From mtjm at mtjm.eu Sat Aug 2 08:33:33 2014 From: mtjm at mtjm.eu (=?utf-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_Mas=C5=82owski?=) Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2014 10:33:33 +0200 Subject: [Dev] [GNU-linux-libre] (no subject) In-Reply-To: (ag ag's message of "Fri, 1 Aug 2014 14:06:34 -0400") References: Message-ID: <87wqari942.fsf@mtjm.eu> > * The man pages in man-pages-posix-2003-a.tar.xz are non-free Debian has them in nonfree, Parabola includes them. The license is at [0], includes the following: Redistribution of this material is permitted so long as this notice and the corresponding notices within each POSIX manual page are retained on any distribution, and the nroff source is included. Modifications to the text are permitted so long as any conflicts with the standard are clearly marked as such in the text. Problems: - are derivatives that aren't using nroff allowed? - if conflicts with the standard need to be marked in every place where they are, it practically cannot be used as base for documentation of implementations or competing standards; this is why Debian puts it in nonfree > * Several man pages in man-pages-3.53 don't allow modification. A list > of several is at > https://nopaste.linux-dev.org/?186568&download but I probably missed some What license are they under? intro.1 in Parabola's man-pages 3.70-1 looks free. > * In libical-1.0.tar.xz in the directory > src/Net-ICal-Libical/netical_wrap.c it says "Permission is > granted to distribute this file in any manner provided this notice > remains intact." There might be > other non-free files too but this is just an example It's generated by SWIG, we should check the files it's generated from. "in any manner" might include modified versions, I'm not sure. > * The Gnuplot package only allows modification through "patches" and > has several other problems > (more info here: https://nopaste.linux-dev.org/?186585&download) The problems listed there: - modified source can be distributed only as original source + patches - anonymous changes are not allowed - bf_test.c and color.c are just nonfree, with no license The first issue is explicitly allowed by the free software definition. Is the requirement to "provide your name and address as the primary contact for the support of your modified version" acceptable? > * In ilmbase-1.0.3.tar.xz the directory IexMath/ has non-free software in it Looks ok in 2.1.0. List specific nonfree files and licenses? > * In imlib-1.9.15.tar.xz the file Imlib/sprintf.c is licensed under > the Artistic License 1.0 (there > may be other non-free files also) Imlib/snprintf.c in Parabola. Please include the text you linked to at paste sites in the mail next time, such links often expire while mailing list archives are useful for years. [0] http://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs//non-free/m/manpages-posix/manpages-posix_2.16-1_copyright -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 818 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mtjm at mtjm.eu Sat Aug 2 09:45:57 2014 From: mtjm at mtjm.eu (=?utf-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_Mas=C5=82owski?=) Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2014 11:45:57 +0200 Subject: [Dev] [GNU-linux-libre] (no subject) In-Reply-To: (ag ag's message of "Sat, 2 Aug 2014 05:23:55 -0400") References: Message-ID: <87silfi5re.fsf@mtjm.eu> >> > * In ilmbase-1.0.3.tar.xz the directory IexMath/ has non-free software in it >> Looks ok in 2.1.0. List specific nonfree files and licenses? > > This is the license text of IexMathFloatExc.cpp: > > "Copyright (c) 1997 Industrial Light and Magic. > All rights reserved. Used under authorization. > This material contains the confidential and proprietary > information of Industrial Light and Magic and > may not be copied in whole or in part without the express > written permission of Industrial Light and Magic. > This copyright notice does not imply publication." > > From what I can tell it doesn't even allow redistribution without modification. True. Fixed by commit 301c13f7d9129e6e0d99e8f572de5fbc3d5bf8e3 in https://github.com/openexr/openexr which is included since 2.0.0. These files were included in 1.0.3. Debian and Ubuntu don't include it (Debian experimental has it patched with new headers), I don't know if any free distro is affected. >> > * Several man pages in man-pages-3.53 don't allow modification. A list >> > of several is at >> > ~https://nopaste.linux-dev.org/?186568&download but I probably missed some > >> What license are they under? intro.1 in Parabola's man-pages 3.70-1 >> looks free. > > It seems I was mistaken about several of the man pages because it said > "%%%LICENSE_START(VERBATIM)", > which I thought meant only verbatim copying. Some other man pages in > the package are still non-free > though. man2/getitimer.2 says: > > .\" Copyright 7/93 by Darren Senn > .\" Based on a similar page Copyright 1992 by Rick Faith > .\" > .\" %%%LICENSE_START(FREELY_REDISTRIBUTABLE) > .\" May be freely distributed > .\" %%%LICENSE_END > .\" > .\" Modified Tue Oct 22 00:22:35 EDT 1996 by Eric S. Raymond > .\" 2005-04-06 mtk, Matthias Lang > .\" Noted MAX_SEC_IN_JIFFIES ceiling > .\" > > It doesn't seem to allow for modification. > > These 3 man pages seem to have problems: > > ./man2/pciconfig_read.2 > ./man2/sysinfo.2 > ./man2/getitimer.2 Confirmed in Parabola 3.70-1. > getitimer.2 and pciconfig_read.2 both just say "May be freely > distributed" and sysinfo.2 says: > > .\" Permission is granted to freely distribute or modify this file > .\" for the purpose of improving Linux or its documentation efforts. > .\" If you modify this file, please put a date stamp and HOW you > .\" changed this file. Thanks. -DM > > This seems too vague since what one person might consider an > improvement is up for debate. I think I > was mistaken about all the other man pages but there still might be > some more non-free man pages. Changes adapting it to projects that aren't Linux certainly don't improve Linux, so it's nonfree. We should check all licenses when adapting man pages in a distro. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 818 bytes Desc: not available URL: From samgee at elmundolibre.be Tue Aug 5 16:41:42 2014 From: samgee at elmundolibre.be (Sam Geeraerts) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2014 18:41:42 +0200 Subject: [Dev] [GNU-linux-libre] (no subject) In-Reply-To: <87wqari942.fsf@mtjm.eu> References: <87wqari942.fsf@mtjm.eu> Message-ID: <20140805184142.36d7bd46@ayoka.intern> Op Sat, 02 Aug 2014 10:33:33 +0200 schreef mtjm at mtjm.eu (Micha? Mas?owski): > > * In libical-1.0.tar.xz in the directory > > src/Net-ICal-Libical/netical_wrap.c it says "Permission is > > granted to distribute this file in any manner provided this notice > > remains intact." There might be > > other non-free files too but this is just an example > > It's generated by SWIG, we should check the files it's generated from. > "in any manner" might include modified versions, I'm not sure. I think this is the (old) one-liner version of the SWIG license [3], which is a FreeBSD-like license. Not a problem, IMO. > - modified source can be distributed only as original source + patches > - anonymous changes are not allowed > - bf_test.c and color.c are just nonfree, with no license > > The first issue is explicitly allowed by the free software definition. > Is the requirement to "provide your name and address as the primary > contact for the support of your modified version" acceptable? The FSF's license list says it's a free license [1]. The requirement could make it undistributable (and therefore practically non-free?) in a certain context, but in general it doesn't prohibit modified distribution. My understanding of the informal license [2] statement in color.c is that it at least provides the 4 freedoms. [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#gnuplot [2] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#informal [3] http://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs//main/s/swig1.3/swig1.3_1.3.40-3_copyright From niitotantei at riseup.net Tue Aug 5 18:33:25 2014 From: niitotantei at riseup.net (Daniel Milewski) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2014 20:33:25 +0200 Subject: [Dev] Vim plugin packages inspection Message-ID: <1407263605.898.16.camel@riseup.net> I did an inspection and I found several problems with Vim plugin packages included in Parabola repositories. Some of the problems are less of an issue (like wrong license specification or wrong license file included), however there are few packages which are non-free (they don't carry an explicit free license). I've made a summary listing the issues. Also, for the packages with wrong license specification I pointed out the correct one. Free: * vim-bufexplorer[1][2][a] * vim-jedi[1][b] * vim-netrw[2] * vim-syntastic[1][c] * vim-ultisnips[1][d] * vimpager[1][2][a] Non-free: * vim-ctrlp[1][3] * vim-doxygentoolkit[1][3] * vim-guicolorscheme[1][3] * vim-jad[2][3] * vim-omnicppcomplete[3] * vim-pastie[1][3] * vim-systemd[1][3] * vim-workspace[3] Other: * vim-project[4] [1] Wrong license specified in a `PKGBUILD` file [2] Wrong license file included in a repository [3] Unknown license terms [4] Unknown license terms for accompanying documentation [a] Modified BSD license [b] Expat license [c] WTFPL, Version 2 [d] GNU GPLv3 -- Daniel Milewski GPG key ID: 8D43A4A1 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From emulatorman at riseup.net Wed Aug 6 00:03:27 2014 From: emulatorman at riseup.net (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9_Silva?=) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2014 21:03:27 -0300 Subject: [Dev] Vim plugin packages inspection In-Reply-To: <1407263605.898.16.camel@riseup.net> References: <1407263605.898.16.camel@riseup.net> Message-ID: <53E170CF.8090009@riseup.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08/05/2014 03:33 PM, Daniel Milewski wrote: > I did an inspection and I found several problems with Vim plugin > packages included in Parabola repositories. Some of the problems > are less of an issue (like wrong license specification or wrong > license file included), however there are few packages which are > non-free (they don't carry an explicit free license). > > I've made a summary listing the issues. Also, for the packages > with wrong license specification I pointed out the correct one. > > Free: * vim-bufexplorer[1][2][a] * vim-jedi[1][b] * vim-netrw[2] * > vim-syntastic[1][c] * vim-ultisnips[1][d] * vimpager[1][2][a] > Those packages should be reported to Arch, because are free but need fix wrong license only > Non-free: * vim-ctrlp[1][3] * vim-doxygentoolkit[1][3] * > vim-guicolorscheme[1][3] * vim-jad[2][3] * vim-omnicppcomplete[3] * > vim-pastie[1][3] * vim-systemd[1][3] * vim-workspace[3] > > Other: * vim-project[4] > I will add it to the blacklist, thanks for the report! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJT4XDPAAoJEOaXR1L5cERW0PAQAJ9ZTBM6qlamGJmc920uIgjA Okp8d0c4p0uxOMZuo7H2WcMi5Hb8Pg6No2dP+PiluJQxn0LPaTodzW2TegS//3lT KXqlvb3bNDK3hdlxUZpwJezetZYVdglScWH81NhkFIl00zskd5jDmOt6sr9UOC9L 7NaXfVsWVD2AjY2MBsZKuaJshGpLAt+1V9G8Zw4Q8j8geCxxN8sNuNbI4iMwGh8/ B6GUNVTD+YGsV4m6GNUXbPpIyJ9AZ9U0s1EiNo2dwtxUYsZ3TR1SWv//CsfG7brU 5PtWlweB8mq/sehnntP2EpeMZGFw3bcPIaVt+k4UVmv8emCmMo7YZ4rNXPPOjkwX 9uHoVoa136RI6yeZGvn5gSjdGmfMvX3dx44d7zzQfSjmE6IQ7t/1ffjiJEciweni EjQby5TjXjM8NrRFZ4R1TqTK8uXhTOPAak4xgbWGez8c7W0PgV7T+8LGqSLQOuBZ pTvPB9ROp3sP0ltFiMa9qpyUlobIeWrLgA1fTaD/aFTNdpIJ2gJ5eYFg4LZg9NrN doa+63JqZvSubYgJLpimy/IPoFvVk6ZPNl3FlcuCNGjwzzjKNPaecro4XVlRs8/K Cjb8s4RDG97jmyZKPXS3G7fabtckP1fZG9PjKTWcYy367Vr0CcHrGAhcq6WOg8ym 7cHWkys6L5kY2GdootsY =7f1A -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From samgee at elmundolibre.be Wed Aug 6 20:23:25 2014 From: samgee at elmundolibre.be (Sam Geeraerts) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2014 22:23:25 +0200 Subject: [Dev] [GNU-linux-libre] Nonfree jpegxr in ghostscript In-Reply-To: <87zjftahfn.fsf@mtjm.eu> References: <87zjftahfn.fsf@mtjm.eu> Message-ID: <20140806222325.7f6877a7@ayoka.intern> Op Mon, 28 Jul 2014 12:47:24 +0200 schreef mtjm at mtjm.eu (Micha? Mas?owski): > Hello. A user found a nonfree library source being bundled with > Ghostscript. > (snip) > Debian removes that library, so it should be already fixed in derived > distros. > > Should we update the #GPL_Ghostscript_CMap_data_files entry of the > non-FSDG list to recommend removing that library (or updating to a > future GNU Ghostscript version without it, or using Debian's cleaned > source)? I say update it to recommend removal (at least until there is a version without it). From fauno at endefensadelsl.org Thu Aug 7 23:31:10 2014 From: fauno at endefensadelsl.org (=?utf-8?Q?Nicol=C3=A1s?= Reynolds) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 20:31:10 -0300 Subject: [Dev] status of web server Message-ID: <87d2cb27y9.fsf@endefensadelsl.org> as you may have noticed the server hosting parabolaweb, git repos and abs went down more than a week ago and it hasn't come up since then. apparently the vm is unresponsive and the admin can't access it from the host. he's also very busy (i'm guessing...) so i'd say we start thinking on a new server or migrating stuff to the one we have? -- http://librevpn.org.ar -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 602 bytes Desc: not available URL: From fauno at endefensadelsl.org Thu Aug 7 23:38:24 2014 From: fauno at endefensadelsl.org (=?utf-8?Q?Nicol=C3=A1s?= Reynolds) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 20:38:24 -0300 Subject: [Dev] status of web server In-Reply-To: <87d2cb27y9.fsf@endefensadelsl.org> References: <87d2cb27y9.fsf@endefensadelsl.org> Message-ID: <874mxn27m7.fsf@endefensadelsl.org> Nicol?s Reynolds writes: > as you may have noticed the server hosting parabolaweb, git repos and > abs went down more than a week ago and it hasn't come up since then. > > apparently the vm is unresponsive and the admin can't access it from > the host. he's also very busy (i'm guessing...) so i'd say we start > thinking on a new server or migrating stuff to the one we have? btw i can host parabolaweb if needed but i won't be able to host git repos until i buy a new hd :D -- :D -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 602 bytes Desc: not available URL: From emulatorman at riseup.net Fri Aug 8 02:36:33 2014 From: emulatorman at riseup.net (=?windows-1252?Q?Andr=E9_Silva?=) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 23:36:33 -0300 Subject: [Dev] status of web server In-Reply-To: <874mxn27m7.fsf@endefensadelsl.org> References: <87d2cb27y9.fsf@endefensadelsl.org> <874mxn27m7.fsf@endefensadelsl.org> Message-ID: <53E437B1.6030601@riseup.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08/07/2014 08:38 PM, Nicol?s Reynolds wrote: > Nicol?s Reynolds writes: > >> as you may have noticed the server hosting parabolaweb, git repos >> and abs went down more than a week ago and it hasn't come up >> since then. >> >> apparently the vm is unresponsive and the admin can't access it >> from the host. he's also very busy (i'm guessing...) so i'd say >> we start thinking on a new server or migrating stuff to the one >> we have? > > btw i can host parabolaweb if needed but i won't be able to host > git repos until i buy a new hd :D > we have a x86_64 server to do the repo migration. After do it, we could use the current repo server (32 bit) for host parabolaweb. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJT5DexAAoJEOaXR1L5cERWbrEP/iPBHBpyro7Bez4w/UJlZZRR X4TwarMbeG+ZwqTEgqCN3xd1bJopyReXnSH5KBdtpt8Lsqd9jZWUv4xqJirtOtJm gL7h/O+MylCeZY/jNWVZAQoGf5JJDHzsdqv9PhPIXugK38R5PV8piPi6G1K5HTye dCMzwSXlxP3xo6Ni4jPryhQ5a4SkM7tiHMpTv7N2fTZgsB4hWEnJ5PYtaDIEIJzc EeeTrrQaUc3UMmKfJEak1uuCqjeNundj/xnB93gFTe5+Mpqj8+cl2j0gggdfWsZ0 HNILRbNtcwPerKoA86pDEWgctq6wR7DcLZbTwJaEwGPiACVf/8rtOxJHpg0Vo157 Gl8oK57bkP6+ZwWIcYIOrpKECj7rXrBZ0m1RzAPs11wqDCAU3l4BgVew1s2Uw8dF aNbv5YaceERR0kPygarb32okANDth3M3rXOvEwKhVOWvIXJ6M9F9sXD1oFj1zRhg gTmZ2tgDNVIDKEoL30gpSw0B5IutW/9oM6leoDlvyqQCXNO89Ybpqv+sSvo0x7ft FTuXaWLNc9BNt1U1a/uvm0TfAmtvNHoe1qxEj0hTv/xsx8jAc8RhzPqa7NK066ZO OmqvKz4LQYAn9ZRkJSDQ45xXgiKx3mmkYLFo7HHX/nlBxuXgzehZnIsUYx8+/HXV g/09CTpa/lKwUNB4As7C =N/fz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From lukeshu at sbcglobal.net Fri Aug 8 14:50:39 2014 From: lukeshu at sbcglobal.net (Luke Shumaker) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 10:50:39 -0400 Subject: [Dev] status of web server In-Reply-To: <53E437B1.6030601@riseup.net> References: <87d2cb27y9.fsf@endefensadelsl.org> <874mxn27m7.fsf@endefensadelsl.org> <53E437B1.6030601@riseup.net> Message-ID: <87tx5n9gsg.wl-lukeshu@sbcglobal.net> At Thu, 07 Aug 2014 23:36:33 -0300, Andr? Silva wrote: > > On 08/07/2014 08:38 PM, Nicol?s Reynolds wrote: > > Nicol?s Reynolds writes: > > > >> as you may have noticed the server hosting parabolaweb, git repos > >> and abs went down more than a week ago and it hasn't come up > >> since then. > >> > >> apparently the vm is unresponsive and the admin can't access it > >> from the host. he's also very busy (i'm guessing...) so i'd say > >> we start thinking on a new server or migrating stuff to the one > >> we have? > > > > btw i can host parabolaweb if needed but i won't be able to host > > git repos until i buy a new hd :D > > > we have a x86_64 server to do the repo migration. After do it, we > could use the current repo server (32 bit) for host parabolaweb. I think n1md4 wants to decomission the 32 bit hardware. Besides having a single point of failure, I don't have a problem shoving everything on one server. -- Happy hacking, ~ Luke Shumaker From mtjm at mtjm.eu Fri Aug 8 15:15:44 2014 From: mtjm at mtjm.eu (=?utf-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_Mas=C5=82owski?=) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 17:15:44 +0200 Subject: [Dev] status of web server In-Reply-To: <87tx5n9gsg.wl-lukeshu@sbcglobal.net> (Luke Shumaker's message of "Fri, 08 Aug 2014 10:50:39 -0400") References: <87d2cb27y9.fsf@endefensadelsl.org> <874mxn27m7.fsf@endefensadelsl.org> <53E437B1.6030601@riseup.net> <87tx5n9gsg.wl-lukeshu@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <87r40rt3kv.fsf@elros.lan> >> we have a x86_64 server to do the repo migration. After do it, we >> could use the current repo server (32 bit) for host parabolaweb. > > I think n1md4 wants to decomission the 32 bit hardware. > > Besides having a single point of failure, I don't have a problem > shoving everything on one server. +1: migrate everything to the new repo. We currently have/had two servers, any of them breaking is a problem. With only one server we would have lower probability of a failure. We can later think how to add redundancy. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 818 bytes Desc: not available URL: From emulatorman at riseup.net Sun Aug 10 17:47:24 2014 From: emulatorman at riseup.net (=?windows-1252?Q?Andr=E9_Silva?=) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2014 14:47:24 -0300 Subject: [Dev] status of web server In-Reply-To: <87r40rt3kv.fsf@elros.lan> References: <87d2cb27y9.fsf@endefensadelsl.org> <874mxn27m7.fsf@endefensadelsl.org> <53E437B1.6030601@riseup.net> <87tx5n9gsg.wl-lukeshu@sbcglobal.net> <87r40rt3kv.fsf@elros.lan> Message-ID: <53E7B02C.2070004@riseup.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08/08/2014 12:15 PM, Micha? Mas?owski wrote: >>> we have a x86_64 server to do the repo migration. After do it, >>> we could use the current repo server (32 bit) for host >>> parabolaweb. >> >> I think n1md4 wants to decomission the 32 bit hardware. >> >> Besides having a single point of failure, I don't have a problem >> shoving everything on one server. > > +1: migrate everything to the new repo. > > We currently have/had two servers, any of them breaking is a > problem. With only one server we would have lower probability of a > failure. > > We can later think how to add redundancy. > +1 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJT57AsAAoJEOaXR1L5cERWcPEQAIAemaayOhv6VnQQGLumwb38 Fl3iMdIqIc/T5L8sQWtLN336F5BJ6bqMigdM0JWKF9LCZtQx47Pv2fCpItAx2ohf SvATWZwoYoOjDp+4+y2zWRdSHyurJJyuik1BbvNRKteAg4skvJGbUz4vZFjWeOuA 0LPiEHIxJdqEnZanGZVPv6XoK/Ik/L53hitOt34osuxVxfzS6CpN/bE7rPSs1VI/ RnsUJaZ6XevgWJtTHDcyzLO67dcEqUY7E/auRipyLZRacnETwggq3ql1z+HpClCW 6/zNCgihDN4o/zgXjj5bXcL9e6l44XmCoT0oBz5KHe5oE13bn/xzGzPixI72MdHJ heRBKIQLCDewZZTDThTnm6tQ4czkAkTvk4H3iiCkTKBAiH2KWxKOS3ywA5X8pj/U WL8zJGiOhPcJ1eETBvblpYJ6QDziEeEOy+6wUgDMwJmLjfG3eytGSMwCv8L4iiKx H45C0jotpKkVN0NBIEZYNeu5fTi1s/SuCWtkcFOA7uRIuynarCY4ubI99m0elwMF d+Wpb2RXi2VHjp5I74xsE2avclevewv4XSDR0gA7lACuh971SDO5kXKNPq0EtpEz oFDJvB6sxtJ9xDmzLTa2JbxR8LthvTO1Wnq6rAS6kxRxKB7TbUN0FQMRF9Uyapgc DzhysR9QFCTW//bvaIIb =9S4B -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From fauno at endefensadelsl.org Thu Aug 14 00:01:27 2014 From: fauno at endefensadelsl.org (=?utf-8?Q?Nicol=C3=A1s?= Reynolds) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 21:01:27 -0300 Subject: [Dev] =?utf-8?q?=5BR=C3=A9my_Oudompheng=5D_=5Barch-dev-public=5D_?= =?utf-8?q?TeXLive_2014_packages?= Message-ID: <8761hwq6qw.fsf@endefensadelsl.org> -- http://endefensadelsl.org -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: =?utf-8?Q?R=C3=A9my?= Oudompheng Subject: [arch-dev-public] TeXLive 2014 packages Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 01:54:12 +0200 Size: 1730 URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 602 bytes Desc: not available URL: From johannes.krampf at googlemail.com Thu Aug 14 10:58:40 2014 From: johannes.krampf at googlemail.com (Johannes Krampf) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 12:58:40 +0200 Subject: [Dev] Invalid signature for linux-libre-lts Message-ID: <53EC9660.4010506@googlemail.com> Hi everyone, the following happens when I try to install linux-libre-lts: # pacman -S linux-libre-lts resolving dependencies... looking for inter-conflicts... Packages (1): linux-libre-lts-3.14.16-1 Total Installed Size: 72.42 MiB :: Proceed with installation? [Y/n] (1/1) checking keys in keyring [#############################################################################] 100% (1/1) checking package integrity [#############################################################################] 100% error: linux-libre-lts: signature from "Andr? Silva " is invalid :: File /var/cache/pacman/pkg/linux-libre-lts-3.14.16-1-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz is corrupted (invalid or corrupted package (PGP signature)). Do you want to delete it? [Y/n] n error: failed to commit transaction (invalid or corrupted package (PGP signature)) Errors occurred, no packages were upgraded. Cheers, Johannes From emulatorman at riseup.net Thu Aug 14 18:05:54 2014 From: emulatorman at riseup.net (=?UTF-8?B?QW5kcsOpIFNpbHZh?=) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 15:05:54 -0300 Subject: [Dev] Invalid signature for linux-libre-lts In-Reply-To: <53EC9660.4010506@googlemail.com> References: <53EC9660.4010506@googlemail.com> Message-ID: <53ECFA82.1030302@riseup.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08/14/2014 07:58 AM, Johannes Krampf wrote: > Hi everyone, > > the following happens when I try to install linux-libre-lts: > > # pacman -S linux-libre-lts resolving dependencies... looking for > inter-conflicts... > > Packages (1): linux-libre-lts-3.14.16-1 > > Total Installed Size: 72.42 MiB > > :: Proceed with installation? [Y/n] (1/1) checking keys in keyring > [#############################################################################] > > 100% > (1/1) checking package integrity > [#############################################################################] > > 100% > error: linux-libre-lts: signature from "Andr? Silva > " is invalid :: File > /var/cache/pacman/pkg/linux-libre-lts-3.14.16-1-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz > is corrupted (invalid or corrupted package (PGP signature)). Do you > want to delete it? [Y/n] n error: failed to commit transaction > (invalid or corrupted package (PGP signature)) Errors occurred, no > packages were upgraded. > > > Cheers, > > Johannes I'm building a new version of that kernel and will solve that problem -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJT7PqCAAoJEOaXR1L5cERWS3QP/2YZsbwhwjRllRySfh5vbsGe /X3JNmLFnSEkDjHxX239E8wOiufMGzHkyVjEcL5Y5e8/nzZl5coaGs9u1CfLFN1j bVQjqGIRYUnV760H7mfgNx2yhPx/YxKSebMY2qP5xbITC9IY+D0KHGJDCqGuE2co 0YaciXaN1Rs5Y2hyf9fwo2JiidnRzHKVP3arcucn2QvoUWxOk3EmekRq1c7yOqqP acqYRFkog1f9AjoCkderMfQsnMbuokBDdvfTKSlkn/bWlUWwR615MKomllvddKlm 9NeuR1ozkOxugY6pZ3vrSCx3qb7756bWJpmDeULc5IS+b6YXstnQa8Kn2zABtU70 jZQ/BhQlcw8gFPmMy+PopzPT30FU/7gTefvpnkP0Uil0Qg0IWWGkewx2uLFJn6Wc H8q/6T7sKOtWmbHyDEPk1v8u9BzBLZaX/ju7wmaHce2zD3QdUUVMPLVE9BhDAl6L hdKAYjK0YDOMNeVEiTVRvoyx6xNacjNgzKW6B3ezYlHcpG8Z8t5xVwcCAWUHNLsr IvHbGVPRUDoKOS0mrIHJ++SBDbRfVnHdTtfgJeGSfo+W2aktLcPWwGj2qTEbrYwo 85N4S0LOLYSqxMj8p2w/r34RYra31QvAOmpRx7GL9vNzAfibzoGhrtk+zvRv0gIa rYbiDd9MyV9ZDQLDDIpz =2AZT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From elcorreo at deshackra.com Fri Aug 15 15:20:24 2014 From: elcorreo at deshackra.com (Jorge Araya Navarro) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 09:20:24 -0600 Subject: [Dev] Invalid signature for linux-libre-lts In-Reply-To: <53ECFA82.1030302@riseup.net> References: <53EC9660.4010506@googlemail.com> <53ECFA82.1030302@riseup.net> Message-ID: <87oavldbgq.fsf@deshackra.com> I'm experiencing this as well! I have the package ocaml-extlib in ignore for a similar reason... Andr? Silva writes: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 08/14/2014 07:58 AM, Johannes Krampf wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> >> the following happens when I try to install linux-libre-lts: >> >> # pacman -S linux-libre-lts resolving dependencies... looking for >> inter-conflicts... >> >> Packages (1): linux-libre-lts-3.14.16-1 >> >> Total Installed Size: 72.42 MiB >> >> :: Proceed with installation? [Y/n] (1/1) checking keys in keyring >> [#############################################################################] >> >> > 100% >> (1/1) checking package integrity >> [#############################################################################] >> >> > 100% >> error: linux-libre-lts: signature from "Andr? Silva >> " is invalid :: File >> /var/cache/pacman/pkg/linux-libre-lts-3.14.16-1-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz >> is corrupted (invalid or corrupted package (PGP signature)). Do you >> want to delete it? [Y/n] n error: failed to commit transaction >> (invalid or corrupted package (PGP signature)) Errors occurred, no >> packages were upgraded. >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> Johannes > > I'm building a new version of that kernel and will solve that problem > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v2 > > iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJT7PqCAAoJEOaXR1L5cERWS3QP/2YZsbwhwjRllRySfh5vbsGe > /X3JNmLFnSEkDjHxX239E8wOiufMGzHkyVjEcL5Y5e8/nzZl5coaGs9u1CfLFN1j > bVQjqGIRYUnV760H7mfgNx2yhPx/YxKSebMY2qP5xbITC9IY+D0KHGJDCqGuE2co > 0YaciXaN1Rs5Y2hyf9fwo2JiidnRzHKVP3arcucn2QvoUWxOk3EmekRq1c7yOqqP > acqYRFkog1f9AjoCkderMfQsnMbuokBDdvfTKSlkn/bWlUWwR615MKomllvddKlm > 9NeuR1ozkOxugY6pZ3vrSCx3qb7756bWJpmDeULc5IS+b6YXstnQa8Kn2zABtU70 > jZQ/BhQlcw8gFPmMy+PopzPT30FU/7gTefvpnkP0Uil0Qg0IWWGkewx2uLFJn6Wc > H8q/6T7sKOtWmbHyDEPk1v8u9BzBLZaX/ju7wmaHce2zD3QdUUVMPLVE9BhDAl6L > hdKAYjK0YDOMNeVEiTVRvoyx6xNacjNgzKW6B3ezYlHcpG8Z8t5xVwcCAWUHNLsr > IvHbGVPRUDoKOS0mrIHJ++SBDbRfVnHdTtfgJeGSfo+W2aktLcPWwGj2qTEbrYwo > 85N4S0LOLYSqxMj8p2w/r34RYra31QvAOmpRx7GL9vNzAfibzoGhrtk+zvRv0gIa > rYbiDd9MyV9ZDQLDDIpz > =2AZT > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > Dev mailing list > Dev at lists.parabolagnulinux.org > https://lists.parabolagnulinux.org/mailman/listinfo/dev -- Pax et bonum. Jorge Araya Navarro. Dise?ador Publicitario, Programador Python y colaborador en Parabola GNU/Linux-libre https://es.gravatar.com/shackr From emulatorman at riseup.net Sat Aug 16 00:17:28 2014 From: emulatorman at riseup.net (=?UTF-8?B?QW5kcsOpIFNpbHZh?=) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 21:17:28 -0300 Subject: [Dev] Invalid signature for linux-libre-lts In-Reply-To: <87oavldbgq.fsf@deshackra.com> References: <53EC9660.4010506@googlemail.com> <53ECFA82.1030302@riseup.net> <87oavldbgq.fsf@deshackra.com> Message-ID: <53EEA318.1090108@riseup.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08/15/2014 12:20 PM, Jorge Araya Navarro wrote: > > I'm experiencing this as well! > > I have the package ocaml-extlib in ignore for a similar reason... > I will rebuild it then > > Andr? Silva writes: > > On 08/14/2014 07:58 AM, Johannes Krampf wrote: >>>> Hi everyone, >>>> >>>> the following happens when I try to install linux-libre-lts: >>>> >>>> # pacman -S linux-libre-lts resolving dependencies... looking >>>> for inter-conflicts... >>>> >>>> Packages (1): linux-libre-lts-3.14.16-1 >>>> >>>> Total Installed Size: 72.42 MiB >>>> >>>> :: Proceed with installation? [Y/n] (1/1) checking keys in >>>> keyring >>>> [#############################################################################] >>>> >>>> > >>>> 100% >>>> (1/1) checking package integrity >>>> [#############################################################################] >>>> >>>> > >>>> 100% >>>> error: linux-libre-lts: signature from "Andr? Silva >>>> " is invalid :: File >>>> /var/cache/pacman/pkg/linux-libre-lts-3.14.16-1-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz >>>> >>>> is corrupted (invalid or corrupted package (PGP signature)). Do you >>>> want to delete it? [Y/n] n error: failed to commit >>>> transaction (invalid or corrupted package (PGP signature)) >>>> Errors occurred, no packages were upgraded. >>>> >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Johannes > > I'm building a new version of that kernel and will solve that > problem > linux-libre-lts-3.14.17-1 has been released, check now if it works! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJT7qMYAAoJEOaXR1L5cERWiuEQALbMbPZXdGOggeR8BS9XjAdw RXsrGrNGr2vxvbfrAbv5TF7EcBlWHiSbhoRQFOfikA5afE4qZQo3BM/+Zicbndbz 8i3ssuECEha3hFKwM8IyVdKnd6/V9C2yQbvN/HZ9zgZ3QvuheLuKbNogI6MFzjLk b3J8CHTgVFTKpzTlGK/9BvarnBdWGeL9yNX3Ee27Fw5fxEAOUoWlg5DJIBmMkOB+ BmdfKSGS9by5+7ecg38E+W542I7xVXpHe6sTnAlPVLeCG+PuwMMlE6k2rT13lcYV HYo53n3um3hFSgEhz0TMPy3ZaxvBYHPon5QkC0tDHZC/DL8tsTtPVMaeSjLGMwWt JVINhHqi7B/eS/VtX8i6kbzcaXyQ0iLj9KDjWDNnyBfXPvwW1cdUuLVQDiMWkSGy RdrSuSmb8yHNVEUerdvqZiR8AMMR9/SMnayDgIwaSgkcwP/lcUbgZikmk3kbVodL O8vwgoz2C2d7yKYc07SOhjDIqVK9qQQtMiraxsYVYKtPovmLV0gFKo93+NhkLdbD yeaPLdY28DPTZvLzY/+8I/q40Cwhx7jEMlGqJTi5O3SGeNkV6hDlq5CMFm/JdSYj w2G03wsOY/ZT9gy3Rucfg3K3qleI6uAPsW+9WNk9U3ttwkg6KdQbezSljflKj+xg KLDhPxZAbX+TMM5dVhDO =llvy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From lukeshu at sbcglobal.net Tue Aug 19 02:06:28 2014 From: lukeshu at sbcglobal.net (Luke Shumaker) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 22:06:28 -0400 Subject: [Dev] [RFC] Package naming for packages modified from Arch In-Reply-To: <8738djcvj1.wl%lukeshu@sbcglobal.net> References: <8738djcvj1.wl%lukeshu@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <87ppfxfd23.wl-lukeshu@sbcglobal.net> I did my research on kernel naming policies! At Wed, 30 Jul 2014 00:36:50 -0400, Luke Shumaker wrote: ... > We may also end up discussing the CONFIG_LOCALVERSION for kernels. ... > However, from knowledge of Arch, they also use suffixes for: > - A significant alternate configuration. Examples: > - `emacs` -> `emacs-nox` (extra->community) (sort-of conflicts with > using `emacs-$modename` for Emacs modes) > - `linux` -> `linux-pae` (AUR) > - A nonstandard release branch is used. Examples: > - `linux` -> `linux-lts` (core) > - A patchseries has been applied. Examples: > - `linux` -> `linux-grsec` (core->community) > > (I'm almost certain non-"linux" examples could be found for each, I'm > just lazy/tired). > > ---- > > A look at existing practice in Parabola: ... > - acpi_call -> acpi_call-libre; acpi_call-lts -> acpi_call-libre-lts: Must be compiled > per-kernel. The suffix is based on the kernel name. In the > morning when I'm less tired, I will update on details about kernel > naming policies in Arch vs. Parabola. ... > - linux -> linux-libre: The Arch software has been replaced by > software from a different upstream. In the morning when I'm less > tired, I will update on details about kernel naming policies in > Arch vs. Parabola. (This summary of policies ignores beta/development builds) ---- Linux kernel versions are in the format: $(VERSION).$(PATCHLEVEL).$(SUBLEVEL)$(EXTRAVERSION)$(LOCALVERSION) Everyone mostly agrees on how to set VERSION/PATCHLEVEL/SUBLEVEL (though not always what to call the variables in build scripts :P), but EXTRAVERSION and LOCALVERSION vary a bit: +------------------------------+--------------+--------------+ | | EXTRAVERSION | LOCALVERSION | +------------------------------+--------------+--------------+ | Linux (stable) | '' | '' | | Linux-libre | '-gnu${rel}' | '' | | Arch Linux's 'linux' | '-${pkgrel}' | '-ARCH' | | Arch Linux's 'linux-lts' | '-${pkgrel}' | '-lts' | | Parabola's 'linux-libre' | '-${pkgrel}' | '-libre' | | Parabola's 'linux-libre-lts' | '-${pkgrel}' | '-libre-lts' | +------------------------------+--------------+--------------+ ---- I mentioned we sometimes disagree on variable names: Arch Linux: _kernelname=... pkgbase=linux${_kernelname} _basekernel=${VERSION}.${PATCHLEVEL} _srcname=linux-${VERSION}.${PATCHLEVEL} pkgver=${VERSION}.${PATCHLEVEL}.${SUBLEVEL} EXTRAVERSION=-${pkgrel} LOCALVERSION=${_kernelname:--ARCH} Parabola: _kernelname=... _localversionname=-libre-${_kernelname} pkgbase=linux${_localversionname} _basekernel=${VERSION}.${PATCHLEVEL} _sublevel=${SUBLEVEL} EXTRAVERSION=-${pkgrel} LOCALVERSION=${_localversionname} That is, Parabola's _localversionname takes the place of Arch's _kernelname, and Parabola's _kernelname is roughly "what would _kernelname be in Arch?". ---- Now, names of non-kernel packages that must match the kernel. In Arch, packages that must be compiled per-kernel get the pkgname suffix "$_kernelname". In Parabola, it is the same thing (but $_localversioname, since we changed the meaning of $_kernelname). -- Happy hacking, ~ Luke Shumaker From lukeshu at sbcglobal.net Tue Aug 19 02:43:04 2014 From: lukeshu at sbcglobal.net (Luke Shumaker) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 22:43:04 -0400 Subject: [Dev] [RFC] Package naming for packages modified from Arch In-Reply-To: <87ppfxfd23.wl-lukeshu@sbcglobal.net> References: <8738djcvj1.wl%lukeshu@sbcglobal.net> <87ppfxfd23.wl-lukeshu@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <87mwb1fbd3.wl-lukeshu@sbcglobal.net> My opinion on what we should do: Kernels: - Have $pkgver include linux-libre's stock EXTRAVERSION. Something like: _pkgver=3.14.17-gnu1 pkgver=${_pkgver//-/.} - Append $pkgrel to the stock EXTRAVERSION, instead of replacing it. - Set `_kernelname=${pkgbase#linux-libre}`, instead of `${pkgbase#linux}`. - Set `LOCALVERSION=${_kernelname:--PARABOLA}`; this is a case we never hit before, because _kernelname was never empty That is, have LOCALVERSION *not* include '-libre', but include '-gnu' in the version. Things built against the kernel (but otherwise unmodified): - pkgname=${_pkgname}${KERNEL_NAME} This is the current policy, but remember that I proposed dropping '-libre' from the kernel-name. This means that packages built against the stock kernel would have the same pkgname as in Arch. Source-patched software: (for complex patches) - Add the '-libre' suffix to the $pkgname. Repackaged software (non-patched): - Make no change to the $pkgname. ---- Note that there are several situations where I would have the pkgname be the same as a pkgname in Arch, and that some of you don't like this; if everyone else thinks sharing a pkgname is bad; then I would support appending '-parabola' in these cases. -- Happy hacking, ~ Luke Shumaker From hellekin at gnu.org Thu Aug 21 16:00:36 2014 From: hellekin at gnu.org (hellekin) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 13:00:36 -0300 Subject: [Dev] Mozilla Social Message-ID: <53F617A4.1090609@gnu.org> Hola, in icedove non-prism there's a configuration that whitelists Mozilla Social for some "nice" services, like, ahem, MSN. See screenshot. http://i.imgur.com/SaoImOX.png == hk From fauno at endefensadelsl.org Mon Aug 25 17:06:23 2014 From: fauno at endefensadelsl.org (=?utf-8?Q?Nicol=C3=A1s?= Reynolds) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 14:06:23 -0300 Subject: [Dev] why was filesystem renamed? Message-ID: <87egw41ots.fsf@endefensadelsl.org> we never renamed it because the first time we did it we broke a few systems (including mine)... -- :O -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 602 bytes Desc: not available URL: From emulatorman at riseup.net Mon Aug 25 19:38:57 2014 From: emulatorman at riseup.net (=?windows-1252?Q?Andr=E9_Silva?=) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 16:38:57 -0300 Subject: [Dev] why was filesystem renamed? In-Reply-To: <87egw41ots.fsf@endefensadelsl.org> References: <87egw41ots.fsf@endefensadelsl.org> Message-ID: <53FB90D1.7000106@riseup.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08/25/2014 02:06 PM, Nicol?s Reynolds wrote: > > we never renamed it because the first time we did it we broke a > few systems (including mine)... > > > > _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list > Dev at lists.parabolagnulinux.org > https://lists.parabolagnulinux.org/mailman/listinfo/dev > the latest revision of filesystem-parabola [0] solves that problem and it was tested on our machines for coadde and me [0] https://lukeshu.com/git/mirror/parabola/abslibre.git/commit/?id=82c9bb005723b14973b5b41fe788aeb3df1692ba -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJT+5DRAAoJEOaXR1L5cERWTxgQALsD4qxsWufzGfViKFXfxzZA Z1pZx4ffAqPzyXuFMY5bbHtzmU8YTk001TOv185OSfypRSotL2RMnILZDgBJQ411 ahTpcjgWymku4H6WiWcu4lko8oK2L5vaI+hXyXRjmwgQUBK2lxvYWc/p9gbycOa3 Cc+Mg8flZfQblY7RbbS1LzWJH/oRYMeSpkFAXUSmHrHrKlQ2zunc3N/uALH+ULzp CtznR6NIN9VNHGjlYlUKnD+1zfEftbEJFZYgrYWrhYp3kR/Tmdn9j2/YNVLr4nLz phN19y9WDNjkjGLtUNsVJ27m50VGOMvkD3e3t4t5h9lJxgqST3v5xxnENy8lg1X6 lDsDNzI8Etb3UNO2EENVklpionjXRyWgsOitqyrG9vw/DduYs/ykuMKy5Uv6DKQM ZriXHrERsE5GxA/r9WoKpFHxjQEV0JONmUS4ageW/Z6DKBBSmrroJLKot4eau0na 2jgW0H0ZQtx6erla/4BOz5NEx7P709WrHciUu4k2puBTCeLS/JMuuJ6B1w5SWSfU KoYyWKi4sFlsPt64+vD4WLHvZjjOK6lL/81OfMo9QTstskkeAOpSvZ5Y+JKZgYm6 O4F2wmyvxBcyJ/V9xyN31gbN5HJTdJbp/7/jotr+8o7McSk0Ec+uDj3EGVYshqGd JLSzD3Io9Q47vOREYE0F =6XDL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From fauno at endefensadelsl.org Tue Aug 26 05:31:31 2014 From: fauno at endefensadelsl.org (=?utf-8?Q?Nicol=C3=A1s?= Reynolds) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 02:31:31 -0300 Subject: [Dev] [Dave Reisner] [arch-dev-public] systemd 216 coming soon to testing Message-ID: <871ts324wc.fsf@endefensadelsl.org> -- D -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Dave Reisner Subject: [arch-dev-public] systemd 216 coming soon to testing Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 14:25:24 -0400 Size: 2481 URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 602 bytes Desc: not available URL: From lists+dev-parabolagnulinux at donderklumpen.de Tue Aug 26 15:49:24 2014 From: lists+dev-parabolagnulinux at donderklumpen.de (Mono) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:49:24 +0200 Subject: [Dev] errors while updating my system Message-ID: <20140826154924.GA6960@donderklumpen.de> Hallo all, updating my system has thrown some errors today. I am not sure about their meaning and if something needs to be repaired (before reboot). Could you take a look please and comment about the error messages? which package provides execv? which package provides vercmp? should I worry about the kernel being able to reboot the machine because of the error message? thank you very much Mono $ sudo pacman -Syyu :: Synchronizing package databases... libre 364.4 KiB 1301K/s 00:00 [###########################################] 100% core 101.8 KiB 856K/s 00:00 [###########################################] 100% extra 1645.9 KiB 1498K/s 00:01 [###########################################] 100% community 2.2 MiB 1532K/s 00:01 [###########################################] 100% :: Starting full system upgrade... :: Replace cpupower-libre with libre/linux-libre-tools-cpupower? [Y/n] :: Replace cups-filters-libre with libre/cups-filters-parabola? [Y/n] :: Replace filesystem with libre/filesystem-parabola? [Y/n] :: Replace lirc-libre-utils with libre/lirc-utils-parabola? [Y/n] :: Replace mplayer-libre with libre/mplayer-parabola? [Y/n] :: Replace pacman with libre/pacman-parabola? [Y/n] :: Replace pacman-mirrorlist-libre with libre/pacman-mirrorlist-parabola? [Y/n] :: Replace texlive-bin-libre with libre/texlive-bin-parabola? [Y/n] :: Replace vim-runtime with libre/vim-runtime-parabola? [Y/n] :: Replace xorg-server-libre with libre/xorg-server-parabola? [Y/n] resolving dependencies... looking for inter-conflicts... Packages (30): cpupower-libre-3.16-1 [removal] cups-filters-libre-1.0.57-1 [removal] cups-filters-parabola-1.0.58-1 device-mapper-2.02.109-2 filesystem-2014.07-1 [removal] filesystem-parabola-2014.07-1.1 gnutls-3.3.7-1 imagemagick-6.8.9.7-1 linux-libre-3.16.1.gnu-1.2 linux-libre-api-headers-3.14.1.gnu-1.1 linux-libre-firmware-3.16.gnu-2 linux-libre-lts-3.14.17.gnu-1.1 linux-libre-tools-cpupower-3.16.gnu-1.4 lirc-libre-utils-1:0.9.1.a-3 [removal] lirc-utils-parabola-1:0.9.1.a-3.2 lvm2-2.02.109-2 mplayer-libre-37224-2 [removal] mplayer-parabola-37224-2 pacman-4.1.2-6.1 [removal] pacman-mirrorlist-libre-20140528-1 [removal] pacman-mirrorlist-parabola-20140825-1 pacman-parabola-4.1.2-6.1 texlive-bin-libre-2013.30973-10 [removal] texlive-bin-parabola-2013.30973-10 thin-provisioning-tools-0.3.2-1 vim-runtime-7.4.410-1 [removal] vim-runtime-parabola-7.4.410-1 xorg-server-libre-1.16.0-6 [removal] xorg-server-parabola-1.16.0-6 youtube-dl-2014.08.25.3-1 Total Download Size: 147.34 MiB Total Installed Size: 275.77 MiB Net Upgrade Size: 17.30 MiB :: Proceed with installation? [Y/n] :: Retrieving packages ... linux-libre-tools-cpupower-3.16.gnu-1.4-i686 113.8 KiB 896K/s 00:00 [###########################################] 100% cups-filters-parabola-1.0.58-1-i686 673.6 KiB 322K/s 00:02 [###########################################] 100% filesystem-parabola-2014.07-1.1-i686 8.9 KiB 0.00B/s 00:00 [###########################################] 100% linux-libre-firmware-3.16.gnu-2-any 3.8 KiB 0.00B/s 00:00 [###########################################] 100% linux-libre-3.16.1.gnu-1.2-i686 52.9 MiB 1444K/s 00:37 [###########################################] 100% linux-libre-api-headers-3.14.1.gnu-1.1-i686 720.1 KiB 1633K/s 00:00 [###########################################] 100% linux-libre-lts-3.14.17.gnu-1.1-i686 51.4 MiB 1370K/s 00:38 [###########################################] 100% lirc-utils-parabola-1:0.9.1.a-3.2-i686 392.6 KiB 1670K/s 00:00 [###########################################] 100% mplayer-parabola-37224-2-i686 6.1 MiB 1593K/s 00:04 [###########################################] 100% pacman-mirrorlist-parabola-20140825-1-any 1500.0 B 0.00B/s 00:00 [###########################################] 100% pacman-parabola-4.1.2-6.1-i686 595.0 KiB 1639K/s 00:00 [###########################################] 100% texlive-bin-parabola-2013.30973-10-i686 21.2 MiB 1523K/s 00:14 [###########################################] 100% vim-runtime-parabola-7.4.410-1-i686 4.8 MiB 1562K/s 00:03 [###########################################] 100% xorg-server-parabola-1.16.0-6-i686 1350.5 KiB 1621K/s 00:01 [###########################################] 100% device-mapper-2.02.109-2-i686 190.7 KiB 1223K/s 00:00 [###########################################] 100% thin-provisioning-tools-0.3.2-1-i686 1277.1 KiB 1617K/s 00:01 [###########################################] 100% lvm2-2.02.109-2-i686 903.0 KiB 1621K/s 00:01 [###########################################] 100% gnutls-3.3.7-1-i686 2037.4 KiB 1616K/s 00:01 [###########################################] 100% imagemagick-6.8.9.7-1-i686 2.2 MiB 1612K/s 00:01 [###########################################] 100% youtube-dl-2014.08.25.3-1-any 686.4 KiB 1642K/s 00:00 [###########################################] 100% (20/20) checking keys in keyring [###########################################] 100% (20/20) checking package integrity [###########################################] 100% (20/20) loading package files [###########################################] 100% (20/20) checking for file conflicts [###########################################] 100% (30/30) checking available disk space [###########################################] 100% ( 1/10) removing cpupower-libre [###########################################] 100% ( 2/10) removing cups-filters-libre [###########################################] 100% ( 3/10) removing filesystem [###########################################] 100% warning: /etc/shadow saved as /etc/shadow.pacsave warning: /etc/resolv.conf saved as /etc/resolv.conf.pacsave warning: /etc/passwd saved as /etc/passwd.pacsave warning: /etc/hosts saved as /etc/hosts.pacsave warning: /etc/gshadow saved as /etc/gshadow.pacsave warning: /etc/group saved as /etc/group.pacsave warning: /etc/fstab saved as /etc/fstab.pacsave ( 4/10) removing lirc-libre-utils [###########################################] 100% ( 5/10) removing mplayer-libre [###########################################] 100% call to execv failed (No such file or directory) error: command failed to execute correctly ( 6/10) removing pacman-mirrorlist-libre [###########################################] 100% warning: /etc/pacman.d/mirrorlist saved as /etc/pacman.d/mirrorlist.pacsave ( 7/10) removing pacman [###########################################] 100% call to execv failed (No such file or directory) error: command failed to execute correctly ( 8/10) removing texlive-bin-libre [###########################################] 100% ( 9/10) removing vim-runtime [###########################################] 100% (10/10) removing xorg-server-libre [###########################################] 100% ( 1/20) installing linux-libre-tools-cpupower [###########################################] 100% ( 2/20) installing cups-filters-parabola [###########################################] 100% Optional dependencies for cups-filters-parabola ghostscript: for non-PostScript printers to print with CUPS to convert PostScript to raster images foomatic-db: drivers use Ghostscript to convert PostScript to a printable form directly [installed] foomatic-db-engine: drivers use Ghostscript to convert PostScript to a printable form directly [installed] ( 3/20) upgrading device-mapper [###########################################] 100% ( 4/20) installing filesystem-parabola [###########################################] 100% ?etc/fstab.pacsave? -> ?etc/fstab? ?etc/group.pacsave? -> ?etc/group? ?etc/hosts.pacsave? -> ?etc/hosts? ?etc/passwd.pacsave? -> ?etc/passwd? ?etc/shadow.pacsave? -> ?etc/shadow? ?etc/gshadow.pacsave? -> ?etc/gshadow? ?etc/resolv.conf.pacsave? -> ?etc/resolv.conf? ( 5/20) upgrading gnutls [###########################################] 100% ( 6/20) upgrading imagemagick [###########################################] 100% ( 7/20) upgrading linux-libre-firmware [###########################################] 100% ( 8/20) upgrading linux-libre [###########################################] 100% >>> Updating module dependencies. Please wait ... >>> Generating initial ramdisk, using mkinitcpio. Please wait... ==> Building image from preset: /etc/mkinitcpio.d/linux-libre.preset: 'default' -> -k /boot/vmlinuz-linux-libre -c /etc/mkinitcpio.conf -g /boot/initramfs-linux-libre.img ==> Starting build: 3.16.1-gnu-1.2 -> Running build hook: [base] -> Running build hook: [udev] -> Running build hook: [autodetect] -> Running build hook: [modconf] -> Running build hook: [block] -> Running build hook: [keymap] -> Running build hook: [encrypt] -> Running build hook: [lvm2] -> Running build hook: [filesystems] -> Running build hook: [keyboard] -> Running build hook: [fsck] ==> Generating module dependencies ==> Creating uncompressed initcpio image: /boot/initramfs-linux-libre.img ==> Image generation successful ==> Building image from preset: /etc/mkinitcpio.d/linux-libre.preset: 'fallback' -> -k /boot/vmlinuz-linux-libre -c /etc/mkinitcpio.conf -g /boot/initramfs-linux-libre-fallback.img -S autodetect ==> Starting build: 3.16.1-gnu-1.2 -> Running build hook: [base] -> Running build hook: [udev] -> Running build hook: [modconf] -> Running build hook: [block] ==> WARNING: Possibly missing firmware for module: isci -> Running build hook: [keymap] -> Running build hook: [encrypt] -> Running build hook: [lvm2] -> Running build hook: [filesystems] -> Running build hook: [keyboard] -> Running build hook: [fsck] ==> Generating module dependencies ==> Creating uncompressed initcpio image: /boot/initramfs-linux-libre-fallback.img ==> Image generation successful /tmp/alpm_C6KQuL/.INSTALL: line 26: vercmp: command not found /tmp/alpm_C6KQuL/.INSTALL: line 26: [: -lt: unary operator expected ( 9/20) upgrading linux-libre-api-headers [###########################################] 100% (10/20) upgrading linux-libre-lts [###########################################] 100% >>> Updating module dependencies. Please wait ... >>> Generating initial ramdisk, using mkinitcpio. Please wait... ==> Building image from preset: /etc/mkinitcpio.d/linux-libre-lts.preset: 'default' -> -k /boot/vmlinuz-linux-libre-lts -c /etc/mkinitcpio.conf -g /boot/initramfs-linux-libre-lts.img ==> Starting build: 3.14.17-gnu-1.1-lts -> Running build hook: [base] -> Running build hook: [udev] -> Running build hook: [autodetect] -> Running build hook: [modconf] -> Running build hook: [block] -> Running build hook: [keymap] -> Running build hook: [encrypt] -> Running build hook: [lvm2] -> Running build hook: [filesystems] -> Running build hook: [keyboard] -> Running build hook: [fsck] ==> Generating module dependencies ==> Creating uncompressed initcpio image: /boot/initramfs-linux-libre-lts.img ==> Image generation successful ==> Building image from preset: /etc/mkinitcpio.d/linux-libre-lts.preset: 'fallback' -> -k /boot/vmlinuz-linux-libre-lts -c /etc/mkinitcpio.conf -g /boot/initramfs-linux-libre-lts-fallback.img -S autodetect ==> Starting build: 3.14.17-gnu-1.1-lts -> Running build hook: [base] -> Running build hook: [udev] -> Running build hook: [modconf] -> Running build hook: [block] ==> WARNING: Possibly missing firmware for module: isci -> Running build hook: [keymap] -> Running build hook: [encrypt] -> Running build hook: [lvm2] -> Running build hook: [filesystems] -> Running build hook: [keyboard] -> Running build hook: [fsck] ==> Generating module dependencies ==> Creating uncompressed initcpio image: /boot/initramfs-linux-libre-lts-fallback.img ==> Image generation successful /tmp/alpm_nSqAjL/.INSTALL: line 26: vercmp: command not found /tmp/alpm_nSqAjL/.INSTALL: line 26: [: -lt: unary operator expected (11/20) installing lirc-utils-parabola [###########################################] 100% Optional dependencies for lirc-utils-parabola python2: pronto2lirc utility [installed] (12/20) installing thin-provisioning-tools [###########################################] 100% (13/20) upgrading lvm2 [###########################################] 100% /tmp/alpm_C0zkKS/.INSTALL: line 2: vercmp: command not found /tmp/alpm_C0zkKS/.INSTALL: line 2: [: -lt: unary operator expected /tmp/alpm_C0zkKS/.INSTALL: line 15: vercmp: command not found /tmp/alpm_C0zkKS/.INSTALL: line 15: [: -lt: unary operator expected (14/20) installing mplayer-parabola [###########################################] 100% (15/20) installing pacman-mirrorlist-parabola [###########################################] 100% (16/20) installing pacman-parabola [###########################################] 100% Optional dependencies for pacman-parabola fakeroot: for makepkg usage as normal user [installed] (17/20) installing texlive-bin-parabola [###########################################] 100% >>> texlive: updating the filename database... mktexlsr: Updating /etc/texmf/ls-R... mktexlsr: Updating /usr/share/texmf-dist/ls-R... mktexlsr: Updating /var/lib/texmf/ls-R... mktexlsr: Done. creating all formats... done. (logs are under /var/lib/texmf/web2c//.log) Optional dependencies for texlive-bin-parabola ed: for texconfig (18/20) installing vim-runtime-parabola [###########################################] 100% (19/20) installing xorg-server-parabola [###########################################] 100% >>> xorg-server has now the ability to run without root rights with the help of systemd-logind. xserver will fail to run if not launched from the same virtual terminal as was used to log in. Without root rights, log files will be in ~/.local/share/xorg/ directory. Old behavior can be restored through Xorg.wrap config file. See Xorg.wrap man page (man xorg.wrap). (20/20) upgrading youtube-dl [###########################################] 100% From fauno at endefensadelsl.org Tue Aug 26 16:17:53 2014 From: fauno at endefensadelsl.org (=?utf-8?Q?Nicol=C3=A1s?= Reynolds) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 13:17:53 -0300 Subject: [Dev] errors while updating my system In-Reply-To: <20140826154924.GA6960@donderklumpen.de> References: <20140826154924.GA6960@donderklumpen.de> Message-ID: <87k35vz0lq.fsf@endefensadelsl.org> Mono writes: > Hallo all, > > updating my system has thrown some errors today. I am not sure about > their meaning and if something needs to be repaired (before > reboot). Could you take a look please and comment about the error > messages? > > which package provides execv? > > which package provides vercmp? > > should I worry about the kernel being able to reboot the machine because of the error message? > > thank you very much vercmp comes with pacman, but pay special attention to the pacsave files and merge or recover them before reboot -- http://selfdandi.com.ar -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 602 bytes Desc: not available URL: From lists+dev-parabolagnulinux at donderklumpen.de Tue Aug 26 17:47:40 2014 From: lists+dev-parabolagnulinux at donderklumpen.de (Mono) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 19:47:40 +0200 Subject: [Dev] errors while updating my system In-Reply-To: <87k35vz0lq.fsf@endefensadelsl.org> References: <20140826154924.GA6960@donderklumpen.de> <87k35vz0lq.fsf@endefensadelsl.org> Message-ID: <20140826174740.GA828@donderklumpen.de> Thanks fauno, I re-installed linux-libre and it did not show any error messages this time. reboot worked. thank you and sorry for the noise Mono On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 01:17:53PM -0300, Nicol?s Reynolds wrote: > Mono writes: > > > Hallo all, > > > > updating my system has thrown some errors today. I am not sure about > > their meaning and if something needs to be repaired (before > > reboot). Could you take a look please and comment about the error > > messages? > > > > which package provides execv? > > > > which package provides vercmp? > > > > should I worry about the kernel being able to reboot the machine because of the error message? > > > > thank you very much > > vercmp comes with pacman, but pay special attention to the pacsave files > and merge or recover them before reboot > > -- > http://selfdandi.com.ar From emulatorman at riseup.net Thu Aug 28 09:21:14 2014 From: emulatorman at riseup.net (=?windows-1252?Q?Andr=E9_Silva?=) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 06:21:14 -0300 Subject: [Dev] Mozilla Social In-Reply-To: <53F617A4.1090609@gnu.org> References: <53F617A4.1090609@gnu.org> Message-ID: <53FEF48A.1060201@riseup.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08/21/2014 01:00 PM, hellekin wrote: > Hola, > > in icedove non-prism there's a configuration that whitelists > Mozilla Social for some "nice" services, like, ahem, MSN. See > screenshot. > > http://i.imgur.com/SaoImOX.png > > == hk > ok, i will check to fix and build a new revision of it and let you know when it's ready -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJT/vSKAAoJEOaXR1L5cERWRQ4P/0Uv4PMaO8gc8sJvn/7Vh2Tg rhtZtV4oC84wdnlNaRXygNvom27RxC20NL0pHapeXCToMNDTMR1oHQcLQxMxCiFl 4VJhPE82bCuHs8VO1gOyJuBepvZfJGtPsqwCr9NvDcw/zg1QDUj9xuCpDwla0ZFZ vWJSW6zps4pMq1lCA97kaQkrnJgiWNTggmK68N/RUgECa116epshDnOok30obfv5 IXC5Q3nfZzBANbi/fyIJ++cN7mFOtjWZnfqRtJ8WTiO4AmVAJlwH9b8KN9Ac5GvZ 9DQj82hE82Py34BaRnslZU2AVR8n/1pSMDyYoOSjjRh4lDZc0b06YZ+3yHzjfEDb mFzFVXwrbQyhblx4tG0SobuUEyohSQtrC2x6t/xLmMeRn0/QplSH/pemRXgNaigf fA6PQkb9vSL9l3HknZtf/KAwZur0kTyoIaahsQLATKr0g6DHqqHaS0/LSNbhNGLq huDwQ5+xmcgdyj0p5v6szPnkt9kT/yMpNnozJEY+2NRC9WA4+q19mYSOXyCjDH4F sAjgW0duxdsk697ABCi0+xu0wa0Wv7/5pNae9tv5OTLX5MAqJQGrK+JWScVEiXa/ HF95bUPy/vbSRNJzCVD3mF+D+xCXkWk3RChZKw/SLRmOd4GYgN9awl2/eyRvvD60 zQLZFuZNo4h0EFT3U+sH =938W -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From arnuld.mizong at gmail.com Thu Aug 28 13:13:35 2014 From: arnuld.mizong at gmail.com (arnuld uttre) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 18:43:35 +0530 Subject: [Dev] Latest ISO download points to 2013 images than 2014 Message-ID: Hi There, On get parabola page: https://wiki.parabolagnulinux.org/Get_Parabola 1) torrent links point to 2013 ISO images of parabola rather than 2014. I can not edit the because I do not have authority. There are more problems dow here, Its frustrating to experience this, especially when an Arch user migrates to parabola. If parabola developers team allows then I am willing to put my time to update all the links and notify all the mirror admins. Wiki needs lot of work, I have already added missing "migration from arch" information out of my experience. 2) Half of the http mirrors do no have 2014 images and latest link in all mirrors points 2013 images 3) all of the mirrors do not have md5 or sha1 checksum for 2014 ISO 4) I can not find where on parabola site you download torrent for 2014 ISO image. Website's ISO page is down, trying from last 5 days: https://labs.parabola.nu/projects/isos Thanks -- arnuld http://uttre.wordpress.com/ http://lispmachine.wordpress.com/2010/12/08/extract-of-programming/ From emulatorman at riseup.net Fri Aug 29 01:42:08 2014 From: emulatorman at riseup.net (=?UTF-8?B?QW5kcsOpIFNpbHZh?=) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 22:42:08 -0300 Subject: [Dev] [RFC] Voting about package naming for packages modified from Arch Message-ID: <53FFDA70.9050600@riseup.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The topic is basically "should we add '-libre' and '-parabola' to a certain package name built by us on [libre], [libre-testing] and [libre-multilib] repos?" Some days ago lukeshu put a similar topic about it [0], but due which to some users don't like the current package naming, i've propose reopen it to decide a definitive way to solve the package naming for packages modified from Arch from a voting to follow the 3th point of our Social Contract [1]. [0]: https://lists.parabolagnulinux.org/pipermail/dev/2014-August/002290.html [1]: https://wiki.parabolagnulinux.org/Parabola/GNU_Linux_Social_Contract The following 4 suggestions have been offered: 1) Add the -libre suffix to all packages that are modified from Arch for freedom reasons (so not for rebranding reasons). (fauno) lukeshu: Why "except for rebranding"? 2) Add the -libre suffix on packages for patched-source software. (lukeshu) lukeshu: Because the name "${pkgbase}-libre" denotes that it is a fork of "${pkgbase}" that is maintained by the Parabola project, similar to Iceweasel being maintained by Debian, or Linux-libre by GNU/the FSFLA. 3) Don't ever use the -libre suffix (mtjm) Because all packages on [libre] have implicitly been modified for freedom. 4) Use -libre for patched-source software, and -parabola for packaging or configuration changes. (coadde) The "-libre" policy from #2, plus using another suffix to differentiate between Arch's version and Parabola's version to avoid confusion when migrating. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIbBAEBAgAGBQJT/9pwAAoJEOaXR1L5cERWOcwP+Odx68W6A7eDsUNMpMI76/GK pQUaPpqTUtvQ8lrvYTy4/Xsu78eNPG2AFPFVcvlh0vIueq6Xx39aqq/Ux6nCe5vs fkHjbTWVB14M3qa398mlvUzjgnfKlqdet7+FL4eyklz0QVNJieLbt2q9FmHPdL8O 18MoPKETFJJL4zOVkgfUtaPOtaAuQhaIZit46Y1FENC+SJp9fH3lAtOE2BEDbmlM Uwr1fhbDmlbd5EPXW6y3QcN4GgJw4p0Q8WwPsExMINkMusLIC0g48jfLiJv3XffX Smt7t6p77VeWSjSv+ZKtZjdWlJSNRlRsAI3H3TaV6edC2eV1wB0vi1vCJs5jcC18 kyxRS7kYGYCwp0YCs4AIRk23K2iTCyw76papoIH/Q8d7qYVc3KOijWsTES2CV9bz mnw50A5bhDHyFZQeUBpZL5u1SJvy37UxgwZgn9v2rv9YnembwmkLKwexrEGVYfjo EOb1gmzCmAPMeZA44owXN479HVt6VkZHVCUBBmo2Su2ASeWyciz67nMjBwVuySBK DFfwlp1LJDsGtXoR46NCF7GyUnogh5U9+845mZXGerkssfy76BlMwqLURqVBQ7EP bGKwV9Q3TOYssAjDazXvUl52rYb29EuPFM3wSmEhFET5YDzlgUlCREnyW3iA0emr 446xRchRO0Lq9Y0vveI= =Byie -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From arnuld.mizong at gmail.com Fri Aug 29 03:50:06 2014 From: arnuld.mizong at gmail.com (arnuld uttre) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 09:20:06 +0530 Subject: [Dev] [RFC] Voting about package naming for packages modified from Arch In-Reply-To: <53FFDA70.9050600@riseup.net> References: <53FFDA70.9050600@riseup.net> Message-ID: > On 8/29/14, Andr? Silva wrote: > The following 4 suggestions have been offered: Well, I am not a parabola developer, I as strong supporter of Free Software and I will like to give my opinion worth of 2 bits :) > 1) Add the -libre suffix to all packages that are modified from Arch > for freedom reasons (so not for rebranding reasons). (fauno) > > lukeshu: Why "except for rebranding"? Correct. Parabola stands for a distro based on completely Free Software. We do not need to add -libre suffix for packages modified from Arch. > 2) Add the -libre suffix on packages for patched-source software. > (lukeshu) > > lukeshu: Because the name "${pkgbase}-libre" denotes that it is a > fork of "${pkgbase}" that is maintained by the Parabola project, > similar to Iceweasel being maintained by Debian, or Linux-libre by > GNU/the FSFLA. I agree. It is no longer vanilla, it is a modified form of original, hence we need to add -libre. > 3) Don't ever use the -libre suffix (mtjm) > 4) Use -libre for patched-source software, and -parabola > for packaging or configuration changes. (coadde) > The "-libre" policy from #2, plus using another suffix to > differentiate between Arch's version and Parabola's version to > avoid confusion when migrating. I agree. If we change configuration then it becomes a package maintained by parabola-team, therefore it is a good idea to add -parabola suffix. Thanks -- arnuld http://uttre.wordpress.com/ http://lispmachine.wordpress.com/2010/12/08/extract-of-programming/ From niitotantei at riseup.net Fri Aug 29 07:29:41 2014 From: niitotantei at riseup.net (Daniel Milewski) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 09:29:41 +0200 Subject: [Dev] [RFC] Voting about package naming for packages modified from Arch In-Reply-To: <53FFDA70.9050600@riseup.net> References: <53FFDA70.9050600@riseup.net> Message-ID: <1409297381.913.3.camel@riseup.net> I vote for mtjm's proposal: > 3) Don't ever use the -libre suffix (mtjm) > > Because all packages on [libre] have implicitly been modified for > freedom. I agree with most of the arguments raised on behalf of this option: * It doesn't make sense to have `-libre` suffix in package names if the distro is completely free software. * Name changes are unnecessarily complex and don't follow the KISS rule. I'm also a bit annoyed by the fact I have to guess if the package was renamed in Parabola whenever I install software through pacman. -- Daniel Milewski GPG key ID: 8D43A4A1 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From mtjm at mtjm.eu Fri Aug 29 08:20:24 2014 From: mtjm at mtjm.eu (=?utf-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_Mas=C5=82owski?=) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 10:20:24 +0200 Subject: [Dev] [RFC] Voting about package naming for packages modified from Arch In-Reply-To: <53FFDA70.9050600@riseup.net> (=?utf-8?Q?=22Andr=C3=A9?= Silva"'s message of "Thu, 28 Aug 2014 22:42:08 -0300") References: <53FFDA70.9050600@riseup.net> Message-ID: <8761hbiu5z.fsf@mtjm.eu> > 3) Don't ever use the -libre suffix (mtjm) > > Because all packages on [libre] have implicitly been modified for > freedom. Since all packages in Parabola are free and are packages in Parabola, adding -libre or -parabola suffixes doesn't help. Renaming * -> *-libre breaks updates: pacman moves essential config files to *.pacsave, considering these completely different packages. Users need to manually rename it, developers need to make special rules about packages to not rename or make update scripts rename these files. Renaming *-libre -> * (e.g. when a package in Arch/upstream stops including nonfree software, or gets to use /etc/os-release for branding) always needed a manual update here. Users reported issues with outdated -libre packages on their systems. Only not renaming any modified package is simple and reliable. Other distros do not rename their packages, they change their equivalent of pkgrel, but here it's obvious that a package in libre/pcr/parabola repo is modified from Arch. We need to add .1 to pkgrel regardless of branding if we modify a package, so it gets updated on systems migrating from Arch and if we modify an already included package. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 818 bytes Desc: not available URL: From arnuld.mizong at gmail.com Fri Aug 29 09:11:45 2014 From: arnuld.mizong at gmail.com (arnuld uttre) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 14:41:45 +0530 Subject: [Dev] [RFC] Voting about package naming for packages modified from Arch In-Reply-To: <8761hbiu5z.fsf@mtjm.eu> References: <53FFDA70.9050600@riseup.net> <8761hbiu5z.fsf@mtjm.eu> Message-ID: > On 8/29/14, Micha? Mas?owski wrote: > .. SNIP ... > We need to add .1 to pkgrel regardless of branding if we modify a > package, so it gets updated on systems migrating from Arch and if we > modify an already included package. Well, this is actually a better idea. I will wait for more commets if I was making a decision -- http://uttre.wordpress.com/ http://lispmachine.wordpress.com/2010/12/08/extract-of-programming/ From emulatorman at riseup.net Fri Aug 29 11:18:27 2014 From: emulatorman at riseup.net (=?UTF-8?B?QW5kcsOpIFNpbHZh?=) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 08:18:27 -0300 Subject: [Dev] [RFC] Voting about package naming for packages modified from Arch In-Reply-To: <8761hbiu5z.fsf@mtjm.eu> References: <53FFDA70.9050600@riseup.net> <8761hbiu5z.fsf@mtjm.eu> Message-ID: <54006183.70104@riseup.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08/29/2014 05:20 AM, Micha? Mas?owski wrote: >> 3) Don't ever use the -libre suffix (mtjm) >> >> Because all packages on [libre] have implicitly been modified >> for freedom. > > Since all packages in Parabola are free and are packages in > Parabola, adding -libre or -parabola suffixes doesn't help. > > Renaming * -> *-libre breaks updates: pacman moves essential > config files to *.pacsave, considering these completely different > packages. Users need to manually rename it, developers need to make > special rules about packages to not rename or make update scripts > rename these files. > > Renaming *-libre -> * (e.g. when a package in Arch/upstream stops > including nonfree software, or gets to use /etc/os-release for > branding) always needed a manual update here. Users reported > issues with outdated -libre packages on their systems. > > Only not renaming any modified package is simple and reliable. > > Other distros do not rename their packages, they change their > equivalent of pkgrel, but here it's obvious that a package in > libre/pcr/parabola repo is modified from Arch. > > We need to add .1 to pkgrel regardless of branding if we modify a > package, so it gets updated on systems migrating from Arch and if > we modify an already included package. > I like the idea, but it generates some doubts for me. Our kernel is called Linux-libre which is the real name of the project and in this case, i have a question: should we keep the $pkgname as linux-libre or keep the same name like Arch called linux? It opens another similar question, should we follow the real name which we are using from the source, or the packages created from Arch? Also, we are using mksource to create modified sources without nonfree stuff to build from it (eg: calibre, clementine, sdl) [0] Those sources aren't the same source and in this case, how should it be called? should has it the same name or use the -libre or similar suffix to differentiate between our modified source and official source to let the community know which it's not the same source? [0]: https://repo.parabolagnulinux.org/other/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJUAGGDAAoJEOaXR1L5cERWbOQQAJLH82vV0LRDvqDIu2SXwwSr pWx+BfZ2u5U5uWrRUIv45CZMNSISSSQy2lAyvKorGaVKcedqMnFeQXbUDfm1mMPu xYQf38sMrAziu2+JY1ONjpKQePdDpct+lyLM3mS+S76a9ZIC73lgqrm+NdN4XK6i riMjfalmm2nv+36EOUMqVz44sxNLZoLJKvC3TKvtYXOtW6dJO0ldK3Rw3CDAA6jY +QIVIhmRZRUM8f0a+DcK/RAyJoNx1emS6axEeSDbU5LKRFQLedPMThWSPC1oBeru dUD9MssDgWVy7dLeqk8quL/uSvRcm2vhJkJrDOuPftHGloWIRzE7KHO6SPlUjeOm /qnB4c1DpXOA5wpUpdyD7HNpKEIo7cM0+SL5TbzbQdKz1sPsJUUF6+58gxqmlFVS VmDWIinUq2pDeGjozTLJph+tkQLmuuTFZOPJ752SgstYlJJQ7ZJVGy9WC9wy5FAd 1DlfJS8YcUUXh9Bky49AOFQnjTMdVe4MaxoiJxZ8VEZhGxIyj3DUpYhqzy2HxZRy TxZGu3J5oDvDj74arR+IH0uSmaRkg2aEbhbliHkP7Z3wwn6JzztWPhOqFxWIEO26 WbMrGL06oNs5qLEOOZkGUtbj9V7tyixo5gCMIuE+16vCGC3nYBGj9MGjf73XLN1n 8GZgmPe3MNlmJ8IJPyvB =Z3+G -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From emulatorman at riseup.net Fri Aug 29 11:23:34 2014 From: emulatorman at riseup.net (=?UTF-8?B?QW5kcsOpIFNpbHZh?=) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 08:23:34 -0300 Subject: [Dev] [RFC] Voting about package naming for packages modified from Arch In-Reply-To: <54006183.70104@riseup.net> References: <53FFDA70.9050600@riseup.net> <8761hbiu5z.fsf@mtjm.eu> <54006183.70104@riseup.net> Message-ID: <540062B6.7010000@riseup.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08/29/2014 08:18 AM, Andr? Silva wrote: > Also, we are using mksource to create modified sources without > nonfree stuff to build from it (eg: calibre, clementine, sdl) [0] Sorry, i put "mksource" instead of "librefetch" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJUAGK2AAoJEOaXR1L5cERWYKEP/2FBlfpNMUnIvUotoClIJlxe m2se5y8FGpZrig2s8g8VJ3mcrGMTGa9L3q8FuDC/jjTiwfrD9G5pfPi8pjKU8QaY 8ltbshUtbe3WLXMB0jjn5yXp7OEoCLrWagLPRjRSSQqaL2lYXgig/qPROHGK3cFX DzlysXeLlvbJp4oLpfJYpzi72TAIYlAiuqUj8PzfHTL0uzHGhBTrCVO0v2ZzR4d8 HJX9lJ6ShOes/l8U4DeigNBrrxjvo2hod4eeeaWCIO8DLKTt0DHI+d2Xkfyh5aJH nEJ1FEEZz/kTTMJ4+FkZAUk0Okdk06CjmAjJGMnSsnDOUviI7C9silJgL8FK5aLZ /Z0ShcWASjCk9Jx6lyYyQ487hM8nyuf9NFK/T5YiQbegBziUfRV6OzOn7ncy1UM4 J9W/SImn30RwyHEBgE9WEwXbbOyINJEQiGAzpAAyW2hJs2PlSxwxVYQIEYzAGF3T ca2D0mGDSICtVayQOZ4ol2aMg3awmHYfa03EKJt3ahQMXTWAyQGbneU1+iTzg/Yq gvNTSCE+D/1GE+EtoLvClT1jLsONyBpynrh/wpdUmFrx82Tu7J6GN7vRQgVKrrAo oav+mivxha5qVrZYXCkXDTluj2nbnwUMN+WXoUoqCxEbIpR9dPOV7P4coYKYQb3f Khmwwsh0N4Pz1q+etVsx =3uW7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From mtjm at mtjm.eu Fri Aug 29 11:32:11 2014 From: mtjm at mtjm.eu (=?utf-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_Mas=C5=82owski?=) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 13:32:11 +0200 Subject: [Dev] [RFC] Voting about package naming for packages modified from Arch In-Reply-To: <54006183.70104@riseup.net> (=?utf-8?Q?=22Andr=C3=A9?= Silva"'s message of "Fri, 29 Aug 2014 08:18:27 -0300") References: <53FFDA70.9050600@riseup.net> <8761hbiu5z.fsf@mtjm.eu> <54006183.70104@riseup.net> Message-ID: <871trzilac.fsf@mtjm.eu> > I like the idea, but it generates some doubts for me. Our kernel is > called Linux-libre which is the real name of the project and in this > case, i have a question: should we keep the $pkgname as linux-libre or > keep the same name like Arch called linux? Keep it linux-libre. These packages are replacements only in package metadata, they already use e.g. different file names. > It opens another similar question, should we follow the real name > which we are using from the source, or the packages created from Arch? Name the browser iceweasel, don't rename calibre, sdl, etc. > Also, we are using mksource to create modified sources without nonfree > stuff to build from it (eg: calibre, clementine, sdl) [0] > Those sources aren't the same source and in this case, how should it > be called? should has it the same name or use the -libre or similar > suffix to differentiate between our modified source and official > source to let the community know which it's not the same source? Do it like Debian: keep the original package names, rename source files. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 818 bytes Desc: not available URL: From emulatorman at riseup.net Fri Aug 29 12:13:21 2014 From: emulatorman at riseup.net (=?UTF-8?B?QW5kcsOpIFNpbHZh?=) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 09:13:21 -0300 Subject: [Dev] [RFC] Voting about package naming for packages modified from Arch In-Reply-To: <871trzilac.fsf@mtjm.eu> References: <53FFDA70.9050600@riseup.net> <8761hbiu5z.fsf@mtjm.eu> <54006183.70104@riseup.net> <871trzilac.fsf@mtjm.eu> Message-ID: <54006E61.4070905@riseup.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08/29/2014 08:32 AM, Micha? Mas?owski wrote: >> I like the idea, but it generates some doubts for me. Our kernel >> is called Linux-libre which is the real name of the project and >> in this case, i have a question: should we keep the $pkgname as >> linux-libre or keep the same name like Arch called linux? > > Keep it linux-libre. These packages are replacements only in > package metadata, they already use e.g. different file names. > >> It opens another similar question, should we follow the real >> name which we are using from the source, or the packages created >> from Arch? > > Name the browser iceweasel, don't rename calibre, sdl, etc. > >> Also, we are using mksource to create modified sources without >> nonfree stuff to build from it (eg: calibre, clementine, sdl) >> [0] Those sources aren't the same source and in this case, how >> should it be called? should has it the same name or use the >> -libre or similar suffix to differentiate between our modified >> source and official source to let the community know which it's >> not the same source? > > Do it like Debian: keep the original package names, rename source > files. > It resolves those doubts, thanks for your response! