On 6/20/07, Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Eric Boutilier wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, John Sonnenschein wrote:
>> On 6/20/07, Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> d Debian?
>>>
>>> Thank you for making my point for me. Do we really w
On 6/21/07, Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm not at all opposed to multiple distributions as long as
they're compatible with each other. And even if they're not, that's fine
too, as long as they're not called OpenSolaris (which implies
compatibility--to earlier points, lineage from a co
On 6/21/07, Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Shawn Walker wrote:
> If you want to avoid another mistake, then make this a community
> project, not a Sun one.
What exactly do you think I'm trying to do here?
I always figured you're either trying to kill OpenSolaris & it's
community becaus
On 6/21/07, Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Eric Boutilier wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Ian Murdock wrote:
>> So, we should just rebrand Solaris Express OpenSolaris? I thought you
>> wanted it to be a community distribution? -ian
>
> Ian -- All I can think of is you're referring to John h
On 6/22/07, Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 22/06/07, andrewk9 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 5. Deprecated root user - set up initial admin user during install and
encourage use of pfexec / sudo for root privileges.
Yes please.
Minor point, we don't need to use something as brain
On 6/23/07, Andrew M.A. Cater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 08:19:51PM -0400, Francois Saint-Jacques wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 10:42:26AM +1200, Glynn Foster wrote:
> > Packaging
>
> Many individuals, including me, are interested in the packaging system for
> Indiana.
On 6/23/07, Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 23/06/07, John Sonnenschein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a better idea.
>
> let's /not/ ship gnome, and ship KDE instead. It's a far superior &
> more integrated desktop environment, and one that
I have a better idea.
let's /not/ ship gnome, and ship KDE instead. It's a far superior &
more integrated desktop environment, and one that windows users ( the
largest platform out there ) are most likely to feel comfortable in
On 6/22/07, Glynn Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hey,
Tackling
On 6/23/07, Peter Tribble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Somewhere along the line, we've got to choose one to start with.
Given the close alignment with what Solaris is and is likely
to be, and the available community, gnome seems like the
most obvious choice as the starting point.
Really? I was u
On 6/23/07, Gary Gendel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bottom line is that you can't please everybody if you say things as
stupidly as "You must supply WM X because that's the best". That is
never the case for all uses in the real world.
Take a poll. A real poll, on OS.o.
If that poll says everyo
On 23-Jun-07, at 6:52 PM, Gary Gendel wrote:
John Sonnenschein wrote:
On 6/23/07, Gary Gendel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bottom line is that you can't please everybody if you say things as
stupidly as "You must supply WM X because that's the best". That is
never th
I agree, in as far as I personally think ZFS should be the default,
and we should build around that assumption while retaining the ability
to choose other options, with feature degredation.
For example if we were to do a ZFS snapshot prior to upgrading or
installing a package, that feature is obv
On 6/25/07, Eric Boutilier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
> So whatever happens, let's just stop talking about WM's...
> ...
+1.
So it's settled then, this is a Sun Microsystems product, not a
community project, and they're not interested in what the co
On 29-Jun-07, at 3:26 AM, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
2007/6/29, Richard Lowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>3.3) Familiarization
>
> FAM-1: Provide a set of packages in the default install
>and network repositories that users would typically
>expect to see with a s
On 29-Jun-07, at 2:47 PM, Shawn Walker wrote:
On 29/06/07, Glynn Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Doug Scott wrote:
> Are you excluding Java?
Preferably - it's a pretty huge component, so if I could avoid its
dependency,
then I'd like to see it punted to the network repository.
The jr
On 30-Jun-07, at 11:46 AM, Shawn Walker wrote:
> If the "open" option is fully functional and supported, sure, it
can
> be used in place of the other. But as long as there is a better,
> redistributable option, that's the one we should be using to
give the
> user the best experience poss
On 2-Jul-07, at 8:01 AM, Ian Murdock wrote:
Glynn Foster wrote:
Doug Scott wrote:
Glynn Foster wrote:
Hey,
Languages
=
Specific Runtimes
o C/C++, Perl (5.8.4+), Python (2.5+)
Are you excluding Java?
Preferably - it's a pretty huge component, so if I could avoid its
dependency,
On 9-Jul-07, at 11:23 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
On Jul 9, 2007, at 7:28 PM, Richard Elling wrote:
Minor point, we don't need to use something as braindead as sudo,
we're Solaris, we can use RBAC.
Remember, every time you take something out that people are used to
and seemed to work, you increase
On 10-Jul-07, at 12:28 AM, Doug Scott wrote:
John Sonnenschein wrote:
On 9-Jul-07, at 11:23 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
On Jul 9, 2007, at 7:28 PM, Richard Elling wrote:
Minor point, we don't need to use something as braindead as sudo,
we're Solaris, we can use RBAC.
Remember, ever
On 10-Jul-07, at 9:17 AM, Eric Boutilier wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, Tim Bray wrote:
Remember, every time you take something out that people are used to
and seemed to work, you increase the Solaris barrier to entry...
Absolutely, positively.
After all, that, in a nutshell, is what Indiana a
On 10-Jul-07, at 4:01 PM, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
2007/7/10, MC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >
> On 10-Jul-07, at 12:28 AM, Doug Scott wrote:
>
> > John Sonnenschein wrote:
> >>
> >> On 9-Jul-07, at 11:23 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
> >>
> &
On 10-Jul-07, at 10:51 PM, Glynn Foster wrote:
Hey,
Richard Lowe wrote:
I'm against duplication solely for familiarities sake, for a whole
host of reasons, the obvious maintenance burdon being just one of
them.
This is something that needs detailed thought and rationale on a
case-by-case bas
On 11-Jul-07, at 5:37 AM, Eric Boutilier wrote:
On Jul 11, 2007, at 1:00 AM, Milan Jurik wrote:
No, but command-line utilities are important for *developers*.
And system egineer/admins too.
I'm not sure if anyone has used AIX recently, but I feel strongly
that we should learn from smit. B
On 7/13/07, MC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ubuntu is the obvious leader in the free desktop OS world, and Ubuntu uses
> APT. So that's the obvious first choice for project Indiana to look at.
Sorry, I was unaware that one of our goals was "parrot ubuntu as
closely as possible", good to get tha
On 7/16/07, Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dave Miner wrote:
> > The project has to have a clear statement of what it will be initially -
> > is it a desktop that will attract people to OpenSolaris, or a minimal
> > base core to be used in building a bunch of distros? I believe that Ian
On 17-Jul-07, at 12:19 PM, MC wrote:
Or if we ship KDE and someone wants Gindiana
I think it's pretty obvious that Indiana will use Gnome.
Yes, this much is apparent, which is why I have absolutely zero faith
that Ian ever intended indiana to be more than just yet another Sun
Micro. mar
On 17-Jul-07, at 1:01 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Or if we ship KDE and someone wants Gindiana
I think it's pretty obvious that Indiana will use Gnome.
Yes, this much is apparent, which is why I have absolutely zero
faith that Ian ever intended indiana to be more than just yet
anoth
On 19-Jul-07, at 8:57 AM, Doug Scott wrote:
Manoj Joseph wrote:
Darren Kenny wrote:
Ubuntu have GNOME, but they also have Kubuntu, which is the same
base OS with
KDE as the default - there is no reason that once Indiana is out
there that you
couldn't manage a minor fork, using KDE as the
On 19-Jul-07, at 4:35 PM, Doug Scott wrote:
Also I think one thing that people forget is, if Indiana comes with
applications like Firefox, OpenOffice etc, then half on Gnome
will need
to be included anyway.
If that's a large concern for you, KOffice is smaller than
OpenOffice ( and base
On 19-Jul-07, at 5:31 PM, Dennis Clarke wrote:
>
>>
>> On 19-Jul-07, at 4:35 PM, Doug Scott wrote:
>>
>
> Also I think one thing that people forget is, if Indiana comes
> with
> applications like Firefox, OpenOffice etc, then half on Gnome
> will need
> to be included an
When the OpenSolaris project started a few years ago Sun, while the
legal owner of the OpenSolaris trademark, was trusted to be a good
steward to that intellectual property, and was trusted not to do
things with it without consultation.
Recently, as we all know, Ian Murdock et. al. betrayed that t
fair enough
Revision 1.1: change "contributors and core contributors" to "core contributors"
On 11/1/07, Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 01/11/2007, John Sonnenschein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I propose that we as a community implore Sun
On 11/1/07, James Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Sonnenschein writes:
> > Note that this is quite aside from how I or anyone else feels with
> > respect to the name. I'm not asking for the name "OpenSolaris" to be
> > attached to the indiana p
Indiana's just a developer preview, the name can be revoked for the
general release or next preview without causing too much harm
On 11/1/07, Jim Grisanzio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> James Carlson wrote:
> > John Sonnenschein writes:
> >> Note that this is quite as
On 11/1/07, Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 01/11/2007, John Sonnenschein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Indiana's just a developer preview, the name can be revoked for the
> > general release or next preview without causing too much harm
>
>
On 2-Nov-07, at 10:16 AM, Ian Murdock wrote:
> All right.
>
> I don't even know where to begin.
>
> Does it matter at all that the feedback outside this community to
> the idea that we're producing a binary distribution called
> OpenSolaris has almost universally been: "Duh. What took so long?"
On 4-Nov-07, at 2:08 AM, James Mansion wrote:
> Jim Grisanzio wrote:
>> itself thrives. We started this project four years ago to build a
>> developer community. That was the primary goal from which multiple
>> objectives would grow. In fact, the notion of building a developer
>> community was pa
On 4-Nov-07, at 8:24 AM, Shawn Walker wrote:
> On 04/11/2007, John Sonnenschein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On 4-Nov-07, at 2:08 AM, James Mansion wrote:
>>
>>> Jim Grisanzio wrote:
>>>> itself thrives. We started this project four years ago t
>Well, the small problem with this is, that you can't expect
>any standard path. So your scripts has to start with loading
>environment which was used by creator of script.
>
>Cause there are lot's of tiny changes ...
>
>I suggest some standard environment start-up:
>At the beginning of shell scrip
On 4-Nov-07, at 7:34 PM, Glynn Foster wrote:
Mario Goebbels wrote:
Perhaps the installer can allow a choice of GNU, BSD and SysV (or
de-jure UNIX
or hawever you want to characterise it).
I wrote this multiple times before in this discussion. This is the
easiest way to defuse that userland
On 5-Nov-07, at 7:15 AM, Steven Stallion wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:34:08 +1300, Glynn Foster
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> Do you want to do a mock-up of what that might look like? I fear (and
> this
>> is
>> purely an uninformed guess) that you're only going to alienate *more*
>> use
On 5-Nov-07, at 10:41 AM, Shawn Walker wrote:
> On 05/11/2007, John Sonnenschein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On 5-Nov-07, at 7:15 AM, Steven Stallion wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:34:08 +1300, Glynn Foster
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
As I've mentioned numerous times before, it's not the particular
implementation users are after, it's functionality.
users don't want gnu tar per se, they want tar -z... or tar -j. We can
have a standards compliant tar with the -z or -j options, and I'm sure
ARC won't complain too much. whol
On 6-Nov-07, at 1:10 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
> On Nov 6, 2007, at 4:05 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
>> Putting /usr/gnu at the head of PATH causes incompatibilities to
>> apply.
>
> Failure to put /usr/gnu at the head of PATH will cause a huge class
> of potential Solaris users to be confused and
Hello
It's come to my attention that /usr/ccs/bin/as is not redistributable.
Since Indiana's aiming to be in the running to be considered some sort
of reference distribution (despite how I feel about the concept in
general) it ought to at least be able to build ON, which it currently
canno
On 24-Nov-07, at 1:59 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> John Sonnenschein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Hello
>>
>> It's come to my attention that /usr/ccs/bin/as is not
>> redistributable.
>> Since Indiana's aiming to be in the running to be co
It appears we had a misunderstanding. :) such is the internet.
On 24-Nov-07, at 2:32 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> John Sonnenschein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> $ ls /opt/SUNWspro/bin/as
>> /opt/SUNWspro/bin/as: No such file or directory
>
> Older SS did c
So, GDM is rather large, and very tied to the GNOME desktop environment,
dtlogin is being sadly jettisoned, and everyone seems opposed to xdm for some
reason.
Anyone have any comments about replacing it with something like SLiM (
http://slim.berlios.de ), which is lighter, has less dependencies
Question.
I very much am not a fan of the GNUserland & bash, not least of which because
they take the concept of standards and toss them right out the window.
Part of why I came to Solaris in the first place when the OpenSol project
launched was precisely because the default userland wasn't fu
On 14-Jan-08, at 10:41 PM, Moinak Ghosh wrote:
> Anil Gulecha wrote:
>> On 1/15/08, John Sonnenschein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Question.
>>>
>>> I very much am not a fan of the GNUserland & bash, not least of
>>> w
On 14-Jan-08, at 10:45 PM, Josh Lange wrote:
> I've found many of the sun tools to be out of date, and far less
> functional than their gnu counterparts.
>
> I personally want to use Solaris for its stability. I've found the
> linux kernel a little immature, and prone to panics, and deadlocks
On 15-Jan-08, at 6:30 AM, Bryan Boone wrote:
> ...But if Indiana wants to lure Linux folks to Solaris, it needs to
> offer tools that are familiar. I cut my teeth as a Windows 3.0
> developer, but I came to Linux via Mac OS X. What was true in OS X
> (BSD) was true, for the most part, in Linux.
On 15-Jan-08, at 9:55 AM, Bart Smaalders wrote:
> John Sonnenschein wrote:
>> 99% of the time what people want isn't GNU tools per se, they want
>> a specific piece of functionality ( tar -z/-j, tab-completion,
>> etc ), but some influential members of the commun
Look, I'm feeling a little attacked here by the GNU fans.
I'm not asking for a subtractive project. I'm looking for an additive
one.
If you like GNU, fine, use it . This project doesn't concern you.
If you're like me and you prefer all the great things ( compatibility,
standards compliance,
On 14-Jan-08, at 10:19 PM, Anil Gulecha wrote:
> On 1/15/08, John Sonnenschein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Question.
>>
>> I very much am not a fan of the GNUserland & bash, not least of
>> which because they take the concept of standards and toss them
On 15-Jan-08, at 4:14 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> And if we want to lure windows users, it doesn't make a lick of
>> difference. And if we want to retain solaris users, the solaris
>> userland ought to be default ( rather than a potential, not a
>> guarantee, that linux users will come ), and
On 15-Jan-08, at 5:08 PM, Glynn Foster wrote:
>>
>> Again, where is the loss of compatibility? Or the intent to drop
>> that? Believe me, we're well aware that compatibility has been one
>> of
>> the more valuable attributes of Solaris.
>
> And will certainly be the valuable attributes of Ope
On 15-Jan-08, at 7:55 PM, Shawn Walker wrote:
> On Jan 15, 2008 7:18 PM, John Sonnenschein
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On 15-Jan-08, at 5:08 PM, Glynn Foster wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Again, where is the loss of compatibility? Or the i
On 15-Jan-08, at 9:23 PM, Shawn Walker wrote:
> On Jan 15, 2008 10:01 PM, John Sonnenschein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > wrote:
>>
>> On 15-Jan-08, at 7:55 PM, Shawn Walker wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 15, 2008 7:18 PM, John Sonnenschein
>>> <[EMAIL PR
On 16-Jan-08, at 9:04 AM, Ricardo Lanziano wrote:
> On Jan 16, 2008 4:20 AM, Nico Sabbi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Il Wednesday 16 January 2008 05:01:28 John Sonnenschein ha scritto:
>>
>>>>
>>>> To be honest, I'm at the point in my developme
Here's what I'm getting as a feel from this whole discussion.
There are two camps in the opensolaris community. There are those like
myself that think that Solaris is the greatest operating system on
earth as-is. Then there are those that want Solaris to be more like
Linux.
Concessions must
Awesome Jesse.
I encourage anyone who can to come out, it was a great time last year
for planning & meeting the people you talk to every day.
On 16-Jan-08, at 3:57 PM, Jesse Silver wrote:
> All-
>
> Thanks to the 90 of you who trekked to Santa Cruz this past October
> to attend our first (a
There is nothing that an updated indiana can do with respect to the
problem of building ON.
The first most visible problem is in the Sun Studio tools,
specifically the package SUNWsprot which contains as(1). gas doesn't
work to build ON, and SUNWsprot's copy of as(1) is non-redistrib. and
On 20-Jan-08, at 11:50 AM, Shawn Walker wrote:
> On Jan 20, 2008 10:06 AM, Aubrey Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Jan 20, 2008 3:46 PM, John Sonnenschein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > wrote:
>>> There is nothing that an updated indiana can do with respe
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 6:43 PM, Glynn Foster
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Over the last couple of days or so, I've started
> to think about the media kits a
> > little more, particularly with respect to
> http://get.opensolaris.org for the
> > OpenSolaris release, but also in terms of bei
I'm not sure what Sun's going to consider "massive feedback", but the best I've
heard about that logo is "meh, I guess it's not too hideous"
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
indiana-discuss mailing list
indiana-discuss@opensolaris.org
ht
On 6/20/07, Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Eric Boutilier wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, John Sonnenschein wrote:
> >> On 6/20/07, Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> d Debian?
> >>>
> >>> Thank you for making my poi
On 6/21/07, Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Shawn Walker wrote:
> > If you want to avoid another mistake, then make this a community
> > project, not a Sun one.
>
> What exactly do you think I'm trying to do here?
I always figured you're either trying to kill OpenSolaris & it's
community
On 6/21/07, Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Eric Boutilier wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Ian Murdock wrote:
> >> So, we should just rebrand Solaris Express OpenSolaris? I thought you
> >> wanted it to be a community distribution? -ian
> >
> > Ian -- All I can think of is you're referring
On 6/22/07, Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 22/06/07, andrewk9 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 5. Deprecated root user - set up initial admin user during install and
> > encourage use of pfexec / sudo for root privileges.
>
> Yes please.
Minor point, we don't need to use something as
On 6/23/07, Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 23/06/07, John Sonnenschein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I have a better idea.
> >
> > let's /not/ ship gnome, and ship KDE instead. It's a far superior &
> > more integrated
On 6/23/07, Andrew M.A. Cater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 08:19:51PM -0400, Francois Saint-Jacques wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 10:42:26AM +1200, Glynn Foster wrote:
> > > Packaging
> >
> > Many individuals, including me, are interested in the packaging system for
> >
On 6/23/07, Peter Tribble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Somewhere along the line, we've got to choose one to start with.
> Given the close alignment with what Solaris is and is likely
> to be, and the available community, gnome seems like the
> most obvious choice as the starting point.
Really? I
I have a better idea.
let's /not/ ship gnome, and ship KDE instead. It's a far superior &
more integrated desktop environment, and one that windows users ( the
largest platform out there ) are most likely to feel comfortable in
On 6/22/07, Glynn Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Tackli
On 23-Jun-07, at 6:52 PM, Gary Gendel wrote:
> John Sonnenschein wrote:
>> On 6/23/07, Gary Gendel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Bottom line is that you can't please everybody if you say things as
>>> stupidly as "You must supply WM X because
On 6/23/07, Gary Gendel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bottom line is that you can't please everybody if you say things as
> stupidly as "You must supply WM X because that's the best". That is
> never the case for all uses in the real world.
Take a poll. A real poll, on OS.o.
If that poll says eve
I agree, in as far as I personally think ZFS should be the default,
and we should build around that assumption while retaining the ability
to choose other options, with feature degredation.
For example if we were to do a ZFS snapshot prior to upgrading or
installing a package, that feature is obvi
On 6/25/07, Eric Boutilier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
> > So whatever happens, let's just stop talking about WM's...
> > ...
>
> +1.
So it's settled then, this is a Sun Microsystems product, not a
community project, and they're not interested in what th
I would think that a good target would be machines that are cheap and plentiful
on the used market
That is, U10, U5 ( maybe ), B100/150
my 0.02CAD , Desktop support would be a must
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
indiana-discuss mailing
On 9-Oct-08, at 1:09 PM, James Cornell wrote:
> John Sonnenschein wrote:
>> I would think that a good target would be machines that are cheap
>> and plentiful on the used market
>>
>> That is, U10, U5 ( maybe ), B100/150
>>
>> my 0.02CAD , Desktop suppor
On 13-Nov-08, at 1:59 PM, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 06:20:24PM +0100, Guido Berhoerster wrote:
>> * Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-11-13 17:23]:
>>> John Sonnenschein wrote:
>>>> I'd just like to throw my thoughts in to th
On 13-Nov-08, at 2:23 PM, Shawn Walker wrote:
> John Sonnenschein wrote:
>> On 13-Nov-08, at 1:59 PM, Nicolas Williams wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 06:20:24PM +0100, Guido Berhoerster wrote:
>>>> * Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-11-13 1
ubmitting in the proper format ( "I don't know how" is not good reason.
"because win32codecs are binary, and the ones I'm uploading are directly
from upstream" is ) and the reason is given the okay as being rational
by the same people above
if this means that random
On 18-Nov-08, at 1:37 PM, Jim Walker wrote:
> John Sonnenschein wrote:
>> It's one thing if someone makes a mistake and accidentally breaks
>> things,
>> even security things, it's another thing if we institutionalize and
>> automate
>> the abil
On 18-Nov-08, at 1:40 PM, Shawn Walker wrote:
> John Sonnenschein wrote:
>> On 18-Nov-08, at 1:37 PM, Jim Walker wrote:
>>> John Sonnenschein wrote:
>>>> It's one thing if someone makes a mistake and accidentally
>>>> breaks things,
>
On 18-Nov-08, at 2:03 PM, Shawn Walker wrote:
> John Sonnenschein wrote:
>> On 18-Nov-08, at 1:40 PM, Shawn Walker wrote:
>>> John Sonnenschein wrote:
>>>> On 18-Nov-08, at 1:37 PM, Jim Walker wrote:
>>>>> John Sonnenschein wrote:
>>>>>
On 18-Nov-08, at 2:24 PM, Jim Walker wrote:
> John Sonnenschein wrote:
>> My point is essentially that unless the source code is built by a
>> controlled
>> system there's no way to verify that it is what the source code
>> pointer says
>> it is, so it
On 18-Nov-08, at 2:21 PM, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 02:09:30PM -0800, John Sonnenschein wrote:
>> That would be acceptable. I'd still prefer the code to be built on an
>> internal machine such that we have an exact record, but I'm willing
>
On 18-Nov-08, at 3:08 PM, Shawn Walker wrote:
> Luis de Bethencourt wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 10:46 PM, Nicolas Williams
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 02:39:21PM -0800, John Sonnenschein wrote:
>>>> On 18-
On 18-Nov-08, at 3:11 PM, Luis de Bethencourt wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 11:07 PM, Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > wrote:
>> Luis de Bethencourt wrote:
>>> That said, we shouldn't accept binary built in an untrust worthy
>>> machine. The process we define has to make submissions be bui
On 18-Nov-08, at 2:49 PM, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Nicolas Williams wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 02:09:30PM -0800, John Sonnenschein wrote:
>>> That would be acceptable. I'd still prefer the code to be built on
>>> an
>>> internal machine s
On 2010-05-10, at 6:15 AM, Dave Johnson wrote:
>>
>> Where's your "evidence", troll?
>
> Here is the evidence:
>
> Evidence 1:
> - Project cooperation with ksh project withdrawn
> - GNU commands as replacements are the future
>
> -
92 matches
Mail list logo
