est wishes to everyone else,
>
> Nathan
Sorry to see you go, and many thanks for all that you've done.
--
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,''`.
Debian GNU/kNetBSD(i386) porter
.
AFAIK, the Debian bsd-make started life as FreeBSD's make (mostly, anyway);
the fact that a port of the current FreeBSD make fixes the problem is just
more evidence that these packages are prone to fairly rapid evolution, and
we probably don'
ly using.
Dropped on my TODO list unless someone else wants to grab it first.
Certainly this should help sanitize a lot of... interesting... issues. I
expect that this will be obvious on looking at it, but does it support
arbitrary filesystem types (such as union mounts
state, figuring out how to handle things that come
from other sources in the Linux world and which exist as Essential
packages, and other such fun things. But hey, look at the spiffy RSS feed.
Which will have more than one item on it at some point, I promise. :)
--
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
is the source package that was used to
compile the libc in the origional chroot, right?
--
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&
can fix... #3 probably needs some assistance from someone
> more familiar with libc. I don't recall what the problem was with #2.
>
> As an aside, in case it's not obvious, the apt in my reposit
On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 10:34:56PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 03:11:13PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 11:55:12PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Here are the packages I have so far. Note
he libc12 package (netbsd-libc source) should provide libc. Things
that have just "libc6-dev" and not "libc6-dev | libc-dev" are almost always
worthy of having a bug filed...
--
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
fraid),
they probably aren't anywhere at the moment.
Yet another of the reasons I want to clean it up and start over fresh,
once the hardware is freed up; having stuff without source is nasty. :/
Though there isn't much.
--
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
et update
> > E: Unable to determine a suitable system type
> >
> > (This is 0.6.18)
> >
> > So I need help there :-)
>
> This is almost certainly because you don't have netbsd in the ostable
> file in the apt sources. You need to get your h
weird in failing to
detect it as a the Debian sub-flavor of NetBSD, is that your uname -v
*must* have a certain value, involving 'Debian/NetBSD' as part of the full
name.
I'll try to sit down and pull this out of stuff on the current build box,
later today or tomorr
obvious trouble spots (or, at the very least, whether it
appears to be semi-local to this end, or closer to that end).
--
Joel Bake
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 09:10:50AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 11:51:19PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 08:29:45PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> > > Due to popular demand (or at least, someone asking for it), the debian-bsd
&g
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 11:51:19PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 08:29:45PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> > Due to popular demand (or at least, someone asking for it), the debian-bsd
> > site at debian-bsd.lightbearer.com is back. It's the same stuff that i
hroot area, and some older stuff by Mr. Millan.
--
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,''`.
Debian GN
e 2.0 with GCC
>3.mumble as the primary compiler. But don't take that as gospel...
>
>
> GCC 3.3.x is going to be the only compiler shipped with netbsd 2.0.
> infact, i will be deleting GCC 2.x soon :-)
>
>
> .mrg.
See? Always listen to the people wi
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 08:41:29AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 10:27:34PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> > > > Yes. Less steadily than at times, but still actively. I'm also working
> > > > on
> > > > the naming issue wi
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 02:23:27PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 12:20:20PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> > I see that mjg has already answered this to a fair degree; therefore, I'll
> > mostly only be commenting on things he didn't cover in detail,
iler. But don't take that as gospel...
--
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
bly
bitrotted some, but should be easily fixed back to good working order once
we have a core system back up and running.
Anyone wanting to help Lars with the wishlist bugs on Enemies of Carlotta
would probably speed up getting the lightbearer.com archive back, so if
you happen to like pyth
having an extra vote, and *not* having any votes rank it
behind Further Discussion) appears to be Greek mythology.
None of them could be said to have anything like a solid mandate, though,
given the lack of votes. Anyone seriously object to Greek myth?
--
Joel Bak
= miniunz.o unzip.o
> + ZIP_OBJS = minizip.o zip.o
Er. What about it? I wrote it, a while back, and as far as I know both of
the assertions are still true... really, the better answer would be some
sort of auto-detect of what it *actually* wants, but there isn't much to be
done for that.
--
pstream; I don't claim to be able to
make too much sense of the whole thing. In a very real sense, however, the
'-gnu' tag *is* a 'version'; specifically, that one can use the config
settings for native NetBSD 1.6, 2.0, or a NetBSD
ding email and get their help.
I certainly have no objection to the question "should we deal with this at
all" being asked, but I think it's proper place is on debian-legal, not
debian-bsd, given what it deals with.