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJUAG5hAAoJEOaXR1L5cERWv/MQANl5yhROqqUEeFUrr4KuiUml BaieOUuHLoq7Odm7rTC3YTRpNUydX2MQqzi1NH02d6q0EHPN+E0AZ8EZ50YgbFDV 3oCyAQYwcxa/GvcibtpUVh1wvGh8SiKHj3sttUs5jlcYGiLIosXyJQmoVg9s+8Bp AwLDXXGU/iHidAgPuHW/UJc5Cgou2t7S5StjFAJqht7n16yjxqofDEtZkTGl1wdW H/yxwBTAHB5Yyz6RqAcFXZA8katFZDMeqviSJtOk1ElLhxgB/YPzVQhbstkHdJYN DLYZ0vE19zXESO+7BUNDWtziLUakVK8+XNl4hI560gM8hoJO1A1JM+IHE0TODwmy +bcmjvz5RIhD3ChobEWfMFv5uZPVFS9AdlNXPKDuDbbmYFKXX3gF2gQnB3VrlDDQ jx5Ns+2hmDbYS8MZybmJF5zFNv/XEOHGkQbq9cWc09rYpTxnYW5nIsKIoJIcmRm+ NbhvzcjqLdUkkaKCHnp0PUnHuIO8q+eWPSKpSHz2K++pQCXx9nGWG8AfB/uOZwD3 AB+nEP5KV/N0UWg//INA5zUxWM4KVcsYAeWZKiacUWSDYY077mhPI9qPUyr5KRhn XcNQr5jDUxBnbpu3hhca2Lghf7dolkHEHAjr72u3PlQZ57lBHEqAIvd7FdzJ8O1q KgBdmiIIGsZs8VoHAmsw =8REB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From encycl at a2c3.co Fri Aug 29 14:09:21 2014 From: encycl at a2c3.co (encycl) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 07:09:21 -0700 Subject: [Dev] Voting about package naming for packages Message-ID: <20140829070921.63f64be4@a2c3.co> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I vote for 3 Don't ever use the -libre suffix Also, let's remove the libre suffix as packages come up for updates rather than trying to go in and remove them all at once. Cheers, Charles - -- Charles Roth, MPC Cultural Detective, Wistful Writer, Curious Antiquary, Noted Pedestrian, & Voracious Reader Primary email: encycl at a2c3.co Micro: @encycl About Me: http://a2c3.co/encycl Jabber/XMPP: encycl at a2c3.co -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJUAImRAAoJEH0Z0a/dMSu+hUUP/1dCVLt+Mh+VPIcrUuawlq3x kSzb9wa86uzyFNcq73hKXVzp/13/nz1XT81ZKt2nIY851XFo4qOGvPH0hDojVx+H D9VWLaT3aV83wpblsey1jt/MZyRR/5u3RvM/20widL+sjGTwOOUPQEhzVOP4zEdG aKOdg3MFoWLRZClzdoFk9iXMLGqTtKPA+mKkHSGChNPArl4m+X3BFA4AgQDifFIK wnoevvsNrvi1mqCHXch1Tqy1BUXeFXVmfTnb6IxwBAu1aY3tHLR/pgf6noKnGiaB 6ctQn6HRGyihJOq2KbsD8Vx6MA7dWwJalcNXlWhYRlydYQ/WjZt7C/F4N3BwKG92 WP1ofvAsRVVuj5ccq5RECrUJn4ZR9L/c5kR+PWJY1z5Eo0cNDp5u58gKWxmngK3+ pUUUXGuQ8OwRueWdk9ML7g8W9X3HttDdMuliWQhhytJZRzzS42IWWGhBcVq0eDba dgScf3V7dusgowbToMaMKJ8emWjMUaaarzIMMD79UzFZLNCsGHsVFWxRMqW7raVb ki+R1d6x4r5fLwYA7IKrhYWybhaWDDFyp2rL0gKRpg7QLl/9ZqQuSeyhyVwhJwUk Hf4xiVamB0TrnH5cUvtteQlIFdrxzhQ/BcnNgQfCyn6rt5XLSLnSDtJhqbRB2+Lb VnHduu2Wqmyquu88rirR =GHGl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From lukeshu at sbcglobal.net Fri Aug 29 16:14:04 2014 From: lukeshu at sbcglobal.net (Luke Shumaker) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 12:14:04 -0400 Subject: [Dev] [RFC] Voting about package naming for packages modified from Arch In-Reply-To: <1409297381.913.3.camel@riseup.net> References: <53FFDA70.9050600@riseup.net> <1409297381.913.3.camel@riseup.net> Message-ID: <87lhq7mfxv.wl-lukeshu@sbcglobal.net> At Fri, 29 Aug 2014 09:29:41 +0200, Daniel Milewski wrote: > I'm also a bit annoyed by the fact I have to guess if the package was > renamed in Parabola whenever I install software through pacman. You actually don't when installing--because the package provides=(original_name), `pacman -S original_name` does the right thing. However, it is then annoying to guess the rename when un-installing. -- Happy hacking, ~ Luke Shumaker From hellekin at gnu.org Fri Aug 29 17:26:28 2014 From: hellekin at gnu.org (hellekin) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 14:26:28 -0300 Subject: [Dev] [RFC] Voting about package naming for packages modified from Arch In-Reply-To: <871trzilac.fsf@mtjm.eu> References: <53FFDA70.9050600@riseup.net> <8761hbiu5z.fsf@mtjm.eu> <54006183.70104@riseup.net> <871trzilac.fsf@mtjm.eu> Message-ID: <5400B7C4.3030608@gnu.org> -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- Charset: utf-8 Version: GnuPG v2 hQEMA5kPGnm5E8YZAQgA1IJ6FQ6zRt1FA1eSmyMIIESV0pVBaZT3+VZZPuN+2GC+ Zx4X3mSTxrfk9AVgl1FcQ4/WD9f5fPUsO/u8Z4dEyvmchCzjprSvi9IuoanLSJsx 0P603vx6EXDBQFSjItB6vXbd2NqLOHgRJSFd1gMwkMNOuFZHX6Z+iMBeXz06iL3p /jVEyc48dowJvHJaM2nlsiIYwPGp3zvVM6l/xgNZ87h5j2eiMuoHOT9CLOqHomzY ICMPh50PNsyuNeK1vmRQ168O8P3eXE0hK1jB5qZ8fI1SzfgZ6Cx61KIZNa+99nOf mJOn8khrx1nH2pvK7XaUE4k6zsIjGgI6/CYVXJeu9YUCDAN8Gzu3fU6oygEQAJ9B ehKYwte1Po65RVzMtB/Pn9W7cLW5IncuIcZZIVLoe9BEYCSInKJ0YsCdILRM/uyd D7C+QHO8ofo6SfIrHZpB2FLEyKkbxrRQDI1uEhXoqrn4Jryus3mykC+cFkBtVSkj nlN+EF8uaTmUnEBHmk0XGyiGWGQxiCzOU/pkd2gziMQ7BTrQiuBsvz8k0l8pgNr7 TcuEtg7Veq8liYaAvWssMl/pTbqxE76mbAxtlDCX/uKzyUYxp8oZOEvAtAWUZnmg 9ruh++4ge9sszGOmwD9z3WZzgf7SE7V+RAnpkB+m4UpSPZSg4r+1N848wO8Y0E61 6+yVnOZBHJGccacF+MQ26NL08P1JSJAa8bgavI6GbuBiA4m92pyRSf+flfXtbtb0 P/5cp6/MX+zAeEYNSpP8Y5nhwdDMf14XGGl5KXKDdG/U5oqPQvVBIZ6Ko8Vqz84n vhE/uYmmO12sk4w++tHSoaDeAyViRaVTs0vpQkXJhWqjZVUuLs7JsPgcmLmLfsKD Y3B33SP4UnuDRcuae3ivMxr1F9FbeDnifokDkiq2Ii4J5Wik5es3TEWj/LjH9Xzr pJ0a2lN9qodD+3OmhZHFgTkjJOxwZMCXpizFDdR2Wq+k+tQ07yEjVd5mEl7Ozh9z qPPyWc7LuHNewXHCUuFGc4ncMjQKSlgyPc7IA12t0uoBLf8PhSxgEEsJYOaek8lI MeaHlefl+vwn9JboTgdGdp2GsyYSWE53OV0lhqvFsurs21sRYrvvxdwh3NR1YoGD PAFgFZnOp2V7NFzEMgA42FTFO3HhA7DEythGEbHlVa8UiOxctsPyjk1oH2NVXxaw y0Ijn52XnAedKjGxPTa3IqQz832SKuCM2iMgucviLV5Tr0D45w+WDFxwX+PqwSfW uXqbbelewdI57HdIutYxAQ2xckLQ0LoKUiG+Bq5i1kgfy4q6Cj8z5gNUodzpIAkk g4GDm6LeYJE8M5PHG/0mu/jK2YEgBAOAZipKDVoDIjXffR/TWgPoVLkfGDFkivhk RX2YZ6hxzoI651F79+AaSr0Rp5XnnW8Gief5C/s6ZBTZiks9U6J11u8v79SGf4zY olSCtugouRZAWwOU6tgqzHGhLuKGxxOIjF5NsXaWqBKJRdOG1TX1ZvtR9Go6ikgi FouqZUKj9M358k3U1rxtZnHKdHViyCdA/gPZgDa2nTfszxKxSeki8qe6PANg5wPN NLd4LgfzEV6EcJq/iCzt+m3RXHwpRyZY54WpyJ4U74Siku1/AHwQMij1omrYP0o5 a2qiWk++MsL9TyQ6/eNAKc1c7GRpg8qhTrbILG4gQJoScJx1dccRb+7JeXLwjzZk m2USNe2ZVy3/lt4q/g4qHdjVtdkbrfylRKlo7KfHLQmWgbozu/Hu7m73eafiitsv YInh3EGAqe6HDu8EGEWQs0iqcycdpbBrXKtUR+SyLIVWHJx52EhnWKSJD8YG6s2d v5DWtp81qa/ZzrQ0fSu+ztsE498DmSIB/nMyog3mZ4ftx7ax2T4NGZhEm74UVBdZ Ai3WNoXZgt6jfpn5Ystmg8NHDzBZAP/s8usmeXPUuJuQTdKbF9LRKJ7KbdAkvjAW m9oaY/VKWTiAjLr7PfvYV3DwYJuXxmeC8G3xirRh3FoAlXYcBhY9PFZbX1O9LJks 5lq4IpjPKJ79F+Lr2umZsdB6cFxpYWtEfPzDRPZDmYmL/btw5rbrL+Z3imZKwzkZ Zd21sOjazYsKcleJF1tGXyEXoAlEdpIpNwKqrAkN7LiPUAoli1ep1BNrkEedPpdh KOtRQ4XjK7ycVURM8bODvuRpJppk3tmeJ82E7C5111DBQD9ciE+l5T/ryGFLSHS9 1tEk8MwfvO7nOsYChdGrM6+VTmApWWDcIJjjM2wirGTlGic0AiqqM26nH9DWaNab xEcFvvWuKfRpaKx+1AUeo8J2fCt7gXKa05MhwJUiS/GMNr8bnGMgafeFkKcUaQTq /JW/S9MEMOoADN0fGopDZfW9lYCEWxx5XITkX/8W8cr9J71YrLRD3LuBaMUhQGzf 6SP0YH5JFvcNajKSyVC6OQa5tdwMLLS6b39KJB8jkje6vfOz0uTBhhpUSzregBpm iiLSvwTt6+zPFqTCWvXwVRSPQ26aTOURbAdVotUXRFY3CERMS6/IQccD5Zhw+rRh NJnS93trj6i0Cp1Z1O3QfYRo+n4/tPfQTPaxD6SUF5dibSQhz+ktF6bLIXwGR+EC u+cG9/DodHmTRyQRAPTYYDV+GT6fgYH567L4XXX6bUgbfdPmoF/170+4tQyMtgJP AFLxvyFuSswMrcLaq9pT7M6ohtTL3Y9xQqMukUINDm/WmYD2VBcZv6MPx0gajDht 9nMubV2QspP06C1J29rsdZd+6NGFVUc8zxPZoKXwZKzdhvkqii5X4sb6pr8149rd 6/XJP7n5bbm/gBoLmQ8A3mbz/d2b7W04/tw9NFJqazWwhnTXsMLJev3woSNpb1yU yw0zzdNE2cFsNT3noUTjOiYNjht3/fZDtOkHzdQzxgRGt5HOE/dwcc92ZdVHepSx Zzp9GWKxOKxte6ZvJ9l9FPFz6uTT3mnZgjFZ97m1rpkmbTEkYVH/tdpNihFHMX2h ioRvZNB8nGDc37D0+G6V5c4LCs5kD/SaoF7PuO2ahIQxLUieHE+F4d+8ybOjFuz3 knaY9bojSlhE/sUuVqIfrfSRXAXVtxB+nbUivVX0pc6nwJS08lmmhFSgj85jHw1b 47y0B6XbQEFOT6uOCncoxrs0nwzigajc/94OiON4qp0lAn78xO3XBSMR7t+TkBb8 l9unLvyf21Wv6xcFqbVKveMDLpjZbnE6WXPFCdVuHdw6xdWPSOIkxT83l2kSNC26 2Yu3sgUhD3Zeq3o6iykaaL75z0Iq3cxoLI5k3KVW16/YpNktsSFvo0KIkJ3OtM0W RjyPFFCBlo0eoZNcr4cfbCHtBn2YzLgU5bdGi6tBWmhGQIctyCCtc5w71RrFz6s+ oHpW0Yp801Y/AgU4EbMhUm9NAkzNWiBMo+mZpzJEJj6udPFPtBtDtHmJ3el9/l00 wLcAnV6dbi77sTLtOfHe+Pc6d5gqV0CyABLiOvDbliDigthv3wSFsKEjFQhKicOV ySIIv7fLdpHoqv2bwJb2KhWW6/Dpv3cp4skb43AHM2Fcbuo4GQdb =7Vmj -----END PGP MESSAGE----- From lukeshu at sbcglobal.net Fri Aug 29 18:10:40 2014 From: lukeshu at sbcglobal.net (Luke Shumaker) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 14:10:40 -0400 Subject: [Dev] [RFC] Voting about package naming for packages modified from Arch In-Reply-To: <53FFDA70.9050600@riseup.net> References: <53FFDA70.9050600@riseup.net> Message-ID: <87iolbmajj.wl-lukeshu@sbcglobal.net> At Thu, 28 Aug 2014 22:42:08 -0300, Andr? Silva wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > The topic is basically "should we add '-libre' and '-parabola' to a > certain package name built by us on [libre], [libre-testing] and > [libre-multilib] repos?" > Some days ago lukeshu put a similar topic about it [0], but due which > to some users don't like the current package naming, i've propose > reopen it to decide a definitive way to solve the package naming for > packages modified from Arch from a voting to follow the 3th point of > our Social Contract [1]. > > [0]: > https://lists.parabolagnulinux.org/pipermail/dev/2014-August/002290.html > [1]: https://wiki.parabolagnulinux.org/Parabola/GNU_Linux_Social_Contract > > The following 4 suggestions have been offered: > > 1) Add the -libre suffix to all packages that are modified from Arch > for freedom reasons (so not for rebranding reasons). (fauno) > > lukeshu: Why "except for rebranding"? > > 2) Add the -libre suffix on packages for patched-source software. > (lukeshu) > > lukeshu: Because the name "${pkgbase}-libre" denotes that it is a > fork of "${pkgbase}" that is maintained by the Parabola project, > similar to Iceweasel being maintained by Debian, or Linux-libre by > GNU/the FSFLA. > > 3) Don't ever use the -libre suffix (mtjm) > > Because all packages on [libre] have implicitly been modified for > freedom. > > 4) Use -libre for patched-source software, and -parabola > for packaging or configuration changes. (coadde) > > The "-libre" policy from #2, plus using another suffix to > differentiate between Arch's version and Parabola's version to > avoid confusion when migrating. New proposal (based on input from mtjm and cer): 5) a. Patch makepkg to make pkgrel more flexible (it is already more flexible in pacman/alpm). b. When forking a package for freedom reasons, name the fork with the '-libre' suffix (example: Linux-libre is a fork of Linux (though it is not maintained by us)). c. When forking a package for technical reasons, name the fork with the '-parabola' suffix (example: patching makepkg as mentioned above would be pacman-parabola). d. When repackaging a package (without modifying the packaged software), set its pkgrel="${archrel}.parabola${parabolarel}" (which is enabled by the makepkg patch mentioned above). e. Whe packaging a kernel module package (or other package specific to a kernel version), name it "${_pkgbase}${_kernelname}" and give it pkgrel=${archrel}.parabola${parabolarel}.${_basekernel}" f. The kernelname/version stuff we already just switched to. Notes: - The patch for makepkg is trivial. I've actually submitted upstream a patch for makepkg 5.0; it will only take my a couple of minutes to backport it to makepkg 4.1. - 'e.' is the part I am least comfortable with. I actually arived at it just now. Here's my justification: - It is not nescessary to note -libre/-parabola, as they are NOT specific to the linux-libre kernel; they should work just fine with any kernel with the same $_basekernel and $_kernelname. - I'd sorta like to add a kmod- prefix or some-such, but that'd be unnecessarily deviating from Arch. -- Happy hacking, ~ Luke Shumaker From mtjm at mtjm.eu Fri Aug 29 18:20:35 2014 From: mtjm at mtjm.eu (=?utf-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_Mas=C5=82owski?=) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 20:20:35 +0200 Subject: [Dev] [RFC] Voting about package naming for packages modified from Arch In-Reply-To: <87iolbmajj.wl-lukeshu@sbcglobal.net> (Luke Shumaker's message of "Fri, 29 Aug 2014 14:10:40 -0400") References: <53FFDA70.9050600@riseup.net> <87iolbmajj.wl-lukeshu@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <87wq9rgnt8.fsf@mtjm.eu> > 5) a. Patch makepkg to make pkgrel more flexible (it is already more > flexible in pacman/alpm). > d. When repackaging a package (without modifying the packaged > software), set its pkgrel="${archrel}.parabola${parabolarel}" > (which is enabled by the makepkg patch mentioned above). Ok, can be done independently of the renaming. > b. When forking a package for freedom reasons, name the fork with > the '-libre' suffix (example: Linux-libre is a fork of Linux > (though it is not maintained by us)). > c. When forking a package for technical reasons, name the fork > with the '-parabola' suffix (example: patching makepkg as > mentioned above would be pacman-parabola). Not ok, as explained earlier. Doing (d) informs users that we change the package without adding any compatibility or upgrade issues of renaming and is simpler. Debian-based distros change their equivalent of pkgrel. Or is there any case of "forking" that results in incompatible packages that should not have replaces= or provides= arrays listing the original package? > e. Whe packaging a kernel module package (or other package > specific to a kernel version), name it > "${_pkgbase}${_kernelname}" and give it > pkgrel=${archrel}.parabola${parabolarel}.${_basekernel}" > f. The kernelname/version stuff we already just switched to. Ok. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 818 bytes Desc: not available URL: From emulatorman at riseup.net Fri Aug 29 20:42:11 2014 From: emulatorman at riseup.net (=?windows-1252?Q?Andr=E9_Silva?=) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 17:42:11 -0300 Subject: [Dev] [RFC] Voting about package naming for packages modified from Arch In-Reply-To: <87wq9rgnt8.fsf@mtjm.eu> References: <53FFDA70.9050600@riseup.net> <87iolbmajj.wl-lukeshu@sbcglobal.net> <87wq9rgnt8.fsf@mtjm.eu> Message-ID: <5400E5A3.8010205@riseup.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08/29/2014 03:20 PM, Micha? Mas?owski wrote: >> 5) a. Patch makepkg to make pkgrel more flexible (it is already >> more flexible in pacman/alpm). d. When repackaging a package >> (without modifying the packaged software), set its >> pkgrel="${archrel}.parabola${parabolarel}" (which is enabled by >> the makepkg patch mentioned above). > > Ok, can be done independently of the renaming. > >> b. When forking a package for freedom reasons, name the fork >> with the '-libre' suffix (example: Linux-libre is a fork of >> Linux (though it is not maintained by us)). c. When forking a >> package for technical reasons, name the fork with the '-parabola' >> suffix (example: patching makepkg as mentioned above would be >> pacman-parabola). > > Not ok, as explained earlier. Doing (d) informs users that we > change the package without adding any compatibility or upgrade > issues of renaming and is simpler. Debian-based distros change > their equivalent of pkgrel. > > Or is there any case of "forking" that results in incompatible > packages that should not have replaces= or provides= arrays listing > the original package? > >> e. Whe packaging a kernel module package (or other package >> specific to a kernel version), name it >> "${_pkgbase}${_kernelname}" and give it >> pkgrel=${archrel}.parabola${parabolarel}.