[opensuse-factory] tiny-nvidia-installer removed from factory
I wasn't what you can call happy when i found out this little software was removed from factory (and even less so when after reopening it 3 or 4 time the bug was marked as private). No real explanation given. This was by far the easiest and quickest way to get the Nvidia driver up and running and i demand explanation. WONTFIX, build it in the BS. WTF! there is no use to the package if its not right on the cd ... Now if you don't wanna include it in the default selection this is totally understandable, but why totally rip the package off ? --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
Jonh Arson wrote:
I wasn't what you can call happy when i found out this little software was removed from factory (and even less so when after reopening it 3 or 4 time the bug was marked as private).
You reopened the bug multiple times although you were told it was classified as WONTFIX? Then the only way to stop you from reopening was indeed marking the bug private.
No real explanation given. [...] WONTFIX, build it in the BS. WTF!
That's a perfectly valid reason. You can build it in the build service or wait for others to do it. SUSE has no obligation to fulfill your wishes unless you have a very convincing reason (and no, it's not you who needs to be convinced). Regards, Carl-Daniel --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
That's a perfectly valid reason. You can build it in the build service or wait for others to do it. SUSE has no obligation to fulfill your wishes unless you have a very convincing reason (and no, it's not you who needs to be convinced).
I think you might be missing the point here. The only reason for existence of this package is to have something included in the core distro to install the nvidia drivers. Now if you don't want to package it, that's fine, but building on the build service is not an option. It would defeat the entire point of the package, It would be easier for users to just get the full installer from nvidia. Now tiny-nvidia-installer is not massively useful in any case, compared to KMPs. There could be valid reasons for removing it, but the build service is not a solution in this particular case. _ Benjamin Weber --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 01:01:37PM +0100, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
No real explanation given. [...] WONTFIX, build it in the BS. WTF!
That's a perfectly valid reason. You can build it in the build service or wait for others to do it.
BTW, see project: home:sndirsch package: tiny-nvidia-installer Better copy it immediately. I plan to remove it again pretty soon.
SUSE has no obligation to fulfill your wishes unless you have a very convincing reason (and no, it's not you who needs to be convinced).
I gave him a bunch of reasons. 1) It's an undocumented way to install the NVIDIA driver. The driver update process should be used instead - if possible. Otherwise use the official installer. See http://www.suse.de/~sndirsch/nvidia-installer-HOWTO.html for details. 2) There's no official download location for up-to-date sources for it, so sooner or later it gets broken anyway and I won't notice, because I no longer use it. 3) IMHO using tiny-nvidia-installer is completely useless. Using it looks easy in the first place - given that you have gcc and kernel-source installed, but you'll wake up after the first kernel update (Xserver is no longer starting!), because you need to recompile the kernel module after each update. Since this is a manual step anyway, IMHO it's better to know what you're doing and having the complete installer already on your harddisk. At least then you don't need to download the complete driver again and again. IMHO this is well documented in my HOWTO. http://www.suse.de/~sndirsch/nvidia-installer-HOWTO.html Probably he cannot be convinced, because he is used to this tool, relies on it and it somewhat works for him (good enough). Best regards, Stefan Public Key available ------------------------------------------------------ Stefan Dirsch (Res. & Dev.) SUSE LINUX Products GmbH Tel: 0911-740 53 0 Maxfeldstraße 5 FAX: 0911-740 53 479 D-90409 Nürnberg http://www.suse.de Germany ------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Stefan Dirsch wrote:
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 01:01:37PM +0100, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
No real explanation given. [...] WONTFIX, build it in the BS. WTF! That's a perfectly valid reason. You can build it in the build service or wait for others to do it.
BTW, see
project: home:sndirsch package: tiny-nvidia-installer
Better copy it immediately. I plan to remove it again pretty soon.
SUSE has no obligation to fulfill your wishes unless you have a very convincing reason (and no, it's not you who needs to be convinced).
Carl-Daniel.. geez... wth are you talking about. Of course they have no obligations, except that if Novell really wants "openSUSE" and a community, then they do in order to make it work. John (the OP), Benjamin and I are amongst those who are on the "front" on IRC with new SUSE users and less experienced ones, who are asking for help. If such tools (like y2pmsh or tiny-nvidia-installer) *are* helpful from our experience, then I *do* think it's a valid point. Wrt the "openSUSE" community, we're doing a big job there and believe it or not, #suse is one of the most qualified and helpful linux support rooms on IRC.
I gave him a bunch of reasons.
Yes, after he reopened the bug ;)
1) It's an undocumented way to install the NVIDIA driver. The driver update process should be used instead - if possible. Otherwise use the official installer. See http://www.suse.de/~sndirsch/nvidia-installer-HOWTO.html for details. 2) There's no official download location for up-to-date sources for it, so sooner or later it gets broken anyway and I won't notice, because I no longer use it. 3) IMHO using tiny-nvidia-installer is completely useless. Using it looks easy in the first place - given that you have gcc and kernel-source installed, but you'll wake up after the first kernel update (Xserver is no longer starting!), because you need to recompile the kernel module after each update. Since this is a manual step anyway, IMHO it's better to know what you're doing and having the complete installer already on your harddisk. At least then you don't need to download the complete driver again and again. IMHO this is well documented in my HOWTO.
http://www.suse.de/~sndirsch/nvidia-installer-HOWTO.html
Probably he cannot be convinced, because he is used to this tool, relies on it and it somewhat works for him (good enough).
Stefan, I'm sure that in your focus or your coworkers at SUSE, indeed,
it's a useless tool, it's as easy to grab the NVIDIA-*.run from their
site. So it is to me, to the OP, or probably almost everyone on this list.
The point is, spend some more time on #suse and you'll see the kind of
issues we're trying to help people with.
IMO the most annoying things are, in no particular order:
(1) no command-line (or trivial) way to add repositories (aka
"installation sources")
(2) adding repositories like Packman and mine to get a full-featured
amarok, mplayer, etc...
(3) installing the proprietary nvidia and ati drivers
While improvement is underway with (1)(rug doesn't do the trick, need
something without zmd) and we probably can't do anything about (2) for
the reasons we all know, tiny-nvidia-installer *is* helpful for (3).
Obviously, as Benjamin wrote in a previous mail of this thread, having
KMPs is even better (if they are kept up-to-date with nvidia drivers, at
least somewhat, and especially with kernel package releases from the
online updates), no question.
But if the KMPs are not present or cannot be used, believe me, it's yet
another problem to tell beginners where and how to get the .run file
from nvidia, and tiny-nvidia-installer actually is pretty helpful wrt that.
The most annoying thing with the installation of nvidia's driver is
having to switch to runlevel 3 though, by a large margin.
Sounds easy ? Sure. But when people are on IRC with xchat, konversation,
kopete or chatzilla and you're telling them what to do to install it,
they have to quit their IRC client. So, what happens if anything goes
wrong ? You can't guide them step-by-step anymore either.
(maybe a simple command as a shell script that gets you to #suse on
freenode with irssi would help ;))
Up to SUSE 9.3, the script used by the online update patch used some
trickery to fool the nvidia driver installer - maybe that's still a good
enough approach to make it easier.
I've started a shell script that checks prerequisites, warns/stops if X
is running, pulls the latest nvidia driver from their website (works for
32bit and 64bit) and then runs the installer, but it sure needs more
testing. Maybe it's even a good idea to make an RPM out of it, with
Requires: make gcc glibc-devel kernel-source
in it.
http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/files/nvidia-installer.sh
Anyhow, John (the OP)'s point is that it is a real benefit of having it
in the default selection, because it removes yet another (difficult)
step for beginners.
But then again, maybe installing packages and adding repositories is
still to complex in the first place.
If that was trivial to do, even for beginners, it would make a lot of
things easier.
cheers
- --
-o) Pascal Bleser http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/
/\\
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 02:47:55PM +0100, Pascal Bleser wrote:
I've started a shell script that checks prerequisites, warns/stops if X is running, pulls the latest nvidia driver from their website (works for 32bit and 64bit) and then runs the installer, but it sure needs more testing. Maybe it's even a good idea to make an RPM out of it, with Requires: make gcc glibc-devel kernel-source in it. http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/files/nvidia-installer.sh
I somewhat like the idea of a script to replace tiny-nvidia-installer (*) since it is much more flexible, e.g. the compilation could break at any time due to a SUSE kernel update or a newer NVIDIA driver. Within a script you can specify, which NVIDIA driver version to download, patch it before starting compilation, etc. I still think it makes sense to maintain such a package in the buildservice because then this package could even update itself (the script can check and do this if required) when a newer version is available. Providing an update for an official package in the distribution usually takes several weeks after it has been checked in. :-(
But then again, maybe installing packages and adding repositories is still to complex in the first place. If that was trivial to do, even for beginners, it would make a lot of things easier.
I'm thinking about dummy packages, which do nothing more than adding repositories in %post and remove them again in %postun (not sure if this is possible at all), but probably we'll run into legal problems doing so. :-( Best regards, Stefan (*) Not really, since the NVIDIA installer replaces some system files (libGL, glx Xserver extension, ...). This can break your system, when you update packages (Mesa, xorg-x11-server, ...) including files, which have been replaced by the NVIDIA installer before. Even uninstalling the NVIDIA driver doesn't help since it will restore the files of the old package. Honestly only the kernel update process (KMP packages) can avoid this problem. I prevented this problem before SLE10 by uninstalling the driver in %pre of the affected packages, but I needed to remove this workaround for the KMP approach for SLE10. :-( Public Key available ------------------------------------------------------ Stefan Dirsch (Res. & Dev.) SUSE LINUX Products GmbH Tel: 0911-740 53 0 Maxfeldstraße 5 FAX: 0911-740 53 479 D-90409 Nürnberg http://www.suse.de Germany ------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
Honestly only the kernel update process (KMP packages) can avoid this problem. I prevented this problem before SLE10 by uninstalling the driver in %pre of the affected packages, but I needed to remove this workaround for the KMP approach for SLE10. :-(
KMPs would of course be ideal. But it seems we won't have them for openSUSE. There is much rumour and speculation as to why this is, It would be nice if someone could give a definitive statement. If I understand correctly the situation for SLE10: -Novell build the packages (from rpm vendor, build host, packager,author) -Novell don't want to risk hosting them as they violate the GPL so ask nvidia to host them. -Nvidia happily host them and take legal risk of being sued by kernel developers. It would be nice if someone could clarify what is different for openSUSE, has anyone from novell even bothered to ask nvidia to host packages for openSUSE? Have nvidia refused? why? or does Novell/SUSE not want non-gpl kernel modules to be available anywhere for openSUSE, but think it's ok for SLE for some reason? No-one seems to know the answers, so a statement from someone would be appreciated. _ Benjamin Weber --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 09:42:08PM -0000, B.Weber@warwick.ac.uk wrote:
Honestly only the kernel update process (KMP packages) can avoid this problem. I prevented this problem before SLE10 by uninstalling the driver in %pre of the affected packages, but I needed to remove this workaround for the KMP approach for SLE10. :-(
KMPs would of course be ideal. But it seems we won't have them for openSUSE. There is much rumour and speculation as to why this is, It would be nice if someone could give a definitive statement. If I understand correctly the situation for SLE10:
-Novell build the packages (from rpm vendor, build host, packager,author) -Novell don't want to risk hosting them as they violate the GPL so ask nvidia to host them. -Nvidia happily host them and take legal risk of being sued by kernel developers.
It would be nice if someone could clarify what is different for openSUSE, has anyone from novell even bothered to ask nvidia to host packages for openSUSE? Have nvidia refused? why? or does Novell/SUSE not want non-gpl kernel modules to be available anywhere for openSUSE, but think it's ok for SLE for some reason?
No-one seems to know the answers, so a statement from someone would be appreciated.
Last time I tried to push this issue was not really successful. :-( Read the results in Bug #206956. I suggest to take the SRPMs I've attached to this bugreport and host them somewhere, e.g. packman. I would like to host them via the openSUSE buildservice (since the driver itself is marked as NoSource anyway), but unfortunately it's not possible to specify to only build the SRPM. :-( Best regards, Stefan Public Key available ------------------------------------------------------ Stefan Dirsch (Res. & Dev.) SUSE LINUX Products GmbH Tel: 0911-740 53 0 Maxfeldstraße 5 FAX: 0911-740 53 479 D-90409 Nürnberg http://www.suse.de Germany ------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
Last time I tried to push this issue was not really successful. :-( Read the results in Bug #206956.
So it seems that nvidia are quite happy to host them so presumably either: - Novell only want their enterprise customers to be able to use them. - Novell have not bothered to ask nvidia to host additional packages. So they're either being hypocritical or apathetical. I suspect it's unlikely packman would want to host these as they're dodgy both legally and morally. Only nvidia should have to take the risk. (Although no-one seems to have sued Debian and canonical yet) _ Benjamin Weber --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 08:55:22AM -0000, B.Weber@warwick.ac.uk wrote:
Last time I tried to push this issue was not really successful. :-( Read the results in Bug #206956.
So it seems that nvidia are quite happy to host them so presumably either:
- Novell only want their enterprise customers to be able to use them.
Well, it's correct that SLE has a higher priority for Novell than openSUSE. BTW, absolutely the same applies to NVIDIA/ATI.
- Novell have not bothered to ask nvidia to host additional packages.
Novell did. It seems NVIDIA changed its mind meanwhile.
I suspect it's unlikely packman would want to host these as they're dodgy both legally and morally. Only nvidia should have to take the risk. (Although no-one seems to have sued Debian and canonical yet)
Hmm. Sure that Debian/Ubuntu provides prebuilt NVIDIA packages? Stefan Public Key available ------------------------------------------------------ Stefan Dirsch (Res. & Dev.) SUSE LINUX Products GmbH Tel: 0911-740 53 0 Maxfeldstraße 5 FAX: 0911-740 53 479 D-90409 Nürnberg http://www.suse.de Germany ------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
Pascal Bleser wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Stefan Dirsch wrote:
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 01:01:37PM +0100, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
No real explanation given. [...] WONTFIX, build it in the BS. WTF! That's a perfectly valid reason. You can build it in the build service or wait for others to do it. BTW, see
project: home:sndirsch package: tiny-nvidia-installer
Better copy it immediately. I plan to remove it again pretty soon.
SUSE has no obligation to fulfill your wishes unless you have a very convincing reason (and no, it's not you who needs to be convinced).
Carl-Daniel.. geez... wth are you talking about. Of course they have no obligations, except that if Novell really wants "openSUSE" and a community, then they do in order to make it work.
John (the OP), Benjamin and I are amongst those who are on the "front" on IRC with new SUSE users and less experienced ones, who are asking for help.
If such tools (like y2pmsh or tiny-nvidia-installer) *are* helpful from our experience, then I *do* think it's a valid point.
Wrt the "openSUSE" community, we're doing a big job there and believe it or not, #suse is one of the most qualified and helpful linux support rooms on IRC.
I gave him a bunch of reasons.
Yes, after he reopened the bug ;)
1) It's an undocumented way to install the NVIDIA driver. The driver update process should be used instead - if possible. Otherwise use the official installer. See http://www.suse.de/~sndirsch/nvidia-installer-HOWTO.html for details. 2) There's no official download location for up-to-date sources for it, so sooner or later it gets broken anyway and I won't notice, because I no longer use it. 3) IMHO using tiny-nvidia-installer is completely useless. Using it looks easy in the first place - given that you have gcc and kernel-source installed, but you'll wake up after the first kernel update (Xserver is no longer starting!), because you need to recompile the kernel module after each update. Since this is a manual step anyway, IMHO it's better to know what you're doing and having the complete installer already on your harddisk. At least then you don't need to download the complete driver again and again. IMHO this is well documented in my HOWTO.
http://www.suse.de/~sndirsch/nvidia-installer-HOWTO.html
Probably he cannot be convinced, because he is used to this tool, relies on it and it somewhat works for him (good enough).
Stefan, I'm sure that in your focus or your coworkers at SUSE, indeed, it's a useless tool, it's as easy to grab the NVIDIA-*.run from their site. So it is to me, to the OP, or probably almost everyone on this list.
The point is, spend some more time on #suse and you'll see the kind of issues we're trying to help people with.
IMO the most annoying things are, in no particular order: (1) no command-line (or trivial) way to add repositories (aka "installation sources") (2) adding repositories like Packman and mine to get a full-featured amarok, mplayer, etc... (3) installing the proprietary nvidia and ati drivers
While improvement is underway with (1)(rug doesn't do the trick, need something without zmd) and we probably can't do anything about (2) for the reasons we all know, tiny-nvidia-installer *is* helpful for (3).
Obviously, as Benjamin wrote in a previous mail of this thread, having KMPs is even better (if they are kept up-to-date with nvidia drivers, at least somewhat, and especially with kernel package releases from the online updates), no question.
But if the KMPs are not present or cannot be used, believe me, it's yet another problem to tell beginners where and how to get the .run file from nvidia, and tiny-nvidia-installer actually is pretty helpful wrt that.
The most annoying thing with the installation of nvidia's driver is having to switch to runlevel 3 though, by a large margin. Sounds easy ? Sure. But when people are on IRC with xchat, konversation, kopete or chatzilla and you're telling them what to do to install it, they have to quit their IRC client. So, what happens if anything goes wrong ? You can't guide them step-by-step anymore either. (maybe a simple command as a shell script that gets you to #suse on freenode with irssi would help ;))
Up to SUSE 9.3, the script used by the online update patch used some trickery to fool the nvidia driver installer - maybe that's still a good enough approach to make it easier.
I've started a shell script that checks prerequisites, warns/stops if X is running, pulls the latest nvidia driver from their website (works for 32bit and 64bit) and then runs the installer, but it sure needs more testing. Maybe it's even a good idea to make an RPM out of it, with Requires: make gcc glibc-devel kernel-source in it. http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/files/nvidia-installer.sh
Anyhow, John (the OP)'s point is that it is a real benefit of having it in the default selection, because it removes yet another (difficult) step for beginners.
But then again, maybe installing packages and adding repositories is still to complex in the first place. If that was trivial to do, even for beginners, it would make a lot of things easier.
cheers - --
Perhaps someone who cares and is capable can take this on if SuSE cannot, after all openSUSE is what it says. I don't know how useful this tool is, never heard of it until now and have never found a necessity to use anything from SuSE to install ATI or NVidia drivers. ATI script does something distro specific, but often doesn't work - I have had a kernel related problem that I reported to them 2 releases previous and it's still there. NVidia's stuff always works with their instructions and when you hit problems with kernel changes, patches are relatively swift arriving - running kernel 2.6.19-rc4 on x86 (10.2Beta1) and x86_64 (10.1) with NVIDIA-Linux-x86-1.0-9626-pkg1.run (Beta)+ patches. IMHO as NVidia does such a good job, there are far more pressing issues to be tackled by the openSUSE team. Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce ... Hamradio License G3VBV, Licensed Private Pilot Emeritus IBM/Amdahl Mainframes and Sun/Fujitsu Servers Tech Support Specialist, Cricket Coach Microsoft Windows Free Zone - Linux used for all Computing Tasks --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
Torsdag 02 november 2006 10:33 skrev Stefan Dirsch:
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 08:55:22AM -0000, B.Weber@warwick.ac.uk wrote:
I suspect it's unlikely packman would want to host these as they're dodgy both legally and morally. Only nvidia should have to take the risk. (Although no-one seems to have sued Debian and canonical yet)
Hmm. Sure that Debian/Ubuntu provides prebuilt NVIDIA packages?
I'm pretty sure packages exist for Ubuntu, although they might be 3rd party. I'm absolutely sure FC have them via the 3rd party ilvna repo: http://rpm.livna.org/fedora/6/i386/ The idea of Packman hosting the packages was presented before. I believe their hesitation was not so much fear of GPL violation. More a matter of (1) redistribution rights for Nvidia/ATi and (2) building the packages in the first place, iirc. I think the redistribution rights issue was cleared up, not sure about the building issue. Martin --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 03:17:53PM +0100, Martin Schlander wrote:
Torsdag 02 november 2006 10:33 skrev Stefan Dirsch:
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 08:55:22AM -0000, B.Weber@warwick.ac.uk wrote:
I suspect it's unlikely packman would want to host these as they're dodgy both legally and morally. Only nvidia should have to take the risk. (Although no-one seems to have sued Debian and canonical yet)
Hmm. Sure that Debian/Ubuntu provides prebuilt NVIDIA packages?
I'm pretty sure packages exist for Ubuntu, although they might be 3rd party. I'm absolutely sure FC have them via the 3rd party ilvna repo: http://rpm.livna.org/fedora/6/i386/
Ok.
The idea of Packman hosting the packages was presented before. I believe their hesitation was not so much fear of GPL violation. More a matter of (1) redistribution rights for Nvidia/ATi and (2) building the packages in the first place, iirc.
I think the redistribution rights issue was cleared up, not sure about the building issue.
Building should be pretty easy using the Source RPMs, e.g. use a *local* osc build. Best regards, Stefan Public Key available ------------------------------------------------------ Stefan Dirsch (Res. & Dev.) SUSE LINUX Products GmbH Tel: 0911-740 53 0 Maxfeldstraße 5 FAX: 0911-740 53 479 D-90409 Nürnberg http://www.suse.de Germany ------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 03:17:53PM +0100, Martin Schlander wrote:
Torsdag 02 november 2006 10:33 skrev Stefan Dirsch:
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 08:55:22AM -0000, B.Weber@warwick.ac.uk wrote:
I suspect it's unlikely packman would want to host these as they're dodgy both legally and morally. Only nvidia should have to take the risk. (Although no-one seems to have sued Debian and canonical yet)
Hmm. Sure that Debian/Ubuntu provides prebuilt NVIDIA packages?
I'm pretty sure packages exist for Ubuntu, although they might be 3rd party. I'm absolutely sure FC have them via the 3rd party ilvna repo: http://rpm.livna.org/fedora/6/i386/
Both of these are third party packages, Ubuntu was forced to stop shipping their pre-built packages a while ago for the obvious legal reasons. If anyone wants to take the legal risk on their own, sure, feel free to take it on. But good luck, some of us kernel developers take this kind of infringement quite seriously... thanks, greg k-h --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 03:17:53PM +0100, Martin Schlander wrote:
Torsdag 02 november 2006 10:33 skrev Stefan Dirsch:
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 08:55:22AM -0000, B.Weber@warwick.ac.uk wrote:
I suspect it's unlikely packman would want to host these as they're dodgy both legally and morally. Only nvidia should have to take the risk. (Although no-one seems to have sued Debian and canonical yet)
Hmm. Sure that Debian/Ubuntu provides prebuilt NVIDIA packages?
I'm pretty sure packages exist for Ubuntu, although they might be 3rd party. I'm absolutely sure FC have them via the 3rd party ilvna repo: http://rpm.livna.org/fedora/6/i386/
Both of these are third party packages, Ubuntu was forced to stop shipping their pre-built packages a while ago for the obvious legal reasons.
If anyone wants to take the legal risk on their own, sure, feel free to take it on.
But good luck, some of us kernel developers take this kind of infringement quite seriously...
Greg, thanks for threatening.
- --
-o) Pascal Bleser http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/
/\\
Greg KH wrote:
But good luck, some of us kernel developers take this kind of infringement quite seriously...
Explain that to the users, that needs their stuff working. and to all people that has to ask their questions. (visit #suse one day to figure what the reality is) But I agree this problem should be solved by Nvidia.
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 11:42:02PM +0100, Pascal Bleser wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 03:17:53PM +0100, Martin Schlander wrote:
Torsdag 02 november 2006 10:33 skrev Stefan Dirsch:
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 08:55:22AM -0000, B.Weber@warwick.ac.uk wrote:
I suspect it's unlikely packman would want to host these as they're dodgy both legally and morally. Only nvidia should have to take the risk. (Although no-one seems to have sued Debian and canonical yet)
Hmm. Sure that Debian/Ubuntu provides prebuilt NVIDIA packages?
I'm pretty sure packages exist for Ubuntu, although they might be 3rd party. I'm absolutely sure FC have them via the 3rd party ilvna repo: http://rpm.livna.org/fedora/6/i386/
Both of these are third party packages, Ubuntu was forced to stop shipping their pre-built packages a while ago for the obvious legal reasons.
If anyone wants to take the legal risk on their own, sure, feel free to take it on.
But good luck, some of us kernel developers take this kind of infringement quite seriously...
Greg, thanks for threatening.
How is the fact that I consider the distribution of a pre-built nvidia driver that links against my copyrighted GPL code a "threat" when it is others that are doing the illegal act? Am I supposed to just turn a blind eye to others who violate the license of the code that I release under the GPL? Would any closed-source company do the same if it was the other way around? So, why is it such a "bad" thing for us to protect our licenses? I've said all of this and more many times in the past, in public, it's not like no one knows where I stand on this issue :) thanks, greg k-h --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 07:46:51PM -0300, Cristian Rodriguez R. wrote:
Greg KH wrote:
But good luck, some of us kernel developers take this kind of infringement quite seriously...
Explain that to the users, that needs their stuff working. and to all people that has to ask their questions. (visit #suse one day to figure what the reality is)
I have explained this, many times in the past. See: http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/ols_2006_keynote.html for the last time I did. Oh, and would you expect to run hardware on another os (like AIX or MacOS X) that is specifically not supported by it? Why is that any different than Linux? Just buy stuff that works with the OS you choose to purchase, it's that simple.
But I agree this problem should be solved by Nvidia.
I agree, this is their problem, not ours. They know exactly what they must do to solve this issue, there is nothing that we can do. thanks, greg k-h --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 11:42:02PM +0100, Pascal Bleser wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 03:17:53PM +0100, Martin Schlander wrote:
Torsdag 02 november 2006 10:33 skrev Stefan Dirsch:
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 08:55:22AM -0000, B.Weber@warwick.ac.uk wrote:
I suspect it's unlikely packman would want to host these as they're dodgy both legally and morally. Only nvidia should have to take the risk. (Although no-one seems to have sued Debian and canonical yet) Hmm. Sure that Debian/Ubuntu provides prebuilt NVIDIA packages? I'm pretty sure packages exist for Ubuntu, although they might be 3rd party. I'm absolutely sure FC have them via the 3rd party ilvna repo: http://rpm.livna.org/fedora/6/i386/ Both of these are third party packages, Ubuntu was forced to stop shipping their pre-built packages a while ago for the obvious legal reasons.
If anyone wants to take the legal risk on their own, sure, feel free to take it on.
But good luck, some of us kernel developers take this kind of infringement quite seriously...
Greg, thanks for threatening.
How is the fact that I consider the distribution of a pre-built nvidia driver that links against my copyrighted GPL code a "threat" when it is others that are doing the illegal act?
No legal actions are been taken against nvidia, but you threaten a team of people who have been making packages for SUSE Linux since many years, in their free time. How cool is that.
Am I supposed to just turn a blind eye to others who violate the license of the code that I release under the GPL?
Tell that to nvidia. You know exactly that this is currently a totally grey zone. You are not suing nor being able to sort it out with nvidia for some reasons (although it's nvidia that should sort it out with you, no question) - maybe the right ones, maybe the wrong ones. You're not attacking them, but you're threatening to take legal action against a community project that provides packages of exactly the same thing ? Wow, you're my hero.
Would any closed-source company do the same if it was the other way around? So, why is it such a "bad" thing for us to protect our licenses?
Read above, you're simplifying the context. I'm not questioning the GPL nor the fact that it is your work and you put it under whatever license you want. I don't question either that it is perfectly fine that you enforce your rights under that license.
I've said all of this and more many times in the past, in public, it's not like no one knows where I stand on this issue :)
Sure.
- --
-o) Pascal Bleser http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/
/\\
On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 12:00:52AM +0100, Pascal Bleser wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 11:42:02PM +0100, Pascal Bleser wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 03:17:53PM +0100, Martin Schlander wrote:
Torsdag 02 november 2006 10:33 skrev Stefan Dirsch:
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 08:55:22AM -0000, B.Weber@warwick.ac.uk wrote: > I suspect it's unlikely packman would want to host these as they're dodgy > both legally and morally. Only nvidia should have to take the risk. > (Although no-one seems to have sued Debian and canonical yet) Hmm. Sure that Debian/Ubuntu provides prebuilt NVIDIA packages? I'm pretty sure packages exist for Ubuntu, although they might be 3rd party. I'm absolutely sure FC have them via the 3rd party ilvna repo: http://rpm.livna.org/fedora/6/i386/ Both of these are third party packages, Ubuntu was forced to stop shipping their pre-built packages a while ago for the obvious legal reasons.
If anyone wants to take the legal risk on their own, sure, feel free to take it on.
But good luck, some of us kernel developers take this kind of infringement quite seriously...
Greg, thanks for threatening.
How is the fact that I consider the distribution of a pre-built nvidia driver that links against my copyrighted GPL code a "threat" when it is others that are doing the illegal act?
No legal actions are been taken against nvidia, but you threaten a team of people who have been making packages for SUSE Linux since many years, in their free time. How cool is that.
How do you know that no legal action is being taken against nvidia? Why do you think that nvidia does not ship binary packages but makes the user build the package and link it together? Yes, there are some special cases where the package is pre-built, and some of us are working to address that issue. So don't think that just because you do not see anything happening in public, that it is not.
Am I supposed to just turn a blind eye to others who violate the license of the code that I release under the GPL?
Tell that to nvidia.
And I'm not? How do you know this? Have you asked anyone about it?
You know exactly that this is currently a totally grey zone.
No I do not. I do not know of a single IP lawyer that thinks it is a "grey zone", they all state that they do not know of any way that it would be possible to distribute a pre-built, closed source Linux driver in a legal manner. Do you know of others that think otherwise?
Wow, you're my hero.
Thanks, I'm glad someone is backing me up :)
Would any closed-source company do the same if it was the other way around? So, why is it such a "bad" thing for us to protect our licenses?
Read above, you're simplifying the context.
No I am not.
I'm not questioning the GPL nor the fact that it is your work and you put it under whatever license you want. I don't question either that it is perfectly fine that you enforce your rights under that license.
Great, then we have no objections and agree about this. thanks, greg k-h --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
Greg KH wrote:
I have explained this, many times in the past. See: http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/ols_2006_keynote.html for the last time I did.
I had read that notes a few months ago.
Just buy stuff that works with the OS you choose to purchase, it's that simple.
Unfortunately, the average user you help on IRC does not even have a clue how to open a console and type "init 3" and then explain them how to execute and install the nvidia bimnary installer is a real PITA. ( try yourself one day /join #suse) Users unfortunately does not care a shit about the legal or ethical points on this, if SUSE does not have a quick and **extremely easy** way to do this, they will simple switch to a distribution that is including the drivers or providing a simple tool to install them. or will go back to windows. for me, and probably to every member of this list, installing the binary driver aint a problem, but to the userbase this is a very seriuos showstopper.
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 08:31:22PM -0300, Cristian Rodriguez R. wrote:
Unfortunately, the average user you help on IRC does not even have a clue how to open a console and type "init 3" and then explain them how to execute and install the nvidia bimnary installer is a real PITA. ( try yourself one day /join #suse)
I know this, that's not the issue here at all.
Users unfortunately does not care a shit about the legal or ethical points on this, if SUSE does not have a quick and **extremely easy** way to do this, they will simple switch to a distribution that is including the drivers or providing a simple tool to install them. or will go back to windows.
for me, and probably to every member of this list, installing the binary driver aint a problem, but to the userbase this is a very seriuos showstopper.
Well, if we tell people _why_ we don't include it, explaining the legal and ethical issues surrounding it, that's the best we can do. If they want to switch to something else for such a stance, I'm not going to feel bad. In short, don't break the law just to appease some people who want you to do so. thanks, greg k-h --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
I agree, this is their problem, not ours. They know exactly what they must do to solve this issue, there is nothing that we can do.
Greg, are you calling on nVidia to GPL their driver code? If so, have you contacted them directly and is there a formal way in which members of the community can assist? -- James Ogley james@usr-local-bin.org http://usr-local-bin.org Packages for SUSE: http://usr-local-bin.org/rpms Help end poverty: http://oxfam.org.uk/imin --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
James Ogley wrote:
I agree, this is their problem, not ours. They know exactly what they must do to solve this issue, there is nothing that we can do.
Greg, are you calling on nVidia to GPL their driver code? If so, have you contacted them directly and is there a formal way in which members of the community can assist?
Back in 1998, NVidia forced the XFree86 developers to obfuscate their code and the situation has not improved till then. See the following post for the details: http://airlied.livejournal.com/2006/10/12/ Relicensing of the NVidia display driver code under the GPL is not going to happen (they may not own the code completely), but at least it would be nice if they didn't actively hinder development. Similar situation exists with ATI. Greg has repeatedly made clear that binary only kernel modules are a license violation. ATI/NVidia can't/don't want to open the sources of their drivers. So the only thing we can hope for is that the unavailability of binary only kernel modules will be painful enough to get more developers involved with the reverse engineered open source drivers. How can the community assist? * Test the open source graphics drivers and report bugs * Write HOWTOs for these drivers * Encourage/nudge NVidia/ATI to make specifications available to developers (optionally under NDA with source code release agreement) * (Developers only:) Help reverse engineering closed source drivers Most reverse engineering/driver development projects have only 2-5 developers although literally millions of people benefit from their work. For example, the NVidia nforce network driver (forcedeth) was created by three people (two for reverse engineering, one for writing the new driver) and I (as part of that team) would sometimes have killed to get feedback from more users. For the sake of such teams, get involved and help them as good as you can. Regards, Carl-Daniel --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 10:32:03AM +0100, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
James Ogley wrote:
I agree, this is their problem, not ours. They know exactly what they must do to solve this issue, there is nothing that we can do.
Greg, are you calling on nVidia to GPL their driver code? If so, have you contacted them directly and is there a formal way in which members of the community can assist?
Back in 1998, NVidia forced the XFree86 developers to obfuscate their code and the situation has not improved till then. See the following post for the details: http://airlied.livejournal.com/2006/10/12/
Relicensing of the NVidia display driver code under the GPL is not going to happen (they may not own the code completely), but at least it would be nice if they didn't actively hinder development. Similar situation exists with ATI.
Greg has repeatedly made clear that binary only kernel modules are a license violation. ATI/NVidia can't/don't want to open the sources of their drivers. So the only thing we can hope for is that the unavailability of binary only kernel modules will be painful enough to get more developers involved with the reverse engineered open source drivers.
How can the community assist? * Test the open source graphics drivers and report bugs * Write HOWTOs for these drivers * Encourage/nudge NVidia/ATI to make specifications available to developers (optionally under NDA with source code release agreement) * (Developers only:) Help reverse engineering closed source drivers
Most reverse engineering/driver development projects have only 2-5 developers although literally millions of people benefit from their work. For example, the NVidia nforce network driver (forcedeth) was created by three people (two for reverse engineering, one for writing the new driver) and I (as part of that team) would sometimes have killed to get feedback from more users. For the sake of such teams, get involved and help them as good as you can.
Thanks for heading this issue in a constructive direction. Could you add some pointers to the reversed engineer driver for NVIDIA GPUs? I possibly add it to 10.2 as optional driver for testing purposes. Best regards, Stefan Public Key available ------------------------------------------------------ Stefan Dirsch (Res. & Dev.) SUSE LINUX Products GmbH Tel: 0911-740 53 0 Maxfeldstraße 5 FAX: 0911-740 53 479 D-90409 Nürnberg http://www.suse.de Germany ------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
Stefan Dirsch wrote:
Thanks for heading this issue in a constructive direction. Could you add some pointers to the reversed engineer driver for NVIDIA GPUs? I possibly add it to 10.2 as optional driver for testing purposes.
http://nouveau.freedesktop.org/wiki/ is the main address. Excerpt from the status page: DRM: Responsable for memory management, it allows 2d(DDX) and 3d(DRI) drivers to coexist. Status: Seems to work. DDX: 2d driver Status: Xv is now working. Both XAA and EXA(new 2d acceleration architecture) are working. Both AGP and PCI-E cards work now. DRI: 3d driver Status: Does not compile. More info I got on irc.freenode.net#nouveau : basically, nouveau is the "nv" driver, with some bits in the kernel, and EXA.. Regards, Carl-Daniel --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
To address a point made earlier: Greg KH wrote:
Both of these are third party packages, Ubuntu was forced to stop shipping their pre-built packages a while ago for the obvious legal reasons.
That's not true at all (see http://packages.ubuntu.com/edgy/x11/nvidia-glx ). That is the package for the Edgy release, which was released just over a week ago. It's in the "Restricted" repository, officially supported and released by Ubuntu. These packs have never been stopped; always been there. In fact, their future intentionson getting these included by default are even stronger. See a spec for Feisty (the next version of Ubuntu) drafted by the Shuttleworth himself: https://features.launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+spec/accelerated-x All to fit into the plan of getting Beryl installed by default on feisty. Regards, Francis Giannaros (apokryphos)
On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 01:22:30PM +0100, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
Stefan Dirsch wrote:
Thanks for heading this issue in a constructive direction. Could you add some pointers to the reversed engineer driver for NVIDIA GPUs? I possibly add it to 10.2 as optional driver for testing purposes.
http://nouveau.freedesktop.org/wiki/ is the main address.
Excerpt from the status page: DRM: Responsable for memory management, it allows 2d(DDX) and 3d(DRI) drivers to coexist. Status: Seems to work. DDX: 2d driver Status: Xv is now working. Both XAA and EXA(new 2d acceleration architecture) are working. Both AGP and PCI-E cards work now. DRI: 3d driver Status: Does not compile.
More info I got on irc.freenode.net#nouveau : basically, nouveau is the "nv" driver, with some bits in the kernel, and EXA..
Thanks! See bug #217736. Best, Stefan Public Key available ------------------------------------------------------ Stefan Dirsch (Res. & Dev.) SUSE LINUX Products GmbH Tel: 0911-740 53 0 Maxfeldstraße 5 FAX: 0911-740 53 479 D-90409 Nürnberg http://www.suse.de Germany ------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 12:55:50PM +0000, Francis Giannaros wrote:
To address a point made earlier:
Greg KH wrote:
Both of these are third party packages, Ubuntu was forced to stop shipping their pre-built packages a while ago for the obvious legal reasons.
That's not true at all (see http://packages.ubuntu.com/edgy/x11/nvidia-glx ). That is the package for the Edgy release, which was released just over a week ago. It's in the "Restricted" repository, officially supported and released by Ubuntu. These packs have never been stopped; always been there.
