On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 04:21:04PM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
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
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 04:16:00PM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
Why do you want NetBSD's kernel? You obviously believe everything that
NetBSD has done is fecal, so what would the point of contaminating the
superior GNU userland with a crappy NetBSD kernel?
Well I don't recall using
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
what's going
On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 02:16:04AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So your best bet to get your port released is to provide an environment
as similar as the GNU/Linux so that most packages will build out of
the box. Using glibc and GNU tools is a big step in this direction.
Fully agreed. But
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 05:19:41PM +, Matthew Garrett 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
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 08:45:52AM -0800, Michael Graff wrote:
-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
There are very important technical reasons for these decisions, not only
nomenclature correctness stuff. Let me explain.
On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 11:33:22AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
uname -s: GNU/KFreeBSD
Uhm. I'd have to turn on my box to
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 08:16:35PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
The NetBSD/native port has been stalled for some time, because I ran into
core, required-to-build-lots-of-things applications (tcl8.4, IIRC, in
particular) that *don't work* with GNU pth. Period. Neither version 1.x or
2.x.
I'm not
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 03:50:00PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 08:16:35PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
The NetBSD/native port has been stalled for some time, because I ran into
core, required-to-build-lots-of-things applications (tcl8.4, IIRC, in
particular) that
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 03:24:51PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
There are very important technical reasons for these decisions, not only
nomenclature correctness stuff. Let me explain.
On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 11:33:22AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
uname -s: GNU/KFreeBSD
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 11:22:36AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
Indeed. As long as it's documented, people are probably going to be
hand-selecting their APT entries, anyway, so it isn't such a big deal.
[...]
The Debian architecture will remain 'netbsd-i386', with the known issue
that we'll
On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 02:04:20AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 11:22:36AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
Indeed. As long as it's documented, people are probably going to be
hand-selecting their APT entries, anyway, so it isn't such a big deal.
[...]
The Debian
12 matches
Mail list logo
