On Tue, 2004-12-14 at 23:22 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 08:34:17AM -0500, Ian Murdock wrote: > > On Fri, 2004-12-10 at 00:44 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > Besides that the LCC sounds like an extraordinarily bad idea, passing > > > around binaries only makes sense if you can't easily reproduce them from > > > the source (which I defined very broadly to include all build scripts > > > and depencies), and that case is the worst possible thing a distribution > > > can get into. > > > > The LCC core will be fully reproducible from source. You may > > (and probably will) lose any certifications if you do that, > > for the same reason that the distros reproduced from the Red > > Hat Enterprise Linux source (e.g., White Box Linux) lose them. > > But it won't be take it or leave it. If reproducing from > > source and/or modifying the core packages is more important to > > you than the certifications, you will be able to do that. > > So again what do you gain by distributing binaries if their reproducible > from source?
So, again, ISV and IHV certifications. -- Ian Murdock 317-578-8882 (office) http://www.progeny.com/ http://ianmurdock.com/ "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible." -T.E. Lawrence