helpSavannah Administration - Support: sr #110199, Cross-building of GNU/Hurd and...

 
 

sr #110199: Cross-building of GNU/Hurd and additional packages

Submitted by:  Svante Signell <gnu_srs>
Submitted on:  Tue 18 Feb 2020 10:09:24 AM UTC  
 
Category:  Source code repositories - developer access Priority:  5 - Normal
Severity:  3 - Normal Status:  In Progress
Assigned to:  Ineiev <ineiev> Operating System:  GNU/Linux
Open/Closed:  Open

Add a New Comment (Rich Markup)
   

You are not logged in

Please log in, so followups can be emailed to you.

 

( Jump to the original submission)

Sat 27 Jun 2020 04:34:10 PM UTC, comment #27: 

Svante: perhaps there's a misunderstanding due to the common contribution process.

You wrote: "I have now added Copyright and License information to all files where it is needed."

The thing is: it's needed everywhere.

You also wrote: "If a patch for example does not
change the copyright and license information does not have to change at all.
Or do you mean the files I created?"

Even if a patch does not change the copyright/licence of the file it is supposed to be applied on, there is copyright and licence information to be given on the patch itself.

Usually when contributing to a project, people don't bother expliciting under which licence the patch is provided under, and the assumption is that it's under the licence of the file being patched.

But here you can't go that way, since the patch could remain for some time in this proposed repo, and thus effectively living its own live, independently from what happens to the file that it's supposed to patch.

So I guess there is a misunderstanding on what has to be maintained rather than a question of commitment.

Put another way: yes, add a licence notice on each patch file (basically the licence of the file being patched, as that licence was at the time when the patch was created, since it is at that time that the creator of the patch read and agreed the licence under which that file was). And add a copyright notice on each patch file as well, to remember who created the patch and thus holds copyright on the patch (which will be needed anyway when trying to merge the patch upstream).

Note: yes, for instance Debian does not usually keep a licence note in the patch queues that it maintains, but the GNU standards are higher than this.

Samuel Thibault <sthibaul>
Tue 23 Jun 2020 09:00:38 AM UTC, comment #26: 

Not yet, sorry.

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Mon 22 Jun 2020 08:55:55 AM UTC, comment #25: 

Hi Ineiev,

Any results from your discussions with Samuel?

Svante Signell <gnu_srs>
Thu 04 Jun 2020 09:57:06 AM UTC, comment #24: 

I'm discussing the situation with Samuel.

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Wed 03 Jun 2020 07:42:37 AM UTC, comment #23: 

ping?

Svante Signell <gnu_srs>
Sat 23 May 2020 09:32:13 AM UTC, comment #22: 

Hi again.

I don't really understand what you mean by "confirm your commitment to maintain these notices in the long run". If a patch for example does not change the copyright and license information does not have to change at all. Or do you mean the files I created?

Of course I will maintain them long term. The idea is to maintain the cross-hurd repository with git and update the involved packages consisting of the environment regularly. For example glibc-2.30 is used in the tarball, but 2.31 is already released and will be upgraded to when the git repo is up and running.

For your information, I have ported Ada, Go, etc to GNU/Hurd and contribute regularly when additional patches are needed. Additionally, I have assigned copyright to FSF for my contributions to Mig, GnuMach, Hurd, glibc gcc, and gdb (if I remember correctly) and contribute to these packages regularly too. Maybe Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@gnu.org> can help me to confirm my commitment to GNU software.

Can you please be specific which files I missed and where the wrong things are.

Thanks!

Svante Signell <gnu_srs>
Thu 21 May 2020 10:05:10 AM UTC, comment #21: 

Yes, you've missed some files (and there are more wrong things).

You've made a few attempts to fix the issue; before you make further ones, I'd like to see how you can confirm your commitment to maintain these notices in the long run (rather than to fix just a single tarball in order to pass the check).

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Thu 07 May 2020 07:24:21 PM UTC, comment #20: 

Hi again. I have now added Copyright and License information to all files where it is needed. Hopefully I have not missed any. Please let me know if I did or if there is still something missing or in need of correction.

Thanks!

(file #49032)

Svante Signell <gnu_srs>
Tue 28 Apr 2020 05:53:19 PM UTC, comment #19: 

I believe this is my point: you are not sufficiently familiar with the task at hand to understand the issue.

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Sun 26 Apr 2020 04:16:16 PM UTC, comment #18: 

ping?

Svante Signell <gnu_srs>
Tue 21 Apr 2020 08:57:50 AM UTC, comment #17: 

Thanks for reopening #110199.

I don't really understand your comment #16. Do you mean that I should add copyright and license information to all files in the patches directory? Or the ones larger than 10 lines? If that is what you mean I'll do it.

(As a side note, Debian don't add these notices to their patches. Instead they have a file called debian/copyright stating copyright and license for all files in the source and debian directories of the package. In my opinion this is more handy than to add that info to each file in the patches directory. Maybe create a separate copyright file in the patches directory?)

Thanks!

Svante Signell <gnu_srs>
Tue 21 Apr 2020 08:27:23 AM UTC, comment #16: 

(For the reference: I've just checked file #48879 from sr #110224.)

It seems to me that you are not ready to maintain these notices properly in the long run.  If you thought this issue to be important, you most probably would follow my directions from comment #1 (which are based on the documentation I linked to).

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Sun 19 Apr 2020 06:37:46 PM UTC, comment #15: 

Please, I did submit a new tarball after sending that message. And commented on your feedback. Please reopen this issue.

Thanks!

Svante Signell <gnu_srs>
Sun 19 Apr 2020 05:27:33 PM UTC, comment #14: 

comment #6:

>
> I'll make one more effort to to comply to your requirements. If you reject the next tarball, I'll publish the project elsewhere...


Sorry, I missed this.  Cancelling the request.

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Fri 17 Apr 2020 09:36:00 AM UTC, comment #13: 

ping?

Svante Signell <gnu_srs>
Tue 14 Apr 2020 08:07:29 AM UTC, comment #12: 

You are right,

coreutils/coreutils-8.23-noman-1.patch does not have a license. Looking more closely at applied patches I found out that it is not needed. Just remove it from the tarball.

Regrading the patches for glibc README.patches states:
All patches below are Copyright FSF.
git-ONSTACK.diff: GPLv2.1+ Patch by Samuel Thibault.
tg-mach-hurd-link.diff: GPLv2.1+ Patch by Samuel Thibault.
tg-hurdsig-fixes.diff: GPLv2.1+ Patch by Jeremy Koenig.
tg-hurdsig-global-dispositions.diff: GPLv2.1+ Patch by Jeremy Koenig.
tg-hurdsig-SA_SIGINFO.diff: GPLv2.1+ Patch by Jeremy Koenig.
tg-hurdsig-fixes-2.diff: GPLv2.1+ Patch by Jeremy Koenig.
tg-sigstate_thread_reference.diff: GPLv2.1+ Patch by Richard Braun.
glibc.git-0b262ca4c64cd9042576ddb9969607c0ea1187d7.patch: GPLv2.1+ Patch by me.

Is that not enough? Or do you want me to add Copyright and License information to that patch (or all the above patches?)

Thanks!

Svante Signell <gnu_srs>
Tue 14 Apr 2020 07:20:57 AM UTC, comment #11: 

glibc/git-ONSTACK.diff is more than 10 lines long, but it has no copyright and license notices (neither has coreutils/coreutils-8.23-noman-1.patch, in fact).

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Mon 13 Apr 2020 02:44:07 PM UTC, comment #10: 

Hi again,

As explained in patches/README.patches most patches are smaller than 10 lines, and therefore does not need to have Copyright information. They are denoted SHORT in that file.

The longer patches do have Copyright information:
coreutils/coreutils-8.23-noman-1.patch
gcc/fixinc_glimits.h.diff
glibc/local-remove-manual.diff
glibc/tg-hurdsig-SA_SIGINFO.diff

Thanks!

Svante Signell <gnu_srs>
Mon 13 Apr 2020 01:47:41 PM UTC, comment #9: 

Sorry for the delay.

comment #7:

>
> This time I've tried to comply with all your requests of Copyright and License info. Please le me know if something is still missing.
> Attaching an updated tarball: hurd-cross.tar.gz.


I'm afraid you haven't complied: patch files contain no copyright and license notices.

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Sun 12 Apr 2020 06:02:46 PM UTC, comment #8: 

ping!

Svante Signell <gnu_srs>
Tue 07 Apr 2020 03:52:41 PM UTC, comment #7: 

Hi again.

This time I've tried to comply with all your requests of Copyright and License info. Please le me know if something is still missing.
Attaching an updated tarball: hurd-cross.tar.gz.

Thanks!

(file #48777)

Svante Signell <gnu_srs>
Mon 06 Apr 2020 09:39:40 PM UTC, comment #6: 

Hi Inieiev,

I'll make one more effort to to comply to your requirements. If you reject the next tarball, I'll publish the project elsewhere, gitlab or github (god forgive) :(

Svante Signell <gnu_srs>
Sun 05 Apr 2020 07:42:37 PM UTC, comment #5: 

Patches are text files, and their format easily allows for comments; therefore, copyright and license notices should be written in each file itself.

I'd like to note that patches/README.patches in fact contains no copyright information: copyright lines look like

Copyright (C) 1989 John Smith

I think you should really read the documentation linked from my comment #1 carefully in order to learn how to properly arrange your files.  I just can't write down all necessary details here.

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Fri 03 Apr 2020 06:17:19 PM UTC, comment #4: 

comment #3:

>
> comment #2:
> > Regarding patches in the patches directory, it does not make sense to add copyright notices.
>
> Why not?


I have now added Copyright info to the patches directory, see hurd-cross/patches/README.patches. I hope this is good so I can upload the project to Savannah. I'm attaching an updated tarball: hurd-cross.tar.gz.

Thanks!

(file #48748)

Svante Signell <gnu_srs>
Wed 19 Feb 2020 06:20:07 PM UTC, comment #3: 

comment #2:

> Regarding patches in the patches directory, it does not make sense to add copyright notices.


Why not?

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Tue 18 Feb 2020 04:31:31 PM UTC, comment #2: 

Hello,

Regarding patches in the patches directory, it does not make sense to add copyright notices. Therefore I have created the README.patches file under patches. It is a lot of work to create a README.patches for every sub-directory.

Do you want me to add a copyright notice in every READ.* file?

Svante Signell <gnu_srs>
Tue 18 Feb 2020 12:35:09 PM UTC, comment #1: 

So, since you attached your tarball, I've actually looked into it.

Please make sure that all copyrightable files in it, including READMEs and patches, have valid copyright and license notices.  The notices could only be moved to a README file in the same directory with the files in question if those files have a format that doesn't allow for comments.

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Tue 18 Feb 2020 10:09:24 AM UTC, original submission:  

hurd-cross is a project for cross-building GNU/Hurd and other packages using e.g. an GNU/Linux host. It contains mainly of a number of bash scripts, for download, bootstrap and compile dependant packages for GNU/Hurd, as well as other packages to build and run on the built image. The scripts downloads and patches source packages, bootstraps the dependant packages for building Hurd, compiles and installs the cross-built packages and finally creates an image of GNU/Hurd to be run e.g. in a Virtual Machine (VM). In an extension the number of built packages can be cross-built to create other packages not yet available natively on GNU/Hurd.

Svante Signell <gnu_srs>

 

(Note: upload size limit is set to 16384 kB, after insertion of the required escape characters.)

Attach Files:
   
   
Comment:
   

Attached Files
file #49032:  hurd-cross.tar.gz added by gnu_srs (80KiB - application/gzip)
file #48777:  hurd-cross.tar.gz added by gnu_srs (75KiB - application/gzip)
file #48748:  hurd-cross.tar.gz added by gnu_srs (81KiB - application/gzip)
file #48441:  hurd-cross.tar.gz added by gnu_srs (74KiB - application/gzip)

 

Depends on the following items: None found

Items that depend on this one: None found

 

Carbon-Copy List
  • -email is unavailable- added by sthibaul (Posted a comment)
  • -email is unavailable- added by ineiev (Posted a comment)
  • -email is unavailable- added by gnu_srs (Submitted the item)
  • -email is unavailable- added by gnu_srs (Can this project be added to http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/hurd/)
  •  

    Do you think this task is very important?
    If so, you can add your encouragement to it.
    This task has 0 encouragements so far.

    Only logged-in users can vote.

     

     

     

    Follow 11 latest changes.

    Date Changed by Updated Field Previous Value => Replaced by
    2020-05-07 gnu_srs Attached File- => Added hurd-cross.tar.gz, #49032
    2020-04-21 ineiev StatusWont Do => In Progress
        Open/ClosedClosed => Open
    2020-04-19 ineiev StatusIn Progress => Wont Do
        Open/ClosedOpen => Closed
    2020-04-07 gnu_srs Attached File- => Added hurd-cross.tar.gz, #48777
    2020-04-03 gnu_srs Attached File- => Added hurd-cross.tar.gz, #48748
    2020-02-18 ineiev StatusNone => In Progress
        Assigned toNone => ineiev
    2020-02-18 gnu_srs Attached File- => Added hurd-cross.tar.gz, #48441
        Carbon-Copy- => Added bug-hurd@gnu.org

    Back to the top


    Powered by Savane 3.5