On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 12:45:15 -0800, Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 1. (*) text/plain ( ) text/html
> Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> 'ISV' is just another name for 'Software Hoarder'.
>>
> Please keep in mind this portion of Debian's Social Contract:
>/We will support our users who d
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 12:51:54 -0800, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 09:25:38PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> Op do, 16-12-2004 te 14:46 -0500, schreef Ian Murdock:
>> > We've heard directly from the biggest ISVs that nothing short of
>> > a common binary core w
On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 10:05:00AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Op do, 16-12-2004 te 17:07 -0800, schreef Adam McKenna:
> > On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 01:13:11AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > I think Wouter is only asking for reciprocity here. If they don't care
> > > about his concerns why sh
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 02:37:09PM -0500, Ian Murdock wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-12-14 at 18:15 +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> > This sounds a bit like the government whose country had three
> > different types of power plugs. None compatible, of course. Somebody
> > then got the great idea that if t
On Dec 16, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I refuse to accept that 'providing a common binary core' would be the
> only way to fix the issue. It is probably the easiest way, and for lazy
> people it may look as if it is the only one; but we should not dismiss
> the idea that it is pos
Op do, 16-12-2004 te 17:07 -0800, schreef Adam McKenna:
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 01:13:11AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > I think Wouter is only asking for reciprocity here. If they don't care
> > about his concerns why should he care about theirs ? Or alternatively
> > "not caring" is a freedo
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 05:07:44PM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 01:13:11AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > I think Wouter is only asking for reciprocity here. If they don't care
> > about his concerns why should he care about theirs ? Or alternatively
> > "not caring" is a
On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 01:13:11AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> I think Wouter is only asking for reciprocity here. If they don't care
> about his concerns why should he care about theirs ? Or alternatively
> "not caring" is a freedom.
We care because our priorities are our users and free softwa
>Unfortunally, some distributions don't seem to be willing to do more
>than the minimal changes to adhere to the LSB. I did some patches for
>RedHat - and the bugreport is still open (I don't know whether the
>patches still work).
Failing some required tests seems to be quite a motivator
to at
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 12:51:54PM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 09:25:38PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Op do, 16-12-2004 te 14:46 -0500, schreef Ian Murdock:
> > > We've heard
> > > directly from the biggest ISVs that nothing short of a common
> > > binary core will be
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 02:46:53PM -0500, Ian Murdock wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-12-15 at 23:55 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 02:36:52PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> > > Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > > But overriding them means we lose the certification ?
> > >
> > > We can't
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 21:25:38 +0100, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> Well, frankly, I don't care what [ISVs] think is 'viable'.
I do care. Apparently some ISVs think a "common binary core" is
viable. I think they might change their minds if the argument against
"golden binarie
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 09:25:38PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Op do, 16-12-2004 te 14:46 -0500, schreef Ian Murdock:
> > We've heard
> > directly from the biggest ISVs that nothing short of a common
> > binary core will be viable from their point of view.
>
> Well, frankly, I don't care what
me> binutils and modutils both depend on it.
Bruce> On flex? No. At least not in unstable.
sorry, I meant to write Build-Depend.
me> Or is the LCC proposing to standardize on a set of binaries without
me> specifying the toolchain that's used to reproduce them?
Bruce> Linking and calling convent
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
'ISV' is just another name for 'Software Hoarder'.
Please keep in mind this portion of Debian's Social Contract:
We will support our users who develop and run non-free
software on Debian
One of the reasons for this is that you can get more people to
appreciate Fr
Op do, 16-12-2004 te 14:46 -0500, schreef Ian Murdock:
> We've heard
> directly from the biggest ISVs that nothing short of a common
> binary core will be viable from their point of view.
Well, frankly, I don't care what they think is 'viable'.
'ISV' is just another name for 'Software Hoarder'. I
On Wed, 2004-12-15 at 07:42 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > "Core" means "implemention of LSB", and the packages/libraries that will
> > constitute that are being determined now, as a collaborative process.
