Op do, 16-12-2004 te 17:07 -0800, schreef Adam McKenna:
On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 01:13:11AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
I think Wouter is only asking for reciprocity here. If they don't care
about his concerns why should he care about theirs ? Or alternatively
not caring is a freedom.
We
On Dec 16, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I refuse to accept that 'providing a common binary core' would be the
only way to fix the issue. It is probably the easiest way, and for lazy
people it may look as if it is the only one; but we should not dismiss
the idea that it is possible
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 02:37:09PM -0500, Ian Murdock wrote:
On Tue, 2004-12-14 at 18:15 +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
This sounds a bit like the government whose country had three
different types of power plugs. None compatible, of course. Somebody
then got the great idea that if they
On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 10:05:00AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Op do, 16-12-2004 te 17:07 -0800, schreef Adam McKenna:
On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 01:13:11AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
I think Wouter is only asking for reciprocity here. If they don't care
about his concerns why should he
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 12:51:54 -0800, Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 09:25:38PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Op do, 16-12-2004 te 14:46 -0500, schreef Ian Murdock:
We've heard directly from the biggest ISVs that nothing short of
a common binary core will be
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 12:45:15 -0800, Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
1. (*) text/plain ( ) text/html
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
'ISV' is just another name for 'Software Hoarder'.
Please keep in mind this portion of Debian's Social Contract:
/We will support our users who develop
On Tue, 2004-12-14 at 23:22 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 08:34:17AM -0500, Ian Murdock wrote:
On Fri, 2004-12-10 at 00:44 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Besides that the LCC sounds like an extraordinarily bad idea, passing
around binaries only makes sense if
On Tue, 2004-12-14 at 18:15 +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
This sounds a bit like the government whose country had three
different types of power plugs. None compatible, of course. Somebody
then got the great idea that if they invented another one to supersede
the three plugs in use (since
On Wed, 2004-12-15 at 23:55 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 02:36:52PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
Bill Allombert wrote:
But overriding them means we lose the certification ?
We can't allow it to be the case that overriding due to an existing and
unremedied
On Wed, 2004-12-15 at 07:42 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Core means implemention of LSB, and the packages/libraries that will
constitute that are being determined now, as a collaborative process.
Well, for instance, the libacl package was brought up as an example in the
context of changing
Op do, 16-12-2004 te 14:46 -0500, schreef Ian Murdock:
We've heard
directly from the biggest ISVs that nothing short of a common
binary core will be viable from their point of view.
Well, frankly, I don't care what they think is 'viable'.
'ISV' is just another name for 'Software Hoarder'. I
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
'ISV' is just another name for 'Software Hoarder'.
Please keep in mind this portion of Debian's Social Contract:
We will support our users who develop and run non-free
software on Debian
One of the reasons for this is that you can get more people to
appreciate
me binutils and modutils both depend on it.
Bruce On flex? No. At least not in unstable.
sorry, I meant to write Build-Depend.
me Or is the LCC proposing to standardize on a set of binaries without
me specifying the toolchain that's used to reproduce them?
Bruce Linking and calling conventions
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 09:25:38PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Op do, 16-12-2004 te 14:46 -0500, schreef Ian Murdock:
We've heard
directly from the biggest ISVs that nothing short of a common
binary core will be viable from their point of view.
Well, frankly, I don't care what they
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 21:25:38 +0100, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Well, frankly, I don't care what [ISVs] think is 'viable'.
I do care. Apparently some ISVs think a common binary core is
viable. I think they might change their minds if the argument against
golden binaries is
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 02:46:53PM -0500, Ian Murdock wrote:
On Wed, 2004-12-15 at 23:55 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 02:36:52PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
Bill Allombert wrote:
But overriding them means we lose the certification ?
We can't allow it to be
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 12:51:54PM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 09:25:38PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Op do, 16-12-2004 te 14:46 -0500, schreef Ian Murdock:
We've heard
directly from the biggest ISVs that nothing short of a common
binary core will be viable
Unfortunally, some distributions don't seem to be willing to do more
than the minimal changes to adhere to the LSB. I did some patches for
RedHat - and the bugreport is still open (I don't know whether the
patches still work).
Failing some required tests seems to be quite a motivator
to at
On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 01:13:11AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
I think Wouter is only asking for reciprocity here. If they don't care
about his concerns why should he care about theirs ? Or alternatively
not caring is a freedom.
We care because our priorities are our users and free software.
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 05:07:44PM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 01:13:11AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
I think Wouter is only asking for reciprocity here. If they don't care
about his concerns why should he care about theirs ? Or alternatively
not caring is a freedom.
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 06:16:03AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
That wasn't my question. My question was, why should any ISV care if
their product has been LSB-*certified*? ISVs can test against, and
advertise support for, whatever they want to without getting the LSB's
imprimatur. I cannot
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 04:04:22PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
It seems to me than one of the main value of Debian is in the quality of
its core distribution. One of the reason of the quality is that it
is not developed for itself but as a platform for the 10^4+ packages
and the 10+
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 12:22:13PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
I don't think Debian should try to adopt an extensive, externally
specified ABI. For a few core packges, this may make some sense, but
not for most libraries.
Lcc is also about those few core packages.
Instead, proprietary
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 12:44:05AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
In fact I'm using Debian exactly because it doesn't try to apeal ISVs,
IHVs, OEMs and other business-driven three-letter acronyms. As soon
as you ty to please them quality of implementation goes down.
Why?
It took me some
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 11:53:54AM -0500, Ian Murdock wrote:
What about the LCC's scope isn't clear?
Er, the fact that no actual scope has been stated? What does core mean?
What packages (libraries) are included in this core?
Core means implemention of LSB, and the packages/libraries
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 12:51:21PM +0100, Michael Meskes wrote:
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 04:04:22PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
It seems to me than one of the main value of Debian is in the quality of
its core distribution. One of the reason of the quality is that it
is not developed for
Ian Murdock wrote:
Because the LSB bases its certification process on a standard ABI/API
specification alone, and this approach simply hasn't worked.
Surely you're simplifying here? (See LSB-Core 2.0.1, chapters 3, 4, 5.)
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
* Michael Meskes:
Instead, proprietary software vendors should ship all libraries in the
versions they need, or link their software statically. I wouldn't
From a technical standpoint this may make sense, but not from the
commercial standpoint ISVs have to take. Building your own environment
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 18:59:05 +0100, Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
LCC could concentrate on providing such a distribution-independent
execution environment, and perform the necessary integration tests for
commercially relevant distributions.
Just an idea. I think this is far more
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 12:51:21 +0100, Michael Meskes [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 04:04:22PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
It seems to me than one of the main value of Debian is in the
quality of its core distribution. One of the reason of the quality
is that it is not
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I am not sure I am convinced that the benefits are worth
outsourcing the core of our product -- and I think that most business
shall tell you that is a bad idea.
Well, please don't tell this to all of the people who we are attempting
to get to use Linux as the core of
On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 12:40:29 -0500, Ian Murdock [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
If you're having trouble picturing how Debian might engage the LCC,
here's my ideal scenario: the source packages at the core of Debian
are maintained in collaboration with the other LCC members, and the
resulting
Bruce
Well, please don't tell this to all of the people who we are attempting
to get to use Linux as the core of their products.
core (software architecture) != core (customer value).
Also, please make sure to tell the upstream maintainers that we aren't
going to use their code any longer,
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 10:44:50 -0800, Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I am not sure I am convinced that the benefits are worth
outsourcing the core of our product -- and I think that most
business shall tell you that is a bad idea.
Well, please don't tell this
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hmm. Does this not impede Debian in new directions we may like
to take the distribution, like, say, making Debian be Se-Linux
compatible, if we so choose?
