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
Michael Banck wrote:
Do you plan to use debian-installer for installation?
Yes.
Do you plan to submit your port as an official port to Debian once it
stabilizes?
Yes.
If so, do you plan to use Debian's mailing lists and bug
tracking system for development?
No. We have ours: svn, Trac
29 matches
Mail list logo
