Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 19:03:12 +0000 (UTC) From: Tuomo Valkonen <tuomov@iki.fi> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ion3 license violation Message-ID: <slrnfm0c3g.fhp.tuomov@jolt.modeemi.cs.tut.fi> References: <slrnflv329.e47.tuomov@jolt.modeemi.cs.tut.fi> <20071212073944.GC29211@soaustin.net> <slrnflv4hj.ge8.tuomov@jolt.modeemi.cs.tut.fi> <20071212080932.GA30438@soaustin.net> <slrnflv6nd.k6f.tuomov@jolt.modeemi.cs.tut.fi> <20071212083658.GA31114@soaustin.net> <47602AC8.7060609@csub.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2007-12-12, Russell Jackson <raj@csub.edu> wrote: > Damn it. I use this software, and I even feel somewhat responsible Don't worry, you're not responsible (much). I'd been monitoring the situation having heard of a ports freeze, and nothing having been done to mark the Ion package as (potentially) obsolete or anything. Not much asked, but it seems distros don't like to admit that they distribute obsolete and buggy software. > I wasn't running the version in ports CVS. I was running a modified local > port that did pull the latest ion sources. I also had to explicitly enable > mod_xinerama with a make define; so, it isn't part of the the binary > package or a default port install. The option doesn't seem Ion-specific and isn't documented to add unsupported features. A much better place for the module would in any case be, say, x11-wm/ion-3-extras/mod_shit-o-rama. You could also have mod_xrandr, mod_ionflux, and etc. under that kind of setup. There's no reason why the module should deceivingly (and inconveniently) be distributed hidden "within" the ion-3 package. > I really don't see why the extreme action of removing it from ports was > necessary. :sigh: Distro folks are not reasonable; they think authors should be their undemanding and unquestioning slaves. I think we have learned that already. -- Tuomo
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?slrnfm0c3g.fhp.tuomov>