On Sun, 19 May 2002, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: > Debian GNU/Hurd are 2 things. One is Debian. The other is GNU/Hurd > and the Hurd is GNU too, so it's actually just GNU. Is it so > difficult to see that?
Debian GNU/Hurd can never be 2 things. GNU/Hurd can be one thing, and Debian GNU/Hurd can be something else. The name is "Debian GNU/Hurd" because GNU people wouldn't like it to be called "Debian/Hurd", not because it's not that. > A lot of packages in Debian follow the GNU > Coding Standards because a lot of them come from GNU. And upstream > Hurd developers are following the GNU Coding Standards, because the > Hurd is GNU software. Is Debian willing to maintain all the patches > for that software so it's compatible with the FHS instead of the GCS? I have no idea. <snip> > IMHO it won't be GNU/Hurd without being compliant with the GNU Coding > Standards. And are you also asking the Debian *BSD people to change > their ABI because of the FHS? No. > I asked them what they thought about > libexec and the FHS etc. and they said to me that they won't give up > ABI compatibility for the FHS. So what do you think, should we get rid > of both the Hurd and BSD ports or change Debian policy? If what you say is true, then you should issue a policy amendment to get rid of the FHS, or to allow libexec, or whatnot. You should *not* blatantly ignore Debian's policy just because you think it's braindead. <snip> > > > The fact is that the loader in *BSD is in libexec and that's > > > part of the ABI. It isn't in GNU/Hurd, I don't know why, maybe to be > > > compatible with GNU/Linux or for some other reason. > > > > Simply because libexec isn't FHS-compliant. You knew that already. > > GNU doesn't care about what some GNU-bashing hobbyists who wrote a > kernel and some other software which is most of the time incompatible > with GNU itself. I know; but *this* *is* *not* *GNU*. Debian *does* care. Jeez. <snip> > This is also a reason why I don't want to be in Debian. Most of the > time the system is just called "Linux" by people who already know that > it should actually be "GNU/Linux". I can't work with people who say > wrong things when they are told it's wrong and the project already > decided to say the right thing. You can not decide what's right and what's wrong for everyone. Only for yourselves. If you feel that the GNU part of a GNU/Linux distribution is important enough to call it GNU/Linux, then do so; if you feel that it is not, then just call it Linux. This is about opinion and acknowledgement, not about right or wrong. -- wouter dot verhelst at advalvas dot be "Human knowledge belongs to the world" -- From the movie "Antitrust" -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