That's not the kernel driver, only the Xorg drivers, as per the list of the files contained in this package: http://packages.ubuntu.com/cgi-bin/search_contents.pl?searchmode=filelist&word=nvidia-glx&version=edgy&arch=i386 so I don't have a problem with them being distributed. From what I remember, Ubuntu gets around this whole issue by downloading the files from somewhere and then having the user (through an automatic script) build the kernel driver and do the linking on their own. That way they don't violate the GPL, and push the violation onto the user (if the user happens to redistribute the binary). So no, Ubuntu does not ship the pre-built kernel driver, unless you can find it somewhere else on their site.
In fact, their future intentionson getting these included by default are even stronger. See a spec for Feisty (the next version of Ubuntu) drafted by the Shuttleworth himself: https://features.launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+spec/accelerated-x
Yes, I've been talking with the Ubuntu developers about this. And they too are working to get opensource drivers for these devices. See the magic wording on that page: For those vendors which have proprietary drivers that enable acceleration, we will consider enabling those drivers by default if they can provide us with an SLA for security and related updates. That does much of what Novell currently does with Nvidia. Novell pushes all of the burden of support, distribution, and legal issues onto Nvidia. So again, Ubuntu is moving toward the same situation that Novell currently has. And that's fine with me. thanks, greg k-h --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
That does much of what Novell currently does with Nvidia. Novell pushes all of the burden of support, distribution, and legal issues onto Nvidia.
Which brings us back to the question of what Novell's position is for openSUSE compared with their position for SLE.
So again, Ubuntu is moving toward the same situation that Novell currently has. And that's fine with me.
Well the problem was no-one knows what Novell's position is for openSUSE, It would be nice to know. If the position is "We will tolerate binary modules for enterprise customers, but not for openSUSE users" which it seems to be, then at least we would know where we stand. For what it is worth I agree with your assessment of the legality and morality, but this does not explain Novell/Nvidia's seemingly differing official position for different products. _ Benjamin Weber --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 05:24:48PM -0000, B.Weber@warwick.ac.uk wrote:
That does much of what Novell currently does with Nvidia. Novell pushes all of the burden of support, distribution, and legal issues onto Nvidia.
Which brings us back to the question of what Novell's position is for openSUSE compared with their position for SLE.
I do not know this, hopefully someone from the OpenSuSE project can make this statement (note that this is not me...) thanks, greg k-h --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Thursday 2006-11-02 at 22:07 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 08:31:22PM -0300, Cristian Rodriguez R. wrote:
Users unfortunately does not care a shit about the legal or ethical points on this, if SUSE does not have a quick and **extremely easy** way to do this, they will simple switch to a distribution that is including the drivers or providing a simple tool to install them. or will go back to windows.
for me, and probably to every member of this list, installing the binary driver aint a problem, but to the userbase this is a very seriuos showstopper.
Well, if we tell people _why_ we don't include it, explaining the legal and ethical issues surrounding it, that's the best we can do. If they want to switch to something else for such a stance, I'm not going to feel bad.
In short, don't break the law just to appease some people who want you to do so.
I have friends that want to try linux, and they do, sometimes. They want everything to work by click click. If something needs to be installed, it's got to be with the mouse, windows install style. They don't care about licenses. I have tried to explain why, for instance, multimedia does not work: useless. Blah, blah, blah. They just want it to work, no matter how. They don't even read the license, they just ckick enter, yes, or whatever button needs to be pressed to continue. Even if they paused to glance at it for a moment, when they see it is in English, they move on, because they can't read it. And if it doesn't work, perhaps they blame me (or you) and reformat, and reinstall. Perhaps you don't care much about those users, but if you want to make linux have a greater share, you should. You don't need to convince me. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFFTKDxtTMYHG2NR9URAhdiAJ9jO9oUysXFecSInKFKZte4b6eldQCffXcw A7SZmqkD9e0myb7JkRD7/GE= =RIGS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 03:17:15PM +0100, Carlos E. R. wrote:
The Thursday 2006-11-02 at 22:07 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 08:31:22PM -0300, Cristian Rodriguez R. wrote:
Users unfortunately does not care a shit about the legal or ethical points on this, if SUSE does not have a quick and **extremely easy** way to do this, they will simple switch to a distribution that is including the drivers or providing a simple tool to install them. or will go back to windows.
for me, and probably to every member of this list, installing the binary driver aint a problem, but to the userbase this is a very seriuos showstopper.
Well, if we tell people _why_ we don't include it, explaining the legal and ethical issues surrounding it, that's the best we can do. If they want to switch to something else for such a stance, I'm not going to feel bad.
In short, don't break the law just to appease some people who want you to do so.
I have friends that want to try linux, and they do, sometimes. They want everything to work by click click. If something needs to be installed, it's got to be with the mouse, windows install style. They don't care about licenses. I have tried to explain why, for instance, multimedia does not work: useless. Blah, blah, blah. They just want it to work, no matter how.
"no matter how" isn't good enough, sorry. I'm not going to compromise my legal rights, and my morals for such an argument. And I would certianly hope that no one else would either. That's just sad. And a company can not just ignore the legal aspects of the world either, no matter how "inconvient" it might be, that's insane. greg k-h --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
On Friday 03 November 2006 16:29, Greg KH wrote:
That's not the kernel driver, only the Xorg drivers, as per the list of the files contained in this package: http://packages.ubuntu.com/cgi-bin/search_contents.pl?searchmode=filelist& word=nvidia-glx&version=edgy&arch=i386
so I don't have a problem with them being distributed.
I see. What of http://packages.ubuntu.com/edgy/misc/nvidia-kernel-source ?
From what I remember, Ubuntu gets around this whole issue by downloading the files from somewhere and then having the user (through an automatic script) build the kernel driver and do the linking on their own. That way they don't violate the GPL, and push the violation onto the user (if the user happens to redistribute the binary).
Perhaps I should speak to people since it seems my memory is playing up on me, but I can't remember doing anything but running sed on xorg.conf s/nv/nvidia/. Looking at the guide now I see it tells you to run nvidia-glx-config enable -- would it really be contained in there? If so, that's a remarkably tidy way of getting around such a thing, and I can't imagine why other distributions wouldn't adopt it too (like SUSE).
So again, Ubuntu is moving toward the same situation that Novell currently has. And that's fine with me.
I see; will be interesting to see how this turns out. Regards, Francis.
Carlos E. R. wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
The Thursday 2006-11-02 at 22:07 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 08:31:22PM -0300, Cristian Rodriguez R. wrote:
Users unfortunately does not care a shit about the legal or ethical points on this, if SUSE does not have a quick and **extremely easy** way to do this, they will simple switch to a distribution that is including the drivers or providing a simple tool to install them. or will go back to windows.
for me, and probably to every member of this list, installing the binary driver aint a problem, but to the userbase this is a very seriuos showstopper. Well, if we tell people _why_ we don't include it, explaining the legal and ethical issues surrounding it, that's the best we can do. If they want to switch to something else for such a stance, I'm not going to feel bad.
In short, don't break the law just to appease some people who want you to do so.
I have friends that want to try linux, and they do, sometimes. They want everything to work by click click. If something needs to be installed, it's got to be with the mouse, windows install style. They don't care about licenses. I have tried to explain why, for instance, multimedia does not work: useless. Blah, blah, blah. They just want it to work, no matter how.
They don't even read the license, they just ckick enter, yes, or whatever button needs to be pressed to continue. Even if they paused to glance at it for a moment, when they see it is in English, they move on, because they can't read it.
And if it doesn't work, perhaps they blame me (or you) and reformat, and reinstall.
Perhaps you don't care much about those users, but if you want to make linux have a greater share, you should.
You don't need to convince me.
- -- Cheers, Carlos E. R.
These guys sound like they are at the ages where learning becomes difficult for some and change becomes even more difficult. It's much easier to reformat and reinstall because that's what they are accustomed to. It reminds me of some of my once colleagues who would tell you they have no problems with Windows when Linux was mentioned and later tell you of all the problems they experienced with Windows, or as one colleague told me, he would go into the office and see a guy who seemed to be really getting stuck into work, only to find when you get near him, he'd be muttering "It's not supposed to do that", "I thought I had saved that". The rest of us just get on and learn whatever is necessary. I bet when it comes to coping with Vista, they will rise to the occasion simply because they are forced to and they won't blame Microsoft for anything. Evolution looks like it will eventually produce computer users with just enough fingers to operate a mouse and typing will be restricted to clicking characters on a virtual keyboard. Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce ... Hamradio License G3VBV, Licensed Private Pilot Emeritus IBM/Amdahl Mainframes and Sun/Fujitsu Servers Tech Support Specialist, Cricket Coach Microsoft Windows Free Zone - Linux used for all Computing Tasks --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Saturday 2006-11-04 at 10:36 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 03:17:15PM +0100, Carlos E. R. wrote:
I have friends that want to try linux, and they do, sometimes. They want everything to work by click click. If something needs to be installed, it's got to be with the mouse, windows install style. They don't care about licenses. I have tried to explain why, for instance, multimedia does not work: useless. Blah, blah, blah. They just want it to work, no matter how.
"no matter how" isn't good enough, sorry. I'm not going to compromise my legal rights, and my morals for such an argument.
And I would certianly hope that no one else would either.
That's just sad.
And a company can not just ignore the legal aspects of the world either, no matter how "inconvient" it might be, that's insane.
You don't have to convince me. In fact, I try to convince them, but I can't. That's the way it is, sad or not. You have to be aware that there are many people like that. You could start by putting the licenses in our languages - they would not read it anyway, but they would have less excuses. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFFTedTtTMYHG2NR9URAu2oAKCH0ui52iX9siWA0qBiwIKaacMXhACfbCGq oRdSrE/vj0a+gQ76oSCyj6c= =EyJD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
On Sunday 05 November 2006 14:29, Carlos E. R. wrote:
You could start by putting the licenses in our languages - they would not read it anyway, but they would have less excuses.
SUSE Linux 10.1 Acuerdo de licencia de Software de Novell is already there. Have you looked at the dropdown list on the license page? You can select the language there --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Sunday 2006-11-05 at 14:37 +0100, Anders Johansson wrote:
On Sunday 05 November 2006 14:29, Carlos E. R. wrote:
You could start by putting the licenses in our languages - they would not read it anyway, but they would have less excuses.
SUSE Linux 10.1 Acuerdo de licencia de Software de Novell
is already there. Have you looked at the dropdown list on the license page?
Yes, I know novell's license is there, the one that is obscure and "anti-gpl". How about the GPL itself, included in every package? - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFFTfNztTMYHG2NR9URAh3VAJ9yfEzS5uJSXvK8wIqFKr2vTpdAIgCfb5PX Ydo+hZg8WZFkmR4rxyDDjkQ= =QkAq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 10:12:31PM +0000, Francis Giannaros wrote:
On Friday 03 November 2006 16:29, Greg KH wrote:
That's not the kernel driver, only the Xorg drivers, as per the list of the files contained in this package: http://packages.ubuntu.com/cgi-bin/search_contents.pl?searchmode=filelist& word=nvidia-glx&version=edgy&arch=i386
so I don't have a problem with them being distributed.
I see. What of http://packages.ubuntu.com/edgy/misc/nvidia-kernel-source ?
That's just the source code for the module, you have to install it and build it yourself. It is the end result of that action that is not able to be distributed under the GPL. This is how Ubuntu handles the issue with this driver, a legal solution, but not the nicest :) thanks, greg k-h --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
On Sunday 05 November 2006 16:06, you wrote:
On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 10:12:31PM +0000, Francis Giannaros wrote:
On Friday 03 November 2006 16:29, Greg KH wrote:
That's not the kernel driver, only the Xorg drivers, as per the list of the files contained in this package: http://packages.ubuntu.com/cgi-bin/search_contents.pl?searchmode=filel ist& word=nvidia-glx&version=edgy&arch=i386
so I don't have a problem with them being distributed.
I see. What of http://packages.ubuntu.com/edgy/misc/nvidia-kernel-source ?
That's just the source code for the module, you have to install it and build it yourself. It is the end result of that action that is not able to be distributed under the GPL.
This is how Ubuntu handles the issue with this driver, a legal solution, but not the nicest :)
Just for the record this isn't the only, nor the widest used method. As I didn't notice before, the linux-restricted-modules is used. All a user has to do, from their point of view, is install that package and then install nvidia-glx (and alter xorg.conf) and they're good to go. Seems the tidiest way I've seen to do it. Regards, Francis.
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 05:11:58PM +0100, Stefan Dirsch wrote:
The idea of Packman hosting the packages was presented before. I believe their hesitation was not so much fear of GPL violation. More a matter of (1) redistribution rights for Nvidia/ATi and (2) building the packages in the first place, iirc.
I think the redistribution rights issue was cleared up, not sure about the building issue.
Building should be pretty easy using the Source RPMs, e.g. use a *local* osc build.
X11:Drivers:Video:fglrx/ati-fglrx X11:Drivers:Video:nvidia/nvidia-gfx X11:Drivers:Video:nvidia/nvidia-gfx-beta Available build reps (disabled for obvious reasons) SLE_10 (i586/x86_64) SLE_10_XORG7 (i586/x86_64) SUSE_Factory (i586/x86_64) Check README for building. Best regards, Stefan Public Key available ------------------------------------------------------ Stefan Dirsch (Res. & Dev.) SUSE LINUX Products GmbH Tel: 0911-740 53 0 Maxfeldstraße 5 FAX: 0911-740 53 479 D-90409 Nürnberg http://www.suse.de Germany ------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
On Sat, Nov 11, 2006 at 03:56:47PM +0100, Stefan Dirsch wrote:
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 05:11:58PM +0100, Stefan Dirsch wrote:
The idea of Packman hosting the packages was presented before. I believe their hesitation was not so much fear of GPL violation. More a matter of (1) redistribution rights for Nvidia/ATi and (2) building the packages in the first place, iirc.
I think the redistribution rights issue was cleared up, not sure about the building issue.
Building should be pretty easy using the Source RPMs, e.g. use a *local* osc build.
X11:Drivers:Video:nvidia/nvidia-gfx
RPMs (kmp packages) for openSUSE 10.2 are finally available. Add this YUM repository as additional installation source: http://download.nvidia.com/opensuse/10.2 Best regards, Stefan Public Key available ------------------------------------------------------ Stefan Dirsch (Res. & Dev.) SUSE LINUX Products GmbH Tel: 0911-740 53 0 Maxfeldstraße 5 FAX: 0911-740 53 479 D-90409 Nürnberg http://www.suse.de Germany ------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
On Sat, Nov 11, 2006 at 03:56:47PM +0100, Stefan Dirsch wrote:
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 05:11:58PM +0100, Stefan Dirsch wrote:
The idea of Packman hosting the packages was presented before. I believe their hesitation was not so much fear of GPL violation. More a matter of (1) redistribution rights for Nvidia/ATi and (2) building the packages in the first place, iirc.
I think the redistribution rights issue was cleared up, not sure about the building issue.
Building should be pretty easy using the Source RPMs, e.g. use a *local* osc build.
X11:Drivers:Video:fglrx/ati-fglrx
RPMs (kmp packages) for openSUSE 10.2 are finally available. Add this YUM repository as additional installation source: http://www2.ati.com/suse/10.2 See also http://www.suse.de/~sndirsch/ati-installer-HOWTO.html for instructions. Best regards, Stefan Public Key available ------------------------------------------------------ Stefan Dirsch (Res. & Dev.) SUSE LINUX Products GmbH Tel: 0911-740 53 0 Maxfeldstraße 5 FAX: 0911-740 53 479 D-90409 Nürnberg http://www.suse.de Germany ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) ----------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 12:17:41PM +0100, Stefan Dirsch wrote:
RPMs (kmp packages) for openSUSE 10.2 are finally available. Add this
BTW: I'd be interested to know the reason for renaming these packages in the build server every other day? Robert -- Robert Schiele Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker mailto:rschiele@gmail.com "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 12:31:08PM +0100, Robert Schiele wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 12:17:41PM +0100, Stefan Dirsch wrote:
RPMs (kmp packages) for openSUSE 10.2 are finally available. Add this
BTW: I'd be interested to know the reason for renaming these packages in the build server every other day?
