[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080417123507.GA6043@openwall.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:35:07 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: xvendor@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: distributions at l.fd.o
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 08:29:49AM +0200, Joey Schulze wrote:
> Solar Designer wrote:
> > My opinion is that it only makes sense to continue with two lists if we
> > can actually identify how the lists will differ from each other, and I'd
> > be fine with having the desktop-specific cross-vendor issues (including
> > graphical boot, interoperability and licensing of desktop-specific apps,
> > etc.) being the topic for distributions@...d.o rather than xvendor (and
> > I think that will work most of the time).
>
> When the focus of distributions@....o lays on desktop issues, both
> lists in parallel make sense to me since different issues are topic.
That's what I was thinking, but apparently Lucas and Vincent think that
this won't work (not sure why not).
> However, with both lists being merely unknown it's questionable if
> those issues will be discussed on either list.
So you're advocating us making either list - or maybe both lists? -
known to more people? Right now? I kind of started working on that,
but I am being (too?) honest by mentioning the unclear status of xvendor
given that there's "distributions". Maybe that discourages some people
from joining either list? If so, should I merely "advertise" xvendor
now, thinking that we can "re-route" to "distributions" later if that is
the decision?
I've mentioned xvendor on this announcement (sent out 10+ hours ago):
http://www.openwall.com/lists/announce/2008/04/17/1
> If the focus of distributions@....o lays on desktop issues, topics
> such as what to do with cdrecord, GCC and library incompatibilities
> and the like would not be wanted there.
Right. However, library incompatibilities, issues with static linking,
etc. that are limited to X stuff (x.org, widget libraries, window
managers, etc.) would be on-topic for "distributions", but not for
xvendor. And I'd be very comfortable with that.
I think that this separation by topic might match the majority of
current subscribers to either list - considering where the lists were
announced initially. Sure, many of those on "distributions" are also
interested in non-desktop issues, but they can simply join xvendor as
well.
Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the
xvendor mailing list charter.
