Subject: Re: "must have" packages
From: Paul Rohr (paul@abisource.com)
Date: Sun Aug 26 2001 - 19:12:22 CDT
At 11:48 PM 8/24/01 +0000, David Chart wrote:
>On 24 Aug 2001 14:28:10 -0700, Paul Rohr wrote:
>> level one: must have
>> ---------------------
>
>Just one comment here. We must have at least two platforms worth of
>binaries, so that users continue to believe that we are committed to
>being cross-platform. "We're cross platform, but we only have Windows
>binaries" is not going to convince.
Doh! Of course. I was being a bit tongue in cheek there. I think there's
no doubt in anyone's mind that we should have Linux packages too (for
example) -- the only question is which are "critical" and must be supported.
To be clear ... I'd love it if *all* of the following user communities could
expect to see binaries released on their platform of choice:
- Win32
- Linux/Intel
- QNX
- BeOS
- MacOS
- FreeBSD
- Linux/PPC
- other Unix
Heck, I'd be thrilled to see experimental platforms like AtheOS strut their
stuff by showing off a native port of AbiWord too.
However, my goal for now is to set criteria for two things:
1. What's our *minimum* set that we need for a useful release?
2. What's our criterion for getting other packages included beyond that?
The more the merrier!
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Sun Aug 26 2001 - 19:04:28 CDT