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 08:21:09AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
Which works great, if it's libc-dev that's needed. It fails fairly
severely, if a specific version of a library is needed due to, say, a fix
in an included library that also requires a fix in the application.
Not to mention
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
to keep such incompatible patches without submitting, since I
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 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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
14 matches
Mail list logo
