[cgl_discussion] cgl patches
Cahill, Ben M
ben.m.cahill at intel.com
Tue Apr 1 15:20:48 PST 2003
If you'd like to, please add:
opengfs.sourceforge.net
to the clustering/GFS category.
Thanks!
-- Ben --
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cress, Andrew R
> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 3:53 PM
> To: 'Dave Fuller'; Mika Kukkonen
> Cc: cgl_discussion at osdl.org
> Subject: RE: [cgl_discussion] cgl patches
>
>
>
> I've been trying to go back and gather the CGL
> reference/affiliated projects
> and their URLs, since I've had others ask me for it.
> Attached is my first
> pass at a list, based on the 1.1 project PDF. I intended to
> encompass CGLE
> 1.0 & 1.1, and I included what 2.0 stuff I could find. This
> should be a
> good start. Hopefully by putting up this straw-horse list,
> others of you
> will contribute any missing URLs from your projects, so that
> Dave can get a
> head-start in putting this as a web page on osdl.org.
>
> Dave, does this sound ok?
>
> BTW, there are two CGLE 1.0 patches that I didn't have
> project links for,
> only carrierlinux.org patches
> (legacy_removal and tcore). Perhaps there are new ones, or
> should we save
> the patches on osdl.org?
>
> Andy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Fuller [mailto:dave at osdl.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 3:58 PM
> To: Mika Kukkonen
> Cc: Ibrahim Haddad (LMC); cgl_discussion at osdl.org
> Subject: RE: [cgl_discussion] cgl patches
>
>
> No ETA, but it is in plan.
>
> On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 11:48, Mika Kukkonen wrote:
> > On ke, 2003-03-05 at 11:22, Ibrahim Haddad (LMC) wrote:
> > > Since no one is really trying to maintain the patches, I
> assume that
> > > a case where a patch from member company A can break a
> patch coming
> > > from member company B could exist? If so, how to prevent this?
> >
> > When CGLE and even later the CGL-kernel patch was ramped down, one
> > rationale for that was that we were just duplicating the
> work done by
> > the distro companies. So the answer to the problem you are
> raising is
> > simply that it is _not_ CGL-WG's headache, but instead it
> is the distro
> > companies (or some other entity's who will be creating a
> CGL compliant
> > Linux OS) headache to resolve patch conflicts.
> >
> > I know several people think that this is not "optimal"
> state of affairs,
> > but that just happens to be how it is, and I have no wish
> to go through
> > again the pain and waste of effort we had with CGLE.
> >
> > > Is there somewhere a list of all needed patches and
> relative web sites
> > > where we can go get them?
> >
> > A web page with list of CGL "affiliated" projects and links
> to them is
> > planned for OSDL web site, but I have no ETA for that... Dave?
> >
> > --MiKu
> --
> Dave Fuller <dave at osdl.org>
> OSDL
> _______________________________________________
> cgl_discussion mailing list
> cgl_discussion at lists.osdl.org
> http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/cgl_discussion
>
>
More information about the cgl_discussion
mailing list