- From: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 08:42:41 +0100
- To: QA Dev <public-qa-dev@w3.org>
Ville raised an issue recently... We're aiming to provide both tarballs and RPMs of the Validator and OpenSP (the latter to ensure a compatible version is avilable regardless of what the OpenSP developers decide to do). 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... 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. But perhaps the resident W3Cers have guidelines and such they have to follow? Opinions on the matter? Since Ville is the one who will actually do (is allready doing, for that matter) the RPM packaging, he'll have to speak to how Red Hat and version specific the RPMs will be (cf. other RPM based ditros). -- > ...publicity rights, moral rights, and rights against unfair competition... Well, you've got me there. I have no idea what any of those have to do with SGML. Next you'll be claiming that running NSGMLS constitutes an unauthorized public performance of SGML. -- Richard Tobin
Received on Monday, 28 October 2002 02:42:44 UTC