${_basekernel}" f. The >> kernelname/version stuff we already just switched to. > > Ok. > > +1 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJUAOWjAAoJEOaXR1L5cERWdO4P/2ylIG8iu+bg8gg0iys7XqMD U4nXwJerUXDHvWNcZziQ0Jydm3yWpIJ4jBP5Tb/p9+bLiphFyTP2R9Y/OYFPhHlr Ia2PtoBEaE7xP1O+sCBVjrpaTxv9dRsac5F+gpq72QxF6NcMSLH+cKhYI21eqBiA i5PDNIrnUTKBvtoUiXITKUIbeH7DnEU0jX6mNq8DJtP71j3gqgfm3h9WoEfNx/BG zYSXz7SeFHehO0p/gFZT1ASlm6sCBgNKUYxP1CFPri6Z7biu3wd8xiLmuisXF9v7 bODQ8W/qOY092rEfLA4NQhNMA4bG68lQ0ScLtrFn5S2B82QMYrG//QUArCVdH1nH QR9SEKn6WRONF43hcczcPjts5lo6fCK/iYYyqZBCLdCEplaV6CdgNpJUdTPabCl3 5qC+VC2Wrce8bCfie95Toct/vRkvPSPuWHqJ6jnVmydvTSdxdNJgay6N1Npm5L3Q 3zxruhg8P88wKIqqcIm1x4kM3QkbCWAAQtyfROcA0UF4BSIMSelGZJfbeMcNGkEs f9BuOWAPZp4mkvugfKFSYJoMkpULpDqOQJDiAksUoIDOQ8ZnylUGdDUoj8dUCHHm HjCSGxLzsU3K78eoRJAdYgF9KON63r0L9ZeBKnh2zQh87YChLXX+Ztot/TDnOmyW EtdkXufZmZGAmsLm6Saz =6tXF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From elcorreo at deshackra.com Fri Aug 29 23:37:21 2014 From: elcorreo at deshackra.com (Jorge Araya Navarro) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 17:37:21 -0600 Subject: [Dev] Latest ISO download points to 2013 images than 2014 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8738cedfpc.fsf@deshackra.com> I was going to submit this to the bug tracker in labs.parabola.nu but it seems that is taking time to load the website. Is anything written on the wiki about maintaining the links for downloading any Parabola ISO? Is clear to me that any Parabola developer can go and modify the website and/or the wiki by accessing the server through SSH, but, beyond that, there is no clear instruction of what to do. arnuld uttre writes: > Hi There, > > On get parabola page: https://wiki.parabolagnulinux.org/Get_Parabola > > 1) torrent links point to 2013 ISO images of parabola rather than 2014. > > > I can not edit the because I do not have authority. There are more > problems dow here, Its frustrating to experience this, especially when > an Arch user migrates to parabola. If parabola developers team allows > then I am willing to put my time to update all the links and notify > all the mirror admins. Wiki needs lot of work, I have already added > missing "migration from arch" information out of my experience. > > > 2) Half of the http mirrors do no have 2014 images and latest link in > all mirrors points 2013 images > > 3) all of the mirrors do not have md5 or sha1 checksum for 2014 ISO > > 4) I can not find where on parabola site you download torrent for 2014 > ISO image. Website's ISO page is down, trying from last 5 days: > https://labs.parabola.nu/projects/isos > > > Thanks > > -- arnuld > http://uttre.wordpress.com/ > http://lispmachine.wordpress.com/2010/12/08/extract-of-programming/ > _______________________________________________ > Dev mailing list > Dev at lists.parabolagnulinux.org > https://lists.parabolagnulinux.org/mailman/listinfo/dev -- Pax et bonum. Jorge Araya Navarro. Dise?ador Publicitario, Programador Python y colaborador en Parabola GNU/Linux-libre https://es.gravatar.com/shackra From lukeshu at sbcglobal.net Sat Aug 30 04:14:50 2014 From: lukeshu at sbcglobal.net (Luke Shumaker) Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 00:14:50 -0400 Subject: [Dev] [RFC] Voting about package naming for packages modified from Arch In-Reply-To: <87wq9rgnt8.fsf@mtjm.eu> References: <53FFDA70.9050600@riseup.net> <87iolbmajj.wl-lukeshu@sbcglobal.net> <87wq9rgnt8.fsf@mtjm.eu> Message-ID: <87bnr2mx51.wl-lukeshu@sbcglobal.net> At Fri, 29 Aug 2014 20:20:35 +0200, Micha? Mas?owski wrote: > > c. When forking a package for technical reasons, name the fork > > with the '-parabola' suffix (example: patching makepkg as > > mentioned above would be pacman-parabola). > > Not ok, as explained earlier. Doing (d) informs users that we change > the package without adding any compatibility or upgrade issues of > renaming and is simpler. Debian-based distros change their equivalent > of pkgrel. > > Or is there any case of "forking" that results in incompatible packages > that should not have replaces= or provides= arrays listing the original > package? Changing pkgname isn't ideal, but the Arch/Parabola policy is generally "ship packages as the original author intended them, not as we indent them." If we are changing the behavior of the software, I don't like shipping it with the original name. That said, this is the point I am most flexible on. -- Happy hacking, ~ Luke Shumaker From fauno at endefensadelsl.org Sat Aug 30 13:26:06 2014 From: fauno at endefensadelsl.org (=?utf-8?Q?Nicol=C3=A1s?= Reynolds) Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 10:26:06 -0300 Subject: [Dev] [RFC] Voting about package naming for packages modified from Arch In-Reply-To: <87bnr2mx51.wl-lukeshu@sbcglobal.net> References: <53FFDA70.9050600@riseup.net> <87iolbmajj.wl-lukeshu@sbcglobal.net> <87wq9rgnt8.fsf@mtjm.eu> <87bnr2mx51.wl-lukeshu@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <87ha0uxg5t.fsf@endefensadelsl.org> Luke Shumaker writes: > Changing pkgname isn't ideal, but the Arch/Parabola policy is > generally "ship packages as the original author intended them, not as > we indent them." If we are changing the behavior of the software, I > don't like shipping it with the original name. > > That said, this is the point I am most flexible on. iirc our original intention with renaming freed packages to -libre was on educating users about the changes made. we made the exception when we discovered packages like filesystem would reset systems if .pacsave's weren't taken care of. if renaming is cumbersome (after 5 years doing it?) i guess a post_{install,upgrade} note with the reason would be more helpful. so my propposal would be: * always use the upstream name * (optional) change the pkgrel to parabola * inform people why this package is different from arch's the reason to keep people informed is, well, freedom, but also on changes involving freedom bugs. keep in mind that our distro is constantly becoming libre :) -- http://endefensadelsl.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 602 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mtjm at mtjm.eu Sat Aug 30 13:30:50 2014 From: mtjm at mtjm.eu (=?utf-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_Mas=C5=82owski?=) Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 15:30:50 +0200 Subject: [Dev] [RFC] Voting about package naming for packages modified from Arch In-Reply-To: <87ha0uxg5t.fsf@endefensadelsl.org> (=?utf-8?Q?=22Nicol=C3=A1?= =?utf-8?Q?s?= Reynolds"'s message of "Sat, 30 Aug 2014 10:26:06 -0300") References: <53FFDA70.9050600@riseup.net> <87iolbmajj.wl-lukeshu@sbcglobal.net> <87wq9rgnt8.fsf@mtjm.eu> <87bnr2mx51.wl-lukeshu@sbcglobal.net> <87ha0uxg5t.fsf@endefensadelsl.org> Message-ID: <87fvge9kad.fsf@mtjm.eu> > if renaming is cumbersome (after 5 years doing it?) i guess a > post_{install,upgrade} note with the reason would be more helpful. Can we do it via news on parabolagnulinux.org instead? (This would also work for changes like removing nonfree packages.) Unless the changes require special work after an update and are not interesting for users who don't install the affected package. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 818 bytes Desc: not available URL: From fauno at endefensadelsl.org Sat Aug 30 16:06:37 2014 From: fauno at endefensadelsl.org (=?utf-8?Q?Nicol=C3=A1s?= Reynolds) Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 13:06:37 -0300 Subject: [Dev] [RFC] Voting about package naming for packages modified from Arch In-Reply-To: <87fvge9kad.fsf@mtjm.eu> References: <53FFDA70.9050600@riseup.net> <87iolbmajj.wl-lukeshu@sbcglobal.net> <87wq9rgnt8.fsf@mtjm.eu> <87bnr2mx51.wl-lukeshu@sbcglobal.net> <87ha0uxg5t.fsf@endefensadelsl.org> <87fvge9kad.fsf@mtjm.eu> Message-ID: <87bnr2x8qa.fsf@endefensadelsl.org> Micha? Mas?owski writes: >> if renaming is cumbersome (after 5 years doing it?) i guess a >> post_{install,upgrade} note with the reason would be more helpful. > > Can we do it via news on parabolagnulinux.org instead? (This would also > work for changes like removing nonfree packages.) Unless the changes > require special work after an update and are not interesting for users > who don't install the affected package. do both? -- http://selfdandi.com.ar -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 602 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mtjm at mtjm.eu Sat Aug 30 16:31:13 2014 From: mtjm at mtjm.eu (=?utf-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_Mas=C5=82owski?=) Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 18:31:13 +0200 Subject: [Dev] [RFC] Voting about package naming for packages modified from Arch In-Reply-To: <87bnr2x8qa.fsf@endefensadelsl.org> (=?utf-8?Q?=22Nicol=C3=A1?= =?utf-8?Q?s?= Reynolds"'s message of "Sat, 30 Aug 2014 13:06:37 -0300") References: <53FFDA70.9050600@riseup.net> <87iolbmajj.wl-lukeshu@sbcglobal.net> <87wq9rgnt8.fsf@mtjm.eu> <87bnr2mx51.wl-lukeshu@sbcglobal.net> <87ha0uxg5t.fsf@endefensadelsl.org> <87fvge9kad.fsf@mtjm.eu> <87bnr2x8qa.fsf@endefensadelsl.org> Message-ID: <8761ha9bxq.fsf@mtjm.eu> > do both? Use post install/upgrade notes only if it affects the upgrade or usual use of the package? Users usually don't read pacman's output, having unnecessary messages might contribute to it. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 818 bytes Desc: not available URL: From lukeshu at sbcglobal.net Sat Aug 30 16:45:26 2014 From: lukeshu at sbcglobal.net (Luke Shumaker) Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 12:45:26 -0400 Subject: [Dev] [RFC] Voting about package naming for packages modified from Arch In-Reply-To: <87bnr2x8qa.fsf@endefensadelsl.org> References: <53FFDA70.9050600@riseup.net> <87iolbmajj.wl-lukeshu@sbcglobal.net> <87wq9rgnt8.fsf@mtjm.eu> <87bnr2mx51.wl-lukeshu@sbcglobal.net> <87ha0uxg5t.fsf@endefensadelsl.org> <87fvge9kad.fsf@mtjm.eu> <87bnr2x8qa.fsf@endefensadelsl.org> Message-ID: <874mwulye1.wl-lukeshu@sbcglobal.net> At Sat, 30 Aug 2014 13:06:37 -0300, Nicol?s Reynolds wrote: > > [1 ] > [1.1 ] > Micha? Mas?owski writes: > > >> if renaming is cumbersome (after 5 years doing it?) i guess a > >> post_{install,upgrade} note with the reason would be more helpful. > > > > Can we do it via news on parabolagnulinux.org instead? (This would also > > work for changes like removing nonfree packages.) Unless the changes > > require special work after an update and are not interesting for users > > who don't install the affected package. > > do both? Or we just make not-crappy comments in blacklist.txt? We could even generate a web page from it. -- Happy hacking, ~ Luke Shumaker From emulatorman at riseup.net Sat Aug 30 19:53:41 2014 From: emulatorman at riseup.net (=?UTF-8?B?QW5kcsOpIFNpbHZh?=) Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 16:53:41 -0300 Subject: [Dev] [RFC] Voting about package naming for packages modified from Arch In-Reply-To: <87wq9rgnt8.fsf@mtjm.eu> References: <53FFDA70.9050600@riseup.net> <87iolbmajj.wl-lukeshu@sbcglobal.net> <87wq9rgnt8.fsf@mtjm.eu> Message-ID: <54022BC5.9080002@riseup.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08/29/2014 03:20 PM, Micha? Mas?owski wrote: >> e. Whe packaging a kernel module package (or other package >> specific to a kernel version), name it >> "${_pkgbase}${_kernelname}" and give it >> pkgrel=${archrel}.parabola${parabolarel}.${_basekernel}" f. The >> kernelname/version stuff we already just switched to. > > Ok. > Yesterday, I thought about it and don't agree with it because if we would get more simple and reliable ${pkgname} without suffixes, we should do the same with pkgrel. i support the pkgrel=${archver}.parabola${parabolarel} idea, because it means which it's being maintained by us, but it should be for all packages without exceptions. Add ${_basekernel} on kernel module packages is not ok because confuses the users and developers need to make special rules for each specific case. Also, upstream releases on those packages are done due config modifications (eg: enable/disable a module or feature from config files), not only kernelbase upstream. In my opinion, we should have less rules and be more KISS. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJUAivEAAoJEOaXR1L5cERWBqYP/Rqd6outZuglhS7M1r+PrlBJ tPYfkpwz6kOdwZHSmysu5etU7amjz0SnDIiRBNyAmFh7ujYPV5AfUeDv//p4YHT1 2bOUujCcaXXqccKUe3GP4geaTorp18oYEyhXopWsn3jJhGvTkoFIhzHSe1F38jms 9srufI5cZN6q2N57Tdcs8MCX6Tsj1SBomKvSt1jaNi9OLP7R5O2SI8TeuJH1C1Ol XHaXnt8AP1fuEMs3jdf88hh1mdQU4W2s4rj8yN7FR3gHViSCn2Mx697Kr9FRFrr4 z50gc2KroMJdlmsu1qpJZzjYVGwxo7wwib1TFatdYlA56/nc016F8l0EkznRQ7QO rzemJVSj6aYlKFGlllw+YiTzvmz/zPqHngb9hG5E++bZI2hB2o2mnEmP72QALuna GOnubXrUDbLH6gYwdXoeP4qYBGtiREd0eU/JwFXYPTbMrCrwJ1r9/AQTaU86dVAw QphLOMaYtwuHKpuM+u383GLFAY3jgswx6jCG7CuUejxvFd0TcDvd37O2ZK4tWSBv n1jQpplZX1r4ONQnpB9KN8eVvH/dB/HuJcDqSLJkoiHJ6+45YDSIVWV5W1L+IM2U lNJJlZvA8CCfYdC2VUOA4PqTSJeJtbyrvHQLOb4eJjcbOLLIh3qmWxoFVRRksCfd xJHHAaJ/w07MN+LnfGGJ =/pFl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From lukeshu at sbcglobal.net Sun Aug 31 03:31:04 2014 From: lukeshu at sbcglobal.net (Luke Shumaker) Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 23:31:04 -0400 Subject: [Dev] [RFC] Voting about package naming for packages modified from Arch In-Reply-To: <54022BC5.9080002@riseup.net> References: <53FFDA70.9050600@riseup.net> <87iolbmajj.wl-lukeshu@sbcglobal.net> <87wq9rgnt8.fsf@mtjm.eu> <54022BC5.9080002@riseup.net> Message-ID: <871trxnxmv.wl-lukeshu@sbcglobal.net> At Sat, 30 Aug 2014 16:53:41 -0300, Andr? Silva wrote: > On 08/29/2014 03:20 PM, Micha? Mas?owski wrote: > > Luke Shumaker wrote: > > > e. Whe packaging a kernel module package (or other package > > > specific to a kernel version), name it > > > "${_pkgbase}${_kernelname}" and give it > > > pkgrel=${archrel}.parabola${parabolarel}.${_basekernel}" > > i support the pkgrel=${archver}.parabola${parabolarel} idea, because > it means which it's being maintained by us, but it should be for all > packages without exceptions. > > Add ${_basekernel} on kernel module packages is not ok because > confuses the users and developers need to make special rules for > each specific case. sticking _basekernel into pkgrel means that 1) The maintainer doesn't have to dick around with pkgrel when just bumping _basekernel. 2) The package version reflects which kernel version the package was built for; otherwise the user would have to actually inspect the package to do this. > Also, upstream releases on those packages are done due config > modifications (eg: enable/disable a module or feature from config > files), not only kernelbase upstream. > > In my opinion, we should have less rules and be more KISS. -- Happy hacking, ~ Luke Shumaker From emulatorman at riseup.net Sun Aug 31 04:50:02 2014 From: emulatorman at riseup.net (=?ISO-8859-2?Q?Andr=E9_Silva?=) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 01:50:02 -0300 Subject: [Dev] [RFC] Voting about package naming for packages modified from Arch In-Reply-To: <871trxnxmv.wl-lukeshu@sbcglobal.net> References: <53FFDA70.9050600@riseup.net> <87iolbmajj.wl-lukeshu@sbcglobal.net> <87wq9rgnt8.fsf@mtjm.eu> <54022BC5.9080002@riseup.net> <871trxnxmv.wl-lukeshu@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <5402A97A.805@riseup.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08/31/2014 12:31 AM, Luke Shumaker wrote: > sticking _basekernel into pkgrel means that > > 1) The maintainer doesn't have to dick around with pkgrel when > just bumping _basekernel. 2) The package version reflects which > kernel version the package was built for; otherwise the user would > have to actually inspect the package to do this. > Based on that propose -> pkgrel=${archrel}.parabola${parabolarel}.${_basekernel}, lirc should be, eg: lirc-1:0.9.1.a-3.parabola1.3.16 For a user, ...3.16 could means which it is a 1.3.16 revision of parabola or another thing, a lot of users will could ask to us about it everytime because some users don't know which bbswitch, lirc, tp_smapi (except vhba-module because means "module" on the $pkgname) are kernel module packages built by kernels. You put "parabola${parabolarel)" because it means which it's being maintained by us, so if you would put ${_basekernel} into pkgrel for those cases, i propose: pkgrel=${archrel}.parabola${parabolarel}.kernel${_basekernel} and based on it, lirc could be -> lirc-1:0.9.1.a-3.parabola1.kernel3.16 "3.16" will be separated from parabola${parabolarel}, the same thing than parabola${parabolarel} is for ${archrel}, so it will not confuse the users anymore avoiding we respond questions about it everytime. However, in my opinion i prefer pkgrel=${archrel}.parabola${parabolarel} for all the cases because it makes Parabola more KISS for us :) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJUAql6AAoJEOaXR1L5cERWfoUQALiLdPmO4oZlbbwxUpAfiTJA SS9JW92312eqUng98MfV442fLwPjRwA8FsrfqW2SVyJng9Ri0q3UvIa67KH2Orq3 528lPhrkR8oBHcJvtjSobabrVZ92AVC3tNe+n61wj/AzuclFXICFFWFkHIibYv8D ZYyELCqbXLdFg/1ao7buG6TUIeQ3ngF2ndFtipEiI+Ftvp0nPw6v7cX5AjTH4oPK jFEBu/+VFXtyY/YO3qPyJ7SdWMus1IaOCcC16BCl8DUpLVUCMj12aYBIPi2i+OLo 0iWhQcXP/j54mUcsfMH0OeOpq0xHsRPgWHp/dyhDLVCiadjZHooe1nYcSbJVcItc vy6PaQhJ3fJVbxcsjwpue+A0OYxozN63HkOTCXPtPHgvYNn4v61hM9337VaiPvXl 5h9diQxWYnVcn7TrIIoYU02nHN/yMvjKz3DFFjV/oUW1IGhqiUefOD/4fp0E8TJM J4QsEg88VlTjl5qrjOqYYSF3JT9p4e9Uy12c8cTyDDVMo7CLw6T4n94Qbtl4UYXP DaW2S/Ahgbgu3/IH+wjf6mGBB6tg3D+ss8noFehNnLUWvCQHSITzsLqXm3W8nAgp ZvPaiRMJ5btMIUz4sPX9zyPs5VAC6ycZYVW5iTUmHpGSVHO57bb/geVozSm4w5MH DFvQVnpsPHa/rtxTjfVh =joht -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From emulatorman at riseup.net Sun Aug 31 05:09:53 2014 From: emulatorman at riseup.net (=?windows-1252?Q?Andr=E9_Silva?=) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 02:09:53 -0300 Subject: [Dev] [RFC] Voting about package naming for packages modified from Arch In-Reply-To: <5402A97A.805@riseup.net> References: <53FFDA70.9050600@riseup.net> <87iolbmajj.wl-lukeshu@sbcglobal.net> <87wq9rgnt8.fsf@mtjm.eu> <54022BC5.9080002@riseup.net> <871trxnxmv.wl-lukeshu@sbcglobal.net> <5402A97A.805@riseup.net> Message-ID: <5402AE21.8090508@riseup.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08/31/2014 01:50 AM, Andr? Silva wrote: > You put "parabola${parabolarel)" because it means which it's being > maintained by us, so if you would put ${_basekernel} into pkgrel > for those cases, i propose: > > pkgrel=${archrel}.parabola${parabolarel}.kernel${_basekernel} > > and based on it, lirc could be -> > lirc-1:0.9.1.a-3.parabola1.kernel3.16 > Another propose for it: pkgrel=${archrel}.parabola${parabolarel}.basekernel${_basekernel} eg: lirc-1:0.9.1.a-3.parabola1.basekernel3.16 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJUAq4hAAoJEOaXR1L5cERWKOYQAJON98AEmdQjgBdYhDTvuFZU MJJPGHfalJ3feyYvKGSamMcOaWla4IKI6gOHeTsbH7N8jNqNKjo3YiUKvgOjVzGf Kxcv9tVbf3e1jaSmPxc+yLZUBlRiUoxCJkk5u2yQbMjst3DndOBGZzv3WBPxpONh odUZ5xtI2Wm3sigV30VtpHrqHaN66odepVDJh9Hexu79Es7JL/6jUu+23UHglemy dEPljtpWNzovfzU8sVwJhUYGfaF0hJU/600ib9ziT/BmLUIFePCP0vzgfLbMI2uZ 2fs+U5QXyR4vPXn7BCnOwJQxlkLGBbRLjKngsZBWaDeY8OPjmFaEQqofuiXyD7s+ Hj8joOmHVMMIDZsIFlr2wlls9ZWSDcoXzKJkd/sTLOAwpUCuwQrJQvizJQ6qXyr1 lJaNapSmHZ8Mkw/bEwJ9VSrxKCR7oaYxzD90R3vhz8LutpiqF8jA1f/N6NI6HFmx kEUoNCa28mg4+N0M+a6iqQJbLXNpLluTUoylWtHS/rjgUspZ1WBYny/wUVUvisNd Wgv8EBXTYPDw+IAetmzUn5DSTdJqSDxy5qkinfsmYUTo+qZItitzZ11X+D2bG0SW Stk7PJOhBoSfB+tCcYmRp1flZbkttjdgZIMdPce/ggtHH32gNqF2SXAN18yaUrQ6 ng+qhXqOnbFoUnLBLbgi =zLKZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From fauno at endefensadelsl.org Sun Aug 31 05:22:31 2014 From: fauno at endefensadelsl.org (=?utf-8?Q?Nicol=C3=A1s?= Reynolds) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 02:22:31 -0300 Subject: [Dev] [RFC] Voting about package naming for packages modified from Arch In-Reply-To: <5402AE21.8090508@riseup.net> References: <53FFDA70.9050600@riseup.net> <87iolbmajj.wl-lukeshu@sbcglobal.net> <87wq9rgnt8.fsf@mtjm.eu> <54022BC5.9080002@riseup.net> <871trxnxmv.wl-lukeshu@sbcglobal.net> <5402A97A.805@riseup.net> <5402AE21.8090508@riseup.net> Message-ID: <878um5w7vs.fsf@endefensadelsl.org> Andr? Silva writes: > pkgrel=${archrel}.parabola${parabolarel}.basekernel${_basekernel} > > eg: lirc-1:0.9.1.a-3.parabola1.basekernel3.16 and the original was lirc-parabola-1:0.9.1.a-3.2 ... -- }(:= -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 602 bytes Desc: not available URL: From hellekin at gnu.org Sun Aug 31 05:26:31 2014 From: hellekin at gnu.org (hellekin) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 02:26:31 -0300 Subject: [Dev] [RFC] Voting about package naming for packages modified from Arch In-Reply-To: <5400B7C4.3030608@gnu.org> References: <53FFDA70.9050600@riseup.net> <8761hbiu5z.fsf@mtjm.eu> <54006183.70104@riseup.net> <871trzilac.fsf@mtjm.eu> <5400B7C4.3030608@gnu.org> Message-ID: <5402B207.1@gnu.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Sorry for the encrypted mail... I didn't resend it because I don't think it brings any significant point to the debate. It is available here for the record: On 08/29/2014 02:26 PM, hellekin wrote: > On 08/29/2014 08:32 AM, Micha? Mas?owski wrote: >> >>> It opens another similar question, should we follow the real >>> name which we are using from the source, or the packages >>> created from Arch? >> >> Name the browser iceweasel, don't rename calibre, sdl, etc. >> > *** I always found this very obnoxious. In conversation what do > you use? Firefox? Iceweasel? Icecat? Really, it's confusing, > and it was just to mock the Mozilla branding policy. It should not > be a rule of the trade. Calibre-libre is explicit: it's calibre, > freed from the proprietary stuff. In general, I would prefer > upstream name, unless Arch, Debian, Fedora agree on something else, > then it would be silly to bring more confusion. > >> >> Do it like Debian: keep the original package names, rename source >> files. >> > *** Well, Debian tends to rename the packages to its > nomenclature's taste. E.g. python-*, lib*-dev, ruby-*... I like to > be able to figure out the package name from the source project, and > having "mu" is more appealing to me than "mailutils" especially > because the "mu" program (a "sup" like) is anterior to GNU > mailutils' "mu" program. Anyway, as long as naming is > consistent... > > But yes, suffixing the version instead of the package name is a > good idea. > > So to conclude, I'd favor -libre when the source is > changed to remove or replace dependencies on non-free software, > with a one-one relation to the original package name, AND a > -parabola suffix in the package version for branding. The > -parabola suffix then, would only appear in the version of > packages, but not in the package name itself. > > Therefore, a package from Arch called fubar v0.1.3, would become > fubar v0.1.3-parabola in Parabola. Another package offshore-wallet > v0.2.4 with Adipo Flush(TM) support would become > offshore-wallet-libre v0.2.4-parabola (maybe with GNU Gnash > support). > > My 2 pesos, > > == hk _______________________________________________ Dev mailing > list Dev at lists.parabolagnulinux.org > https://lists.parabolagnulinux.org/mailman/listinfo/dev > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJUArIFXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQ3MDM3QTJCNjlFNkMxQzA1NjI4RDUzOEZE OEU3QkQ4MDk0MUM4MjkzAAoJENjnvYCUHIKTYToQALakKxlIeeSnVFxVrLG8O1fU K8850pfy1/HCWxl1BrRw23VBc3yJf7VwGvBX0dRM87uk061pAmXJ6/LpxY/ySCMb IJn8YBFsxzmt19/i8ZbEYFVY/1+5LeygIyXIWbvyxqCfG0MIjU55Qxri7xoTCR6n lz5xqNWSdYufeYu+NM7XfYUIu4aH07h/a7q1QwT121SEduZRgTe6V7Qqwxgc3Yo+ Sexx77ZOLc5yDpD9acHKrqx0LdE8YAyrtm1eG24RxQXj9EjfmMD04Eon8A6zzuLG P57IPbJfdwy6imZ7ZMBjkd7aWnNukjFRvlO+bbGSZzhXzRdGYvolu6b3nvNsw5zZ dvtadApdIJ9zfUrdmgCYl/9dQJdZfuDd7p7yA+j1z4vPun5/OJFK5O+OsJRmrrOh WAct+pDZZ5O/xclXKYNCtxPVt2d5Ipx1rlka3b8PSrmEwN4gXRPZGAJY3nGKoUds Xh5ViPTXl6bLengER9reQ0vphQX8KsUnZD7fXAkKqcpUxeI7bbWlbgW4NFjuI5zF 6fYm/kK8qr5uofFhngHtyK9LoHCcXj9Q/WOdcagqadyF9Bx+POjQxKk46dYZsXix IcZOyvpHJ++wJHEIf1IFHtHBH91S3K1efoHj3z/HyZZQsjY1BXG2tLiag3APixch ENHH8l5FpMydWzw8UsXh =1tC0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From icarious at hacari.org Sun Aug 31 17:47:22 2014 From: icarious at hacari.org (Icarious) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 23:17:22 +0530 Subject: [Dev] [RFC] Voting about package naming for packages modified from Arch In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20140831231722.968be5616d625dd44815a194@hacari.org> I am joining late as my mail was down this weekend. Coming to the voting as I already mentioned on #parabola that I don't support suffixes (-libre, -parabola) as I was discussing 2-3 days back because I don't find it much KISS. Parabola is not an Arch GNU+Linux spin but an independent project not associated in any way with the Arch GNU+Linux Project. Making distinctions based on "maintained by arch or maintained by us" is not required as the user already knows they are using Parabola and clearly don't need such confusion. We can keep the "linux-libre" naming for the Kernel irrespective of how Trisquel does it because projects like Trisquel or Debian don't use linux-libre but directly deblob the kernel using the script, whereas we are using the linux-libre kernel. Additionally I propose that the name "libre" for the repository can be changed to "parabola" as Parabola is a 100% libre distribution and every repository is 100% LIBRE. Having a repository with the name "libre" brings up the confusion that we may also have "non-libre" repositories. Lastly I would like to add that drifting away from an upstream base (not talking about philosophical angles here) or over engineering a distribution can be avoided as the same effort can be spent in figuring out how to sustain a project in the long term and with a proper organisational structure. As a project Parabola started off that gave the user the Arch GNU+Linux experience and additionally with ultimate freedom. Instead of drifting away too much and spending time on technical changes we can pursue improving our documentation so that we don't have to rely on archwiki, working on the mipsel port, monthly ISO releases and accepting donations which can be spent on infrastructure to prevent server outage. -- Icarious GPG key: 6467A2AC GPG fingerprint : E29B A653 739E B52E 6372 2FDF 946D 344D 6467 A2AC www.gnuos.in www.fireflygnu.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: not available URL: From coadde at riseup.net Sun Aug 31 21:12:33 2014 From: coadde at riseup.net (coadde) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 18:12:33 -0300 Subject: [Dev] [RFC] Voting about package naming for packages modified from Arch Message-ID: <54038FC1.4060806@riseup.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I propose to add pkgver=${version}_gnu on all GNU software (packages built by us), not linux-libre packages only. what is you opinion about it? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJUA4/BAAoJEGuIiRPdtZUVzEMP/14MdPjNPUwR72Nbbx3S+eQA CGvZitQi6II3jToihvZsVNDQ/zxt/CJ6iM1IrMI465xJK71R+nINcohF1zDRRRFI s7rJvPCcpzDZIy7iH+y3fzk16GgfyTdIMSPlbBUQyzZDmBIrATmFtCUrMWrlE9GU /xNs+lYZcaMXQ5pvJdpoFgd8buL0Iot6v+8lpvUntxlytvqspuqoJHpq2qnqKifi lWc3owRxfXvVoMoq7Ch5oSWqSLDCC+TfaY6A5QPbWred7QTxQyFW+H6SlsErNpH7 vXGjbL9+n16z3+90FoAloP2riczwiF8IdiIUdSQ41yWWk4FR66fLByFy90lEglR+ Pv7oLBqAhAaFHpNpAJq6oEx5IwuyZaYToHww69BpPtWhARKDmyJxJm+FLGre10Se OVWWZuQv3XKXwfSNtNsVv+CIettCIyLSVsJpWJrKKx2bK+AuwXgJ1k1fMlqcDvoi ThJAtCyxKA/FbTwzh5ZZaTXmRG1zwtDN4aT2EWS47FqJIYXrclMReg9auznJ8Hr/ DUGXdAnrX0gd2TzD2ixRS5tdh8/33e/OqVO9h+bCJ8K4ySkEijua5wcu6EzOKyWO J4fwdrUz2ijociMxfOMCz32Kknt1ChllRvoucl0CMejqHOPjtt75Scrx5yBKUMzT 9wLtucnhmvr4rwkJ18YV =DZzY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From lukeshu at sbcglobal.net Sun Aug 31 22:39:50 2014 From: lukeshu at sbcglobal.net (Luke Shumaker) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 18:39:50 -0400 Subject: [Dev] [RFC] Voting about package naming for packages modified from Arch In-Reply-To: <54038FC1.4060806@riseup.net> References: <54038FC1.4060806@riseup.net> Message-ID: <87d2bg1dxl.wl-lukeshu@sbcglobal.net> At Sun, 31 Aug 2014 18:12:33 -0300, coadde wrote: > Hash: SHA1 > > I propose to add pkgver=${version}_gnu on all GNU software (packages > built by us), not linux-libre packages only. > > what is you opinion about it? What!? No! The _gnu on linux-libre is because -gnu is part of the version number on Linux-libre releases[0]. Other GNU software doesn't do this, so why would we? [0]: Linux-libre official version numbers are in the format: ${version}.${patch}.${sublevel}-gnu${gnurel} -- Happy hacking, ~ Luke Shumaker From lukeshu at sbcglobal.net Sun Aug 31 23:25:15 2014 From: lukeshu at sbcglobal.net (Luke Shumaker) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 19:25:15 -0400 Subject: [Dev] [RFC] Voting about package naming for packages modified from Arch In-Reply-To: <878um5w7vs.fsf@endefensadelsl.org> References: <53FFDA70.9050600@riseup.net> <87iolbmajj.wl-lukeshu@sbcglobal.net> <87wq9rgnt8.fsf@mtjm.eu> <54022BC5.9080002@riseup.net> <871trxnxmv.wl-lukeshu@sbcglobal.net> <5402A97A.805@riseup.net> <5402AE21.8090508@riseup.net> <878um5w7vs.fsf@endefensadelsl.org> Message-ID: <87bnr01btw.wl-lukeshu@sbcglobal.net> At Sun, 31 Aug 2014 02:22:31 -0300, Nicol?s Reynolds wrote: > > [1 ] > [1.1 ] > Andr? Silva writes: > > > pkgrel=${archrel}.parabola${parabolarel}.basekernel${_basekernel} > > > > eg: lirc-1:0.9.1.a-3.parabola1.basekernel3.16 > > and the original was lirc-parabola-1:0.9.1.a-3.2 ... You mean lirc-libre-1:0.9.1.a-3.2 . It looks like a dpkg version; which I guess is what I should have expected when mtjm mentioned how other distros do it. :) -- Happy hacking, ~ Luke Shumaker