Professional Web Applications Themes

How to apply no-debianized kernel patch to debianized kernel-source? - Debian

Hello everybody I (like many others in the last few days) have a problem with kernel 2.4.21. I have downloaded the kernel-source-2.4.21 deb, and want to apply the acpi patch from acpi.sf.net to it. So here we go: jorgbtb8x1:/usr/src/linux$ zcat ../acpi-20030619-2.4.21.diff.gz | patch -p1 patching file arch/i386/config.in Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected! Assume -R? [n] n # loads of files produced or patched OK, but also some errors. No matter which option I choose, I cannot apply the acpi patch to the debian kernel-source. Or, when forced, compile fails (surprise, surprise). Unfortunately I am no programmer and can't look ...

  1. #1

    Default How to apply no-debianized kernel patch to debianized kernel-source?

    Hello everybody

    I (like many others in the last few days) have a problem with kernel
    2.4.21. I have downloaded the kernel-source-2.4.21 deb, and want to
    apply the acpi patch from acpi.sf.net to it. So here we go:

    jorgbtb8x1:/usr/src/linux$ zcat ../acpi-20030619-2.4.21.diff.gz | patch -p1
    patching file arch/i386/config.in
    Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected! Assume -R? [n] n
    # loads of files produced or patched OK, but also some errors.

    No matter which option I choose, I cannot apply the acpi patch to the
    debian kernel-source. Or, when forced, compile fails (surprise, surprise).
    Unfortunately I am no programmer and can't look into the source and fix
    the problems myself. Is there a chance to get acpi working on debian
    kernel-source, or will I have to switch to a kernel.org source-tree?

    thanks

    joerg

    --
    Gib GATES keine Chance!


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email]debian-user-requestlists.debian.org[/email]
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email]listmasterlists.debian.org[/email]
    Joerg Johannes Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: How to apply no-debianized kernel patch to debianized kernel-source?

    Your best bet would be to use the vanilla linux-2.4.21.

    untar it in /usr/src/linux-2.4.21 and apply your patch.. Keep in mind
    that you can use 'kernel-package' to build debs even for the non-debian
    kernel sources.

    I am currently using vanilla kernel 2.4.21 with the IMQ bandwidth
    shaping patch. And built the debs with 'kernel-package'

    Regards

    On Fri, 2003-06-27 at 17:27, Joerg Johannes wrote:
    > Hello everybody
    >
    > I (like many others in the last few days) have a problem with kernel
    > 2.4.21. I have downloaded the kernel-source-2.4.21 deb, and want to
    > apply the acpi patch from acpi.sf.net to it. So here we go:
    >
    > jorgbtb8x1:/usr/src/linux$ zcat ../acpi-20030619-2.4.21.diff.gz | patch -p1
    > patching file arch/i386/config.in
    > Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected! Assume -R? [n] n
    > # loads of files produced or patched OK, but also some errors.
    >
    > No matter which option I choose, I cannot apply the acpi patch to the
    > debian kernel-source. Or, when forced, compile fails (surprise, surprise).
    > Unfortunately I am no programmer and can't look into the source and fix
    > the problems myself. Is there a chance to get acpi working on debian
    > kernel-source, or will I have to switch to a kernel.org source-tree?
    >
    > thanks
    >
    > joerg
    >
    > --
    > Gib GATES keine Chance!
    >
    >
    > --
    > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email]debian-user-requestlists.debian.org[/email]
    > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email]listmasterlists.debian.org[/email]
    >
    --
    K S Sreeram
    Director of Research
    Tachyon Technologies Pvt. Ltd.



    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email]debian-user-requestlists.debian.org[/email]
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email]listmasterlists.debian.org[/email]
    K S Sreeram Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: How to apply no-debianized kernel patch to debianized kernel-source?

    On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 13:57:07 +0200
    Joerg Johannes <liste_joerggmx.de> wrote:
    > Hello everybody
    >
    > I (like many others in the last few days) have a problem with kernel
    > 2.4.21. I have downloaded the kernel-source-2.4.21 deb, and want to
    > apply the acpi patch from acpi.sf.net to it. So here we go:
    >
    > jorgbtb8x1:/usr/src/linux$ zcat ../acpi-20030619-2.4.21.diff.gz | patch
    > -p1 patching file arch/i386/config.in
    > Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected! Assume -R? [n] n
    > # loads of files produced or patched OK, but also some errors.
    >
    > No matter which option I choose, I cannot apply the acpi patch to the
    > debian kernel-source. Or, when forced, compile fails (surprise, surprise).
    > Unfortunately I am no programmer and can't look into the source and fix
    > the problems myself. Is there a chance to get acpi working on debian
    > kernel-source, or will I have to switch to a kernel.org source-tree?
    It sounds to me like ACPI is already present in the 2.4.21 kernel.

    To test this hypothesis, grep the Changelog for "ACPI" and "acpi".

    Kevin


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email]debian-user-requestlists.debian.org[/email]
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email]listmasterlists.debian.org[/email]
    Kevin McKinley Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: How to apply no-debianized kernel patch to debianized kernel-source?

    On Sunday 29 June 2003 19:55, Kevin McKinley wrote:
    >
    > It sounds to me like ACPI is already present in the 2.4.21 kernel.
    >
    > To test this hypothesis, grep the Changelog for "ACPI" and "acpi".
    >
    At least I did not get ACPI choices on make menuconfig without patching.

    joerg

    --
    Gib GATES keine Chance!


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email]debian-user-requestlists.debian.org[/email]
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email]listmasterlists.debian.org[/email]
    Joerg Johannes Guest

  5. #5

    Default Worked around (dirty...) How to apply no-debianized kernel patch to debianized kernel-source?

    On Friday 27 June 2003 13:57, Joerg Johannes wrote:
    > Hello everybody
    >
    > I (like many others in the last few days) have a problem with kernel
    > 2.4.21. I have downloaded the kernel-source-2.4.21 deb, and want to
    > apply the acpi patch from acpi.sf.net to it. So here we go:
    >
    > jorgbtb8x1:/usr/src/linux$ zcat ../acpi-20030619-2.4.21.diff.gz |
    > patch -p1 patching file arch/i386/config.in
    > Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected! Assume -R? [n] n
    > # loads of files produced or patched OK, but also some errors.
    >
    > No matter which option I choose, I cannot apply the acpi patch to the
    > debian kernel-source. Or, when forced, compile fails (surprise,
    > surprise). Unfortunately I am no programmer and can't look into the
    > source and fix the problems myself. Is there a chance to get acpi
    > working on debian kernel-source, or will I have to switch to a
    > kernel.org source-tree?
    I have downloaded the kernel.org source, applied the ACPI patch, then
    downloaded the debian diff.gz and applied it (a few warnings only).
    Then I had to rm -rf debian/ in the kernel source dir, make menuconfig
    and make-kpkg kernel-image. Voila, running kernel 2.4.21 with acpi AND
    debian patch...

    joerg

    --
    Gib GATES keine Chance!


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email]debian-user-requestlists.debian.org[/email]
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email]listmasterlists.debian.org[/email]
    Joerg Johannes Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: Worked around (dirty...) How to apply no-debianized kernel patch to debianized kernel-source?

    On Mon, Jun 30, 2003 at 10:09:12AM +0200, Joerg Johannes wrote:
    > I have downloaded the kernel.org source, applied the ACPI patch, then
    > downloaded the debian diff.gz and applied it (a few warnings only).
    > Then I had to rm -rf debian/ in the kernel source dir, make menuconfig
    > and make-kpkg kernel-image. Voila, running kernel 2.4.21 with acpi AND
    > debian patch...
    Was it really that simple? I got an email from someone else who said there
    were problems with APIC (which is not the same as ACPI). Can you check
    your .config to see what your APIC
    options are set to? There are three options in the 2.4.20, there may be
    more for the 2.4.21 kernel.

    If this works, and I can get a few confirmations that it works this way I
    will add it to the ACPI HOWTO that I'm working on right now. The LDP is
    doing a review right now so I have a bit of time to add new things before
    it goes up there. In the mean time an older version is available at:
    [url]http://xtrinsic.com/geek/articles/acpi.phtml[/url]

    The XML file I submitted to the LDP is available from
    [url]http://xtrinsic.com/geek/articles/drafts/acpi.xml[/url] It will be released
    under the GNU copy left doentation license (the actual name of the
    license escapes me at the moment--but I'm only on coffee 1.5). We're
    hoping to get it up in the next couple of weeks.

    thanks!

    emma

    --
    Emma Jane Hogbin
    [[ 416 417 2868 ][ [url]www.xtrinsic.com[/url] ]]


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email]debian-user-requestlists.debian.org[/email]
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email]listmasterlists.debian.org[/email]
    Emma Jane Hogbin Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: Worked around (dirty...) How to apply no-debianized kernel patch to debianized kernel-source?

