Michel,
not sure if you heard of http://www.nexenta.org
you can find many patches here: http://www.nexenta.org/diffs-gnusolaris
but this is Debian/OpenSolaris platform - perfect for storage and
reliable servers.
On Thu, 2008-03-13 at 15:51 +0100, BRIAND, Michel (EKITO) wrote:
Hi,
dpkg ported
On Sun, 2006-07-16 at 16:47 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Hi all,
At https://wiki.ubuntu.com/NoMoreSourcePackages is a description of
the new world order for Ubuntu packages -- which will simplify making
changes to Ubuntu packages to a matter of simply committing the change
to the source
On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 12:59 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
Erast Benson writes (Re: cdrtools):
Joerg clearly stands that:
1) Makefiles != scripts or at least it is unclear whether Makefiles may
be called scripts:
GPL §3 requires the scripts for compilation to be provided
On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 16:43 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 12:59 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
Erast Benson writes (Re: cdrtools):
Joerg clearly stands that:
1) Makefiles != scripts or at least it is unclear whether Makefiles may
On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 01:02 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Don't forget that Joerg were main developer of cdrtools for quite some
time and we should respect his point of view on how result of his work
for the last (what 10 years?) should be licensed
On Mon, 2006-07-10 at 18:42 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006, Erast Benson wrote:
On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 20:15 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
NB: Please follow Debian list policy and refrain from Cc:'ing me
On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 20:15 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
NB: Please follow Debian list policy and refrain from Cc:'ing me.
On Fri, 07 Jul 2006, Erast Benson wrote:
On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 08:39 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Fri, 07 Jul 2006, Erast Benson wrote:
what? you think
On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 10:38 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 08:57:54AM +0200, Daniel Baumann wrote:
Kevin Bube wrote:
What about switching to dvdrtools? I think this project was
started to solve the frequently recurring arguments about the
licensing and the device
On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 08:39 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Fri, 07 Jul 2006, Erast Benson wrote:
On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 10:38 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
I completely fail to see any logic here:
* cdrtools, obviously completely non-free, is in main
what? you think if it is non-GPL
On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 19:25 +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
pe, 2006-07-07 kello 08:52 -0700, Erast Benson kirjoitti:
On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 08:39 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
No. The primary issue is that the mixture of a GPL+CDDL work creates a
work that cannot be distributed by anyone else
On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 20:15 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
NB: Please follow Debian list policy and refrain from Cc:'ing me.
On Fri, 07 Jul 2006, Erast Benson wrote:
On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 08:39 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Fri, 07 Jul 2006, Erast Benson wrote:
what? you think
On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 19:56 +0200, Elimar Riesebieter wrote:
Will the package be orphande next time?
No, depending on the outcome of the licensing issues, either the current
maintainers still continue to maintain the package, or it has to be
removed from Debian completely.
IMHO we
On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 21:47 +0300, George Danchev wrote:
On Thursday 06 July 2006 21:26, Erast Benson wrote:
On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 19:56 +0200, Elimar Riesebieter wrote:
Will the package be orphande next time?
No, depending on the outcome of the licensing issues, either
On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 16:55 -0500, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 09:20:34PM +0200, Preben Randhol wrote:
With the 2.6 kernel programs using OSS for sound are not working
anymore. Sound that is. One *may* use aoss, but then the user needs to
open a terminal and write:
On Sun, 2006-05-21 at 09:44:50 -0700, Erast Benson wrote:
because non-glibc Debian architectures does exists (i.e.
FreeBSD,Solaris,Darwin), and it is time to consider them and accept
their existence. Those core architectures are open sourced and their
communities will only grow over time
On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 23:05 -0700, Matt Taggart wrote:
Erast Benson writes...
Once you accompany OpenSolaris kernel with GLIBC, you will kill this
capability, you will not be able to run anything other than OSS compiled
for your particular distro. That was my point. And isn't LSB is what
On Sun, 2006-05-21 at 10:44 +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
Erast Benson wrote:
On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 12:32 -0500, Michael Banck wrote:
We had a pure NetBSD port before, but so far no non-glibc port got added
to the archive officially (but that doesn't mean it would get rejected
On Sun, 2006-05-21 at 09:49 +0300, George Danchev wrote:
On Sunday 21 May 2006 05:35, Erast Benson wrote:
On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 21:11 +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 11:51:09AM -0700, Erast Benson wrote:
Do you really believe so? Do you understand
On Sun, 2006-05-21 at 17:09 +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
Erast Benson wrote:
On Sun, 2006-05-21 at 10:44 +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
Then provide the Solaris libc and other support libraries somewhere
proprietary applications can use them, while building your system around
glibc
On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 22:45 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 12:32 -0500, Michael Banck wrote:
We had a pure NetBSD port before, but so far no non-glibc port got added
to the archive officially (but that doesn't mean it would get
On Sun, 2006-05-21 at 19:14 +0300, George Danchev wrote:
On Sunday 21 May 2006 17:34, Erast Benson wrote:
--cut--
But I hope you still got me right. For me, all these things are
existing applications which must run. The world is not 100% open
sourced yet and we are in it, we are part
On Sun, 2006-05-21 at 19:40 +0300, George Danchev wrote:
On Sunday 21 May 2006 19:06, Erast Benson wrote:
-cut--
Clean way would be to extend SUN C library with missing GLIBC
functionality. Btw, have you seen SUN C library code? Its done very
clean, very polished code base which runs
On Sun, 2006-05-21 at 18:54 +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 09:44:50AM -0700, Erast Benson wrote:
So, why GLIBC is so important to you? What do you miss in SUN C library?
And why do you think technically impossible to extend SUN C library with
missing GLIBC
On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 12:01 +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
[Erast Benson]
And thanks to upstream folks, 90% of OSS software is platform
independent and just works.
Just to get the facts straight here. I compile and port free software
regularly to Linux, Solaris, Irix, HP-UX, Tru64
On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 07:38 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Hendrik Sattler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Am Samstag, 20. Mai 2006 12:01 schrieb Petter Reinholdtsen:
So I would say less than 20% of the free software is platform
independent, based on personal problems.
And the other authors
On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 16:33 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le vendredi 19 mai 2006 à 13:15 -0700, Alex Ross a écrit :
Ideally though, there'd be an augmented policy of package acceptance,
reflecting the fact that the packages with Architecture: any should build
and run on one of the Debian
On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 12:37 -0300, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
Em Sex, 2006-05-19 às 17:52 -0700, Erast Benson escreveu:
is platform independent and just works. And if Debian's meta-information
introduces problem for package which compiles and runs just fine from
out of upstream tarball
On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 17:54 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le samedi 20 mai 2006 à 08:07 -0700, Erast Benson a écrit :
Please wake up. Debian is a GNU system and needs a GNU environment. I
doubt that more than half of the archive can build without the GNU libc.
This is the reason why
On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 12:32 -0500, Michael Banck wrote:
We had a pure NetBSD port before, but so far no non-glibc port got added
to the archive officially (but that doesn't mean it would get rejected
if it was of release quality).
IMHO a glibc-based OpenSolaris would certainly be the
On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 21:11 +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 11:51:09AM -0700, Erast Benson wrote:
Do you really believe so? Do you understand that such a hybrid will
not run any existing Solaris apps like you will not be able to run
simple thinks like Macromedia
On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 20:32 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
If you aren't getting Solaris-specific features (dtrace, etc ?),
then what's the point of running Solaris?
Nexenta is absolutely rock stable OS (thanks to legendary Solaris
history) and moving towards running any applications written for
On Fri, 2006-05-19 at 14:44 -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 01:15:44PM -0700, Alex Ross wrote:
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 10:34:35AM -0700, Alex Ross wrote:
The following is based on premises that portability is good and that
POSIX is a standard. A
On Thu, 2006-04-13 at 00:04 +0200, Loïc Minier wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006, Erast Benson wrote:
+Provides: sunwlxsl [solaris-i386]
Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}
Why not simply use Provide: ${misc:Provides} and set misc:Provides to
sunwlxsl on solaris-i386?
OK
On Thu, 2006-04-13 at 12:18 +0300, Daniel Stone wrote:
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 12:13:57AM -0700, Erast Benson wrote:
On Thu, 2006-04-13 at 00:04 +0200, Loïc Minier wrote:
Why not simply Provide: sunwlxsl all of the
time, doesn't it provide sunwlxsl on other arches?
But how
On Thu, 2006-04-13 at 17:41 +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 12:13:57AM -0700, Erast Benson wrote:
On Thu, 2006-04-13 at 00:04 +0200, Loïc Minier wrote:
Why not simply Provide: sunwlxsl all of the
time, doesn't it provide sunwlxsl on other arches?
But how
Hi,
I'm thinking of the way to putback NexentaOS[1] changes some more.
As far as OpenSolaris core is concerned, we need to provide virtual
packages, like sunwxml and sunwlxsl to make native SVR4 packaging system
dependency happy. I'm looking to the right way to do so.
Bellow is the snippet from
Hi Guys,
Back in November 2005 Michael Schultheiss performed initial analysis of
dpkg patches at [1]. Our dpkg implementation has changed a bit since
than.
Attached is the first in the series of dpkg patches which adds
solaris-i386 architecture support used by NexentaOS.
We would like to start
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 02:26, Erast Benson wrote:
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you do not see something specific, or newer versions, like(you can
find
debarchiver-0.3 but we have debarchiver-0.4 packaged), that means it
is
not committed yet and we are testing it right
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, this is another violation. The source comes first, then binaries
next
to it. Hm, I wonder how could you make people believe (trust) in your
open
source project ?
George, I don't think there's much point in repeating objections that
have
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 01:48, Erast Benson wrote:
www.gnusolaris.org is *the same place*.
Oh, I expected some tar-ball to be linked from the same place as the ISOs
(i.e. the Downloads page) not some point-and-click SVN-webinterface.
this URL also does _neither_ offer access to the apt
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 17:17, Erast Benson wrote:
OK, for your convenient, http://www.gnusolaris.org/sources shold has
everything latest/not-committed tarballs of source code with our
modifications for every package we are using.
We are preparing cron job, so, will update them every
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005, Erast Benson wrote:
OK, for your convenient, http://www.gnusolaris.org/sources shold has
everything latest/not-committed tarballs of source code with our
modifications for every package we are using.
We are preparing cron job, so, will update them every night until we
David Schmitt writes:
I have downloaded the elatte_live_prealpha1_x86.iso.gz[1] from your
website
and found a dpkg binary on it.
Much to my dismay I was not able to locate the source for this binary,
despite it being obviously under the GPL[2].
Was the requisite written offer included?
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Was the requisite written offer included? Would you be willing to
check
the CD for other GPL software and notify the authors if you find any?
you can check, than re-check again and again, Nexenta OS GNU/OpenSolaris
is a complete open source project
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What is this will be? You are distributing binaries now; you must
therefore distribute the complete source now, under terms compatible
with the GPL.
You are welcome to obtain account at the web portal and check out the
source directly from SVN
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
actually, I just checked. anonymous access is granted. Just browse it at
http://www.gnusolaris.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/browser/gnusolaris1
Specifically requested were the source for libintl.so.3,
libiconv.so.2, libc.so.1, libz.so, libbz2.so.1.0
David,
this is the place were source code lives:
http://www.gnusolaris.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/browser/gnusolaris1/gnu
or
http://www.gnusolaris.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/browser/gnusolaris1
If you do not see something specific, or newer versions, like(you can find
debarchiver-0.3 but we have
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you do not see something specific, or newer versions, like(you can
find
debarchiver-0.3 but we have debarchiver-0.4 packaged), that means it is
not committed yet and we are testing it right now and will be committed
shortly.
Erast,
Unless you
Dear Erast!
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 01:01, Erast Benson wrote:
Specifically requested were the source for libintl.so.3,
libiconv.so.2, libc.so.1, libz.so, libbz2.so.1.0, and libgcc_s.so.1,
which must be provided under terms no more restrictive than GPL
sections one and two.
http
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 04:48:52PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
Dear Erast!
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 01:01, Erast Benson wrote:
Specifically requested were the source for libintl.so.3,
libiconv.so.2, libc.so.1, libz.so, libbz2.so.1.0, and
libgcc_s.so.1,
which must be provided
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 04:48:52PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
this URL also does _neither_ offer access to the apt
(0.6.40.1-1.1) nor your patched debhelper (4.9.3elatte) as requested
in my
other mail.
I'm personally working on it, and I will not commit those changes until
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 09:18 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Op wo, 02-11-2005 te 18:21 -0800, schreef Erast Benson:
GPL:
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source
code means all the source code
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 15:51 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(a) to ship packaged OpenSolaris core on main CD, and the rest of
GPL-filtered software, will go on Companion CD, or through APT
repository later on. This is doable, since OpenSolaris core has
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 14:32 -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005, Dalibor Topic wrote:
If your core feature is GPLd code coming from Debian, I'd kindly suggest
to take the concerns of Debian developers regarding compliance with the
license of that code seriously,
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 17:31 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 08:45:52AM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
If Debian really wans to be system runtime independent, and would like
to have Debian GNU/Solaris port, it should release dpkg as LGPL
software. This should help FreeBSD
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 18:31 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 08:45:52AM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
If Debian really wans to be system runtime independent, and would like
to have Debian GNU/Solaris port, it should release dpkg as LGPL
software. This should help FreeBSD
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 18:51 +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
On Thursday 03 November 2005 08.32, Erast Benson wrote:
Matthew:
[...] whether you want to be part of A Debian Release.
Hard to say right now... Lets see how all this thing will progress.
But, *yes* we are willing
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:22 -0600, David Moreno Garza wrote:
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 16:36 -0800, Alex Ross wrote:
Do you plan to submit your port as an official port to Debian once
it
stabilizes?
Yes.
Wasn't this already discussed regarding CDDL being not compatible with
DFSGs?
OK. We will change it to Nexenta repository browser. Point taken.
Thanks.
Erast
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 13:34 -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Erast Benson wrote:
There are things like forums, mailing list, blogs,
web-based Debian repository browser, etc. which need
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 11:10 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I personally with community help will re-write stripped down CDDL
variant of dpkg. Will Debian community be happy? But this is sort of
duplication of work. I do not think that the goal
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 11:29 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nexenta community willing to make appropriate changes to the system and
make it absolutely Debian legal OS. And more I'm looking into it, i'm
sure it is quite easy possible by making main
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 13:55 -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
It really seems like you jumped into this base our system on Debian
thing without really understanding what Debian is about. Consider what
you're asking for. You're asking Debian to make changes to the license
of some of its core
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 11:57 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Please stop mentioning the FreeBSD port as an example of your licensing
problems. There is no license problem with the BSD kernel, and
GNU/kFreeBSD uses dpkg for a long time now.
ok
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 11:59 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Kenneth Pronovici [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Besides that, you haven't even given us very many good reasons why we
should care about your problems. You insist on making it sound like
somehow by not conforming to your needs,
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 20:00 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To make it happen, we need to resolve dpkg issue and initial boot
strapping process. Which is quite possible to re-write dpkg as CDDL
software. But to avoid duplication of work, it will be wise
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 20:03 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 17:31 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Being system-runtime independent is a great goal, but helping free
software is a better one. Releasing dpkg under the LGPL would allow
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:17 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
World is changed since then, and today we have Nexenta OS. This forces
community to re-think/re-work all these CDDL vs. GPL issues.
You seem to be saying that if a bunch of people
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:18 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 11:10 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I personally with community help will re-write stripped down CDDL
variant
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 15:26 -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
Erast Benson writes:
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:22 -0600, David Moreno Garza wrote:
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 16:36 -0800, Alex Ross wrote:
Do you plan to submit your port as an official port to Debian once
it
stabilizes
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 22:19 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
Or, *freedoms*. If a hardware vendor wants to profit from Linux users,
they need to lift the limitations on the access to knowledge about their
wares.
Please wake up. :-)
This will never happen. Nobody sane who spent 50$ millon
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 21:34 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This will never happen. Nobody sane who spent 50$ millon dollars VC's
capital will open their IP for free. This is fact of life. And than
sooner Linux-kernel community will acknowlage
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 22:22 +0100, Dalibor Topic wrote:
Erast Benson wrote:
Or may be make it CDDL dual licensed.
Or you could just persuade the copyright holders to make all of
OpenSolaris code that you use dual licensed with the GPL, and many of
your problems are gone.
Effectively
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 10:41 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Alex Ross:
2) 2,300 Debian packages available for immediate usage.
How do you solve the problem that you cannot legally distribute
software which is licensed under the GNU General Public License and is
linked against a libc which
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 12:13 -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 09:54:30AM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 10:41 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Alex Ross:
2) 2,300 Debian packages available for immediate usage.
How do you solve the problem
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 14:36 -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 10:41:10AM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 12:13 -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
People have to ask for an account to find out how you're not violating
the license on their code?
We wanted
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 17:18 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 12:41:09PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 14:36 -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 10:41:10AM -0800, Erast Benson wrote
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 01:14 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Alex Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael Banck wrote:
If so, do you plan to use Debian's mailing lists and bug
tracking system for development?
No. We have ours: svn, Trac, and mailing lists.
It's unlikely that you'll be
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 17:37 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 06:21:12PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source
code means all the source code
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 17:48 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't want to debate on legality of GPL vs. CDDL. But if you in doubt,
you could try to ask Sun lawers on why exactly this is possible:
http://www.sun.com/gnome as well as other LGPG
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 18:05 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
CDDL is a good open source license and blessed by R.S.
That does not make it compatible with the GPL. You cannot combine
code from two licenses unless the licenses are compatible
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 18:20 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
If you want to be part of Debian, one of the requirements is that you
help convince us when there is doubt that there isn't a licensing
problem. Repeated assertion does not convince us. Pointing at
websites that require
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 18:54 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Bernd Eckenfels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ubuntu is not an official Debian Port.
on another hand, GNU/Solaris uses different kernel and libc, which
brings many non-Debian-related issues into play.
There is also hurd or
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 19:34 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Let me re-phrase your question. What Debian Community wants from Nexenta
OS? Do they care to support GNU/Solaris as another *real* system in
their list besides GNU/Linux?
I have
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 21:25 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Alex Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The issue... what issue? The http://www.sun.com/gnome issue? The
numerous-our-examples issue?
Of course, that's an issue.
Sun does not have the right to ship Gnome with Solaris. But I'm
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 22:01 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
but their loyers obviosly reads GPL differently. since they do ship
GNOME as their primary JDS desktops, among others GNU GPL software, gcc,
tar, sed, awk etc... btw, Solaris 10
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 15:50 +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 06:31:00PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 01:14 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Alex Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael Banck wrote:
If so, do you plan to use Debian's mailing lists
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 17:47 +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 10:52:07PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 21:25 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Alex Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The issue... what issue? The http://www.sun.com/gnome issue
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 14:24 +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 06:21:45PM -0800, Alex Ross wrote:
2) 2,300 Debian packages available for immediate usage.
[...]
There are probably very few projects that can come anywhere close to
Nexenta OS,
in terms of the size,
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 17:16 +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 09:07:08PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 14:24 +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 06:21:45PM -0800, Alex Ross wrote:
2) 2,300 Debian packages available for immediate
89 matches
Mail list logo
