On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
party. Our pkgsrc infrastructure exists to make it easy to compile
third party software, but we do not claim that Emacs and /bin/ls are
supported the same way.
We've got about 4500 packages in pkgsrc -- a fraction of the number
some folks like
Perry == Perry E Metzger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Perry Why do you want NetBSD's kernel? You obviously believe everything that
Perry NetBSD has done is fecal, so what would the point of contaminating the
Perry superior GNU userland with a crappy NetBSD kernel?
Done with the strawman already ?
This may be possible under NetBSD as well (especially with a generous
helping of COMPAT option enabling), but given the number of dire warnings
the manuals all bear about building things in the correct order, I'm not
willing to trust that it's flexible enough to start doing
On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 09:30:09AM -0800, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Joel Baker wrote:
Another thing that is interesting is that most of pkgsrc is usable on
non-NetBSD systems. Many admins use it to have a consistent third-party
software installation method under Solaris
On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 09:41:00AM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
Hi Joel,
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 01:50:16PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
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
Jeremy C. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
party. Our pkgsrc infrastructure exists to make it easy to compile
third party software, but we do not claim that Emacs and /bin/ls are
supported the same way.
We've got about 4500 packages in pkgsrc -- a
Hi Joel,
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 01:50:16PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
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
7 matches
Mail list logo
