On 26/06/07, Eric Boutilier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, Shawn Walker wrote:
> On 26/06/07, Eric Boutilier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, Peter Tribble wrote:
>> > By people, what's the target audience at this stage? I think my question
>> is
>> > really whether the first "release" is aimed at users, or whether there
>> should
>> > be a 0.0 "release" solely for the purpose of Indiana bootstrapping?
>>
>> Good question. So that raises the issue of "non-emancipated"
>> (non-redistributable) files. That is, should there be a 0.0 or 0.1
>> release that includes them in it? (I vote no, FWIW.)
>>
>> And if not, wouldn't that be the main constraint here?
>
> Non-emancipated is not the same as non-redistributable. Remember that
> there are binary "blobs" that are redistributable. There are several
> files right now that can be redistributed but have not been
> emancipated that are very important for the basic system. (libm.so
> comes to mind... I think).
Yes, thanks. I meant non-redistributable.
I don't even know that we have a list of what is non-redistributable.
I would have to agree that is probably a pretty important point for
the first release. That way the iso can be downloaded, shared, and
mirrored everywhere.
I know there is a list of what is "encumbered", but is anyone aware of
a list of what it isn't redistributable?
--
"Less is only more where more is no good." --Frank Lloyd Wright
Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
indiana-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
