Sender: |
|
Date: |
Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:49:29 -0600 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On 01/24/2012 02:46 PM, Douglas McClendon wrote:
> On 01/22/2012 06:13 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
>>> Anyway... again, just trying to give people a feel for the real scope
>>> of the issues at hand. My own engineering strategy is to get _any_
>>> deterministic process laid down and producing remotely-reasonable output
>>> first, then to easily go and tweak the fully automated/coded build
>>
>> Firstly, what/where is your assert() going to take place ?
>>
>> Secondly, what/where is your assert() going to take place without
>> inheritying legal liability ( both internally and downstream to
>> userbase )
>
> These both go beyond cryptic toward me wondering if anyone (or
> everyone?) else here has any idea of what you are talking about.
Actually, I think I just smoked enough good dope to have a theory as to
what you mean- As in
Assert_is_this_binary_trademarklaw_legal_to_ship(dirpath path_to_iso_or_rpm)
If that is what you meant, then my answer is if redhat and other
trademark holders want to define and provide me such a function, I'll
gladly take a look at it, and if it seems reasonable, hook it into my
build process. If they don't, I'll just do as I presume CentOS and
ScientificLinux have been doing, and just make a good faith best
reasonable effort. aka 'winging it'.
-dmc
|
|
|