On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 10:39:28AM +0100, Michael Ritzert wrote: > What do we want to have? At present, i am tending more toward 2) (reason: > broader audience) > but i am convincable of alternatives.
The first is the one that I've been working towards. > Well, aren't they already part of linux, especially ash? There's some NetBSD tools that would need to be packaged (things tied to the kernel), and there's a few bits and pieces that would benefit from being packaged anyway but nobody's got round to it. > For a good start we should simply define an initial version and freeze that > until the 1st release. I'm happy working on 1.6 for now. Tracking CVS would be something of a nightmare. > > Is it a problem if we build software on different OSes for cross > > compiling? Might actually be easier to cross compile. I would probably > > install linux on one for the other disks. > > I agree. There should be no real problem with this, except that you'll need native versions of some of the NetBSD tools used during make (the NetBSD make, for a start). Make doesn't trivially build on Linux, but if someone wants to take a look at that it'd be a sensible thing to package. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
