[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Debian trademark [was: Debian GNU/w32, may ready to be started?]

On Tue, 4 Dec 2001 20:57, John Galt wrote:
> >>   We also don't use our resources to compile and distribute binary
> >> packages for Solaris, or put our name behind an effort to do so.  Why
> >> should we do anything different for Windows?
> >
> >Has anybody ever actually made the effort to set up a
> >Solaris/[insert-non-free-OS] port? If not, this isn't a particularly
> >good argument.
> Why should anyone else, when SUN itself has the gnu-tools directory?  At
> best it'd be redundant.  The fact that RMS hasn't insisted to Stanford

It would not be redundant.

Last time I was using Sun's free software packages I had the following 

They put all their files in /usr/local (that's supposed to be for me when I 
type "make install" not packages in the packaging system) or 
/opt/package-name (which required additions to the path and man-path for each 
application which doesn't scale).

The source to the packages was not supplied, sometimes it was difficult to 
find the version of the source that matches the binary - it wasn't painful 
enough for me to raise a GPL legal issue about it though.

The patches to the code (if any), options supplied to ./configure, and 
Solaris packaging data were not supplied.  It was simply impossible for me to 
create my own package that works in the same way as the Solaris package.

There was no clear indication of package dependencies, you had to install it 
and test.

For these reasons I was very close to starting a Debian-Solaris project.

http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/     Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/       Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/     My home page

Reply to: