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 rejec
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
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 t
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 thi
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, 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
> >> > >
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 peopl
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 regar
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 tha
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 w
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 willin
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 :)
http://lists.debian.org/
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 dis
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 co
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
>
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?
> > >
> >
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 t
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
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?
> > >
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,
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
>
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 i
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
> simili
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 ma
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 UNS
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 ma
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 t
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
28 matches
Mail list logo
