On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 04:11:17PM -0400, Mark W. Eichin wrote:
And there we disagree... anything less than proper dependency-aware
upgrade simply doesn't count. This is a *hard* problem which is why
so much of the value of dpkg is in the interesting cases it
handles. It would be nice to
On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 04:49:16PM -0700, Brent Fulgham wrote:
# So what exactly *is* present in Debian that would be at all
# helpful?
The talent and expertise of a group of people who have been
there and done that on the road that BSD is currently on. Namely
with the seemless upgrades from
So what exactly *is* present in Debian that would be at all
helpful?
In Debian as in GNU/Linux? Probably not much. It's not worth
the bother.
But there are people associated with Debian, and if these people
want to help out with openpackages, then all the better.
Oh -- I've been
On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Brent Fulgham wrote:
So what exactly *is* present in Debian that would be at all
helpful?
You can configure apt to have a location for security updates. Then you
can use apt to automatcially update the system with new fixes. The basic
way to do this with bsd is download
Brent Fulgham wrote:
However a BSD kernel with the GNU user-space would probably be
more palatable.
I'm finally going to pipe up here, from the (mostly) end-user perspective.
I, personally, want the GNU userland. I've used BSD, and GNU (and Sun, and
HP-UX, and Irix, and Ultrix, and ...) -
On Tue, 17 Oct 2000, Brent Fulgham wrote:
I guess the unspoken issue that's caused confusion for me in this
thread is that Debian is as much about philosophy as it is about
software, or operating systems. One sticking point is likely to
be licensing issues. The GNU/Hurd and GNU/Linux are
On Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 11:53:01AM -0700, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2000, Brent Fulgham wrote:
I guess the unspoken issue that's caused confusion for me in this
thread is that Debian is as much about philosophy as it is about
software, or operating systems. One sticking point
Oh No!!! Do I smell smoke?
-- Anant
How does a BSD-type license allow licensing of the
software to be changed?
Yes, someone can take a BSD-licensed code and
change it and sell the
binaries without supplying the source and changes.
But binary or source
distributions must include the
On Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 05:11:20PM -0400, Dan Papasian wrote:
On Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 01:00:09PM -0700, Anant Kabra wrote:
Oh No!!! Do I smell smoke?
-- Anant
If you're trying to accuse either one of us of flaming, I'd
like an explaination.
I considered this, and still do, a sane,
No No don't get me wrong... It's just that when
licenscing issues crop up on a discussion on the
merits and demerits of package management systems, it
smells suspiciously like the start of a flame fest
even though the original posters might not have ment
to flame.
We all know the features of both
At 06:56 PM 10/14/00 -0500, Steve Price wrote:
On Sat, Oct 14, 2000 at 04:02:55PM -0700, Gary Kline wrote:
#
# I still think that a system that provided the stability
# of a BSD kernel with the rest Debian would be the winner for a
# network service OS. Also that it is not going
ISFAIRC the major problem is that the glibc 2.0 is not
ported to BSD yet.
--Anant
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE.
http://im.yahoo.com/
Alright I can't just sit quietly any longer. :) I don't remember
all the flames on this list that everyone is spouting off about.
What I remember was that there was a mixture of emotions of whether
this was going to create a fork. The way I see it there are two
possibilities here.
The
glibc of any version will run fine in it's home in /compat/linux,
using the linuxlator (syscall translation)
As for it not being there natively, this isn't a problem. The BSD
libc is one of BSD's strong points.
-Dan Papasian
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 08:16:16AM -0700, Anant
On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 10:23:26AM -0700, Brent Fulgham wrote:
Alright I can't just sit quietly any longer. :) I don't remember
all the flames on this list that everyone is spouting off about.
What I remember was that there was a mixture of emotions of whether
this was going to create a
On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 03:49:31PM -0400, Mark W. Eichin wrote:
And I ask you: Why? Why would someone want to go through
the trouble when the BSD ports tree is already there and tested?
One word: upgrade
Last I checked, simple things like upgrading a package that has
dependencies was
You make it seem worse than it is :)
And there we disagree... anything less than proper dependency-aware
upgrade simply doesn't count. This is a *hard* problem which is why
so much of the value of dpkg is in the interesting cases it
handles. It would be nice to see that independently appear
The first issue that comes up in these discussions is the License.
Most Linux systems are GPL/LGPL-based, while BSD's are (of course)
BSD-based. This is usually enought to ignate a religious war that
causes everyone to go home angry with no work done.
I think that given the BSD tools
On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 02:26:40PM -0700, Brent Fulgham wrote:
# I'm not suggesting a textbook experiment. What I am saying is that
# it seems possible to extend the apt-source tools to unpack software
# packages into a BSD ports tree to allow a native BSD build of software.
# It could handle
Both the ports tree and the pkg_* tools (which are *very*
similar in nature to apt-get, dselect, dpkg, ...) handle both
build and run dependencies transparently. The big thing missing
in the ports tree and associated tools is when upgrading existing
packages to newer versions. There are
On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 04:49:16PM -0700, Brent Fulgham wrote:
Both the ports tree and the pkg_* tools (which are *very*
similar in nature to apt-get, dselect, dpkg, ...) handle both
build and run dependencies transparently. The big thing missing
in the ports tree and associated tools is
[[ ... ]]
Probably wise -- Debian is not generally speedy. And dpkg is
undergoing some revamping at the moment.
I'm all for helping out with a common set of tools to manage
packages between BSD and Debian which is why I was among the
first handful or so of the people to
The biggest problem was that no more than two or three people ever really did
anything. Everyone else sat around and flamed each other. Some people joined
the list for the sole purpose of flaming everyone else on it, and trying to
convince them not to sully the perfection of BSD, or Debian. One of
On 10/14 Nathan Hawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The biggest problem was that no more than two or three people ever
really did anything. Everyone else sat around and flamed each other.
Some people joined the list for the sole purpose of flaming everyone
else on it, and trying to convince them
On Sat, Oct 14, 2000 at 04:02:55PM -0700, Gary Kline wrote:
#
# I still think that a system that provided the stability
# of a BSD kernel with the rest Debian would be the winner for a
# network service OS. Also that it is not going to get done unless
# and until 3 or 4
25 matches
Mail list logo