--
On Sat, Dec 20, 2003 at 01:18:34PM +0200, Momchil Velikov wrote:
> >>>>> "Joel" == Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Joel> No, it's debian-legal's to decide. To date, they have
> Joel> considered some form of renaming to be th
On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 08:43:35PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 10:07:43PM +0200, Momchil Velikov wrote:
> > >>>>> "Joel" == Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > Joel> On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 07:0
On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 10:07:43PM +0200, Momchil Velikov wrote:
> >>>>> "Joel" == Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Joel> On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 07:02:20PM +0200, Momchil Velikov wrote:
[ snip things appropriate to debian-legal, rather t
Okay, one more time. Hrrrf. This one wasn't (technically) proposed
earlier, but does make sense. Hopefully this is the last update.
On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 08:44:00AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> It has been pointed out that there are at least three other categories
> which it is me
On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 07:02:20PM +0200, Momchil Velikov wrote:
> >>>>> "Joel" == Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Joel> We have been asked, by the folks who own the name, that we do
> Joel> *something* to avoid using it in this context
nd of commentary on Christianity.
If you want to propose some other variant, with at least a few concrete
names as examples, please feel free to do so.
--
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
It has been pointed out that there are at least three other categories
which it is meaningful to include; therefore, please consider this the
revised ballot. My apologies to anyone who has to re-submit.
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 08:34:53PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> So. While things aren'
On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 10:42:27AM +0200, Momchil Velikov wrote:
> >>>>> "Joel" == Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Joel> The proposed naming schemes of which I am aware are as follows:
>
> Joel> 1) Christian demonology
> Joel>
Discworld gods
[ ] Tolkien Valar/Maiar
[ ] Greek mythology
[ ] Famous physicists
[ ] Further discussion
-=-=- cut here -=-=-
Polls open now (roughly 2003-12-19 03:30 +), and will close at
2003-12-22 03:30 + (or roughly 3 days hence).
--
Joel B
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 11:59:10PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> [I am not subscribed to debian-bsd, please Cc: me if you feel your reply
> deserves my attention.]
>
> On Thu, 2003-12-18 at 15:51, Joel Baker wrote:
>
> > "GNU represents the Gnu system, running w
man - Linux gets Lovelace!)
Debian Mach, of course, must be reserved for a FreeBSD-on-Mach port :)
--
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ecause it wasn't considered to be
worth having the argument over, and we were still using quite a lot of GNU
stuff, so figured it wasn't unreasonable to give them due credit (and that
if RMS objected, saying it wasn't "the Gnu system
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 05:16:42PM -0500, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 01:57:15PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 12:44:07PM -0500, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 02:58:42PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> > > >
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 12:44:07PM -0500, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 02:58:42PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> > I really need to sit down and write a proposal / patches for NetBSD to
> > support the 'vendor' sysctl tree, that can be checked usefully. Si
ous Harry Potter reference, but "fear of a
> name increases fear for the thing itself." ;-p
>
> IOW, lighten up, people. Otherwise, we'll be referring to Debian
> GNU/That Which Shall Not Be Named...
Hey, we already covered L
ough of the right letters to do
the first-letter trick, at least once per.
--
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,''
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 11:10:24AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> [I am not subscribed to debian-bsd.]
>
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 08:15:04AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> > Actually, given that I'm a long-time and deep-seated Tolkien geek, I rather
> > like the notion of
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:54:15AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> [I am not subscribed to debian-bsd.]
>
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 06:00:21PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> > Even so, I'm amenable to anyone who can come up with names which are less
> > loaded to random fu
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:51:41AM +0200, Momchil Velikov wrote:
> >>>>> "Joel" == Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Joel> On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 10:33:30AM +0200, Momchil Velikov wrote:
> >> How can the use of ``NetBSD''
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 12:24:31AM -0500, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 05:29:48PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> > My impression is that this will not satisfy The NetBSD Foundation, though
> > they could always suprise me. In part, their objection appears to b
objection appears to be using
the bareword 'NetBSD' in any context other than referring to the current
software produced by the NetBSD Project, taken as a whole.
Much like we normally expect "Debian" to refer either to the project, or
to the entire system, rath
k, by using the name to refer to something other
than it's intended meaning.
Whereas saying "We use , , and from NetBSD" is true and factual,
and uses 'NetBSD' solely in a context of referring to the body of software
produced by the NetBSD project's effo
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 10:40:11PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 11:01:49AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> >> Branden's second proposal of using something from Pratchett did have a
> >>
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 03:09:07PM -0500, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 12:19:10PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> >
> > Having cheated and grabbed an online resource for it from Google, the
> > following possibilities show up (my apologies for the lack of accent
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 08:15:04AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 11:01:49AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
>
> > Of course, I don't really think we should merit religious nonsense with
> > the honour of giving name to the products of Debian labour any
ybe Debian GNU/Pesetas, Debian GNU/Zloty, and Debian GNU/Yen?! All
> hail capitalism! This would be quite fitting right now, since most of
> the western world is celebrating capitalism's supremacy next week (of
> course, some celebrate it rel
gt; > In any event, for any name that doesn't raise trademark issues (and
> > thus potentially jeopardize the entire project), I'd say
> > the choice remains up to those who are actually doing the
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 03:29:31PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 11:11:20AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> > Feel free to propose alternatives from, say, the origional mythology which
> > spawned the concept of daemons as beings which were not inherently good or
ce with the topic tends to indicate that the
same folks who care are very likely to consider there mere *concept* of
a 'daemon' to be anathema, evil, fou
[ If you're being impatient about resolving this, please see the bottom ]
[ of the email for an imporant bit of information... ]
[ snip ]
On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 04:27:27PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 10:29:05AM -0700, Joel
ly with the request.
> On Fri, 2003-12-12 at 21:58, Joel Baker wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 07:49:43PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > >
> > > There might be some changes required to autotools-dev and libtool to
> > > support this platfo
On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 07:49:43PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> ObListPolicy: I'm not subscribed to debian-bsd, please Cc: me in all
> replies that you think may concern me.
>
> On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 23:39, Joel Baker wrote:
>
> > For the porting effort for
On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 11:19:39AM -0500, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 08:54:01AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> > > In any case, I hope I did indicate that I have less experience than many
> > > list posters with threads (although I hope to gain at least a
.]
On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 11:54:09AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> [I am not subscribed to debian-bsd.]
>
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 04:39:47PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> > On December 2nd, I was contacted by Luke Mewburn, on behalf of The NetBSD
> > Foundation, asking
g system.
It is, of course, far from the only option. :)
--
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
scheduler for it, you also know enough, and have enough resources,
to customize an existing OS (or even write one) with that scheduler.
(But then, I view processes as heavyweight threads, rather than threads as
lightweight processes; this causes certain things to be viewed in a very
different
ndation, and it's representatives,
have been both cordial and productive, to date, and that I feel their
request is born largely of having seen an example which they preferred,
rather than any antipathy towards the Debian project
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 11:22:36AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
>
> So. I propose the following, and, barring objections over the next week
> or so, I'll take steps to update what I can to reflect this:
>
> uname -s will remain 'NetBSD'.
>
> uname -v will continu
On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 01:28:03PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 06:46:05PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> > >
> > > Untill we resolve this, please take into consideration to avoid filing
> > > patches
> > > that use "netbsd-i38
On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 02:04:20AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 11:22:36AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> > Indeed. As long as it's documented, people are probably going to be
> > hand-selecting their APT entries, anyway, so it isn't such a big dea
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 03:24:51PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
>
> There are very important technical reasons for these decisions, not only
> "nomenclature correctness" stuff. Let me explain.
>
> On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 11:33:22AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> >
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 03:50:00PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 08:16:35PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> >
> > The NetBSD/native port has been stalled for some time, because I ran into
> > core, required-to-build-lots-of-things applications (tcl8.4, II
On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 09:30:09AM -0800, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Joel Baker wrote:
>
> > > Another thing that is interesting is that most of pkgsrc is usable on
> > > non-NetBSD systems. Many admins use it to have a consistent third-party
> >
On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 09:41:00AM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Hi Joel,
>
> On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 01:50:16PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> > I've been contacted by a member of the NetBSD team, who expressed that the
> > general opinion seems to be that "Debian GN
ve similar quirks). I vaguely wish the userland (or at least the
core libraries and utilities) could detect *older* kernels, and fall back
to legacy support mode (possibly with a deprecation warning that could be
ith NetBSD was a non-POSIX-compliance issue). Which is to say, they're
both portable, useable management tools, and so it isn'
x27;ve missed a large part of what makes Debian so useful to people.
Realistically, we might be able to target Sarge+1, if it's really a
year after Sarge and Sarge releases in, say, a couple of months - *if*
everything goes nearly perfectly. Since that seems pretty unlikely, I&#
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 10:49:42PM +0100, Michael Ritzert wrote:
> Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am 02.12.03 21:51:20:
> >
> > I've been contacted by a member of the NetBSD team, who expressed that the
> > general opinion seems to be that "Debian GNU/
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 04:21:04PM -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
>
> Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> I haven't been following too closely. Could someone explain what the
> >> issue is? Obviously XFree works fine on NetBSD -- I'm using it at th
ng, for those of us using the kernel and libc?
--
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 10:03:11AM -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
>
> Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > While I'd dearly love to see a bit more de-coupling of NetBSD kernel and
> > libc (so that they don't have to be in quite such lockstep, though I&#x
stuff like "where do man pages live", "how
do I call userland utility", etc - most of that is in the NetBSD.cf
patch.
Frankly, to give youa *complete* answer, I'd have to go read the patches
again, myself; it's been almost a year since I worked on them acti
l, to get the horror out of
your brain.
--
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
on NetBSD -current will handle it as well. Until your port
can handle it, I wouldn't trust it enough to call it threadsafe (and yes,
that means no version of Linux prior to NPTL is th
s very much a userland issue, not a libc issue).
The *hard* part was in hunting down build problems and bad assumptions in
something the size of the X codebase. That isn't going to be any
ome fairly real-world situations in mind that would
vastly benefit from have neither of the two, which is why I cared enough to
start working on it, origionally; they're less relevant, now, since I no
lon
this is entirely true. Having found a
couple of fairly major deficienies (__cxx_atexit, [n]ftw), they're quite
willing to work with folks to figure out ways to add support for
is to pull in the threading support that will be
released with 2.0 (some packages simply *will not* build with GNU pth as
pthreads).
--
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
hailand, now, BTW, and will be working to get the new colo
machine for debian-bsd.lightbearer.com set up in the fairly immediate
future.
--
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
not
so useful for first pass.
This is, of course, just my opinion.
--
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
from the
OpenBSD version should contact me off-list.
I think that's pretty much how things stand at the moment...
--
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,&#x
on that has appeared
in -current).
Look ma, threads! (and gcc 3.3.x even appears to have support for using
them :)
--
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
pgpGVUHXyVVOw.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 07:14:48PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 10:08:42AM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 04:52:39PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> > >
> > > You just said it is "*not* GNU-based". Do you
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 04:52:39PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 08:01:47AM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 02:05:12PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 10:17:14PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
> > > >
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 02:05:12PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
>
> [ moved the discussion to debian-bsd ]
>
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 10:17:14PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
> > >
> > > [1] as of now GNU/Hurd and GNU/*BSD only exist in Debian, but we can't
> &
fic stuff, we'd just have to send gnu-common.cf to upstream
> and maintain debian.cf/site.def in debian.
>
> [1] as of now GNU/Hurd and GNU/*BSD only exist in Debian, but we can't
> assume that for a configuration file.
And the NetBSD one is *not* GNU-based, which is even more reason to split
the Debian-specific bits into a different file from the GNU-specific bits.
--
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
pgpb6BFrvwytC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
though I don't think I'd want
to claim we should release with that as the core. Mostly, the question was
"should I schedule a Flag Day and wipe out the current NetBSD archive"
(well, okay, probably 'move it aside' for now), and do a set of builds
based on -current. So far, the concensus on IRC and here seems to be 'yes'.
--
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
pgpTnKFkpOcRd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
nce of not
crossing over each other's work, I'd like to hear other opinions.
--
***
Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/
pgpKUNi9gWCWu.pgp
Description: PGP signature
to the point where you could really
sanely log in and work on a console, probably, so the video stuff hasn't
gotton significant testing. The server-X stuff for 4.2 has been running on
my box for at least six months, though, and seems to be fine :)
--
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
pgph1C1amT7o1.pgp
Description: PGP signature
check this. These Provides entries are in the form:
>
>netbsd-kernel-image-compat-
>
> this is a great idea. i think perhaps even more provides might be
> useful for other kernel options... but you can figure that out later
> i'm sure.
The system is certainly extendable in a coherent manner, or at least
that's my goal. :)
--
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
pgpsLKGilGd4G.pgp
Description: PGP signature
t are intimately tied to the
kernel, and potentially to certain kernel options being enabled.
--
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
pgpCtbLz4VzHW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
nel can provide old interfaces sufficiently well
that having, say, a -current kernel with COMPAT for 1.6.1 means you can
sanely use 1.6.1 libc or kernel-reading tools.
The proposed policy is attached, and I'd *really* like feedback on this,
especially from folks who are more intimately familiar w
BSD's derivative of pmake/bmake, and can't
build with normal GNU make. On the flip side, the netbsd-make package
doens't install 'make', or even offer itself as an alternative, because
Policy says (and sanity requires) that 'make' be able to handle gmake style
Makefiles (whether that means 'gmake' or something else).
--
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
pgpSquNpQjq4t.pgp
Description: PGP signature
re. Closes: #179661
* No longer managed the /usr/doc symlinks.
Enough said, I think. All praise to Doogie. :)
--
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
pgpzaXcUL2AHB.pgp
Description: PGP signature
it beats the living snot out of Linux (conversely, Linux has areas
where NetBSD falls flat on it's face, in comparison :) Much of the benefit
would be lost, if glibc were layered over the top of it, making the port
more a matter of curiosity rather than usefulness.
--
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
pgpTCk4J1uDPZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
be clear.
NetBSD is most assuredly using the native libc; a netbsd-libc (libc12)
package is available from debian-bsd.lightbearer.com.
As for FreeBSD, I know some chunk of work was done on making it use glibc,
and at least one of the active glibc folks is wanting to get a FreeBSD box
to make sure n
1 - 100 of 235 matches
Mail list logo
