Thanks for your reply, Jaromil, and sorry for my late one :P . Since you
already have being looking at debian's structure, do you found out if it
will be possible to keep the amazing nest and dock features that dyne
currently has? What do you think dyne:bolic would have different from
pure:dyne, beyond the exclusive use of free software? I would love to help,
but am quite limited since I'm no programmer and have litte experience
packaging stuff. But am working on that so I can be more helpful in the near
future.

       Ricardo

2009/4/23 jaromil <jaromil@???>

> >
> hi Ricardo,
>
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 01:07:16PM -0300, Ricardo . wrote:
>

> >             I  know, don't  want to  make a  pressure  or something,

>
> no worries :) sorry if i've been slow in replying because of several
> things catching my time IRL (including earthquakes :/ ), but be sure
> the topic you revamp stays in our minds, mine included.
>
> > but... I was reading your posts on the pure:dyne mailing list,
> > Jaromil (which, by the way, I totally agree with), and I really miss
> > dyne:bolic, since I'm dealing here with new hardware. How are the
> > plans for a new release going? Did you already decide which way to
> > go? If with Blag, gNewSense or something else?
>
> FYI, already in september 2007 (and before pure:dyne announced to go
> debian) i told goto10 developers and other people involved with us
> that my intention is to use debian as a binary base for future
> development, for several practical reasons you can well imagine.
>
> In fact since the 2.5.2 i personally stopped my LFS-based development
> and started studying debian more actively. Still, unfortunately I
> wasn't included in the pure:dyne development team, which made me
> rethink my current role: i decided to wait that the new pure:dyne
> development cycle gives some fruits - which are there by now and i'm
> sure we can benefit from them.
>
> meanwhile i also studied another 100% fedora based system which is
> BLAG, not just to have an idea of different approaches, but also to
> check if multiple compatibility for binary repositories is possible to
> realise, as we had in d:b 2.x series with pkgtool, rpm and dpkg.
>
> as of today i'm convinced that gNewSense is the best platform to start
> dyne:III from: basically debian with the advantage of gnewsensers
> taking care of most of the 100% free choices to be made. still i'm
> kind of sad to leave the Fedora base out, since its also doing some
> good progress, but well most of dyne-hackers know and use debian and
> in some cases are even """official""" debian developers.
>
> let me add that your question comes with a very good timing, since i
> believe the linux 2.6.29 release is mature enough (some things went
> quite wrong between this and the previous 2.6.18 which we used in d:b
> 2.5.2) plus more software has grown up to make an update of our
> platform worth.
>
> as of my personal schedule, i'm busy developing the FreeJ software up
> to the 1.0, planned to be released in july this year - and BTW i do
> enjoy writing code more than compiling other's people code, so i'd be
> happy to hear proposals for a new dyne:III mantainer :)
>
> ciao
>
>
> - --
>
> jaromil, dyne.org developer, http://jaromil.dyne.org
>
> GPG: 779F E8B5 47C7 3A89 4112 64D0 7B64 3184 B534 0B5E
> > _______________________________________________
> dyne:bolic GNU/Linux http://dynebolic.org
> open wiki http://lab.dyne.org/DynebolicFaq
>