I'm not sure I made my point very clearly. I'll try again. On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 05:37:10PM -0500, Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 03:43:09PM -0500, Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > was heard to say: > > We make no restriction that Debian GNU/Linux packages can not be installed > > on a Sun OS, do we? Why should we have anything to say about packages > > installable on M$?
(note that I'm assuming Dale meant "officially support and maintain SunOS packages" above. No-one that I've seen has suggested that we should somehow require users to not compile our packages on That Operating System) > We also don't use our resources to compile and distribute binary > packages for Solaris, or put our name behind an effort to do so. Why > should we do anything different for Windows? On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 11:55:29PM +0100, Peter Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > When has we rejected to put our name behind an effort to distribute > binary packages for Solaris like you suggesting we should do with > Windows? > > I know that dpkg has been ported/compiled on a couple of closed source > unices but a porting project of Debian as a whole I don't remember > been discussed to the extend you seems to suggesting. Yes, and therefore it's meaningless to say that because we do not refuse to (officially) support "Debian/SunOS", we should not refuse to support "Debian/Windows". Daniel -- /-------------------- Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------\ | Who is General Failure, and why is he reading my hard drive? | \---- Be like the kid in the movie! Play chess! -- http://www.uschess.org ---/
