On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 09:26:33PM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It isn't the FSF who maintains Glibc.
Whatever. The point is the maintainers won't do the work for you, so
the upstream comment doesn't hold much water.
The primary target of Glibc
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 10:12:08PM -0500, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 01:52:01AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
Please avoid the third party euphemism. If you want to run non-free
software
on a Glibc-based system, you can use the NetBSD libc since it's no technical
Nathan Hawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(btw, fixing the X server is on my todo)
All I have to say about the X server, as the person who generated most
of the patches, is that they're actually very straightforward, if rather
invasive. I simply had to go through each config option and
Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That's not what third party means. Third party means stuff not
provided by The NetBSD Foundation in our releases. The BSD world
doesn't work quite the way the Linux world does in this regard. We
maintain both a kernel and a tightly integrated userland
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
While I'd dearly love to see a bit more de-coupling of NetBSD kernel and
libc (so that they don't have to be in quite such lockstep, though I'm more
worried about the process utilities that must be *exact* matches), I don't
claim that managing it would be
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 10:22:53PM -0500, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
All I have to say about the X server, as the person who generated most
of the patches, is that they're actually very straightforward, if rather
invasive. I simply had to go through each config option and decide whether
it
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 09:41:48AM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
I haven't been following too closely. Could someone explain what the
issue is? Obviously XFree works fine on NetBSD -- I'm using it at this
very moment. Given that it works fine on NetBSD, what's the issue?
Joel will give you
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 09:52:43AM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
This is Debian, and we have around 1 packages here. Why do we have to
support installing packages from the NetBSD pkgsrc archive?
Are you deliberately misreading me? I wasn't saying anything about you
supporting pkgsrc.
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 10:03:11AM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
BTW, NetBSD gets a lot out of the tight integration of the libraries
and kernel. What we get is completely seamless integration -- and that
buys us quite a bit.
In general, I can see why one would want to combine the
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 07:55:39PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 10:56:30PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
It's about the GNU libc and userland, which are the standard in Debian and
I see no reason to replace them.
For the record, probably 70% of the email that I've seen
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 10:42:46PM -0500, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
I'm getting kind of irritated with certain bugs in the glibc port.
Asides from the DNS issue, is there anything else we should know?
And with the need to have both libc's, because necessary system tools
won't compile against
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 02 December 2003 07:58 am, Robert Millan wrote:
No, we combine the advantages of Debian, GNU, and the kernel of NetBSD.
The superiority of GNU userland repect to NetBSD's is an issue too, and you
seem to be ignoring it.
I'm sorry, but
Perry == Perry E Metzger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Perry In general, I can see why one would want to combine the advantages of
Perry Debian and NetBSD, but I can't see why one would want to produce
Perry something less functional than either.
Less functional is apparently not the goal, no
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 05:03:11PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 10:42:46PM -0500, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
I'm getting kind of irritated with certain bugs in the glibc port.
Asides from the DNS issue, is there anything else we should know?
I've been trying to fix
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 09:41:48AM -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Nathan Hawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(btw, fixing the X server is on my todo)
All I have to say about the X server, as the person who generated most
of the patches, is that they're actually very straightforward, if
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 10:03:11AM -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
While I'd dearly love to see a bit more de-coupling of NetBSD kernel and
libc (so that they don't have to be in quite such lockstep, though I'm more
worried about the process utilities
I've been contacted by a member of the NetBSD team, who expressed that the
general opinion seems to be that Debian GNU/KNetBSD is a better name for
the port than Debian GNU/NetBSD, both because it is more specific about
what's going on, and because it doesn't dilute the NetBSD trademark. While
the
Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In general, I can see why one would want to combine the advantages of
Debian and NetBSD, but I can't see why one would want to produce
something less functional than either. I think if you replace too much
of NetBSD in doing what you're trying to do,
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I haven't been following too closely. Could someone explain what the
issue is? Obviously XFree works fine on NetBSD -- I'm using it at this
very moment. Given that it works fine on NetBSD, what's the issue?
Crucial issues mostly amounted to differences
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb am 02.12.03 21:51:20:
I've been contacted by a member of the NetBSD team, who expressed that the
general opinion seems to be that Debian GNU/KNetBSD is a better name for
the port than Debian GNU/NetBSD, both because it is more specific about
If the NetBSD
No, we combine the advantages of Debian, GNU, and the kernel of NetBSD.
The superiority of GNU userland repect to NetBSD's is an issue too, and you
seem to be ignoring it.
no, it's more that we (at least perry and i, and most of the netbsd
developers) _don't think GNU userland
Dear debian-bsd folk,
[disclaimer: I am just a random Debian developer, I don't use nor plan
to use FreeBSD or NetBSD]
For Debian to target for release a new port, the port has to match
the release minima which are:
1) all base package
2) 90% of all packages build
3) a working installer
4)
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 10:49:42PM +0100, Michael Ritzert wrote:
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb am 02.12.03 21:51:20:
I've been contacted by a member of the NetBSD team, who expressed that the
general opinion seems to be that Debian GNU/KNetBSD is a better name for
the port than
On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 02:16:04AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear debian-bsd folk,
[disclaimer: I am just a random Debian developer, I don't use nor plan
to use FreeBSD or NetBSD]
For Debian to target for release a new port, the port has to match
the release minima which are:
1)
On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 02:16:04AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Debian developers are mostly GNU/Linux users and are likely to use
GNU specific features, and not ready to stop this usage for a port
that have yet to happen.
The vast majority of code shipped by Debian is not Debian-specific
25 matches
Mail list logo
