On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 05:03:55AM +0000, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Kevin Kreamer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > In the case of a NetBSD libc, you could use > > > Debian NBSD/NBSD > > > basically having the first half signify which libc is used. > > Wouldn't that be a major retcon? AFAIU the "GNU/" in Debian GNU/Linux > says that we're using GNU userland tools such as cp, mv, diff, cc, > make, nroff, etc. That's prominently visible to users; the libc is a > technical detail that most users wouldn't care about unless it breaks.
Hardly. Guess which *roff, gcc, diff, tar, etc. is there in *BSD? And considering the state of coreutils... not much to boast there. About the only thing that gives any real weight to "GNU/" stuff is glibc - the rest is either common on all free Unices (and GNU doesn't see that as grounds for claim on renaming *BSD to GNU/*BSD) or... well, less than impressive, to put it mildly. IOW, about the only way GNU/Linux as a port name makes sense is "what libc do we have here"/"what kernel does it run on".