>
> Well, for instance, the libacl package was brought up as an example in the
> context o
On Wed, 2004-12-15 at 23:55 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 02:36:52PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> > Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > But overriding them means we lose the certification ?
> >
> > We can't allow it to be the case that overriding due to an existing and
> > unrem
On Tue, 2004-12-14 at 18:15 +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> This sounds a bit like the government whose country had three
> different types of power plugs. None compatible, of course. Somebody
> then got the great idea that if they invented another one to supersede
> the three plugs in use (since
On Tue, 2004-12-14 at 23:22 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 08:34:17AM -0500, Ian Murdock wrote:
> > On Fri, 2004-12-10 at 00:44 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > Besides that the LCC sounds like an extraordinarily bad idea, passing
> > > around binaries only makes sen
Steve Langasek wrote:
On flex? No. At least not in unstable.
Yes, it does.
Oh, you mean build-depends.
Not standardizing the toolchain used to build a set of standardized binaries
would seem to leave the LCC open to a repeat of the gcc-2.96 fiasco,
however...
The
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 05:00:11PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> >binutils and modutils both depend on it.
> On flex? No. At least not in unstable.
Yes, it does.
$ apt-cache showsrc binutils
Package: binutils
Binary: binutils-hppa64, binutils, binutils-doc, binutils-de
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
binutils and modutils both depend on it.
On flex? No. At least not in unstable.
However, Debian seems to have addressed the issue by providing both
versions of flex. I don't see what would prevent us from going on with
that practice.
Or is the LCC proposing to standardi
Bruce> Fortunately, flex isn't in the problem space. If you stick to what
Bruce> version of libc, etc., it'll make more sense.
Flex isn't in the problem space if we're talking core ABIs. But it
certainly is if we're talking core implementations, as binutils and
modutils both depend on it. Or is
Whoops, I guess that's what I get for trying to be concise for once.
I'll try again.
Bruce> Well, please don't tell this [i. e., "outsourcing your core is
a bad idea"]
Bruce> to all of the people who we are attempting to get to use Linux
Bruce> as the core of their products.
me> "core" (software
On Dec 15, Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do you know of any other distribution that has taken the trouble to
> write down as much policy as Debian has? It's not clear that the others
> have anything to put against it.
Bug for bug compatibility required by their customer looks like a
Bill Allombert wrote:
Then could you elaborate the scope of the certification ?
It's still a matter for negotiation. If the certification won't admit to
common-sense rules, it won't work for anyone - not just Debian.
Thanks
Bruce
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 02:36:52PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> Bill Allombert wrote:
>
> >But overriding them means we lose the certification ?
> >
> >
> We can't allow it to be the case that overriding due to an existing and
> unremedied security issue causes loss of certification. There's no
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
So it was inflammatory, then. Comes under spoiling for a fight.
Only if you confuse Socrates and Sophism.
So, which version of flex you think you want to ship?
Fortunately, flex isn't in the problem space. If you stick to what
version of libc, etc., it'll make m
Bill Allombert wrote:
But overriding them means we lose the certification ?
We can't allow it to be the case that overriding due to an existing and
unremedied security issue causes loss of certification. There's no
common sense in that.
Thanks
Bruce
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryp
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 11:29:47AM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> > Would outsourcing the core packages to
> >third parties not make us less nimble (if I can use the word with a
> >straight face)?
> >
> Nobody is saying that you can't override the external stuff when
> necessary. Security would be a
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 12:13:58 -0800, Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 1. (*) text/plain ( ) text/html
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Hmm. I am not sure how to take this: either you are spoiling for a
>> fight, or you do not take your duties as a developer very
>> seriously.
>>
>>
> I was
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 01:36:47PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 11:21:02 -0800, Michael K Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
>
> >> Bruce Well, please don't tell this to all of the people who we are
> >> attempting to get to use Linux as the core of their products.
