Requesting a swift removal of this thing with completely unacceptable license: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/49030
Well, the license requests renaming of ion unless it is distributed unmodified. It is license to the name, not the code. Not completely unreasonable I guess. Just rename to ion3-gentoo or whatewer.
(In reply to comment #1) > Just rename to ion3-gentoo or whatewer. Have you not read the above link which links to here for "information"? http://archlinux.org/pipermail/tur-users/2007-April/004634.html And please let's not open another "forum" in this bug.
I think this one is particularly important too, showing that he won't be satisfied with something like "ion3-gentoo": http://archlinux.org/pipermail/tur-users/2007-April/004638.html (Think before posting on this bug so it doesn't become a commentfest)
More ominous is his comment in this thread: http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?t=14731&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15#69724 "You know, I can always modify the license for future releases to not allow any particular name you choose. (It's not trademark-only.)" Anyway, he apparently clears up his concerns with Debian later in that thread, with them moving the package to the non-free repository.
"Swift" is something this upcoming weekend (9./10.6.). I'm still looking into carrying the thing in gentoo-overlays.
afaik the only patch that is incompatible with the license is the xft patch. Since this does not come with any documentation (afaict), and does nothing useful (afaict, hard to tell without documentation), and can be even packaged as separate ion module (just make a copy of de, rename, apply the patch) I see no reason why such thing should be distributed with ion. In fact, I wounder why such unusable thing was included in the first place.
(In reply to comment #6) > afaik the only patch that is incompatible with the license is the xft patch. Wrong; patches left aside, the whole way how Gentoo works is incompatible with this new license. No way you could force the maintainer to commit stuff that's known to be broken, and no way you could force arches to keyword things that are broken - thus there's no way we could live with the 28 days requirement. Doing so would be a breach of our ebuild/QA policy. [1] If someone's willing to do this, they are free to do so in their overlay, not in gentoo-x86 tree which is subject to the above guidelines. Anyway, this is *not* a place to discuss such stuff; it's already been done extensively in the thread referred to in Comment #0, in forums.gentoo.org etc. [1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=3&chap=1#doc_chap4
I now have, with the help of genstef, set up a developer overlay at overlays.gentoo.org, which contains the up-to-date ion3 ebuilds with patches. You may reach it at http://overlays.gentoo.org/dev/mabi/browser That aside, one of our users complained (https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=136077#c59) and stated a valid reason for that patch being there. That's why the xft patch is actually still there (i had removed it at some point).
Yes, I am aware of the fact that bitmap fonts tend to be bad for special characters. It is not critical for me to tell apart Russian and Chinese window titles, they just appear as a bunch of question tags and that's almost as useful as the actual title for me. It just looks a bit ugly. However, putting in a patch without any documentation is not of much use. To understand how to use the patch would constitute about half of the work needed to write the patch myself.
request satisfied. Note, that i still maintain ion3 in overlays.gentoo.org/dev/mabi/ion3
Is that URL right? I get: Not Found No handler matched request to /ion3 But I'm assuming it's an http page. If it isn't, is there a web page I can point #gentoo users who ask about ion3 to? Feel free to reply only by email.
http://overlays.gentoo.org/dev/mabi/browser/ion3 is the correct URL, sorry for confusion.
