Re: firewalling capabilities / release criteria
On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 04:04:34PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> But this is my point. Porters do not need such a document.
bah! you changed the to: on me, so i have no idea if my reply went to
the list or not. if it didn't not much was lost. so i won't worry about
it either way
> The threshhold number of Debian packages is a good standard,
for the other archs of linux, yes, that seems to be well.
for the non-linux kernels, that -may- be debateable. what features that
are found in lunux can be considered ``debian core''? what features
found in non-linux kernels will be added to the ``debian core'' that we
will have to add to the linux kernel?
to my knowledge, debian is the first provider of an OS that is cross
platform -and- cross kernel. very unique needs indeed.
if you'd note, my original list included mostly % of package threshold,
with 100% of base+standard (is that a current requirement?) and a list
of those optional packages that should be avaialable, or have acceptable
functionality. that leaves wiggle room for those systems that behave
significantly different from the linux kernel that we are used to, and
will (for better or worse) be used as a standard.
> beyond that, we don't really need such a list of "necessary
> features", which is more likely to distort development than help it.
maybe. as i am not a porter, i don't know. as someone that is interested
in seeing alternative kernels, well, i still don't know.
i'm going to go be quiet until woody is released . . . then perhaps we
can ask again.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com