other? For the old Red Hat names we had http://web.archive.org/web/20050223032029/http://smoogespace.com/documents/behind_the_names.html but the Fedora Core names are somewhat unclear. The german Wikipedia has an article about that: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedora_und_Red_Hat_Versionsnamen But there the connections between the versions is not clear, and the connection between Heidelberg, Stentz and Bordeaux is Wine everytime, which would be against the rules (and boring!). I tried to go through the mail lists, but that was a bit too much to read... > Please start discussing, I'd like to have a list of good names to throw > at Legal later next week. Afaik Bordeaux is also, although not mentioned in the wikipedia, a color - therefore the name for 6 could be: - "Magenta", which is a colour *and* a charakter from the Rocky Horror Picture Show - Ostwald, which is a colouring system (see http://home.arcor.de/wilhelm-ostwald/ostweng/thomas.htm ) and also the name of the nobel price winner who invented this system. A name for FC7 could be another charakter from or around the Horror Show or another Nobel Price winner. So far, Roland -- "Keinem vern?nftigen Menschen wird es einfallen, Tintenflecken mit Tinte, ?lflecken mit ?l wegwaschen zu wollen. Nur Blut soll immer wieder mit Blut abgewaschen werden." -- Bertha von Suttner -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From nalin at redhat.com Thu Aug 17 22:20:38 2006 From: nalin at redhat.com (Nalin Dahyabhai) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 18:20:38 -0400 Subject: It's time to play that Name Game again! In-Reply-To: <200608180014.03280.wolters.liste@gmx.net> References: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> <200608180014.03280.wolters.liste@gmx.net> Message-ID: <20060817222037.GA14719@redhat.com> On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 12:13:46AM +0200, Roland Wolters wrote: > But there the connections between the versions is not clear, and the > connection between Heidelberg, Stentz and Bordeaux is Wine everytime, which > would be against the rules (and boring!). I tried to go through the mail > lists, but that was a bit too much to read... Historically, the relationship was something you could express as "A and B are both [take your pick]." In keeping with that tradition, I suggest "Lancaster". And before anyone asks, the link is *not* "cities in Europe". Cheers, Nalin From steve at kspei.com Thu Aug 17 22:37:21 2006 From: steve at kspei.com (Steven Pritchard) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 17:37:21 -0500 Subject: It's time to play that Name Game again! Message-ID: <20060817223721.GA31441@osiris.silug.org> On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 03:39:57PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 03:39:13PM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > > > "Checkmate"? > > Relationship? > > Actually.... I don't know... That's almost too easy. You could make the DC -> Marvel jump and go for Phoenix (but then people would think it was a city reference), or maybe Jean or Grey, but Selene would let you jump to Mythology... Emma (my daughter's name, so that would be kind of cool ;) or Frost would also work... Useful background information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkmate_(comics) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellfire_Club_(comics) Although I'm not a comic book geek anymore, I swear! ;-) Steve -- Steven Pritchard - K&S Pritchard Enterprises, Inc. Email: steve at kspei.com http://www.kspei.com/ Phone: (618)398-3000 Mobile: (618)567-7320 From jamatos at fc.up.pt Thu Aug 17 22:42:14 2006 From: jamatos at fc.up.pt (=?iso-8859-1?q?Jos=E9_Matos?=) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 23:42:14 +0100 Subject: It's time to play that Name Game again! In-Reply-To: <20060817222037.GA14719@redhat.com> References: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> <200608180014.03280.wolters.liste@gmx.net> <20060817222037.GA14719@redhat.com> Message-ID: <200608172342.15032.jamatos@fc.up.pt> On Thursday 17 August 2006 23:20, Nalin Dahyabhai wrote: > On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 12:13:46AM +0200, Roland Wolters wrote: > > But there the connections between the versions is not clear, and the > > connection between Heidelberg, Stentz and Bordeaux is Wine everytime, > > which would be against the rules (and boring!). I tried to go through the > > mail lists, but that was a bit too much to read... > > Historically, the relationship was something you could express as > "A and B are both [take your pick]." > > In keeping with that tradition, I suggest "Lancaster". And before > anyone asks, the link is *not* "cities in Europe". Along the same lines as Yeager? ;-) http://www.acepilots.com/usaaf_yeager.html > Cheers, > > Nalin -- Jos? Ab?lio From Christian.Iseli at licr.org Thu Aug 17 22:43:02 2006 From: Christian.Iseli at licr.org (Christian Iseli) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 00:43:02 +0200 Subject: It's time to play that Name Game again! In-Reply-To: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20060818004302.4e34113a@ludwig-alpha> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 15:31:12 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > Please start discussing, I'd like to have a list of good names to throw > at Legal later next week. > > PS: The suggestion that won last year was: > > Why not "Bordeaux" ? > > In France, Aim? Stentz is a pretty big wine producer.. :) > > So obviously can't really be an Alcohol theme. Scarlet (a brighter shade of red) I'm sure there are ways out from there... Christian From roland at redhat.com Fri Aug 18 02:10:14 2006 From: roland at redhat.com (Roland McGrath) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 19:10:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: It's time to play that Name Game again! In-Reply-To: Jesse Keating's message of Thursday, 17 August 2006 15:31:12 -0400 <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20060818021014.7A16B180064@magilla.sf.frob.com> Zod From blizzard at redhat.com Fri Aug 18 02:56:01 2006 From: blizzard at redhat.com (Christopher Blizzard) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 22:56:01 -0400 Subject: It's time to play that Name Game again! In-Reply-To: <44E4C9B1.3010209@redhat.com> References: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> <200608171544.21924.jkeating@redhat.com> <44E4C9B1.3010209@redhat.com> Message-ID: <44E52C41.40202@redhat.com> David Cantrell wrote: > Jesse Keating wrote: >> On Thursday 17 August 2006 15:35, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: >>> (cities in France) >> >> Bah. Cities are so overdone. Lets get more creative this time >> around.... > > Hypnotoad > +1 From blizzard at redhat.com Fri Aug 18 02:57:47 2006 From: blizzard at redhat.com (Christopher Blizzard) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 22:57:47 -0400 Subject: It's time to play that Name Game again! In-Reply-To: <20060818000322.4cfc6a36@nausicaa.camperquake.de> References: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> <20060817210218.GC22884@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <20060818000322.4cfc6a36@nausicaa.camperquake.de> Message-ID: <44E52CAB.8030107@redhat.com> Ralf Ertzinger wrote: > Hi. > > Alan Cox wrote: > >> Wayne (Sasha Bordeaux->Bruce Wayne) > > Oooh, I like that one. > +1 From alexl at redhat.com Fri Aug 18 07:41:56 2006 From: alexl at redhat.com (Alexander Larsson) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 09:41:56 +0200 Subject: It's time to play that Name Game again! In-Reply-To: <20060817193608.GA23485@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> <20060817193608.GA23485@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1155886917.12517.28.camel@greebo> On Thu, 2006-08-17 at 15:36 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Batman, Joker... ZOD! ZOD!!! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Alexander Larsson Red Hat, Inc alexl at redhat.com alla at lysator.liu.se He's a deeply religious moralistic boxer with a passion for fast cars. She's a warm-hearted African-American schoolgirl with an MBA from Harvard. They fight crime! From pix at crazyfrogs.org Fri Aug 18 09:03:45 2006 From: pix at crazyfrogs.org (Pix) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 11:03:45 +0200 Subject: It's time to play that Name Game again! In-Reply-To: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1155891825.2992.22.camel@ruatha.wyplay.int> Garonne (+1) Zidane (+1) Montesquieu ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montesquieu ) Fut (a "Fut" is the name of the barrel you put the wine in) Forez (Forez is a french place a very well known football team was - St Etienne) Rh?ne (another river like Garonne- and C?te du Rh?ne is a wine) Leopard ( http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Blason-bordeaux.gif - the blason of the city) Le jeudi 17 ao?t 2006 ? 15:31 -0400, Jesse Keating a ?crit : > We need to get a good list of names that we can push through legal as > acceptable. Once we have a list of 8 or so names, then we could do some > voting by donating. You as the maintainers get to generate the list of > names to vote in, just a small way of saying Thank You. > > It is less of a secret now that names are related to each other. > > FC2 was Tettnang, FC3 was Heidelberg, FC4 was Stentz, and FC5 is Bordeaux > What we need is a name that is related to Bordeaux, but not in the same way > that Bordeaux is related to Stentz. Extra credit if there is a semi-easy way > out of the name for FC7. > > Please start discussing, I'd like to have a list of good names to throw > at Legal later next week. > > PS: The suggestion that won last year was: > > Why not "Bordeaux" ? > > In France, Aim? Stentz is a pretty big wine producer.. :) > > So obviously can't really be an Alcohol theme. > > > -- > Fedora-maintainers mailing list > Fedora-maintainers at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jima at beer.tclug.org Fri Aug 18 11:11:05 2006 From: jima at beer.tclug.org (Jima) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 06:11:05 -0500 (CDT) Subject: It's time to play that Name Game again! In-Reply-To: <1155891825.2992.22.camel@ruatha.wyplay.int> References: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> <1155891825.2992.22.camel@ruatha.wyplay.int> Message-ID: On Fri, 18 Aug 2006, Pix wrote: > Leopard ( http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Blason-bordeaux.gif - the > blason of the city) Somehow I doubt this would get past Legal. Not that I would blame them. Jima From pix at crazyfrogs.org Fri Aug 18 11:13:49 2006 From: pix at crazyfrogs.org (Pix) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 13:13:49 +0200 Subject: It's time to play that Name Game again! In-Reply-To: References: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> <1155891825.2992.22.camel@ruatha.wyplay.int> Message-ID: <1155899629.2992.38.camel@ruatha.wyplay.int> Legal problems with the word "Leopard" ? You mean, with apple codenames ? Le vendredi 18 ao?t 2006 ? 06:11 -0500, Jima a ?crit : > On Fri, 18 Aug 2006, Pix wrote: > > Leopard ( http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Blason-bordeaux.gif - the > > blason of the city) > > Somehow I doubt this would get past Legal. > Not that I would blame them. > > Jima > > -- > Fedora-maintainers mailing list > Fedora-maintainers at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From skvidal at linux.duke.edu Fri Aug 18 11:59:43 2006 From: skvidal at linux.duke.edu (seth vidal) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 07:59:43 -0400 Subject: It's time to play that Name Game again! In-Reply-To: <1155891825.2992.22.camel@ruatha.wyplay.int> References: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> <1155891825.2992.22.camel@ruatha.wyplay.int> Message-ID: <1155902383.20434.6.camel@cutter> On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 11:03 +0200, Pix wrote: > Leopard ( http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Blason-bordeaux.gif - the > blason of the city) +1 I think leopard is a great name. -sv From jima at beer.tclug.org Fri Aug 18 12:00:04 2006 From: jima at beer.tclug.org (Jima) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 07:00:04 -0500 (CDT) Subject: It's time to play that Name Game again! In-Reply-To: <1155899629.2992.38.camel@ruatha.wyplay.int> References: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> <1155891825.2992.22.camel@ruatha.wyplay.int> <1155899629.2992.38.camel@ruatha.wyplay.int> Message-ID: On Fri, 18 Aug 2006, Pix wrote: > Legal problems with the word "Leopard" ? > You mean, with apple codenames ? That was the implication, yes. Jima From nphilipp at redhat.com Fri Aug 18 14:08:05 2006 From: nphilipp at redhat.com (Nils Philippsen) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 16:08:05 +0200 Subject: It's time to play that Name Game again! In-Reply-To: <44E4CDC4.2050605@redhat.com> References: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> <44E4CDC4.2050605@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1155910086.30396.3.camel@gibraltar.stuttgart.redhat.com> On Thu, 2006-08-17 at 16:12 -0400, Jeff Johnston wrote: > Bordeaux cherry -> Maraschino alcohol related (Maraschino is a liqueur) -- Nils Philippsen / Red Hat / nphilipp at redhat.com "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- B. Franklin, 1759 PGP fingerprint: C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F 656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011 From misa at redhat.com Fri Aug 18 16:42:40 2006 From: misa at redhat.com (Mihai Ibanescu) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 12:42:40 -0400 Subject: Python 2.5 packages for evaluation Message-ID: <20060818164240.GC7640@abulafia.devel.redhat.com> Hi, I've just finished building python25 packages for FC5 and rawhide. They should install just fine alongside the standard 2.4.3 python packages. To invoke them, you will need to use python25 instead of python as an interpreter. Python 2.5c1 was released last night and has the status of Release Candidate 1. So, it should be stable enough by now. But, because they do not _replace_ the stock python, all add-on modules will be unavailable. I would appreciate if you'd let me know if they don't treat you right. This is especially true for package maintainers that deal with python - please consider trying to build your packages with python25 and see if they work properly. To view the original announcement of Python 2.5: http://www.python.org/download/releases/2.5/ For FC5 packages (yum repos for each architecture): http://people.redhat.com/misa/rpms/python-2.5-FC5 For rawhide / FC6 test: http://people.redhat.com/misa/rpms/python-2.5-rawhide For gpg info, see my signature. Thanks, Misa -- Mihai Ibanescu gpg: http://people.redhat.com/misa/misa.gpg gpg key id: B12DC19B gpg key fingerprint: 8BB9 37A8 A3F1 F426 65C8 39A8 5414 66BE B12D C19B -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From smooge at gmail.com Fri Aug 18 19:22:05 2006 From: smooge at gmail.com (Stephen John Smoogen) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 13:22:05 -0600 Subject: It's time to play that Name Game again! In-Reply-To: <20060817210333.GD22884@devserv.devel.redhat.com> References: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> <20060817193137.GA4605@jadzia.bu.edu> <200608171539.13476.jkeating@redhat.com> <20060817193957.GA5385@jadzia.bu.edu> <20060817210333.GD22884@devserv.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <80d7e4090608181222w2b252484h7e917cd08a18e446@mail.gmail.com> On 8/17/06, Alan Cox wrote: > On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 03:39:57PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 03:39:13PM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > > > > "Checkmate"? > > > Relationship? > > > > What, I have to tell? :) > > > > Actually.... > > And I was thinking something literary like Huon of Bordeaux 8) > > -- > Fedora-maintainers mailing list > Fedora-maintainers at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers > Huon of Bordeaux [Given impossible missions by Charlemagne for killing his son] Children of Tuirenn (given an impossible mission by Lugh Lamfada/Long Arm for killing his father] so code names could be: Tuirenn Lugh Tuatha de Danaan Sidhe -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice" From tcallawa at redhat.com Fri Aug 18 20:58:39 2006 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom 'spot' Callaway) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 15:58:39 -0500 Subject: Free Software audit update Message-ID: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> Here is the latest status update on the FSF Free Software audit of Fedora: * FSF gave me answers on some of the licenses, still have to review the others (waiting on lha, libc-client, xorg-x11-proto-devel). * cdrtools is back to the GPL only version, so it is resolved. * aspell-nl moved to the GPL licensed package, so it is resolved. * crypto-utils got new GPL code to replace the PGP licensed bits, so it is now resolved (thanks Joe Orton!). * ckermit was removed from Fedora, so it is resolved (thanks Jesse Keating!). * macutils was removed from Fedora, so it is resolved (thanks Jesse Keating, Bill Nottingham). * netpbm had all of the unlicensed or improper files removed from the source tarball, so it is resolved (thanks Jindrich Novy!). * FSF says ImageMagick's license is OK (Free, GPL-compat), so it is resolved. * FSF says selinux-doc's license is OK (Free, GPL-incompat), so it is resolved. * FSF says cleanfeed's license is non-free, so we need to deal with it. Bugzilla filed. * Next week, I'll try to test lesstif as a replacement for openmotif. We're almost there. After FC-6 releases, I'll start an audit on Fedora Extras. THE KNOWN UNKNOWNS (3): Packages of questionable licenses that need to be blessed or damned by the FSF: ####################################################################### PACKAGE NAME || RPM provided license || Notes ####################################################################### lha || freeware || Waiting on FSF libc-client-* || U of W Free Fork || Waiting on FSF xorg-x11-proto-devel || The Open Group || Waiting on FSF THE KNOWNS (2): Packages with non-free licenses that need to be taken out of Fedora Core and moved to Fedora Extras (or trashed entirely) ####################################################################### PACKAGE NAME || RPM provided license || Notes ####################################################################### cleanfeed || distributable || Bugzilla 203195 openmotif-* || Open Group Public || Bugzilla 202527 Everything else in Fedora Core checks out with an FSF compatible license. -- Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Technical Team Lead || GPG ID: 93054260 Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices) Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my! From packages at amiga-hardware.com Fri Aug 18 20:59:58 2006 From: packages at amiga-hardware.com (Ian Chapman) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 21:59:58 +0100 Subject: It's time to play that Name Game again! In-Reply-To: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <44E62A4E.1030703@amiga-hardware.com> Jesse Keating wrote: > Please start discussing, I'd like to have a list of good names to throw > at Legal later next week. > > PS: The suggestion that won last year was: > > Why not "Bordeaux" ? Erm, what about "Frontier"? Play on the word Bordeaux because 'Borde' sort of means "border" (I think) and aux means "with". for FC7 "Horizon", the frontier between the sky and the earth. -- Ian Chapman. From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl Fri Aug 18 21:21:02 2006 From: j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl (Hans de Goede) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 23:21:02 +0200 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <44E62F3E.2010107@hhs.nl> Don't miss this a unique personal one time offer is included in the message below Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: > * Next week, I'll try to test lesstif as a replacement for openmotif. > Let me know if I can help (although next week my vacation ends, so my time for Fedora will be significantly reduced). Would it be possible to move all the motiv stuff to Extras, then the community can do the grunt work? AFAIK ddd and nedit work fine with lesstif and that are the two "big" motif packages. Regards, Hans From pertusus at free.fr Fri Aug 18 21:18:18 2006 From: pertusus at free.fr (Patrice Dumas) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 23:18:18 +0200 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20060818211818.GA2560@free.fr> On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 03:58:39PM -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: > THE KNOWNS (2): > Packages with non-free licenses that need to be taken out of Fedora Core > and moved to Fedora Extras (or trashed entirely) > ####################################################################### > openmotif-* || Open Group Public || Bugzilla 202527 openmotif doesn't seems to me to be free enough to be in fedora extras, since it hasn't an OSI compatible licence. -- Pat From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Fri Aug 18 21:22:56 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul) Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 02:52:56 +0530 Subject: [fab] Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <44E62FB0.5060207@fedoraproject.org> Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: > Here is the latest status update on the FSF Free Software audit of > Fedora: > > * FSF gave me answers on some of the licenses, still have to > review the others (waiting on lha, libc-client, xorg-x11-proto-devel). > * cdrtools is back to the GPL only version, so it is resolved. > * aspell-nl moved to the GPL licensed package, so it is resolved. > * crypto-utils got new GPL code to replace the PGP licensed bits, > so it is now resolved (thanks Joe Orton!). > * ckermit was removed from Fedora, so it is resolved (thanks Jesse > Keating!). > * macutils was removed from Fedora, so it is resolved (thanks Jesse > Keating, Bill Nottingham). > * netpbm had all of the unlicensed or improper files removed from the > source tarball, so it is resolved (thanks Jindrich Novy!). > * FSF says ImageMagick's license is OK (Free, GPL-compat), so it is resolved. > * FSF says selinux-doc's license is OK (Free, GPL-incompat), so it is resolved. > * FSF says cleanfeed's license is non-free, so we need to deal with it. Bugzilla filed. Thank you again spot. I have been following all the developments on this with great interest having initiated the discussion. Since you have contact many developers and the FSF offlist it would help if we have more public records of the mails send and the responses we received for auditing reasons. I was creating a page and documenting the history of these discussions and current status and it is available at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FreeSoftwareAnalysis It would helpful if you could attach a copy of all the offlist discussions to this page. > * Next week, I'll try to test lesstif as a replacement for openmotif. Note that openmotif is not even a open source license so moving it to Fedora Extras is not the right decision and is in violation of our packaging guidelines. We need to move into lesstif, use other toolkits as options, put it patches when available, drop packages and so on. Looking at what Debian does on each of the openmotif dependencies in Fedora Core and Fedora Extras could help us resolve this easier > > We're almost there. After FC-6 releases, I'll start an audit on Fedora Extras. > > THE KNOWN UNKNOWNS (3): > Packages of questionable licenses that need to be blessed or damned by > the FSF: > ####################################################################### > PACKAGE NAME || RPM provided license || Notes > ####################################################################### > lha || freeware || Waiting on FSF > libc-client-* || U of W Free Fork || Waiting on FSF > xorg-x11-proto-devel || The Open Group || Waiting on FSF > > THE KNOWNS (2): > Packages with non-free licenses that need to be taken out of Fedora Core > and moved to Fedora Extras (or trashed entirely) > ####################################################################### > PACKAGE NAME || RPM provided license || Notes > ####################################################################### > cleanfeed || distributable || Bugzilla 203195 > openmotif-* || Open Group Public || Bugzilla 202527 > > Everything else in Fedora Core checks out with an FSF compatible > license. A few general notes here: It would be better to standardize on our licensing tags used which is a TODO item at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/GuidelinesTodo. Is there any plans to drop the "distributable" tag? It seems very vague. It would be better to replace this with the actual licenses instead. I believe we agreed that that licenses indicated in the packages are merely informative and not legally binding. Do we need the counsel to cross check on this? Rahul From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Fri Aug 18 21:30:52 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul) Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 03:00:52 +0530 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <20060818211818.GA2560@free.fr> References: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060818211818.GA2560@free.fr> Message-ID: <44E6318C.4070106@fedoraproject.org> Patrice Dumas wrote: > On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 03:58:39PM -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: >> THE KNOWNS (2): >> Packages with non-free licenses that need to be taken out of Fedora Core >> and moved to Fedora Extras (or trashed entirely) >> ####################################################################### >> openmotif-* || Open Group Public || Bugzilla 202527 > > openmotif doesn't seems to me to be free enough to be in fedora extras, > since it hasn't an OSI compatible licence. > Fedora Core packages dependent on openmotif are xpdf, ddd. tetex-xdvi, mesa-libGLw as stated in the above bug report. If there are many packages dependent on openmotif in Fedora Extras we could do this as a two step process. * Move all openmotif dependencies and openmotif itself into Fedora Extras * Fix or drop packages as necessary. The advantage of moving it into Fedora Extras is that the broader community of packages can work on this and resolve things faster. Rahul From andreas at bawue.net Fri Aug 18 21:49:47 2006 From: andreas at bawue.net (Andreas Thienemann) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 23:49:47 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Fri, 18 Aug 2006, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: > THE KNOWNS (2): > Packages with non-free licenses that need to be taken out of Fedora Core > and moved to Fedora Extras (or trashed entirely) > ####################################################################### > PACKAGE NAME || RPM provided license || Notes > ####################################################################### > cleanfeed || distributable || Bugzilla 203195 I'd take cleanfeed, if it is moved to extras. However, a friend of mine has been working on cleanfeed-ng for some time now, a complete rewrite, fixing many bugs and adding some features. I'll see if it is release-fit. regards, andreas From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl Fri Aug 18 21:59:32 2006 From: j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl (Hans de Goede) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 23:59:32 +0200 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <44E6318C.4070106@fedoraproject.org> References: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060818211818.GA2560@free.fr> <44E6318C.4070106@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <44E63844.3030308@hhs.nl> Rahul wrote: > Patrice Dumas wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 03:58:39PM -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: >>> THE KNOWNS (2): >>> Packages with non-free licenses that need to be taken out of Fedora Core >>> and moved to Fedora Extras (or trashed entirely) >>> ####################################################################### >>> openmotif-* || Open Group Public || Bugzilla 202527 >> >> openmotif doesn't seems to me to be free enough to be in fedora >> extras, since it hasn't an OSI compatible licence. >> > > Fedora Core packages dependent on openmotif are xpdf, ddd. tetex-xdvi, > mesa-libGLw as stated in the above bug report. If there are many > packages dependent on openmotif in Fedora Extras we could do this as a > two step process. > > * Move all openmotif dependencies and openmotif itself into Fedora Extras > * Fix or drop packages as necessary. > > The advantage of moving it into Fedora Extras is that the broader > community of packages can work on this and resolve things faster. > My idea exactly. Although I don't know how feasible this is for mesa-libGLw . Regards, Hans From dominik at greysector.net Fri Aug 18 21:59:27 2006 From: dominik at greysector.net (Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 23:59:27 +0200 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <44E6318C.4070106@fedoraproject.org> References: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060818211818.GA2560@free.fr> <44E6318C.4070106@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <20060818215927.GA5346@rathann.pekin.waw.pl> On Friday, 18 August 2006 at 23:30, Rahul wrote: > Patrice Dumas wrote: > >On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 03:58:39PM -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: > >>THE KNOWNS (2): > >>Packages with non-free licenses that need to be taken out of Fedora Core > >>and moved to Fedora Extras (or trashed entirely) > >>####################################################################### > >>openmotif-* || Open Group Public || Bugzilla 202527 > > > >openmotif doesn't seems to me to be free enough to be in fedora extras, > >since it hasn't an OSI compatible licence. > > > > Fedora Core packages dependent on openmotif are xpdf, ddd. tetex-xdvi, > mesa-libGLw as stated in the above bug report. If there are many > packages dependent on openmotif in Fedora Extras we could do this as a > two step process. > > * Move all openmotif dependencies and openmotif itself into Fedora Extras > * Fix or drop packages as necessary. > > The advantage of moving it into Fedora Extras is that the broader > community of packages can work on this and resolve things faster. Too bad. I'm working on getting a package (opendx) which depends on openmotif into Extras. Any viable openmotif replacements? Regards, R. -- Fedora Extras contributor http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DominikMierzejewski MPlayer developer http://rpm.greysector.net/mplayer/ "Faith manages." -- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations" From jamatos at fc.up.pt Fri Aug 18 21:57:28 2006 From: jamatos at fc.up.pt (=?iso-8859-1?q?Jos=E9_Matos?=) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 22:57:28 +0100 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <44E6318C.4070106@fedoraproject.org> References: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060818211818.GA2560@free.fr> <44E6318C.4070106@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <200608182257.28319.jamatos@fc.up.pt> On Friday 18 August 2006 22:30, Rahul wrote: > Patrice Dumas wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 03:58:39PM -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: > >> THE KNOWNS (2): > >> Packages with non-free licenses that need to be taken out of Fedora Core > >> and moved to Fedora Extras (or trashed entirely) > >> ####################################################################### > >> openmotif-* || Open Group Public || Bugzilla 202527 > > > > openmotif doesn't seems to me to be free enough to be in fedora extras, > > since it hasn't an OSI compatible licence. > > Fedora Core packages dependent on openmotif are xpdf, ddd. tetex-xdvi, > mesa-libGLw as stated in the above bug report. If there are many > packages dependent on openmotif in Fedora Extras we could do this as a > two step process. $ grep -l openmotif */devel/*.spec | sed -e 's|/devel/.*||' cernlib cmucl fbida geomview gpsd grace Inventor nedit xlockmore AFAIK grace can be built from lesstif. :-) > * Move all openmotif dependencies and openmotif itself into Fedora Extras > * Fix or drop packages as necessary. > > The advantage of moving it into Fedora Extras is that the broader > community of packages can work on this and resolve things faster. > > Rahul -- Jos? Ab?lio From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Fri Aug 18 21:59:23 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul) Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 03:29:23 +0530 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <20060818215927.GA5346@rathann.pekin.waw.pl> References: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060818211818.GA2560@free.fr> <44E6318C.4070106@fedoraproject.org> <20060818215927.GA5346@rathann.pekin.waw.pl> Message-ID: <44E6383B.2030501@fedoraproject.org> Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > Too bad. I'm working on getting a package (opendx) which depends on openmotif > into Extras. Any viable openmotif replacements? > Lesstif obviously. Rahul From ajackson at redhat.com Fri Aug 18 21:57:30 2006 From: ajackson at redhat.com (Adam Jackson) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 17:57:30 -0400 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <44E63844.3030308@hhs.nl> References: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060818211818.GA2560@free.fr> <44E6318C.4070106@fedoraproject.org> <44E63844.3030308@hhs.nl> Message-ID: <44E637CA.3080607@redhat.com> Hans de Goede wrote: > > Rahul wrote: >> Patrice Dumas wrote: >>> On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 03:58:39PM -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: >>>> THE KNOWNS (2): >>>> Packages with non-free licenses that need to be taken out of Fedora Core >>>> and moved to Fedora Extras (or trashed entirely) >>>> ####################################################################### >>>> openmotif-* || Open Group Public || Bugzilla 202527 >>> openmotif doesn't seems to me to be free enough to be in fedora >>> extras, since it hasn't an OSI compatible licence. >>> >> Fedora Core packages dependent on openmotif are xpdf, ddd. tetex-xdvi, >> mesa-libGLw as stated in the above bug report. If there are many >> packages dependent on openmotif in Fedora Extras we could do this as a >> two step process. >> >> * Move all openmotif dependencies and openmotif itself into Fedora Extras >> * Fix or drop packages as necessary. >> >> The advantage of moving it into Fedora Extras is that the broader >> community of packages can work on this and resolve things faster. >> > > My idea exactly. Although I don't know how feasible this is for > mesa-libGLw . Already submitted for review at bug #188974, which is currently bogged down in details about how to obsolete/provide/whatever properly. If someone wants to help me out there I'd be thrilled. libGLw doesn't intrinsically care what motif it's built against, but it does include its own copies of some headers and there's ABI breakage in there as a result. Scary. There's a reason we hate Motif. - ajax From pertusus at free.fr Fri Aug 18 22:10:49 2006 From: pertusus at free.fr (Patrice Dumas) Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 00:10:49 +0200 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <200608182257.28319.jamatos@fc.up.pt> References: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060818211818.GA2560@free.fr> <44E6318C.4070106@fedoraproject.org> <200608182257.28319.jamatos@fc.up.pt> Message-ID: <20060818221049.GB2560@free.fr> > cernlib > cmucl > fbida > geomview > gpsd > grace > Inventor > nedit > xlockmore > > AFAIK grace can be built from lesstif. :-) nedit and the cernlib (there are allready the debian patches in cernlib) too. -- Pat From notting at redhat.com Fri Aug 18 22:19:03 2006 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 18:19:03 -0400 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: References: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20060818221903.GA5381@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Andreas Thienemann (andreas at bawue.net) said: > >THE KNOWNS (2): > >Packages with non-free licenses that need to be taken out of Fedora Core > >and moved to Fedora Extras (or trashed entirely) > >####################################################################### > >PACKAGE NAME || RPM provided license || Notes > >####################################################################### > >cleanfeed || distributable || Bugzilla 203195 > I'd take cleanfeed, if it is moved to extras. > > However, a friend of mine has been working on cleanfeed-ng for some time > now, a complete rewrite, fixing many bugs and adding some features. > > I'll see if it is release-fit. I really don't see a need for cleenfeed to stay in Core (or inn, for that matter...) But the license issue needs to be fixed regardless. Bill From jamatos at fc.up.pt Fri Aug 18 22:31:29 2006 From: jamatos at fc.up.pt (=?iso-8859-1?q?Jos=E9_Matos?=) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 23:31:29 +0100 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <20060818215927.GA5346@rathann.pekin.waw.pl> References: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44E6318C.4070106@fedoraproject.org> <20060818215927.GA5346@rathann.pekin.waw.pl> Message-ID: <200608182331.29607.jamatos@fc.up.pt> On Friday 18 August 2006 22:59, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > Too bad. I'm working on getting a package (opendx) which depends on > openmotif into Extras. Any viable openmotif replacements? Unrelated to the subject discussed but related with opendx. I packaged opendx before for a local repository, I have since moved packages to Extras. :-) One of those packages was opendx, I seem to remember some references to patented algorithms in the package. How do you deal with it? If I am wrong and there is no such reference please ignore this question. :-) -- Jos? Ab?lio From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Fri Aug 18 22:35:11 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul) Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 04:05:11 +0530 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <200608182331.29607.jamatos@fc.up.pt> References: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44E6318C.4070106@fedoraproject.org> <20060818215927.GA5346@rathann.pekin.waw.pl> <200608182331.29607.jamatos@fc.up.pt> Message-ID: <44E6409F.8040005@fedoraproject.org> Jos? Matos wrote: > On Friday 18 August 2006 22:59, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: >> Too bad. I'm working on getting a package (opendx) which depends on >> openmotif into Extras. Any viable openmotif replacements? > > Unrelated to the subject discussed but related with opendx. I packaged > opendx before for a local repository, I have since moved packages to > Extras. :-) > > One of those packages was opendx, I seem to remember some references to > patented algorithms in the package. How do you deal with it? > > If I am wrong and there is no such reference please ignore this > question. :-) It would be been better to discuss any potential legal issues before submitting the package in question. do you have any more information or references to the alleged patented algorithms? Rahul From zaitcev at redhat.com Sat Aug 19 00:16:30 2006 From: zaitcev at redhat.com (Pete Zaitcev) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 17:16:30 -0700 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <44E62F3E.2010107@hhs.nl> References: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44E62F3E.2010107@hhs.nl> Message-ID: <20060818171630.057ed52f.zaitcev@redhat.com> On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 23:21:02 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: > > * Next week, I'll try to test lesstif as a replacement for openmotif. > > Let me know if I can help (although next week my vacation ends, so my > time for Fedora will be significantly reduced). > > Would it be possible to move all the motiv stuff to Extras, then the > community can do the grunt work? AFAIK ddd and nedit work fine with > lesstif and that are the two "big" motif packages. The biggest user was xpdf, but now that evince more or less works, it should be possible to drop. -- Pete From icon at fedoraproject.org Sat Aug 19 01:48:22 2006 From: icon at fedoraproject.org (Konstantin Ryabitsev) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 21:48:22 -0400 Subject: It's time to play that Name Game again! In-Reply-To: <44E62A4E.1030703@amiga-hardware.com> References: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> <44E62A4E.1030703@amiga-hardware.com> Message-ID: On 8/18/06, Ian Chapman wrote: > Erm, what about "Frontier"? Play on the word Bordeaux because 'Borde' > sort of means "border" (I think) and aux means "with". I'm fairly certain "Bordeaux" stems from "Bord d'eaux" (literally, the edge of water). For that reason, I was going to suggest "Shanghai," since it means more or less the same thing, but we were trying to get away from the city theme. Cheers, -- Konstantin Ryabitsev Montr?al, Qu?bec From tchung at fedoraproject.org Sat Aug 19 02:14:13 2006 From: tchung at fedoraproject.org (Thomas Chung) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 19:14:13 -0700 Subject: It's time to play that Name Game again! In-Reply-To: References: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> <44E62A4E.1030703@amiga-hardware.com> Message-ID: <369bce3b0608181914q6fdbe534u9da93b800fe6bf9a@mail.gmail.com> On 8/18/06, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote: > I'm fairly certain "Bordeaux" stems from "Bord d'eaux" (literally, the > edge of water). For that reason, I was going to suggest "Shanghai," > since it means more or less the same thing, but we were trying to get > away from the city theme. > > Cheers, > -- > Konstantin Ryabitsev > Montr?al, Qu?bec Interesting, I was thinking the same thing for Shanghai[1] Maybe we could use Incheon[2] after than. :) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incheon Cheers! -- Thomas Chung http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ThomasChung From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Sat Aug 19 03:51:53 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul) Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 09:21:53 +0530 Subject: cdrecord licensing and alternatives Message-ID: <44E68AD9.60509@fedoraproject.org> Hi We still potentially have problems despite reverting back to a older version of cdrecord before the relicensing of some parts of it into CDDL. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202526#c18 cdrecord versions 2.01a36 (circa 2004) and above has added restrictions incompatible with the GPL license. The resulting mess is probably a GPL violation and not redistributable at all. This is a old issue and we have some possible solutions to this problem. DVD-R tools is a fork of the code before this restriction was added. http://lwn.net/Articles/174031/ There is also libburn+ assorted set of commands such as cdrskin, genisofs which are drop in replacements for cdrecord, mkisofs respectively available at http://libburn.pykix.org Rahul From jamatos at fc.up.pt Sat Aug 19 11:13:13 2006 From: jamatos at fc.up.pt (=?iso-8859-1?q?Jos=E9_Matos?=) Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 12:13:13 +0100 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <44E6409F.8040005@fedoraproject.org> References: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200608182331.29607.jamatos@fc.up.pt> <44E6409F.8040005@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <200608191213.14591.jamatos@fc.up.pt> On Friday 18 August 2006 23:35, Rahul wrote: > > It would be been better to discuss any potential legal issues before > submitting the package in question. do you have any more information or > references to the alleged patented algorithms? It seems that I was wrong, at least searching through some of the details I see that the patent reference appears in the IBM public license 1.0 http://www.research.ibm.com/dx/srcDownload/license.html This is what FSF has to say about this license http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html """ IBM Public License, Version 1.0 This is a free software license but it is incompatible with the GPL. The IBM Public License is incompatible with the GPL because it has various specific requirements that are not in the GPL. For example, it requires certain patent licenses be given that the GPL does not require. (We don't think those patent license requirements are inherently a bad idea, but nonetheless they are incompatible with the GNU GPL.) """ So it seems I was wrong. :-) > Rahul -- Jos? Ab?lio From arjan at fenrus.demon.nl Sat Aug 19 11:14:29 2006 From: arjan at fenrus.demon.nl (Arjan van de Ven) Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 13:14:29 +0200 Subject: cdrecord licensing and alternatives In-Reply-To: <44E68AD9.60509@fedoraproject.org> References: <44E68AD9.60509@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1155986069.2875.64.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> On Sat, 2006-08-19 at 09:21 +0530, Rahul wrote: > Hi > > > We still potentially have problems despite reverting back to a older > version of cdrecord before the relicensing of some parts of it into CDDL. > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202526#c18 > > cdrecord versions 2.01a36 (circa 2004) and above has added restrictions > incompatible with the GPL license. The resulting mess is probably a GPL > violation and not redistributable at all. well; the GPL doesn't allow you to remove copyright messages either, so that part is not an additional restriction. The part about the config file is odd of course. From jamatos at fc.up.pt Sat Aug 19 11:40:05 2006 From: jamatos at fc.up.pt (=?iso-8859-1?q?Jos=E9_Matos?=) Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 12:40:05 +0100 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <44E6409F.8040005@fedoraproject.org> References: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200608182331.29607.jamatos@fc.up.pt> <44E6409F.8040005@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <200608191240.05461.jamatos@fc.up.pt> On Friday 18 August 2006 23:35, Rahul wrote: > > It would be been better to discuss any potential legal issues before > submitting the package in question. do you have any more information or > references to the alleged patented algorithms? Other than the license I found this: http://opendx.npaci.edu/docs/html/pages/usrgu003.htm#HDRNTCS """ IBM may have patents or pending patent applications covering subject matter in this document. The furnishing of this document does not give the user any license to those patents. License inquiries should be sent, in writing, to: """ Probably this is a standard disclaimer, that is why I have asked. OTHO, I see that debian has opendx so probably my concerns are moot: http://packages.debian.org/unstable/science/dx http://packages.debian.org/stable/science/dx > Rahul PS: Sorry for the ramblings -- Jos? Ab?lio From rdieter at math.unl.edu Sat Aug 19 13:23:38 2006 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 08:23:38 -0500 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <200608191240.05461.jamatos@fc.up.pt> References: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200608182331.29607.jamatos@fc.up.pt> <44E6409F.8040005@fedoraproject.org> <200608191240.05461.jamatos@fc.up.pt> Message-ID: <44E710DA.8010003@math.unl.edu> Jos? Matos wrote: > OTHO, I see that debian has opendx so probably my concerns are moot: > http://packages.debian.org/unstable/science/dx > http://packages.debian.org/stable/science/dx Maybe, maybe not. Debian cares about free software, yes, but they don't seem to care much about patents (ie, afaict, debian includes dvd/mpeg2, mp3 decoders etc). -- Rex From rdieter at math.unl.edu Sat Aug 19 15:07:34 2006 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 10:07:34 -0500 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <44E6383B.2030501@fedoraproject.org> References: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060818211818.GA2560@free.fr> <44E6318C.4070106@fedoraproject.org> <20060818215927.GA5346@rathann.pekin.waw.pl> <44E6383B.2030501@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <44E72936.2040203@math.unl.edu> Rahul wrote: > Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: >> Too bad. I'm working on getting a package (opendx) which depends on >> openmotif >> into Extras. Any viable openmotif replacements? > Lesstif obviously. Afaict, lesstif went awol after fc3, can we find a maintainer for Extras? Then the work to (re)build/port from openmotif to lesstif can begin in earnest. -- rex From pertusus at free.fr Sat Aug 19 16:04:02 2006 From: pertusus at free.fr (Patrice Dumas) Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 18:04:02 +0200 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <44E72936.2040203@math.unl.edu> References: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060818211818.GA2560@free.fr> <44E6318C.4070106@fedoraproject.org> <20060818215927.GA5346@rathann.pekin.waw.pl> <44E6383B.2030501@fedoraproject.org> <44E72936.2040203@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: <20060819160402.GA2386@free.fr> > Afaict, lesstif went awol after fc3, can we find a maintainer for Extras? I would volunteer for that. I wanted to propose it to extra since quite a long time, but it conflicts with openmotif... The lesstif that was in fc3 wasn't the complete lesstif but only the motif 1.x libraries (which aren't shipped with lesstif anymore). If somebody else wants to maintain lesstif, I won't mind. -- Pat From rdieter at math.unl.edu Sat Aug 19 17:07:38 2006 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 12:07:38 -0500 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <20060819160402.GA2386@free.fr> References: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060818211818.GA2560@free.fr> <44E6318C.4070106@fedoraproject.org> <20060818215927.GA5346@rathann.pekin.waw.pl> <44E6383B.2030501@fedoraproject.org> <44E72936.2040203@math.unl.edu> <20060819160402.GA2386@free.fr> Message-ID: <44E7455A.5090500@math.unl.edu> Patrice Dumas wrote: >> Afaict, lesstif went awol after fc3, can we find a maintainer for Extras? > > I would volunteer for that. I wanted to propose it to extra since > quite a long time, but it conflicts with openmotif... > > The lesstif that was in fc3 wasn't the complete lesstif but only the > motif 1.x libraries (which aren't shipped with lesstif anymore). > > If somebody else wants to maintain lesstif, I won't mind. Go for it (I'll even review it for you) Here's something I threw together this morning you can use as a starting point and/or reference: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/fedora/SRPMS/stable/lesstif-0.95.0-1.src.rpm (It may not yet be 100% correct, but it at least builds/works for me on rhel4) -- Rex From tiemann at redhat.com Sat Aug 19 17:28:15 2006 From: tiemann at redhat.com (Michael Tiemann) Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 13:28:15 -0400 Subject: It's time to play that Name Game again! In-Reply-To: References: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> <44E62A4E.1030703@amiga-hardware.com> Message-ID: <1156008495.5564.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 21:48 -0400, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote: > On 8/18/06, Ian Chapman wrote: > > Erm, what about "Frontier"? Play on the word Bordeaux because 'Borde' > > sort of means "border" (I think) and aux means "with". > > I'm fairly certain "Bordeaux" stems from "Bord d'eaux" (literally, the > edge of water). For that reason, I was going to suggest "Shanghai," > since it means more or less the same thing, but we were trying to get > away from the city theme. Ellipsis Bordeaux -> Bord d'eaux -> edge of water -> triple point of water -> ... (three points) M From fedora at camperquake.de Sat Aug 19 19:54:43 2006 From: fedora at camperquake.de (Ralf Ertzinger) Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 21:54:43 +0200 Subject: It's time to play that Name Game again! In-Reply-To: <1156008495.5564.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> <44E62A4E.1030703@amiga-hardware.com> <1156008495.5564.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <44E76C83.8090101@camperquake.de> Michael Tiemann schrieb: >> away from the city theme. > > Ellipsis > > Bordeaux -> Bord d'eaux -> edge of water -> triple point of water -> ... > (three points) So we could call FC7 PROFIT! ? From michael at knox.net.nz Sun Aug 20 00:34:26 2006 From: michael at knox.net.nz (Michael J. Knox) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 12:34:26 +1200 Subject: cdrecord licensing and alternatives In-Reply-To: <44E68AD9.60509@fedoraproject.org> References: <44E68AD9.60509@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <44E7AE12.8090805@knox.net.nz> Rahul wrote: > Hi > > > We still potentially have problems despite reverting back to a older > version of cdrecord before the relicensing of some parts of it into CDDL. > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202526#c18 > > cdrecord versions 2.01a36 (circa 2004) and above has added restrictions > incompatible with the GPL license. The resulting mess is probably a GPL > violation and not redistributable at all. > > This is a old issue and we have some possible solutions to this problem. > DVD-R tools is a fork of the code before this restriction was added. > > http://lwn.net/Articles/174031/ > > There is also libburn+ assorted set of commands such as cdrskin, > genisofs which are drop in replacements for cdrecord, mkisofs > respectively available at http://libburn.pykix.org > What about Bero's fork of cdrecord? Michael From rc040203 at freenet.de Sun Aug 20 04:52:53 2006 From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 06:52:53 +0200 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <44E6383B.2030501@fedoraproject.org> References: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060818211818.GA2560@free.fr> <44E6318C.4070106@fedoraproject.org> <20060818215927.GA5346@rathann.pekin.waw.pl> <44E6383B.2030501@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1156049574.7629.132.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> On Sat, 2006-08-19 at 03:29 +0530, Rahul wrote: > Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > > Too bad. I'm working on getting a package (opendx) which depends on openmotif > > into Extras. Any viable openmotif replacements? No. > Lesstif obviously. Definitely non-obvious? Last time I checked, lesstif didn't really work "that well". To me, dropping OpenMotif would be real regression. Ralf From pertusus at free.fr Sun Aug 20 10:28:36 2006 From: pertusus at free.fr (Patrice Dumas) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 12:28:36 +0200 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <1156049574.7629.132.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060818211818.GA2560@free.fr> <44E6318C.4070106@fedoraproject.org> <20060818215927.GA5346@rathann.pekin.waw.pl> <44E6383B.2030501@fedoraproject.org> <1156049574.7629.132.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <20060820102836.GB2567@free.fr> On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 06:52:53AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Sat, 2006-08-19 at 03:29 +0530, Rahul wrote: > > Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > > > Too bad. I'm working on getting a package (opendx) which depends on openmotif > > > into Extras. Any viable openmotif replacements? > No. > > > Lesstif obviously. > > Definitely non-obvious? > > Last time I checked, lesstif didn't really work "that well". Were the lesstif developpers reluctant on fixing the bugs? Giving more visibility to lesstif may help having the bugs solved, and maybe could lead openmotif to be turned into a free software. The promise to have openmotif licenced under a free software licence is there since many years, but nothing has happened. > To me, dropping OpenMotif would be real regression. openmotif isn't free software. Doing that switch is important in my opinion. lesstif is known to work with most or all of the softwares shipped in fedora extras and core. If somebody really wants openmotif, he will certainly have the knowledge to install it, but we really shouldn't provide openmotif, like any other non-free software. -- Pat From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl Sun Aug 20 11:37:27 2006 From: j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl (Hans de Goede) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 13:37:27 +0200 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <20060820102836.GB2567@free.fr> References: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060818211818.GA2560@free.fr> <44E6318C.4070106@fedoraproject.org> <20060818215927.GA5346@rathann.pekin.waw.pl> <44E6383B.2030501@fedoraproject.org> <1156049574.7629.132.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20060820102836.GB2567@free.fr> Message-ID: <44E84977.3040204@hhs.nl> Patrice Dumas wrote: > On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 06:52:53AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: >> On Sat, 2006-08-19 at 03:29 +0530, Rahul wrote: >>> Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: >>>> Too bad. I'm working on getting a package (opendx) which depends on openmotif >>>> into Extras. Any viable openmotif replacements? >> No. >> >>> Lesstif obviously. >> Definitely non-obvious? >> >> Last time I checked, lesstif didn't really work "that well". > > Were the lesstif developpers reluctant on fixing the bugs? Giving more > visibility to lesstif may help having the bugs solved, and maybe could > lead openmotif to be turned into a free software. The promise to have > openmotif licenced under a free software licence is there since many years, > but nothing has happened. > >> To me, dropping OpenMotif would be real regression. > > openmotif isn't free software. Doing that switch is important in my opinion. > > lesstif is known to work with most or all of the softwares shipped in fedora > extras and core. > > If somebody really wants openmotif, he will certainly have the knowledge > to install it, but we really shouldn't provide openmotif, like any other > non-free software. > +1 (needless reallu, openmotif is in a very clear violation of the guidelines and thus must go (period) . ) Regards, Hans From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Sun Aug 20 11:38:29 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 17:08:29 +0530 Subject: cdrecord licensing and alternatives In-Reply-To: <44E7AE12.8090805@knox.net.nz> References: <44E68AD9.60509@fedoraproject.org> <44E7AE12.8090805@knox.net.nz> Message-ID: <44E849B5.90907@fedoraproject.org> Michael J. Knox wrote: > Rahul wrote: >> Hi >> >> >> We still potentially have problems despite reverting back to a older >> version of cdrecord before the relicensing of some parts of it into CDDL. >> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202526#c18 >> >> cdrecord versions 2.01a36 (circa 2004) and above has added >> restrictions incompatible with the GPL license. The resulting mess is >> probably a GPL violation and not redistributable at all. >> >> This is a old issue and we have some possible solutions to this >> problem. DVD-R tools is a fork of the code before this restriction was >> added. >> >> http://lwn.net/Articles/174031/ >> >> There is also libburn+ assorted set of commands such as cdrskin, >> genisofs which are drop in replacements for cdrecord, mkisofs >> respectively available at http://libburn.pykix.org >> > > What about Bero's fork of cdrecord? > Thats is DVD-R tools referenced above. Rahul From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Sun Aug 20 11:40:25 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 17:10:25 +0530 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <1156049574.7629.132.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060818211818.GA2560@free.fr> <44E6318C.4070106@fedoraproject.org> <20060818215927.GA5346@rathann.pekin.waw.pl> <44E6383B.2030501@fedoraproject.org> <1156049574.7629.132.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <44E84A29.2060906@fedoraproject.org> Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Sat, 2006-08-19 at 03:29 +0530, Rahul wrote: >> Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: >>> Too bad. I'm working on getting a package (opendx) which depends on openmotif >>> into Extras. Any viable openmotif replacements? > No. > >> Lesstif obviously. > > Definitely non-obvious? > > Last time I checked, lesstif didn't really work "that well". Then we should fix that. It is the obvious replacement since it is meant to be a Free software equivalent of openmotif. > > To me, dropping OpenMotif would be real regression. > Clear cut violation of guidelines. Openmotif is proprietary software. Rahul From pertusus at free.fr Sun Aug 20 12:17:54 2006 From: pertusus at free.fr (Patrice Dumas) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 14:17:54 +0200 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <44E7455A.5090500@math.unl.edu> References: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060818211818.GA2560@free.fr> <44E6318C.4070106@fedoraproject.org> <20060818215927.GA5346@rathann.pekin.waw.pl> <44E6383B.2030501@fedoraproject.org> <44E72936.2040203@math.unl.edu> <20060819160402.GA2386@free.fr> <44E7455A.5090500@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: <20060820121754.GC2567@free.fr> On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 12:07:38PM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > Go for it (I'll even review it for you) LessTif is submitted as https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203274 -- Pat From arjan at fenrus.demon.nl Sun Aug 20 15:28:13 2006 From: arjan at fenrus.demon.nl (Arjan van de Ven) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 17:28:13 +0200 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <44E84A29.2060906@fedoraproject.org> References: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060818211818.GA2560@free.fr> <44E6318C.4070106@fedoraproject.org> <20060818215927.GA5346@rathann.pekin.waw.pl> <44E6383B.2030501@fedoraproject.org> <1156049574.7629.132.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <44E84A29.2060906@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1156087693.23756.42.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> > > > > To me, dropping OpenMotif would be real regression. > > > > Clear cut violation of guidelines. Openmotif is proprietary software. well openmotif is a "it's free for open source" license... so to call it proprietary... is not entirely fair either. (it just gets messy if you mix open source and proprietary software, then openmotif license gets funky ;) From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Sun Aug 20 15:39:14 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 21:09:14 +0530 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <1156087693.23756.42.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> References: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060818211818.GA2560@free.fr> <44E6318C.4070106@fedoraproject.org> <20060818215927.GA5346@rathann.pekin.waw.pl> <44E6383B.2030501@fedoraproject.org> <1156049574.7629.132.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <44E84A29.2060906@fedoraproject.org> <1156087693.23756.42.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Message-ID: <44E88222.8040905@fedoraproject.org> Arjan van de Ven wrote: > >>> To me, dropping OpenMotif would be real regression. >>> >> Clear cut violation of guidelines. Openmotif is proprietary software. > > well openmotif is a "it's free for open source" license... so to call it > proprietary... is not entirely fair either. Ok my wording might not have been entirely appropriate but it doesnt meet the packaging guidelines for either Free software (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/motif.html) or open source software (http://www.opengroup.org/openmotif/faq.html) and should be removed from the distribution. Rahul From rc040203 at freenet.de Mon Aug 21 03:46:33 2006 From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 05:46:33 +0200 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <20060820102836.GB2567@free.fr> References: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060818211818.GA2560@free.fr> <44E6318C.4070106@fedoraproject.org> <20060818215927.GA5346@rathann.pekin.waw.pl> <44E6383B.2030501@fedoraproject.org> <1156049574.7629.132.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20060820102836.GB2567@free.fr> Message-ID: <1156131994.7629.164.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> On Sun, 2006-08-20 at 12:28 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote: > On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 06:52:53AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > On Sat, 2006-08-19 at 03:29 +0530, Rahul wrote: > > > Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > > > > Too bad. I'm working on getting a package (opendx) which depends on openmotif > > > > into Extras. Any viable openmotif replacements? > > No. > > > > > Lesstif obviously. > > > > Definitely non-obvious? > > > > Last time I checked, lesstif didn't really work "that well". > > Were the lesstif developpers reluctant on fixing the bugs? Most major distros (e.g. SuSE and RedHat) abandoned Lesstif many years ago, which had caused Lesstif to fall into the "black hole" of "nearly dead projects". > > To me, dropping OpenMotif would be real regression. > > openmotif isn't free software. You know, OpenMotif is a corner case wrt. "OpenSource". > Doing that switch is important in my opinion. I could not disagree more. I feel your opinion to be a fundamentalist's position, making an issue where the isn't any. OpenMotif has been part of most major Linux distros for many years. I am not aware of any legal actions/threads against anybody because of this. > lesstif is known to work with most or all of the softwares shipped in fedora > extras and core. It is known not to work in many cases and in many case to require hacking and patching to get it going. Ralf From rc040203 at freenet.de Mon Aug 21 03:50:07 2006 From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 05:50:07 +0200 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <44E88222.8040905@fedoraproject.org> References: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060818211818.GA2560@free.fr> <44E6318C.4070106@fedoraproject.org> <20060818215927.GA5346@rathann.pekin.waw.pl> <44E6383B.2030501@fedoraproject.org> <1156049574.7629.132.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <44E84A29.2060906@fedoraproject.org> <1156087693.23756.42.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <44E88222.8040905@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1156132208.7629.169.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> On Sun, 2006-08-20 at 21:09 +0530, Rahul wrote: > Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > >>> To me, dropping OpenMotif would be real regression. > >>> > >> Clear cut violation of guidelines. Openmotif is proprietary software. > > > > well openmotif is a "it's free for open source" license... so to call it > > proprietary... is not entirely fair either. ACK > Ok my wording might not have been entirely appropriate but it doesnt > meet the packaging guidelines for either Free software > (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/motif.html) or open source software > (http://www.opengroup.org/openmotif/faq.html) and should be removed from > the distribution. Yes, OpenMotif is not a copyright nor a legal issue. It's a religious one. It's licence doesn't meet the some people's "confession/belief" Ralf From tiemann at redhat.com Mon Aug 21 04:02:11 2006 From: tiemann at redhat.com (Michael Tiemann) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 00:02:11 -0400 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <1156132208.7629.169.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060818211818.GA2560@free.fr> <44E6318C.4070106@fedoraproject.org> <20060818215927.GA5346@rathann.pekin.waw.pl> <44E6383B.2030501@fedoraproject.org> <1156049574.7629.132.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <44E84A29.2060906@fedoraproject.org> <1156087693.23756.42.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <44E88222.8040905@fedoraproject.org> <1156132208.7629.169.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <1156132931.4380.57.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 05:50 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > Ok my wording might not have been entirely appropriate but it doesnt > > meet the packaging guidelines for either Free software > > (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/motif.html) or open source software > > (http://www.opengroup.org/openmotif/faq.html) and should be removed from > > the distribution. > Yes, OpenMotif is not a copyright nor a legal issue. It's a religious > one. It's licence doesn't meet the some people's "confession/belief" Ralf, I disagree. Fedora was constituted as a free software distribution. There were many struggles and false starts along the way, and we all have the battle scars to prove that. But things are getting better, and now we are in a position to make good on a promise we made at the start of the project. Religion has nothing whatsoever to do with this. Courage, commitment, freedom, and accountability have everything to do with this. M From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Mon Aug 21 06:23:00 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 11:53:00 +0530 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <1156132208.7629.169.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060818211818.GA2560@free.fr> <44E6318C.4070106@fedoraproject.org> <20060818215927.GA5346@rathann.pekin.waw.pl> <44E6383B.2030501@fedoraproject.org> <1156049574.7629.132.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <44E84A29.2060906@fedoraproject.org> <1156087693.23756.42.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <44E88222.8040905@fedoraproject.org> <1156132208.7629.169.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <44E95144.1010608@fedoraproject.org> Ralf Corsepius wrote: >> (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/motif.html) or open source software >> (http://www.opengroup.org/openmotif/faq.html) and should be removed from >> the distribution. > Yes, OpenMotif is not a copyright nor a legal issue. It's a religious > one. It's licence doesn't meet the some people's "confession/belief" > It doesnt meet one of our primary objectives within the project which is to be a Free software distribution. There is no legal issues against including gratis proprietary software in Fedora either. Hey, we might even be able to play mp3 by default and make ESR happy but we choose to stick with our ideals and no our ideals are not based on any "religious" fights. Rahul From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl Mon Aug 21 06:30:52 2006 From: j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl (Hans de Goede) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 08:30:52 +0200 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <1156132208.7629.169.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060818211818.GA2560@free.fr> <44E6318C.4070106@fedoraproject.org> <20060818215927.GA5346@rathann.pekin.waw.pl> <44E6383B.2030501@fedoraproject.org> <1156049574.7629.132.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <44E84A29.2060906@fedoraproject.org> <1156087693.23756.42.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <44E88222.8040905@fedoraproject.org> <1156132208.7629.169.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <44E9531C.4020505@hhs.nl> Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Sun, 2006-08-20 at 21:09 +0530, Rahul wrote: >> Arjan van de Ven wrote: >>>>> To me, dropping OpenMotif would be real regression. >>>>> >>>> Clear cut violation of guidelines. Openmotif is proprietary software. >>> well openmotif is a "it's free for open source" license... so to call it >>> proprietary... is not entirely fair either. > ACK > >> Ok my wording might not have been entirely appropriate but it doesnt >> meet the packaging guidelines for either Free software >> (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/motif.html) or open source software >> (http://www.opengroup.org/openmotif/faq.html) and should be removed from >> the distribution. > Yes, OpenMotif is not a copyright nor a legal issue. It's a religious > one. It's licence doesn't meet the some people's "confession/belief" > I completely do not understand (nor share) your point of view here. Fedora has always been about building a distro which is 100.1 % free (as in freedom) and thus allows other to pick it up and do anything with it they like including selling it (modified or not) building proprietary stuff on top of it etc. To quote the opengroups motif faq (linked above) on this: "Open Motif source code and binaries can be distributed royalty free under The Open Group Public License as long as the operating system upon which Open Motif is running meets the OSI's Open Source Definition" Now royalty free does not sound very free software / oss to me. Also notice the hairy and vague condition: "as long as the operating system upon which Open Motif is running meets the OSI's Open Source Definition" so if someone want s to take Fedora and replace say the kernel and c-library with something proprietary for what ever reason he cannot do that without removing openmotif. And what about a kernel with the nvidea driver loaded does that still count as an openrating system matching OSI's Open Source Definition? Anyways I cannot believe I let myself be lured into responding to this this is a very clear case and openmotif must go, no decission needed. If you disagree feel free to submit it to that other repo, I might even help out by reviewing it. Regards, Hans From rc040203 at freenet.de Mon Aug 21 06:31:02 2006 From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 08:31:02 +0200 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <1156132931.4380.57.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060818211818.GA2560@free.fr> <44E6318C.4070106@fedoraproject.org> <20060818215927.GA5346@rathann.pekin.waw.pl> <44E6383B.2030501@fedoraproject.org> <1156049574.7629.132.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <44E84A29.2060906@fedoraproject.org> <1156087693.23756.42.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <44E88222.8040905@fedoraproject.org> <1156132208.7629.169.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1156132931.4380.57.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1156141862.7629.202.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 00:02 -0400, Michael Tiemann wrote: > On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 05:50 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > > Ok my wording might not have been entirely appropriate but it doesnt > > > meet the packaging guidelines for either Free software > > > (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/motif.html) or open source software > > > (http://www.opengroup.org/openmotif/faq.html) and should be removed from > > > the distribution. > > Yes, OpenMotif is not a copyright nor a legal issue. It's a religious > > one. It's licence doesn't meet the some people's "confession/belief" > > Ralf, > > I disagree. Fedora was constituted as a free software distribution. Nope, RH established Fedora, based on some RH circles "confession/belief" and "business objectives". People like me contribute to the Fedora Project because some of its objectives to some extend intersect with some aspects of theirs. I.e. though I share aspects of RH's and "The Fedora Project"'s objectives, mine are not identical to theirs. One of them I do NOT share, is this what I consider to be a "fundamentalistic religious view" on OpenSource. E.g. I do not care about the OSI. However, I do care about legal restrictions and consequences from them. Wrt. to OpenMotif this to me means: If shipping OpenMotif is a REAL LEGAL threat to Fedora, remove OpenMotif and replace it with Lesstif. If there isn't any, I don't see any reason to change anything about current practice. > There were many struggles and false starts along the way, and we all > have the battle scars to prove that. But things are getting better, and > now we are in a position to make good on a promise we made at the start > of the project. Religion has nothing whatsoever to do with this. You won't like what I am going to say, now, but I feel I can't avoiding expressing this: IMO, it's religion only, and it's RH who utilizes Fedora as a means for a crusade (In the religious sense). Ralf From rc040203 at freenet.de Mon Aug 21 06:51:36 2006 From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 08:51:36 +0200 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <44E9531C.4020505@hhs.nl> References: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060818211818.GA2560@free.fr> <44E6318C.4070106@fedoraproject.org> <20060818215927.GA5346@rathann.pekin.waw.pl> <44E6383B.2030501@fedoraproject.org> <1156049574.7629.132.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <44E84A29.2060906@fedoraproject.org> <1156087693.23756.42.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <44E88222.8040905@fedoraproject.org> <1156132208.7629.169.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <44E9531C.4020505@hhs.nl> Message-ID: <1156143098.7629.221.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 08:30 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > > Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > On Sun, 2006-08-20 at 21:09 +0530, Rahul wrote: > >> Arjan van de Ven wrote: > >>>>> To me, dropping OpenMotif would be real regression. > >>>>> > >>>> Clear cut violation of guidelines. Openmotif is proprietary software. > >>> well openmotif is a "it's free for open source" license... so to call it > >>> proprietary... is not entirely fair either. > > ACK > > > >> Ok my wording might not have been entirely appropriate but it doesnt > >> meet the packaging guidelines for either Free software > >> (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/motif.html) or open source software > >> (http://www.opengroup.org/openmotif/faq.html) and should be removed from > >> the distribution. > > Yes, OpenMotif is not a copyright nor a legal issue. It's a religious > > one. It's licence doesn't meet the some people's "confession/belief" > > > > I completely do not understand (nor share) your point of view here. > Fedora has always been about building a distro which is 100.1 % free (as > in freedom) and thus allows other to pick it up and do anything with it > they like including selling it (modified or not) building proprietary > stuff on top of it etc. > To quote the opengroups motif faq (linked above) on this: > "Open Motif source code and binaries can be distributed royalty free > under The Open Group Public License as long as the operating system upon > which Open Motif is running meets the OSI's Open Source Definition" 1. Fedora is based on the OSI-definition itself => Non-issue 2. royalty-free == licence fees ... RH business objective. Non-issue to Fedora itself. 3. If this was an issue to the opengroup, it's them who would have to sue RH (Who shipped OpenMotif as part of their $$$$ commercial linuxes) They have not done so for many years. > Now royalty free does not sound very free software / oss to me. Yes, it's "religion". They are following a different OpenSource model/religion than Fedora/RH. > If you disagree feel free to submit it to that other repo, I might > even help out by reviewing it. Well, things aren't as simple as you think. First of all a lesstif package must not replace OpenMotif, but be designed to be installed in parallel to OpenMotif. Second, I would have to rebuild several packages from Core and from Extras. Ralf From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Mon Aug 21 07:11:21 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 12:41:21 +0530 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <1156143098.7629.221.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060818211818.GA2560@free.fr> <44E6318C.4070106@fedoraproject.org> <20060818215927.GA5346@rathann.pekin.waw.pl> <44E6383B.2030501@fedoraproject.org> <1156049574.7629.132.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <44E84A29.2060906@fedoraproject.org> <1156087693.23756.42.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <44E88222.8040905@fedoraproject.org> <1156132208.7629.169.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <44E9531C.4020505@hhs.nl> <1156143098.7629.221.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <44E95C99.4090806@fedoraproject.org> Ralf Corsepius wrote: >> To quote the opengroups motif faq (linked above) on this: >> "Open Motif source code and binaries can be distributed royalty free >> under The Open Group Public License as long as the operating system upon >> which Open Motif is running meets the OSI's Open Source Definition" > 1. Fedora is based on the OSI-definition itself => Non-issue > Fedora like you said is based on the OSI definition and all the software in it needs to be open source. Well established goals right from the start. > 2. royalty-free == licence fees ... RH business objective. > Non-issue to Fedora itself. Again, it does not meet Fedora packaging guidelines which is a direct issue to Fedora. > > 3. If this was an issue to the opengroup, it's them who would have to > sue RH (Who shipped OpenMotif as part of their $$$$ commercial linuxes) > They have not done so for many years. Noone claimed it was a legal issue. > >> Now royalty free does not sound very free software / oss to me. > Yes, it's "religion". They are following a different OpenSource > model/religion than Fedora/RH. No. Their license does not meet either the OSI definition of open source or Fedora packaging guidelines. There is no need to exclude openmotif as a exception to the guidelines. Rahul From pertusus at free.fr Mon Aug 21 07:16:42 2006 From: pertusus at free.fr (Patrice Dumas) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 09:16:42 +0200 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <1156131994.7629.164.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060818211818.GA2560@free.fr> <44E6318C.4070106@fedoraproject.org> <20060818215927.GA5346@rathann.pekin.waw.pl> <44E6383B.2030501@fedoraproject.org> <1156049574.7629.132.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20060820102836.GB2567@free.fr> <1156131994.7629.164.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <20060821071642.GB2497@free.fr> > Most major distros (e.g. SuSE and RedHat) abandoned Lesstif many years > ago, which had caused Lesstif to fall into the "black hole" of "nearly > dead projects". debian doesn't count? > > openmotif isn't free software. > You know, OpenMotif is a corner case wrt. "OpenSource". It is definitely not free software as defined by the OSI, and also because it is really not fres software: there are restrictions about using it on some platforms. > > Doing that switch is important in my opinion. > I could not disagree more. I feel your opinion to be a fundamentalist's > position, making an issue where the isn't any. It is not my position, it is the fedora position (I don't even have a clear idea of what is my position on that case). > OpenMotif has been part of most major Linux distros for many years. > I am not aware of any legal actions/threads against anybody because of > this. As said by others this is really not relevant, free software isn't 'redistributable in fedora' software. > It is known not to work in many cases and in many case to require > hacking and patching to get it going. This is not a rela blocker, and shouldn't block complying with fedora goals anyway. -- Pat From arjan at fenrus.demon.nl Mon Aug 21 08:20:15 2006 From: arjan at fenrus.demon.nl (Arjan van de Ven) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 10:20:15 +0200 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <1156132931.4380.57.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060818211818.GA2560@free.fr> <44E6318C.4070106@fedoraproject.org> <20060818215927.GA5346@rathann.pekin.waw.pl> <44E6383B.2030501@fedoraproject.org> <1156049574.7629.132.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <44E84A29.2060906@fedoraproject.org> <1156087693.23756.42.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <44E88222.8040905@fedoraproject.org> <1156132208.7629.169.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1156132931.4380.57.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1156148415.23756.117.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 00:02 -0400, Michael Tiemann wrote: > On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 05:50 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > > Ok my wording might not have been entirely appropriate but it doesnt > > > meet the packaging guidelines for either Free software > > > (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/motif.html) or open source software > > > (http://www.opengroup.org/openmotif/faq.html) and should be removed from > > > the distribution. > > Yes, OpenMotif is not a copyright nor a legal issue. It's a religious > > one. It's licence doesn't meet the some people's "confession/belief" > > Ralf, > > I disagree. Fedora was constituted as a free software distribution. > There were many struggles and false starts along the way, and we all > have the battle scars to prove that. But things are getting better, and > now we are in a position to make good on a promise we made at the start > of the project. Religion has nothing whatsoever to do with this. > Courage, commitment, freedom, and accountability have everything to do > with this. in this case of openmotif, the open motif license, when used in fedora, allows for modifications and distributions of those modifications both in binary and source code form. That fits some peoples definition of free software. What it doesn't allow is taking openmotif and putting it in, say, windows. Or in a Linux distro that integrates binary components in the kernel (but arguably copyright law doesn't allow that either ;). This clause is only slightly different than clause 2 of the GPL, and really only matters for non-Fedora. As such I agree with Ralf that this is a religious belief, not about "free software" per se. From arjan at fenrus.demon.nl Mon Aug 21 08:21:43 2006 From: arjan at fenrus.demon.nl (Arjan van de Ven) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 10:21:43 +0200 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <44E9531C.4020505@hhs.nl> References: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060818211818.GA2560@free.fr> <44E6318C.4070106@fedoraproject.org> <20060818215927.GA5346@rathann.pekin.waw.pl> <44E6383B.2030501@fedoraproject.org> <1156049574.7629.132.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <44E84A29.2060906@fedoraproject.org> <1156087693.23756.42.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <44E88222.8040905@fedoraproject.org> <1156132208.7629.169.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <44E9531C.4020505@hhs.nl> Message-ID: <1156148503.23756.118.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> > Now royalty free does not sound very free software / oss to me. Oh? the gpl has similar terms; if it said the opposite it'd be not very freee/oss ;) From alan at redhat.com Mon Aug 21 08:23:03 2006 From: alan at redhat.com (Alan Cox) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 04:23:03 -0400 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <44E9531C.4020505@hhs.nl> References: <20060818211818.GA2560@free.fr> <44E6318C.4070106@fedoraproject.org> <20060818215927.GA5346@rathann.pekin.waw.pl> <44E6383B.2030501@fedoraproject.org> <1156049574.7629.132.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <44E84A29.2060906@fedoraproject.org> <1156087693.23756.42.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <44E88222.8040905@fedoraproject.org> <1156132208.7629.169.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <44E9531C.4020505@hhs.nl> Message-ID: <20060821082303.GA27888@devserv.devel.redhat.com> On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 08:30:52AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > notice the hairy and vague condition: "as long as the operating system > upon which Open Motif is running meets the OSI's Open Source Definition" > so if someone want s to take Fedora and replace say the kernel and > c-library with something proprietary for what ever reason he cannot do > that without removing openmotif. And what about a kernel with the nvidea > driver loaded does that still count as an openrating system matching > OSI's Open Source Definition? According to OpenGroup long ago it does not. But it isnt clear what an Open Source OS actually is From pertusus at free.fr Mon Aug 21 10:33:51 2006 From: pertusus at free.fr (Patrice Dumas) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 12:33:51 +0200 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <1156148415.23756.117.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> References: <44E6318C.4070106@fedoraproject.org> <20060818215927.GA5346@rathann.pekin.waw.pl> <44E6383B.2030501@fedoraproject.org> <1156049574.7629.132.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <44E84A29.2060906@fedoraproject.org> <1156087693.23756.42.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <44E88222.8040905@fedoraproject.org> <1156132208.7629.169.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1156132931.4380.57.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1156148415.23756.117.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Message-ID: <20060821103351.GB4333@free.fr> > in this case of openmotif, the open motif license, when used in fedora, > allows for modifications and distributions of those modifications both > in binary and source code form. That fits some peoples definition of > free software. > > What it doesn't allow is taking openmotif and putting it in, say, > windows. This could be considered, in some way, even more 'fundamentaly free' than the GPL as the GPL code don't mix with proprietary code, but with proprietary apps, while openmotif (shipped with fedora) don't even mix with some proprietary software (proprietary OS). But such a controversy (and there may be more to say about what is free software from many points of view) doesn't seem to be relevant to me. The issue is here that of a definition. Keeping openmotif or not based on some ideas about mixing with proprietary OS would be religious belief. I think that here this is not the issue, the issue is simply, is openmotif OSI compliant? If not, it shouldn't be shipped with fedora. Or fedora shold change its goals, to mention somehow that the softwares with openmotif licence are accepted. > As such I agree with Ralf that this is a > religious belief, not about "free software" per se. It's about the definition of free software, (or about the definition of fedora): * if the definition of free software is the OSI definition then openmotif isn't free software. * If fedora is only made of OSI compliant softwares then openmotif shouldn't be in fedora. -- Pat From arjan at fenrus.demon.nl Mon Aug 21 10:50:50 2006 From: arjan at fenrus.demon.nl (Arjan van de Ven) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 12:50:50 +0200 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <20060821103351.GB4333@free.fr> References: <44E6318C.4070106@fedoraproject.org> <20060818215927.GA5346@rathann.pekin.waw.pl> <44E6383B.2030501@fedoraproject.org> <1156049574.7629.132.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <44E84A29.2060906@fedoraproject.org> <1156087693.23756.42.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <44E88222.8040905@fedoraproject.org> <1156132208.7629.169.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1156132931.4380.57.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1156148415.23756.117.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <20060821103351.GB4333@free.fr> Message-ID: <1156157451.23756.136.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> > > > As such I agree with Ralf that this is a > > religious belief, not about "free software" per se. > > It's about the definition of free software, (or about the definition of > fedora): > > * if the definition of free software is the OSI definition then > openmotif isn't free software. > * If fedora is only made of OSI compliant softwares then openmotif > shouldn't be in fedora. that's still a belief. I'm not arguing against a belief; such beliefs form a set of values, and those are generally good. I'm not arguing against removing openmotif from fedora; it does violate a core fedora belief and as such there's not much place for it in the distro [*]. But to pretend it's not a "belief" is almost dishonest. Free software as a whole is already a "belief" in itself after all, and where exactly one should draw the line is exactly such a belief. Sure it's codified in the OSI guidelines, and that's good as well. But that doesn't make it any less of a belief/set of values. [*] It'd be interesting to find out why Red Hat added openmotif in the first place, didn't they do a license audit at the time? From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Mon Aug 21 11:20:19 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 16:50:19 +0530 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <1156157451.23756.136.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> References: <44E6318C.4070106@fedoraproject.org> <20060818215927.GA5346@rathann.pekin.waw.pl> <44E6383B.2030501@fedoraproject.org> <1156049574.7629.132.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <44E84A29.2060906@fedoraproject.org> <1156087693.23756.42.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <44E88222.8040905@fedoraproject.org> <1156132208.7629.169.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1156132931.4380.57.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1156148415.23756.117.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <20060821103351.GB4333@free.fr> <1156157451.23756.136.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Message-ID: <44E996F3.40407@fedoraproject.org> Arjan van de Ven wrote: >>> As such I agree with Ralf that this is a >>> religious belief, not about "free software" per se. >> It's about the definition of free software, (or about the definition of >> fedora): >> >> * if the definition of free software is the OSI definition then >> openmotif isn't free software. >> * If fedora is only made of OSI compliant softwares then openmotif >> shouldn't be in fedora. > > that's still a belief. I'm not arguing against a belief; such beliefs > form a set of values, and those are generally good. I'm not arguing > against removing openmotif from fedora; it does violate a core fedora > belief and as such there's not much place for it in the distro [*]. > > But to pretend it's not a "belief" is almost dishonest. Free software as > a whole is already a "belief" in itself after all, and where exactly one > should draw the line is exactly such a belief. Sure it's codified in the > OSI guidelines, and that's good as well. But that doesn't make it any > less of a belief/set of values. > > > [*] It'd be interesting to find out why Red Hat added openmotif in the > first place, didn't they do a license audit at the time? Agreed. It is a set of values if you consider Free software that. Rahul From pertusus at free.fr Mon Aug 21 11:20:31 2006 From: pertusus at free.fr (Patrice Dumas) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 13:20:31 +0200 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <1156157451.23756.136.