On Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 12:14:09AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: > The port name was agreed to be 'w32' last time when A Menucc1 posted about > it. For definitions of "agreed" which don't include "consensus", I guess. I saw a lot of argument, then somebody declared that it would be 'w32'. > There aren't any licensing, DFSG-compliance or policy problems, How nice of you to tell us all that, where did you get your law degree? Alternatively, post the link to the discussion on debian-legal about it... > This port is meant to run on any win32 implementation. Some win32 > implementations are free (wine, reactos), others are not (microsoft). Wine is blatantly contrived as an excuse to do this, since running a win32 port of Debian under wine under some linux-gnu based system is rather absurd. I was not aware that reactos was anywhere near useable quality. > free implementations are of course recommended and cygwin is proven > to work fine on wine. And reactos? -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing, `. `' | Imperial College, `- -><- | London, UK
Attachment:
pgpDwM6_H3u9x.pgp
Description: PGP signature