Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 09:59:30 -0600
From: Vincent Danen <>
Subject: Re: distributions at l.fd.o

* [2008-04-17 16:35:07 +0400] Solar Designer wrote:

>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).

I think I don't think it'll work because distributions@ isn't
"clear-cut"... despite the domain name of where it's being hosted, it
doesn't indicate that it's related to desktop stuff only... it's about
pretty much anything which is what I gathered from the Mandriva folks
who brought it to my attention.

If distributions@ is desktop-focused *only*, then both lists make sense.
But if the stuff on xvendor is also on topic there, then I'm not sure
how wise it is to run both lists.

The response that Lucas gave us pretty much indicated that
distributions@ was an "anything goes" list, or did I misread it?

>> 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):
>> 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 (, widget libraries, window
>managers, etc.) would be on-topic for "distributions", but not for
>xvendor.  And I'd be very comfortable with that.

That's more than fine with me, because I have really no interest in
desktop-related stuff, and would prefer to have both lists.  But again,
if anything is on topic on distributions@, just by it having a larger
base of users those non-desktop-interesting-things may go there instead
of here.  Maybe I'm too pessimistic.  =)  Maybe there are more people on
distributions@ than here because there are more people interested in
cool desktop stuff than boring server/core OS stuff...

>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

It would be nice if Lucas had said that desktop-related stuff was the
focus of distributions@.  Maybe we need to nose around in the archives
and if it seems like it's all been desktop-related so far, maybe
"infiltrate" the list and let them know that we're here for the
non-desktop stuff?  Or we could just mention to Lucas that 98% of what
has been posted on that list has been desktop-related and see if he
minds if we post an "intro" to xvendor on the other list (and do
something like mutual "advertising" of the lists so that they're not
seen as competitors but as mutually supporting).

Vincent Danen @

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Your e-mail address:

Please check out the xvendor mailing list charter.