I personally would prefer OpenBSD to FreeBSD, and when time
becomes available to me, I would be willing to contribute.
However that would not be for at least 2 months, maybe as many
as 4 months.
My main interest is a highly secure and portable system. I like
the secure by default nature of O
Has anyone tried running dpkg and/or apt-get (assuming for Linux) using
BSD's COMPAT_LINUX?
I have never done it before, but maybe dpkg's root (-R) or apt-get
(Options, Run-Directory) could be changed to point to: /emul/linux/
Jeremy C. Reed
I see a strange problem, which I can not explain really.
I build and make install dpkg, changing stuff. But the binary I
execute seems to stay the old one. It seems to hang somewhere in
the background, like cached. I would like to purge that cache to
be able to debug my current version.
Has some
On Fri, 9 Feb 2001, Jeff Sheinberg wrote:
> Wartan Hachaturow writes:
> > When I've been making debhelper port, I've changed calls of "find" and
> > "xargs" to "gfind" and "gxargs", but we should really think about it.
> ^ ^
>
> I think you've got it backwards. This is about `d
I understand that most people here are more interested in
FreeBSD. It would be contraproductiv to keep them on working on
somthing they do not want.
Who wants to work on OpenBSD?
On Fri, 9 Feb 2001, Jeff Sheinberg wrote:
> Jeremy C. Reed writes:
> > > First of all, this *BSD ports base is entirely unnecessary.
> >
> > This makes sense -- especially because the dpkg/apt system is what really
> > makes Debian.
> >
> > > What's needed is a `base' debian-bsd system. T
Wartan Hachaturow writes:
> On Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 11:07:31AM -0800, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
>
> > But many of the BSD /bin and /sbin binaries are not truly compatible with
> > GNU equivalents. So does this mean forcing the Debian packages and Debian
> > routines (like dpkg pre-installation sc
Jeremy C. Reed writes:
> > First of all, this *BSD ports base is entirely unnecessary.
>
> This makes sense -- especially because the dpkg/apt system is what really
> makes Debian.
>
> > What's needed is a `base' debian-bsd system. The basic (/bin,
> > /sbin) *BSD binaries is what is need
* Wartan Hachaturow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [010210 00:53]:
> When I've been making debhelper port, I've changed calls of "find" and
> "xargs" to "gfind" and "gxargs", but we should really think about it.
I think, your second option - install the gnu tools as package
tools - is the most effective and
On Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 11:07:31AM -0800, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
> But many of the BSD /bin and /sbin binaries are not truly compatible with
> GNU equivalents. So does this mean forcing the Debian packages and Debian
> routines (like dpkg pre-installation scripts) to use the BSD tools
> instead?
A
> First of all, this *BSD ports base is entirely unnecessary.
This makes sense -- especially because the dpkg/apt system is what really
makes Debian.
> What's needed is a `base' debian-bsd system. The basic (/bin,
> /sbin) *BSD binaries is what is needed to be packaged the Debian
> way.
I agree
11 matches
Mail list logo
