Gentoo Archives: gentoo-installer

From: Mike Rosset <schizoid29@×××××.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 20:54:51
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-installer] Gentoo installer vs current installation method, what about later? by Chris Gianelloni
I don't buy any of that, release the code a prove what you say is true. We
all know releng uses catalyst to master there iso's. Why wouldn't you in
this case? what is the point of Catalyst but to create the Gentoo's master

And where is this elusive cvs for Catalyst 2?

I'm really glad your upstream providers dont treat you guys this way.
Imagine bash with out make files... I can just hear GNU saying "make your
own make files" ... google it.

And no I'm not troll since I can be reasoned with, my request is reasonable.
I havent seen any movement on your behalf Chris to even remotely trying to
help me.

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. > > -- > Chris Gianelloni > Release Engineering - Strategic Lead > x86 Architecture Team > Games - Developer > Gentoo Linux > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQBDV//FkT4lNIS36YERAkIwAJ98BqzhJCluuQrn+Hvx/0t2JH+48gCfW4Nn > YZ17k4QijCTpHjKJMXw2BGs= > =4lUk > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > >