Fw: [cgl_discussion] Sources from each build...
Howell, David P
david.p.howell at intel.com
Tue Sep 24 13:56:52 PDT 2002
Well, as long as the rpms for a target are available to the test team
then the developers who want to perform about the same function should
have access to them as well. I really don't care if the target rpms are
public on the OSDL build site, but it really makes it easier for me to
run with and validate that my changes, built with everything else in
CGLE 1.0, works properly without having to stage a build here.
From: Mika Kukkonen [mailto:mika at osdl.org]
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 3:50 PM
To: Jeremy A. Puhlman
Cc: cgl_discussion at osdl.org; Tariq Shureih; Rusty Lynch
Subject: Re: Fw: [cgl_discussion] Sources from each build...
On Tue, 2002-09-24 at 12:20, Jeremy A. Puhlman wrote:
> 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
AFAIK, any binaries that exist in developer.osdl.org are meant for
consumption of our validation subgroup only, i.e. to be used in our
(= OSDL CGL-WG) testing, and not to be distributed.
Tariq & Rusty, as there seems to be some confusion about the issue,
I think you need to work out some way to remove this confusion, possibly
by moving the binaries into some subdirectory with a README-file saying
explicitly that the binaries are provided as they are etc.
> 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 developed and maintained out side
> of Redhat...
Again AFAIK, the problem with the RPM is that the spec-files are
definitely distribution specific.
> There will be very few distributions, other then the distribution that
> the binaries were compiled on, that will actually run those
Once again, binaries are not be run by anybody else but by Rusty's
people. Certainly you can download them and do whatever you want
with them, but the only reasonable way for outsiders to access and
evaluate our work is through the anonymous CVS.
> Open Source, speaks and groks source, not binaries...To be "more open
> source", the information for accessing cvs anonymously should be right
> on or right off the main page (especially since it does not follow
> the norm)...
Actually we should have a FAQ on developer site that would contain this
information plus some other answers. Tariq, want to give it a shot?
> 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
> making decisions on how to be more open source being private doesn't >
seem very open source IMHO)
Well, I am the guy who made the decision, or at least blessed it. So if
you or anybody out there has a complaint and feels that he/she is not
getting a response, mail me. Or just post it to cgl_discussion, I'll
pick it up from there in case others do not.
What comes to our internal mailing lists, there are several good reasons
why they are limited to members only, and one of them can be read from
cgl_discussion mailing list
cgl_discussion at lists.osdl.org
More information about the cgl_discussion