RE: [Leaf-devel] Re: Standards and due process :-)

2002-03-01 Thread Luis.F.Correia
Adding water to a boiling and already full kettle... Why can't we use a concept similar to this: assume vfat is used /assume Package name: pppd-2.1.4 Package files: pppd-2.1.4-bin.lrp, pppd-2.1.4-conf.lrp pppd-bin.lrp contains all necessary binaries and 'non-editable' scripts, pppd-conf.lrp

Re: [Leaf-devel] Re: Standards and due process :-)

2002-03-01 Thread Charles Steinkuehler
Adding water to a boiling and already full kettle... Why can't we use a concept similar to this: assume vfat is used /assume Package name: pppd-2.1.4 Package files: pppd-2.1.4-bin.lrp, pppd-2.1.4-conf.lrp pppd-bin.lrp contains all necessary binaries and 'non-editable' scripts,

[Leaf-devel] Re: Standards and due process :-)

2002-03-01 Thread Serge Caron
-Original Message- From: David Douthitt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 3:39 AM To: LEAF Development Subject: Re: [Leaf-devel] Re: Standards and due process :-) [snip] It sounds almost like you want a minimal set of enumerated binaries and functions, and then

Re: [Leaf-devel] q regarding an ftp site for leaf-project.org

2002-03-01 Thread Mike Noyes
At 2002-02-28 10:51 -0600, guitarlynn wrote: All of your concerns are well-founded and I approve of this line of consideration. However, when considering the wide availability of download mirrors and the format restrictions binding each of them, a different line of consideration will likely be

[Leaf-devel] Evolution as a project development model

2002-03-01 Thread Mike Noyes
At 2002-02-28 10:51 -0600, guitarlynn wrote: On Thursday 28 February 2002 08:29, Mike Noyes wrote: snip Lynn, Your description above closely resembles what SF calls a Foundry. I believe we are more than that. In your opinion, are we a Linux Embedded Appliance Foundry, or are we a project

[Leaf-devel] Re: Leaf-devel digest, Vol 1 #599 - 7 msgs

2002-03-01 Thread Serge Caron
It seems my day is being rearranged for me :-) Message: 7 From: Luis.F.Correia [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: LEAF Development [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Leaf-devel] Re: Standards and due process :-) Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 11:36:13 - Adding water to a boiling and already full kettle... Unless

[Leaf-devel] Re: Standards and due process :-)

2002-03-01 Thread Luis.F.Correia
Correcting subject line. Done :) I honestly cannot express myself in very fluently in English. Therefore, you will have to bear with me for a while. Try to rearrange my sentences so that they make some sense. Comments below start with LC [snip] Adding water to a boiling and already

[Leaf-devel] Introducing myself

2002-03-01 Thread Luis.F.Correia
Well, I guess I never did properly introduce myself... I'm currently working as a developper for a Portuguese Institute, preparing a Windows NT 4 Unattended Installation that provides for a fully working workstation for front and backoffice users. I have been in contact on and off with Linux

Re: [Leaf-devel] Re: Standards and due process :-)

2002-03-01 Thread Charles Steinkuehler
It sounds almost like you want a minimal set of enumerated binaries and functions, and then Oxygen would add set X and Dachstein would add set Y. Nope. No. Nein. Niet. Non. :-) There is NO baseline. There is one standard: the formation of a package. The final decision on a configuration

Re: [Leaf-devel] Re: Standards and due process :-)

2002-03-01 Thread Michael D. Schleif
Charles Steinkuehler wrote: It sounds almost like you want a minimal set of enumerated binaries and functions, and then Oxygen would add set X and Dachstein would add set Y. Nope. No. Nein. Niet. Non. :-) There is NO baseline. There is one standard: the formation of a package.