At 08:26 PM 10/18/00 +0400, Wartan Hachaturow wrote:
Here is my ideas about the project.
1. License issues
In case we use the software which is written under BSD, it should be
BSD. If it's GPL, it should stay GPL. It's as simple as it sounds. All
the Debian-specific tools are GPL, so we don't have to worry about
possible steal of our code :)
2. Userland
I think there is no need in GNU userland porting to the BSD, since the
differences is not so big -- it's a useless waste of time. We have a lot
more work to do. And, at last, we can create two base packages -- with
BSD userland and with GNU one, just to satisfy the needs of addicted ones ;)
3. [Main one :)] Ports/Sources/Binaries
In my mind, having the binaries is a Good Thing for people with slow
network connections and slow machines, so it's better to distribute
binary packages for most users (those who have fast machines and networks
anyway wouldn't want to wait until the compilation is done :). Concerning
Linux compat issue: we are trying to build good stable and secure system,
don't we? We would achieve that only using native-compiled binaries.
_Only_ in the cases we have no choice, we should use linux-compat, but i
think we should avoid it everywhere it's possible.
4. Configuration.
Important one. Personally, I don't like BSD configuring style -- the SysV
way is much more convinient for me. But most of the BSD guys would want to
have BSD.
This is the thing which should be heavily discussed -- we should decide if
SysV way is the right way for every Debian OS or not.
I belive much of the debian-specific tools is based on the configuring
style, and we should stay on SysV.
Btw, what way Hurd uses?
So, here is the summary of mine: BSD userland+Natively compiled deb's+SysV.
Maybe, we can make a kind of polling and once we decide we have enough
votes to judge, start working?
The discussions here may last forever :))
---
TIA, Wartan.
Checking the recent postings on the list, they can be summerised as->
What diff groups are interested in...
debian ppl - bsd kernel
bsd ppl - maybe debian style packaging but *bsd's moving towards
improvement and *bsd_ports-collection unification.
most bsd'ers here suggesting debian participation in
openpackages unified packaging system.
What diff groups are _not_ interested in...
debian ppl - helping openpackages to get the some of useful functionality
from dpkg suite doesn't help debian much,
they also don't get a debian with a *bsd kernel ;-)
But unified bsd/debian packaging system can be thaught
about, but is it in the scope of this list ?
bsd ppl - debian userland on top of bsd kernel
are they qualitatively diff to warrant one over the other?
won't accept dpkg as it is, there are efforts to improve pkg_*,
and would instead like debian participation in that
project.
As wartan has initiated, We need to,
* atleast narrow down possible alternatives of such a project
* and have a seperate technical/emotional :) justification for
everyone's opinion abt each of those components/points.
Points to discuss can be -:
1. kernel from...
_Freebsd_ OR _Net/Openbsd_
2. License issues
_GPL_ OR _BSD_
There seems to be agreement about -> BSD upstreams stay BSD.
GPL'd upstream stays GPL.
3. Userland
_gnu_ OR _bsd_
4. composition (ref: check eichin's posting)
i ] debian userspace / libc / rebuild packages_
OR ii ] debian userspace / glibc / port linux packages_
OR iii] debian userspace / _linux emulation_
OR iv] bsd userspace / libc / repackage bsd userspace sw_ ??
OR a combination of 1st and last above...
5. Configuration
_SysV_ OR _bsd style_
/prasad gadgil (se-mumbai)
"What you do when you don't have to, determines what you will be when you
can no longer help it." -Rudyard Kipling
