On Sat, Nov 29, 2003 at 03:45:15PM +0100, Pavel Cahyna wrote:
Hello,
Hi!
A usable Debian GNU/KNetBSD system based on Glibc is now available:
http://people.debian.org/~rmh/knetbsd/pub/
I got to port all the base system with very little effort, since my previous
patches
On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 09:46:19PM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
IMHO, the amount of work involved in making glibc stably work with
scheduler activations is likely prohibitive. You'll be chasing
problems in the library forever.
First we'll merge the patchset in upstream. Then we'll have
Hi All,
I'm newbie in BSD and trying to mount of FreeBSD partition (by FreeBSD 5.1
instaler, slice
editor) under unstable debian/linux and 2.6.0-test[5,9,11] kernel. The slices
are detected as:
hda: hda1 hda2 hda3 hda4
hda1: bsd: hda5 hda6 hda7
and this mount command fails:
mount -t ufs
On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 07:57:29PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I was just wondering what the status of the debian-bsd stuff in general.
I have looked back a few months in the mailing list archives and I didn't
really get a feel for what the current direction is. I noticed
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 01:34:42PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 09:46:19PM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
IMHO, the amount of work involved in making glibc stably work with
scheduler activations is likely prohibitive. You'll be chasing
problems in the library
Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 07:31:09PM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
Although it is still not as stable as we'd like, the benchmarks of the
native threads on NetBSD are pretty damn impressive. I'd say that not
using the native threads would be a tremendous
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 01:22:52PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
Please, how is threading implemented in the NetBSD (and FreeBSD)
port of Glibc?
The goal is porting NPTL for both KFreeBSD and KNetBSD (K for 'kernel of').
As of now, temporary solutions are being used: linuxthreads and libpth,
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 01:56:04PM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 07:31:09PM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
Although it is still not as stable as we'd like, the benchmarks of the
native threads on NetBSD are pretty damn
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 01:59:49PM -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 09:46:19PM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
IMHO, the amount of work involved in making glibc stably work with
scheduler activations is likely prohibitive. You'll
Nathan Hawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You would be much better off just specifying what was missing from the
native libc so that it could be added -- that, at least, is a
tractable problem.
I think in some viewpoints (certainly not mine), the problem may be that
it's not glibc. But
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 01:35:10PM -0500, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
First we'll merge the patchset in upstream. Then we'll have problems for a
while, similarly to those the GNU/Hurd port has fixing Glibc every time it
breaks for them.
I'd be more impressed with that analysis if the bugs were
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 01:59:49PM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
If you mean that the NetBSD folks are going to abandon their libc,
which is really nice to work with, I think you're mistaken. It is
unlikely that they're ever going to do that. (They includes me,
fyi.)
I'm not impressed.
If
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 03:10:28PM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
If one wants Linux, there is Linux, and one doesn't need to do any
work. If one wants to marry the advantages of NetBSD with the Debian
tools, then getting rid of the interesting things about NetBSD won't
achieve the desired
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 02:32:03PM -0500, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
The goal is porting NPTL for both KFreeBSD and KNetBSD (K for 'kernel of').
As of now, temporary solutions are being used: linuxthreads and libpth,
respectively.
Are you sure that's the right way to go? Porting NPTL looks
Untill gluck is recovered, the GNU/KFreeBSD tarball has been moved to:
http://ftp.gnuab.org/pub/gnu/kfreebsd/
--
Robert Millan
[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the
thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he
gives and
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 10:30:20PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 01:35:10PM -0500, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
I'd be more impressed with that analysis if the bugs were in fact
Time to wait, then.
Yes, that's what I've been doing. I've tried to work on glibc, and
pretty much
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 06:00:06PM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not impressed.
Hey, you said that you would be able to avoid having to deal with
maintaining the glibc stuff yourself because the upstream would do
it for you. I doubt that the
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 05:29:37PM -0500, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
Because GNU/K*BSD is stable and full-featured. I'll be able to migrate
myself in a matter of weeks.
So someone fixed the bug in the DNS resolver? Without it full-featured
is kind of hard to believe, since all kinds of packages
Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not impressed.
Hey, you said that you would be able to avoid having to deal with
maintaining the glibc stuff yourself because the upstream would do
it for you. I doubt that the FSF people will do it, and I doubt that
we (NetBSD) are going to do
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 10:56:30PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 03:10:28PM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
If one wants Linux, there is Linux, and one doesn't need to do any
work. If one wants to marry the advantages of NetBSD with the Debian
tools, then getting rid
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 01:30:55AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 05:18:29PM -0500, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
Also, I'd like to point out to you that when this started, none of the
people involved had any real experience with porting Debian. So that
learning curve, plus RL
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 01:52:01AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 06:00:06PM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
As I said, though, it is likely that the NetBSD folks would happily
add needed stuff from glibc to the netbsd libc. I mean, who wants to
have a libc that won't run
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 01:52:01AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 06:00:06PM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
Porting to a Glibc-based from another is kids play.
You aren't listening. The threads stuff is not kids play.
[...]
The threads stuff is not as relevant
We fixed pam to run on native libc a long time ago. It wasn't that bad,
once I got libshadow written. And last I knew you didn't have an X
server package, which I had on the native libc a long time ago.
I was referring to the GNU/NetBSD port. See bug #201683 for example, and
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 09:26:33PM -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
We've got about 4500 packages in pkgsrc -- a fraction of the number
some folks like Debian support, but quite a number -- and in the
course of making them all work we routinely find that we have to fix
things in NetBSD. For
On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 07:57:29PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So I guess my question is, is the Debian-FreeBSD-libc5 port stalled? Is
there anything I could to do help? I have a lot of programming
experience, but I don't know how much I know about this particular area.
Yes. But I've
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 08:24:41PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 09:26:33PM -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
We've got about 4500 packages in pkgsrc -- a fraction of the number
some folks like Debian support, but quite a number -- and in the
course of making them all
27 matches
Mail list logo
