for all that you've done.
--
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`.
Debian GNU/kNetBSD(i386) porter : :' :
`. `'
http://nienna.lightbearer.com
gain as much as we'd home from having a 'unified' one, at
least not until the sources start trying to unify.
--
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`.
Debian GNU/kNetBSD(i386) porter
this should help sanitize a lot of... interesting... issues. I
expect that this will be obvious on looking at it, but does it support
arbitrary filesystem types (such as union mounts on BSD systems that have
the concept)?
--
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 10:34:56PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 03:11:13PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 11:55:12PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Hello,
Here are the packages I have so far. Note that this includes things
I've built by hand
) should provide libc. Things
that have just libc6-dev and not libc6-dev | libc-dev are almost always
worthy of having a bug filed...
--
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`.
Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter
another of the reasons I want to clean it up and start over fresh,
once the hardware is freed up; having stuff without source is nasty. :/
Though there isn't much.
--
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`.
Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter
* have a certain value, involving 'Debian/NetBSD' as part of the full
name.
I'll try to sit down and pull this out of stuff on the current build box,
later today or tomorrow... sorry, forgot I probably hadn't mentioned this
earlier :/
--
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED
).
--
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`.
Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 11:51:19PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 08:29:45PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
Due to popular demand (or at least, someone asking for it), the debian-bsd
site at debian-bsd.lightbearer.com is back. It's the same stuff that it
used to be; no new
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 09:10:50AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 11:51:19PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 08:29:45PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
Due to popular demand (or at least, someone asking for it), the debian-bsd
site at debian
area, and some older stuff by Mr. Millan.
--
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`.
Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter
as the primary compiler. But don't take that as gospel...
GCC 3.3.x is going to be the only compiler shipped with netbsd 2.0.
infact, i will be deleting GCC 2.x soon :-)
.mrg.
See? Always listen to the people with CVS commit access. :)
--
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 08:41:29AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 10:27:34PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
Yes. Less steadily than at times, but still actively. I'm also working
on
the naming issue with TNF and other folks, which is a necessary
long-term
...
--
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`.
Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter
On Sat, Dec 20, 2003 at 01:18:34PM +0200, Momchil Velikov wrote:
Joel == Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Joel No, it's debian-legal's to decide. To date, they have
Joel considered some form of renaming to be the only feasible
Joel option.
I mean, of course
On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 10:42:27AM +0200, Momchil Velikov wrote:
Joel == Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Joel The proposed naming schemes of which I am aware are as follows:
Joel 1) Christian demonology
Joel 2) Discworld gods
Joel 3) Tolkien Valar/Maiar
Joel 4) Greek mythology
It has been pointed out that there are at least three other categories
which it is meaningful to include; therefore, please consider this the
revised ballot. My apologies to anyone who has to re-submit.
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 08:34:53PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
So. While things aren't by any
, with at least a few concrete
names as examples, please feel free to do so.
--
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`.
Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter
On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 07:02:20PM +0200, Momchil Velikov wrote:
Joel == Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Joel We have been asked, by the folks who own the name, that we do
Joel *something* to avoid using it in this context. Therefore, 'not
Joel changing' (from the old usage
Okay, one more time. Hrrrf. This one wasn't (technically) proposed
earlier, but does make sense. Hopefully this is the last update.
On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 08:44:00AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
It has been pointed out that there are at least three other categories
which it is meaningful
On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 10:07:43PM +0200, Momchil Velikov wrote:
Joel == Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Joel On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 07:02:20PM +0200, Momchil Velikov wrote:
[ snip things appropriate to debian-legal, rather than debian-bsd ]
c) whether it is a viable option
/ bit, of course...)
None of this really applies to changing the Linux ports away from glibc,
of course. But such a topic doesn't really belong on debian-bsd, anyway.
--
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`.
Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter
for a FreeBSD-on-Mach port :)
--
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`.
Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 11:59:10PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
[I am not subscribed to debian-bsd, please Cc: me if you feel your reply
deserves my attention.]
On Thu, 2003-12-18 at 15:51, Joel Baker wrote:
GNU represents the Gnu system, running with a native (Hurd) kernel
GNU
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 12:24:31AM -0500, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 05:29:48PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
My impression is that this will not satisfy The NetBSD Foundation, though
they could always suprise me. In part, their objection appears to be using
the bareword
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 12:44:07PM -0500, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 02:58:42PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
I really need to sit down and write a proposal / patches for NetBSD to
support the 'vendor' sysctl tree, that can be checked usefully. Since that
would
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 11:10:24AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
[I am not subscribed to debian-bsd.]
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 08:15:04AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
Actually, given that I'm a long-time and deep-seated Tolkien geek, I rather
like the notion of using the Valar - they're
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:54:15AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
[I am not subscribed to debian-bsd.]
