"Andreas Kuckartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > (4) The distributed files squeak.changes and squeak.image, both around
> > 10MB, are shipped in binary form. I wonder if there should be source
> > code to create them initially. (See DFSG.2, "Source Code")
>
> The .changes file contains Smalltalk
> (4) The distributed files squeak.changes and squeak.image, both around
> 10MB, are shipped in binary form. I wonder if there should be source
> code to create them initially. (See DFSG.2, "Source Code")
The .changes file contains Smalltalk source code (if the system is not
broken!).
I think tha
Ben,
Ambiguity is the proper status for this RFP. While it remains so,
people should use the external Squeak/Debian distribution. It is
described as follows:
http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/3616
I am in the process of transfering maintainership to Matej Kosik
([EMAIL PROTECTED]). He (or w
This looks like a step in the right direction:
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2006-May/104466.html
Although it has been noted in this thread that historically Debian has
removed APSL2 packages, and that therefore BSD/MIT would be better.
Also, it's one thing to get approv
Lex,
I had hoped, as Petter suggested in the Squeak RFP #236721, that Squeak
could now go into Debian main because the font issues have been
resolved, as Debian Jr. would like to include Squeak in the
junior-programming metapackage. However, it seems Roland's points here
are not yet addressed in
5 matches
Mail list logo
