[ 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
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.
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
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*
Robert Millan wrote:
RMS would never request placing GNU/ in the name of a system that is
*not* GNU-based.
Let's not get dogmatic about this. TTBOMK, there is no canonical
definition of GNU-based. The NetBSD port, for example, has many GNU
components. GNU-enough-for-ya? Well of course there
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
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 06:03:06PM +0100, ${john}$ wrote:
Robert Millan wrote:
RMS would never request placing GNU/ in the name of a system that is
*not* GNU-based.
Let's not get dogmatic about this. TTBOMK, there is no canonical
definition of GNU-based.
Of course not. There's a
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
Robert Millan wrote:
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 06:03:06PM +0100, ${john}$ wrote:
Just in case anybody cares that perhaps a name should describe and
distinguish, rather than keep RMS happy (god help a world where that was
the #1 priority).
what worries me here is that GNU/ is added without fully
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 03:44:12AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 09:27:31AM +0900, ISHIKAWA Mutsumi wrote:
In [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
btw, if someone is going to fix gnu.cf, please consider splitting it
into a
Robert Millan wrote:
ISHIKAWA, what about splitting all common stuff into Debian.cf, and
Glibc-specific stuff into Glibc.cf?
Isn't it right that any glibc-based system is GNU system? Glibc
requires GCC[1], which in turn requires (in most cases[2]) GNU binutils.
[1]
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 04:33:35PM +0300, Ognyan Kulev wrote:
Robert Millan wrote:
ISHIKAWA, what about splitting all common stuff into Debian.cf, and
Glibc-specific stuff into Glibc.cf?
Isn't it right that any glibc-based system is GNU system?
no. the GNU system is not a set of C
12 matches
Mail list logo
