On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Gary Kline wrote:
# If the Core members of FreeBSD would agree to fully
# integrate the best of GNU into our BSD, that would be
# outstanding.
I can't speak for -core or FreeBSD for that matter. I speak
for myself. You'll have to ask them what they will
According to Steve Price:
> On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Gary Kline wrote:
>
> # We all come to this table with our own biases; perhaps half of
> # which have some merit.
>
> How about we leave them at the door and save room on the
> table for drawing up plans? Not suggesting that anyone
> hasn'
Based on the discussion we've been having to date, I think one
of the first things we need to do is develop a policy regarding
how Debian should work a "ports" methodology into its existing
system.
My initial thought is that we should base such an animal on
Debian's existing source+diff methods, w
According to Steve Price:
> On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Gary Kline wrote:
>
> # I think that over time (months to a few years) a DebianBSD
> # distribution would attract newer and seasoned users from every
> # corner. Nobody who is hardcore BSD or hardcore Debian is going
> # to be `conv
>
> This does remind me of a question that I had though. You
> mentioned having a new version arrive at an ftp site. How do
> you handle keeping track of older versions? Do you use some
> form of source code control? It would seem from the description
> you provided that aside from the distrib
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Gary Kline wrote:
# We all come to this table with our own biases; perhaps half of
# which have some merit.
How about we leave them at the door and save room on the
table for drawing up plans? Not suggesting that anyone
hasn't, just couldn't resist saying that.
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Brent Fulgham wrote:
[nice synopsis of how dpkg and friends work removed]
# The point of all this is that it should be feasible to formalize the use of
# this tool as something an end-user might be able to use. The "pristine
# source + Debian diff" is very similar sounding (
According to Brent Fulgham:
> > Could it be that a large chunk of the Linux users are not
> > hackers and wouldn't know C from csh scripts that they are
> > happy with drop-in binaries?
> >
> Yes -- this is very true. As Linux has matured, we observe a large shift
> in the user base.
According to Per Lundberg:
> On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Steve Price wrote:
>
> > # As someone told me, I asked on [EMAIL PROTECTED] if there was a glibc
> > # port to FreeBSD. Of course they started the traditional ranting about how
> >^
> > Of course?
>
> I guess I've got q
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Per Lundberg wrote:
#> BTW, I've stayed away from the fine-grain, hair-splitting
#> and spitball-throwing arguments, so what *is* so "wrong"
#> with GNU getopt()?
#
# From a BSD point of view? It's LGPL:ed. Besides, some people seem to
# dislike the long
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Gary Kline wrote:
# I think that over time (months to a few years) a DebianBSD
# distribution would attract newer and seasoned users from every
# corner. Nobody who is hardcore BSD or hardcore Debian is going
# to be `converted' ... and that's fine.
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Steve Price wrote:
> # I was more thinking about stuff like dpkg.. :)
> Done (well almost see my post with the port).
Yeah, I've also done it.
> If you haven't already you'll want to look into CVSup. You
> can get the whole tree or chunks of it given about two minutes
> of
> Could it be that a large chunk of the Linux users are not
> hackers and wouldn't know C from csh scripts that they are
> happy with drop-in binaries?
>
Yes -- this is very true. As Linux has matured, we observe a large shift
in the user base. Linux used to be predominantly a
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Per Lundberg wrote:
# I was more thinking about stuff like dpkg.. :)
Done (well almost see my post with the port). It took about
two hours and that was while watching my three daughters.
My youngest just turned one. I'm not proficient enough with
dpkg to turn one out, but i
For the benefit of non-Debian list readers, I want to explain a few things
about how Debian handles its source builds. Hamish, please correct me where
I misspeak:
To accommodate the various platforms we support, and to provide a nominal
"chain-of-custody" for our software, all uploads involve a f
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Gary Kline wrote:
# Red flag. I've run into miseries with ncurses (and some
# signal-generation code that I ported). I hope you've
# solved that problem here. My wall has enough dents from my
# head, :-)
Not much more to it than this in the port's
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Steve Price wrote:
> There is one entry in INDEX for every port. If you exclude the
> libgnugetopt port itself there are only two that use it. So not
> as many are "poorly written" as you might think.
I was more thinking about stuff like dpkg.. :)
> That is what I wanted.
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Per Lundberg wrote:
# > Actually I think Warner's suggestion has a lot of merit. Put
# > getopt_long and friends that are GNU add-ons that aren't in
# > some of the other libcs in libgnu.a and use BSD's libc.
#
# The problem as I see it, with this solution is that it will re
According to Steve Price:
> On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Gary Kline wrote:
>
> # Anyway, thanks for the port. I'll be interested to see
> # what the source looks like; I'm curious...
>
> Extract the file I sent out, somewhere on your box. I had it
> in /tmp/dpkg/port, but you could just as eas
According to Brent Fulgham:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 03:23:16PM +0200, Per Lundberg wrote:
[[ ... ]]
> >
> Could there be performance advantages achieved when you create a
> platform-specific compile of a particular software entity? For example,
> we all realize the benefits of
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Steve Price wrote:
> # As someone told me, I asked on [EMAIL PROTECTED] if there was a glibc
> # port to FreeBSD. Of course they started the traditional ranting about how
>^
> Of course?
I guess I've got quite some prejudices in this case. No offen
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Gary Kline wrote:
# Anyway, thanks for the port. I'll be interested to see
# what the source looks like; I'm curious...
Extract the file I sent out, somewhere on your box. I had it
in /tmp/dpkg/port, but you could just as easily put it anywhere.
I did it simila
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Gary Kline wrote:
> Makes sense to me to take the easier course for our first-cut.
> Sure, add GNU getopt() and whatever else that's missing from
> the BSD libc.
I will do that at the same time as I debianize the libc package.
> BTW, I've stayed awa
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Per Lundberg wrote:
# As someone told me, I asked on [EMAIL PROTECTED] if there was a glibc
# port to FreeBSD. Of course they started the traditional ranting about how
^
Of course?
# poor GNU getopt is and stuff like that, but I managed to find out
According to Steve Price:
> As Gary alluded too (I think I'm the Steve he's been talking
> about :) I've got a semi-working port of dpkg for FreeBSD.
> It was for 1.4.1.1 so I spent some time yesterday updating
> it to 1.4.1.4 and making an official FreeBSD port of it.
>
> It is still *very* rough
According to Per Lundberg:
> As someone told me, I asked on [EMAIL PROTECTED] if there was a glibc
> port to FreeBSD. Of course they started the traditional ranting about how
> poor GNU getopt is and stuff like that, but I managed to find out these
> things:
>
> * There doesn't seem to be a glibc
According to Per Lundberg:
> On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
> > I'd be interested to know what that is (that people prefer to compile
> > from source). I can't see the advantage myself, especially for large
> > packages
> > like X and libc.
For the huge(er) suites like X11
According to Hamish Moffatt:
> On Sun, Jul 18, 1999 at 11:12:13PM +0200, Per Lundberg wrote:
> > On Sun, 18 Jul 1999, Gary Kline wrote:
> >
[[ ... ]]
>
> That's a fine idea, but my response is always: to whom would this be valuable?
> What is the target audience of the "Debian GNU/FreeBS
>
> On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 03:23:16PM +0200, Per Lundberg wrote:
> > I think this has to with the fact that most BSD people prefers
> > to compile stuff themselves, which makes the package handling quite
> > immature (esp. compared to Debian's, but you probably already know
> > that. :)
>
> I
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Per Lundberg wrote:
# > That's an excellent point -- I'd forgotten about that. How are upgrades of
# > the base system handled?
#
# I don't even know if it's possible (I'm quite fresh in the BSD world, but
# I definitely hope it's doable).
There are several ways actually. T
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
# On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 03:04:30PM +0200, Per Lundberg wrote:
#
# > Yeah, that's one thing. The fact that the base system doesn't consist of
# > packages is also a really annoying thing. Simply put, it's too much like
# > Slackware and too little like
As Gary alluded too (I think I'm the Steve he's been talking
about :) I've got a semi-working port of dpkg for FreeBSD.
It was for 1.4.1.1 so I spent some time yesterday updating
it to 1.4.1.4 and making an official FreeBSD port of it.
It is still *very* rough. Prefixing everything with $(HOST)
i
As someone told me, I asked on [EMAIL PROTECTED] if there was a glibc
port to FreeBSD. Of course they started the traditional ranting about how
poor GNU getopt is and stuff like that, but I managed to find out these
things:
* There doesn't seem to be a glibc port to FreeBSD, so we will probably
ha
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> I'd be interested to know what that is (that people prefer to compile
> from source). I can't see the advantage myself, especially for large packages
> like X and libc.
No, me neither.
> I spent quite a while today talking to a BSD fan I know about th
On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 03:23:16PM +0200, Per Lundberg wrote:
> I think this has to with the fact that most BSD people prefers to compile
> stuff themselves, which makes the package handling quite immature (esp .
> compared to Debian's, but you probably already know that. :)
I'd be interested to k
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> Admittedly I've never done any kernel hacking, but it might be interesting
> to try it :-)
Actually, I've done quite some kernel hacking (I've written a kernel of my
own together with some friends, but that one is really different to this),
so I think
On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 03:04:30PM +0200, Per Lundberg wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
> > Well, perhaps we can help to make it work. What doesn't work?
>
> Some of the syscalls are unimplemented. 'sysinfo', for example (which is
> used by dpkg). Perhaps it would be better t
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> Well, perhaps we can help to make it work. What doesn't work?
Some of the syscalls are unimplemented. 'sysinfo', for example (which is
used by dpkg). Perhaps it would be better to improve the Linux emulation,
so that the rest of the FreeBSD community w
On Sun, Jul 18, 1999 at 11:12:13PM +0200, Per Lundberg wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Jul 1999, Gary Kline wrote:
>
> > So far, just some agreements on a few basics, such as using
> > the BSD (FBSD) Linux-``emultation'' rather than mis-invest
> > endless months in re-inventing wheels.
>
> To be
On Sun, 18 Jul 1999, Gary Kline wrote:
> [[ paring back the noise; esp'ly since you are on a per-minute
> line. (used to be same here) ]]
Oh, it's okay, I'm not on that line right now. When I'm home, I don't even
read my mail. :)
> dpkg requires TeX? (?)
For compilation, y
According to Per Lundberg:
> On Sun, 18 Jul 1999, Gary Kline wrote:
>
[[ paring back the noise; esp'ly since you are on a per-minute
line. (used to be same here) ]]
>
> > Do you have a working dpkg that could serve as a port to
> > FBSD?
>
> Yes. Since I'm on a "pay
41 matches
Mail list logo
