Proposal: cdrkit vs. cdrtools
Dear Colleagues,
as I wrote on http://www.sourcecode.de/content/cdrkit-vs-cdrtools I really wonder what way we should go. Regarding the non-freeness of cdrtools, we should concentrate on getting the cdrkit binaries to the upstream projects. Most of the apps I found in debian/ubuntu, which are using mkisofs/cdrecord as exec calls, could be patched easily to use genisoimage/wodin. Having an option compatiblity between e.g. cdrecord and wodin, this should work out of the box. Do you think it's worth the efford? Regards, sh PS: Discussion on u-d-d, Reply-To set please honour it. -- SysAdmin, OSS Developer GPG-Key ID: 0xC098EFA8 Fingerprint: 3D8B 5138 0852 DA7A B83F DCCB C189 E733 C098 EFA8 http://www.sourcecode.de/ -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss |
Proposal: cdrkit vs. cdrtools
Stephan Hermann wrote the following on 13.01.2008 15:17
> Dear Colleagues, > > as I wrote on http://www.sourcecode.de/content/cdrkit-vs-cdrtools I > really wonder what way we should go. > > Regarding the non-freeness of cdrtools, we should concentrate on getting > the cdrkit binaries to the upstream projects. > > Most of the apps I found in debian/ubuntu, which are using mkisofs/cdrecord > as exec calls, could be patched easily to use genisoimage/wodin. > Having an option compatiblity between e.g. cdrecord and wodin, this should > work out of the box. > > Do you think it's worth the efford? > > Regards, > > sh > > PS: Discussion on u-d-d, Reply-To set please honour it. Quote:
even in edgy it is only a transitional package only iirc. Quote:
-- bye Thilo key: 0x4A411E09 -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss |
Proposal: cdrkit vs. cdrtools
Hi,
On So, 2008-01-13 at 17:29 +0100, Thilo Six wrote: > Stephan Hermann wrote the following on 13.01.2008 15:17 > > > Dear Colleagues, > > > > as I wrote on http://www.sourcecode.de/content/cdrkit-vs-cdrtools I > > really wonder what way we should go. > > > > Regarding the non-freeness of cdrtools, we should concentrate on getting > > the cdrkit binaries to the upstream projects. > > > > Most of the apps I found in debian/ubuntu, which are using mkisofs/cdrecord > > as exec calls, could be patched easily to use genisoimage/wodin. > > Having an option compatiblity between e.g. cdrecord and wodin, this should > > work out of the box. > > > > Do you think it's worth the efford? > > > > Regards, > > > > sh > > > > PS: Discussion on u-d-d, Reply-To set please honour it. > > Quote:
> according to packages.ubuntu.com cdrtools isn´t in the archive since edgy and > even in edgy it is only a transitional package only iirc. This is not correct...according to soyuz: https://edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cdrtools/10:2.01.01a33-0ubuntu2 the last version was in gutsy...and the removal was requested on 2008-01-09. Therefore we have several packages not working anymore :) To sum up: Two ways are valid: 1. We add "Provides" to the cdrkit binary packages and install ln -s /usr/bin/<cdrkit binary name> /usr/bin/<cdrtools binary name> 2. We could provide patches for Debian/Ubuntu and Upstream to support both ways.. I generated a list of source packages to find out what packages are involved: Hopefully with the correct output :) Command: shermann@home-emt64:~$ for i in `grep-dctrl -F Depends,Suggests,Recommends $SEARCHTERM /var/lib/apt/lists/*binary*|grep Package|cut -d " " -f 2` ; do grep-dctrl -F Binary $i /var/lib/apt/lists/*Source* | grep Package ; done ------------- $SEARCHTERM = mkisofs ----------------- Package: devede Package: mythplugins Package: aptoncd Package: backup-manager Package: backupninja Package: bootcd Package: nautilus-cd-burner Package: xfburn Package: burn Package: cpuburn Package: libburn Package: mp3burn Package: mybashburn Package: cdrbq Package: cdrw-taper Package: cedar-backup2 Package: debian-cd Package: dfsbuild Package: ebox Package: ebox-ca Package: ebox-firewall Package: ebox-network Package: ebox-ntp Package: ebox-objects Package: ebox-openvpn Package: jukebox-mercury Package: libebox Package: zeroc-ice Package: fai Package: fai Package: gtoaster Package: hubackup Package: ichthux-meta Package: kiso Package: live-helper Package: mindi Package: mindi-busybox Package: pybackpack Package: systemimager Package: videolink Package: xcdroast --------- $SEARCHTERM = cdrecord ----- Package: mythplugins Package: arson Package: backupninja Package: bootcd Package: nautilus-cd-burner Package: xfburn Package: burn Package: cpuburn Package: libburn Package: mp3burn Package: mybashburn Package: cdbackup Package: cdcontrol Package: cdrbq Package: cdrw-taper Package: cedar-backup2 Package: gtoaster Package: hubackup Package: ichthux-meta Package: lphoto Package: mondo Package: mp3roaster Package: dpkg-multicd Package: multicd Some of those packages do have support for cdrkit, but some of them don't. E.G. I patched qvamps to use wodim/genisoimage instead of cdrecord/mkisofs. This tool doesn't even have autodetection. So this could be a candidate for a professional cdrkit/cdrtools detection and not only a quickpatch ;) But which way we go, this should be discussed here ;) Regards, sh -- SysAdmin, OSS Developer GPG-Key ID: 0xC098EFA8 Fingerprint: 3D8B 5138 0852 DA7A B83F DCCB C189 E733 C098 EFA8 http://www.sourcecode.de/ -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss |
Proposal: cdrkit vs. cdrtools
Stephan Hermann wrote the following on 13.01.2008 20:20