    On Mon, Jun 30, 2003 at 01:10:00PM -0400, Emma Jane Hogbin wrote:
    > The XML file I submitted to the LDP is available from
    > [url]http://xtrinsic.com/geek/articles/drafts/acpi.xml[/url] It will be released
    > under the GNU copy left doentation license (the actual name of the
    > license escapes me at the moment--but I'm only on coffee 1.5).
    Sounds like the GFDL. You might want to have a look at debian-legal
    archives on this topic; there are unfortunately various concerns about
    its freeness as far as Debian's definition of the term is concerned. :-/

    --
    Colin Watson [cjwatsonflatline.org.uk]


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email]debian-user-requestlists.debian.org[/email]
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email]listmasterlists.debian.org[/email]
    Colin Watson Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: Worked around (dirty...) How to apply no-debianized kernel patch to debianized kernel-source?

    On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 01:53:40AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
    > Sounds like the GFDL. You might want to have a look at debian-legal
    > archives on this topic; there are unfortunately various concerns about
    > its freeness as far as Debian's definition of the term is concerned. :-/
    [url]http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00132.html[/url]
    [url]http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00243.html[/url]
    The summary seems to be that it's not a problem as long as there are no
    invariant sections. Since I have no intentions of making any part of the
    doent invariant, I think this is a fine license for my needs.

    emma

    --
    Emma Jane Hogbin
    [[ 416 417 2868 ][ [url]www.xtrinsic.com[/url] ]]


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email]debian-user-requestlists.debian.org[/email]
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email]listmasterlists.debian.org[/email]
    Emma Jane Hogbin Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: Worked around (dirty...) How to apply no-debianized kernel patch to debianized kernel-source?

    On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 11:31:03AM -0400, Emma Jane Hogbin wrote:
    > On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 01:53:40AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
    > > Sounds like the GFDL. You might want to have a look at debian-legal
    > > archives on this topic; there are unfortunately various concerns about
    > > its freeness as far as Debian's definition of the term is concerned. :-/
    >
    > [url]http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00132.html[/url]
    > [url]http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00243.html[/url]
    > The summary seems to be that it's not a problem as long as there are no
    > invariant sections. Since I have no intentions of making any part of the
    > doent invariant, I think this is a fine license for my needs.
    Unfortunately I'm not sure that the links you quote above represent a
    general consensus in Debian. In particular, several people have
    expressed the serious concern that the text in section 2 of the GFDL
    forbidding the use of "technical measures to obstruct or control the
    reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute" has the
    effect of forbidding the installation of GFDLed doents on encrypted
    filesystems, such as the USB memory stick on which I keep various useful
    things like my GPG key.

    I'm aware I'm coming across as a pain here; I'm really just passing it
    on. Due to issues like the above, as the maintainer of the Debian
    doc-linux packages I'm likely to come under substantial pressure soon to
    relegate all LDP doents licensed under the GFDL to non-free, and I'd
    like to keep the number of affected doents as small as possible.
    However, I'll stop here and not say anything more unless there are
    specific questions; I think I've put forward my point as best I can and
    your licensing decisions are as always yours alone.

    Cheers,

    --
    Colin Watson [cjwatsonflatline.org.uk]


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email]debian-user-requestlists.debian.org[/email]
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email]listmasterlists.debian.org[/email]
    Colin Watson Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: Worked around (dirty...) How to apply no-debianized kernel patch to debianized kernel-source?

    On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 11:33:09PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
    > However, I'll stop here and not say anything more unless there are
    > specific questions; I think I've put forward my point as best I can and
    > your licensing decisions are as always yours alone.
    I don't think you've put any points forward. All you've done is shot down
    what I've said. (1) Your license is wrong, go look at debian-legal. (2)
    the posts you've found are wrong. If you want to be helpful to someone I
    recommend suggesting what you think IS the right thing to do, and back up
    your explanation with URLs of what is the Debian concensus.

    At this point I have put in well over 50 hours working on this
    *single* doent. I have also put in an additional 5-10 hours doing research
    on why the 2.4.21 kernel does not behave the same way as the 2.4.20 kernel
    when it comes to APIC options and make-kpkg. I don't actually care
    about kernel development (although I'm very glad that others do), I just
    want my laptop to work--which it now does. I wrote the doentation
    for myself and have offered it to the open source community as a
    "here you might find this useful" kind of doent. I was then asked
    by one debian user to contribute my doentation to The LDP.
    The submission process involved doing a re-write of my original text and
    converting the doent from valid XHTML to DocBook, a markup language that I
    have learned for this project. I'm now working on revising the LDP XSLT
    templates (and possibly DocBook templates from a debian package)
    to correct the HTML output so that my doent will validate when
    it is translated BACK to HTML.

    I certainly was not expecting to have people tell me that the license
    is wrong and therefore my work seems to suddenly have no use to the debian
    community. If I sound a little ed off it's because I am.

    *many more irritated remarks deleted*

    This is *not* the way to keep volunteers motivated. Period.

    emma

    --
    Emma Jane Hogbin
    [[ 416 417 2868 ][ [url]www.xtrinsic.com[/url] ]]


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email]debian-user-requestlists.debian.org[/email]
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email]listmasterlists.debian.org[/email]
    Emma Jane Hogbin Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: Worked around (dirty...) How to apply no-debianized kernel patch to debianized kernel-source?

    On Tue, 2003-07-01 at 18:33, Colin Watson wrote:
    > On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 11:31:03AM -0400, Emma Jane Hogbin wrote:
    > > On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 01:53:40AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
    > > > Sounds like the GFDL. You might want to have a look at debian-legal
    > > > archives on this topic; there are unfortunately various concerns about
    > > > its freeness as far as Debian's definition of the term is concerned. :-/
    > >
    > > [url]http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00132.html[/url]
    > > [url]http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00243.html[/url]
    > > The summary seems to be that it's not a problem as long as there are no
    > > invariant sections. Since I have no intentions of making any part of the
    > > doent invariant, I think this is a fine license for my needs.
    >
    > Unfortunately I'm not sure that the links you quote above represent a
    > general consensus in Debian. In particular, several people have
    > expressed the serious concern that the text in section 2 of the GFDL
    > forbidding the use of "technical measures to obstruct or control the
    > reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute" has the
    > effect of forbidding the installation of GFDLed doents on encrypted
    > filesystems, such as the USB memory stick on which I keep various useful
    > things like my GPG key.
    >
    > I'm aware I'm coming across as a pain here; I'm really just passing it
    > on. Due to issues like the above, as the maintainer of the Debian
    > doc-linux packages I'm likely to come under substantial pressure soon to
    > relegate all LDP doents licensed under the GFDL to non-free, and I'd
    > like to keep the number of affected doents as small as possible.
    > However, I'll stop here and not say anything more unless there are
    > specific questions; I think I've put forward my point as best I can and
    > your licensing decisions are as always yours alone.
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > --
    > Colin Watson [cjwatsonflatline.org.uk]
    I think you are being fair on this one, Colin - I don't personally see
    the GFDL as being quite the "Free" license one would anticipate from the
    FSF. My own suggestion is that if some place is insisting on GFDL and
    nothing else for their collection (I hope nobody is doing that,) it
    might be an idea to see if the same doent can be provided to Debian
    under a DFSG-Free license instead (the world of dual-licensing.)

    Since non-free is not distributed on the CD set or DVD for installation,
    doentation that is under a non-free license becomes rather useless
    for a "newish" user that hasn't yet established an Internet connection
    to gather the balance of the potential packages. Personally, I regularly
    dig into the various HOWTOs et al because no matter how well I know the
    underlying concepts and designs of various services on Linux, I am not
    configuring them regularly enough to know all of the considerations of
    everything to do things without the occasion burrowing into
    /usr/share/doc/HOWTO for at least clarification. To not have that
    available following an installation that didn't directly get on the
    Internet would be rather *annoying*.
    --
    Mark L. Kahnt, FLMI/M, ALHC, HIA, AIAA, ACS, MHP
    ML Kahnt New Markets Consulting
    Tel: (613) 531-8684 / (613) 539-0935
    Email: [email]kahnthosehead.dyndns.org[/email]

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQA/AnovAKcZp5k2OkARAqn0AJ9TrTYW/WZ51A+K/4kFiXGlyOzPZgCfelz/
    leUNbKoV4SYwvkHjyZtgbTA=
    =TFdl
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    Mark L. Kahnt Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: Worked around (dirty...) How to apply no-debianized kernel patch to debianized kernel-source?

    > <snip>
    > I wrote the doentation
    > for myself and have offered it to the open source community as a
    > "here you might find this useful" kind of doent. I was then asked
    > by one debian user to contribute my doentation to The LDP.
    > The submission process involved doing a re-write of my original text and
    > converting the doent from valid XHTML to DocBook, a markup language that I
    > have learned for this project. I'm now working on revising the LDP XSLT
    > templates (and possibly DocBook templates from a debian package)
    > to correct the HTML output so that my doent will validate when
    > it is translated BACK to HTML.
    <snip>
    Hi EJH,
    a recent discussion on another list I am on mentioned frustrations at
    the LDP for many of the same reasons: converting it to the 'not simple
    for beginners format' Docbook - which they said the LDP did not provide
    an 'example' to get a quick start. The idea of having possibly useful
    info, tips, what-not and having so many barriers to 'contribute'. Seem
    like they should have someone at LDP or similar to do the rough
    conversion since its what they want and will be checking anyway and will
    be expert creating. I hate the idea of people wishing to contribute only
    to be thwarted by 'process'.
    just my 2 yen.
    -K


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email]debian-user-requestlists.debian.org[/email]
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email]listmasterlists.debian.org[/email]
    Kevin Mark Guest

  13. #13

    Default doentation was Re: Worked around (dirty...)

    On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 03:18:07PM -0400, Kevin Mark wrote:
    > a recent discussion on another list I am on mentioned frustrations at
    > the LDP for many of the same reasons: converting it to the 'not simple
    > for beginners format' Docbook - which they said the LDP did not provide
    > an 'example' to get a quick start.
    They will actually do the conversion for you and are very nice--I'm too
    much of a markup snob to let someone else do it for me though. ;) I'm
    actually working with them now to improve some of their DocBook templates
    so that they produce cleaner HTML. The barrier to entry seems to be
    well-written doentation, not the markup language...

    Basically the submission process goes like this:
    - offer an abstract of what you're thinking about writing
    - sometimes people say, "have you seen this, I think it's the same as
    what you're proposing"
    - write the doentation in whatever format is easiest for you
    - convert the doentation to DocBook (OPTIONAL: if you want an LDP
    volunteer will do this step for you)
    - choose a license -- If you ask for their recommendation the LDP
    recommends the GNU FDL. It is not required that you use this
    license.
    - submit your file for review (via email); wait for feedback
    - review feedback (I didn't have any major changes other than grammar
    but this step may include re-writing or cleaning up grammar or
    whatever)
    - submit your file (via email) for inclusion on the web site

    With the exception of the Author Guide being *totally* overwhelming, it's
    a pretty straight forward process. They have two mailing lists that I'm
    subscribed to: discuss and docbook. Everyone is very friendly and responds
    quickly to questions. If anyone else out there has already written
    doentation and is looking to submit it to a wider audience I absolutely
    recommend getting in touch with the LDP. [url]www.tldp.org[/url]

    emma

    --
    Emma Jane Hogbin
    [[ 416 417 2868 ][ [url]www.xtrinsic.com[/url] ]]


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email]debian-user-requestlists.debian.org[/email]
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email]listmasterlists.debian.org[/email]
    Emma Jane Hogbin Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: Worked around (dirty...) How to apply no-debianized kernel patch to debianized kernel-source?

    On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 12:51:47AM -0400, Emma Jane Hogbin wrote:
    > On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 11:33:09PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
    > > However, I'll stop here and not say anything more unless there are
    > > specific questions; I think I've put forward my point as best I can and
    > > your licensing decisions are as always yours alone.
    >
    > I don't think you've put any points forward. All you've done is shot down
    > what I've said. (1) Your license is wrong, go look at debian-legal.
    I really didn't think I said that. If I did, it was unintended and I
    apologize.
    > (2) the posts you've found are wrong. If you want to be helpful to
    > someone I recommend suggesting what you think IS the right thing to
    > do, and back up your explanation with URLs of what is the Debian
    > concensus.
    Hey, I'm not trying to shoot you down at all; I was trying to provide
    what I thought was helpful advice, and the example I gave in my last
    post was what I was told by a Debian ftpmaster (not on a mailing list so
    I can't give a URL, although it's also mentioned in
    [url]http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal-0305/msg00598.html[/url]).

    Part of one of the threads that prompted this - and in it you'll see my
    *own* frustration with this whole issue - is
    [url]http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal-0305/msg00267.html[/url]. This thread is
    an excellent example of the rock and the hard place I anticipated being
    caught between back then: I don't have the diplomatic or the legal
    skills to negotiate between debian-legal and authors without offending
    one or the other, but due to the packages I maintain I have to try. At
    some point I'll probably orphan doc-linux in favour of somebody with
    more diplomatic skills.

    (If somebody has come up with examples of the extra-permissions riders
    Branden suggested in the link above, I'd love to hear about them.)
    > I certainly was not expecting to have people tell me that the license
    > is wrong and therefore my work seems to suddenly have no use to the debian
    > community. If I sound a little ed off it's because I am.
    No no no! Look, that wasn't my intention at all. I didn't say your work
    was useless at all. I've just found recently through somewhat bitter
    experience that some people are unaware of certain problems with the
    GFDL, and I've found that it's easier to mention these things earlier
    because I'm coming under pressure myself to do something about it.
    You've now said you're happy with the current licence, and that's fine
    by me.
    > *many more irritated remarks deleted*
    >
    > This is *not* the way to keep volunteers motivated. Period.
    I think you're reading far more animosity and denigration into my posts
    than is there; none at all was intended. If I was too terse it's because
    this week has been incredibly hectic for me.

    Cheers,

    --
    Colin Watson [cjwatsonflatline.org.uk]


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email]debian-user-requestlists.debian.org[/email]
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email]listmasterlists.debian.org[/email]
    Colin Watson Guest

  15. #15

    Default doentation Re: Worked around (dirty...)

    On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 10:53:43PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
    > I really didn't think I said that. If I did, it was unintended and I
    > apologize.
    It's how I read it, cool if that wasn't your intent. Now back to the
    problem of licensing. :/
    > [url]http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal-0305/msg00598.html[/url]
    > [url]http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal-0305/msg00267.html[/url]
    Interesting to read, but really what a mess! I've forwarded a bunch of it
    to one of the LDP reviewers to see what can be said.

    In the mean time the debian-doc has gotten back to me with the current unofficial word:
    [url]http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00246.html[/url]
    They're recommending one of two Creative Commons licenses...ironically the
    CC license page recommends the GNU FDL for doentation.

    emma

    --
    Emma Jane Hogbin
    [[ 416 417 2868 ][ [url]www.xtrinsic.com[/url] ]]


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email]debian-user-requestlists.debian.org[/email]
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email]listmasterlists.debian.org[/email]
    Emma Jane Hogbin Guest

  16. #16

    Default Re: doentation was Re: Worked around (dirty...)

    On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 08:06:57PM -0400, Emma Jane Hogbin wrote:
    > Basically the submission process for the LDP goes like this:
    I forgot step zero: subscribe to the discuss mailing list. Which is where
    you present the idea you're thinking about writing and where you get your
    feedback from. Putting your idea on the list helps others determine
    overlap with existings (or upcoming) doents.
    > - offer an abstract of what you're thinking about writing
    > - sometimes people say, "have you seen this, I think it's the same as
    > what you're proposing"
    > - write the doentation in whatever format is easiest for you
    > - convert the doentation to DocBook (OPTIONAL: if you want an LDP
    > volunteer will do this step for you)
    > - choose a license -- If you ask for their recommendation the LDP
    > recommends the GNU FDL. It is not required that you use this
    > license.
    > - submit your file for review (via email to the reviewer list); wait for feedback
    > - review feedback (I didn't have any major changes other than grammar
    > but this step may include re-writing or cleaning up grammar or
    > whatever)
    > - submit your file (via email to the submit list) for inclusion on the web site
    The official version:
    [url]http://www.tldp.org/LDP/LDP-Author-Guide/distribution.html[/url]

    --
    Emma Jane Hogbin
    [[ 416 417 2868 ][ [url]www.xtrinsic.com[/url] ]]


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email]debian-user-requestlists.debian.org[/email]
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email]listmasterlists.debian.org[/email]
    Emma Jane Hogbin Guest

Similar Threads

  1. Kernel patch update
    By Trevor BROOKES in forum Linux Setup, Configuration & Administration
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: August 29th, 01:30 AM
  2. kernel-source-2.6.0-test1?
    By Travis Crump in forum Debian
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: August 5th, 11:20 AM
  3. kernel-source-2.5.69.tar.bz
    By Rodney D. Myers in forum Debian
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: August 1st, 04:00 PM
  4. kernel-source-2.4.20-bf2.4 ?
    By martin f krafft in forum Debian
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: July 22nd, 09:20 AM
  5. kernel-source versus kernel-patch
    By Ismael Valladolid Torres in forum Debian
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: July 14th, 06:20 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139