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
[ 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*
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 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
7 matches
Mail list logo
