freebsd-chat Digest, Vol 42, Issue 9
freebsd-ch...@freebsd.org
freebs...@freebsd.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
freebsd-ch...@freebsd.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
freebsd-c...@freebsd.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of freebsd-chat digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Personal patches (Aaron Myles Landwehr)
2. Re: Personal patches (Paul Robinson)
3. Re: Where is FreeBSD going? (Gary W. Swearingen)
4. Re: Where is FreeBSD going? (Gary W. Swearingen)
5. Re: Where is FreeBSD going? (Peter Jeremy)
6. Re: Where is FreeBSD going? (M. Warner Losh)
7. Re: Where is FreeBSD going? (Gary W. Swearingen)
8. Re: Where is FreeBSD going? (Simon L. Nielsen)
9. Re[2]: Where is FreeBSD going? (Lev Serebryakov)
10. Re[2]: Where is FreeBSD going? (Narvi)
11. Re: Where is FreeBSD going? (M. Warner Losh)
12. Re: Where is FreeBSD going? (M. Warner Losh)
13. Re[3]: Where is FreeBSD going? (Lev Serebryakov)
14. General Wireless Network Question (Bob Martin)
15. Re: Where is FreeBSD going? (Sean Farley)
16. Re[3]: Where is FreeBSD going? (Narvi)
17. Re: Where is FreeBSD going? (Gary W. Swearingen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 15:30:45 -0500 (EST)
From: "Aaron Myles Landwehr" <aa...@snaphat.com>
Subject: Re: Personal patches
To: "Paul Robinson" <pa...@iconoplex.co.uk>
Cc: ch...@freebsd.org
Message-ID: <33672.68.33.78.247....@snaphat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
> So, all Afghans are terrorists then?
Irrelevant Question. Just as the original about your father being born in
the usa. === trolling.
>>We are not new to this, as you seem to believe. Terrorism, Piracy and
>>Organized Crime are all intertwined.
>>
> Hahahaha. Now I know you're trolling.
His statement does not amount to trolling.
-aaron myles landwehr<aaron at snaphat dot com>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 22:25:25 +0000
From: Paul Robinson <pa...@iconoplex.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Personal patches
To: Paul Robinson <pa...@iconoplex.co.uk>
Cc: Allan Bowhill <abow...@blarg.net>
Message-ID: <3FFDD8D5...@iconoplex.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
I, before having consumed sufficient coffee, and whilst being distracted
by a plumber, wrote:
> At that stage, the Catholic Unionists in the North were being attacked
> on a regular basis by the Loyalists.
A school-boy error on my part. As somebody has just mailed me and gently
reminded me, Unionists = residents of Northern Ireland who wish to see
the region remain part of the United Kingdom. This is therefore the same
as loyalist.
The correct term I was looking for to describe those individuals seeking
Northern Ireland to become part of the Repiblic of Ireland, is
"Nationalist". However, in general and as a rule of thumb, Catholics in
the region tend to be Nationalists, and the Protestant community tend to
be Unionist.
I really am sorry for the confusion. Some of you who weren't familiar
with the situation would have got most confused if you ever tried to
have a discussion on the subject in the future. In fact reading it back,
*I* got very confused right now. I hope that clears it up. Oh, and to
those of you who wrote to me, thanks for not being more abusive. :-)
--
Paul Robinson
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 17:07:44 -0800
From: unde...@comcast.net (Gary W. Swearingen)
Subject: Re: Where is FreeBSD going?
To: d...@des.no (Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav)
Cc: freebs...@FreeBSD.org
Message-ID: <teoete7...@mail.comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
d...@des.no (Dag-Erling Smørgrav) writes:
> Anyone who is reasonably familiar with HTML can learn enough DocBook
> to contribute to the FDP in a matter of minutes.