>
>
Hello,
Wichmann, Mats D wrote:
My experience as a developer who's tried to write
an app to use the LSB (only the init script interface)
is that it's poorly enough specified and/or implemented
divergently within the spec to the point that I had to
test my implementation on every LSB distriution I
wa
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hmm. I am not sure how to take this: either you are spoiling
for a fight, or you do not take your duties as a developer very
seriously.
I was taking the implications of your statements farther than you
intended, in order to get you to give them additional though
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 11:29:47 -0800, Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Nobody is saying that you can't override the external stuff when
> necessary. Security would be a good reason to do so, if LCC is being
> tardy compared to Debian.
Well, that does address my concern, thanks.
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 11:21:02 -0800, Michael K Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Bruce Well, please don't tell this to all of the people who we are
>> attempting to get to use Linux as the core of their products.
> "core" (software architecture) != "core" (customer value).
>> Also, please mak
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hmm. Does this not impede Debian in new directions we may like
to take the distribution, like, say, making Debian be Se-Linux
compatible, if we so choose?
I think it means that Debian gets to be leader regarding the things it
cares about. I doubt that the other distribution
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 10:44:50 -0800, Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I am not sure I am convinced that the benefits are worth
>> outsourcing the core of our product -- and I think that most
>> business shall tell you that is a bad idea.
>>
> Well, please don't
> Bruce
> Well, please don't tell this to all of the people who we are attempting
> to get to use Linux as the core of their products.
"core" (software architecture) != "core" (customer value).
> Also, please make sure to tell the upstream maintainers that we aren't
> going to use their code any
On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 12:40:29 -0500, Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> If you're having trouble picturing how Debian might engage the LCC,
> here's my ideal scenario: the source packages at the core of Debian
> are maintained in collaboration with the other LCC members, and the
> resulting
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I am not sure I am convinced that the benefits are worth
outsourcing the core of our product -- and I think that most business
shall tell you that is a bad idea.
Well, please don't tell this to all of the people who we are attempting
to get to use Linux as the core of their
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 12:51:21 +0100, Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 04:04:22PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
>> It seems to me than one of the main value of Debian is in the
>> quality of its core distribution. One of the reason of the quality
>> is that it is n
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 18:59:05 +0100, Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> LCC could concentrate on providing such a distribution-independent
> execution environment, and perform the necessary integration tests for
> commercially relevant distributions.
>
> Just an idea. I think this is far
* Michael Meskes:
>> Instead, proprietary software vendors should ship all libraries in the
>> versions they need, or link their software statically. I wouldn't
>
>>From a technical standpoint this may make sense, but not from the
> commercial standpoint ISVs have to take. Building your own envir
Ian Murdock wrote:
> Because the LSB bases its certification process on a standard ABI/API
> specification alone, and this approach simply hasn't worked.
Surely you're simplifying here? (See LSB-Core 2.0.1, chapters 3, 4, 5.)
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 12:51:21PM +0100, Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 04:04:22PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > It seems to me than one of the main value of Debian is in the quality of
> > its core distribution. One of the reason of the quality is that it
> > is not developed
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 11:53:54AM -0500, Ian Murdock wrote:
> > > What about the LCC's scope isn't clear?
> > Er, the fact that no actual scope has been stated? What does "core" mean?
> > What packages (libraries) are included in this "core"?
> "Core" means "implemention of LSB", and the packa
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 12:44:05AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> In fact I'm using Debian exactly because it doesn't try to apeal ISVs,
> IHVs, OEMs and other business-driven three-letter acronyms. As soon
> as you ty to please them quality of implementation goes down.
Why?
It took me some
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 12:22:13PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> I don't think Debian should try to adopt an extensive, externally
> specified ABI. For a few core packges, this may make some sense, but
> not for most libraries.
Lcc is also about those few core packages.
