1 |
Chris White wrote: |
2 |
> On Friday 01 September 2006 14:47, Jakub Moc wrote: |
3 |
>> Yeah, that's the previous fork that's been package.masked recently |
4 |
>> (homepage returns nifty internal server error now, we sure can expect a |
5 |
>> rapid development there). |
6 |
> |
7 |
> Hey ruby's had their entire server down for 2 days! We sure can expect rapid |
8 |
> development there! Hey MySQL's server went down yesterday! We sure can |
9 |
> expect rapid development there! |
10 |
> |
11 |
>> So, we apparently need even more forks now, |
12 |
>> like debburn. When will people learn... :/ |
13 |
> |
14 |
> One more fork, sounds like "even more fork(s)" to me! It has a reason for |
15 |
> being forked too, this isn't like random "Hey let's go fork cause we feel |
16 |
> like it". The reason why I'm recommending looking into debburn is because |
17 |
> it's a possible alternative to cdrtools which doesn't require thinking into |
18 |
> the license, and possibly screwing onself over. Heck, would you rather the |
19 |
> user had no option than not installing the one package that powers just about |
20 |
> all off the linux cd burning programs out there? |
21 |
> |
22 |
|
23 |
Chill out ;) |
24 |
|
25 |
Package: app-cdr/cdrtools Herd: media-optical Maintainer: media-optical |
26 |
|
27 |
(media-optical): metalgod, pylon |
28 |
|
29 |
Technically it would be their call, as far as what goes on in the |
30 |
package. Gentoo itself has no obligation other than to stop |
31 |
distributing binaries (solar, that means tinderbox as well). |
32 |
|
33 |
If people want to work on alternatives for this package (debburn, or |
34 |
whatever) then they are free to do so (as is true for any package). I |
35 |
don't particularly see how this is a big situation. |
36 |
|
37 |
The only legality would be that we are somehow aiding in the GPL |
38 |
violation by hosting the source, and I doubt that would hold up anywhere. |
39 |
-- |
40 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |