Now this is actually worthwhile discussion... :-)
Dan Potter writes:
I recall waay back on Jan 31 when Raul Miller wrote:
You're right. Though that's a fairly constrained case and I
think it would be fine to have a kernel-specific set of kld*s.
And, I guess that means that linux
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
I will be setting up a box running FreeBSD, hopefully by the end of this
week.
Quic.net, the ISP which will be hosting for the box, will probably want me
to restrict shell accounts to Debian developers. Hopefully this won't be a
problem.
---Nathan
Ian Miller writes:
hello all.
In
I've also been looking at sysvinit. It definitely isn't as portable as
typical GNU programs are, but I guess most people don't replace their init
program very often I'd say it's more hooked to glibc than to Linux from
what I could see.
Wartan Hachaturow writes:
Maybe, we should put up a
As I said, I'll try to get time to make a tar of what I have now, and upload
somewhere. However, working is stretching things a bit. There are parts
that actually work, and parts that are badly broken.
Some of the current bugs and glitches:
1. sysvinit/who breaks on utmp.h Wartan may have
Wade wrote:
Have you any plans for X? I will wait if you do have plans, but if not
I will roll my own so that I can use the debian-freebsd as my main
system [and hence report useful bugs].
I have X working, but haven't got the patch cleaned up. The X server
worked ok on my test box, but I had
Original Message
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (uid 1032) by quic.net
with local; Tue, 14 May 2002 15:13:33 -0400
From: Nathan Hawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Debian Bug Tracking System [EMAIL
Original Message
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (uid 1032) by quic.net
with local; Tue, 14 May 2002 19:03:02 -0400
From: Nathan Hawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Debian Bug Tracking System [EMAIL
Matthew Garrett wrote:
In porting stuff, I've found several cases where modifying the source to
build on Debian potentially breaks it on plain NetBSD. After talking to
Nathan about this, we came up with a couple of ideas:
1) Modify the kernel build so uname -v includes Debian - this is a
pretty
Robert Millan wrote:
On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 06:51:34PM -0400, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
1) Modify the kernel build so uname -v includes Debian - this is a
pretty trivial change. It does present problems if people build kernels on
their own - one option would be to make
Tony Finch wrote:
AFAIK FreeBSD-CURRENT is OK with gcc-3.1 (which is now the system compiler)
apart from some work still to do with c++ libraries.
Tony.
Thanks, I'll take another look at CVS. Last I checked, gcc 3.x was still
on another branch, and not completely merged.
---Nathan
--
To
matthew green wrote:
1) Modify the kernel build so uname -v includes Debian - this is a
pretty trivial change. It does present problems if people build kernels on
their own - one option would be to make sure that the kernel build system
ensures that this is set.
i think this will
Robert Millan wrote:
On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 01:09:30AM -0400, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
They will have to use the package. This is basically not going to be
optional for a while. Sorry, but Debianized and reliable are my
priorities for the freebsd source package right now. Flexibility
features
Robert Millan wrote:
On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 01:53:50AM -0400, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
Another example would be installing various build tools like BSD make
into /usr/bsd instead of /usr/bin.
There has just been a long discussion in debian-devel about the GNU/Hurd
system breaking FHS. I don't have
Daniel Burrows wrote:
On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 02:43:28PM -0400, Nathan Hawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] was heard to say:
skaro:/dev# /sbin/MAKEDEV all
MAKEDEV: line 1292: syntax error near unexpected token `)'
MAKEDEV: line 1292: ` )'
What does line 1292 look like? This sounds like a possible bash
Yes, I am aware of this. I got a copy of it Monday, just haven't yet dug
into building and testing it.
---Nathan
James Morrison wrote:
Hey,
I haven't seen this on the debian-bsd list in the last couple months so I
will mention it. Bruno Haible has got glibc ported to freebsd. This
Thank you. I will take a look at it, and see about updating it.
At the moment, I'm thinking in terms of going to two pages, one
explaining what the port is, motivations, etc., and another containing a
news log ordered by date.
---Nathan
Josip Rodin wrote:
Hi,
After a short discussion, I
Matthew Garrett wrote:
I have a sufficiently working glibc that I can build binutils and gcc
against it and then use them to rebuild a working glibc, but it'll
need some work yet before it's even vaguely production ready. The
general opinion at Debconf seemed to be that going with glibc was
Ian Jackson wrote:
This whole conversation seems baffling to me. Have any of the people
posting opinions actually looked at the source code of the two libcs ?
I have. I've done some hacking on both the FreeBSD libc and glibc.
glibc is a complex horror [1]; the BSD libc is a fairly nice and clean
matthew green wrote:
Think you could port BSD libc to Linux without making a mess?
considering that we (netbsd) basically have a source-compat layer
for netbsd software on linux, this actually is a whole lot simplier
and easier than you may otherwise think.
Could be. I know my way around
I've been working on FreeBSD with glibc. There hasn't been much to say.
glibc works great for Debian sources, but most of the BSD system
utilities like mount wouldn't build. I'm changing that, but it's going
slow. I'm making a library of routines that are in FreeBSD's libc, but
not in glibc,
Jeff Bailey wrote:
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 10:57:14PM -0400, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
I haven't paid much attention to the BSD port, but I notice that
glibc now includes support for FreeBSD again. Should I be tooling
glibc up to produce libc1 packages for you?
I've been tinkering with it for a while
Joel Baker wrote:
On Sat, Sep 07, 2002 at 05:42:09PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 08:29:18PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
The only packages where this caused any great trouble were gcc and
binutils, and that was fairly easily rectified.
Hmmm. GCC seems to be content as long
Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
* Nathan Hawkins
| Hmm. fdisk in util-linux probably isn't usable. It won't build, and I
| doubt it can reasonably be made to. Also, I'm not even sure it can
| create FreeBSD slices and partitions correctly on Linux. I can build
| FreeBSD fdisk and disklabel, but they're
More updates:
Nathan Hawkins wrote:
Open issues:
* glibc port is incomplete. glibc changes are being merged into CVS, but
I can't build a package yet. Threads support doesn't work yet.
Threads are working now, and glibc is working well except for DNS
resolution. It should be packaged before too
Henrique,
I just happened to read your changelog uploaded with 20020703.1:
* DEBIAN *BSD GUYS: CONTACT GNU CONFIG UPSTREAM ABOUT THE DEBIAN *BSD
REQUIREMENTS FOR GNU CONFIG ASAP! DON'T COMPLAIN LATER, YOU HAVE
BEEN WARNED, BOTH BY THIS LOG EMAILED TO YOU, AND DIRECTLY AT
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 01:21:50AM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 05:15:05PM +1000, matthew green wrote:
Hmmm. The origional plan had said /lib.
yeah, i know. that's why i told you :-) basically, enough people
complained that not using /libexec/ld.elf_so
Joel Baker wrote:
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
Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 03:47:01PM +1000, matthew green wrote:
as far as i'm aware, there are very conflicting views on mixing
GPL 4-clause software. to me, calling them incompatible such
that you refuse to link apps libraries because of it is way over
stepping the mark,
I've been comparing the packages I have with the debootstrap script for
sid. This is where things stand on freebsd-i386 now:
Not working yet:
aptitude,base-config,bsdutils,e2fsprogs,ifupdown,libdb1-compat,libperl5.8
Built:
Robert Millan wrote:
On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 10:40:58PM -0400, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
Doesn't build, or otherwise not usable:
console-common,console-data,console-tools,console-tools-libs,fdutils,ipchains,iptables,
klogd,libcap1,libstdc++2.10-glibc2.2,lilo,makedev,manpages,mbr,modconf,modutils
]
To: Nathan Hawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
References: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is an automatic notification regarding your Bug report
#163883: gcc-3.2: support for i386-freebsd-gnu (Debian freebsd-i386 port),
which was filed against the gcc-3.2 package.
It has been closed by one
I now have a patch for util-linux on freebsd-i386. It is definitely not
finished and ready to merge. There are some things that need work still,
but I'd like to find out what it needs for netbsd before continuing.
This is against 2.11u-2. Most of it is straightforward, except the
changes to
Pieter-Paul Spiertz wrote:
Hi,
I recently saw someone playing with a window-like interface in textmode.
It was not screen, but 'window' - a program from the BSD base system. It does
not seem to be available as a Debian package, nor can I find it with a quick
search in the Debian/FreeBSD package
Guillem Jover wrote:
I was going to install a Debian/FreeBSD to adapt my old util-linux port
to the Hurd again, and correct any issues found on the BSDs. It seems
you were faster :
At present, I don't have freebsd-i386 in an installable state. After
this patch, I got deboostrap working, so that
On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 10:50:05PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
Hello!
What is the current status of GNU/FreeBSD with the Glibc?
I've had to put the work I was doing on hold. Bruno Haible doesn't seem
to have done much further with merging into glibc. There are
substantial problems with
On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 01:52:31PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
Please tar it up and put it in a public place, then more people can help.
I'll do that when I can... Right now, the system I was developing on
isn't even powered up. :(
btw, i heard some time ago that the FreeBSD people were
On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 12:34:45PM +0300, Wartan Hachaturow wrote:
On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 05:37:59PM -0500, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
Increasingly, I wonder about going back to the native libc. and
continuing to develop things like utmpx or libshadow. Keeping glibc
working and in sync
On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 02:09:29PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 04:55:51AM +0100, henares sebastien wrote:
Hi, i'm looking to get a basic install of Debian GNU/FreeBSD, but in
the page http://www.debian.org/ports/freebsd/index.fr.html they point
at :
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 06:00:36PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 10:30:45AM -0500, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
Yes. The main problem is that it is very difficult to get /usr/include
to a usable state. glibc breaks compiling nearly all the sbin and
usr.sbin sources from
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 01:36:44PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 05:33:58PM -0400, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 05:13:00PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
that's great news!
If so, please ask him to use 5.0.
why, is 5.0 the latest version?
Yes
On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 06:46:47AM +1000, Rudolph Pereira wrote:
firstly, thanks for the explanation
On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 03:08:23PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
What there is, is on the Ports page, mostly. Keep in mind that there are
(at least) two separate efforts that are being kept
On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 10:11:42PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
hi!
my GNU/FreeBSD chroot jail is finaly self-hosting. i
could build Glibc 2.3, GCC 3.2.3 and binutils (cvs)
within the jail, and these worked fine to compile
other packages like coreutils, etc.
i've uploaded a tarball of
On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 09:22:41PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
I just checked debian's ppp sources and it supports FreeBSD's kernel. I
haven't tried, but in a quick look seems like adding GNU/FreeBSD to
./configure would get it working (stealing kernel options from FreeBSD
and user options
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:54:46PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 01:28:00PM +1000, matthew green wrote:
no. sys-bsd.c is the code to talk to a BSD-like ppp kernel driver.
you will definately want this.
ouch. I thought the /dev/ppp ioctl interface was
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 06:30:52PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
Hi there,
I just made a run on Ruby, but it seems our broken binutils are playing
bad on us. Latest binutils in CVS will hopefuly fix this, but see
http://people.debian.org/~rmh/gnu-freebsd/tasks/binutils
Juan, you said you
On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 11:12:35AM +1100, matthew green wrote:
A usable Debian GNU/KNetBSD system based on Glibc is now available:
so... can someone explain what the plan is for deb/netbsd wrt libc?
ie, will there be 2 systems one that is compatible with netbsd (ie
that people can
On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 07:31:09PM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Please, how is threading implemented in the NetBSD (and FreeBSD) port
of Glibc?
On the FreeBSD port, it uses linuxthreads. It isn't going to be good
enough long term.
