January 2010

[opensuse-packaging] Help packaging a new app using vala
by Luis Medinas 21 Jan '10

21 Jan '10

Hi I'm having some trouble building Tracker a desktop neutral application. Build fails with the following message: I: A function uses a 'return;' statement, but has actually a value to return, like an integer ('return 42;') or similar. W: tracker voidreturn tracker-turtle-reader.c:307 I: Program returns random data in a function E: tracker no-return-in-nonvoid-function tracker-sparql-query.c:884, 4775, 5430, 8305, 1197 E: tracker no-return-in-nonvoid-function tracker-turtle-reader.c:460 … [View More]

5 10

[opensuse-packaging] using gcc-45 in building a package on factory in opensuse buildservice
by Paul Elliott 20 Jan '10

20 Jan '10

I want to use gcc-4.5 that has been put into opensuse-factory to build a package. by changeing the line BuildRequires: gcc-c++ to BuildRequires: gcc45-c++ I was able to cause gcc45 to be loaded by opensuse-buildservice. But the ./configure step says there is no c++ compiler: checking for i686-pc-linux-gnu-g++... no checking for i686-pc-linux-gnu-c++... no checking for i686-pc-linux-gnu-gpp... no checking for i686-pc-linux-gnu-aCC... no checking for i686-pc-linux-gnu-CC... no checking … [View More]

6 7

Re: [opensuse-packaging] is ghostscript able to be updated to 8.70 was GPL v3 question
by Marcus Meissner 20 Jan '10

20 Jan '10

On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 07:17:17AM +0200, Dave Plater wrote: > On 01/16/2010 03:48 PM, Marcus Meissner wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 03:33:28PM +0200, Dave Plater wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 02:20:13PM +0200, Dave Plater wrote: > >> > >> > >>>> Hi, I've come across my first license problem with ghostscript-8.70, it > >>>> has switched to GPL v3. There are a lot of packages that depend on > >&… [View More]gt;>> ghostscript, lilypond being one and apparently TeXLive sub packages. How > >>>> are problems like this resolved. Having an old ghostscript version isn't > >>>> good for attracting people to the distro. I'm totally in the dark about > >>>> these things but as a packager I need to know about them. > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> As long as the program calls "gs" via system it is just use and does > >> not impose license requirements the calling programs. > >> > >> Most of those programs do it that way. > >> > >> I am not aware that ghostscript exposes libraries? > >> > >> > >>>> I am not aware that ghostscript exposes libraries? > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> Yes, it does -lgs and -lijs, package ghostscript-library > >> > >> The above is added for the factory list > >> > >> This post follows :- > >> > >> I have a complete gs-8.70 package waiting to be submitted but what > >> happens in a case like this? Is ghostscript doomed to packman or even > >> worse out of linux altogether or is there a way of sorting this issue > >> out. Fedora already has gs-8.70, maybe they overlooked the fact that the > >> license had changed. It would take a few linux distros to make the > >> ghostscript people change back to v2. > >> List of affected files, I can find :- > >> Uses gs_lib : capi4hylafax, hylafax > >> > > Those will just call the binary, so it is "use". > > > > > >> Uses pstoraster : gutenprint > >> > > same. > > > > > >> Uses libgs.so : foomatic-filters, libspectre1 > >> Uses libijs.so: gutenprint > >> > > foomatic-filters is GPLv2 or later (so I think it can use GPLv3 libraries). > > libspectre same. > > gutenprint same. > > > > I will try to find a verbal statement from our license guys next week, but > > to my not so trained eyes it looks fine to do. > > > > Ciao, Marcus > > > > > I've done some research and gnu.org has a chart which states that GPLv2 > only, take note they specify only so I'm not sure if the license needs > to state only, is incompatible with any GPLv3 or LGPLv3 license. > Libspectre is fine because it has a statement in it's README that says > "GPLv2 or later" which is compatible. Foomatic-filters on the other hand > doesn't state anything other than "copyright (C) 1994, 1995, 1996, 1999, > 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005 Free Software Foundation, Inc." and has a > copy of GPLv2, so whether this implies later or only is something for > the legal department. Looking at the chart GPLv2 only isn't 100% > compatible with any other license. Foomatic-filters cannot exist without > libgs so if there is a problem they need to address it. > Regards > Dave P The sources of foomatic-filters have a copy of COPYING as only indication of its license. This COPYING file suggests "GPL v2 or later" and as the individual sources files do not have copyright headers this mentioning applies. The author should put COPYING headers as suggested in his .c and .h files of course. foomatic-filters has: License: GPL v2 or later in its RPM header. This also matches the internal license scan results. I talked to our license guys and for "GPL v2 or later" using gs in GPL v3 mode is fine. If those in turn provide libraries, they are however GPL v3 after compilation. So foomatic-filters is fine to use with the libgs library. Ciao, Marcus -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help(a)opensuse.org [View Less]

