Re: *BSD and GNU/*BSD nomenclature (was: Re: X Strike Force SVN commit: rev 183 - in branches/4.3.0/sid/debian: . patches)
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 12:23:22PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote: > > > > erm, so that was a typo? > > Well, if you read the part of the message you elided, I laid out exactly > what the system is and isn't. You haven't answered my question about "What > is a GNU-based system?", so I cannot tell you whether it was a think-o, or > actually an accurate statement. You're expected to have an opinion yourself. So far you've said it is not GNU-based but then changed your mind and said it is GNU-based. There's a definition of GNU, and a definition of "based". The question is like asking how much concrete should a house have to say it's "concrete-based", it depends on each person's opinion on concrete and houses. > My opinion is that it has enough GNU stuff in it that, per the reasoning I > saw in the archives on debian-devel, it was reasonable to name it "Debian > GNU/NetBSD". If you don't agree, fine, but I'm not going to chance my mind > just because you assert it should be otherwise; provide something to back > it up. I haven't asked you to change your mind, just to be consistent. -- Robert Millan
Re: *BSD and GNU/*BSD nomenclature (was: Re: X Strike Force SVN commit: rev 183 - in branches/4.3.0/sid/debian: . patches)
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 07:14:48PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 10:08:42AM -0600, Joel Baker wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 04:52:39PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > > > > > > You just said it is "*not* GNU-based". Do you know what GNU/Something > > > means? > > > > *sigh* It was early in the morning. I typed GNU on autopilot; I *meant* > > "GNU libc & other stuff". > > erm, so that was a typo? Well, if you read the part of the message you elided, I laid out exactly what the system is and isn't. You haven't answered my question about "What is a GNU-based system?", so I cannot tell you whether it was a think-o, or actually an accurate statement. > > As for knowing what GNU/Something means - does > > *anyone*? Nobody could explain the details when it was first debated, and > > to date, nobody has explained them here, either. > > According to the GNU folks, it's a variant of the GNU system for which > "Something" may provide some indication on what it differs from GNU. So a GNU-based system is "a variant of the GNU system that differs from GNU"? That seems rather... circular. > > > RMS would never request placing "GNU/" in the name of a system that is > > > "*not* GNU-based". > > > > Maybe. Maybe not. He requested it of systems that didn't consider > > themselves GNU based, but *he* considered them to be. Debian agreed with > > him, others didn't. C'est la vie. > > that's right (although it's discussable what "themselves" means here), but > we're not talking about GNU/Linux. Actually, we are, at least by reference; we're talking about GNU/*, and why it has GNU in the name, and GNU/Linux is one of the primary current examples. > > The port maintainers have done their best to try to ascertain what, > > exactly, the GNU/* means, and have failed to get useful answers, yes. So. I > > present to you the following system; you tell me if it's GNU, or not, and > > if at all possible please cite references to RMS (or at least FSF folks) > > asserting any particular point. > > No, i was asking wether _you_ think it's a GNU variant. My opinion is that > it shouldn't be considered as such, but i'm not going to defend that opinion > with citations whatsoever (though if others want to, they're welcome to). My opinion is that it has enough GNU stuff in it that, per the reasoning I saw in the archives on debian-devel, it was reasonable to name it "Debian GNU/NetBSD". If you don't agree, fine, but I'm not going to chance my mind just because you assert it should be otherwise; provide something to back it up. > > Keep in mind that the rest of Debian might also have a say, though I > > strongly suspect that as long as we have clear reasoning, nobody will care > > much which way it goes. > > Feel free to discuss it if you think it's necessary, but note my concern is > only with the contradiction of calling it "GNU/NetBSD", but still saying it's > not a GNU variant. If that was just a typo then let's drop it here. That also depends on whether you think the "GNU/" prefix means "a GNU variant", a matter on which opinions seem to differ. Me, I'm going to stick with Debian's precedent, until given a reason to do otherwise. Particularly given the point made in another message, that there is *more* meaning to labelling it GNU/NetBSD than there is to calling Linux GNU/Linux, since "NetBSD" normally implies that it has nothing much to do with GNU software except the compiler and a few other relatively minor pieces. -- Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: *BSD and GNU/*BSD nomenclature (was: Re: X Strike Force SVN commit: rev 183 - in branches/4.3.0/sid/debian: . patches)
