On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 08:35:42AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Javier [iso-8859-1] Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: > > > Yes. The software knoppix uses (save for cloop) is not packaged > > (but its GPLd) IIRC. > Could someone who knoow the facts better than my perhaps file an RFP / ITP bug? how bout first we get a list of packages that we'd have to be looking at? i'll volunteer to take on a package or two (though i'll need a sponsor for uploads since i'm still in the DAM-approval queue). > This will become a hard task in the future and makes really no sense if you > just need a limited subset of the data on this iso image. It would be > *really* stupid to grab a complete iso image just to remaster the latest > Knoppix where just some files might be changed. and it makes no sense at all if you don't even want knoppix on your cd. for example, if i want to build my own boot-off-cd firewall, i might not be interested in the autodetection that knoppix provides. however, if i'm building my own desktop-on-a-cd i definitely want that stuff. imho it should be just another modular option to be included. > dpkg --get-selections | grep knoppix > you get a certain list of packages. We should check these packages for > DFSG complieance and perhaps make them official. I hope this would perhaps > take some workload from Klaus Knopper. unfortunately i just gave my knoppix cd to a friend so she could a non-bootable system :( > This is what I wanted to say: If someone who is deeper involved in Knoppix > development / remastering would start with a list like: > > package1: License, URL > package2: License, URL > ... > and perhaps would just file ITP / RFP bugs accordingly it would be of > g help, IMHO. agreed. once again, i volunteer to do some of the work if someone finds out what needs to be done. sean
Attachment:
pgp7J67tOxH3n.pgp
Description: PGP signature