Menu
▾
▴
openzaurus-users
|
From: <gph...@ka...> - 2003-06-26 19:10:56
|
Somebody made a post on slashdot about oz not having distributing full source on its site and thereby violation the gpl. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=69000&threshold=3&commentsort=0&tid=106&mode=nested&cid=6304586 I think the guy is a troll, but I am curios is there any one place to get the full source code? |
|
From: Balatoni D. <pn...@co...> - 2003-06-26 20:38:56
|
Hi! On 2003. j=FAnius 26. 21.10, gph...@ka... wrote: > Somebody made a post on slashdot about oz not having distributing full > source on its site and thereby violation the gpl. > http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3D69000&threshold=3D3&commentsort=3D0= &tid=3D106 >&mode=3Dnested&cid=3D6304586 > > I think the guy is a troll, but I am curios is there any one place to get > the full source code? imho it should not be needed to make available the full source if the patch= es=20 are enough - but IANAL, I am interested to find out the truth Only problem with that is that the full source is around a gigabyte, so it = is=20 not too practical or feasible.=20 Patches & buildsystem is in the openzaurus repository in bitkeeper. For tho= se who can't use bk a snapshot is usually available somewhere on the sf site (= I=20 forgot where sorry). imho the patches are under the same license that applies to the packages th= ey=20 are for - but IANAL , clarifications welcome:) best regards Denes |
|
From: <gph...@ka...> - 2003-06-26 20:35:28
|
> imho it should not be needed to make available the full source if the patches > are enough - but IANAL, I am interested to find out the truth > Only problem with that is that the full source is around a gigabyte, so it is > not too practical or feasible. Here is a faq that says patches are not enough http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DistributingSourceIsInconvenient Personally I don't care, but it kind of irked me that this guy was posting on slashdot that oz was violating the GPL. Maybe someone could make a bitkeeper download. That would keep oz's bandwith costs down. |
|
From: Balatoni D. <pn...@co...> - 2003-06-26 20:44:18
|
Hi! ehe indeed, thanks. Nonetheless I offered the guy on /. to send him the full source. > Here is a faq that says patches are not enough > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DistributingSourceIsInconvenient > > Personally I don't care, but it kind of irked me that this guy was posting > on slashdot that oz was violating the GPL. Maybe someone could make a > bitkeeper download. That would keep oz's bandwith costs down. imho most of us don't delete the sources after buildroot fetched & built them taking a long long time - I definietly don't:) bye Denes |
|
From: Chris L. <ke...@ha...> - 2003-06-27 20:33:01
|
* Balatoni Denes (pn...@co...) wrote: > Hi! > > ehe indeed, thanks. Nonetheless I offered the guy on /. to send him the full > source. > > > Here is a faq that says patches are not enough > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DistributingSourceIsInconvenient > > > > Personally I don't care, but it kind of irked me that this guy was posting > > on slashdot that oz was violating the GPL. Maybe someone could make a > > bitkeeper download. That would keep oz's bandwith costs down. > imho most of us don't delete the sources after buildroot fetched & built them > taking a long long time - I definietly don't:) I was contacted by someone at gnu.org regarding exactly this, and yes, because we cannot *guarantee* that upstream sources will continue to be available as long as our binaries of said sources are available, we will need to maintain a mirror. As well, I will be distributing source tarballs with our releases going forward. -- Chris Larson kergoth at handhelds dot org OpenZaurus Project Maintainer - http://openzaurus.org/ |
|
From: <gph...@ka...> - 2003-06-28 03:59:10
|
> I was contacted by someone at gnu.org regarding exactly this, and yes, > because we cannot *guarantee* that upstream sources will continue to be > available as long as our binaries of said sources are available, we will > need to maintain a mirror. As well, I will be distributing source > tarballs with our releases going forward. Are you worried this will increase the bandwith cost? Does someone donate bandwith for Oz, or do you rely on money donations from users? |
|
From: Redvers D. <re...@cr...> - 2003-06-28 17:09:25
|
On Fri, 2003-06-27 at 20:03, Chris Larson wrote: > I was contacted by someone at gnu.org regarding exactly this, and yes, > because we cannot *guarantee* that upstream sources will continue to be > available as long as our binaries of said sources are available, we will > need to maintain a mirror. As well, I will be distributing source > tarballs with our releases going forward. Bah. I can't believe that people would split hairs so finely so as to say that providing a "link" to sources at gnu.org is not sufficient and we should copy everything ourselves. Given bandwidth issues, I guess we can hold a mirror and reference it in the docs but not actually put it in the feed - ie, we don't get clobbered everytime someone does a make mrproper? Red |
|
From: Eric B. <er...@he...> - 2003-06-28 19:25:00
|
So... Can someone point me to a place where I can get source code other than bitkeeper? or is that a project for a later time. I cannot get source anymore since I'm running RedHat 9.0 and bitkeeper does not have a version that works with libc v2.3... Thanks, Eric -----Original Message----- From: ope...@li... [mailto:ope...@li...]On Behalf Of Redvers Davies Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 10:55 AM To: Chris Larson Cc: Balatoni Denes; gph...@ka...; ope...@li... Subject: Re: [Openzaurus-users] Sources On Fri, 2003-06-27 at 20:03, Chris Larson wrote: > I was contacted by someone at gnu.org regarding exactly this, and yes, > because we cannot *guarantee* that upstream sources will continue to be > available as long as our binaries of said sources are available, we will > need to maintain a mirror. As well, I will be distributing source > tarballs with our releases going forward. Bah. I can't believe that people would split hairs so finely so as to say that providing a "link" to sources at gnu.org is not sufficient and we should copy everything ourselves. Given bandwidth issues, I guess we can hold a mirror and reference it in the docs but not actually put it in the feed - ie, we don't get clobbered everytime someone does a make mrproper? Red ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100006ave/direct;at.asp_061203_01/01 _______________________________________________ Openzaurus-users mailing list Ope...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openzaurus-users |
|
From: Balatoni D. <pn...@co...> - 2003-06-28 19:57:55
|
Hi! On 2003. j=FAnius 28. 21.24, Eric Baker wrote: > So... Can someone point me to a place where I can get source code other > than bitkeeper? or is that a project for a later time. I cannot get > source anymore since I'm running RedHat 9.0 and bitkeeper does not have a > version that works with libc v2.3... works for me on debian unstable (libc 2.3.1) > Thanks, > Eric bye Denes |
|
From: Rick S. <blo...@sb...> - 2003-06-30 02:17:50
|
> On 2003. j=FAnius 28. 21.24, Eric Baker wrote: > > Can someone point me to a place where I can get source code other > > than bitkeeper? There's a daily snapshot at: http://openzaurus.org/snapshot/ It looks like the cvs tree at sourceforge (http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/openzaurus/buildroot-oz/) used to be regularly sync'd up, but that appears to have stopped several months ago. (Anyone know why? Any possibiliy of this coming back?) -rick |
|
From: Chris L. <ke...@ha...> - 2003-06-30 15:56:04
|
* Rick Schultz (blo...@sb...) wrote: > > On 2003. j=FAnius 28. 21.24, Eric Baker wrote: > > > Can someone point me to a place where I can get source code other > > > than bitkeeper? > > There's a daily snapshot at: http://openzaurus.org/snapshot/ > > It looks like the cvs tree at sourceforge > (http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/openzaurus/buildroot-oz/) > used to be regularly sync'd up, but that appears to have stopped several > months ago. (Anyone know why? Any possibiliy of this coming back?) Maintainance.. it took an *extensive* amount of time to manage, particularly the 'rename' handling, which cvs doesnt have at all, and other similar things. -- Chris Larson kergoth at handhelds dot org OpenZaurus Project Maintainer - http://openzaurus.org/ |
|
From: Jeff E. <jef...@ea...> - 2003-06-29 04:24:42
|
On Saturday 28 June 2003 12:55 pm, Redvers Davies wrote: >On Fri, 2003-06-27 at 20:03, Chris Larson wrote: >> I was contacted by someone at gnu.org regarding exactly this, and yes, >> because we cannot *guarantee* that upstream sources will continue to be >> available as long as our binaries of said sources are available, we will >> need to maintain a mirror. As well, I will be distributing source >> tarballs with our releases going forward. > >Bah. I can't believe that people would split hairs so finely so as to >say that providing a "link" to sources at gnu.org is not sufficient and >we should copy everything ourselves. > Personally (as a total newbie here), I think it's great. I have managed to compile an Arm 2.4.18 kernel and build a initrd.bin and am looking forward to being able to do the same for OZ. OZ blows away the stock Sharp setup. Currently, I am working on a project for a medical clinician involving a LAMP in the pocket scheme that works great under the Sharp ROM. Unfortunately, using OZ, when the Z suspends, you're looking at several minutes until the Z becomes responsive after a screen click. That just won't work in a critical setting...when my user needs the Z they need it now...not five minutes later. Jeff |
|
From: Scott B. <br...@ri...> - 2003-07-01 05:14:56
|
I'm posting this to make sure this is accurate. If it is, I'll submit it as a FAQ. In OZ 3.2 AFAIK long suspend/wake delays are due to one of only two things: - You've got a whole bunch of zombie opiealarm processes. The fix is to upgrade to Opie 0.9.9. http://www.openzaurus.org/oz_website/faq/faq?id=240 http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=5329808 Opie bug database: http://www.opie.info/mantis/view_bug_page.php?f_id=0000846 - You've got a large SD/MMC/CF card installed. The kernel unmounts/remounts at every suspend/resume. A possible workaround is to turn off medium checking (in Settings -> Medium Mount). The fix is to use the 2.4.19 kernel that will be in the next OZ release. For more: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=4484251 http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=4303097 So, all suspend/resume delay bugs should be gone in the next OZ release. It's going to be sweet. :) On Sat, 2003-06-28 at 21:26, Jeff Elkins wrote: > On Saturday 28 June 2003 12:55 pm, Redvers Davies wrote: > >On Fri, 2003-06-27 at 20:03, Chris Larson wrote: > >> I was contacted by someone at gnu.org regarding exactly this, and yes, > >> because we cannot *guarantee* that upstream sources will continue to be > >> available as long as our binaries of said sources are available, we will > >> need to maintain a mirror. As well, I will be distributing source > >> tarballs with our releases going forward. > > > >Bah. I can't believe that people would split hairs so finely so as to > >say that providing a "link" to sources at gnu.org is not sufficient and > >we should copy everything ourselves. > > > > Personally (as a total newbie here), I think it's great. I have managed to > compile an Arm 2.4.18 kernel and build a initrd.bin and am looking forward to > being able to do the same for OZ. > > OZ blows away the stock Sharp setup. > > Currently, I am working on a project for a medical clinician involving a LAMP > in the pocket scheme that works great under the Sharp ROM. Unfortunately, > using OZ, when the Z suspends, you're looking at several minutes until the Z > becomes responsive after a screen click. That just won't work in a critical > setting...when my user needs the Z they need it now...not five minutes later. > > Jeff > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including > Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. > Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. > http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100006ave/direct;at.asp_061203_01/01 > _______________________________________________ > Openzaurus-users mailing list > Ope...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openzaurus-users > |
|
From: Chris L. <ke...@ha...> - 2003-07-01 14:44:15
|
* Scott Bronson (br...@ri...) wrote: > I'm posting this to make sure this is accurate. If it is, I'll > submit it as a FAQ. > > > In OZ 3.2 AFAIK long suspend/wake delays are due to one of only two > things: > > - You've got a whole bunch of zombie opiealarm processes. The > fix is to upgrade to Opie 0.9.9. > http://www.openzaurus.org/oz_website/faq/faq?id=240 > http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=5329808 > Opie bug database: > http://www.opie.info/mantis/view_bug_page.php?f_id=0000846 > > - You've got a large SD/MMC/CF card installed. The kernel > unmounts/remounts at every suspend/resume. A possible > workaround is to turn off medium checking (in Settings -> > Medium Mount). The fix is to use the 2.4.19 kernel that will > be in the next OZ release. For more: > http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=4484251 > http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=4303097 > > > So, all suspend/resume delay bugs should be gone in the next OZ release. > It's going to be sweet. :) Correct, feel free to submit it as an FAQ, and thanks. -- Chris Larson kergoth at handhelds dot org OpenZaurus Project Maintainer - http://openzaurus.org/ |
|
From: Peter W. <pwi...@rc...> - 2004-06-26 16:11:56
|
On Friday 27 June 2003 16:03, Chris Larson wrote: > I was contacted by someone at gnu.org regarding exactly this, and yes, > because we cannot *guarantee* that upstream sources will continue to be > available as long as our binaries of said sources are available, we will > need to maintain a mirror. As well, I will be distributing source > tarballs with our releases going forward. It's been one year since the above comment said that source tarballs would be given out alongside openzaurus binary releases. But I don't see any on the openzaurus.org download page. What happened? Should I be looking somewhere else? |
|
From: Chris L. <ke...@ha...> - 2004-06-29 01:04:48
|
* Peter Wickis (pwi...@rc...) wrote: > On Friday 27 June 2003 16:03, Chris Larson wrote: > > I was contacted by someone at gnu.org regarding exactly this, and yes, > > because we cannot *guarantee* that upstream sources will continue to be > > available as long as our binaries of said sources are available, we will > > need to maintain a mirror. As well, I will be distributing source > > tarballs with our releases going forward. > > It's been one year since the above comment said that source tarballs would be > given out alongside openzaurus binary releases. But I don't see any on the > openzaurus.org download page. What happened? Should I be looking somewhere > else? There haven't *been* any openzaurus releases. -- Chris Larson - kergoth at handhelds dot org Linux Software Systems Engineer - clarson at ti dot com OpenZaurus Project Maintainer - http://openzaurus.org/ |