This shouldn't happen any more. :-) Didn't know that actually anyone uses the sources for rebuilding the packages, since I've got exactly zero feedback for them up to now. So it seems they are not completely useless, which is good news, but still news. The next driver, which drops support for "legacy" chipsets will get the suffix G02. Hope this helps. Best regards, Stefan Public Key available ------------------------------------------------------ Stefan Dirsch (Res. & Dev.) SUSE LINUX Products GmbH Tel: 0911-740 53 0 Maxfeldstraße 5 FAX: 0911-740 53 479 D-90409 Nürnberg http://www.suse.de Germany ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) ----------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 01:23:53PM +0100, Stefan Dirsch wrote:
This shouldn't happen any more. :-)
So you mean this is somehow like: if (res == -1) { fprintf(stderr, "This should never happen!\n"); exit(1); } ;-)
Didn't know that actually anyone uses the sources for rebuilding the packages, since I've got exactly zero feedback for them up to now. So it seems they are not completely useless, which is good news, but still news.
Well, if you want to run these drivers on a system with current factory packages you actually _have_ to rebuild them.
The next driver, which drops support for "legacy" chipsets will get the suffix G02. Hope this helps.
Ok, thus this basically means that everytime the name changes one has to take care that the new version still supports the specific chipset used where this should not be a problem as long as the name does not change? Does that also mean that you will keep the old version on the build service as well when this does happen? Robert -- Robert Schiele Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker mailto:rschiele@gmail.com "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Stefan Dirsch schreef:
On Sat, Nov 11, 2006 at 03:56:47PM +0100, Stefan Dirsch wrote:
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 05:11:58PM +0100, Stefan Dirsch wrote:
The idea of Packman hosting the packages was presented before. I believe their hesitation was not so much fear of GPL violation. More a matter of (1) redistribution rights for Nvidia/ATi and (2) building the packages in the first place, iirc.
I think the redistribution rights issue was cleared up, not sure about the building issue. Building should be pretty easy using the Source RPMs, e.g. use a *local* osc build. X11:Drivers:Video:fglrx/ati-fglrx
RPMs (kmp packages) for openSUSE 10.2 are finally available. Add this YUM repository as additional installation source:
See also
http://www.suse.de/~sndirsch/ati-installer-HOWTO.html
for instructions.
Best regards, Stefan
The drivers do not install on 10.2 x86_64. I just tried with YaST2, following the instruction given in the above url. There is a notice immediately before installing that the installation failed, this goes for both parts of the driver... A lot of activity went on for a while, but than the linker cache did not get rebuild, so nothing was installed actualy. Try again did not work... Subprocess failed. Error: RPM failed: - --- - -?- was the message in the window.... Shame, i was realy hoping for working 3D acceleration... :-( - -- Have a nice day, M9. Now, is the only time that exists. OS: Linux 2.6.18.2-34-default x86_64 Huidige gebruiker: monkey9@tribal-sfn2 Systeem: openSUSE 10.2 (X86-64) KDE: 3.5.5 "release 45" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFF0w/NX5/X5X6LpDgRAlkGAJ4yfdlMD+WQ95pZvQhS2KRfE0xoygCfeFip iO+mUC9y/0xtB5VLBx0sP1g= =HUPr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 01:45:09PM +0100, Robert Schiele wrote:
The next driver, which drops support for "legacy" chipsets will get the suffix G02. Hope this helps.
Ok, thus this basically means that everytime the name changes one has to take care that the new version still supports the specific chipset used where this should not be a problem as long as the name does not change?
Exactly. You could figure out with the RPM supplements (modalias list), which devices are supported by the driver package. BTW, anyone who knows how to show the Supplements in an RPM?
Does that also mean that you will keep the old version on the build service as well when this does happen?
Yes. Best regards, Stefan Public Key available ------------------------------------------------------ Stefan Dirsch (Res. & Dev.) SUSE LINUX Products GmbH Tel: 0911-740 53 0 Maxfeldstraße 5 FAX: 0911-740 53 479 D-90409 Nürnberg http://www.suse.de Germany ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) ----------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 02:44:15PM +0100, Stefan Dirsch wrote:
Exactly. You could figure out with the RPM supplements (modalias list), which devices are supported by the driver package. BTW, anyone who knows how to show the Supplements in an RPM?
I'd suggest using the parameter "--supplements". ;-) Robert -- Robert Schiele Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker mailto:rschiele@gmail.com "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 03:03:52PM +0100, Robert Schiele wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 02:44:15PM +0100, Stefan Dirsch wrote:
Exactly. You could figure out with the RPM supplements (modalias list), which devices are supported by the driver package. BTW, anyone who knows how to show the Supplements in an RPM?
I'd suggest using the parameter "--supplements". ;-)
Thanke. My fault. I only searched in the manual page for such an option. I should have also used "rpm --help". Shame on me. Best regards, Stefan Public Key available ------------------------------------------------------ Stefan Dirsch (Res. & Dev.) SUSE LINUX Products GmbH Tel: 0911-740 53 0 Maxfeldstraße 5 FAX: 0911-740 53 479 D-90409 Nürnberg http://www.suse.de Germany ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) ----------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 M9. schreef:
Stefan Dirsch schreef:
On Sat, Nov 11, 2006 at 03:56:47PM +0100, Stefan Dirsch wrote:
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 05:11:58PM +0100, Stefan Dirsch wrote:
The idea of Packman hosting the packages was presented before. I believe their hesitation was not so much fear of GPL violation. More a matter of (1) redistribution rights for Nvidia/ATi and (2) building the packages in the first place, iirc.
I think the redistribution rights issue was cleared up, not sure about the building issue. Building should be pretty easy using the Source RPMs, e.g. use a *local* osc build. X11:Drivers:Video:fglrx/ati-fglrx RPMs (kmp packages) for openSUSE 10.2 are finally available. Add this YUM repository as additional installation source:
See also
for instructions.
Best regards, Stefan
The drivers do not install on 10.2 x86_64. I just tried with YaST2, following the instruction given in the above url. There is a notice immediately before installing that the installation failed, this goes for both parts of the driver... A lot of activity went on for a while, but than the linker cache did not get rebuild, so nothing was installed actualy. Try again did not work...
Subprocess failed. Error: RPM failed:
--- -?-
was the message in the window....
Shame, i was realy hoping for working 3D acceleration... :-(
After trying again, and also installing the debug pkg, kerneldebug was added to fullfill dependencies. Now the install was allright, an Ati icon appeared in the kick-off menu, but that does not work: Commando 'fireglcontrolpanel ' is niet gevonden. (command " not found) Sax showed 3D acceleration supported. 3D games work, but too slow.. After a few times restartx (new session) the 3d games worked allright.. So finaly! Hope the 3D desktop will work now also... - -- Have a nice day, M9. Now, is the only time that exists. OS: Linux 2.6.18.2-34-default x86_64 Huidige gebruiker: monkey9@tribal-sfn2 Systeem: openSUSE 10.2 (X86-64) KDE: 3.5.5 "release 45" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFF0yc3X5/X5X6LpDgRAkP6AJ931eBDy4UUAWvyxGiGPbY2nxkIZACfYva1 kUtkYcA4iSMr/nlUcVQlvzk= =LCCA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
participants (15)
-
Anders Johansson -
B.Weber＠warwick.ac.uk -
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger -
Carlos E. R. -
Cristian Rodriguez R. -
Francis Giannaros -
Greg KH -
James Ogley -
Jonh Arson -
M9. -
Martin Schlander -
Pascal Bleser -
Robert Schiele -
Sid Boyce -
Stefan Dirsch