Marco Franzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
>> source package; the source includes a interpreter and it would be a
>> relatively small matter to translate it from Oaklisp into RnRS Scheme.
>
> Correct me if I am wrong, but AIUI if someone wants to package a GPLed
> Java pr
Marco Franzen writes:
> ... Bootstrapping [using an Oaklisp interpreter written in Scheme]
> might fail because an Oaklisp-specific feature of the target system
> is subtly implemented by the same feature in the host system ...
Right, then you would have to do this thing called "debugging", in
ord
Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
source package; the source includes a interpreter and it would be a
relatively small matter to translate it from Oaklisp into RnRS Scheme.
Correct me if I am wrong, but AIUI if someone wants to package a GPLed
Java program that, as it is, currently runs only on a non-fr
> If glibc binaries really had virus that were not it its source, and
> if that could have been avoided by more painful bootstrapping, would
> that mean clean oaklisp bootstrapping should not be required?
Right. And if my grandmother had wheels and a gas tank she would be
an automobile.
All new
Walter Landry wrote:
Marco Franzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
This is a technical issue related to ease of bootstrapping on a new
architecture, and not a legal issue.
It may not be a legal issue, but I think it is more than merely
technical. It does touch the fre
Marco Franzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> > This is a technical issue related to ease of bootstrapping on a new
> > architecture, and not a legal issue.
> >
> > As a technical measure, the circular dependency could be broken and
> > the alternative prebuild-world-in-sou
[Sorry about the long lines in my earlier post,
thanks for wrapping them, Raul.]
Raul Miller wrote:
On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 04:17:29PM +0100, Marco Franzen wrote:
To understand what I mean, you may want to read Ken Thompson's old
article[0] on how to hide a Trojan Horse in a compiler without
On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 04:17:29PM +0100, Marco Franzen wrote:
> It may not be a legal issue, but I think it is more than merely
> technical. It does touch the freeness question.
>
> It is about trust that the source provided is actually the true and full
> source for the given binary. This is n
Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
This is a technical issue related to ease of bootstrapping on a new
architecture, and not a legal issue.
As a technical measure, the circular dependency could be broken and
the alternative prebuild-world-in-source kludge eliminated by writing
an Oaklisp interpreter in an
This is a technical issue related to ease of bootstrapping on a new
architecture, and not a legal issue.
As a technical measure, the circular dependency could be broken and
the alternative prebuild-world-in-source kludge eliminated by writing
an Oaklisp interpreter in another language (say, RnRS S
* Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS:
> I assume that cyclic Build-Depends are acceptable in Debian. It would
> be difficult if they weren't.
Provided that we have complete source code and all the DFSG
requirements are fulfilled, they are acceptable. This has to be
reviewed on a case-by-case basis, there is n
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 04:41:22PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > > GHC seems to be in the same situation: there are other implementations
> > > of Haskell, but GHC uses some GHC-specific features, so you have to
> > > compile it with GHC.
> >
I'm confused as to the concern here. When one grabs the source for this
package do they have all the necessary tools to build that package? If the
answer is yes, then what potential DFSG issues exist?
I haven't inspected the package myself, but I'm willing to bet that the source
for the 500KB
Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > GHC seems to be in the same situation: there are other implementations
> > of Haskell, but GHC uses some GHC-specific features, so you have to
> > compile it with GHC.
>
> GHC can be bootstrapped without GHC itself, there is a minimal C
> implementat
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 04:48:21PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> > I assume that cyclic Build-Depends are acceptable in Debian. It would
> > be difficult if they weren't.
>
> For essential packages, build-essential and kernels (not in the sense
> one build-depends on a kernel, but one requ
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 03:25:10PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > I just noted that oaklisp has a 500kB binary called 'oakworld.bin' in
> > src/world. oaklisp is GPL. It seems one can re-create this binary with
> > oaklisp, but to build/use o
Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I just noted that oaklisp has a 500kB binary called 'oakworld.bin' in
> src/world. oaklisp is GPL. It seems one can re-create this binary with
> oaklisp, but to build/use oaklisp, you'll first need the .bin. So, there
> is no real bootstrapping provide
Hi,
(I'm not subscribed to debian-legal)
I just noted that oaklisp has a 500kB binary called 'oakworld.bin' in
src/world. oaklisp is GPL. It seems one can re-create this binary with
oaklisp, but to build/use oaklisp, you'll first need the .bin. So, there
is no real bootstrapping provided AFAICS,
18 matches
Mail list logo