It's not even that hard, as they may submit plain text or even just a
report of the problem. But unless you're contributing some important
missing content, whatever you contribute will be met with requests to
do better, and you'll feel embarassed about leaving others to do your
grunt work. Or you'll tire of getting someone to do it as you wanted
it, or at all. Even if you know or learn DocBook and the FDP primer,
you'll be grieved by silly things like deleting spaces where you
shouldn't have, or using the "xyz" manpage entity instead of the "xyz"
command entity.
The system obviously works; I'm just saying what seems undeniable:
that a simpler source language would draw more contributions, and what
is just my opinion: that a simpler wiki-like language with only a
handful of lanugage elements would make for better documentation
because it would have better content, at the small cost of being a
little uglier and harder for someone to sell in book form.
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 18:12:11 -0800
From: unde...@comcast.net (Gary W. Swearingen)
Subject: Re: Where is FreeBSD going?
To: "M. Warner Losh" <i...@bsdimp.com>
Cc: freebsd...@freebsd.org
Message-ID: <9td69t9...@mail.comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
"M. Warner Losh" <i...@bsdimp.com> writes:
> Ryan Sommers <ry...@gamersimpact.com> writes:
> : Something like this might also jeopardize the
> : project's "not for profit" status.
>
> The project is not a legally incorporated entity at this time, and
> never has been in the past.
And yet the "Legal" page carries a claim of copyright for "The FreeBSD
Project" and the "Copyright" page has that plus a similar claim for
"FreeBSD, Inc." (For 2004, even.) I've not seen a US statute about
false copyright claims, but I think it would be less risky to say "all
intellectual property is owned by its owners", in the manner of some
trademark statements. The "Legal" page could tell about using CVS to
determine who owns what so they can be tracked down and asked if the
copyright page is correct about what license they've got it under. :)
Whether the project is "for profit" depends upon the definition, if
the project is claiming copyright ownership, because gains of
intellectual property is considered (by US copyright law, at least) to
be a financial gain. But lots of organizations, formal and informal,
have financial gains without problems with being considered "for
profit", so if someone sees "for profit" problems, they should be
specific about what the problems might be.
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:44:36 +1100
From: Peter Jeremy <peter...@optushome.com.au>
Subject: Re: Where is FreeBSD going?
To: Brett Glass <br...@lariat.org>
Cc: freebs...@freebsd.org
Message-ID: <20040109024...@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:45:06PM -0700, Brett Glass wrote:
>At 07:47 PM 1/6/2004, Avleen Vig wrote:
>
>>Advocacy is NOT a race
>
>Yes, it is. Linux is where it is today because it grabbed more
>buzz, sooner, than BSD.
An alternative viewpoint is that BSD spent 2-3 years in limbo
whilst the AT&T/BSDI suit ground thru the legal system. During
this time, Linux managed to get a big headstart.
The current SCO suit has the possibility to do the same to Linux
except that:
1) SCO's claims are so outlandish that no-one takes them seriously
2) SCO has decided to include BSD in it's claims.
Peter
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 21:39:07 -0700 (MST)
From: "M. Warner Losh" <i...@bsdimp.com>
Subject: Re: Where is FreeBSD going?
To: unde...@comcast.net
Cc: freebsd...@freebsd.org
Message-ID: <20040108.21390...@bsdimp.com>
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
In message: <9td69t9...@mail.comcast.net>
unde...@comcast.net (Gary W. Swearingen) writes:
: "M. Warner Losh" <i...@bsdimp.com> writes:
:
: > Ryan Sommers <ry...@gamersimpact.com> writes:
: > : Something like this might also jeopardize the
: > : project's "not for profit" status.
: >
: > The project is not a legally incorporated entity at this time, and
: > never has been in the past.
:
: And yet the "Legal" page carries a claim of copyright for "The FreeBSD
: Project"
It is a psudonymous work by The FreeBSD Project.
: and the "Copyright" page has that plus a similar claim for
: "FreeBSD, Inc." (For 2004, even.)
That should be changed.
: I've not seen a US statute about
: false copyright claims, but I think it would be less risky to say "all
: intellectual property is owned by its owners", in the manner of some
: trademark statements.
No, the above is perfectly legal under US and International Copyright
law.
: The "Legal" page could tell about using CVS to
: determine who owns what so they can be tracked down and asked if the
: copyright page is correct about what license they've got it under. :)
That's likely overkill, but might not be a bad idea.
: Whether the project is "for profit" depends upon the definition, if
: the project is claiming copyright ownership, because gains of
: intellectual property is considered (by US copyright law, at least) to
: be a financial gain. But lots of organizations, formal and informal,
: have financial gains without problems with being considered "for
: profit", so if someone sees "for profit" problems, they should be
: specific about what the problems might be.
For profit or not is irrelvant, given that there's no legally
incorporated entity for the project.
Warner
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 23:26:37 -0800
From: unde...@comcast.net (Gary W. Swearingen)
Subject: Re: Where is FreeBSD going?
To: "M. Warner Losh" <i...@bsdimp.com>
Cc: freebsd...@freebsd.org
Message-ID: <35u1357...@mail.comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
"M. Warner Losh" <i...@bsdimp.com> writes:
> In message: <9td69t9...@mail.comcast.net>
> unde...@comcast.net (Gary W. Swearingen) writes:
> :
> : And yet the "Legal" page carries a claim of copyright for "The FreeBSD
> : Project"
>
> It is a psudonymous work by The FreeBSD Project.
Are you saying that "The FreeBSD Project" is a pseudonym for many of
individuals, or what? And why does it matter with respect to whether
an extra-legal entity may claim copyright ownership?
> : I've not seen a US statute about
> : false copyright claims, but I think it would be less risky to say "all
> : intellectual property is owned by its owners", in the manner of some
> : trademark statements.
>
> No, the above is perfectly legal under US and International Copyright
> law.
Well, I know that it's legal to omit one's own copyright claim, but
for some organization to lay claim to copyrights owned by you or me
seems very wrong. It's a violation of BSD-type licenses and a
violation of the concept of attribution that is behind the licenses.
A legal entity has made the false claim of copyright ownership,
whether that's an informal organization or the person who wrote the
claim with a pseudonym. I'm not sure how you or I have been damaged,
but I supose that a lawyer could find a way.
What is your theory of why it's legal? I'm really interested.
Are you saying it's just another way of saying "copyrights are owned
by individual members of the informal FreeBSD project"? That seems
legal enough, I guess, but it's a quite different statement, IMO. And
as it doesn't follow the form giving by US copyright law I wonder if
it is sufficent legal notice in the USA, if you plan to sue infringers
for the most money possible.
> For profit or not is irrelvant, given that there's no legally
> incorporated entity for the project.
I'm fairly sure that members of informal organizations can be held
liable for the acts of other members in the USA. For example, under
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act. And
even if all members could not be held liable, persons directly
responsible for the wrongdoing could be. Example wrongdoings are not
paying taxes on the profit or not reporting the profit. But I admit
that this issue seems unlikely to cause problems as long as someone
pays taxes on any obvious profits other than copyright licenses.
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 12:40:21 +0100
From: "Simon L. Nielsen" <si...@FreeBSD.org>
Subject: Re: Where is FreeBSD going?
To: "M. Warner Losh" <i...@bsdimp.com>
Cc: freebsd...@freebsd.org
Message-ID: <2004010911...@arthur.nitro.dk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
On 2004.01.08 21:39:07 -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> In message: <9td69t9...@mail.comcast.net>
> unde...@comcast.net (Gary W. Swearingen) writes:
>
> : and the "Copyright" page has that plus a similar claim for
> : "FreeBSD, Inc." (For 2004, even.)
>
> That should be changed.
To? I have noticed FreeBSD, Inc on the copyright page a few times, but
I never really knew what to replace it with.
--
Simon L. Nielsen
FreeBSD Documentation Team
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-chat/attachments/20040109/a5eee32c/attachment-0001.bin
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:03:26 +0300
From: Lev Serebryakov <l...@FreeBSD.org>
Subject: Re[2]: Where is FreeBSD going?
To: Doug Rabson <d...@nlsystems.com>
Cc: freebsd...@FreeBSD.org
Message-ID: <853399522.20...@serebryakov.spb.ru>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Hello, Doug!
Thursday, January 8, 2004, 8:29:34 PM, you wrote:
DR> 3. Converting the repository. This is a tricky one - I tried the
DR> current version of the migration scripts and they barfed and died
DR> pretty quickly. Still, I'm pretty sure that the svn developers
DR> are planning to fix most of those problems. From mailing-list
DR> archives, it appears that they are using our cvs tree as test
DR> material for the migration scripts.
Did you try my (pure-perl) vatinat ``RefineCVS''?
http://lev.serebryakov.spb.ru/refinecvs/refinecvs-0.76.783.tar.gz
But, please, read documentation carefully before reporting bugs --
many errors could be avoided with command-line options, sctipy is
paranoid by default.
Some parts of FreeBSD repository could not be converted, because
contains revisions like 1.2.1 and other `I don't know what I should
think about this' errors. If you have some good ideas -- let me know
:)
--
Lev Serebryakov
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:28:57 +0200 (EET)
From: Narvi <na...@haldjas.folklore.ee>
Subject: Re[2]: Where is FreeBSD going?
To: Lev Serebryakov <l...@freebsd.org>
Cc: freebsd...@freebsd.org
Message-ID: <20040109152725...@haldjas.folklore.ee>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
> Hello, Doug!
> Thursday, January 8, 2004, 8:29:34 PM, you wrote:
>
> DR> 3. Converting the repository. This is a tricky one - I tried the
> DR> current version of the migration scripts and they barfed and died
> DR> pretty quickly. Still, I'm pretty sure that the svn developers
> DR> are planning to fix most of those problems. From mailing-list
> DR> archives, it appears that they are using our cvs tree as test
> DR> material for the migration scripts.
> Did you try my (pure-perl) vatinat ``RefineCVS''?
>
> http://lev.serebryakov.spb.ru/refinecvs/refinecvs-0.76.783.tar.gz
>
> But, please, read documentation carefully before reporting bugs --
> many errors could be avoided with command-line options, sctipy is
> paranoid by default.
>
> Some parts of FreeBSD repository could not be converted, because
> contains revisions like 1.2.1 and other `I don't know what I should
> think about this' errors. If you have some good ideas -- let me know
> :)
>
Huh? Whats wrong with revision 1.2.1 ? This is perfectly normal cvs
revision number, even if you have to use a command line option to get it.
But it should not require any kind of special treatment.
> --
> Lev Serebryakov
>
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 07:52:01 -0700 (MST)
From: "M. Warner Losh" <i...@bsdimp.com>
Subject: Re: Where is FreeBSD going?
To: unde...@comcast.net
Cc: freebsd...@freebsd.org
Message-ID: <20040109.07520...@bsdimp.com>
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
In message: <35u1357...@mail.comcast.net>
unde...@comcast.net (Gary W. Swearingen) writes:
: "M. Warner Losh" <i...@bsdimp.com> writes:
:
: > In message: <9td69t9...@mail.comcast.net>
: > unde...@comcast.net (Gary W. Swearingen) writes:
: > :
: > : And yet the "Legal" page carries a claim of copyright for "The FreeBSD
: > : Project"
: >
: > It is a psudonymous work by The FreeBSD Project.
:
: Are you saying that "The FreeBSD Project" is a pseudonym for many of
: individuals, or what? And why does it matter with respect to whether
: an extra-legal entity may claim copyright ownership?
Yes. It is a collection of individuals. It is explicitly allowed for
in copyright law.