> Instead, proprietary s
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 04:04:22PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> It seems to me than one of the main value of Debian is in the quality of
> its core distribution. One of the reason of the quality is that it
> is not developed for itself but as a platform for the 10^4+ packages
> and the 10+ archi
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 06:16:03AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> That wasn't my question. My question was, why should any ISV care if
> their product has been LSB-*certified*? ISVs can test against, and
> advertise support for, whatever they want to without getting the LSB's
> imprimatur. I can
Joey Hess wrote (on debian-devel):
> My experience as a developer who's tried to write
> an app to use the LSB (only the init script interface)
> is that it's poorly enough specified and/or implemented
> divergently within the spec to the point that I had to
> test my implementation on every LSB
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 08:34:17AM -0500, Ian Murdock wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-12-10 at 00:44 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Besides that the LCC sounds like an extraordinarily bad idea, passing
> > around binaries only makes sense if you can't easily reproduce them from
> > the source (which I d
Ian Murdock dijo [Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 11:53:54AM -0500]:
(snip)
> The ISVs have spoken. They want to support as few ports as possible,
> because those ports cost money. They also want to support as much
> of the market as possible, and the current reality is that many of
> those markets are out of
* Ian Murdock
| On Fri, 2004-12-10 at 10:07 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
| > If this is what's going to happen, then the first time a security fix
| > comes along in one of those binaries the system suddenly isn't
| > LCC-compiant anymore (due to the fact that different distributions
| > handle
On Tue, 2004-12-14 at 06:16 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 05:07:12PM -0500, Ian Murdock wrote:
> > On Sat, 2004-12-11 at 03:49 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > Well, my first question is why, irrespective of how valuable the LSB
> > > itself
> > > is to them, any ISV wo
Yo all!
Seeing this discussion wander in many directions, please consider what is
acutally under discussion here:
Bruce:
> I would not suggest that Debian commit to using LCC packages at this
> time. We should participate for a while and see how many changes we'd
> have to make and whether the
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 05:07:12PM -0500, Ian Murdock wrote:
> On Sat, 2004-12-11 at 03:49 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 03:39:55PM -0500, Ian Murdock wrote:
> > > You've just described the way the LSB has done it for years, which thus
> > > far, hasn't worked--while the
On Fri, 2004-12-10 at 10:57 +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> On Friday 10 December 2004 06.15, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> > John Goerzen dijo [Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 09:40:51PM -0600]:
>
> > > we could participate in this organization even if we didn't take
> > > their packages? That is, perhaps we coul
On Thu, 2004-12-09 at 14:33 -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> Why don't standard ABIs suffice?
Because the LSB bases its certification process on a standard ABI/API
specification alone, and this approach simply hasn't worked.
--
Ian Murdock
317-578-8882 (office)
http://www.progeny.com/
http://ianmurdo
On Fri, 2004-12-10 at 10:07 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> If this is what's going to happen, then the first time a security fix
> comes along in one of those binaries the system suddenly isn't
> LCC-compiant anymore (due to the fact that different distributions
> handle security updates different
On Fri, 2004-12-10 at 00:44 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Besides that the LCC sounds like an extraordinarily bad idea, passing
> around binaries only makes sense if you can't easily reproduce them from
> the source (which I defined very broadly to include all build scripts
> and depencies), an
> > me
> Ian Murdock (quotes out of order)
> > If the LSB only attempts to certify things that haven't forked, then
> > it's a no-op. Well, that's not quite fair; I have found it useful to
> > bootstrap a porting effort using lsb-rpm. But for it to be a software
> > operating environment and not
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 05:11:32PM -0500, Ian Murdock wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-12-09 at 23:07 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> I understand the LSB is beginning to think about the multiarch issue,
> and I suspect Debian is far ahead of others in terms
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 05:07:12PM -0500, Ian Murdock wrote:
> We have absolutely been talking to ISVs about their needs--indeed, this
> has been a conversation that has been ongoing for years..