|
From: Peter W. <pwi...@rc...> - 2004-06-29 14:03:45
|
On Monday 28 June 2004 21:04, Chris Larson wrote: > There haven't *been* any openzaurus releases. Huh? Oz 3.2 was released 2003-03-28. On 2003-06-27, you promised to provide full source with future releases. And then Oz 3.3.5 was released on 2003-11-29. |
|
From: Michael 'M. L. <mi...@tm...> - 2004-06-29 20:33:42
|
Am Di, den 29.06.2004 um 15:05 Uhr -0500 schrieb Steve Bergman: > Just as a constructive observation, would it be beneficial for the > developers to lighten up on the actual development for a while and > concentrate on attracting more developers? My impression is that > developer resources are stretched thin, and any time and effort spent > lowering the barrier to entry would pay itself back even if it attracted > only one or two more developers. True. In general, I see two issues here: 1.) I may be dreaming, but I believe that once we prove that this system is able to release something functional, it will attract lots of people. To get us there, I don't see much alternatives to do have us couple of guys do it. 2.) It seems I am not good in recruiting people. I tried many times on many web forums (which is quite a task for me since I don't like web forums) and in personal, but the outcome was very low. Very very low. > It just seems like the this project is more developer impoverished than > many other projects. Then again, maybe that's just because not that > many people have Zaurii compared to desktops. I'm not sure what the reason is. The Linux handhelds community is small, yes, but it's not only small but also very fragmented. I think this is our problem. Many people don't realize that working together benefits. Then again, I see the OpenEmbedded initiative as a means to reduce fragmentation. We have the familiar linux people, the OpenZaurus and OpenSIMpad people together working on one base distribution. We have a solid distribution and a very capable build system. I'm 100% sure this is where the future lies - it's just that I suck at convincing people :) Seriously, it would be nice if we had some kind of supporters or recruiters in between us core developers and wannabe-developers or developers who are still to be convinced that they can be beneficial for the project. -- Regards, Mickey. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dipl.-Inf. Michael 'Mickey' Lauer <mi...@tm...> ------------------------------------------------------------------ |
|
From: Dow H. <Dow...@mi...> - 2004-06-30 02:30:28
|
Michael 'Mickey' Lauer wrote: >Am Di, den 29.06.2004 um 15:05 Uhr -0500 schrieb Steve Bergman: > > >>Just as a constructive observation, would it be beneficial for the >>developers to lighten up on the actual development for a while and >>concentrate on attracting more developers? My impression is that >>developer resources are stretched thin, and any time and effort spent >>lowering the barrier to entry would pay itself back even if it attracted >>only one or two more developers. >> >> > >True. In general, I see two issues here: > >1.) I may be dreaming, but I believe that once we prove that this system >is able to release something functional, it will attract lots of people. >To get us there, I don't see much alternatives to do have us couple of >guys do it. > >2.) It seems I am not good in recruiting people. I tried many times on >many web forums (which is quite a task for me since I don't like web >forums) and in personal, but the outcome was very low. Very very low. > > > >>It just seems like the this project is more developer impoverished than >>many other projects. Then again, maybe that's just because not that >>many people have Zaurii compared to desktops. >> >> > >I'm not sure what the reason is. The Linux handhelds community is small, >yes, but it's not only small but also very fragmented. I think this is >our problem. Many people don't realize that working together benefits. > >Then again, I see the OpenEmbedded initiative as a means to reduce >fragmentation. We have the familiar linux people, the OpenZaurus and >OpenSIMpad people together working on one base distribution. We have a >solid distribution and a very capable build system. I'm 100% sure this >is where the future lies - it's just that I suck at convincing people :) > >Seriously, it would be nice if we had some kind of supporters or >recruiters in between us core developers and wannabe-developers or >developers who are still to be convinced that they can be beneficial for >the project. > > > Mickey, There was a link to a page that explained how to get to work on the OE porting project: http://treke.net/oe/docs/oe-opie.html I can't get it to come up anymore but was counting on it to get started. Do you have any idea what happened to it? Does anyone have that info available? Was it by chance put on the OE wiki and I just need to look there? Thanks, Dow |
|
From: Dow H. <Dow...@mi...> - 2004-07-01 03:30:48
|
