Xavian-Anderson Macpherson wrote: > On Monday 2002 December 02 10:13, Martin Schulze wrote: > > Xavian-Anderson Macpherson wrote: > > > On Monday 2002 December 02 02:50, Martin Schulze wrote: > > > > > Why (if everything is the same), would anyone have to recomplie for > > > binaries, if the binaries were made once by the packagers and remained in > > > their original condition? > > > > Because, and your assumption es totally wrong, nothing is the same, > > rather than everything. > > I was specifically speaking in the context of my (perfect world) example. I > said IF!! Not IS!! I know everything IS NOT the same. That's why I wrote > this! Here, let me make this simple. If ALL of linux, were handled in the > same way as the KERNEL, there would be no more questions as to what works and > what does not! And no, the licensing would not have to change. Because just > as the kernel is currently available to everyone, but only has one
Hmm, did you notice that there are about 100 kernel forks as well? > maintainer(?), so could all of the other packages as well. I geuss now that > I have said this, I have to ask the question. Am I correct that Linus is the > only one who approves of the changes to the kernel? What about my statements No. That's only true for his own maintained kernel, that's not true for the ac- mm- riel- and other trees. > of the security models. Now I don't think source code for security patches > are made available. I still want the source code available to everyone. I > just want one person or group to be SOLELY responsible for changes in their > own packages. There are too many spoons in the pot! And too many people discussing things they don't have a clue about... Regards, Joey -- Whenever you meet yourself you're in a time loop or in front of a mirror.