>
> What about the LCC's scope isn't clear? The basic are fairly simple:
> Make the cost-benefit equati
On Thu, 2004-12-09 at 23:07 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Can someone provide an example of where the name of a dynamic
> > library itself (i.e., the one in the file system, after the
> > package is unpacked) would change? I'd be surprised if this
On Sat, 2004-12-11 at 03:49 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 03:39:55PM -0500, Ian Murdock wrote:
> > You've just described the way the LSB has done it for years, which thus
> > far, hasn't worked--while there are numerous LSB-certified distros,
> > there are exactly zero LSB
On Thu, 2004-12-09 at 13:04 -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> If ISVs want "exactly the same", they are free to install a chroot
> environment containing the binaries they certify against and to supply
> a kernel that they expect their customers to use. That's the approach
> I've had to take when
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 08:29:16PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>>> Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
>>> > The problem is not the autobuilder infrastructure per se. It is that
>>>
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Why aren't security uploads for testing done as "testing-security
> unstable"? Why leave the bug open in sid when fixing it in testing?
[...]
It is not possible to target more than one distribution (i.e.
testing-security and unstable) in one
* Goswin von Brederlow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041212 22:20]:
> Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > t-p-u is not uploaded from another host through a mapping. (Remember,
> > uploads to stable are mapped to stable-security on
> > security.debian.org, then uploaded to stable from that host.
Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 08:29:16PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > The problem is not the autobuilder infrastructure per se. It is that
>> > testing and unstable are largely in sync (!). This, co
Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Goswin von Brederlow
>
> | Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> |
> | > * Brian Nelson
> | >
> | > | Anyone, developer or non-developer, can help fix toolchain problems.
> | > | However, the only people who can work on the testing-securit
* Tollef Fog Heen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041212 21:35]:
> * Goswin von Brederlow
> | Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | > * Brian Nelson
> | >
> | > | Anyone, developer or non-developer, can help fix toolchain problems.
> | > | However, the only people who can work on the testing-secu
* Goswin von Brederlow
| Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
| > * Brian Nelson
| >
| > | Anyone, developer or non-developer, can help fix toolchain problems.
| > | However, the only people who can work on the testing-security
| > | autobuilders are ... the security team and the ftp-m
On Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 08:29:16PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The problem is not the autobuilder infrastructure per se. It is that
> > testing and unstable are largely in sync (!). This, combinded with the
> > fact that testing must not
Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Brian Nelson
>
> | Anyone, developer or non-developer, can help fix toolchain problems.
> | However, the only people who can work on the testing-security
> | autobuilders are ... the security team and the ftp-masters? What's
> | that, a handful of
* Brian Nelson
| Anyone, developer or non-developer, can help fix toolchain problems.
| However, the only people who can work on the testing-security
| autobuilders are ... the security team and the ftp-masters? What's
| that, a handful of people? With a bottleneck like that, isn't that a
| muc
On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 18:40:07 +0100, Joey Hess wrote:
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
>> > http://wiki.debian.net/index.cgi?ReleaseProposals
>>
>> Every single one of these falls into one of these four groups:
>
> Please note the "wiki" in the URL and the "edit page" button on the
> page.
Inspired by
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > http://wiki.debian.net/index.cgi?ReleaseProposals
>
> Every single one of these falls into one of these four groups:
Please note the "wiki" in the URL and the "edit page" button on the
page.
(Or are you just pointlessly bitching?)
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Descri
Steve Langasek wrote:
> Well, my first question is why, irrespective of how valuable the LSB itself
> is to them, any ISV would choose to get their apps "LSB certified". The
> benefits of having one's distro LSB certified are clear, but what does an
> LSB certification give an ISV that their own i
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 01:42:57PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Adrian von Bidder dijo [Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 04:38:10PM +0100]:
> > > we don't exactly have a strong history of being able to pull off
> > > timely releases
> >
> > Did Debian even try?
> >
> > I didn't follow the woody release too cl
* Steve Langasek:
> Um, what's the concrete use case for a cross-distro standard network
> configuration interface?
VPN software, intrusion detection systems, software for CALEA support,
centralized management software.