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 06:00:21PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
Even so, I'm amenable to anyone who can come up with names which are less
loaded to random fundamentalists, if possible
of a
name increases fear for the thing itself. ;-p
IOW, lighten up, people. Otherwise, we'll be referring to Debian
GNU/That Which Shall Not Be Named...
Hey, we already covered Lovecraftian names...
--
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`.
Debian GNU
, and Z from NetBSD is true and factual,
and uses 'NetBSD' solely in a context of referring to the body of software
produced by the NetBSD project's efforts - which is what the trademark is
intended to refer to, and thus, is not a dilution of it.
--
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED
for historical reasons, but they
seem to be a minority nowadays...)
Amusing, but I don't think so. :)
--
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`.
Debian GNU/KLNetBSD(i386) porter
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 03:09:07PM -0500, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 12:19:10PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
Having cheated and grabbed an online resource for it from Google, the
following possibilities show up (my apologies for the lack of accents;
I can't easily input
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 10:40:11PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 11:01:49AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
Branden's second proposal of using something from Pratchett did have a
nice ring to it, and then there's always the valar
folks who care are very likely to consider there mere *concept* of
a 'daemon' to be anathema, evil, foul, unclean, and all sorts of other
descriptives.
(And we all know that penguins are just flat-out unnatural; I mean, c'mon.
A bird that *swims*?)
ObHumor: Yes, that was a joke. :)
--
Joel Baker
.
We'll sort it out at some point here.
--
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`.
Debian GNU/KLNetBSD(i386) porter
[ If you're being impatient about resolving this, please see the bottom ]
[ of the email for an imporant bit of information... ]
[ snip ]
On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 04:27:27PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 10:29:05AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote
from the only option. :)
--
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`.
Debian GNU/KLNetBSD(i386) porter
On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 11:19:39AM -0500, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:
On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 08:54:01AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
In any case, I hope I did indicate that I have less experience than many
list posters with threads (although I hope to gain at least a bit more
when I take
On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 07:49:43PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
ObListPolicy: I'm not subscribed to debian-bsd, please Cc: me in all
replies that you think may concern me.
On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 23:39, Joel Baker wrote:
For the porting effort formerly known as Debian GNU/NetBSD
with the request.
On Fri, 2003-12-12 at 21:58, Joel Baker wrote:
On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 07:49:43PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
There might be some changes required to autotools-dev and libtool to
support this platform, depending how they currently decide what makes
-netbsd-gnu
.]
On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 11:54:09AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
[I am not subscribed to debian-bsd.]
On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 04:39:47PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
On December 2nd, I was contacted by Luke Mewburn, on behalf of The NetBSD
Foundation, asking about the transition
,
rather than any antipathy towards the Debian project as a whole, or the
various BSD porting efforts under it.
--
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`.
Debian GNU/KLNetBSD(i386) porter
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 11:22:36AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
So. I propose the following, and, barring objections over the next week
or so, I'll take steps to update what I can to reflect this:
uname -s will remain 'NetBSD'.
uname -v will continue to have distinguishing features (I really
On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 01:28:03PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 06:46:05PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
Untill we resolve this, please take into consideration to avoid filing
patches
that use netbsd-i386 in a way that breaks the other port. I've been
careful
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
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 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
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
actively,
and I long ago dumped state (and yes, I need to redo a bunch of it,
potentially, for 4.3/4.4; that's on my list after getting -current/pre-2.0
working and buildable, and ensuring GCC works with it).
--
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`.
Debian GNU NetBSD
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
/MostlyNetBSD? NotQuiteNetBSD? :)
But seriously - since it is not unreasonable to view NetBSD as not only
/usr/src, but /usr/pkgsrc and the bug system and everything the project
does, is there some meaningful way of representing what pieces we *are*
using, for those of us using the kernel and libc?
--
Joel
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
timeframe, and by that time we're so
far out that making any sort of meaningful estimate is somewhere between
difficult and implausible.
--
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`.
Debian GNU NetBSD/i386 porter
is or is not sane, and why. :)
--
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`.
Debian GNU NetBSD/i386 porter
on it, origionally; they're less relevant, now, since I no
longer work at that job).
--
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`.
Debian GNU NetBSD/i386 porter
+FreeBSD system; probably less sane, in fact.
--
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`.
Debian GNU NetBSD/i386 porter
with it in such a context, I'm quite certain it
*isn't*).
--
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`.
Debian GNU NetBSD/i386 porter
.
--
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`.
Debian GNU NetBSD/i386 porter
for debian-bsd.lightbearer.com set up in the fairly immediate
future.
--
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`.
Debian GNU NetBSD/i386 porter
(some packages simply *will not* build with GNU pth as
pthreads).
--
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`.
Debian GNU NetBSD/i386 porter
.
--
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`.
Debian GNU NetBSD/i386 porter
version should contact me off-list.
I think that's pretty much how things stand at the moment...
--
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`.
Debian GNU NetBSD/i386 porter
3.3.x even appears to have support for using
them :)
--
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgpGVUHXyVVOw.pgp
Description: PGP signature
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 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* GNU-based
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
is even more reason to split
the Debian-specific bits into a different file from the GNU-specific bits.
--
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgpb6BFrvwytC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
with that as the core. Mostly, the question was
should I schedule a Flag Day and wipe out the current NetBSD archive
(well, okay, probably 'move it aside' for now), and do a set of builds
based on -current. So far, the concensus on IRC and here seems to be 'yes'.
--
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED
.
--
***
Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/
pgpKUNi9gWCWu.pgp
Description: PGP signature
for 4.2 has been running on
my box for at least six months, though, and seems to be fine :)
--
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgph1C1amT7o1.pgp
Description: PGP signature
being enabled.
--
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgpCtbLz4VzHW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
for other kernel options... but you can figure that out later
i'm sure.
The system is certainly extendable in a coherent manner, or at least
that's my goal. :)
--
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgpsLKGilGd4G.pgp
Description: PGP signature
sufficiently well
that having, say, a -current kernel with COMPAT for 1.6.1 means you can
sanely use 1.6.1 libc or kernel-reading tools.
The proposed policy is attached, and I'd *really* like feedback on this,
especially from folks who are more intimately familiar with NetBSD's kernel
stuff.
--
Joel
to handle gmake style
Makefiles (whether that means 'gmake' or something else).
--
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgpSquNpQjq4t.pgp
Description: PGP signature
: #179661
* No longer managed the /usr/doc symlinks.
Enough said, I think. All praise to Doogie. :)
--
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgpzaXcUL2AHB.pgp
Description: PGP signature
of the benefit
would be lost, if glibc were layered over the top of it, making the port
more a matter of curiosity rather than usefulness.
--
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgpTCk4J1uDPZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
in a not well supported state. On
the flip side, those are probably fairly easy to deal with, since they're
in the kernel already, and the support tools are easily portable and work
well.
--
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgpNhjz5tWzMX.pgp
Description: PGP signature
more or less Just Work (tm).
--
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgpYw9NudvnSF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
that
check for uname -v values.
2) Should we track anything other than the release it was compiled under?
(and if so, remember that as far as I can see, we only have a limited
set of data types we can use sanely).
--
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgpeqVXW32PGG.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 04:12:37PM +, Matthew Rose wrote:
On (22/10/02 15:44), Joel Baker wrote:
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 04:39:21PM +0100, John Ineson wrote:
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 06:07:42PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
[...]
Oh, and mentions of patch locations aren't ideal now
nameserver
after you unpack it).
--
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgpeGmB9adsJC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
stuff).
--
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgpyar0uDMrMe.pgp
Description: PGP signature
that wishlist bugs get filed if they don't pull in
autotools-dev automagically. The rest of life has hampered this recently,
unfortunately.
--
***
Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com
, as the buffer overflows can be exploited by remote DNS poisoning.
--
***
Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer
!), it will cause less havoc to review such things before
submitting (and I may be able to get you a patch faster).
--
***
Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED
, though. :)
--
***
Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/
pgpHYFrb5XWUz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
+debian.1 12.83-0). Sorry
about that, but concensus was that we should use the release versioning
rather than the major/minor of libc. Do dpkg -i rather than -iEG.
--
***
Joel Baker System
.
--
***
Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/
pgpaM5Y8MJLvB.pgp
Description: PGP signature
on libc in any fashion
whatsoever (and, as such, I can tell lintian to shut the hell up about it),
or because they should be doing -lc and aren't?
--
***
Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com
and libm387 - especially the latter) would be appreciated.
--
***
Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/
and objdump might well suffice to tell me what I need to make this
determination...
--
***
Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://users.lightbearer.com
/
--
***
Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/
Clearly, I should document the process I recently went through to bootstrap
a chroot from zero. I'll try to write something up soon, maybe after I
finish banging on the libc12 package.
--
***
Joel Baker
is already provided by Debian in other
packages, and as such, I do not build them from NetBSD sources.
Just to make folks rest easier, if they were worried...
--
***
Joel Baker System Administrator
it (is the old BSD license DFSG-non-free?)
--
***
Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/
pgpxuWlxdV19D.pgp
Description: PGP
anyone else needs to be aware...
--
***
Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/
pgpK9boGfOjf7.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 12:45:56AM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
On Oct 14, Joel Baker wrote:
Er. Given that 'libc' is under the 4-clause license, if this is true... or
does that not apply to 'system' libraries? NetBSD certainly has a fair bit
of GPLed code, including dist/gnu in the source
binaries
are distributed (along with sources for both) as a system?
--
***
Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/
on it.
--
***
Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/
pgp3fFwPfrKoV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
1 - 100 of 161 matches
Mail list logo