: > : I've not seen a US statute about
: > : false copyright claims, but I think it would be less risky to say "all
: > : intellectual property is owned by its owners", in the manner of some
: > : trademark statements.
: >
: > No, the above is perfectly legal under US and International Copyright
: > law.
:
: Well, I know that it's legal to omit one's own copyright claim, but
: for some organization to lay claim to copyrights owned by you or me
: seems very wrong.
Whatever. I've consulted lawyers on this who assure me that it is
legal. You've admitted to not knowing US Copyright law and are aguing
emotion, which is why I didn't reply to the rest of your message.
Warner
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 07:52:37 -0700 (MST)
From: "M. Warner Losh" <i...@bsdimp.com>
Subject: Re: Where is FreeBSD going?
To: si...@FreeBSD.org
Cc: freebsd...@FreeBSD.org
Message-ID: <20040109.07523...@bsdimp.com>
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
In message: <2004010911...@arthur.nitro.dk>
"Simon L. Nielsen" <si...@FreeBSD.org> writes:
: On 2004.01.08 21:39:07 -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
: > In message: <9td69t9...@mail.comcast.net>
: > unde...@comcast.net (Gary W. Swearingen) writes:
: >
: > : and the "Copyright" page has that plus a similar claim for
: > : "FreeBSD, Inc." (For 2004, even.)
: >
: > That should be changed.
:
: To? I have noticed FreeBSD, Inc on the copyright page a few times, but
: I never really knew what to replace it with.
The FreeBSD Project.
Warner
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 18:16:02 +0300
From: Lev Serebryakov <l...@FreeBSD.org>
Subject: Re[3]: Where is FreeBSD going?
To: Narvi <na...@haldjas.folklore.ee>
Cc: freebsd...@FreeBSD.org
Message-ID: <19210315820.2...@serebryakov.spb.ru>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Hello, Narvi!
Friday, January 9, 2004, 4:28:57 PM, you wrote:
>> DR> 3. Converting the repository. This is a tricky one - I tried the
>> DR> current version of the migration scripts and they barfed and died
>> DR> pretty quickly. Still, I'm pretty sure that the svn developers
>> DR> are planning to fix most of those problems. From mailing-list
>> DR> archives, it appears that they are using our cvs tree as test
>> DR> material for the migration scripts.
>> Did you try my (pure-perl) vatinat ``RefineCVS''?
>> http://lev.serebryakov.spb.ru/refinecvs/refinecvs-0.76.783.tar.gz
>> But, please, read documentation carefully before reporting bugs --
>> many errors could be avoided with command-line options, sctipy is
>> paranoid by default.
>> Some parts of FreeBSD repository could not be converted, because
>> contains revisions like 1.2.1 and other `I don't know what I should
>> think about this' errors. If you have some good ideas -- let me know
>> :)
N> Huh? Whats wrong with revision 1.2.1 ? This is perfectly normal cvs
N> revision number, even if you have to use a command line option to get it.
N> But it should not require any kind of special treatment.
It is NOT perfectly normal cvs revision number. WHAT TYPE of
revision number is it?
Normal numbers are (first level of branching is showed only):
x.y -- TRUNK
x.y.0.(2n) -- MAGIC for branch (in SYMBOLS only)
x.y.(2n).z -- Revision on branch
x.1.(2n+1) -- Vendor branches (in SYMBOLS only)
x.1.(2n+1).z -- Vendor imports
Ok, ok, it should be some broken vendor branch. But what do you say
about `1.1.2'? Or even simple `1' (look into sysintall's Attic).
BTW, repo from FreeBSD 4.9 is parsed almost without such errors
(sysinstall, pppd + kernel part of ppp, zoneinfo).
Some problems are with double symbols (one symbolic name marks two
revisions: MAGIC one and simple one), and with symbols, which marks
unexistent revisions (many, many such symbols over all repository).
But my computer doesn't have enough memory to finish conversion process.
--
Lev Serebryakov
------------------------------
Message: 14
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 11:20:33 -0500
From: "Bob Martin" <bobby...@charter.net>
Subject: General Wireless Network Question
To: <freebs...@freebsd.org>
Message-ID: <000601c3d6cc$81d72960$6600a8c0@BOB>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Just completed a wireless setup. I am using a hi-gain antenna to see my friend's wireless network. He is about 250 feet from my house. I have an excellent signal strength (80%) and my link quality is 80%. My data connection rate is showing 11Mbps. We are using 11Mbps hardware. When I checked my bandwidth speed through his wireless network I am seeing a 1Mbps in speed out of a possible of 2Mbps. He is seeing the normal 2Mbps bandwidth speed with a 95% signal level on his laptop less than 30 feet away in his living room. Is what am seeing normal or to be expected with the 250 feet distance from my house to the access point at his house. I expected less bandwidth speed but not half with the excellent signal and quality level that I have with my hi-gain antenna. Is this just the way wireless networking is or what? Is there anything I can do to do better then the 1Mbps.
Also, friend saw a drop in speed with a drop in signal as he walked toward my house away for the access point at his house, which I expected to happen, but when I intentionally dropped my signal and link levels to a lower signal level I still got the same 1Mbps speed, which didn't make a lot of sense to me. I did this experiment several times so I know it was real. What gives with this strange result.
Bob Martin (Every day is Saturday, except Sunday)
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.560 / Virus Database: 352 - Release Date: 1/8/2004
------------------------------
Message: 15
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 11:38:52 -0600 (CST)
From: Sean Farley <sean-f...@farley.org>
Subject: Re: Where is FreeBSD going?
To: freebsd...@freebsd.org
Cc: freebs...@freebsd.org
Message-ID: <2004010911...@thor.farley.org>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, Doug Rabson wrote:
> I've been re-evaluating the current subversion over the last couple of
> weeks and its holding up pretty well so far. It still misses the
> repeated merge thing that p4 does so well but in practice, merging
> does seem to be a lot easier than with CVS due to the repository-wide
> revision numbering system - that makes it easy to remember when your
> last merge happened so that you don't merge a change twice.
>
> The three main showstoppers for moving FreeBSD to subversion would be:
>
> 1. A replacement for cvsup. Probably quite doable using svnadmin dump
> and load.
> 2. Support for $FreeBSD$ - user-specified keywords are not supported
> and won't be until after svn-1.0 by the looks of things.
> 3. Converting the repository. This is a tricky one - I tried the
> current version of the migration scripts and they barfed and died
> pretty quickly. Still, I'm pretty sure that the svn developers are
> planning to fix most of those problems. From mailing-list archives,
> it appears that they are using our cvs tree as test material for
> the migration scripts.
I admit to having not tried it, but I wonder how well OpenCM
(http://www.opencm.org/) would compare. I think it would have a smaller
footprint than Subversion.
Sean
-----------------------
sean-f...@farley.org
------------------------------
Message: 16
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 20:21:02 +0200 (EET)
From: Narvi <na...@haldjas.folklore.ee>
Subject: Re[3]: Where is FreeBSD going?
To: Lev Serebryakov <l...@FreeBSD.org>
Cc: freebsd...@FreeBSD.org
Message-ID: <20040109194720...@haldjas.folklore.ee>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
> Hello, Narvi!
> Friday, January 9, 2004, 4:28:57 PM, you wrote:
>
> >> DR> 3. Converting the repository. This is a tricky one - I tried the
> >> DR> current version of the migration scripts and they barfed and died
> >> DR> pretty quickly. Still, I'm pretty sure that the svn developers
> >> DR> are planning to fix most of those problems. From mailing-list
> >> DR> archives, it appears that they are using our cvs tree as test
> >> DR> material for the migration scripts.
> >> Did you try my (pure-perl) vatinat ``RefineCVS''?
