On Fri, Aug 03, 2001 at 01:43:45PM +, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
> The packages I'm building are probably a bit worse than "aren't totally
> coherent." Quite a few compiled fine, but there are some where I had to
> make changes to run on FreeBSD, and a few where I had to disable things
> like docum
I definitely think the Debian arch specifications should be changed to
kernel/processor duos, since neither the HURD nor this project have
(AFAIK) any specific motivation for sticking to the i386 platform...
=
"I wanted to change the world. But I have found that the only thing
one can be sure
I'm don't follow the Hurd project closely, because it's of limited interest
to me. However, I do try to stay informed.
Here are some obvious differences:
* The Hurd is using glibc, while Debian BSD will need to start with native
libc. The different libc accounts for most of my problems right n
Hi,
I read both debian-bsd and debian-hurd.
The two projects seems to have similar porting issues.
Maybe the two projects could work together on some issues.
--
Thomas Poindessous
EpX asso GNU/Linux de l'Epita
[EMAIL PROTECTED] && http://www.epita.fr/~epx
I'm aware FreeBSD has a different way to handle shadow passwords. The
difficulty is that update-passwd doesn't know that. It thinks it needs some
of those functions to work. Quite a few debian packages rely on
update-passwd to be able to add users and groups, so I'm probably going to
need to lo
The packages I'm building are probably a bit worse than "aren't totally
coherent." Quite a few compiled fine, but there are some where I had to make
changes to run on FreeBSD, and a few where I had to disable things like
documentation, just because I didn't have SGML tools or TeX available yet.
On Thu, Aug 02, 2001 at 09:49:07PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> * shadow.h: FreeBSD doesn't seem to implement the standard shadow password
>functions in it's libc. (No getspnam and friends.) So far, I've learned
> that
>this breaks base-passwd.
shadow password stuff is handled by the
On Thu, Aug 02, 2001 at 09:49:07PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The list has been quiet the last couple days, so I thought I'd post some
> updates from my adventures with FreeBSD:
...
>
> Bad news:
> * utmp: just about everything that compiles against utmp.h fails. Debian
>tools are ex
> * shadow.h: FreeBSD doesn't seem to implement the standard shadow password
>functions in it's libc. (No getspnam and friends.) So far, I've learned
that
>this breaks base-passwd.
note that 4.4BSD 'shadow' passwords exist in /etc/master.passwd. from this
file, /etc/passwd, /
> > Could anyone brief me? Is there a FAQ or anything?
>
> I've been using Debian Linux and NetBSD for several years. I've been on
> this list for about 19 months. As far as I know there is no FAQ, webpage
> or official Debian statements. There has been a lot of discussion about
> what the goals o
> * shadow.h: FreeBSD doesn't seem to implement the standard shadow password
>functions in it's libc. (No getspnam and friends.) So far, I've learned
> that
>this breaks base-passwd.
That made me remember other differences to choose:
- BSD Login Classes / Capabilities vs. PAM-type capab
11 matches
Mail list logo
