I recall waay back on Oct 13 when Gary Kline wrote:
> Sorry, if this is mis-information, but I believe that the
> DebianBSD project is dead. Or very nearly.
To elucidate, it seems like there were about three or four of us actually
interested in working on getting something going rath
I recall waay back on Apr 05 when Brent Fulgham wrote:
> Darwin is now purportedly available for i386 (or rather, it compiles
> under i386 but may not yet quite work).
[...]
I was having similar thoughts myself. The important thing is that Darwin
is a Mach-based microkernel, much like Hurd. I won
I recall waay back on Mar 15 when Gary Kline wrote:
> It's nice to know that some folks are still pounding away
> at this... prob'ly in the dead of night and solo.
>
> Anything Debian is a win; so is the extrordinary stability
> of *BSD.
Unfortunately for the areas that I
I recall waay back on Mar 15 when Gary Kline wrote:
> Sorry, I don't know what is what and where. From one
> to perhaps as many as 5 people were doing at least
> seemingly ``serious work'' on the project. I've lost
> track.
>
> Anyone else know the latest?
As fa
I recall waay back on Mar 01 when [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 0subscribe
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Does anyone know what's up with these? I'm not sending them... they appear
to be coming from Yaho
I recall waay back on Feb 12 when Dan Papasian wrote:
> It all comes down to this. Use FreeBSD first, make suggestions next.
>
> If suggestions are rejected, continue work on Debian/FreeBSD.
There's no reason to believe that my suggestions (all of them) would be
accepted, since they are persona
Hi self! =)
I recall waay back on Feb 12 when Dan Potter wrote:
> I think this is just Another One Of Those Differences between Debian
> and BSD (or perhaps Linux distros in general and BSD). I think the BSD
> equivalent for the Debian /usr/local would probably be /opt, a
I recall waay back on Feb 12 when Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> OS-Vendor-provided stuff goes in /usr. Anything else installed by
> the admin goes in /usr/local. On FreeBSD, only the base system goes in
> /usr, and all other packages go into /usr/local. To me, that's screwy --
> it makes /usr/local real
You all might find this interesting.
http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-devel-0001/msg00255.html
This is the start of a small discussion on a HOWTO for Debian on
non-Linux. Basically it talks about getting apt and dpkg and compiling
them and such. I will probably try this approach and se
I recall waay back on Feb 01 when Peter M Kahle wrote:
> Well, on Debian you can use a chrooted environment to simulate (for
> example) the stable distribution on a box with unstable, so is this a
> case where using that jail tool that was mentioned on the list would
> help?
Probably.. the prob
I'm going to attempt to kill that other subject line =)
Anyway, I just successfully did a package [U]pdate using dselect/apt and
I'm looking at a shiny new package listing with the default Debian
packages selected, on my FreeBSD box.
I guess the next question is how to test dpkg without destroyin
I recall waay back on Feb 01 when Daniel Burrows wrote:
> Cool. As you said, it's not as optimal -- but I don't know just how bad
> it is :) It's either much less or much more resiliant to a crash of apt
> itself
> (uncommitted changes will be lost, could be good or bad), and may not be that
I recall waay back on Feb 01 when Daniel Burrows wrote:
> It sounds like you didn't get that to work..but if you did, and you got
> decent
> performance, please forward it to [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Hurd has
> some problems with apt due to the fact that it (the Hurd) lacks an msync()
> system ca
I recall waay back on Feb 01 when Dan Papasian wrote:
> I'll say. The return value and the header files.. shouldn't big that
> big of an issue. What, may I ask, does mmap() return on Linux?
> (and if anyone says a caddr_t, I'll kill you)
It returns a caddr_t of course. ;-)
This looks to sum u
I recall waay back on Feb 01 when Dan Papasian wrote:
> Is there a Debian package for every last program? No, there is your
> base deb which contains several. Your complaint is that FreeBSD's base
> OS is too big. That is debated constantly.
Ermm... small correction. There _is_ a Debian packag
I recall waay back on Feb 01 when Dan Papasian wrote:
> It would have been nice knowing this before I worked up a proof-of-concept
> port the other day :)
Ack!!! Have we all done that now? =)
On the mmap man page, the Linux call is almost a subset of the BSD call.
Apparently there is a POSIX sta
I recall waay back on Feb 01 when Nathan Hawkins wrote:
> Personally, I'm not interested in creating another BSD. (Not in the sense
> of Free/Open/Net BSD.) I'd just like to integrate parts of FreeBSD (kernel
> and closely related programs) into Debian. So it could simply be the
> FreeBSD source c
I recall waay back on Jan 31 when Raul Miller wrote:
> You're right. Though that's a fairly constrained case and I
> think it would be fine to have a kernel-specific set of kld*s.
>
> And, I guess that means that linux apps which use /proc/ aren't
> going to work.
There's more to it than that t
Getting back on topic here =)
I recall waay back on Jan 31 when Raul Miller wrote:
> The context is how to produce a debian/bsd system. Someone suggested
> that the changes between different BSD releases would diminish both
> Debian and BSD to the point where neither would be served. I suggested
I recall waay back on Jan 31 when Dan Papasian wrote:
> ... As for the second part of that, what do you mean by:
> "more reasonable ... than it does to ask Linux become a BSD system"
>
> "BSD system" can mean many things. But if you mean the definition
> that I think you mean, then why is it any
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
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
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
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
I recall waay back on Jan 30 when Dan Papasian wrote:
> Since my workstation had motherboard failure, I've been using a box with
> UCB mail and vi ;) Please excuse the fact that I didn't quote messages
> with all of the fancy >'s as much as I could of, it is all being done by
> hand. (I'm going
I recall waay back on Jan 30 when Jerry Alexandratos wrote:
> : > I also don't see why the main hierarchical tree (/, /usr, ...) should be
> : > polluted with code that doesn't come from and isn't maintained by the
> : > distributor.
> :
> : Ahh, but that's just the thing! ;-) All that stuff in t
I recall waay back on Jan 30 when Jerry Alexandratos wrote:
> See, this makes no sense to me. Having worked on more than a fistfull
> of UNIX's, I still cannot fathom why Linux does it different from the
> rest.
>
> I also don't see why the main hierarchical tree (/, /usr, ...) should be
> pollu
I combined the two messages here.. don't want to overflow the traffic
quota here! ;-) Also I apologize if my email address fluctuates -- either
works but I'm trying to transition away from the utexas.edu address.
Gary Kline wrote:
> I believe there are a dozen or two people sub'd to this list an
Hi all, sorry if this isn't a proper message for this list but what the
heck. =)
I just joined on here because at work we are currently using Debian 2.1
for hosting servers, but we really need the capabilities of FreeBSD.
The deal is that we've engineered this really screwy chroot-based virtual
d
31 matches
Mail list logo
