Fw: [cgl_discussion] Sources from each build...
Jeremy A. Puhlman
jpuhlman at mvista.com
Tue Sep 24 12:20:50 PDT 2002
Tariq asked me to forward this on to the discussion list...
----- Original Message ----- =
From: Jeremy A. Puhlman =
To: Shureih, Tariq =
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 12:13 PM
Subject: Re: [cgl_discussion] Sources from each build...
I know that it was not you that made that decision, but that is just wrong.=
..Simply by compiling =
the binaries on a distribution you are making them distribution specific...=
Especially Redhat, since the
7.x series contains a compiler not supported by anyone out side of Redhat...
Also, since all but two distributions use rpm as the package manager, using=
rpm in no way makes
a package Redhat specific...rpm is actually a completely separate project d=
eveloped and maintained out side
of Redhat...
There will be very few distributions, other then the distribution that the =
binaries were compiled on, that will actually
run those binaries...
Open Source, speaks and groks source, not binaries...To be "more open sourc=
e", the information for accessing cvs =
anonymously should be right on or right off the main page (especially since=
it does not follow the norm)...
Like I said I understand you may not be the one that made the decision, but=
may be you could pass this along to those
on the private list who are making the decisions...(even though a list maki=
ng decisions on how to be more open source
being private doesn't seem very open source IMHO)
Jeremy
----- Original Message ----- =
From: Shureih, Tariq =
To: 'Jeremy A. Puhlman' =
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 11:38 AM
Subject: RE: [cgl_discussion] Sources from each build...
Sorry, it's the Proof Of Concept committee within OSDL for the CGLE 1.0 r=
elease.
They wanted to be "more open source" and provide tar archives of the outp=
ut and NOT be RPM or Redhat or distribution specific!
--
Tariq =A4
-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-
Opinions are my own and do NOT
represent those of Intel Corporation.
^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy A. Puhlman [mailto:jpuhlman at mvista.com] =
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 11:29 AM
To: Shureih, Tariq
Subject: Re: [cgl_discussion] Sources from each build...
PoC? is that an acronym or a name? Just curious was there reasoning behin=
d the decision, =
because you lose a lot by moving away from rpms....
Jeremy
----- Original Message ----- =
From: Shureih, Tariq =
To: 'Jeremy A. Puhlman' ; cgl_discussion at osdl.org =
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 11:07 AM
Subject: RE: [cgl_discussion] Sources from each build...
Jeremy:
The tar ball decision was one made by PoC. RPMS are still produces for=
validation only.
Anonymous cvs access as well as Read-only access to non project maintai=
ners is available.
--
Tariq =A4
-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-
Opinions are my own and do NOT
represent those of Intel Corporation.
^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy A. Puhlman [mailto:jpuhlman at mvista.com] =
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 11:00 AM
To: cgl_discussion at osdl.org
Subject: [cgl_discussion] Sources from each build...
Currently, on the build page for CGL there are only, tarballs of the re=
sulting
binaries...A couple questions. Why are there not rpms/srpms, since that=
is what
the build process produces? If there is no plan to put up rpms/srpms is=
there some
way to get the sources used for each component and kernel that was used=
in each build?
Lastly I understand that cvs access is restricted to those that can sub=
mit to the individual
repositories. Is there a way to add anoncvs to the mix so that cvs is g=
enerally available for =
reading?
If I am missing something please point me in the correct direction....
Jeremy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/cgl_discussion/attachments=
/20020924/7a52b66d/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the cgl_discussion
mailing list