coapp-developers team mailing list archive

[Garrett Serack <garretts@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I consider that to be extremely important, so yes.

G

Garrett Serack | Open Source Software Developer | Microsoft Corporation
I don't make the software you use; I make the software you use better on Windows.

From: mherndon@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:mherndon@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Michael Herndon
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2010 2:07 PM
To: Garrett Serack
Cc: William A. Rowe Jr.; Pierre Joye; coapp-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Coapp-developers] What packages do you want to see?

Will there be packing of commonly used .net libs?
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Garrett Serack <garretts@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:garretts@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
True, True. True. True.


Garrett Serack | Open Source Software Developer | Microsoft Corporation
I don't make the software you use; I make the software you use better on Windows.


-----Original Message-----
From: coapp-developers-bounces+garretts=microsoft.com<http://microsoft.com>@lists.launchpad.net<http://lists.launchpad.net> [mailto:coapp-developers-bounces+garretts<mailto:coapp-developers-bounces%2Bgarretts>=microsoft.com<http://microsoft.com>@lists.launchpad.net<http://lists.launchpad.net>] On Behalf Of William A. Rowe Jr.
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2010 12:20 PM
To: Pierre Joye
Cc: coapp-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:coapp-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Coapp-developers] What packages do you want to see?
On 5/5/2010 12:22 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 7:10 PM, Olaf van der Spek <olafvdspek@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:olafvdspek@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
>> Who said CoApp won't support first-party builds?
>
> Nobody, I call that a discussion.

CoApp the distribution wouldn't be likely to trust third party builds, but build from documented/legible source code.

CoApp the project is unlikely to "convince" the projects that this specific set of build options is the "one right way", and (speaking from 10+ years of experience) most are unlikely to adopt CoApp conventions.  And why should they?

Like all Linux or BSD distributions, there isn't "one right way" - and each distribution chooses to do things as they see fit, including rearranging the binary artifacts and files of the package, optimizing build flags, and providing integration stubs that make using the package "easier" (for very loose definitions of "easier").

Most importantly, solving the code signing problem is not trivial.  CoApp the distribution would never sign a third party's build as "trusted".  They would sign it themselves.  But this causes their fault data to go to the author and miss the collection of bug reporting available to the CoApp team.  (And visa versa, so I'm guessing that Garrett intends for CoApp to proxy crash information to the original developers that arrives in the CoApp stream).

That doesn't mean that CoApp the toolchain can't offer all sorts of tools for the authors and projects to use and come to rely on :)

_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers
Post to     : coapp-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:coapp-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp


_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers
Post to     : coapp-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:coapp-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp



--
Michael Herndon
Senior Developer (mherndon@xxxxxxxx<mailto:mherndon@xxxxxxxx>)
804.767.0083

[connect online]
http://www.opensourceconnections.com
http://www.amptools.net
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/michael-herndon/4/893/23
http://www.facebook.com/amptools.net
http://www.twitter.com/amptools-net