3 9

Re: [opensuse-factory] Re: [opensuse-packaging] is ghostscript able to be updated to 8.70 was GPL v3 question
by Greg KH 19 Jan '10

19 Jan '10

On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 03:07:06PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Juergen Weigert <jw(a)suse.de> wrote: > > > The cases where upstream exploited GPLv2 / GPLv3 incompatibilities on > > purpose are very rare, luckily. > > The incompatibility is often avoided by licensing under "GPLv2 or GPLv3 at > > your choice", which is perfect for the needs of a distributor. > > There are a lot of project that use "GPLv2 onnly" and there are a lot of > projects … [View More]

1 0

Re: [opensuse-factory] Re: [opensuse-packaging] is ghostscript able to be updated to 8.70 was GPL v3 question
by Juergen Weigert 19 Jan '10

19 Jan '10

On Jan 19, 10 11:51:45 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Dave Plater <dplater(a)webafrica.org.za> wrote: > > There's one aspect of ghostscript-8.70 that I don't quite know what to > > put in the License: part ghostscript-omni is built from Omni which is > > LGPLv2.1 or later. The gnu chart states that one is allowed to convert > > LGPLv2.1 or later into GPLv3 and from that I would understand that > > either all references to LGPLv2.1 must be removed or it's … [View More]

1 0

Re: [opensuse-factory] Re: [opensuse-packaging] is ghostscript able to be updated to 8.70 was GPL v3 question
by Juergen Weigert 19 Jan '10

19 Jan '10

On Jan 19, 10 11:30:00 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Dave Plater <davejplater(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > the legal department. Looking at the chart GPLv2 only isn't 100% > > compatible with any other license. Foomatic-filters cannot exist without > > libgs so if there is a problem they need to address it. > > Not only GPLv2 is incompatible with any other licenses, GPLv3 is also > incompatible even with GPLv2. I expect a lot of trouble for distributors &… [View More]

1 0

Re: [opensuse-factory] Re: [opensuse-packaging] is ghostscript able to be updated to 8.70 was GPL v3 question
by Petr Baudis 19 Jan '10

19 Jan '10

On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 12:19:50PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Dave Plater <davejplater(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > If they add "or later" to their licensing statement their problem dissapears, I've noticed that the top of the chart in gnu.orgs faq only > > has a column for GPLv3 or later and LGPLv3 or later. Omni's license is LGPLv2.1 or later and it is included in the build of the ghostscript > > (GPLv3) package's ghostscript-omni, what do I put in the spec … [View More]

1 0

[opensuse-packaging] Re: One step back with devel projects
by Stephan Kulow 19 Jan '10

19 Jan '10

Hi, As I no longer have the original thread in my mail folder, I'm hoping you take a link to the archive :) http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-packaging/2009-09/msg00156.html As discussed last year, openSUSE: is reserved for "official" repos, so adrian created devel:openSUSE:Factory and it's free for all packages whose maintainers do not feel their package as fit into any of the other devel projects. This project is different to the other devel projects: - it has no topic, the only thing … [View More]

3 7

Re: [opensuse-factory] Re: [opensuse-packaging] is ghostscript able to be updated to 8.70 was GPL v3 question
by Dave Plater 19 Jan '10

19 Jan '10

On 01/19/2010 12:30 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Dave Plater <davejplater(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> the legal department. Looking at the chart GPLv2 only isn't 100% >> compatible with any other license. Foomatic-filters cannot exist without >> libgs so if there is a problem they need to address it. > > Not only GPLv2 is incompatible with any other licenses, GPLv3 is also > incompatible even with GPLv2. I expect a lot of trouble for distributors > in … [View More]

1 0

[opensuse-packaging] OSB - build crashes w/ mesa 64 but not with mesa 32bit
by Tobias Burnus 18 Jan '10

18 Jan '10

Hello all, I have a problem with using Mesa's glLightfv with the 64bit version of Mesa, it works with mesa-32bit on x86-64. It happens with XCrySDen ( http://software.opensuse.org/search?baseproject=ALL&p=1&q=xcrysden ) which crashes with the x86_64 rpm but works with the i586 one. I am seeking an opinion to whom (xcrysden, mesa, mesa@ bugzilla.n.c) I should report the bug and how to diagnose it further. The code in question fails on x86-64 openSUSE Factory with /usr/bin/xcrysden: … [View More]

2 1

Main

Development

Information

Community

Social Media

Other

openSUSE Packaging