| 1 |
On 30/08/2013 16:44, Tanstaafl wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 2013-08-30 10:34 AM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 30/08/2013 16:29, Tanstaafl wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> Why would there be a problem if someone decided to create a 3rd party |
| 5 |
>>> overlay *not* part of the official gentoo portage tree that contained |
| 6 |
>>> *only* the zfs stuff, and when this overlay was installed combined with |
| 7 |
>>> a zfs keyword for the kernel, portage would then pull in the required |
| 8 |
>>> files, and automagically build a kernel with an up to date version of |
| 9 |
>>> zfs properly and fully integrated? |
| 10 |
>>> |
| 11 |
>>> Would this not work, *and* have no problems with licensing? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
>> there is no problem with licensing in that case. |
| 14 |
>> The ebuild could even go in the portage tree, as Gentoo is not |
| 15 |
>> redistributing sources when it publishes an ebuild. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Thanks Alan! Just the answer I wanted. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Ok, so... how hard would this be then? What would the chances be that |
| 20 |
> this could actually happen? I'll happily go open a bug for it if you |
| 21 |
> think the work would be minimal... |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> It seems to me that I can't be the only one who would like to see this |
| 24 |
> happen? |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Ahem, Mr Bothwick! |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Our friend with the thing about free lunches needs you to demonstrate |
| 31 |
your penmanship, considering you have some proven results in this area. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
:-) |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 39 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives