Am Donnerstag, 30. September 2010, 15:48:40 schrieb Mike Noyes: > On Thu, 2010-09-30 at 14:20 +0300, Andrew wrote: > > On 29/09/10 23:04, KP Kirchdoerfer wrote: > > > I haven't checked the sources, but AFAIK linux, buildenv and shorewall > > > are the only sources left, staying outside of our repository. > > > > > > I agree that having everything in a snapshot can be useful. > > -snip- > > > What is reason of this? Kernel, gcc, binutils, and some other packages > > can be downloaded in any time - because they are always present on > > servers, and probability that they were removed/moved is negligible; and > > it's size is enough large.
Andrew; it wasn't me who made the proposal originally > Andrew, > Do we distribute gcc? If not, we're not responsible for maintaining > source code. As a micro/embedded linux distribution, kernel, distributed > packages, etc. must have source for binaries distributed in the SF FRS. Mike, this was my (wrong) assumption that we need gcc as well... To sum it up: The easiest way would be to add a tarball of our cvs (currently 108MB uncompressed without kernel source) into FRS once the binaries will be released. Therefor the kernel and shorewall has to be in our cvs repository, which are outside up to now. gcc can stay as-is (but might added for convenience). We have to doublecheck, if all other sources are provided from cvs. Hope I got it now :) kp ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Start uncovering the many advantages of virtual appliances and start using them to simplify application deployment and accelerate your shift to cloud computing. http://p.sf.net/sfu/novell-sfdev2dev _______________________________________________ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
