On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Brian Morris wrote:
> my point is that IMHO there would be far less chance of debian-68k
> discontinuing if lenny were moved to debian-netbsd-68k instead of
> debian-linux-68k.
Taking packages out of a distro and replacing them with something else is
hardly a way of keeping the distro alive. It is more like abandoning the
original intention and creating a different OS. (And how can you call two
different OS's the same distro (!) and say that this would keep the distro
alive?)
> that would be just for the new unstable/testing.
>
> i don't see your logic at all either, maybe we are just not
> communicating. the port is in danger of dying.
>
> the design difference in netbsd is that there is more difference than as
> you say, there is little with linux. but it appears that results in
> fewer higher level differences.
>
> to reiterate:
>
> Netbsd: more difference with models ("platform" is i believe the proper
> term) w/in 68k at kernel/toolchain level, less issues at user level with
> practically no need for any separate attention to 68k packages vis a vis
> any other processors (i386 typically) that is why over there they don't
> build all binary.
Your argument is to replace every Linux package with NetBSD packages if
the NetBSD one is easier to port?
Here's an alternative idea: improve Linux. If that doesn't interest you,
you are running the wrong OS.
For myself, I use Solaris, Mac OS X and Linux. From a shell scripting
point of view I actually prefer the BSD userland for some things. But so
what? Each OS has different strengths. I see no universally superior
choice to which everyone should migrate: and that applies to the
individual packages as much as to the entire OS. Choice is important.
If you are concerned that the port is dying, help out. But don't hitch
your wagon to a Linux distro if you don't agree with the aims of the
project.
If you think that the port is under-resourced, you are right. Now imagine
the situation where we might have (on m68k) Debian Linux, Debian NetBSD,
and NetBSD proper. Divided across 3 projects in this way, resources are
even more scarce. If anything, that is going to accelerate the demise of
the port.
Can we end this thread yet?
-f
> for the more esoteric packages it suffices to test on any
> architecture/platform. if people really think they want/need KDE for 68k
> they can build it themselves (but most likely no one cares to and no one
> does)
>
> Linux: little differeence with models w/in 68k , much more difference of
> 68k with other architecture (aka i386).
>
> Netbsd: apparently there are some packages known are Shared on the
> installation images which are the intermediate level where the brand of
> 68k does not matter but 68k matters for prebuilt binaries reason.
>
>
> On 4/19/07, Goswin von Brederlow
> > The only think specific to the m68k model is the bootloader, kernel
> > and X. Things that use the hardware or rom. Everything else will work
> > across all m68k systems.
> >
> > So I fail to see your point.
> >
> > MfG
> > Goswin
> >
>
>
>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
