From: Hideki Yamane <henrich@debian.or.jp>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>
Cc: Pete Zaitcev <zaitcev@kotori.zaitcev.us>,
jim@meyering.net, Project Hail <hail-devel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Hail status and update (was Re: Question about hail)
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 15:21:07 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121211152107.1656d231e796d98c408554cf@debian.or.jp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <50B518DA.50401@pobox.com>
Hi,
Thank you for your mail, Pete and Jeff :)
And also late to reply since tons of task and mail makes me busy (and a bit sick).
On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 14:47:38 -0500
Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com> wrote:
> > Q: Is this project is still alive? if so, where is the current main site.
> > Could you tell me the status, please?
>
> The main site for source code is currently github.
>
> https://github.com/jgarzik/hail
> https://github.com/jgarzik/tabled
> https://github.com/jgarzik/itd
> https://github.com/jgarzik/nfs4d
okay.
> Hail was collateral damage in a kernel.org hack. No data was lost or
> compromised, but it took kernel.org months to recover even basic account
> services and git access. wikis took months longer after that. I'm
> still waiting to see if anybody has an archive of old tarballs, because
> k.org was my canonical upstream storage location, with zero local ones.
Hmm, I've expected it due to kernel.org compromise issue, terrible.
Are kernel.org administrators still working? I know that restoring services
and accounts are not easy task, and they also need to harden their system,
but took _months_ is not usual... maybe ping to them is good.
I've asked ftpadmin@ about hail archive before ask to you since it's
described in top page, but got no reply :-(
> The tarballs can conceivably be recovered by checking out a git tag,
> re-running autogen.sh, and then "make dist"... but with
> autoconf/automake/libtool upgrades over the years, tarball checksums
> might change using that method.
okay.
> History: hail was GPL-2 only, following the lead of the kernel. But it
> sounds like this is impractical given the few existing users, so I am in
> favor of relicensing to "GPL-2 or later".
:)
> I disagree with the interpretation vis a vis openssl and several others
> do too. However, if this is an impediment to use, I would be happy to
> accept a pull request adding the openssl exemption language.
Probably ftpmasters in Debian archive would deny without it.
Okay I'll do it later, thanks!
--
Regards,
Hideki Yamane henrich @ debian.or.jp/org
http://wiki.debian.org/HidekiYamane
prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-12-11 6:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20121126162840.ccf73ae1f19e7745ce1a7fc0@debian.or.jp>
2012-11-27 19:47 ` Hail status and update (was Re: Question about hail) Jeff Garzik
2012-12-11 6:21 ` Hideki Yamane [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20121211152107.1656d231e796d98c408554cf@debian.or.jp \
--to=henrich@debian.or.jp \
--cc=hail-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=jgarzik@pobox.com \
--cc=jim@meyering.net \
--cc=zaitcev@kotori.zaitcev.us \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).