| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On Tuesday 23 September 2003 10:12 pm, dams@×××.fr wrote: |
| 5 |
> FHS is made so that f*cking proprietary application get well installed on |
| 6 |
> every distribution, so that they can sell more, and make the big linux |
| 7 |
> actors (IBM and co), more rich. |
| 8 |
Proprietary applications should not exist in the first place, AFAIC. If this |
| 9 |
is the purpose of the FHS, then I'm all for non-compliance! :) |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> If you agree with this way to let linux go forward (I have no opinion on |
| 12 |
> that), then be FHS compliant. It's certain that being FHS compliant is a |
| 13 |
> plus when dealing with proprietary software companies. |
| 14 |
Would we want proprietary software companies to maintain their own ebuilds in |
| 15 |
the portage tree anyway? I'd consider many open source project developers |
| 16 |
better qualified for that before a proprietary developer. Therefore, seeing |
| 17 |
as all the proprietary ebuilds are likely to be maintained outside of the |
| 18 |
company creating them anyway, do we need to deal with them at all (except in |
| 19 |
crazy EULA cases like Id, of course)? |
| 20 |
- -- |
| 21 |
Luke-Jr |
| 22 |
Developer, Gentoo Linux |
| 23 |
http://www.gentoo.org/ |
| 24 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 25 |
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
iD8DBQE/cNNBZl/BHdU+lYMRAnFyAJ9TXlhxdscZJtBNvvanzdSg5+X8hQCeN5/r |
| 28 |
xrnOZ5QH2FjdMHwZ7mOzwI0= |
| 29 |
=l1FW |
| 30 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives