W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qa-dev@w3.org > October 2002

Re: [check] Platform Support?

From: Olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 09:20:15 +0900
To: QA Dev <public-qa-dev@w3.org>
Message-Id: <32B2AD12-EAD4-11D6-B067-000393BAB03A@w3.org>

A quick answer, I can investigate further if needed.

First, I think providing packaged versions of our software is a good 
thing. It does not mean we have to spend a lot of work packaging the 
validator for each architecture and each packaging system.

What we can do and this seems to be the current practice at W3C:

- we provide the tarballs as the "official" released package,
- depending on availability in-house, we can also provide a few 
packages. We used to have a redhat fan at W3C (Daniel Veillard, 
rpmfind's father), so for a long time we had rpm packages (etc.).
- we welcome packages created by external contributors, and we either 
link to them or host them, with proper credit and warning.

On Monday, Oct 28, 2002, at 16:42 Asia/Tokyo, Terje Bless wrote:
> Initially, my thought was that we
> would only support Red Hat (8.0) with the RPMs (the tarball is of 
> course
> more or less platform independant). But that might be construed as the 
> W3C
> endorsing a particular vendor...

I understand some people may think so, but I wouldn't pay it much 
attention : most people would be happy to have rpm, and enemies of rpms 
cannot complain very long if we tell them we would be glad if they 
create their own package.


> My feeling is that we're supporting Red Hat with a binary installation 
> only
> because that is what we are able to support -- implying among other 
> things
> that if a Debian or *BSD packager should volunteer they'd be gratefully
> accepted, of course -- and that this will not be a problem in practice.

Exactly.

-- 
Olivier
Received on Monday, 28 October 2002 19:20:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 19 August 2010 18:12:43 GMT