David:
I agree, there should be no distribution called LEAF,
specifically. But...there *should* be distributions called
(for instance) Maple and Oxygen that were developed by LEAF
contributors.
Essentially, we should distinguish the project name
from the distribution name. So, unlike RedHat, more like
Transmeta.
-Scott
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, David Douthitt wrote:
> To me, that is what LRP and its variants are all about: these ARE
> distributions, and part of maintaining a distribution is updating
> packages, adding features, recompiles, et al.
>
> As for a LEAF distribution, I think I would actually shy away from an
> actual "LEAF" image; the concept is good but the literal
> implementation would be bad. Put another way, I wouldn't have any
> problem with "Maple LRP" created by the LEAF project (as one more LEAF
> variant) but to have a "LEAF LRP" or "LEAF image" would overshadow
> projects like Eigerstein and Oxygen. Oxygen, among being good for
> others to use, reflects my own decisions and foibles - I like it that
> way :-)
>
> A LEAF LRP would cause people to think that Oxygen has been superceded
> by LEAF, or that LEAF is "more current" or "better" which may or may
> not be true.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leaf-devel mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
>
_______________________________________________
Leaf-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
