On 26/06/07, Eric Boutilier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, Shawn Walker wrote: > > On 26/06/07, Eric Boutilier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, Peter Tribble wrote: > >> > By people, what's the target audience at this stage? I think my question > >> is > >> > really whether the first "release" is aimed at users, or whether there > >> should > >> > be a 0.0 "release" solely for the purpose of Indiana bootstrapping? > >> > >> Good question. So that raises the issue of "non-emancipated" > >> (non-redistributable) files. That is, should there be a 0.0 or 0.1 > >> release that includes them in it? (I vote no, FWIW.) > >> > >> And if not, wouldn't that be the main constraint here? > > > > Non-emancipated is not the same as non-redistributable. Remember that > > there are binary "blobs" that are redistributable. There are several > > files right now that can be redistributed but have not been > > emancipated that are very important for the basic system. (libm.so > > comes to mind... I think). > > Yes, thanks. I meant non-redistributable.
I don't even know that we have a list of what is non-redistributable. I would have to agree that is probably a pretty important point for the first release. That way the iso can be downloaded, shared, and mirrored everywhere. I know there is a list of what is "encumbered", but is anyone aware of a list of what it isn't redistributable? -- "Less is only more where more is no good." --Frank Lloyd Wright Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ indiana-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss -- This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ indiana-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