> >> http://lev.serebryakov.spb.ru/refinecvs/refinecvs-0.76.783.tar.gz
> >> But, please, read documentation carefully before reporting bugs --
> >> many errors could be avoided with command-line options, sctipy is
> >> paranoid by default.
> >> Some parts of FreeBSD repository could not be converted, because
> >> contains revisions like 1.2.1 and other `I don't know what I should
> >> think about this' errors. If you have some good ideas -- let me know
> >> :)
> N> Huh? Whats wrong with revision 1.2.1 ? This is perfectly normal cvs
> N> revision number, even if you have to use a command line option to get it.
> N> But it should not require any kind of special treatment.
>
> It is NOT perfectly normal cvs revision number. WHAT TYPE of
> revision number is it?
>
See, the problem is that you are thinking in overly constrained terms of
revision numbers that cvs creates by default, and even so don't think
about RCS at all. CVS is not a real CM system its an half-assed one built
on top of RCS.
1.2.1 could be a branch (this would be the usual case) or it could be a
file revision created by ci(1). in fact, even old (ok, the old here is
relative) versions of cvs let you create it as file revision.
> Normal numbers are (first level of branching is showed only):
>
> x.y -- TRUNK
> x.y.0.(2n) -- MAGIC for branch (in SYMBOLS only)
(2n) here is completely - utterly, totaly, etc - bogus.
> x.y.(2n).z -- Revision on branch
> x.1.(2n+1) -- Vendor branches (in SYMBOLS only)
> x.1.(2n+1).z -- Vendor imports
>
see above for 2n.
> Ok, ok, it should be some broken vendor branch. But what do you say
> about `1.1.2'? Or even simple `1' (look into sysintall's Attic).
>
simple 1 is simple - somebody was using ci, and forgot about dots. 1.1.2
is similar to 1.2.1.
> BTW, repo from FreeBSD 4.9 is parsed almost without such errors
> (sysinstall, pppd + kernel part of ppp, zoneinfo).
> Some problems are with double symbols (one symbolic name marks two
> revisions: MAGIC one and simple one), and with symbols, which marks
> unexistent revisions (many, many such symbols over all repository).
>
> But my computer doesn't have enough memory to finish conversion process.
>
It may be worthwhile to collect such and have somebody do a fixup.
> --
> Lev Serebryakov
>
------------------------------
Message: 17
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 11:57:45 -0800
From: unde...@comcast.net (Gary W. Swearingen)
Subject: Re: Where is FreeBSD going?
To: "M. Warner Losh" <i...@bsdimp.com>
Cc: freebsd...@freebsd.org
Message-ID: <fk65fk7...@mail.comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
"M. Warner Losh" <i...@bsdimp.com> writes:
> Whatever. I've consulted lawyers on this who assure me that it is
> legal. You've admitted to not knowing US Copyright law and are aguing
> emotion, which is why I didn't reply to the rest of your message.
You obviously don't want to discuss this, and it's easy to guess the
real reasons. Your main problem here, and apparently that of your
lawyers, is that you don't understand what the issues are to which
copyright law is to be applied. The legality of collective copyrights
was not my issue. Your other problem is putting words in people's
mouth; I would never admit to know not knowing US copyright law
because I know it quite well enough to argue FreeBSD's IP issues with
anybody. If I don't write with the same seeming authority as you,
that's more your problem than mine.
I expected my comments to be ignored or brushed off, but I didn't
expect to be brushed off in your rude and insulting manner. Maybe
when I've recovered, and if I haven't made my move to NetBSD yet, I'll
write up a more complete explanation of FreeBSD's IP problems instead
of trying to deal with the likes of you in a conversation.
We can all be glad that it hasn't mattered and might never matter that
the FreeBSD IP situation is so shabby, I suppose because it sends the
message that it's all essentially a Gentlemen's Agreement, with only a
few violators who are more-or-less tolerated.
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
freebs...@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-chat...@freebsd.org"
End of freebsd-chat Digest, Vol 42, Issue 9
*******************************************