Joel Baker dijo [Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 10:08:42AM -0600]: > (...) > That's the situation with the NetBSD port as it stands. I'm happy to > discuss whether it should be "Debian GNU/NetBSD/i386" or simply "Debian > NetBSD/i386", but if we're going to dredge this up again, I'm going to have > to insist on someone providing actual citations, rather than assertions > (well, okay, RMS or FSF folks could assert it, since that's what the > citations would be to...) I think in this case labeling our NetBSD port as GNU/NetBSD would not only be out of respect for RMS's wishes - it can help clarify what exactly are we doing. Calling it just 'Debian NetBSD' will bring us lots of people asking us what difference does it have from 'just NetBSD'. Calling it 'Debian GNU/NetBSD' will, IMHO, tell at least part of them what is this about. Greetings, -- Gunnar Wolf - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - (+52-55)5630-9700 ext. 1366 PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23 Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973 F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF pgpziPwO5uIKq.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: *BSD and GNU/*BSD nomenclature (was: Re: X Strike Force SVN commit: rev 183 - in branches/4.3.0/sid/debian: . patches)
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 10:08:42AM -0600, Joel Baker wrote: > On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 04:52:39PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > > > > You just said it is "*not* GNU-based". Do you know what GNU/Something means? > > *sigh* It was early in the morning. I typed GNU on autopilot; I *meant* > "GNU libc & other stuff". erm, so that was a typo? > As for knowing what GNU/Something means - does > *anyone*? Nobody could explain the details when it was first debated, and > to date, nobody has explained them here, either. According to the GNU folks, it's a variant of the GNU system for which "Something" may provide some indication on what it differs from GNU. > > RMS would never request placing "GNU/" in the name of a system that is > > "*not* GNU-based". > > Maybe. Maybe not. He requested it of systems that didn't consider > themselves GNU based, but *he* considered them to be. Debian agreed with > him, others didn't. C'est la vie. that's right (although it's discussable what "themselves" means here), but we're not talking about GNU/Linux. > The port maintainers have done their best to try to ascertain what, > exactly, the GNU/* means, and have failed to get useful answers, yes. So. I > present to you the following system; you tell me if it's GNU, or not, and > if at all possible please cite references to RMS (or at least FSF folks) > asserting any particular point. No, i was asking wether _you_ think it's a GNU variant. My opinion is that it shouldn't be considered as such, but i'm not going to defend that opinion with citations whatsoever (though if others want to, they're welcome to). > Keep in mind that the rest of Debian might also have a say, though I > strongly suspect that as long as we have clear reasoning, nobody will care > much which way it goes. Feel free to discuss it if you think it's necessary, but note my concern is only with the contradiction of calling it "GNU/NetBSD", but still saying it's not a GNU variant. If that was just a typo then let's drop it here. -- Robert Millan
Re: *BSD and GNU/*BSD nomenclature (was: Re: X Strike Force SVN commit: rev 183 - in branches/4.3.0/sid/debian: . patches)
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 04:52:39PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 08:01:47AM -0600, Joel Baker wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 02:05:12PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 10:17:14PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote: > > > > > > > > And the NetBSD one is *not* GNU-based, > > > > > > then it doesn't make sense to call it "GNU/NetBSD", would you mind > > > fixing the website accordingly? > > > > It still uses a primarily GNU userland > > You just said it is "*not* GNU-based". Do you know what GNU/Something means? *sigh* It was early in the morning. I typed GNU on autopilot; I *meant* "GNU libc & other stuff". As for knowing what GNU/Something means - does *anyone*? Nobody could explain the details when it was first debated, and to date, nobody has explained them here, either. Or, to put it mildly, I suspect any attempt at doing so may well be met with "I do not think that means what you think it means", just because there does not appear to, in fact, be a definition of it. > > - coreutils is there, just like > > almost every other Debian package. There was some debate over the precise > > name, when it first came up; however, as far as we can tell, the request by > > RMS that Debian agreed to involved the userland tools, not just the libc. > > RMS would never request placing "GNU/" in the name of a system that is > "*not* GNU-based". Maybe. Maybe not. He requested it of systems that didn't consider themselves GNU based, but *he* considered them to be. Debian agreed with him, others didn't. C'est la vie. > We had this debate over the NetBSD-based port before but it obviously > didn't bring any productive results. I don't claim that it is or it isn't > a GNU variant, but at least the port maintainers should have a clear opinion. The port maintainers have done their best to try to ascertain what, exactly, the GNU/* means, and have failed to get useful answers, yes. So. I present to you the following system; you tell me if it's GNU, or not, and if at all possible please cite references to RMS (or at least FSF folks) asserting any particular point. 1) Non-GNU kernel (IE, anything but Hurd) 2) Non-GNU libc (anything but glibc) 3) A userland whose core utilities (ls, rm, cat, etc) come from GNU coreutils, fileutils, findutils, and similar packages. 4) A userland whose primary compiler is GCC, and whose primary make is GNU Make, but which uses another make variant for buildin kernel & libc. 5) The rest of the userland may be under any DFSG license, and may or may not have anything to do with the FSF or GNU stuff. That's the situation with the NetBSD port as it stands. I'm happy to discuss whether it should be "Debian GNU/NetBSD/i386" or simply "Debian NetBSD/i386", but if we're going to dredge this up again, I'm going to have to insist on someone providing actual citations, rather than assertions (well, okay, RMS or FSF folks could assert it, since that's what the citations would be to...) Keep in mind that the rest of Debian might also have a say, though I strongly suspect that as long as we have clear reasoning, nobody will care much which way it goes. -- Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pgpObliy9ZCFc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: *BSD and GNU/*BSD nomenclature (was: Re: X Strike Force SVN commit: rev 183 - in branches/4.3.0/sid/debian: . patches)
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 08:01:47AM -0600, Joel Baker wrote: > On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 02:05:12PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 10:17:14PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote: > > > > > > And the NetBSD one is *not* GNU-based, > > > > then it doesn't make sense to call it "GNU/NetBSD", would you mind > > fixing the website accordingly? > > It still uses a primarily GNU userland You just said it is "*not* GNU-based". Do you know what GNU/Something means? > - coreutils is there, just like > almost every other Debian package. There was some debate over the precise > name, when it first came up; however, as far as we can tell, the request by > RMS that Debian agreed to involved the userland tools, not just the libc. RMS would never request placing "GNU/" in the name of a system that is "*not* GNU-based". We had this debate over the NetBSD-based port before but it obviously didn't bring any productive results. I don't claim that it is or it isn't a GNU variant, but at least the port maintainers should have a clear opinion. -- Robert Millan
Re: *BSD and GNU/*BSD nomenclature (was: Re: X Strike Force SVN commit: rev 183 - in branches/4.3.0/sid/debian: . patches)
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 02:05:12PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > > [ moved the discussion to debian-bsd ] > > On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 10:17:14PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote: > > > > > > [1] as of now GNU/Hurd and GNU/*BSD only exist in Debian, but we can't > > > assume that for a configuration file. > > > > And the NetBSD one is *not* GNU-based, > > then it doesn't make sense to call it "GNU/NetBSD", would you mind > fixing the website accordingly? It still uses a primarily GNU userland - coreutils is there, just like almost every other Debian package. There was some debate over the precise name, when it first came up; however, as far as we can tell, the request by RMS that Debian agreed to involved the userland tools, not just the libc. Since we still have that userland as the primary choice, and only a select few netbsd tools (most of those only for building NetBSD core things that depend on their behavior), it seemed more accurate to leave the GNU in the name. -- Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pgpAwCqBBm5us.pgp Description: PGP signature
*BSD and GNU/*BSD nomenclature (was: Re: X Strike Force SVN commit: rev 183 - in branches/4.3.0/sid/debian: . patches)
[ moved the discussion to debian-bsd ] On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 10:17:14PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote: > > > > [1] as of now GNU/Hurd and GNU/*BSD only exist in Debian, but we can't > > assume that for a configuration file. > > And the NetBSD one is *not* GNU-based, then it doesn't make sense to call it "GNU/NetBSD", would you mind fixing the website accordingly? -- Robert Millan