I think it means that Debian gets to be leader regarding the things it
cares about. I doubt that the other
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 11:21:02 -0800, Michael K Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Bruce Well, please don't tell this to all of the people who we are
attempting to get to use Linux as the core of their products.
core (software architecture) != core (customer value).
Also, please make sure to
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 11:29:47 -0800, Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Nobody is saying that you can't override the external stuff when
necessary. Security would be a good reason to do so, if LCC is being
tardy compared to Debian.
Well, that does address my concern, thanks.
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hmm. I am not sure how to take this: either you are spoiling
for a fight, or you do not take your duties as a developer very
seriously.
I was taking the implications of your statements farther than you
intended, in order to get you to give them additional
Hello,
Wichmann, Mats D wrote:
My experience as a developer who's tried to write
an app to use the LSB (only the init script interface)
is that it's poorly enough specified and/or implemented
divergently within the spec to the point that I had to
test my implementation on every LSB distriution I
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 01:36:47PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 11:21:02 -0800, Michael K Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Bruce Well, please don't tell this to all of the people who we are
attempting to get to use Linux as the core of their products.
core
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 12:13:58 -0800, Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
1. (*) text/plain ( ) text/html
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hmm. I am not sure how to take this: either you are spoiling for a
fight, or you do not take your duties as a developer very
seriously.
I was taking the
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 11:29:47AM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
Would outsourcing the core packages to
third parties not make us less nimble (if I can use the word with a
straight face)?
Nobody is saying that you can't override the external stuff when
necessary. Security would be a good
Bill Allombert wrote:
But overriding them means we lose the certification ?
We can't allow it to be the case that overriding due to an existing and
unremedied security issue causes loss of certification. There's no
common sense in that.
Thanks
Bruce
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
So it was inflammatory, then. Comes under spoiling for a fight.
Only if you confuse Socrates and Sophism.
So, which version of flex you think you want to ship?
Fortunately, flex isn't in the problem space. If you stick to what
version of libc, etc., it'll make
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 02:36:52PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
Bill Allombert wrote:
But overriding them means we lose the certification ?
We can't allow it to be the case that overriding due to an existing and
unremedied security issue causes loss of certification. There's no
common
Bill Allombert wrote:
Then could you elaborate the scope of the certification ?
It's still a matter for negotiation. If the certification won't admit to
common-sense rules, it won't work for anyone - not just Debian.
Thanks
Bruce
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
On Dec 15, Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you know of any other distribution that has taken the trouble to
write down as much policy as Debian has? It's not clear that the others
have anything to put against it.
Bug for bug compatibility required by their customer looks like a good
Whoops, I guess that's what I get for trying to be concise for once.
I'll try again.
Bruce Well, please don't tell this [i. e., outsourcing your core is
a bad idea]
Bruce to all of the people who we are attempting to get to use Linux
Bruce as the core of their products.
me core (software
Bruce Fortunately, flex isn't in the problem space. If you stick to what
Bruce version of libc, etc., it'll make more sense.
Flex isn't in the problem space if we're talking core ABIs. But it
certainly is if we're talking core implementations, as binutils and
modutils both depend on it. Or is
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
binutils and modutils both depend on it.
On flex? No. At least not in unstable.
However, Debian seems to have addressed the issue by providing both
versions of flex. I don't see what would prevent us from going on with
that practice.
Or is the LCC proposing to
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 05:00:11PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
binutils and modutils both depend on it.
On flex? No. At least not in unstable.
Yes, it does.
$ apt-cache showsrc binutils
Package: binutils
Binary: binutils-hppa64, binutils, binutils-doc, binutils-dev,
Steve Langasek wrote:
On flex? No. At least not in unstable.
Yes, it does.
Oh, you mean build-depends.
Not standardizing the toolchain used to build a set of standardized binaries
would seem to leave the LCC open to a repeat of the gcc-2.96 fiasco,
however...
The
me
Ian Murdock (quotes out of order)
If the LSB only attempts to certify things that haven't forked, then
it's a no-op. Well, that's not quite fair; I have found it useful to
bootstrap a porting effort using lsb-rpm. But for it to be a software
operating environment and not just a
On Fri, 2004-12-10 at 00:44 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Besides that the LCC sounds like an extraordinarily bad idea, passing
around binaries only makes sense if you can't easily reproduce them from
the source (which I defined very broadly to include all build scripts
and depencies), and
On Fri, 2004-12-10 at 10:07 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
If this is what's going to happen, then the first time a security fix
comes along in one of those binaries the system suddenly isn't
LCC-compiant anymore (due to the fact that different distributions
handle security updates differently
On Thu, 2004-12-09 at 14:33 -0600, John Hasler wrote:
Why don't standard ABIs suffice?
Because the LSB bases its certification process on a standard ABI/API
specification alone, and this approach simply hasn't worked.
--
Ian Murdock
317-578-8882 (office)
http://www.progeny.com/
On Fri, 2004-12-10 at 10:57 +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
On Friday 10 December 2004 06.15, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
John Goerzen dijo [Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 09:40:51PM -0600]:
we could participate in this organization even if we didn't take
their packages? That is, perhaps we could
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 05:07:12PM -0500, Ian Murdock wrote:
On Sat, 2004-12-11 at 03:49 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 03:39:55PM -0500, Ian Murdock wrote:
You've just described the way the LSB has done it for years, which thus
far, hasn't worked--while there are
Yo all!
Seeing this discussion wander in many directions, please consider what is
acutally under discussion here:
Bruce:
I would not suggest that Debian commit to using LCC packages at this
time. We should participate for a while and see how many changes we'd
have to make and whether the
On Tue, 2004-12-14 at 06:16 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 05:07:12PM -0500, Ian Murdock wrote:
On Sat, 2004-12-11 at 03:49 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Well, my first question is why, irrespective of how valuable the LSB
itself
is to them, any ISV would choose
* Ian Murdock
| On Fri, 2004-12-10 at 10:07 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
| If this is what's going to happen, then the first time a security fix
| comes along in one of those binaries the system suddenly isn't
| LCC-compiant anymore (due to the fact that different distributions
| handle
Ian Murdock dijo [Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 11:53:54AM -0500]:
(snip)
The ISVs have spoken. They want to support as few ports as possible,
because those ports cost money. They also want to support as much
of the market as possible, and the current reality is that many of
those markets are out of
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 08:34:17AM -0500, Ian Murdock wrote:
On Fri, 2004-12-10 at 00:44 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Besides that the LCC sounds like an extraordinarily bad idea, passing
around binaries only makes sense if you can't easily reproduce them from
the source (which I defined
Joey Hess wrote (on debian-devel):
My experience as a developer who's tried to write
an app to use the LSB (only the init script interface)
is that it's poorly enough specified and/or implemented
divergently within the spec to the point that I had to
test my implementation on every LSB
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 08:29:16PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Tollef Fog Heen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The problem is not the autobuilder infrastructure per se. It is that
testing and unstable
On Thu, 2004-12-09 at 13:04 -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
If ISVs want exactly the same, they are free to install a chroot
environment containing the binaries they certify against and to supply
a kernel that they expect their customers to use. That's the approach
I've had to take when
On Sat, 2004-12-11 at 03:49 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 03:39:55PM -0500, Ian Murdock wrote:
You've just described the way the LSB has done it for years, which thus
far, hasn't worked--while there are numerous LSB-certified distros,
there are exactly zero
On Thu, 2004-12-09 at 23:07 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Ian Murdock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Can someone provide an example of where the name of a dynamic
library itself (i.e., the one in the file system, after the
package is unpacked) would change? I'd be surprised if this was
a
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 05:07:12PM -0500, Ian Murdock wrote:
We have absolutely been talking to ISVs about their needs--indeed, this
has been a conversation that has been ongoing for years..
What about the LCC's scope isn't clear? The basic are fairly simple:
Make the cost-benefit equation a
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 05:11:32PM -0500, Ian Murdock wrote:
On Thu, 2004-12-09 at 23:07 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Ian Murdock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I understand the LSB is beginning to think about the multiarch issue,
and I suspect Debian is far ahead of others in terms of
Andrew Suffield wrote:
http://wiki.debian.net/index.cgi?ReleaseProposals
Every single one of these falls into one of these four groups:
Please note the wiki in the URL and the edit page button on the
page.
(Or are you just pointlessly bitching?)
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description:
Steve Langasek wrote:
Well, my first question is why, irrespective of how valuable the LSB itself
is to them, any ISV would choose to get their apps LSB certified. The
benefits of having one's distro LSB certified are clear, but what does an
LSB certification give an ISV that their own
On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 18:40:07 +0100, Joey Hess wrote:
Andrew Suffield wrote:
http://wiki.debian.net/index.cgi?ReleaseProposals
Every single one of these falls into one of these four groups:
Please note the wiki in the URL and the edit page button on the
page.
Inspired by A.S.'s comment
* Brian Nelson
| Anyone, developer or non-developer, can help fix toolchain problems.
| However, the only people who can work on the testing-security
| autobuilders are ... the security team and the ftp-masters? What's
| that, a handful of people? With a bottleneck like that, isn't that a
|
Tollef Fog Heen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Brian Nelson
| Anyone, developer or non-developer, can help fix toolchain problems.
| However, the only people who can work on the testing-security
| autobuilders are ... the security team and the ftp-masters? What's
| that, a handful of people?
On Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 08:29:16PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Tollef Fog Heen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The problem is not the autobuilder infrastructure per se. It is that
testing and unstable are largely in sync (!). This, combinded with the
fact that testing must not have
* Goswin von Brederlow
| Tollef Fog Heen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|
| * Brian Nelson
|
| | Anyone, developer or non-developer, can help fix toolchain problems.
| | However, the only people who can work on the testing-security
| | autobuilders are ... the security team and the
* Tollef Fog Heen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041212 21:35]:
* Goswin von Brederlow
| Tollef Fog Heen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| * Brian Nelson
|
| | Anyone, developer or non-developer, can help fix toolchain problems.
| | However, the only people who can work on the testing-security
| |
Tollef Fog Heen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Goswin von Brederlow
| Tollef Fog Heen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|
| * Brian Nelson
|
| | Anyone, developer or non-developer, can help fix toolchain problems.
| | However, the only people who can work on the testing-security
| |
Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 08:29:16PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Tollef Fog Heen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The problem is not the autobuilder infrastructure per se. It is that
testing and unstable are largely in sync (!). This, combinded with
* Goswin von Brederlow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041212 22:20]:
Tollef Fog Heen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
t-p-u is not uploaded from another host through a mapping. (Remember,
uploads to stable are mapped to stable-security on
security.debian.org, then uploaded to stable from that host. The
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Why aren't security uploads for testing done as testing-security
unstable? Why leave the bug open in sid when fixing it in testing?
[...]
It is not possible to target more than one distribution (i.e.
testing-security and unstable) in one
* Brian Nelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041210 19:55]:
Yup. There's never been a sense of urgency. The RM's throw out release
dates and goals every once in a while, but no one seems to take those
seriously.
Not true. (And, perhaps you noticed, the release team avoided to give
specific days in
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 09:41:47AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Brian Nelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041210 19:55]:
Yup. There's never been a sense of urgency. The RM's throw out release
dates and goals every once in a while, but no one seems to take those
seriously.
Not true. (And,
* Bruce Perens:
The Linux Core Consortium would like to have Debian's involvement. This
organization has revived what I originally proposed to do as the LSB -
to make a binary base for Linux distributions that could be among
several distributions who would share in the effort
* Michael Banck:
2. GNOME succeeded for the desktop.
Are there any proprietary COTS applications for GNOME where vendor
support isn't bound to specific GNU/Linux distributions?
Maybe GNOME is a good example of cross-vendor cooperation (but so is
GCC), but would be quite surprised if this
* Brian Nelson:
Anyone, developer or non-developer, can help fix toolchain problems.
However, the only people who can work on the testing-security
autobuilders are ... the security team and the ftp-masters?
It's about infrastructure, so the security team is out (they are just
users of this
* Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-12-11 12:36]:
Anyone, developer or non-developer, can help fix toolchain problems.
However, the only people who can work on the testing-security
autobuilders are ... the security team and the ftp-masters?
It's about infrastructure, so the security
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 03:39:55PM -0500, Ian Murdock wrote:
You've just described the way the LSB has done it for years, which thus
far, hasn't worked--while there are numerous LSB-certified distros,
there are exactly zero LSB-certified applications. The reason for this
is that substantially
* Steve Langasek:
Um, what's the concrete use case for a cross-distro standard network
configuration interface?
VPN software, intrusion detection systems, software for CALEA support,
centralized management software.
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 01:42:57PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
Adrian von Bidder dijo [Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 04:38:10PM +0100]:
we don't exactly have a strong history of being able to pull off
timely releases
Did Debian even try?
I didn't follow the woody release too closely, being a
On Friday 10 December 2004 06.15, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
John Goerzen dijo [Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 09:40:51PM -0600]:
we could participate in this organization even if we didn't take
their packages? That is, perhaps we could influence the direction to
a more useful one?
Then we would be
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 12:40:29PM -0500, Ian Murdock wrote:
Let me first say unequivocally that the LCC is very interested in
getting Debian involved. The question has always been: How do we do
that?
I think there is one obvious answer to this question: 'Learn from
history'.
1. Unix and
On Thu, 2004-12-09 at 21:40 -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 07:08:48PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think that tying core Debian packages to the Red Hat boat anchor is a
horrible, horrible idea.
I tend to agree with sentiments
On Dec 09, Ian Murdock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let me first say unequivocally that the LCC is very interested in
getting Debian involved. The question has always been: How do we do
that?
As usual: by sending patches.
So, the flow can only be unidirectional?
No, interested developers
On Thu, 2004-12-09 at 23:15 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
John Goerzen dijo [Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 09:40:51PM -0600]:
I think that tying core Debian packages to the Red Hat boat anchor is a
horrible, horrible idea.
I tend to agree with sentiments like this, but didn't Bruce mention
that
On Thu, 2004-12-09 at 21:35 -0800, Philip Miller wrote:
Greg Folkert wrote:
Many reasons people come to Debian... Distributed Binaries is not one of
them.
If you think this isn't a reason to use Debian, I, as a long-time user, will
tell you that
you're dead wrong. I use Debian because
On Fri, 2004-12-10 at 12:50 +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 12:40:29PM -0500, Ian Murdock wrote:
Let me first say unequivocally that the LCC is very interested in
getting Debian involved. The question has always been: How do we do
that?
I think there is one obvious
On Fri, 2004-12-10 at 06:31 -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
On Thu, 2004-12-09 at 23:15 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
John Goerzen dijo [Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 09:40:51PM -0600]:
I think that tying core Debian packages to the Red Hat boat anchor is a
horrible, horrible idea.
I tend to agree
Op vr, 10-12-2004 te 12:50 +0100, schreef Michael Banck:
*** The interested parties of the LCC should pick Debian as a base and
Debian should make this possible. ***
Rather than everybody just throwing all their stuff in together and
mixing it up.
Of course, this would also mean for
1 - 100 of 155 matches
Mail list logo
