Sorry, I should have clarified. What I meant was, would Compile devs
be interested in using some Autopackage tools by default?
Thanks,
Matt
___
gobolinux-devel mailing list
gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org
http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/g
On Sun, 2008-06-29 at 22:36 +0100, Matt Lawrence wrote:
> Thank you. Your feedback has been most informative. I'll try to deal
> with each of the issues I (think I) understand, to the best of my
> knowledge.
>
> > we don't have a package database - or rather the filesystem is the database.
>
> Ah
hi,
argh screw evolution,... and again from the begining:
i just digged up the zeroinstall source code a bit, i tried to archive
the following goals:
* have zeroinstall install programms
to /Programs//
* make a symlink from /Programs// to
/Program
hi,
i just digged up the zeroinstall source code a bit, i tried to archive
the following goals:
* have zeroinstall install programms
to /Programs//
* make a symlink from /Programs// to
/Programs//
* development packages if any shou
Thank you. Your feedback has been most informative. I'll try to deal
with each of the issues I (think I) understand, to the best of my
knowledge.
> we don't have a package database - or rather the filesystem is the database.
Ah, yes. Sorry, that is what I meant by package database. I was
unaware
Matt Lawrence wrote:
> The last email was a bit long. I'll try my best to make this short ;)
>
> You have an excellent package database system. This the core of any
> installation method. However, what is needed is a flexible binary
> package format.
what needs to be flexible about it? For examp
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:28:03 +0200, Matt Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The last email was a bit long. I'll try my best to make this short ;)
>
> You have an excellent package database system. This the core of any
> installation method. However, what is needed is a flexible binary
> package
The last email was a bit long. I'll try my best to make this short ;)
You have an excellent package database system. This the core of any
installation method. However, what is needed is a flexible binary
package format.
When it comes to binaries, you can't get much more flexible than
binaries in
> All in all, there just isn't a lot of advantage to moving to a different
> packaging system. There could be slightly more software available, but it
> would require maintaining two systems in parallel and reformulating all of
> the tools.
I completely agree. You shouldn't move to another package
"Carlo Calica" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> Then commercial software will follow. This is an important next step
> for Linux. I hope GoboLinux can help.
There is already much commercial software, even in this distribution.
Please don't think that free software cannot be commercial!
Regard
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 12:01 AM, Michael Homer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 27 June 2008 14:25:42 Matt Lawrence wrote:
>> Hi. I would first of all like to congratulate all of you on not just
>> being "yet another Linux distro". You guys have contributed so much
>> more than the vast majo
On Friday 27 June 2008 14:25:42 Matt Lawrence wrote:
> Hi. I would first of all like to congratulate all of you on not just
> being "yet another Linux distro". You guys have contributed so much
> more than the vast majority of distributions out there and I wish you
> and your distribution well.
>
>
Hi. I would first of all like to congratulate all of you on not just
being "yet another Linux distro". You guys have contributed so much
more than the vast majority of distributions out there and I wish you
and your distribution well.
For your benefit, I would like to draw your attention to anothe
13 matches
Mail list logo
