On 29 Nov 2000, at 9:48, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> IMHO, everything should be put into CVS, including webpages and
> documentation. CVS gives you a revision history and backup
> archive. This is indespensible for any data that you want to keep
> and/or modify (nearly all data :-).
I would agree with the concept but not the idea implicit in the
statement. Packages should be separate from the base, except perhaps
for a few packages designated for the base disk. In the case of
Oxygen, the latter include: ifconfig/route (et al), libsafe, iselect,
psentry, and a few more.
> I would checkin each different variant as different branches, and
> then slowly work towards merging them all in the future.
My personal bias (as Oxygen developer) would be to continue Oxygen
development while at the same time providing as much assistance to
LEAF development as I could. I can see developing code and using it
in both places. Doing this, I could help LEAF be the best possible
while letting Oxygen reflect my personal ideas.
Is this heresy? To date, I've tried to maintain at least some
compatability with EigerStein and other variants.
As for beginning LEAF sources, I don't think I would be too out of
line to recommend Oxygen sources as a base to develop from. Oxygen
uses more current programs (ie, ip, traceroute, sed, etc.) than most
other variants, and uses a recent version of glibc 2.0.7 that
contains security fixes. I've been developing a source code tree for
Oxygen, which basically looks something like this:
/pub/oxygen
base/ ....... basic system - root.lrp, etc.lrp, usr.lrp, doc.lrp...
packages/ ... packages - such as zile, nano, et al
kernel/
2.2.17 ... kernel - change name as needed
patches .. initrd, linuxrc-always, OpenWall, VPN+Masq, et al
archives/ ... source archives plus diffs for LRP
Ideas?
--
David Douthitt
UNIX Systems Administrator
HP-UX, Linux, Unixware
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Leaf-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/leaf-devel