Hi Stephan >> according to packages.ubuntu.com cdrtools isn´t in the archive since edgy and >> even in edgy it is only a transitional package only iirc. > > This is not correct...according to soyuz: > https://edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cdrtools/10:2.01.01a33-0ubuntu2 the last version was in gutsy...and the removal was requested on 2008-01-09. > Therefore we have several packages not working anymore :) jup you are right. I have searched the binary section only, not for source package names sorry for the noise. </snip> > Regards, > sh -- bye Thilo key: 0x4A411E09 -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss |
Proposal: cdrkit vs. cdrtools
Hi,
On Sun, Jan 13, 2008 at 03:17:11PM +0100, Stephan Hermann wrote: > as I wrote on http://www.sourcecode.de/content/cdrkit-vs-cdrtools I > really wonder what way we should go. > > Regarding the non-freeness of cdrtools, we should concentrate on getting > the cdrkit binaries to the upstream projects. Hold your horses, folks. Didn't we just move back to cdrtools from cdrkit? Weren't these issues resolved, or something? http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=270060 Debian seems to be happy. Let's leave it be, hmm? Thanks, Forest -- Forest Bond http://www.alittletooquiet.net -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss |
Proposal: cdrkit vs. cdrtools
On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 08:51:12AM -0500, Forest Bond wrote:
> Didn't we just move back to cdrtools from cdrkit? Weren't these issues > resolved, or something? > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=270060 That's from 2005. > Debian seems to be happy. Let's leave it be, hmm? No - cdrtools still links GPLed code into a CDDLed binary. It's undistributable in its current form. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss |
Proposal: cdrkit vs. cdrtools
Hi,
On Mo, 2008-01-14 at 15:18 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 08:51:12AM -0500, Forest Bond wrote: > > > Didn't we just move back to cdrtools from cdrkit? Weren't these issues > > resolved, or something? > > > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=270060 > > That's from 2005. > > > Debian seems to be happy. Let's leave it be, hmm? > > No - cdrtools still links GPLed code into a CDDLed binary. It's > undistributable in its current form. So, regarding the removal of cdrtools form the archive, should we change cdrkit binary packages to Provide: the old cdrtools binary package names, and adding symlinks for the new binary tools to the old cdrtools names, like gentoo is doing so? This would be the easiest solution for now. Regards, sh -- SysAdmin, OSS Developer GPG-Key ID: 0xC098EFA8 Fingerprint: 3D8B 5138 0852 DA7A B83F DCCB C189 E733 C098 EFA8 http://www.sourcecode.de/ -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss |
Proposal: cdrkit vs. cdrtools
On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 05:23:11PM +0100, Stephan Hermann wrote:
> So, regarding the removal of cdrtools form the archive, should we change > cdrkit binary packages to Provide: the old cdrtools binary package > names, and adding symlinks for the new binary tools to the old cdrtools > names, like gentoo is doing so? Yes. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss |
Proposal: cdrkit vs. cdrtools
On Sun, Jan 13, 2008 at 03:17:11PM +0100, Stephan Hermann wrote:
> Dear Colleagues, > > as I wrote on http://www.sourcecode.de/content/cdrkit-vs-cdrtools I > really wonder what way we should go. > > Regarding the non-freeness of cdrtools, we should concentrate on getting > the cdrkit binaries to the upstream projects. > > Most of the apps I found in debian/ubuntu, which are using mkisofs/cdrecord as exec calls, could be patched easily to use genisoimage/wodin. > Having an option compatiblity between e.g. cdrecord and wodin, this should work out of the box. > > Do you think it's worth the efford? It would be preferable, I think, to resolve the licensing issues with cdrtools, but others (particularly in Debian) have attempted this with upstream over a long period of time without much success (which is why cdrkit was created). What we must decide is whether we're prepared to give up, as Debian did, or if we can continue to pursue this. There was an active discussion between the upstream author and members of the Technical Board, but it seems to have died out. > PS: Discussion on u-d-d, Reply-To set please honour it. This is on-topic for ubuntu-devel. -- - mdz -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss |
Proposal: cdrkit vs. cdrtools
On Sun, Jan 13, 2008 at 03:17:11PM +0100, Stephan Hermann wrote:
> Dear Colleagues, > > as I wrote on http://www.sourcecode.de/content/cdrkit-vs-cdrtools I > really wonder what way we should go. > > Regarding the non-freeness of cdrtools, we should concentrate on getting > the cdrkit binaries to the upstream projects. > > Most of the apps I found in debian/ubuntu, which are using mkisofs/cdrecord as exec calls, could be patched easily to use genisoimage/wodin. > Having an option compatiblity between e.g. cdrecord and wodin, this should work out of the box. > > Do you think it's worth the efford? It would be preferable, I think, to resolve the licensing issues with cdrtools, but others (particularly in Debian) have attempted this with upstream over a long period of time without much success (which is why cdrkit was created). What we must decide is whether we're prepared to give up, as Debian did, or if we can continue to pursue this. There was an active discussion between the upstream author and members of the Technical Board, but it seems to have died out. > PS: Discussion on u-d-d, Reply-To set please honour it. This is on-topic for ubuntu-devel. -- - mdz -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 08:20 AM. |
VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.