Gentoo Archives: gentoo-installer

From: Michael Crute <mcrute@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-installer@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-installer] Gentoo installer vs current installation method, what about later?
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 20:42:02
Message-Id: 558b73fb0510201341y58f49c75k50c42e833f969b7c@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-installer] Gentoo installer vs current installation method, what about later? by Chris Gianelloni
On 10/20/05, Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 16:16 -0400, Michael Crute wrote: > > On 10/20/05, Mike Rosset <schizoid29@×××××.com> wrote: > > I've all ready asked for those and got shot down appartently > > Chris wont release them. Also Chris will try to bump this to > > another list releng, more then likely > > > > Why not release them? Is this not open source? What's so secret about > > an iso image? > > Ehh... I'm not releasing it because it won't work for you. It's really > that simple. When I was working on the ISO, rather than doing things > "right" and extensible, I did them "quick and dirty". I added > hard-coded paths. I changed pieces of code that I know will break other > things. Besides this, I *still* have to do manual intervention in some > places to get things to work. > > Basically, if I took a dump in a bag and gave it to you, you'd get about > as much use out of it. If you want to look at my turd, at least let me > polish it for you. > > Also, there's nothing "open source" about the spec files used to build a > CD. While catalyst is released under the GPL, and the individual > packages are released under some open source license or another, the > actual spec files aren't under any license until I release them. The > *only* reason that they get released is because of the general open > nature of Gentoo, not because of any licensing requirement. Basically, > they get released because I want to release them. At any rate, as I've > stated a few times (thanks for the troll, Mike!) already, I'll release > proper spec files after the release of catalyst 2.0, once there is > actually something that makes the spec files usable. Until that time, > you can consider the spec files under the FWO (For Wolf Only) license. > If you want to peek at them, I'll fax you a NDA for you to sign after > you send me the check for a FWO license... :P > > I could release what I have right now, but you wouldn't understand how > it works, since they would not work with any released version of > catalyst. They wouldn't even work with catalyst 2.0 from CVS. My spec > files work *only* on my *one* workstation that I've been using to build > the LiveCD on, simply because I was lazy and under a lot of pressure to > produce the CD in a very limited amount of time and have no interest to > spend countless hours cleaning it up just so I can release it in its > current ugly state. Most of the code has already been pushed into > catalyst 2.0 CVS, but there's still a few patches I have to add before > that goes out for release. > >
OK like I said before your previous answer was fine. I don't feel the need to walk the same path twice since you two have obviously argued this before. The statement I made about open source had nothing to do with licensing and everything to do with openness. In any case if its a sloppy hack, fine. If I need a livecd I can make my own. In the meantime I'm happy to let you keep generating the CDs, you do a good job at it. -Mike -- ________________________________ Michael E. Crute Software Developer SoftGroup Development Corporation Linux, because reboots are for installing hardware. "In a world without walls and fences, who needs windows and gates?"