| 1 |
On Wednesday 11 August 2004 00:07, Kurt Lieber wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 09:19:25PM +0100 or thereabouts, Chris Bainbridge |
| 3 |
wrote: |
| 4 |
> > So heres the cheeky proposal... make a "redhat" release. Follow redhats |
| 5 |
> > release cycle, and match their versions. Use their backported fixes. |
| 6 |
> > Commercial software will work. Bugs will be fixed. This is the power of |
| 7 |
> > open source. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> You're making a HUGE assumption that red hat compiles from the same sources |
| 10 |
> we compile from. That's simply not the case. Kernels, glibc, gcc, etc. |
| 11 |
> almost always have a number of patches that they add. You cannot make the |
| 12 |
> blanket statement that commercial software will work. More importantly, |
| 13 |
> you can't make the assumption that commercial software *companies* will |
| 14 |
> support their products on Gentoo, even if we're using the same version |
| 15 |
> numbers of key packages. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
er, of course I know we sometimes use sources with different patch sets. But |
| 18 |
generally the patches don't change the functionality of the original software |
| 19 |
that much. Its not impossible, but I'd be surprised to find any 3rd party |
| 20 |
software that failed because of that. And if it does fail, then its easy to |
| 21 |
check if the patches are different and find the bugfix. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Commercial companies aren't going to support gentoo anyway, but at least |
| 24 |
enterprises could still run their software on gentoo if they wanted to. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives