[please CC me where appropriate] It's important to remember the bigger "problem" is likely not the uname or the triplet, but the Debian port name and maybe even the arch name. Likely just the Debian Port name as it's the "name" and the rest is technical. It's like someone trademarking the name "ls", but as Branden suggests it is probably important to get the trademark issue clarified.
As far as a new name goes.. Since this is seen as a problem (legal or political) I'd prefer Joel Baker, Robert Millan and other debian-bsd people be motivated to use their names in the official Debian port names. This would match with Debra Ian (Debian). Perhaps: Debian GNU/NetBaker, Debian GNU/FreeBaker and Debian GNU/FreeMillan, Debian GNU/NetMillan Or: Debian GNU/NetJB, Debian GNU/FreeRM... Debian GNU/NJB, Debian GNU/FRM ... Some other people who have made notable contributions include (I'm probably missing some): [2] Nathan P. Hawkins, Jimmy Kaplowitz, Michael Weber [3] Matthew? [4] rmh? It may also be worth using Debian in the port name like Debian GNU/FreeBSD/Debian. I could probably come up with some more pleasing ideas with time, but I've been sitting on this message and don't want to miss the chance to give my input. I also am uncertain as to when the userland or system becomes not GNU. I'd leave it to Joel Baker (and others?) to determine if the GNU should be dropped since he's using BSD's libc. My preference would be to drop it from the *BSD libc port name to make it still be correct if/when the GNU tools become replaceable. As to what's used elsewhere (and earlier?) see http://www.nongnu.org/glibc-bsd/ I also wonder why we're having such a long discussion given that I would imagine that some day we'll look at it as the NetBSD kernel package etc. and not as a port. To illustrate this point, where's the Linux port? But then this is a different subject altogether. As to http://lists.debian.org/debian-bsd/2003/debian-bsd-200312/msg00233.html my vote would be: [ x ] Further discussion My rational being that we should probably wait until we hear more from the NetBSD people. They may have better suggestions or may help us choose more wisely. As to point 3 in http://lists.debian.org/debian-bsd/2003/debian-bsd-200312/msg00098.html > 3) The GNU config triple will have '-netbsd-gnu' as it's third part. > (This is unchanged - and don't blame me for a 4-part triplet. I didn't > start it, merely maintained consistancy with -linux-gnu). Why not -netbsd<version> where the version could somehow indicate the "fork" to tools? Why the -gnu here? What effects will this have on libtool/autotools-dev's use/implementations? I don't mean to cause alarm, I would however be more at ease if my questions are answered. [1] Suggested in http://lists.debian.org/debian-bsd/2003/debian-bsd-200312/msg00199.html [2] Found at http://www.debian.org/ports/netbsd/people [3] http://www.debian.org/ports/netbsd/ [4] http://www.debian.org/ports/freebsd/gnu-libc-based Drew Daniels