Dow Hurst wrote: > Michael 'Mickey' Lauer wrote: > >> Am Di, den 29.06.2004 um 15:05 Uhr -0500 schrieb Steve Bergman: >> >> >>> Just as a constructive observation, would it be beneficial for the >>> developers to lighten up on the actual development for a while and >>> concentrate on attracting more developers? My impression is that >>> developer resources are stretched thin, and any time and effort spent >>> lowering the barrier to entry would pay itself back even if it >>> attracted >>> only one or two more developers. >>> >> >> >> True. In general, I see two issues here: >> >> 1.) I may be dreaming, but I believe that once we prove that this system >> is able to release something functional, it will attract lots of people. >> To get us there, I don't see much alternatives to do have us couple of >> guys do it. >> >> 2.) It seems I am not good in recruiting people. I tried many times on >> many web forums (which is quite a task for me since I don't like web >> forums) and in personal, but the outcome was very low. Very very low. >> >> >> >>> It just seems like the this project is more developer impoverished than >>> many other projects. Then again, maybe that's just because not that >>> many people have Zaurii compared to desktops. >> >> >> I'm not sure what the reason is. The Linux handhelds community is small, >> yes, but it's not only small but also very fragmented. I think this is >> our problem. Many people don't realize that working together benefits. >> >> Then again, I see the OpenEmbedded initiative as a means to reduce >> fragmentation. We have the familiar linux people, the OpenZaurus and >> OpenSIMpad people together working on one base distribution. We have a >> solid distribution and a very capable build system. I'm 100% sure this >> is where the future lies - it's just that I suck at convincing people :) >> >> Seriously, it would be nice if we had some kind of supporters or >> recruiters in between us core developers and wannabe-developers or >> developers who are still to be convinced that they can be beneficial for >> the project. >> >> >> > Mickey, > There was a link to a page that explained how to get to work on the OE > porting project: > http://treke.net/oe/docs/oe-opie.html > > I can't get it to come up anymore but was counting on it to get > started. Do you have any idea what happened to it? Does anyone have > that info available? Was it by chance put on the OE wiki and I just > need to look there? Thanks, > Dow > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email sponsored by Black Hat Briefings & Training. > Attend Black Hat Briefings & Training, Las Vegas July 24-29 - digital > self defense, top technical experts, no vendor pitches, unmatched > networking opportunities. Visit www.blackhat.com > _______________________________________________ > Openzaurus-users mailing list > Ope...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openzaurus-users > My bad for posting this question. All this stuff has been put on the oe wiki. Sorry. Dow |
|
From: Greg G. <gr...@tr...> - 2004-07-01 15:08:14
|
On Tuesday 29 June 2004 07:54 pm, Dow Hurst wrote: > There was a link to a page that explained how to get to work on the OE > porting project: > http://treke.net/oe/docs/oe-opie.html > > I can't get it to come up anymore but was counting on it to get > started. Do you have any idea what happened to it? Does anyone have > that info available? Was it by chance put on the OE wiki and I just > need to look there? Thanks, > Dow This was taken down because the document was no longer accurate. The bad documentation was doing more harm than good. |
|
From: Dow H. <Dow...@mi...> - 2004-07-02 03:12:47
|
It was no problem at all once I went to the OE wiki and read thru the "Getting Started" page. I've got bitkeeper installed, oe downloaded, and have compiled a nano ipk! My only slowdown was figuring out the command line to make bitkeeper get the oe and packages repositories. Bitkeeper's docs are okay but that example wasn't in the obvious spot and took a while to find. So, now I can start out working on porting a package. Hopefully I can figure out what to do from here on out. My procedure: Registered with Bitkeeper Followed the emailed reply from Bitkeeper on downloading the program. Installed Bitkeeper as root Returned to my normal user to run Bitkeeper cd /home/dhurst/projects/zaurus/bk (you decide the location) bk clone http://openembedded.bkbits.net/oe bk clone http://openembedded.bkbits.net/packages cp packages/conf/local.conf.sample packages/conf/local.conf mkdir -p oe/build-arm/conf vi packages/conf/local.conf (You have to edit this as you read the directions in the file) cp packages/conf/local.conf oe/build-arm/conf/local.conf mkdir /oldhome/dhurst/oetmp (Made the temp directory for building as I specified in local.conf) Downloaded the GettingStartedEnvironmentScript from the OE wiki into my top level project directory Modified that script to fit my environment based on what I had done in local.conf and sourced it: source oe-setup.sourceme.sh (I chose my own name for the script) cd packages oemake nano All kinds of stuff happened and the end result was 15 nano ipks for different locales/languages! Now that was only one package and was a recommended test of the system. Hope this helps, Dow |
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X