On Monday 26 August 2002 12:49, Mike Noyes wrote: > Lynn, > Thank you for opening this topic for discussion again. :-) > Remember I'm not a programmer when reading my comments below.
No problem, as discussed many times over the last year....this needs to be done! > > > +packages +glibc-2.0 > > +glibc-2.1 > > +glibc-none > > +binaries > > > > I believe the seperation of glibc within packages will avoid > > confusion between packages with the same package name > > that actually differ in end use. > > If we use David's build system for our packages tree, isn't the glibc > separation unnecessary? > Has anyone evaluated David's build system yet? I'm sure he would > appreciate some feedback. Is it a usable system for our packages > tree? The tree looks great, however there is no source that I could find located within the tree itself. It appeared able to pull the source from a remote location from the tree, however I thought that we found that doing that would be unacceptable under the GPL anyway (possibly fine within the MIT licensing, I dunno). The GPL does not support linking remote source as I believe we discovered and the reasoning for getting the LEAF source tree up in the first place. As I understand it, we simply need the source posted for compiled binaries and linked from where the compiled binary is available for download AND the source must be located locally. I may have missed another interpretration. David may have the source local on the SF site, but I was unable to locate the downloadable tarball. > > The addition of a binary tree > > will allow for compiled executables/utilities that are not part > > of any core image or package that are available for LEAF. > > Please explain the need for a binary tree in src. Its purpose is not > clear to me from your explanation above. Is it for source tarballs > from other projects? There are several binaries that various people offer that are not part of a LEAF package (su, telnet, etc....). It would be strange to stick a non-packaged src in the package src, but another thought would be to simply offer the binary src and not the entire LEAF package since everything else in the packages are script and their own src code. Thoughts? This would be source code that may not belong to any project. I will need to include atleast one (that I have already compiled) within the webconfig package I am playing with. > > Any thoughts, as we need to have the src tree up and populated! > > Agreed. We have discussed this tree for over a year now, and little > has come of it. We can't cooperate effectively on releases/branches > or packages until we have a working src tree. Well, there can be many ramifications if the src tree is not up. These concerns may include ridicule and loss of hosting, which I would rather not see. SF has been exceptionally nice in the free hosting and services offered. -- ~Lynn Avants aka Guitarlynn guitarlynn at users.sourceforge.net http://leaf.sourceforge.net If linux isn't the answer, you've probably got the wrong question! ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by: OSDN - Tired of that same old cell phone? Get a new here for FREE! https://www.inphonic.com/r.asp?r=sourceforge1&refcode1=vs3390 _______________________________________________ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
