On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 09:22:41PM +0200, Erich Schubert wrote: > I have some technical questions: > > > Kernel is NetBSD. > > How big are the differences between FreeBSD and NetBSD? > Could Debian/BSD support both kernels (... in a later version)?
The various BSDs maintain their own divergent libc's, as well as their own versions of the equivalents of util-linux and netbase. I doubt they're very different from one another except in myriad tiny but appallingly time-consuming details. Anyway whatever FreeBSD features you (have plausible reasons to) want will probably be in the next NetBSD release. > > Libc is NetBSD's unless/until somebody ports GNU libc; then maybe both. > > How dependant are common programs on the BSD/Linux architecture? > It would be great, if packages (not needing any low-level calls) could be > kernel-independant (so we end up with binary-all, binary-i386, > binary-lin386, binary-bsd386) > I don't think this will work with NetBSD's libc, but if there were > gnu libc for NetBSD - could binaries be compatible? With the aid of a "compat" library this is often possible on stock NetBSD; there's no reason a much smaller library couldn't do the job for Debian GNU/BSD. There's a lot to be said for needing to maintain ports of (and build binaries for) only fifty packages instead of 5000. > Off-topic: how much speed gain could be achived by binary-i686? It makes a big difference in a few places, and a negligible difference in most. X benefits, as do some signal/image processing and crypto programs and libraries. It's probably better to add i686-built binaries into chosen i386 packages, and let ld.so load the right one for what is actually running, than to embark on an i686 port. > > Kernel-related utilities (ifconfig mount etc.) are from NetBSD. > > there's no way around that ;) > But i would prefer if these utilities would be paramter-compatible with > the Linux one's. (i'd like some "great BSD+Linux unification";) Toward that goal it would probably be better to add BSD support in the GNU tools. NetBSD upstream would be unlikely to accept interface-change patches to theirs, but GNU would welcome the back-end changes. > > File system layout is Debian/FHS. > > The thing i think is the most important thing. Yes, it is essential if we want to be able to use existing packagings. Nathan Myers ncm at cantrip dot org
