Re: [PATCH] modutils 2.3.20 and beyond

From: Tom Rini (trini@kernel.crashing.org)
Date: Sun Nov 26 2000 - 20:58:56 EST

Next message: Keith Owens: "Re: initdata for modules?"
Previous message: Jeff V. Merkey: "Re: initdata for modules?"
In reply to: Jeff V. Merkey: "Re: [PATCH] modutils 2.3.20 and beyond"
Next in thread: David Ford: "Re: [PATCH] modutils 2.3.20 and beyond"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 07:46:43PM -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:

> Anaconda is open sourced, so it's not technically tied to any one
> distributor any more....
<NIT>
Technically, yes it is opensourced. But one of the things that does kinda
distinguish one distro from another is the installer[1].
</NIT>
So yes, it is opensource. So, counter-question. Why should this non
distro owned program require a specific distro's program? :) But this all
of course a moot point.

[1] The sum difference between YellowDogLinux 1.0, LinuxPPC, Inc 1999 and
LinuxPPC Reference Release was that two changed/help port the installer the
3rd did, which was RedHat's newt-based installer. Some confusion ensused.

-- 
Tom Rini (TR1265)
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Keith Owens: "Re: initdata for modules?"
Previous message: Jeff V. Merkey: "Re: initdata for modules?"
In reply to: Jeff V. Merkey: "Re: [PATCH] modutils 2.3.20 and beyond"
Next in thread: David Ford: "Re: [PATCH] modutils 2.3.20 and beyond"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 30 2000 - 21:00:16 EST