The
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 01:34:42PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 09:46:19PM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
IMHO, the amount of work involved in making glibc stably work with
scheduler activations is likely prohibitive. You'll be chasing
problems in the library
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 01:22:52PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
Please, how is threading implemented in the NetBSD (and FreeBSD)
port of Glibc?
The goal is porting NPTL for both KFreeBSD and KNetBSD (K for 'kernel of').
As of now, temporary solutions are being used: linuxthreads and libpth,
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 01:56:04PM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 07:31:09PM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
Although it is still not as stable as we'd like, the benchmarks of the
native threads on NetBSD are pretty damn
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 10:30:20PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 01:35:10PM -0500, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
I'd be more impressed with that analysis if the bugs were in fact
Time to wait, then.
Yes, that's what I've been doing. I've tried to work on glibc, and
pretty much
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 01:52:01AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 06:00:06PM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
As I said, though, it is likely that the NetBSD folks would happily
add needed stuff from glibc to the netbsd libc. I mean, who wants to
have a libc that won't run
We fixed pam to run on native libc a long time ago. It wasn't that bad,
once I got libshadow written. And last I knew you didn't have an X
server package, which I had on the native libc a long time ago.
I was referring to the GNU/NetBSD port. See bug #201683 for example, and
On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 07:57:29PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So I guess my question is, is the Debian-FreeBSD-libc5 port stalled? Is
there anything I could to do help? I have a lot of programming
experience, but I don't know how much I know about this particular area.
Yes. But I've
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 08:24:41PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 09:26:33PM -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
We've got about 4500 packages in pkgsrc -- a fraction of the number
some folks like Debian support, but quite a number -- and in the
course of making them all
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 05:03:11PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 10:42:46PM -0500, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
I'm getting kind of irritated with certain bugs in the glibc port.
Asides from the DNS issue, is there anything else we should know?
I've been trying to fix
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 'NetBSD' in any context other than referring to the current
software
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 08:01:54PM +1100, Joshua Cummings wrote:
I checked the list archives and google and found nothing similar to my
problem, so I hope someone can help.
This sounds familiar. I think I've fixed a similar problem, but I don't
recall what the cause was. Try using sshd -d on
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 10:27:21AM -0400, Ming Fu wrote:
Hi,
I am a FreeBSD user turned Debian newcomer.
Is there a way in Debian to build the whole system from source like I
can do with make buildworld in FreeBSD?
The simple answer is no.
Debian has no direct equivilent to world on
It's an idea that needs exploration. I've done something similar,
running native libc vs. glibc on FreeBSD. It was helpful to hack ld.so's
default paths.
IIRC, I think you'd have to use /libarch rather than /lib/arch, or amend
the FHS. This would also need to apply to /usr/lib, and possibly
FYI.
Original Message
Subject:retiring
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 19:16:30 -0500
From: Nathan Hawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am retiring from the Debian project. I lack the time to spend on
Debian, and what time I have, I find myself preferring
Grzegorz Prokopski wrote:
Hi all!
I have been following recent discussion about the Hurd closely - under
where do NEW packages go on both d-d and d-hurd lists (not all was
crossposted, so you surely missed some if didn't read both lists).
From what I have seen there I think that direct cause for
On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 04:27:27PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Well, no offense, but that's ugly as hell, and is going to square the
amount of confusion people experience when trying to decode our OS
names.
Agreed, unfortunately - it is, and I suspect it may well. Suggestions for
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 09:09:37AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
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
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 10:05:13AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
Now that the kernel-image packages supports hw emulation of i486
instructions on i386 hardware, I'd like to change the code generation
to default to i486 (not sure if it should be tuned for any other
target, i.e. -mtune=i686).
Michael Goetze wrote:
(Just recording what we said on IRC)
So far -bsd haven't even properly decided on what libc to use. We
need to have a lot more working Debian/*BSD before we think about
writing an installer for *BSD.
Still, keeping the portability at maximum would be good.
(-bsd Cc-ed, so
67 matches
Mail list logo
