[cgl_discussion] cgl patches

John Cherry cherry at osdl.org
Wed Apr 2 08:55:41 PST 2003


opengfs.sourceforge.net should be on the list.

We reference this from osdlcluster.sourceforge.net as well.

Thanks,
John

On Tue, 2003-04-01 at 15:20, Cahill, Ben M wrote:
> 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
> > 
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> 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