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> References: <44E6383B.2030501@fedoraproject.org> <1156049574.7629.132.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <44E84A29.2060906@fedoraproject.org> <1156087693.23756.42.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <44E88222.8040905@fedoraproject.org> <1156132208.7629.169.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1156132931.4380.57.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1156148415.23756.117.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <20060821103351.GB4333@free.fr> <1156157451.23756.136.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Message-ID: <20060821112031.GC4333@free.fr> On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 12:50:50PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > * if the definition of free software is the OSI definition then > > openmotif isn't free software. > > * If fedora is only made of OSI compliant softwares then openmotif > > shouldn't be in fedora. > > that's still a belief. I'm not arguing against a belief; such beliefs > form a set of values, and those are generally good. I'm not arguing > against removing openmotif from fedora; it does violate a core fedora > belief and as such there's not much place for it in the distro [*]. > > But to pretend it's not a "belief" is almost dishonest. Free software as Sure, I didn't mean that it is not a belief, but that it shouldn't be violated solely because it is a belief. Indeed it becomes a norm within fedora when it is in the fedora goal. The norm should be respected, or changed. And once a norm is edicted it should become as technical (objective?) as possible to check whether it is respected or not. -- Pat From rdieter at math.unl.edu Mon Aug 21 11:40:08 2006 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 06:40:08 -0500 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <1156132931.4380.57.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060818211818.GA2560@free.fr> <44E6318C.4070106@fedoraproject.org> <20060818215927.GA5346@rathann.pekin.waw.pl> <44E6383B.2030501@fedoraproject.org> <1156049574.7629.132.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <44E84A29.2060906@fedoraproject.org> <1156087693.23756.42.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <44E88222.8040905@fedoraproject.org> <1156132208.7629.169.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1156132931.4380.57.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <44E99B98.5030408@math.unl.edu> Michael Tiemann wrote: > On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 05:50 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > >>> Ok my wording might not have been entirely appropriate but it doesnt >>> meet the packaging guidelines for either Free software >>> (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/motif.html) or open source software >>> (http://www.opengroup.org/openmotif/faq.html) and should be removed from >>> the distribution. >> Yes, OpenMotif is not a copyright nor a legal issue. It's a religious >> one. It's licence doesn't meet the some people's "confession/belief" > > Ralf, > > I disagree. Fedora was constituted as a free software distribution. Correction: (AFAICT) As it is *right now* Fedora is an OpenSource distribution, not 100% free (yet). Moving from OSS -> free is another discussion. -- Rex From jkeating at redhat.com Mon Aug 21 12:42:09 2006 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 08:42:09 -0400 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <1156143098.7629.221.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44E9531C.4020505@hhs.nl> <1156143098.7629.221.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <200608210842.10115.jkeating@redhat.com> On Monday 21 August 2006 02:51, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > To quote the opengroups motif faq (linked above) on this: > > "Open Motif source code and binaries can be distributed royalty free > > under The Open Group Public License as long as the operating system upon > > which Open Motif is running meets the OSI's Open Source Definition" > > 1. Fedora is based on the OSI-definition itself => Non-issue Fedora doesn't just care about Distributable. We care about REdistributable. This is why we don't include "free" things that are distributable such as certain Fluendo plugins. We care deeply about being able to redistribute Fedora and Fedora derivatives. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mattdm at mattdm.org Mon Aug 21 13:37:34 2006 From: mattdm at mattdm.org (Matthew Miller) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 09:37:34 -0400 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <1156148415.23756.117.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> References: <44E6318C.4070106@fedoraproject.org> <20060818215927.GA5346@rathann.pekin.waw.pl> <44E6383B.2030501@fedoraproject.org> <1156049574.7629.132.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <44E84A29.2060906@fedoraproject.org> <1156087693.23756.42.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <44E88222.8040905@fedoraproject.org> <1156132208.7629.169.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1156132931.4380.57.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1156148415.23756.117.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Message-ID: <20060821133734.GA15692@jadzia.bu.edu> On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 10:20:15AM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > What it doesn't allow is taking openmotif and putting it in, say, > windows. Or in a Linux distro that integrates binary components in the > kernel (but arguably copyright law doesn't allow that either ;). This Can we do something technical to enforce that it won't load on a kernel tainted by a binary module? That will help ensure license compliance. (Um, but not tainted by OpenAFS. *sigh*.) -- Matthew Miller mattdm at mattdm.org Boston University Linux ------> From jspaleta at gmail.com Tue Aug 22 00:23:47 2006 From: jspaleta at gmail.com (Jeff Spaleta) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 16:23:47 -0800 Subject: Call for devel tree testing with an aim at resurrecting istanbul. Message-ID: <604aa7910608211723q50e7b2fan65710251673be89f@mail.gmail.com> Good Morning campers, I need some help from people running rawhide or a test release to help me prep a new istanbul package for the devel tree aimed at fc6. Since I couldn't find a sucker..err uhm volunteer...to take this package over before I left for the great white north.. this thing is still sort of sitting in limbo. The good news is I have a package building for istanbul 0.2.1 using the gstreamer bits from core development. The bad news is I really can't follow this up with the appropriate amount of devel tree testing myself, I simply don't have the bandwidth at home right now to run a development box. So what I need is for someone to act as my proxy and help me test to make sure the basic minimum of functionality works.... even if the video is still rough. More excitingly the new istanbul claims it can do audio recording and claims it can record the mouse pointer... so if the new features work then we have a pretty useful tool to create theora tour videos. Regardless of how well it actually functions, the first step is making sure it does build and does the basic operation on a devel box. I can email my latest srpm to people who want to test this on a devel box. Sadly I don't have a good place to park the srpm for people to upload right now. Any takers? Backstory: Since the magic behind instanbul is just a fancy presentation of several gst modules working together, the underlying gst modules need to be present for istanbul to work. As of the time of my move to the great white north, the move to gst .10 had left the necessary modules to do X display capture out of the "good" category and it was instead lingering in the low quality category (not the legally grey category). As a result istanbul 0.2.1 will not work on fc5.. but it does appear that the needed gst module is in fc6's gstreamer-plugins-good package. -jef From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org Tue Aug 22 02:07:33 2006 From: jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org (Josh Boyer) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 21:07:33 -0500 Subject: Call for devel tree testing with an aim at resurrecting istanbul. In-Reply-To: <604aa7910608211723q50e7b2fan65710251673be89f@mail.gmail.com> References: <604aa7910608211723q50e7b2fan65710251673be89f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1156212453.2683.63.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 16:23 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > > Regardless of how well it actually functions, the first step is making > sure it does build and does the basic operation on a devel box. I can > email my latest srpm to people who want to test this on a devel box. > Sadly I don't have a good place to park the srpm for people to upload > right now. Any takers? I can host it. Send it to me and I'll put it up. I even have a rawhide box I can try building it on. josh From rc040203 at freenet.de Tue Aug 22 03:30:40 2006 From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 05:30:40 +0200 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <20060821071642.GB2497@free.fr> References: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060818211818.GA2560@free.fr> <44E6318C.4070106@fedoraproject.org> <20060818215927.GA5346@rathann.pekin.waw.pl> <44E6383B.2030501@fedoraproject.org> <1156049574.7629.132.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20060820102836.GB2567@free.fr> <1156131994.7629.164.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20060821071642.GB2497@free.fr> Message-ID: <1156217441.25703.19.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 09:16 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote: > > Most major distros (e.g. SuSE and RedHat) abandoned Lesstif many years > > ago, which had caused Lesstif to fall into the "black hole" of "nearly > > dead projects". > > debian doesn't count? Not that much, because their "religiousness on OpenSource" makes one essential difference to Fedora and is one core reason why people are using Fedora. If I was "religious on OpenSource", I was using Debian, and not wasting my time on Fedora. If Fedora is heading down the same lane, there isn't much reason for Fedora to exist. > > > openmotif isn't free software. > > You know, OpenMotif is a corner case wrt. "OpenSource". > > It is definitely not free software as defined by the OSI, and also because > it is really not fres software: there are restrictions about using it > on some platforms. As well as is Qt (QPL). > > OpenMotif has been part of most major Linux distros for many years. > > I am not aware of any legal actions/threads against anybody because of > > this. > > As said by others this is really not relevant, free software isn't > 'redistributable in fedora' software. I disagree. IMO, both OpenMotif and Fedora are redistributable. The impact of the OpenMotif "royalty fee" clause doesn't impact Fedora, because Fedora shipping GPL'ed SW has analogous side-effects on the Fedora distro. > > It is known not to work in many cases and in many case to require > > hacking and patching to get it going. > > This is not a rela blocker, and shouldn't block complying with fedora > goals anyway. Great, function isn't of any importance in Fedora ... Ralf From tiemann at redhat.com Tue Aug 22 03:37:57 2006 From: tiemann at redhat.com (Michael Tiemann) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 23:37:57 -0400 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <1156217441.25703.19.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060818211818.GA2560@free.fr> <44E6318C.4070106@fedoraproject.org> <20060818215927.GA5346@rathann.pekin.waw.pl> <44E6383B.2030501@fedoraproject.org> <1156049574.7629.132.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20060820102836.GB2567@free.fr> <1156131994.7629.164.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20060821071642.GB2497@free.fr> <1156217441.25703.19.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <1156217877.4453.44.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2006-08-22 at 05:30 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > If I was "religious on OpenSource", I was using Debian, > and not wasting my time on Fedora. If you like their brand of religion. Many don't. > If Fedora is heading down the same lane, there isn't much reason for > Fedora to exist. You forget that Fedora participants have an inside track on seeing their stuff become enterprise-ready. Some people actually care about seeing their code running in mission-critical environments. And some people actually appreciate the close interaction with Red Hat's engineers that comes as a result in working in the same tree we do. So Fedora is the best of both worlds (free software and proto-enterprise). M From michael at knox.net.nz Tue Aug 22 03:39:48 2006 From: michael at knox.net.nz (Michael J. Knox) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 15:39:48 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <1156217441.25703.19.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060818211818.GA2560@free.fr> <44E6318C.4070106@fedoraproject.org> <20060818215927.GA5346@rathann.pekin.waw.pl> <44E6383B.2030501@fedoraproject.org> <1156049574.7629.132.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20060820102836.GB2567@free.fr> <1156131994.7629.164.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20060821071642.GB2497@free.fr> <1156217441.25703.19.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <55359.203.118.135.21.1156217988.squirrel@www.knox.net.nz> Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 09:16 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote: >> > Most major distros (e.g. SuSE and RedHat) abandoned Lesstif many years >> > ago, which had caused Lesstif to fall into the "black hole" of "nearly >> > dead projects". >> >> debian doesn't count? > Not that much, because their "religiousness on OpenSource" makes one > essential difference to Fedora and is one core reason why people are > using Fedora. If I was "religious on OpenSource", I was using Debian, > and not wasting my time on Fedora. Not that they are "that" religious with regards to OSS... since they promote the use on non free through their own hosted non-free repos. way OT anyways.... Michael From rc040203 at freenet.de Tue Aug 22 04:41:23 2006 From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 06:41:23 +0200 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <1156217877.4453.44.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060818211818.GA2560@free.fr> <44E6318C.4070106@fedoraproject.org> <20060818215927.GA5346@rathann.pekin.waw.pl> <44E6383B.2030501@fedoraproject.org> <1156049574.7629.132.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20060820102836.GB2567@free.fr> <1156131994.7629.164.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20060821071642.GB2497@free.fr> <1156217441.25703.19.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1156217877.4453.44.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1156221683.25703.41.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 23:37 -0400, Michael Tiemann wrote: > On Tue, 2006-08-22 at 05:30 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > If I was "religious on OpenSource", I was using Debian, > > and not wasting my time on Fedora. > > If you like their brand of religion. Many don't. Exactly. I don't, but ... I increasingly don't dislike "Fedora's religion" too. > > If Fedora is heading down the same lane, there isn't much reason for > > Fedora to exist. > > You forget that Fedora participants have an inside track on seeing their > stuff become enterprise-ready. Some people actually care about seeing > their code running in mission-critical environments. And some people > actually appreciate the close interaction with Red Hat's engineers that > comes as a result in working in the same tree we do. ROTFL - Nice joke ;) By launching Fedora, RH some sort "had let their trousers down", ... It is in the eye of the beholder to build an opinion on this. Ralf From peter at thecodergeek.com Tue Aug 22 05:49:08 2006 From: peter at thecodergeek.com (Peter Gordon) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 22:49:08 -0700 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <1156217441.25703.19.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060818211818.GA2560@free.fr> <44E6318C.4070106@fedoraproject.org> <20060818215927.GA5346@rathann.pekin.waw.pl> <44E6383B.2030501@fedoraproject.org> <1156049574.7629.132.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20060820102836.GB2567@free.fr> <1156131994.7629.164.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20060821071642.GB2497@free.fr> <1156217441.25703.19.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <44EA9AD4.5030602@thecodergeek.com> Ralf Corsepius wrote: > If Fedora is heading down the same lane, there isn't much reason for > Fedora to exist. Don't say such things! Fedora's insistence on using only F/OSS while being (mostly) user-friendly is one of its greatest strong points, IMHO. It shows how beneficial such licensing can be, and is a perfect example of a stable and secure, yet highly-updated distribution. >> It is definitely not free software as defined by the OSI, and also because >> it is really not fres software: there are restrictions about using it >> on some platforms. > As well as is Qt (QPL). Qt 3 was dual-licensed for X11 (and OS X, too?) a long time ago (QPL and GPL). It is under the GPL that Fedora distributes it in tandem with other applications. (IIRC, Qt 4 is GPL'ed on Windows too.) My two cents... -- Peter Gordon (codergeek42) GnuPG Public Key ID: 0xFFC19479 / Fingerprint: DD68 A414 56BD 6368 D957 9666 4268 CB7A FFC1 9479 My Blog: http://thecodergeek.com/blog/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 251 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From alan at redhat.com Tue Aug 22 09:11:03 2006 From: alan at redhat.com (Alan Cox) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 05:11:03 -0400 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <1156217441.25703.19.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060818211818.GA2560@free.fr> <44E6318C.4070106@fedoraproject.org> <20060818215927.GA5346@rathann.pekin.waw.pl> <44E6383B.2030501@fedoraproject.org> <1156049574.7629.132.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20060820102836.GB2567@free.fr> <1156131994.7629.164.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20060821071642.GB2497@free.fr> <1156217441.25703.19.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <20060822091103.GB20935@devserv.devel.redhat.com> On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 05:30:40AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > It is definitely not free software as defined by the OSI, and also because > > it is really not fres software: there are restrictions about using it > > on some platforms. > As well as is Qt (QPL). The QPL license doesn't restrict the platforms. If you want you can port the free Qt to windows. It isn't as if anybody uses motif any more except xpdf Alan From grenier at cgsecurity.org Tue Aug 22 10:32:46 2006 From: grenier at cgsecurity.org (Christophe GRENIER) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 12:32:46 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <20060820102836.GB2567@free.fr> References: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060818211818.GA2560@free.fr> <44E6318C.4070106@fedoraproject.org> <20060818215927.GA5346@rathann.pekin.waw.pl> <44E6383B.2030501@fedoraproject.org> <1156049574.7629.132.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20060820102836.GB2567@free.fr> Message-ID: On Sun, 20 Aug 2006, Patrice Dumas wrote: > On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 06:52:53AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: >> On Sat, 2006-08-19 at 03:29 +0530, Rahul wrote: >>> Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: >>>> Too bad. I'm working on getting a package (opendx) which depends on openmotif >>>> into Extras. Any viable openmotif replacements? >> No. >> >>> Lesstif obviously. >> >> Definitely non-obvious? >> >> Last time I checked, lesstif didn't really work "that well". > > Were the lesstif developpers reluctant on fixing the bugs? Giving more > visibility to lesstif may help having the bugs solved, and maybe could > lead openmotif to be turned into a free software. The promise to have > openmotif licenced under a free software licence is there since many years, > but nothing has happened. > >> To me, dropping OpenMotif would be real regression. > > openmotif isn't free software. Doing that switch is important in my opinion. > > lesstif is known to work with most or all of the softwares shipped in fedora > extras and core. > > If somebody really wants openmotif, he will certainly have the knowledge > to install it, but we really shouldn't provide openmotif, like any other > non-free software. Other than xpdf, the only reason I have to install openmotif are two (ugly) non-free software: - Oracle database - Citrix ICAClient Dropping openmotif would be a serious regression unless lesstif works as a replacement... Regards, Christophe ----------------------------------------------------------------- ,-~~-.___. ._. / | ' \ | |"""""""""| -= GRENIER Christophe =- ( ) 0 | | | \_/-, ,----' | | | ==== !_!--v---v--" http://www.cgsecurity.org / \-'~; |""""""""| / __/~| ._-""|| | Email: grenier at cgsecurity.org =( _____|_|____||________| ----------------------------------------------------------------- From steve at kspei.com Tue Aug 22 17:32:18 2006 From: steve at kspei.com (Steven Pritchard) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 12:32:18 -0500 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: References: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060818211818.GA2560@free.fr> <44E6318C.4070106@fedoraproject.org> <20060818215927.GA5346@rathann.pekin.waw.pl> <44E6383B.2030501@fedoraproject.org> <1156049574.7629.132.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20060820102836.GB2567@free.fr> Message-ID: <20060822173218.GA29357@osiris.silug.org> On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 12:32:46PM +0200, Christophe GRENIER wrote: > Other than xpdf, the only reason I have to install openmotif are > two (ugly) non-free software: > - Oracle database > - Citrix ICAClient I'm surprised either of those would dynamically link against Motif. Actually, I'm surprised they would dynamically link *anything*. Steve -- Steven Pritchard - K&S Pritchard Enterprises, Inc. Email: steve at kspei.com http://www.kspei.com/ Phone: (618)398-3000 Mobile: (618)567-7320 From rdieter at math.unl.edu Tue Aug 22 17:38:53 2006 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 12:38:53 -0500 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: References: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060818211818.GA2560@free.fr> <44E6318C.4070106@fedoraproject.org> <20060818215927.GA5346@rathann.pekin.waw.pl> <44E6383B.2030501@fedoraproject.org> <1156049574.7629.132.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20060820102836.GB2567@free.fr> Message-ID: <44EB412D.7090601@math.unl.edu> Christophe GRENIER wrote: > Other than xpdf, the only reason I have to install openmotif are > two (ugly) non-free software: > - Oracle database > - Citrix ICAClient > Dropping openmotif would be a serious regression unless lesstif > works as a replacement... lesstif (as-is) can (at least pretend to) replace openmotif-2.1, providing libXm.so.2. -- Rex From pertusus at free.fr Tue Aug 22 18:48:44 2006 From: pertusus at free.fr (Patrice Dumas) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 20:48:44 +0200 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <44EB412D.7090601@math.unl.edu> References: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060818211818.GA2560@free.fr> <44E6318C.4070106@fedoraproject.org> <20060818215927.GA5346@rathann.pekin.waw.pl> <44E6383B.2030501@fedoraproject.org> <1156049574.7629.132.