On Wednesday, January 16, 2002, at 04:54 PM, Finlay Dobbie wrote:
And compare the number of Debian build servers, Debian
donations, and just resources in general.
SF provides a compile farm. Could those be used as build servers?
___
Fink-devel
On Saturday, January 26, 2002, at 01:42 PM, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2002, at 04:54 PM, Finlay Dobbie wrote:
And compare the number of Debian build servers, Debian donations, and
just resources in general.
SF provides a compile farm. Could those be used as
On Saturday, January 26, 2002, at 02:01 PM, Max Horn wrote:
No, since the debian tools require root access. Debian solves this with
the fakeroot tool, but you can't just recompile that for OS X, it has
to be rewritten. Finlay and me were looking into it a bit, not sure if
Finlay is still
We don't want to be sued. If a packages doesn't have a license field,
it won't get into the bindist. If it is under a restrictive license
which forbids binary redistribution, it won't get into the bindist.
If a package possibly infringes patents (like libgif does with the
unisys patent), it
On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Max Horn wrote:
With fink, for every package there is an .info file (and possibly a
.patch file, too). Fink then uses the data from this .info file to
retrieve the source tarball(s), expand them, patch them, compile
everything, and then package it into a .deb (this is
On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Finlay Dobbie wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2002, at 09:33 pm, Max Horn wrote:
Oh and to mention one more difference: count the number of active
debian developers. The count the total number of active fink
developers. Compare the numbers. Think.
And compare the