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 03:39:55PM -0500, Ian Murdock wrote:
> You've just described the way the LSB has done it for years, which thus
> far, hasn't worked--while there are numerous LSB-certified distros,
> there are exactly zero LSB-certified applications. The reason for this
> is that "substantia
* Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-12-11 12:36]:
> > Anyone, developer or non-developer, can help fix toolchain problems.
> > However, the only people who can work on the testing-security
> > autobuilders are ... the security team and the ftp-masters?
>
> It's about infrastructure, so the
* Brian Nelson:
> Anyone, developer or non-developer, can help fix toolchain problems.
> However, the only people who can work on the testing-security
> autobuilders are ... the security team and the ftp-masters?
It's about infrastructure, so the security team is out (they are just
users of this
* Michael Banck:
> 2. GNOME succeeded for the desktop.
Are there any proprietary COTS applications for GNOME where vendor
support isn't bound to specific GNU/Linux distributions?
Maybe GNOME is a good example of cross-vendor cooperation (but so is
GCC), but would be quite surprised if this autom
* Bruce Perens:
> The Linux Core Consortium would like to have Debian's involvement. This
> organization has revived what I originally proposed to do as the LSB -
> to make a binary base for Linux distributions that could be among
> several distributions who would share in the effort of maintai
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 09:41:47AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Brian Nelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041210 19:55]:
> > Yup. There's never been a sense of urgency. The RM's throw out release
> > dates and goals every once in a while, but no one seems to take those
> > seriously.
>
> Not true. (A
* Brian Nelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041210 19:55]:
> Yup. There's never been a sense of urgency. The RM's throw out release
> dates and goals every once in a while, but no one seems to take those
> seriously.
Not true. (And, perhaps you noticed, the release team avoided to give
specific days in
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 04:38:10PM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> On Friday 10 December 2004 15.35, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > we don't exactly have a strong history of being able to pull off
> > timely releases
>
> Did Debian even try?
No, not since I've been around.
> I didn't follow the woo
Adrian von Bidder dijo [Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 04:38:10PM +0100]:
> > we don't exactly have a strong history of being able to pull off
> > timely releases
>
> Did Debian even try?
>
> I didn't follow the woody release too closely, being a Debian newbie at the
> time, so I don't know. But - this w
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 04:04:22PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> As a practical matter, what if the Debian gcc team decide to release
> etch with gcc 3.3 because 3.4 break ABI on some platforms and gcc-4.x is
> not stable enough on all the platforms ? Will LCC follow ? If not, how
> are we going t
On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 13:59:10 -0500, Jim Gettys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That being said, certainly UNIX's disunity was a major aid to Microsoft.
> Repeating that history would not be good.
I must agree with Jim. From the stand-point that Debian is losing
developers to other Linux platforms an
Hi,
>
> * We should commit to strict release cylces of a base system others
>(and Debian itself) can build value upon.
>
> * We should proabably also commit to a set of core architectures which
>*need* to be bug-free on release, while the rest *should* be, but
>would not delay the
On Friday 10 December 2004 15.35, Steve Langasek wrote:
> we don't exactly have a strong history of being able to pull off
> timely releases
Did Debian even try?
I didn't follow the woody release too closely, being a Debian newbie at the
time, so I don't know. But - this was my impression - fro
Hello Debian developers,
It seems to me than one of the main value of Debian is in the quality of
its core distribution. One of the reason of the quality is that it
is not developed for itself but as a platform for the 10^4+ packages
and the 10+ architectures in Debian. For example the compiler m
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 12:50:13PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> *** The interested parties of the LCC should pick Debian as a base and
> Debian should make this possible. ***
> Rather than everybody just throwing all their stuff in together and
> mixing it up.
> Of course, this would also mean
Op vr, 10-12-2004 te 12:50 +0100, schreef Michael Banck:
> *** The interested parties of the LCC should pick Debian as a base and
> Debian should make this possible. ***
>
> Rather than everybody just throwing all their stuff in together and
> mixing it up.
>
> Of course, this would also mean fo
1 - 100 of 154 matches
Mail list logo