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20060820102836.GB2567@free.fr> <44EB412D.7090601@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: <20060822184843.GA10318@free.fr> On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 12:38:53PM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > Christophe GRENIER wrote: > > >Other than xpdf, the only reason I have to install openmotif are > >two (ugly) non-free software: > >- Oracle database > >- Citrix ICAClient > >Dropping openmotif would be a serious regression unless lesstif > >works as a replacement... But... How are the soname changes handled in that case? > lesstif (as-is) can (at least pretend to) replace openmotif-2.1, > providing libXm.so.2. Although it is not ABI compatible. The softwares have to be recompiled. -- Pat From grenier at cgsecurity.org Tue Aug 22 18:55:33 2006 From: grenier at cgsecurity.org (Christophe GRENIER) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 20:55:33 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <20060822173218.GA29357@osiris.silug.org> References: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060818211818.GA2560@free.fr> <44E6318C.4070106@fedoraproject.org> <20060818215927.GA5346@rathann.pekin.waw.pl> <44E6383B.2030501@fedoraproject.org> <1156049574.7629.132.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20060820102836.GB2567@free.fr> <20060822173218.GA29357@osiris.silug.org> Message-ID: On Tue, 22 Aug 2006, Steven Pritchard wrote: > On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 12:32:46PM +0200, Christophe GRENIER wrote: >> Other than xpdf, the only reason I have to install openmotif are >> two (ugly) non-free software: >> - Oracle database >> - Citrix ICAClient > > I'm surprised either of those would dynamically link against Motif. > > Actually, I'm surprised they would dynamically link *anything*. They do... rpm -qR ICAClient libXaw.so.7 libXm.so.3 libXpm.so.4 libXp.so.6 libXext.so.6 /bin/sh but there is more dependancies in fact ldd /usr/lib/ICAClient/wfica libc.so.6 => /lib/tls/libc.so.6 (0x00487000) libdl.so.2 => /lib/libdl.so.2 (0x003a5000) libICE.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libICE.so.6 (0x022a4000) /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x00366000) libSM.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libSM.so.6 (0x005ea000) libX11.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libX11.so.6 (0x003ab000) libXaw.so.7 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libXaw.so.7 (0x006f0000) libXext.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libXext.so.6 (0x005c6000) libXmu.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libXmu.so.6 (0x008b1000) libXpm.so.4 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libXpm.so.4 (0x006df000) libXt.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libXt.so.6 (0x0098a000) linux-gate.so.1 => (0xb7f92000) Christophe ----------------------------------------------------------------- ,-~~-.___. ._. / | ' \ | |"""""""""| -= GRENIER Christophe =- ( ) 0 | | | \_/-, ,----' | | | ==== !_!--v---v--" http://www.cgsecurity.org / \-'~; |""""""""| / __/~| ._-""|| | Email: grenier at cgsecurity.org =( _____|_|____||________| ----------------------------------------------------------------- From rc040203 at freenet.de Wed Aug 23 05:23:36 2006 From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 07:23:36 +0200 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <1156157451.23756.136.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> References: <44E6318C.4070106@fedoraproject.org> <20060818215927.GA5346@rathann.pekin.waw.pl> <44E6383B.2030501@fedoraproject.org> <1156049574.7629.132.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <44E84A29.2060906@fedoraproject.org> <1156087693.23756.42.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <44E88222.8040905@fedoraproject.org> <1156132208.7629.169.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1156132931.4380.57.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1156148415.23756.117.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <20060821103351.GB4333@free.fr> <1156157451.23756.136.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Message-ID: <1156310616.25703.137.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 12:50 +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > > > As such I agree with Ralf that this is a > > > religious belief, not about "free software" per se. > > > > It's about the definition of free software, (or about the definition of > > fedora): > > > > * if the definition of free software is the OSI definition then > > openmotif isn't free software. > > * If fedora is only made of OSI compliant softwares then openmotif > > shouldn't be in fedora. > [*] It'd be interesting to find out why Red Hat added openmotif in the > first place, didn't they do a license audit at the time? ACK, dunno either, but I can tell you my argumentation: 1. RH-Linuxes are OSI-compliant. 2. RH doesn't charge royalty-fees in the traditional OSF/OpenGroup sense (In the past, the OSF charged per time/per seat licenses for OSF/Motif). 3. To be able to link applications against OpenMotif, they must apply an OSI-compliant license => All applications in RH/Fedora are supposed to be so. => Non-issues to RH. 4. The "royalty-fee clause" doesn't affect developers working on OSI-compliant Linux-packages. Conversely it actually helps OpenSource. Technically, at time when OSF/OpenGroup Motif went open source, Lesstif had not been close to be compatible to OpenMotif (It's Motif-1.x implementation had been rather usable, but the Motif-2.x implementation had not been much more than junk). Seeing Motif going open, had introduced a real relief to all OpenSource Motif developers and caused them to further on ignore Lesstif as "semi-functional toy junk". Ralf From rc040203 at freenet.de Wed Aug 23 06:03:15 2006 From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 08:03:15 +0200 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <20060822091103.GB20935@devserv.devel.redhat.com> References: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060818211818.GA2560@free.fr> <44E6318C.4070106@fedoraproject.org> <20060818215927.GA5346@rathann.pekin.waw.pl> <44E6383B.2030501@fedoraproject.org> <1156049574.7629.132.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20060820102836.GB2567@free.fr> <1156131994.7629.164.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20060821071642.GB2497@free.fr> <1156217441.25703.19.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20060822091103.GB20935@devserv.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1156312995.25703.143.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> On Tue, 2006-08-22 at 05:11 -0400, Alan Cox wrote: > On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 05:30:40AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > It is definitely not free software as defined by the OSI, and also because > > > it is really not fres software: there are restrictions about using it > > > on some platforms. > > As well as is Qt (QPL). > > The QPL license doesn't restrict the platforms. As a developer you can't contribute to QPL/GPL'ed (and other dual/multiply licensed) packages back upstream without leaving the GPL. => Non-free sources. It's the reason for me to want participate into KDE and not contribute any patches to KDE/Qt based works. > If you want you can port > the free Qt to windows. Yes, ... > It isn't as if anybody uses motif any more except > xpdf Agreed wrt. new OpenSource works, but many entities still have (in-house, never publically released) packages around. Ralf From rc040203 at freenet.de Wed Aug 23 06:08:20 2006 From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 08:08:20 +0200 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <44EA9AD4.5030602@thecodergeek.com> References: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060818211818.GA2560@free.fr> <44E6318C.4070106@fedoraproject.org> <20060818215927.GA5346@rathann.pekin.waw.pl> <44E6383B.2030501@fedoraproject.org> <1156049574.7629.132.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20060820102836.GB2567@free.fr> <1156131994.7629.164.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20060821071642.GB2497@free.fr> <1156217441.25703.19.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <44EA9AD4.5030602@thecodergeek.com> Message-ID: <1156313300.25703.149.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 22:49 -0700, Peter Gordon wrote: > Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > If Fedora is heading down the same lane, there isn't much reason for > > Fedora to exist. > > Don't say such things! Well, my primary reason not to use Debian is their zealotry/religious about their definition of OpenSource - It prevents Debian from being a really usable distro. If Fedora exposes the same effect, it'll soon be not much more than an "rpm-based Debian unstable". > Fedora's insistence on using only F/OSS while > being (mostly) user-friendly is one of its greatest strong points, IMHO. > It shows how beneficial such licensing can be, and is a perfect example > of a stable and secure, yet highly-updated distribution. Well, if Fedora continues the way it currently does, it'll soon be unusable for me, which would force me to quit. Ralf From notting at redhat.com Wed Aug 23 12:40:27 2006 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 08:40:27 -0400 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <1156313300.25703.149.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <44E6318C.4070106@fedoraproject.org> <20060818215927.GA5346@rathann.pekin.waw.pl> <44E6383B.2030501@fedoraproject.org> <1156049574.7629.132.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20060820102836.GB2567@free.fr> <1156131994.7629.164.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20060821071642.GB2497@free.fr> <1156217441.25703.19.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <44EA9AD4.5030602@thecodergeek.com> <1156313300.25703.149.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <20060823124027.GC15578@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Ralf Corsepius (rc040203 at freenet.de) said: > > Fedora's insistence on using only F/OSS while > > being (mostly) user-friendly is one of its greatest strong points, IMHO. > > It shows how beneficial such licensing can be, and is a perfect example > > of a stable and secure, yet highly-updated distribution. > > Well, if Fedora continues the way it currently does, it'll soon be > unusable for me, which would force me to quit. What specific software that wouldn't be available is causing this opinion for you? Just openmotif? Something else? I'm not convinced that opnemotif is even that great for older third-party apps, considering it's changed the abi a couple of times from the 'original' release. Bill From bugs.michael at gmx.net Wed Aug 23 17:40:28 2006 From: bugs.michael at gmx.net (Michael Schwendt) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 19:40:28 +0200 Subject: It's time to play that Name Game again! In-Reply-To: <44E4E27D.3090407@linux-kernel.at> References: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> <44E4E27D.3090407@linux-kernel.at> Message-ID: <20060823194028.43626223.bugs.michael@gmx.net> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 23:41:17 +0200, Oliver Falk wrote: > >> PS: The suggestion that won last year was: > >> > >> Why not "Bordeaux" ? > > > > I'm still bitter about *that* winning over "Trance." Hmph. :) > > Me too. My idea. :-\ > > -of Oliver, sorry for the pain and for interrupting this thread, but as I see your participation here I'd like to take the chance and point out that syck-php is broken for 97 days. There even is a bug report about that: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/192798 From oliver at linux-kernel.at Wed Aug 23 21:02:10 2006 From: oliver at linux-kernel.at (Oliver Falk) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 23:02:10 +0200 Subject: It's time to play that Name Game again! In-Reply-To: <20060823194028.43626223.bugs.michael@gmx.net> References: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> <44E4E27D.3090407@linux-kernel.at> <20060823194028.43626223.bugs.michael@gmx.net> Message-ID: <44ECC252.8060302@linux-kernel.at> Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 23:41:17 +0200, Oliver Falk wrote: > >>>> PS: The suggestion that won last year was: >>>> >>>> Why not "Bordeaux" ? >>> I'm still bitter about *that* winning over "Trance." Hmph. :) >> Me too. My idea. :-\ >> >> -of > > Oliver, sorry for the pain and for interrupting this thread, but as I see > your participation here I'd like to take the chance and point out that > syck-php is broken for 97 days. There even is a bug report about that: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/192798 Grrr. Sorry for overseeing that. Still on some kind of holiday, me is. However, I'll thank you a lot for pointin' me. I'll have a look at this latest on monday! -of From pertusus at free.fr Wed Aug 23 21:35:18 2006 From: pertusus at free.fr (Patrice Dumas) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 23:35:18 +0200 Subject: guidelines, devel, .so, and dlopened files Message-ID: <20060823213518.GA2542@free.fr> Hello, There are some rules that seem to be followed in extras, regarding devel packages, headers and .so, but are not in the guidelines, it would certainly make sense to discuss, explain and precise those. There are specific packages that are exceptions and not concerned by those guidelines, like the libc, compilers, binutils, kernel... First a definition: there are 2 kinds of shared objects, shared libraries that are loaded by the dynamic loader and dlopened object files that are loaded dynamically in the code. A library file may always be technically used both as a shared lib and a dlopened file, however in most cases it is used only as shared lib or as a dlopened file. If a shared lib is named foo (linked with -lfoo), the name of the library file must not be libfoo.so. The convention is to name it according to its soname. This kind of library must have a soname. If the shared lib is never dlopened, and there is no reason to rebuild something against that library (like for example for compat packages, or packages with only internal libraries) no link pointing to the library file with name libfoo.so should be shipped. If there is no shared library nor program, only static libs and headers, if the library depends on other -devel packages, the main package must be empty (and therefore not generated) and the library and headers be in a -devel subpackage. If the library doesn't depend on -devel packages it is also possible to have everything in the main package which then must provide the corresponding -devel. In the other cases, a -devel package must be split out of all the packages containing libraries. If there are headers corresponding with the public API of the package it have to go in that devel package. Static libs, if shipped must also go there, with autoconf macros, pkgconfig files, config scripts, programs used for code or headers generation... If the shared library is never dlopened, a link named libfoo.so pointing to the library file have to be shipped in -devel, and not in the main package. If dlopened files are not used as shared libs, they mustn't be in any directory searched for by the dynamic loader, but instead in a subdirectory of %_libdir (or /%_lib). This is the general case for things like plugins. Those dlopened files should be called like foo.so and not have a version in the file name, for example they could be generated by libtool with -avoid-version -module (it is not a strong requirement, it is just good practice). There is a special case for libraries that are to be LD_PRELOAD'ed, in that case they could be in the dynamic loader search path and they may be named libfoo.so. It seems to me that those rules are to be followed in all the cases, and should be in the guidelines. Now we come to a more controversial issue: libraries used as shared lib but also dlopened. In that case, my personal opinion is that there should be 2 libfoo.so links pointing to the shared library. One should be in the -devel package in a directory searched for by the linker, and not in the main package. The other one should be in a subdirectory below %_libdir where the dlopening programs should search. Thoughts? I have justifications for some of the rules, but I think that some people on the list know that subject better than me, so I'll let them speak if there is resistance ;-) -- Pat From rc040203 at freenet.de Thu Aug 24 04:13:56 2006 From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius) Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 06:13:56 +0200 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <20060823124027.GC15578@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <44E6318C.4070106@fedoraproject.org> <20060818215927.GA5346@rathann.pekin.waw.pl> <44E6383B.2030501@fedoraproject.org> <1156049574.7629.132.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20060820102836.GB2567@free.fr> <1156131994.7629.164.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20060821071642.GB2497@free.fr> <1156217441.25703.19.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <44EA9AD4.5030602@thecodergeek.com> <1156313300.25703.149.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20060823124027.GC15578@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1156392836.19217.43.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> On Wed, 2006-08-23 at 08:40 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Ralf Corsepius (rc040203 at freenet.de) said: > > > Fedora's insistence on using only F/OSS while > > > being (mostly) user-friendly is one of its greatest strong points, IMHO. > > > It shows how beneficial such licensing can be, and is a perfect example > > > of a stable and secure, yet highly-updated distribution. > > > > Well, if Fedora continues the way it currently does, it'll soon be > > unusable for me, which would force me to quit. > > What specific software that wouldn't be available is causing this > opinion for you? Fedora itself - My initial motivation to participate in Fedora was to tailor a disto to my specific needs, to share this works with others and to mutually benefit from others doing the same, hoping Fedora would evolve into a distro meeting individual users demands better than RHL did. Now, I feel this expectations to fail. Instead, I feel Fedora is being (ab-) used as a means for a "religious crusade", overall causing Fedora to be gradually crippled and becoming less usable. > Just openmotif? Something else? No, removing OpenMotif to me simply is an incident of "zealots throwing a major road block at me". It means a major obstacle and increased divergence from my personal needs as a developer. As user, I find other changes non-helpful, but this would be a different discussion. > I'm not convinced that opnemotif is even that great for older third-party > apps, considering it's changed the abi a couple of times from the 'original' > release. Well, your doubts are partially justified. This occasionally has been an issue in the past, but in practice rarely is an issue these days. The impact other changes (e.g. the restructured X11, GCC changes) have on older code, in most cases outweigh the impact of Motif-API changes. Ralf From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl Thu Aug 24 07:49:08 2006 From: j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl (Hans de Goede) Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 09:49:08 +0200 Subject: guidelines, devel, .so, and dlopened files In-Reply-To: <20060823213518.GA2542@free.fr> References: <20060823213518.GA2542@free.fr> Message-ID: <44ED59F4.2010008@hhs.nl> Hi all, Related to this, we currently have our Provides/Requires: namespace being poluted by automatic .so provides for files which are only meant to be dlopened aka plugins. The easiest fix for this would be for the autodep generator to only look in files which are in the ld.so searchpath (including those listed in ld.so.conf.d files in the RPM_BUILD_ROOT, to correctly handle things like qt3). Any Thoughts / suggestions on this? Regards, Hans Patrice Dumas wrote: > Hello, > > There are some rules that seem to be followed in extras, regarding > devel packages, headers and .so, but are not in the guidelines, it > would certainly make sense to discuss, explain and precise those. > There are specific packages that are exceptions and not concerned by > those guidelines, like the libc, compilers, binutils, kernel... > > > First a definition: there are 2 kinds of shared objects, shared > libraries that are loaded by the dynamic loader and dlopened object > files that are loaded dynamically in the code. A library file may > always be technically used both as a shared lib and a dlopened > file, however in most cases it is used only as shared lib or as a > dlopened file. > > > If a shared lib is named foo (linked with -lfoo), the name of the > library file must not be libfoo.so. The convention is to name > it according to its soname. This kind of library must have a soname. > > If the shared lib is never dlopened, and there is no reason to rebuild > something against that library (like for example for compat packages, > or packages with only internal libraries) no link pointing to the > library file with name libfoo.so should be shipped. > > If there is no shared library nor program, only static libs and headers, > if the library depends on other -devel packages, the main package > must be empty (and therefore not generated) and the library and headers > be in a -devel subpackage. If the library doesn't depend on -devel > packages it is also possible to have everything in the main package which > then must provide the corresponding -devel. > > In the other cases, a -devel package must be split out of all the > packages containing libraries. If there are headers corresponding with the > public API of the package it have to go in that devel package. Static > libs, if shipped must also go there, with autoconf macros, pkgconfig > files, config scripts, programs used for code or headers generation... > > If the shared library is never dlopened, a link named libfoo.so > pointing to the library file have to be shipped in -devel, and not > in the main package. > > If dlopened files are not used as shared libs, they mustn't be in > any directory searched for by the dynamic loader, but instead in a > subdirectory of %_libdir (or /%_lib). This is the general case for > things like plugins. Those dlopened files should be called like foo.so > and not have a version in the file name, for example they could be > generated by libtool with -avoid-version -module (it is not a strong > requirement, it is just good practice). > > There is a special case for libraries that are to be LD_PRELOAD'ed, > in that case they could be in the dynamic loader search path and they > may be named libfoo.so. > > It seems to me that those rules are to be followed in all the cases, and > should be in the guidelines. > > > Now we come to a more controversial issue: libraries used as shared lib > but also dlopened. In that case, my personal opinion is that there should > be 2 libfoo.so links pointing to the shared library. One should be in > the -devel package in a directory searched for by the linker, and not in > the main package. The other one should be in a subdirectory below %_libdir > where the dlopening programs should search. > > > Thoughts? > > I have justifications for some of the rules, but I think that some > people on the list know that subject better than me, so I'll let them > speak if there is resistance ;-) > > -- > Pat > > -- > Fedora-maintainers mailing list > Fedora-maintainers at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers > From thias at spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.egg.and.spam.freshrpms.net Thu Aug 24 09:34:40 2006 From: thias at spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.egg.and.spam.freshrpms.net (Matthias Saou) Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 11:34:40 +0200 Subject: It's time to play that Name Game again! In-Reply-To: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20060824113440.65ed96ae@python2> Jesse Keating wrote : > Please start discussing, I'd like to have a list of good names to throw > at Legal later next week. Mine would definitely be : Malagar (hint: Fran?ois Mauriac) Matthias -- Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/ Fedora Core release 5.91 (FC6 Test2) - Linux kernel 2.6.17-1.2583.fc6 Load : 1.20 0.90 0.58 From thias at spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.egg.and.spam.freshrpms.net Thu Aug 24 09:47:40 2006 From: thias at spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.egg.and.spam.freshrpms.net (Matthias Saou) Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 11:47:40 +0200 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <44E9531C.4020505@hhs.nl> References: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060818211818.GA2560@free.fr> <44E6318C.4070106@fedoraproject.org> <20060818215927.GA5346@rathann.pekin.waw.pl> <44E6383B.2030501@fedoraproject.org> <1156049574.7629.132.