Re: Debian CGL registration
* Troy Heber <email@example.com> [2006-06-05 14:59]:
> So, what exactly *has* been done? From a technical perspective, very
> little. What HP has done is to fund a CGL registration of Sarge
> as-is. In other words, no modifications to Sarge were made for this
> registration. Registration does not imply 100% compliance; in fact,
> Sarge is not 100% CGL-compliant. As such, this registration process
> also doubled as a way to perform a gap analysis and see where Sarge
> falls short, and what we would need to do to make future releases
> compliant, should this become a project goal.
Thanks for this work and the status report - it's definitely
I don't know how much work this is but given that the registration
document is rather long, do you think you could prepare an overview
where sarge falls short (and if the same applies for etch)?