The kFreeBSD port has had a lot of considerable issues with porting software. Remember, we'd need to port the ON tools such as the ZFS admin tools to glibc.
http://wiki.debian.org/ArchiveQualification/kfreebsd-i386 They also haven't been able to get things like the wifi tools for FreeBSD working. I'm not saying that adapting glibc is a bad thing, but we need to figure out if we really want to go down this path. Michael On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Right. And in addition to autotools, such port complicates further ON > merges which will unavoidably lead to higher rate of errors/bugs. > > But because GNU/kFreeBSD exists, I do not see why GNU/kOpenSolaris can't > be... > > On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 09:27 -0400, Michael Casadevall wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Debian's main issue is that parts of Sun's libc are not open (mostly >> libc_i18n; they require all bits to be open). Having seen the issues >> kFreeBSD has had with using glibc with their kernel, I'm not sure if >> its work having a ksolaris port since configure will no longer >> identify the platform as Solaris, so most autotools scripts will >> break. >> Michael >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) >> Comment: http://getfiregpg.org >> >> iEYEARECAAYFAkjTqNQACgkQpblTBJ2i2pteBACdET5A0ycn3U+G3S2R+8mCN6vq >> 0oAAniom7MRTL3P4TR8H1PotiT+R+qSi >> =8cf5 >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> >> On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 5:55 AM, Joerg Schilling >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> >> Yes, such port makes sense and solves some of the issues (mostly GNU >> >> libc portability) but unfortunately creates new issues, which I'm sure, >> >> could be worked out and soon we should have more or less working first >> >> ISO available with support for this new exciting architecture! >> > >> > What do you expect from this "port"? >> > >> > In glibc, features expected on Solaris are missing. I would expect that >> > this >> > port would rather create portabilitly problems than solving any issue. >> > >> > >> >> > makes sense to use glibc. This would also solve the legal problem that >> >> > Debian had with linking Sun's libc with dpkg [1]. glibc is licensed >> >> > under LGPL with a linking exception, so linking CDDL code against the >> >> > glibc is also legal. In keeping with past glibc ports (e.g. kFreeBSD, >> > >> > Debian is a license troll. >> > >> > There are two ways to deal with this kind of trolling: >> > >> > 1) Ignore it comppletely >> > >> > 2) find evidence that the claims from Debian are nonsense. >> > >> > Taking actions on the Debian trolling is definitely the wrong way. >> > >> > BTW: Sun lawyers knows that there is no problem with linking GPLd >> > applications >> > against CDDL libraries. The GPL does not forbid it (in fact the GPL does >> > not >> > say anything about it as this is something that happens "outside" the GPL >> > "work"). >> > >> > Sun would not ship GNOME and /usr/gnu/* if Sun would not be _very_ certain >> > that >> > Debian is trolling. Sun is happily waiting for being sued by a copyright >> > holder >> > of a GPLd program shipped with OpenSolaris. _this_ is one way of >> > implementing >> > (2) above. >> > >> > Jörg >> > >> > -- >> > EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni) >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ >> > URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily >> > _______________________________________________ >> > gnusol-devel mailing list >> > gnusol-devel@lists.sonic.net >> > http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/gnusol-devel >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ gnusol-devel mailing list gnusol-devel@lists.sonic.net http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/gnusol-devel