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <44E84A29.2060906@fedoraproject.org> <1156087693.23756.42.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <44E88222.8040905@fedoraproject.org> <1156132208.7629.169.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <44E9531C.4020505@hhs.nl> Message-ID: <20060824114740.38b972fe@python2> Hans de Goede wrote : > To quote the opengroups motif faq (linked above) on this: > "Open Motif source code and binaries can be distributed royalty free > under The Open Group Public License as long as the operating system upon > which Open Motif is running meets the OSI's Open Source Definition" Seems like someone running Fedora Core inside VMWare on Windows will be violating the openmotif license :-) Matthias -- Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/ Fedora Core release 5.91 (FC6 Test2) - Linux kernel 2.6.17-1.2583.fc6 Load : 0.39 0.35 0.46 From bugs.michael at gmx.net Thu Aug 24 11:10:22 2006 From: bugs.michael at gmx.net (Michael Schwendt) Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 13:10:22 +0200 Subject: John Mahowald + Michael Peters Message-ID: <20060824131022.ed7f3793.bugs.michael@gmx.net> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/188220 pyxdg is missing from fc3 repo -- breaking fluxbox since a very long time without a response in bugzilla. [...] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/198558 libvisual-plugins does not update do to a bad rpm resulting in missing deps when doing yum update/install > mpeters AT mac.com > gfontview - 0.5.0-5.fc5.i386 (34 days) > gfontview - 0.5.0-5.fc5.ppc (34 days) > gfontview - 0.5.0-5.fc5.x86_64 (34 days) > gtkhtml36 - 3.6.2-5.fc6.i386 (34 days) > gtkhtml36 - 3.6.2-5.fc6.ppc (34 days) > gtkhtml36 - 3.6.2-5.fc6.x86_64 (34 days) > libvisual-plugins - 0.2.0-3.fc5.i386 (34 days) > libvisual-plugins - 0.2.0-3.fc5.i386 (34 days) > libvisual-plugins - 0.2.0-3.fc5.ppc (34 days) > libvisual-plugins - 0.2.0-3.fc5.ppc (34 days) > libvisual-plugins - 0.2.0-3.fc5.x86_64 (34 days) > libvisual-plugins - 0.2.0-3.fc5.x86_64 (34 days) From tiemann at redhat.com Thu Aug 24 17:26:27 2006 From: tiemann at redhat.com (Michael Tiemann) Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 13:26:27 -0400 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <1156392836.19217.43.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <44E6318C.4070106@fedoraproject.org> <20060818215927.GA5346@rathann.pekin.waw.pl> <44E6383B.2030501@fedoraproject.org> <1156049574.7629.132.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20060820102836.GB2567@free.fr> <1156131994.7629.164.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20060821071642.GB2497@free.fr> <1156217441.25703.19.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <44EA9AD4.5030602@thecodergeek.com> <1156313300.25703.149.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20060823124027.GC15578@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <1156392836.19217.43.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <1156440387.4251.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 06:13 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > [...] > Now, I feel this expectations to fail. Instead, I feel Fedora is being > (ab-) used as a means for a "religious crusade", overall causing Fedora > to be gradually crippled and becoming less usable. Ralf, I wish you could have heard Jimbo Wales, founder of Wikipedia, talking about the strong position they've taken on the topic of free licenses. In order to comply with the copyright interpretations of 160 countries (!), they've had to hold strongly to the free position, because any movement away from that would unravel the universality (and legality) of the project. Maybe you think that wikipedia, too, is just a project of religious zealots, but I think it's brilliant, and I found myself agreeing strongly with all the reasons Jimbo gave for their decisions. You are free to characterize your beliefs however you wish, but I think you are being erroneous to interpret the Fedora position on freedom as being remotely religious. It is very practical, even if it is inconvenient in the short run. M From ianburrell at gmail.com Thu Aug 24 18:56:25 2006 From: ianburrell at gmail.com (Ian Burrell) Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 11:56:25 -0700 Subject: guidelines, devel, .so, and dlopened files In-Reply-To: <44ED59F4.2010008@hhs.nl> References: <20060823213518.GA2542@free.fr> <44ED59F4.2010008@hhs.nl> Message-ID: On 8/24/06, Hans de Goede wrote: > > Related to this, we currently have our Provides/Requires: namespace > being poluted by automatic .so provides for files which are only meant > to be dlopened aka plugins. The easiest fix for this would be for the > autodep generator to only look in files which are in the ld.so > searchpath (including those listed in ld.so.conf.d files in the > RPM_BUILD_ROOT, to correctly handle things like qt3). > > Any Thoughts / suggestions on this? > This is an issue for perl binary modules. For example, perl-DBI provides DBI.so. This hasn't been a problem because perl modules tend to have capitalized names which are unlikely to conflict with other share library names. I think python and ruby with binary extensions have the same issue of including the .so files in the provides. My impression is that the python convention is to prepend an underscore or append "module" to the shared library name to distinguish them from the wrapped library. And they don't include the "lib" prefix. The potential for conflict is likely between ruby and python extensions or other plugins. Libraries named "regex.so" or "fs.so" are just asking for trouble. - Ian From ville.skytta at iki.fi Thu Aug 24 20:30:37 2006 From: ville.skytta at iki.fi (Ville =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Skytt=E4?=) Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 23:30:37 +0300 Subject: Fedora Extras rebuild for FC6 Message-ID: <1156451437.2791.86.camel@viper.local> Per the FESCO meeting today and a "go" from Core, the rebuild of Fedora Extras towards FC6 is scheduled to start on August 28, 2006. In a nutshell: * A "needs.rebuild" file will be committed to all active FE devel packages' devel branch in CVS on August 28. * Maintainers either 1) bump the EVR of their packages in the devel branch [0], rebuild them, and remove the needs.rebuild file, or 2) remove the needs.rebuild file with a commit message describing why the package will not be rebuilt. See link below for more info which packages are generally eligible for 2). * The timeframe for rebuilds is three weeks starting from Aug 28 -- the intention is that packages not taken care of before September 18 will be orphaned and will not ship in the FE6 repo until they're unorphaned. More info: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Schedule/FC6MassRebuild [0] When bumping the EVR, please make sure that it is greater than the one of the latest FE5 package so that we'll get sane FE5->FE6 upgrade paths; see the broken upgrade paths reports on fedora-extras-list. From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org Fri Aug 25 00:22:00 2006 From: jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org (Josh Boyer) Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 19:22:00 -0500 Subject: Call for devel tree testing with an aim at resurrecting istanbul. In-Reply-To: <1156212453.2683.63.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> References: <604aa7910608211723q50e7b2fan65710251673be89f@mail.gmail.com> <1156212453.2683.63.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: <1156465320.2667.10.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 21:07 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 16:23 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > > > > Regardless of how well it actually functions, the first step is making > > sure it does build and does the basic operation on a devel box. I can > > email my latest srpm to people who want to test this on a devel box. > > Sadly I don't have a good place to park the srpm for people to upload > > right now. Any takers? > > I can host it. Send it to me and I'll put it up. I even have a rawhide > box I can try building it on. FYI, I've put Jeff's SRPM up at http://jdub.homelinux.org/pub/istanbul-0.2.1-0.fc6.src.rpm josh From rc040203 at freenet.de Fri Aug 25 05:02:14 2006 From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius) Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 07:02:14 +0200 Subject: Fedora Extras rebuild for FC6 In-Reply-To: <1156451437.2791.86.camel@viper.local> References: <1156451437.2791.86.camel@viper.local> Message-ID: <1156482134.19217.56.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 23:30 +0300, Ville Skytt? wrote: > Per the FESCO meeting today and a "go" from Core, the rebuild of Fedora > Extras towards FC6 is scheduled to start on August 28, 2006. > > In a nutshell: > > * A "needs.rebuild" file will be committed to all active FE devel > packages' devel branch in CVS on August 28. I am currently facing what I presume to be a gcc/g++ bug on x86_64 (I hope to be proven wrong, and it to be a package specific bug). http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/logs/fedora-development-extras/14530-OpenSceneGraph-1.1-1.fc6 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204027 If this g++ bug should show for/affect other packages, such a mass rebuild is not unlikely not to be a large success ... Ralf From peter at thecodergeek.com Fri Aug 25 06:43:29 2006 From: peter at thecodergeek.com (Peter Gordon) Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 23:43:29 -0700 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <20060824114740.38b972fe@python2> References: <1155934719.17724.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060818211818.GA2560@free.fr> <44E6318C.4070106@fedoraproject.org> <20060818215927.GA5346@rathann.pekin.waw.pl> <44E6383B.2030501@fedoraproject.org> <1156049574.7629.132.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <44E84A29.2060906@fedoraproject.org> <1156087693.23756.42.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <44E88222.8040905@fedoraproject.org> <1156132208.7629.169.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <44E9531C.4020505@hhs.nl> <20060824114740.38b972fe@python2> Message-ID: <44EE9C11.1000304@thecodergeek.com> Matthias Saou wrote: > Hans de Goede wrote : > >> To quote the opengroups motif faq (linked above) on this: >> "Open Motif source code and binaries can be distributed royalty free >> under The Open Group Public License as long as the operating system upon >> which Open Motif is running meets the OSI's Open Source Definition" > > Seems like someone running Fedora Core inside VMWare on Windows will be > violating the openmotif license :-) Not necessarily. The OpenMptif application would still be running on an open source OS as defined by the OSI. It's just that that OS would not be running on bare hardware. :) -- Peter Gordon (codergeek42) GnuPG Public Key ID: 0xFFC19479 / Fingerprint: DD68 A414 56BD 6368 D957 9666 4268 CB7A FFC1 9479 My Blog: http://thecodergeek.com/blog/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 251 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From bugs.michael at gmx.net Sun Aug 27 11:32:53 2006 From: bugs.michael at gmx.net (Michael Schwendt) Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 13:32:53 +0200 Subject: [FE] Reminder: Query bugzilla when taking over orphans Message-ID: <20060827133253.ffc7233f.bugs.michael@gmx.net> When taking over an orphaned package in Fedora Extras, don't forget to query bugzilla for any open bug reports that have been submitted for that package and which may need your attention. That avoids orphaned bugzilla tickets and unfixed bugs. :) With fedorabugs group membership you can even reassign those tickets and then close them when appropriate. Btw, tickets assigned to the "Orphan Owner" in bugzilla, usually appear on the tracker bugs "FE6Target" (and previously FE5Target, FE4Target). From chris.stone at gmail.com Tue Aug 29 16:18:57 2006 From: chris.stone at gmail.com (Christopher Stone) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 09:18:57 -0700 Subject: PHP Stuff Message-ID: Hi, I am *trying* to get bug #196802 added to FC5, but Joe seems to be AWOL or something. I'm not sure if I have permissions to add this myself, but what can be done to get this new php package into FC5 ASAP?? From jorton at redhat.com Tue Aug 29 16:58:10 2006 From: jorton at redhat.com (Joe Orton) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 17:58:10 +0100 Subject: PHP Stuff In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20060829165810.GB19775@redhat.com> On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 09:18:57AM -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > I am *trying* to get bug #196802 added to FC5, but Joe seems to be > AWOL or something. I'm not sure if I have permissions to add this > myself, but what can be done to get this new php package into FC5 > ASAP?? Sorry, I've been on holiday. I've submitted the request to push the php-pear update to Final. joe From caillon at redhat.com Wed Aug 30 00:29:22 2006 From: caillon at redhat.com (Christopher Aillon) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 20:29:22 -0400 Subject: Announcing wireless-tools-devel Message-ID: <44F4DBE2.5040604@redhat.com> Just split it out of wireless-tools. If you have a package that requires wireless-tools, you need to update it's BuildRequires to contain wireless-tools-devel. I updated the packages in core already. Repoquery says the list in extras is: knemo-0:0.4.3-1.fc6.i386 wlassistant-0:0.5.5-1.fc5.i386 wifi-radar-0:1.9.6-2.fc6.noarch wifiroamd-0:1.09-1.fc6.noarch xsupplicant-0:1.2.6-1.fc6.i386 From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org Wed Aug 30 02:08:24 2006 From: jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org (Josh Boyer) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 21:08:24 -0500 Subject: Call for devel tree testing with an aim at resurrecting istanbul. In-Reply-To: <1156465320.2667.10.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> References: <604aa7910608211723q50e7b2fan65710251673be89f@mail.gmail.com> <1156212453.2683.63.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> <1156465320.2667.10.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: <1156903704.2693.12.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 19:22 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 21:07 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 16:23 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > > > > > > Regardless of how well it actually functions, the first step is making > > > sure it does build and does the basic operation on a devel box. I can > > > email my latest srpm to people who want to test this on a devel box. > > > Sadly I don't have a good place to park the srpm for people to upload > > > right now. Any takers? > > > > I can host it. Send it to me and I'll put it up. I even have a rawhide > > box I can try building it on. > > FYI, I've put Jeff's SRPM up at > > http://jdub.homelinux.org/pub/istanbul-0.2.1-0.fc6.src.rpm I've put an RPM at: http://jdub.homelinux.org/pub/istanbul-0.2.1-0.i386.rpm I tested it minimally against rawhide and it seemed to work well enough. josh From jspaleta at gmail.com Wed Aug 30 02:28:57 2006 From: jspaleta at gmail.com (Jeff Spaleta) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 18:28:57 -0800 Subject: Call for devel tree testing with an aim at resurrecting istanbul. In-Reply-To: <1156903704.2693.12.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> References: <604aa7910608211723q50e7b2fan65710251673be89f@mail.gmail.com> <1156212453.2683.63.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> <1156465320.2667.10.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> <1156903704.2693.12.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: <604aa7910608291928k730793f3xc1231bb34fe6fdcf@mail.gmail.com> On 8/29/06, Josh Boyer wrote: > http://jdub.homelinux.org/pub/istanbul-0.2.1-0.i386.rpm > > I tested it minimally against rawhide and it seemed to work well enough. can you post some sample ogg theora videos? You might want to note the preference settings and things such as the display resolution, the cpu, and system memory capacity of the system. When I tested this the ogg theora video was pretty bad. I'd be much relieved to know that its just my system and not a systematic problem with istanbul or the x display capture in gst. did the record cursor work for you? This actually crashed istanbul on my system. does the record audio work for you? did the select a potion of the screan to capture feature work for you? -jef From tcallawa at redhat.com Wed Aug 30 16:15:09 2006 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom 'spot' Callaway) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 11:15:09 -0500 Subject: Free Software audit update Message-ID: <1156954509.32717.188.camel@dhcp-32-122.ord.redhat.com> Here is the latest status update on the FSF Free Software audit of Fedora: * Still waiting on the FSF to give me answers on some of the licenses, (specifically lha, libc-client, xorg-x11-proto-devel). * cleanfeed was dropped from Fedora Core * Working hard to get lesstif in and openmotif out before FC-6. We're almost there. After FC-6 releases, I'll start an audit on Fedora Extras. THE KNOWN UNKNOWNS (3): Packages of questionable licenses that need to be blessed or damned by the FSF: ####################################################################### PACKAGE NAME || RPM provided license || Notes ####################################################################### lha || freeware || Waiting on FSF libc-client-* || U of W Free Fork || Waiting on FSF xorg-x11-proto-devel || The Open Group || Waiting on FSF THE KNOWNS (2): Packages with non-free licenses that need to be taken out of Fedora Core and moved to Fedora Extras (or trashed entirely) ####################################################################### PACKAGE NAME || RPM provided license || Notes ####################################################################### openmotif-* || Open Group Public || Bugzilla 202527 Everything else in Fedora Core checks out with an FSF compatible license. ~spot -- Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Technical Team Lead || GPG ID: 93054260 Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices) Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my! From dcantrell at redhat.com Wed Aug 30 17:20:32 2006 From: dcantrell at redhat.com (David Cantrell) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:20:32 -0400 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <1156954509.32717.188.camel@dhcp-32-122.ord.redhat.com> References: <1156954509.32717.188.camel@dhcp-32-122.ord.redhat.com> Message-ID: <44F5C8E0.40808@redhat.com> Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: > Here is the latest status update on the FSF Free Software audit of > Fedora: > > * Still waiting on the FSF to give me answers on some of the licenses, > (specifically lha, libc-client, xorg-x11-proto-devel). > * cleanfeed was dropped from Fedora Core > * Working hard to get lesstif in and openmotif out before FC-6. > > We're almost there. After FC-6 releases, I'll start an audit on Fedora > Extras. > > THE KNOWN UNKNOWNS (3): > Packages of questionable licenses that need to be blessed or damned by > the FSF: > ####################################################################### > PACKAGE NAME || RPM provided license || Notes > ####################################################################### > lha || freeware || Waiting on FSF > libc-client-* || U of W Free Fork || Waiting on FSF > xorg-x11-proto-devel || The Open Group || Waiting on FSF > > THE KNOWNS (2): > Packages with non-free licenses that need to be taken out of Fedora Core > and moved to Fedora Extras (or trashed entirely) > ####################################################################### > PACKAGE NAME || RPM provided license || Notes > ####################################################################### > openmotif-* || Open Group Public || Bugzilla 202527 > > Everything else in Fedora Core checks out with an FSF compatible > license. What about Schily tar? It's in Core and the license is CDDL. -- David Cantrell Red Hat / Westford, MA From tibbs at math.uh.edu Wed Aug 30 17:29:01 2006 From: tibbs at math.uh.edu (Jason L Tibbitts III) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 12:29:01 -0500 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <44F5C8E0.40808@redhat.com> (David Cantrell's message of "Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:20:32 -0400") References: <1156954509.32717.188.camel@dhcp-32-122.ord.redhat.com> <44F5C8E0.40808@redhat.com> Message-ID: >>>>> "DC" == David Cantrell writes: DC> What about Schily tar? It's in Core and the license is CDDL. CDDL is free according to the FSF. - J< From notting at redhat.com Wed Aug 30 18:09:56 2006 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:09:56 -0400 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: References: <1156954509.32717.188.camel@dhcp-32-122.ord.redhat.com> <44F5C8E0.40808@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20060830180956.GA24052@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Jason L Tibbitts III (tibbs at math.uh.edu) said: > >>>>> "DC" == David Cantrell writes: > > DC> What about Schily tar? It's in Core and the license is CDDL. > > CDDL is free according to the FSF. Free-but-GPL-incompatible. The problem is that cdrecord was linking together GPL and CDDL code, making the result undistributable. Bill From tibbs at math.uh.edu Wed Aug 30 18:37:35 2006 From: tibbs at math.uh.edu (Jason L Tibbitts III) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:37:35 -0500 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <20060830180956.GA24052@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> (Bill Nottingham's message of "Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:09:56 -0400") References: <1156954509.32717.188.camel@dhcp-32-122.ord.redhat.com> <44F5C8E0.40808@redhat.com> <20060830180956.GA24052@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: >>>>> "BN" == Bill Nottingham writes: BN> Free-but-GPL-incompatible. Yes, of course. BN> The problem is that cdrecord was linking together GPL and CDDL BN> code, making the result undistributable. Not sure how that relates to the tar package in question, though. It doesn't do the same thing, does it? (Not that I'd be surprised, mind you.) - J< From notting at redhat.com Wed Aug 30 19:04:39 2006 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:04:39 -0400 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: References: <1156954509.32717.188.camel@dhcp-32-122.ord.redhat.com> <44F5C8E0.40808@redhat.com> <20060830180956.GA24052@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <20060830190439.GA24929@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Jason L Tibbitts III (tibbs at math.uh.edu) said: > BN> The problem is that cdrecord was linking together GPL and CDDL > BN> code, making the result undistributable. > > Not sure how that relates to the tar package in question, though. It > doesn't do the same thing, does it? (Not that I'd be surprised, mind > you.) Don't think so - just explaining why CDDL tar may be ok but CDDR cdrtools isn't. Bill From pertusus at free.fr Wed Aug 30 19:06:22 2006 From: pertusus at free.fr (Patrice Dumas) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 21:06:22 +0200 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <1156954509.32717.188.camel@dhcp-32-122.ord.redhat.com> References: <1156954509.32717.188.camel@dhcp-32-122.ord.redhat.com> Message-ID: <20060830190622.GA12462@free.fr> On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 11:15:09AM -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: > * Working hard to get lesstif in and openmotif out before FC-6. lesstif is built in fedora extras now. We can start rebuilding against lesstif now, but I don't think we should remove openmotif hastily. The devel packages conflict but the packages that contain the libs don't conflict. So a user that want to build his own apps against openmotif can do it, and the libs are available for linking even if lesstif is used to build. My personal opinion is that we should keep openmotif for FC-6 to ease the transition, and leave enough time for those who have in-house or proprietary soft to test lesstif. And also it could help if there are issues with lesstif for the packages shipped in fedora. -- Pat From rc040203 at freenet.de Thu Aug 31 05:05:41 2006 From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 07:05:41 +0200 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <20060830190622.GA12462@free.fr> References: <1156954509.32717.188.camel@dhcp-32-122.ord.redhat.com> <20060830190622.GA12462@free.fr> Message-ID: <1157000741.27813.42.