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

Re: hurd does NOT need /hurd

On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 01:13:49AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 04:52:56PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > partitioning tools: done upstream, needs only to trickle down
> >                     (we need parted > 1.6)
> Partitioning tools were *the* hold up with porting the installer last
> time I asked. Nice to see something's been done about that.

I think the Hurd is ready to be its own installer and has a lot of
features which can be useful at installation time, we only need to
find the time to work on these things.
> > firewall: I don't see how this is release critical at all.
> Attacks over the Internet are so routine -- and connection to the Internet
> is so common -- that it's hard to countenance an operating system that
> doesn't have at least basic firewalling protection for itself. IMO. I'd
> be _very_ hesitant to consider something suitable for dists/stable if
> there wasn't something similar to ipfwadm for people to use.

We only have to clearly indicate it if it's still the case at
release time. Some people don't even have their system directly on the
internet. I don't see this as a showstopper.

And there are still enough people who run some non-free OS which is
more insecure than GNU/Hurd.

> > the glibc ABI change (if that is what is meant with massive incom...)?
> The fact that you got hurd-i386 purged to do it. hppa (?) did something
> similar a bit under a year ago, and it was similarly concerning. Once
> you release, such things have to be done properly. You're fully aware
> of this already, of course. So were the hppa people, and I glared at
> them for it too.

I think we can use versioning for all future changes.
Jeroen Dekkers
Jabber ID: jdekkers@jabber.org  IRC ID: jeroen@openprojects
GNU supporter - http://www.gnu.org

Attachment: pgpgZqoLbvhxQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: