On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 16:28 -0400, Michael Crute wrote:
> On 10/20/05, Andrew Gaffney <email@example.com> wrote:
> Michael Crute wrote:
> > On 10/20/05, *Mike Rosset* <schizoid29@...
> > <mailto:schizoid29@...>> 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?
> Let's not start this again. It comes down to this:
> * they are a work in progress, constantly changing
> * they don't work with the released version of catalyst
> OK, fine, thats good enough for me. I dont want to start some war
> between Chris and Mike.
> Another idea though, why not patch catalyst so they work and release
> them. For pete sake people this is open source, must we bicker about
The catalyst changes would make catalyst unusable for anything *other*
than creating a LiveCD. On my machine, I actually have 3 versions of
catalyst - vanilla catalyst 188.8.131.52
catalyst2 - a catalyst 2.0 snapshot from today, being tested currently
catalyst-livecd - my hand-hacked catalyst
At any rate, it has nothing to do with open source. I'm not giving out
some kind of "binary" version of my hacked catalyst, so there's no
requirement anywhere for me to give out anything. Most of the custom
code is being slowly cleaned up and put into something usable, which
will be released in catalyst 2.0. The "problem" is stemming from people
that cannot accept that I won't put out shit code *now* and refuse to
wait until it is released code.
> "proprietary" shit? In any case I am perfectly happy with the minimal
> CD as it is now, I'm more curious than anything about these secret
> spec files.
There's nothing special about the spec files. They look just like any
other spec file. The "butter" is in the fsscript.sh, along with the
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer