ArchQualify needs NFU? Linux only kernel stuff? kfreebsd's fantastic

Hi, I see problems on: http://release.debian.org/lenny/arch_qualify.html I felt kfreebsd was close for release with etch. It seems further away for lenny with the Archive coverage. I suspect this is at least partially due to new NFU packages. Of course the list of unfixed bugs with a patch doesn

Re: New GNU/kFreeBSD install CDs

[...] > I am happy to announce a new version of the GNU/kFreeBSD install CD > for both i386 and amd64. [...] Thanks. I'm not sure if it's worth upgrading or re-installing with one of these new CD images. Besides the kernel, are any stale packages kept during an upgrade (when the last packages we

Getting patches applied. emulated buildd's are good (was: kFreeBSD is "fantastic")

guillem's [0] list of bugs [1] shows the main problem for the kfreebsd porters. 93 "important" (probably release-critical for kfreebsd) with patches available! 105 bugs with patches not applied. Certainly getting in the archive would give them more time though. Should porters be required to NMU?

kFreeBSD is "fantastic"

It seems the largest problem to including kfreebsd into the archive or as an official Debian port is communications. There may be technical or social reasons too, but they're sometimes difficult to identify without enough communication. On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 13:58:42 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On

Article comparing Solaris, Linux and FreeBSD kernels

Hi, For those new to the FreeBSD kernel, but familiar with the Linux kernel, the following quick overview comparison might be useful: "A comparison of Solaris, Linux, and FreeBSD Kernels" by Max Bruning http://www.opensolaris.org/os/article/2005-10-14_a_comparison_of_solaris__linux__and_freebsd_ker

knetbsd maintained? want glibc patched for it?

Hi, Is Debian knetbsd maintained? I know it's nowhere near where Debian kfreebsd is. I ran across the following in bug 213503 that may be of interest to those interested in Debian knetbsd. I haven't checked at all to see if glibc has been patched for knetbsd, but if it has, then the bug could use a

unix compiler symbol not in NetBSD? (zlib's minunzip)

Any comments? Drew Daniels --- zlib-1.2.1.orig/debian/patches/010_NetBSD_minizip +++ zlib-1.2.1/debian/patches/010_NetBSD_minizip @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +This patch is safe, because all Debian systems should be POSIX compliant +enough to have and related headers, whether or not they have +'unix'

debian-bsd port(?) name(s)

[please CC me where appropriate] It's important to remember the bigger "problem" is likely not the uname or the triplet, but the Debian port name and maybe even the arch name. Likely just the Debian Port name as it's the "name" and the rest is technical. It's like someone trademarking the name "ls

Re: status debian/openbsd

Andreas Schuldei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > My point was that there was not so much to win securitywise with this port. OpenBSD appears to be more heavily audited though. Maybe it's just appearance. You may have seen in the Debian Weekly News that I'm working on a rough audit project and in such