Re: Gentoo installer vs current installation method, what about later?

On 10/20/05, Chris Gianelloni <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 16:16 -0400, Michael Crute wrote:
> > On 10/20/05, Mike Rosset <[email protected]> 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.
>
>
OK like I said before your previous answer was fine. I don't feel the need
to walk the same path twice since you two have obviously argued this before.
The statement I made about open source had nothing to do with licensing and
everything to do with openness. In any case if its a sloppy hack, fine. If I
need a livecd I can make my own. In the meantime I'm happy to let you keep
generating the CDs, you do a good job at it.

-Mike

--
________________________________
Michael E. Crute
Software Developer
SoftGroup Development Corporation

Linux, because reboots are for installing hardware.
"In a world without walls and fences, who needs windows and gates?"