(lots of things snipped out)
On Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 04:38:42PM -0600, Dan Potter wrote:
> I recall waay back on Jan 30 when Dan Papasian wrote:
>
> > Same with the rest of the UNIX world. (FreeBSD Included)
> > Things in /usr/local were installed by the user. Things in /usr were
> > installed b
On Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 10:27:34PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> This is presuming that the issues can't be dealt with in libc [or in
> the linux compat library.]
Every issue can be delt with, in some way. If you'd like to fix the
relationship between the kernel so that mismatched worlds and kernel
On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 05:59:23AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> It works fine on most applications, but it's missing a couple things
> (syscall() support, last time I checked -- and I have a vauge recollection
> of something else).
I believe
> Ok. I was hoping that the two forks (Free/Net) would
On Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 01:18:40AM -0600, Dan Potter wrote:
> Dan Papasian wrote:
>
> > man 7 hier will explain the FS layout.
> > Between pkg_add -r and the ports system, I'm not sure what you find lacking
> > about it.
>
> I'm assuming you're involved with the development of FreeBSD (from the
>
On Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 10:13:05PM -0600, Steve Price wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
>
> # Anyways, given this supposedly wonderful support for linux binaries,
>
> It _is_ wonderful! Have you ever tried it?
It works fine on most applications, but it's missing a couple things
(
It looks like APT would be fine to port, but there seems to be some kind
of incompatability between the Linux mmap() and BSD mmap(). It looks like
it's not mmap()'ing nearly the whole file even though that's requested.
Any porting people on here have suggestions on how to get around this?
I've act
On Sun, 30 Jan 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
# Anyways, given this supposedly wonderful support for linux binaries,
It _is_ wonderful! Have you ever tried it?
# perhaps it could be built into something stable enough to support multiple
# bsd kernel versions?
I'm not sure what you mean here. The Li
On Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 06:26:44PM -0500, Dan Papasian wrote:
> Read my essay at http://bugg.strangled.net/debbsd.txt
Hmm.. on Linux this issue is mostly dealt with in the C library.
> I explain why Debian / FreeBSD could be bad to everyone, including
> existing FreeBSD users.
This is presuming
On Sun, 30 Jan 2000, Dan Potter wrote:
# Could I get a copy of that? It might save some trouble if I'm going to try
# this out.
http://www.freebsd.org/~steve/dpkg.tgz
I recall waay back on Jan 30 when Steve Price wrote:
> I did a port of dpkg version 1.4.1.4 about a year ago and
> provided it recently to someone else on this list. I believe
> he used it to build a small set of packages but I don't know
> where they are.
Could I get a copy of that? It might s
Maybe I just sort of used the 'proof by assertion' in that last message
(sorry! =) so I wanted to comment on a few specific points from Dan's
essay.
-FreeBSD development is based on a CVS tree, and virtually
every time an update is performed all of the binaries that
deal wi
I recall waay back on Jan 30 when Steve Shorter wrote:
> There are many other reasons to prefer the GNU tools both
> technical and political. But that is completely NOT the point. The point
> is that *I* want the GNU tools because *I* think that they are better.
> So why can't I have them a
> There are many other reasons to prefer the GNU tools both
>technical and political. But that is completely NOT the point. The point
>is that *I* want the GNU tools because *I* think that they are better.
>So why can't I have them and the Debian package system and the FreeBSD
>kernel? Isn't
On Sun, 30 Jan 2000, Steve Price wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2000, Steve Shorter wrote:
>
> # I would like GNU tools, debian package system, debian userland
> # with a FreeBSD kernel as an "out of the box" thing.
> If you haven't already you might want to install FreeBSD on
> a box next to your
On Sun, 30 Jan 2000, Dan Papasian wrote:
> I'll analyze these one by one.
>
> GNU tools: Which ones, and why replace the existing ones?
> Do you know/care if you have GNU find vs BSD find?
> Can you even tell the difference between GNU cp and BSD cp?
Yeh.
GNU cp
cp some_dir someother_d
I recall waay back on Jan 30 when Dan Papasian wrote:
> Considering the kernel is so interwoven with the OS, it is more feasible
> to take the route of staring with FreeBSD and then worrying about the
> high-level administration tools that make debian feel like debian.
See, I'm once again of two
On Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 06:24:59PM -0600, Steve Price wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2000, Steve Shorter wrote:
>
> # I would like GNU tools, debian package system, debian userland
> # with a FreeBSD kernel as an "out of the box" thing.
>
[[ ... ]]
>
> If you haven't already you might want
On Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 06:37:26PM -0600, Dan Potter wrote:
> This is no big deal (find).
>
> On the other hand, I'd really like to have GNU 'ls'. It has a very nicely
> formatted help screen without hitting the man pages (like most modern GNU
> utils) and it also does color. BSD may do color with
I recall waay back on Jan 30 when Dan Papasian wrote:
> GNU tools: Which ones, and why replace the existing ones?
> Do you know/care if you have GNU find vs BSD find?
This is no big deal (find).
On the other hand, I'd really like to have GNU 'ls'. It has a very nicely
formatted help screen witho
On Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 06:28:54PM -0500, Dan Papasian wrote:
> If I understand properly, FHS is a "linux standard"
>
> I'm not understanding this. There are already UNIX standards out
> there, such as SUSv2, and SysV and BSD systems to study.
>
> It would make more sense for Linux to follow an
On Sun, 30 Jan 2000, Steve Shorter wrote:
# I would like GNU tools, debian package system, debian userland
# with a FreeBSD kernel as an "out of the box" thing.
Which GNU tools would you like on FreeBSD that it doesn't
already provide equivalents for? You'll find that many of
them _are_ th
21 matches
Mail list logo