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> On Wed, 2006-08-30 at 21:06 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote: > On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 11:15:09AM -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: > > > * Working hard to get lesstif in and openmotif out before FC-6. > > lesstif is built in fedora extras now. > > We can start rebuilding against lesstif now, but I don't think we should > remove openmotif hastily. The devel packages conflict but the packages > that contain the libs don't conflict. So a user that want to build his > own apps against openmotif can do it, and the libs are available for > linking even if lesstif is used to build. A fact, I consider to be a fault of FE QA and bad design of yours. You should have packaged lesstif in such a way both openmotif-devel and lesstif-devel can be installed in parallel. Ralf From pertusus at free.fr Thu Aug 31 07:19:34 2006 From: pertusus at free.fr (Patrice Dumas) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 09:19:34 +0200 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <1157000741.27813.42.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <1156954509.32717.188.camel@dhcp-32-122.ord.redhat.com> <20060830190622.GA12462@free.fr> <1157000741.27813.42.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <20060831071934.GD2455@free.fr> On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 07:05:41AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Wed, 2006-08-30 at 21:06 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 11:15:09AM -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: > > > A fact, I consider to be a fault of FE QA and bad design of yours. > > You should have packaged lesstif in such a way both openmotif-devel and > lesstif-devel can be installed in parallel. I would be happy to achieve that, but how? The headers and the .so conflict. (some manpages certainly conflict too, but that can be fixed easily). -- Pat From rc040203 at freenet.de Thu Aug 31 09:45:01 2006 From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 11:45:01 +0200 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <20060831071934.GD2455@free.fr> References: <1156954509.32717.188.camel@dhcp-32-122.ord.redhat.com> <20060830190622.GA12462@free.fr> <1157000741.27813.42.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20060831071934.GD2455@free.fr> Message-ID: <1157017501.27813.69.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 09:19 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote: > On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 07:05:41AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > On Wed, 2006-08-30 at 21:06 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 11:15:09AM -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: > > > > > A fact, I consider to be a fault of FE QA and bad design of yours. > > > > You should have packaged lesstif in such a way both openmotif-devel and > > lesstif-devel can be installed in parallel. > > I would be happy to achieve that, but how? Well, ... what shall I say, ... > The headers and the .so > conflict. Different installation paths, different rpaths. > (some manpages certainly conflict too, but that can be fixed > easily). Change the suffix. Ralf From pertusus at free.fr Thu Aug 31 10:32:13 2006 From: pertusus at free.fr (Patrice Dumas) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 12:32:13 +0200 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <1157017501.27813.69.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <1156954509.32717.188.camel@dhcp-32-122.ord.redhat.com> <20060830190622.GA12462@free.fr> <1157000741.27813.42.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20060831071934.GD2455@free.fr> <1157017501.27813.69.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <20060831103213.GJ2455@free.fr> On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 11:45:01AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 09:19 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote: > > > The headers and the .so > > conflict. > Different installation paths, different rpaths. I am not sure but it seems to me that different rpaths are not needed, since library names are different. I think that putting the .so link in directories should do the trick, like: %_libdir/lesstif/libXm.so -> ../libXm.so.2.0.1 %_libdir/openmotif/libXm.so -> ../libXm.so.4.0.0 Anyway, I was asking for a simpler solution that using different installation paths... Indeed if it is done that way, openmotif should also be changed to follow the same scheme, such that there is a choice between the libraries. And there will be a need for configure or compilation switches to find the libraries. Is it worth the trouble? We need to balance -devel parallel installable (which would indeed be nice) against the need to give specific flags when building to choose which lib to link against when both are present, and ensure that libs are found even if they are not in the default paths. As a side note, it could also make sense to have the different motif api parallel installable for both implementations, but this is certainly a fair amount of work for little gains. -- Pat From thias at spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.egg.and.spam.freshrpms.net Thu Aug 31 10:47:57 2006 From: thias at spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.egg.and.spam.freshrpms.net (Matthias Saou) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 12:47:57 +0200 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <1157000741.27813.42.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <1156954509.32717.188.camel@dhcp-32-122.ord.redhat.com> <20060830190622.GA12462@free.fr> <1157000741.27813.42.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <20060831124757.4ca36244@python2> Ralf Corsepius wrote : > On Wed, 2006-08-30 at 21:06 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 11:15:09AM -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: > > > > > * Working hard to get lesstif in and openmotif out before FC-6. > > > > lesstif is built in fedora extras now. > > > > We can start rebuilding against lesstif now, but I don't think we should > > remove openmotif hastily. The devel packages conflict but the packages > > that contain the libs don't conflict. So a user that want to build his > > own apps against openmotif can do it, and the libs are available for > > linking even if lesstif is used to build. > A fact, I consider to be a fault of FE QA and bad design of yours. > > You should have packaged lesstif in such a way both openmotif-devel and > lesstif-devel can be installed in parallel. If lesstif is to be considered a straight drop-in replacement for openmotif, then I don't really see why this is a fault or a bad design. Here, packagers will just need to s/openmotif-devel/lesstif-devel/ and have their application link against lesstif. No further changes required is something I'd consider positive (i.e. no need to force an include or library path for motif). Furthermore, since the idea is to completely drop openmotif ASAP, this is really a low priority (almost 'non') issue IMHO. Matthias -- Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/ Fedora Core release 5.91 (FC6 Test2) - Linux kernel 2.6.17-1.2600.fc6 Load : 1.56 1.65 1.65 From rdieter at math.unl.edu Thu Aug 31 13:43:40 2006 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 08:43:40 -0500 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <1157000741.27813.42.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <1156954509.32717.188.camel@dhcp-32-122.ord.redhat.com> <20060830190622.GA12462@free.fr> <1157000741.27813.42.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <44F6E78C.1070509@math.unl.edu> Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Wed, 2006-08-30 at 21:06 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 11:15:09AM -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: >> >>> * Working hard to get lesstif in and openmotif out before FC-6. >> lesstif is built in fedora extras now. >> >> We can start rebuilding against lesstif now, but I don't think we should >> remove openmotif hastily. The devel packages conflict but the packages >> that contain the libs don't conflict. So a user that want to build his >> own apps against openmotif can do it, and the libs are available for >> linking even if lesstif is used to build. > A fact, I consider to be a fault of FE QA and bad design of yours. > > You should have packaged lesstif in such a way both openmotif-devel and > lesstif-devel can be installed in parallel. Patches welcome. -- Rex From pertusus at free.fr Thu Aug 31 14:03:48 2006 From: pertusus at free.fr (Patrice Dumas) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 16:03:48 +0200 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <44F6E78C.1070509@math.unl.edu> References: <1156954509.32717.188.camel@dhcp-32-122.ord.redhat.com> <20060830190622.GA12462@free.fr> <1157000741.27813.42.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <44F6E78C.1070509@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: <20060831140348.GN2455@free.fr> On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 08:43:40AM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > Patches welcome. It seems to me that before making -devel parallel installable, openmotif and lesstif should be split similarily, at least the -devel packages should be similar. And if it amounts to putting .so links and headers in subdirectories I am not convinced that the gain is worth the changes in the packages compiled against lesstif/motif and the pain for those wanting to compile something against a Motif library. We should first try to know if there are really users that need to compile against lesstif and openmotif. My personal view is that people favor one or the other. And those interested in both are skillfull enough to install the one that they don't get from fedora (or a repo where openmotif will be) by any mean the like. If that is not true, and there is a real need for parallel installable, so let's try, but this should be carefully considered. -- Pat From ajackson at redhat.com Thu Aug 31 14:07:35 2006 From: ajackson at redhat.com (Adam Jackson) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 10:07:35 -0400 Subject: Free Software audit update In-Reply-To: <1157000741.27813.42.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <1156954509.32717.188.camel@dhcp-32-122.ord.redhat.com> <20060830190622.GA12462@free.fr> <1157000741.27813.42.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <44F6ED27.5040107@redhat.com> Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Wed, 2006-08-30 at 21:06 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 11:15:09AM -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: >> >>> * Working hard to get lesstif in and openmotif out before FC-6. >> lesstif is built in fedora extras now. >> >> We can start rebuilding against lesstif now, but I don't think we should >> remove openmotif hastily. The devel packages conflict but the packages >> that contain the libs don't conflict. So a user that want to build his >> own apps against openmotif can do it, and the libs are available for >> linking even if lesstif is used to build. > A fact, I consider to be a fault of FE QA and bad design of yours. > > You should have packaged lesstif in such a way both openmotif-devel and > lesstif-devel can be installed in parallel. Funny, I'd have been happier if neither one were installable at all. - ajax From rdieter at math.unl.edu Thu Aug 31 15:48:52 2006 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 10:48:52 -0500 Subject: openmotif to be removed from Fedora October 2, 2006 Message-ID: <44F704E4.4030309@math.unl.edu> ------------------- For reference, a copy of this posting as well as any updates on this topic are available at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RexDieter/openmotif ------------------- Per discussion on the Fedora Advisory Board mailing list, openmotif currently does not meet Fedora's licensing requirements. The openmotif developers have been contacted, but it appears openmotif's licensing will not be changing soon. The hard decision has been made that openmotif will be removed from Fedora and the current plan is to make this happen by October 2, 2006, the final development freeze for Fedora Core 6. Currently, the following packages in Core and Extras contain runtime or build time dependencies on openmotif: * cmucl * ddd * geomview * gpsd * grace * Inventor * mesa-libGLw * nedit * xlockmore * xpdf Maintainers need to update their packages to use another motif implementation, lesstif (in Extras). It is not 100% ABI-compatible (and provides a different shared library soname), but all that should be required for most motif-dependent applications is changing BuildRequires: openmotif-devel to BuildRequires: lesstif-devel and rebuilding/recompiling. From jamatos at fc.up.pt Thu Aug 31 16:25:18 2006 From: jamatos at fc.up.pt (=?utf-8?q?Jos=C3=A9_Matos?=) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 17:25:18 +0100 Subject: openmotif to be removed from Fedora October 2, 2006 In-Reply-To: <44F704E4.4030309@math.unl.edu> References: <44F704E4.4030309@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: <200608311725.19457.jamatos@fc.up.pt> On Thursday 31 August 2006 16:48, Rex Dieter wrote: > Maintainers need to update their packages to use another motif > implementation, lesstif (in Extras). It is not 100% ABI-compatible (and > provides a different shared library soname), but all that should be > required for most motif-dependent applications is changing > > BuildRequires: openmotif-devel > to > BuildRequires: lesstif-devel > > and rebuilding/recompiling. Will lesstiff be available for older distributions (FC3 and FC4) or does this only applies to FC6? I would like to rebuild grace and to know what the targets are. Incidentally I queried the license of the listed packages and I got: $ repoquery --queryformat "%{name}\t%{license}" cmucl ddd geomview gpsd \ grace Inventor mesa-libGLw nedit xlockmore xpdf grace GPL ddd GPL or BSD cmucl Public Domain/MIT geomview LGPL Inventor LGPL nedit GPL xpdf GPL mesa-libGLw MIT/X11 gpsd BSD xlockmore BSD If we take the word that openmotif is essentially the IBM Public License (as described in the openmotif forum), that license is incompatible with the GPL so for those projects above we would need the license to be amended with that exception or the final result is not distributable. -- Jos? Ab?lio From rdieter at math.unl.edu Thu Aug 31 16:28:26 2006 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 11:28:26 -0500 Subject: openmotif to be removed from Fedora October 2, 2006 In-Reply-To: <200608311725.19457.jamatos@fc.up.pt> References: <44F704E4.4030309@math.unl.edu> <200608311725.19457.jamatos@fc.up.pt> Message-ID: <44F70E2A.9060408@math.unl.edu> Jos? Matos wrote: > On Thursday 31 August 2006 16:48, Rex Dieter wrote: >> Maintainers need to update their packages to use another motif >> implementation, lesstif (in Extras). It is not 100% ABI-compatible (and >> provides a different shared library soname), but all that should be >> required for most motif-dependent applications is changing >> >> BuildRequires: openmotif-devel >> to >> BuildRequires: lesstif-devel >> >> and rebuilding/recompiling. > > Will lesstiff be available for older distributions (FC3 and FC4) or does > this only applies to FC6? For now, FC6 only yes. > I would like to rebuild grace and to know what the targets are. > > Incidentally I queried the license of the listed packages and I got: > > $ repoquery --queryformat "%{name}\t%{license}" cmucl ddd geomview gpsd \ > grace Inventor mesa-libGLw nedit xlockmore xpdf > grace GPL > ddd GPL or BSD > cmucl Public Domain/MIT > geomview LGPL > Inventor LGPL > nedit GPL > xpdf GPL > mesa-libGLw MIT/X11 > gpsd BSD > xlockmore BSD > > If we take the word that openmotif is essentially the IBM Public License (as > described in the openmotif forum), that license is incompatible with the GPL > so for those projects above we would need the license to be amended with that > exception or the final result is not distributable. Another good reason why openmotif shouldn't be used. -- Rex From pertusus at free.fr Thu Aug 31 16:29:04 2006 From: pertusus at free.fr (Patrice Dumas) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 18:29:04 +0200 Subject: openmotif to be removed from Fedora October 2, 2006 In-Reply-To: <200608311725.19457.jamatos@fc.up.pt> References: <44F704E4.4030309@math.unl.edu> <200608311725.19457.jamatos@fc.up.pt> Message-ID: <20060831162904.GQ2455@free.fr> On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 05:25:18PM +0100, Jos? Matos wrote: > On Thursday 31 August 2006 16:48, Rex Dieter wrote: > > If we take the word that openmotif is essentially the IBM Public License (as > described in the openmotif forum), that license is incompatible with the GPL > so for those projects above we would need the license to be amended with that > exception or the final result is not distributable. As long as it is only linked dynamically (which means that those packages are not shipped with openmotif, but separately), there is no licence issue. As another example, you can link dynamically GPL apps against a proprietary libc and redistribute the binaries. -- Pat From blizzard at redhat.com Thu Aug 31 20:29:05 2006 From: blizzard at redhat.com (Christopher Blizzard) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 16:29:05 -0400 Subject: openmotif to be removed from Fedora October 2, 2006 In-Reply-To: <44F704E4.4030309@math.unl.edu> References: <44F704E4.4030309@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: <44F74691.7080308@redhat.com> Rex Dieter wrote: > * cmucl > * ddd > * geomview > * gpsd > * grace > * Inventor > * mesa-libGLw > * nedit > * xlockmore > * xpdf Rex - Did you happen to include direct mails to the owners of these packages in case they aren't on the maintainers list? --Chris From pertusus at free.fr Thu Aug 31 20:29:52 2006 From: pertusus at free.fr (Patrice Dumas) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 22:29:52 +0200 Subject: openmotif to be removed from Fedora October 2, 2006 In-Reply-To: <44F74691.7080308@redhat.com> References: <44F704E4.4030309@math.unl.edu> <44F74691.7080308@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20060831202952.GA6074@free.fr> On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 04:29:05PM -0400, Christopher Blizzard wrote: > Rex Dieter wrote: > > * cmucl > > * ddd > > * geomview > > * gpsd > > * grace > > * Inventor > > * mesa-libGLw > > * nedit > > * xlockmore > > * xpdf > > Rex - > > Did you happen to include direct mails to the owners of these packages > in case they aren't on the maintainers list? Yep, there was another mail for the package maintainers. -- Pat From rdieter at math.unl.edu Thu Aug 31 20:35:25 2006 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 15:35:25 -0500 Subject: openmotif to be removed from Fedora October 2, 2006 In-Reply-To: <44F74691.7080308@redhat.com> References: <44F704E4.4030309@math.unl.edu> <44F74691.7080308@redhat.com> Message-ID: <44F7480D.1020806@math.unl.edu> Christopher Blizzard wrote: > Rex Dieter wrote: >> * cmucl >> * ddd >> * geomview >> * gpsd >> * grace >> * Inventor >> * mesa-libGLw >> * nedit >> * xlockmore >> * xpdf > Did you happen to include direct mails to the owners of these packages > in case they aren't on the maintainers list? Only sent to fedora-maintainers and fedora-devel so far. I'll send direct mails to Core maintainers tomorrow (all extras maintainers *should* be on fedora-maintainers already). -- Rex From katzj at redhat.com Thu Aug 31 20:40:48 2006 From: katzj at redhat.com (Jeremy Katz) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 16:40:48 -0400 Subject: openmotif to be removed from Fedora October 2, 2006 In-Reply-To: <44F7480D.1020806@math.unl.edu> References: <44F704E4.4030309@math.unl.edu> <44F74691.7080308@redhat.com> <44F7480D.1020806@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: <1157056848.24982.41.camel@aglarond.local> On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 15:35 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > Only sent to fedora-maintainers and fedora-devel so far. I'll send > direct mails to Core maintainers tomorrow (all extras maintainers > *should* be on fedora-maintainers already). As should all Core maintainers. Jeremy From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Thu Aug 31 21:39:15 2006 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 23:39:15 +0200 Subject: It's time to play that Name Game again! In-Reply-To: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <200608171531.17374.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1157060355.19135.15.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Le jeudi 17 ao?t 2006 ? 15:31 -0400, Jesse Keating a ?crit : > We need to get a good list of names that we can push through legal as > acceptable. Once we have a list of 8 or so names, then we could do some > voting by donating. You as the maintainers get to generate the list of > names to vote in, just a small way of saying Thank You. > Why not "Bordeaux" ? > > In France, Aim? Stentz is a pretty big wine producer.. :) > > So obviously can't really be an Alcohol theme. I'll propose Alienor (Bordeaux is historically the capital of Aquitaine, and Alienor was its more colourful ruler) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alienor_of_Aquitaine A fascinating lady which managed to start the hundred-years war just by switching husbands, is associated to crusades, the Robin Hood period, troubadours, culture, wealth... Quitte an accomplishment for a woman of the middle ages. Since Fedora is not quite there yet either, crediting this particular woman now would be perfectly appropriate -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e URL: