Nice to get your suggestions. I'd better try git, since many recommend. As for svn, just "svnadmin create "a repository does work? PS: Sorry for my stupidity. I'm new to mailing list, and don't know how to reply a certain post. Thank you all 2010/8/27 <arch-general-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Send arch-general mailing list submissions to > arch-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://mailman.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-general > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > arch-general-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > You can reach the person managing the list at > arch-general-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of arch-general digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: version control system for normal user (Magnus Therning) > 2. Re: version control system for normal user (Magnus Therning) > 3. Re: version control system for normal user (Philipp ?berbacher) > 4. Re: version control system for normal user (fons@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) > 5. Re: version control system for normal user (Chris Bannister) > 6. Re: [arch-dev-public] [aur-general] Licenses, GPL3 only > (Tavian Barnes) > 7. Re: version control system for normal user (John Holbrook) > 8. Re: rc.conf man page (Joe(theWordy)Philbrook) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:02:40 +0100 > From: Magnus Therning <magnus@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [arch-general] version control system for normal user > To: General Discussion about Arch Linux <arch-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Message-ID: > <AANLkTi=f21UQK=ZKbYfbKw10j5kMS1XX-JjYbP7EY+K6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<ZKbYfbKw10j5kMS1XX-JjYbP7EY%2BK6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 15:58, Florian Pritz <bluewind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > On 26.08.2010 16:56, jewelshaw wrote: > >> Hi, > >> ? ? I'm a normal user on a workstation, without root privilege. Usually, > I > >> have to test and revise the source code, > >> while after lots of revisions, I get confused about what's new and > what's > >> old. I tried subversion, but a svn server > >> with root privilege is required as daemon. So I wonder if there's a > version > >> control system which I can run as a > >> normal user. Any recommendations? Thanks in advance. > > > > Depending on your needs git or rcs (perfect for single files). Git is > > what the use for kernel develoment ;) > > Or darcs, or hg (mercurial), or monotone... pretty much any modern > de-centralised (disconnected) VCS will do. > > /M > > -- > Magnus Therning? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) > magnus?therning?org? ? ? ? ? Jabber: magnus?therning?org > http://therning.org/magnus? ? ? ?? identi.ca|twitter: magthe > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:05:13 +0100 > From: Magnus Therning <magnus@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [arch-general] version control system for normal user > To: General Discussion about Arch Linux <arch-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Message-ID: > <AANLkTi=XAGq1MKkNSXSwN8kg+P9HQFhN-OStO-V51vfe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<XAGq1MKkNSXSwN8kg%2BP9HQFhN-OStO-V51vfe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 16:02, David Rosenstrauch <darose@xxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > On 08/26/2010 10:56 AM, jewelshaw wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> ? ? I'm a normal user on a workstation, without root privilege. Usually, > I > >> have to test and revise the source code, > >> while after lots of revisions, I get confused about what's new and > what's > >> old. I tried subversion, but a svn server > >> with root privilege is required as daemon. So I wonder if there's a > >> version > >> control system which I can run as a > >> normal user. Any recommendations? Thanks in advance. > >> > >> Jiawei Shao > > > > darcs? > > Indeed http://darcs.net/ > > /M > > -- > Magnus Therning? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) > magnus?therning?org? ? ? ? ? Jabber: magnus?therning?org > http://therning.org/magnus? ? ? ?? identi.ca|twitter: magthe > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:05:27 +0200 > From: Philipp ?berbacher <hollunder@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [arch-general] version control system for normal user > To: arch-general <arch-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Message-ID: <1282835019-sup-308@eris> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Excerpts from Florian Pritz's message of 2010-08-26 16:58:39 +0200: > > On 26.08.2010 16:56, jewelshaw wrote: > > > Hi, > > > I'm a normal user on a workstation, without root privilege. > Usually, I > > > have to test and revise the source code, > > > while after lots of revisions, I get confused about what's new and > what's > > > old. I tried subversion, but a svn server > > > with root privilege is required as daemon. So I wonder if there's a > version > > > control system which I can run as a > > > normal user. Any recommendations? Thanks in advance. > > > > Depending on your needs git or rcs (perfect for single files). Git is > > what the use for kernel develoment ;) > > I was surprised seeing rcs in the repos, given its age. > > git is really handy. I don't know whether/how to install it without root > privileges, but I imagine it's possible. > -- > Philipp > > -- > "Wir stehen selbst entt?uscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu > und alle Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:02:40 +0200 > From: fons@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [arch-general] version control system for normal user > To: arch-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Message-ID: <20100826150240.GC4151@zita2> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 10:56:45PM +0800, jewelshaw wrote: > > > I'm a normal user on a workstation, without root privilege. Usually, > I > > have to test and revise the source code, > > while after lots of revisions, I get confused about what's new and what's > > old. I tried subversion, but a svn server > > with root privilege is required as daemon. So I wonder if there's a > version > > control system which I can run as a > > normal user. Any recommendations? Thanks in advance. > > If you are the only user of an SVN repo you can just put it in your > private file space, you don't need to run a server to use SVN. > > The alternative is GIT, quite different in the way it works, but > some people prefer it. > > Ciao, > > -- > FA > > There are three of them, and Alleline. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:31:27 +0100 > From: Chris Bannister <c.bannister@xxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [arch-general] version control system for normal user > To: General Discussion about Arch Linux <arch-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Message-ID: > <AANLkTikp0u2yzLepAYByONRGk2+a=YqKDBe6AW0N+qd+@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<YqKDBe6AW0N%2Bqd%2B@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > I used SVN at first then moved to git and havnt looked back since, > fantastic all round. Check out http://githup.com > > On 26 August 2010 16:02, <fons@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 10:56:45PM +0800, jewelshaw wrote: > > > >> ? ? I'm a normal user on a workstation, without root privilege. Usually, > I > >> have to test and revise the source code, > >> while after lots of revisions, I get confused about what's new and > what's > >> old. I tried subversion, but a svn server > >> with root privilege is required as daemon. So I wonder if there's a > version > >> control system which I can run as a > >> normal user. Any recommendations? Thanks in advance. > > > > If you are the only user of an SVN repo you can just put it in your > > private file space, you don't need to run a server to use SVN. > > > > The alternative is GIT, quite different in the way it works, but > > some people prefer it. > > > > Ciao, > > > > -- > > FA > > > > There are three of them, and Alleline. > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 09:53:54 -0600 > From: Tavian Barnes <tavianator@xxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [aur-general] Licenses, > GPL3 only > To: General Discusson about Arch Linux <arch-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Message-ID: > <AANLkTimzjsx7=KU63QibSLJj81zV0ts+czCOGBvMwkwF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<KU63QibSLJj81zV0ts%2BczCOGBvMwkwF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On 26 August 2010 06:23, Ray Rashif <schivmeister@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 26 August 2010 19:16, Roberto Alsina <ralsina@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > >> On Thursday 26 August 2010 08:12:23 Ronald van Haren wrote: > >>> My second point was that we don't know what the future will bring. > >>> Will new applications being licensed under GPL2 or later, GPL3 or > >>> later, GPL4, GPL4 or later... there are lots of options. There are > >>> lots of possibilities and I'm wondering if it is at all feasible to > >>> create a naming scheme which will fit all. > >> > >> Sure: > >> > >> GPL2 > >> GPL2+ > >> GPL3 > >> GPL3+ > >> etc. > >> > >> For convenience, you may want to make GPL the equivalent of GPL2+ > > > > Here's what is currently being done: > > > > ln -s GPL2 GPL > > > > So in fact, we don't even have the text of the "only" version. Neither > > does the FSF. > > > > There is no proper "example", "template" or "draft" for a GPLn-only > > license. For eg. the kernel has this in its COPYING: > > > > <quote> > > NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel > > ?services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use > > ?of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work". > > ?Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software > > ?Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux > > ?kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it. > > > > ?Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel > > ?is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not > > ?v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated. > > > > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Linus Torvalds > > </quote> > > > > That is the only difference between that license text and the one in > > /usr/share/common, i.e it is a special case, a GPL2 license with an > > "exception clause". Otherwise, both have exactly 2 occurences of "any > > later version". > > > > == GPL2 == > > If we want to honour cases like that, we would have to encourage the > > inclusion of the license. So, our kernel should mention: > > > > license=('custom:GPL2') > > > > And include /usr/share/licenses/kernel26/COPYING. All cases of > > "custom" should naturally imply that there is a license text to check > > out. > > > > All other "normal" GPL software should have: > > > > license=('GPL') > > > > Which needs no intervention. > > > > == GPL3 == > > Now, because the texts of the GPL2 and GPL3 are different, we cannot, > > for eg. symlink anything to GPL3. But in the above manner, software > > like the kernel need to have: > > > > license=('custom:GPL3') > > > > And include /usr/share/licenses/foobar/COPYING. > > > > While the rest of the GPL3 software can just have: > > > > license=('GPL3') > > > > == TL;DR == > > Basically, we just standardise the use of: > > > > license=('custom:GPLn') > > > > For software with GPL exception texts, and include the license. Only > > the kernel (and mysql? [1]) package needs to be changed to conform to > > this; nothing else needs to be done. Very "future proof", IMO. > > > > [1] > http://www.downloadsquad.com/2007/01/04/mysqls-license-is-now-gpl-2-only/ > > > > > > -- > > GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD > > > > >From my understanding of copyright, it seems to me that we don't have > to treat GPL2-only and GPL2+ works any differently. Both were > distributed under the GPLv2, and can obviously be redistributed under > the same license. Whether a package decides to add the "or any later > version" extension isn't really our problem; we correctly identify the > licence under which the software was _actually_ released. If someone > wants to relicense it, they can go and get the actual source (which > they'll need anyway) and it'll say that they are free to distribute it > under later GPL versions. But of course, IANAL. > > -- > Tavian Barnes > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 09:02:54 -0700 > From: John Holbrook <johnholbrook@xxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [arch-general] version control system for normal user > To: General Discussion about Arch Linux <arch-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Message-ID: > <AANLkTi=SERY0eP8zX1WrBT5WL392uKYTCVim0dq_Fc3H@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > "I used SVN at first then moved to git and havnt looked back since, > fantastic all round. Check out http://githup.com"; > > I think you meant github.com > > ---- > > www.linuxgeek.ca > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:32:19 -0400 > From: "Joe(theWordy)Philbrook" <jtwdyp@xxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [arch-general] rc.conf man page > To: arch-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Message-ID: > <alpine.LNX.2.00.1008261535260.4998@OpenSuSEme2010.localdomain> > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > > It would appear that on Aug 26, Dave Reisner did say: > > > On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 01:35:33PM -0400, Joe(theWordy)Philbrook wrote: > > > As a mere arch user who happens to think that the concept of well > > > commented configuration files such as Arch's rc.conf are WONDERFUL. > > > Especially when they include examples for beginners and those of us who > > > have difficulty remembering. ;-7 > > > > > > My only concerns about having a man page is that eventually the > > > configuration file (in this case rc.conf) might gradually become less > well > > > commented, or it's comments become outdated. And that man pages tend > to > > > be long on highly technical explanations that I for one have a hard > time > > > understanding and are often short on examples. So rather than having > the > > > rc.conf refer to a man page for instruction on how to use it. I'd much > > > prefer that the primary method of "guidance" remain in the rc.local and > > > perhaps include in any man page a url from which one can download a > > > current rc.local.example file. > > > > I don't follow -- how does relocating comments to a man page make them > > inherently any more technical? If you have specific concerns about the > > verbiage I've used, I'm happy to address them. > > Please don't misunderstand me to mean that I take exception to the your > "verbiage". In fact _IF_ I had to depend on a man page rather than a well > commented rc.config file someday, I rather hope the man page is very much > like yours. > > > I'm not opposed to the idea of leaving them in the file itself as well, > > but as brought up earlier, it then exposes the chance for the man page > > and the comments to be out of sync. I'll propose a middle ground -- > > syntax exists in both places (as its much less likely to change), but > > more detailed explanations are provided only in the man page. > > Now that might be good. A man page should have fully detailed explanations > as well as syntax (and I think at least some examples)... Where as an > actual > config file should be rich in commented out examples but as far as > explanations go, I think concise one liners that rely on the examples to > impart a goodly part of the instruction, are the way to go. Especially if > it's practical to include in the config file a hint that the man file > exists... > > I also think that the idea of including in the man page a url to an > example config file that is as 'up to date', and as 'in sync' with the > man page as possible, would be a good hedge against the mutable nature of > the config file. > > My feelings about man pages (and info documents) in general, stem from > years of scratching my head while trying to figure out how to do one > unfamiliar task or another with only such documentation to go by. I would > not really be surprised to find that most of the man pages found on an > Arch system might well be better written than the ones that made me feel > like they were meant to impress some professor rather than to impart > knowledge to those that don't already have a good grasp of the subject. I > know the Arch wiki at least does a real good job of imparting knowledge > (once you find the right document)... Which makes me wonder if at the end > of the man page, in addition to a url for a current version of the > commented config file, would it possibly be a good idea to also reference > any applicable wiki pages? > > -- > | --- ___ > | <0> <-> Joe (theWordy) Philbrook > | ^ J(tWdy)P > | ~\___/~ <<jtwdyp@xxxxxxxx>> > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > arch-general mailing list > arch-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://mailman.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-general > > > End of arch-general Digest, Vol 70, Issue 80 > ******************************************** >
