[Bug 578019] New: alpine: update to re-alpine
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019 http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019#c0 Summary: alpine: update to re-alpine Classification: openSUSE Product: openSUSE 11.3 Version: Factory Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: Enhancement Priority: P5 - None Component: Other AssignedTo: bnc-team-screening@forge.provo.novell.com ReportedBy: jengelh@medozas.de QAContact: qa@suse.de Found By: Beta-Customer Blocker: --- re-alpine's maintainer sees problems with integrating Ed Chappa's patches[1][2]. I could not verify and come to a resolution. Since openSUSE already does ship Ed's patches with alpine, we seem to be doing fine, aren't we? If so, I would like to update alpine to re-alpine if approved. re-alpine is the successor to UW's alpine. [1] http://sourceforge.net/support/tracker.php?aid=2805218 [2] http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=alpine.NEB.2.01.090901... -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019#c1
--- Comment #1 from Reinhard Max
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019#c2
--- Comment #2 from Ciaran Farrell
re-alpine's maintainer sees problems with integrating Ed Chappa's patches[1][2]. I could not verify and come to a resolution. Since openSUSE already does ship Ed's patches with alpine, we seem to be doing fine, aren't we?
Not necessarily. If those patches don't have licenses, they should not be in openSUSE. I can imagine how they slipped through, but if there really is no indication of what license they are under, then I advise that the patches not be applied. The patches should also be removed from our tarball (if we don't know the distribution terms). -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019#c3
--- Comment #3 from Jan Engelhardt
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019#c4
--- Comment #4 from Ciaran Farrell
Sounds to me as if, implicitly, a "WTFPL plus exception (don't claim ownership)" was chosen.
Possibly, but without confirmation, it isn't acceptable. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019#c5
Juergen Weigert
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019#c6
--- Comment #6 from Eduardo Chappa
His patches are here http://staff.washington.edu/chappa/alpine/
I cannot see any license indication on his website or patches.
Thank you for adding me to this conversation. There is no license for the patches, nor there will be one. However, SuSe can distribute the patches if they desire to. My only request is that no license be implicitly assumed or explicitly said about them. On the other hand, talking about the alpine to re-alpine switch. The current version of Re-Alpine is one of the development versions of Alpine. There has not been a real difference made between Alpine and Re-Alpine. In my view, Re-Alpine and Alpine are both dead projects. I wish to be proven wrong, though. -- Eduardo -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019#c7
--- Comment #7 from Jan Engelhardt
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019#c8
--- Comment #8 from Eduardo Chappa
Re-Alpine would probably be going forward if there was not this license-or-not blocker going around in circles. We may be allowed to distribute the patches, but what about rediffing to resolve conflicts, and ultimately, integration?
Since I am not a lawyer, i fail to see the problem here. If your patches cause conflict with mine, or if mine are causing conflicts among themselves, you are free to write a patch to fix those conflicts, and if you need my help I am happy to help you. I have lots of experience doing that. I patch so frequently, that I "automated" this process, and in particular I have a patch to remove conflicts between patches. If you have that problem, that idea might help you.
Because even if people were allowed to redistribute, what license would the binaries containing said patch be under?
If you need a name for a license, I do not have it. I am not an expert in these things. I apologize if this causes you any trouble. -- Eduardo -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019#c9
--- Comment #9 from Jan Engelhardt
If your patches cause conflict with mine [...] I am not a lawyer
Neither am I; but the basic requisites aren't wormhole science either: What I was trying to say is that: If I create a derivative of your patch(es), who would, according to you, own such a result? -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019#c10
Juergen Weigert
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019#c11
Eduardo Chappa
Thanks Eduardo, for granting distribution permission and modification permission. That is basically what we need. Modifications shall be restricted to not removing your name, and not adding false names, so that nobody can claim false authorship. Ontop of that, we would also need your approval for our downstream partners, (e.g. IBM and others), they need the same permission to distribute and modify. I suppose, that is okay with you too. Right?
Dear Juergen, Yes I agree to allow your downstream partners the same distribution and modification permissions that I allow SuSe. -- Eduardo -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019#c12
--- Comment #12 from Juergen Weigert
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019#c13
--- Comment #13 from Jan Engelhardt
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019#c14
--- Comment #14 from Eduardo Chappa
Eduardo, would you also be willing to give the same permissions for the upstream direction?
I am sorry to ask the obvious, but at this time, this is not obvious anymore. Who is upstream? -- Eduardo -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019#c15
--- Comment #15 from Jan Engelhardt
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019#c16
--- Comment #16 from Eduardo Chappa
A legitimate question. (As seen from Novell,) by upstream I would refer to the program source provider, that is, the alpine source or a community spinoff thereof (such as, but not limited to, re-alpine).
From all of this, I see three separate projects. Alpine (as still maintained by
I consider Re-Alpine a project different from Alpine. Re-Alpine, until a few days ago was a dead project (there was no action). Recently there has been some upgrades :). A release was announced at the end of last year, which was postponed, apparently until August this year. I have no idea what it will contain (and I follow Re-Alpine very closely!) The point I am trying to make is the following. My patches are for Alpine, not for Re-Alpine. Re-Alpine is a svn version of Alpine (version 1266, unreleased as Alpine). My patches will always be for Alpine, not for Re-Alpine. I do not use Re-alpine, nor plan to switch, or write/adapt my patches in the future for Re-Alpine. When I tried to help the Re-Alpine project I was sent away, since I explicitly said that I could not work with the changes they were making to the build system. Unfortunately they did not listen, so I left the project, since there was no point in staying (I could not help anyway - which is the reason I say "I was sent away"). I discussed with Andraz Levstik about the possibility to include my patches in Re-Alpine a long time ago, and I asked him not to include them (exactly due to licensing issues). He agreed. the University of Washington), which has very few updates, Re-Alpine, which is a mirror of the Alpine svn, and finally my patches for *ALPINE*. The common denominator of these projects is the public svn. I update my patches based on the contents of the svn, but not based on the content of the re-alpine git. I'd rather leave the source code of Alpine "as is", and differentiate it explicitly from my project. I am also sure that the University of Washington prefers that too. I do not expect any of this to change in the future either, so I suspect my patches will never make it to the source code of Alpine, and will be left as such. Given the situation today, I prefer if it stays like that. -- Eduardo -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019#c17
--- Comment #17 from Jan Engelhardt
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019#c18
--- Comment #18 from Eduardo Chappa
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019#c
Xinli Niu
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019#c
Reinhard Max
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019#c21
--- Comment #21 from Eduardo Chappa
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019#c22
Jan Engelhardt
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019#c23
--- Comment #23 from Eduardo Chappa
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019#c24
--- Comment #24 from Jan Engelhardt
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019#c25
--- Comment #25 from Eduardo Chappa
This is looking good. Some wishlist items from my side:
* Contemporary compression scheme is xz, which has (and rather quickly so) superseded lzma.
I would distribute .gz or even .bz2, but not .lzma nor .xz, was it not for the fact that my web page provider has a limit on the size of files that can be downloaded from their server. I can not have files more than 5 MB in size in the server, so since .lzma brought the compressed file to the allowed size several years ago, I have kept using it, but given your words, I will consider distributing .lzma and .xz files. Some people already have scripts that look for the .lzma file, so I should not stop distributing it.
* I notice that you merged some of your patches (searchheader, replacebug, streamlock, nlinfobug, filterflagbug) already into the codebase itself. Perhaps you could do the same for the other remaining patches? We currently have
Patch600: alpine-2.10-colortext.patch Patch601: alpine-2.10-fancy.patch Patch602: alpine-2.10-ignoresize.patch Patch603: alpine-2.10-insertpat.patch Patch604: alpine-2.10-maildir.patch Patch605: alpine-2.10-WrtAcc.patch Patch606: alpine-2.10-unixnullbug.patch
Some of these patches will be included in future releases of Alpine, some will be heavily modified and included, and some will not be included and stay as patches. I am working in some other projects now, which are going to take long, so that will also have an effect on current patches.
* The "unverified" patch is available for version 2.10 from your page, though quilt reports that it is already applied in the plain 2.10 tarball.
Can you check this again? It does not match my recollection, nor what I see in the page. Thank you! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019#c26
--- Comment #26 from Jan Engelhardt
my web page provider has a limit on the size of files that can be downloaded from their server.
Would something like sourceforge/etc. appeal to you/the alpine project?
"unverified" patch - check again
Yes indeed: 10:00 ares07:/tmp/Z > wget http://patches.freeiz.com/alpine/patches/alpine-2.10/alpine-2.10.clean.tar.l... --2013-05-23 10:00:15-- http://patches.freeiz.com/alpine/patches/alpine-2.10/alpine-2.10.clean.tar.l... Resolving patches.freeiz.com (patches.freeiz.com)... 31.170.161.216 Connecting to patches.freeiz.com (patches.freeiz.com)|31.170.161.216|:80... connected. HTTP forespřrsel sendt, mottar topptekster... 200 OK Lengde: 4849936 (4.6M) [application/x-tar] Saving to: `alpine-2.10.clean.tar.lzma' 100%[======================================>] 4,849,936 407K/s in 13s 2013-05-23 10:00:29 (362 KB/s) - `alpine-2.10.clean.tar.lzma' saved [4849936/4849936] 10:00 ares07:/tmp/Z > tar -xf alpine-2.10.clean.tar.lzma 10:00 ares07:/tmp/Z > cd alpine-2.10/ 10:00 ares07:/tmp/Z/alpine-2.10 > wget http://patches.freeiz.com/alpine/patches/alpine-2.10/unverified.patch.gz --2013-05-23 10:00:36-- http://patches.freeiz.com/alpine/patches/alpine-2.10/unverified.patch.gz Resolving patches.freeiz.com (patches.freeiz.com)... 31.170.161.216 Connecting to patches.freeiz.com (patches.freeiz.com)|31.170.161.216|:80... connected. HTTP forespřrsel sendt, mottar topptekster... 200 OK Lengde: 1514 (1.5K) [application/x-gzip] Saving to: `unverified.patch.gz' 100%[======================================>] 1,514 --.-K/s in 0s 2013-05-23 10:00:36 (257 MB/s) - `unverified.patch.gz' saved [1514/1514] 10:00 ares07:/tmp/Z/alpine-2.10 > gzip -d unverified.patch.gz 10:00 ares07:/tmp/Z/alpine-2.10 > patch -p1 --dry -i unverified.patch checking file alpine/reply.c Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected! Assume -R? [n] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019#c27
--- Comment #27 from Eduardo Chappa
my web page provider has a limit on the size of files that can be downloaded from their server.
Would something like sourceforge/etc. appeal to you/the alpine project?
The name "Alpine" is already taken in Sourceforge, which is the reason why the continuation was called "Re-Alpine". Ideally something like Sourceforge is what is needed. I have been considering using github to grant access to the latest bits to anyone interested, so a combination of github, my web page, and the Alpine-info list seems like it would be a good combination to maintain Alpine in the future. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019#c28
Reinhard Max
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019#c29
--- Comment #29 from Jan Engelhardt
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019#c30
Reinhard Max
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578019#c31
Jan Engelhardt
participants (1)
-
bugzilla_noreply@novell.com