On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 07:14:48PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 10:08:42AM -0600, Joel Baker wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 04:52:39PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > > > > > > You just said it is "*not* GNU-based". Do you know what GNU/Something > > > means? > > > > *sigh* It was early in the morning. I typed GNU on autopilot; I *meant* > > "GNU libc & other stuff". > > erm, so that was a typo?
Well, if you read the part of the message you elided, I laid out exactly what the system is and isn't. You haven't answered my question about "What is a GNU-based system?", so I cannot tell you whether it was a think-o, or actually an accurate statement. > > As for knowing what GNU/Something means - does > > *anyone*? Nobody could explain the details when it was first debated, and > > to date, nobody has explained them here, either. > > According to the GNU folks, it's a variant of the GNU system for which > "Something" may provide some indication on what it differs from GNU. So a GNU-based system is "a variant of the GNU system that differs from GNU"? That seems rather... circular. > > > RMS would never request placing "GNU/" in the name of a system that is > > > "*not* GNU-based". > > > > Maybe. Maybe not. He requested it of systems that didn't consider > > themselves GNU based, but *he* considered them to be. Debian agreed with > > him, others didn't. C'est la vie. > > that's right (although it's discussable what "themselves" means here), but > we're not talking about GNU/Linux. Actually, we are, at least by reference; we're talking about GNU/*, and why it has GNU in the name, and GNU/Linux is one of the primary current examples. > > The port maintainers have done their best to try to ascertain what, > > exactly, the GNU/* means, and have failed to get useful answers, yes. So. I > > present to you the following system; you tell me if it's GNU, or not, and > > if at all possible please cite references to RMS (or at least FSF folks) > > asserting any particular point. > > No, i was asking wether _you_ think it's a GNU variant. My opinion is that > it shouldn't be considered as such, but i'm not going to defend that opinion > with citations whatsoever (though if others want to, they're welcome to). My opinion is that it has enough GNU stuff in it that, per the reasoning I saw in the archives on debian-devel, it was reasonable to name it "Debian GNU/NetBSD". If you don't agree, fine, but I'm not going to chance my mind just because you assert it should be otherwise; provide something to back it up. > > Keep in mind that the rest of Debian might also have a say, though I > > strongly suspect that as long as we have clear reasoning, nobody will care > > much which way it goes. > > Feel free to discuss it if you think it's necessary, but note my concern is > only with the contradiction of calling it "GNU/NetBSD", but still saying it's > not a GNU variant. If that was just a typo then let's drop it here. That also depends on whether you think the "GNU/" prefix means "a GNU variant", a matter on which opinions seem to differ. Me, I'm going to stick with Debian's precedent, until given a reason to do otherwise. Particularly given the point made in another message, that there is *more* meaning to labelling it GNU/NetBSD than there is to calling Linux GNU/Linux, since "NetBSD" normally implies that it has nothing much to do with GNU software except the compiler and a few other relatively minor pieces. -- Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
