On Fri, 9 Feb 2001, Jeff Sheinberg wrote:
> Jeremy C. Reed writes:
> > > First of all, this *BSD ports base is entirely unnecessary.
> >
> > This makes sense -- especially because the dpkg/apt system is what really
> > makes Debian.
> >
> > > What's needed is a `base' debian-bsd system. The basic (/bin,
> > > /sbin) *BSD binaries is what is needed to be packaged the Debian
> > > way.
> >
> > I agree that the base system (to be Debian) should be packaged the
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > Debian-way.
> ^^^^^^^^^^
>
> I don't exactly understand your point. Have you ever actually
> created a debian package?
I am talking about having packages for the default, standard base install,
for example: findutils, procps, fileutils, modutils. But using BSD
equivalents. (We are talking about the same thing I believe -- I was
agreeing.)
> > But many of the BSD /bin and /sbin binaries are not truly compatible with
> > GNU equivalents. So does this mean forcing the Debian packages and Debian
> ^^^^^^^
> > routines (like dpkg pre-installation scripts) to use the BSD tools
> > instead?
>
> Again, I don't exactly understand your point. I will give you a
I used the word "forcing" because I can imagine that numerous installation
scripts may use GNU-specific commands. Things may need to be changed.
> hypothetical example, involving the packaging of the BSD
> `fileutils', by this I mean a package that consists of BSD
> versions of ls, mv, rm, mkdir, ln, etc, and provides similar
> functionality to the GNU fileutils package.
>
> This package would be a drop-in replacement for the GNU fileutils
> package. It is the user's choice to choose which version, GNU or
> BSD, or both, that she wants installed.
I don't see how a BSD fileutils could be a drop-in replacement for a GNU
fileutils (without changing the BSD and GNU utilities to share exact
syntax, usage and results).
> Now let's assume that these BSD fileutils require pmake in order
> to build. So, in my debian/rules file, I invoke `pmake...'.
> Naturally, this BSD fileutils package has a build-depends on
> pmake. Now let's also assume that the `pmake...' rule eventually
> invokes a recursive make from its Makefile, and that its Makefile
> rule looks like this,
>
> make...
>
> instead of the correct way, like this,
>
> $(MAKE)
>
> so I have to fix the upstream Makefile. This is normal, and is
> the expected kind of work that a debian package maintainer does.
That is a good example.
> > Or should the BSD tools be changed? (But then it wouldn't be the
> > "audited" BSD tools anymore.)
>
> I am personally interested in using FreeBSD as the base, so I have
> no particular interest in the OpenBSD `audited' tools.
Understood. In fact, I didn't use the term "OpenBSD". But I did say
"audited" -- which FreeBSD definitely does.
Jeremy C. Reed
....................................................
BSD software, documentation, resources, news...
http://bsd.reedmedia.net/
