Em Qui, 2005-11-03 às 12:45 -0800, Erast Benson escreveu:
Apparently you misunderstood me.
All I'm saying is that Debian community might want to embrace
GNU/Solaris non-glibc port or reject it. To embrace, some core
components, like dpkg, should be dual-licensed CDDL/GPL.
I say let's reject
Op wo, 02-11-2005 te 18:31 -0800, schreef Erast Benson:
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:
Op wo, 02-11-2005 te 21:04 -0800, schreef Erast Benson:
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
Le mercredi 02 novembre 2005 à 21:04 -0800, Erast Benson a écrit :
FreeBSD kernel under BSD license and not GPL-compatible.
Native GNU libc do not make any difference since it is a part of system
runtime which includes: kernel, libc, compiler, etc (as per GPL). In
fact, it is even more
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 to cooperate.
So I guess this summarizes the technical side of this
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?
Otherwise, hit myself with a cluebat :)
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 to
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?
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 are already violating
the GPL, we are forced to do something other than
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?
Yes.
Wasn't this already discussed regarding CDDL being not
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 are
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?
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Apparently you misunderstood me.
All I'm saying is that Debian community might want to embrace
GNU/Solaris non-glibc port or reject it. To embrace, some core
components, like dpkg, should be dual-licensed CDDL/GPL.
Not every dpkg copyright holder is
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:57:17 -0800, Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I'm not talking about DFSG to embrace CDDL entirely. CDDL is good ...
Please look up the meaning of acronyms if you intend on using them. I
do not think it means what you think
Le jeudi 03 novembre 2005 à 12:57 -0800, Erast Benson a écrit :
I'm not talking about DFSG to embrace CDDL entirely. CDDL is good enough
for what it was invented - system runtime. To make CDDL-based ports
possible with more/less pain and to avoid duplication of work, it should
be enough to
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:14:11PM -0800, Erast Benson said
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
Michael Banck wrote:
Do you plan to use debian-installer for installation?
Yes.
Do you plan to submit your port as an official port to Debian once it
stabilizes?
Yes.
If so, do you plan to use Debian's mailing lists and bug
tracking system for development?
No. We have ours: svn,
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 accepted as an official Debian port unless
you're willing to use the
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, Nov 02, 2005 at 06:31:00PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 01:14 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
It's unlikely that you'll be accepted as an official Debian port unless
you're willing to use the Debian bug tracking system. It's not
reasonable to expect Debian
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If development is carried out within the Debian project then yes, it's
likely that the Debian community would work on GNU/Solaris. See the
kFreeBSD and hurd ports, for instance.
But only with the licensing question sorted out first.
--
To
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
on another hand, Ubuntu has its own tracking system, so GNU/Solaris is
not the first one. Even though Ubuntu is GNU/Linux system...
Ubuntu is not an official Debian Port.
on another hand, GNU/Solaris uses different kernel and libc, which
brings many
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 freebsd kernel ports for debian, so those projects are
similiar.
With
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 21:04 -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
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
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
FreeBSD kernel under BSD license and not GPL-compatible.
You are incorrect. The BSG license most certainly is GPL-compatible.
Native GNU libc do not make any difference since it is a part of system
runtime which includes: kernel, libc, compiler, etc
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 and bug
tracking system for development?
No. We have
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 Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 09:27:04PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Native GNU libc do not make any difference since it is a part of
system runtime which includes: kernel, libc, compiler, etc (as
per GPL).
You use these quotation marks in the most
29 matches
Mail list logo
