Thought I'd send an update with my plans for the freebsd-i386 port.
Short term (this week):
* Clean up patches. Fix changelogs, remove obsolete changes, and
conditionalize anything that needs it.
* Finish fixing some packaging bugs in freebsd packages. Mostly broken
symlinks.
Medium term (wit
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 08:03:35PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > Then that's a bug in the rules of those packages. It's sloppy, and needs
> > to be fixed.
> I agree. Luckily, I kept a list of such packages as I found them. There
> might be more (actually, I would assume that there are more)
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 02:56:38PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> (please CC me on replies)
>
> we have found an interesting problem in Debian package scripts. This is
> related to the behaviour of the Hurd and BSD to create new files with the
> gid of the parent directory, rather than
Andreas,
I'm not sure I understand what your question really is. I know that gcc
3.x requires a fairly new version of binutils. I've been having the best
results with 2.11.93.0.2-1. This version seems to have fixed the
problems I had with debugging symbols, and also seems to work correctly
with C++
I finally made a new tarball for Debian GNU/FreeBSD. You can find it at
http://people.debian.org/~utsl/freebsd-i386/base-20020415.tar.bz2
This is based on FreeBSD -STABLE, so you will need to have it installed.
Apt is working. You'll want to put the following line into your
sources.list:
deb
Anyone interested in picking these up? cvsup depends on it, and if it
goes away it would be kind of inconvenient...
---Nathan
pm3 (#129594), orphaned 85 days ago
Description: Polytechnique Montreal Modula-3
Reverse Depends: pm3 pm3-extra cvsup mentor cvsupd netobjd obliq
Here is an attempt at a shadow library for *BSD. This library provides
getspent, but it reads from /etc/master.passwd. I wrote some code to try to
convert the aging fields, but haven't fully test that part yet.
The next step is write a utility to read /etc/passwd and /etc/shadow, write a
new /etc/
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 11:26:56AM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 11:47:10AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > What I ran into with 5.0 was that there was a define that you set to
> > enable compiling with gcc 3.x, and there were some #ifdef's to make it
> > work. However
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 10:37:41PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 10:11:46PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 06:54:29PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
> > > Two main things:
> > >
> > > 1) FreeBSD 5.0 pre-release... does anyone know if it's GCC 3.x clean?
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 06:54:29PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
> Two main things:
>
> 1) FreeBSD 5.0 pre-release... does anyone know if it's GCC 3.x clean? If
> so, I might futz with trying to do up a chroot based on that, at some point
> here... unless someone else desperately wants to do it or some
On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 02:36:09PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> Joel has mostly-working patches for 4.1.x, at this stage; most of the
> reason that they're not in a .deb is that I need Branden's advice on some
> esoterica about X itself and what it builds. I agree with his priorities,
> however - whi
On Sun, Mar 17, 2002 at 06:55:26PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> This is certainly true. It's a wishlist item, it would be nice if all
> free kernels would use multiboot. I've heard that grub will at least
> be partly rewritten to make some new features possible, it might also
> be the "extra envi
. For now, I'd rather concentrate on fixing the things that
are, in fact, broken. See
http://people.debian.org/~utsl/freebsd-i386/status.html for more info.
---Nathan
On Mon, Mar 11, 2002 at 02:24:55AM +, Tony Finch wrote:
> FreeBSD has a directory /boot too (in -STABLE it holds the stage 3 loader
> and its configuration, and in -CURRENT i believe the kernel(s) and
> modules have moved in there too). So it would seem sensible to make
> NetBSD follow the othe
What did you have to do to it? I looked at it, but didn't have much luck
figuring it out. That source is a horrible mess.
As for the base system:
Take a look at debootstrap. It has lists of packages that it wants to
install. I'm not sure all of them are base exactly, but if debootstrap
wants them,
On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 10:49:17PM +1100, matthew green wrote:
> ps: it seems to me that most people so far have not touched the
> kernel, but rather have been working on userland issues... i dunno
> i just provide a netbsd developer's POV. :-)
I packaged the FreeBSD kernel. It wasn't too bad exce
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 11:26:37AM +1100, matthew green wrote:
>
>I thought sockets weren't affected by read-only filesystem. Just out
>of curiousity, why should they be if the node is already there? There'd
>be no actual writing to the filesystem. Do fifo's not work either?
>
> cr
On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 10:16:44PM +1100, matthew green wrote:
>
>On a separate note, msyslogd builds happily but uses /dev/log as its
>socket by default. The NetBSD logging functions seem to be expecting
>/var/run/log - symlinking the two work, and you can pass an option to
>ms
On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 10:09:37PM +1100, matthew green wrote:
>
>
> FYI:
>
>
> a basic implementation of utmpx has been commited to netbsd-current,
> completely indepedant of any work done here... i don't believe it is
> 100% complete yet.
When I was looking around on Google, I saw mention of
I'd be interested in looking at that patch for PAM. I started on it, but
got sidetracked.
I'm not sure what the right thing for msyslogd. I had thought /dev/log was
standard on Unix systems, but I see that FreeBSD puts in /var/run, too. The
odd thing is that I have it at /dev/log on FreeBSD Debian
On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 08:59:15PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> So... pmake claims to be "BSD 4.4 make", and in fact appears to be a not-
> unreasonable copy of the NetBSD make sources. Is there any particular
> reason that the make-bsd and netbsd-mk packages in the chroot can't be
> replaced by the
On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 04:19:56PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> As best I can tell, with the native NetBSD sys/socket.h, if a problem in
> any way defines (or triggers definition of) _POSIX_SOURCE or _XOPEN_SOURCE,
> anything which calls sys/socket.h will break horribly (since it uses values
> from t
On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 12:55:37PM -0500, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 11:23:20PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I've implemented utmpx for FreeBSD, and placed it under BSD license. This
> > should be a standards-compliant (SUSv2) implementation, that is
> > approximately
I've implemented utmpx for FreeBSD, and placed it under BSD license. This
should be a standards-compliant (SUSv2) implementation, that is approximately
equivilent to the utmp in glibc or Solaris. The major difference from Linux
is that it uses /var/run/utmpx, and getutent becomes getutxent.
I hav
On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 06:34:14AM +, Tony Finch wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
> >
> >I need to look into it a bit more, and figure out exactly what FreeBSD does
> >and doesn't do with this.
>
> Everything you need to know is in /usr/src/sys/kern/imgact_elf.c:
>
> /
On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 11:07:18AM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 01:25:51AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > 4. Drop keeping metadata in package filenames. Make them just a unique
> >string, assigned when the package is installed into the archive.
> >T
On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 12:47:32PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 01:25:51AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I think you could say that a binary's environment is made up these things:
>
> Whatever. The exact set of virtual package names that make up the
> architectur
On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 03:37:36AM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 09:28:35PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Like libc.so.4 on FreeBSD, soon to be libc.so.5? Not compatible with libc5
> > on
> > Linux. It's confusing, but I don't know any good way around it.
>
> Well
On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 04:41:07AM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 02:35:50PM +1100, matthew green wrote:
> >
> >> Also, FreeBSD (and possibly NetBSD as well) uses the ELF OSABI field
> > to mark
> >> it's binaries.
> >
> >The GNU/Hurd does it as well.
On Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 10:34:36PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> (I am not subscribed. You might CC me on interesting threads/sub-threads)
>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "The major oversight is that he completely fails to mention libc. And for us,
> that remains a big issue. Right now
On Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 11:14:18AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> XFree86: Builds cleanly, seems to run. Talking to the maintainer about some
> differences in what it builds between the normal and NetBSD versions, and
> how to resolve those. That is, however, the only obvious remaining issue
> before t
On Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 11:48:56AM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2002, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>
> > Please don't use perl there, I want to get rid of all perl in dpkg.
>
> This is during the build of dpkg. That's a completely different area then the
> running of dpkg.
Yes, it only
On Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 01:44:52AM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > --- dpkg/utils/start-stop-daemon.c Fri Feb 1 23:28:13 2002
> > +++ dpkg-1.10-freebsd/utils/start-stop-daemon.c Fri Feb 8 04:36:55 2002
> > @@ -707,7 +709,9 @@
> >
> > /* WTA: this
On Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 05:39:16PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Please consider this patch, which adds FreeBSD support to dpkg. It is based
> > on a fresh checkout from CVS, so it should apply easily.
>
> Can you please split the patch in multiple parts
Please consider this patch, which adds FreeBSD support to dpkg. It is based
on a fresh checkout from CVS, so it should apply easily.
I added support for wildcards in the archtable to configure, because
config.guess returns i386-unknown-freebsd4.5, and will change regularly. This
seemed like it re
That's interesting. I've been having similar problems with it. I just discoverd
that it would accept either the sources lines or my binaries line, but not
both at the same time. I'm not sure, but I suspect it's trying to match up
source packages with binary packages, and running into inconsistanci
For FreeBSD, I've been using binutils 2.11.90.0.7-2 with gcc 3.0.3-1.
This seems to work well. The newer binutils (2.11.92.0.12.3-6) segfaults when
linking c++ code. Breaks apt, lftp and fakeroot.
I've been just copying getopt into packages for now. Gets them up and running,
so I can get a stable
Hmm. How odd. I got it working on FreeBSD well enough to pass its tests.
I don't recall running into any problem with libc.so.6. I'm using version
0.4.5.
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 03:47:57PM +, Jonathan Amery wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
> >Blech; it would appear fakeroot d
I just got Debian FreeBSD to boot multiuser. Expect a new tarball very
shortly. I have to roll some init script changes back into the packages,
and deal with a problem with ELF branding. I may have to recompile every
package to fix that one, but it'd be worth it.
FYI, this is a packages only insta
On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 09:20:25PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 03:18:49AM +, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> > "Joel Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >
> > > It's apparently being caused by stack corruption... lord knows how THAT
> > > is happening. Time to dig out the
I haven't had the problem you're having with ed, but I have had some problems
with binutils. The current version wasn't linking ok, so I backed down to
2.11.90.0.7-2, which has been stable.
I need to figure out where to set the ABI binutils brands the binaries with.
Right now, everything is gettin
On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 09:02:23PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 02:02:15PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > After hacking on shadow off and on for a few months, I decided to give up,
> > and
> > just use the native passwd tools. I believe the Hurd has it's own tools f
After hacking on shadow off and on for a few months, I decided to give up, and
just use the native passwd tools. I believe the Hurd has it's own tools for
this, so there's precedent.
On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 06:18:13PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On closer investigation, the reason none of the
I think it'd be best to package libiberty from gcc (arbitrary choice). Then
when a package tries to use getopt_long from libc, we patch configure to use
our libiberty package. One library that all three can use, and we should be
able to share the patches to configure.
On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 11:29
I think it would be best if we can agree on a solution that works for all three
BSD's. That could save work, and it would definitely simplify getting patches
merged back into Debian.
Perhaps we should just package libiberty. That takes care of the handful of
packages that try use to use obstack an
On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 01:40:57PM +0100, Andreas Krennmair wrote:
> * matthew green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [02-02-04 13:36]:
> >But behaves differently to GNU getopt_long, as regards its handling of
> >the arguments '-' and '--'
> > it does? this sounds like a bug. it should be compatible.
It's kind of an alternative to nsswitch.conf. I'm not sure why it exists...
It looks like this on FreeBSD:
skaro:/skaro# cat /etc/host.conf
# $FreeBSD: src/etc/host.conf,v 1.6 1999/08/27 23:23:41 peter Exp $
# First try the /etc/hosts file
hosts
# Now try the nameserver next.
bind
# If you have Y
Hmm. Not sure what's going on with Fakeroot there. It worked ok on FreeBSD. If
you get it working, please send me a patch. I'll merge it, and we can try to
get support for both archs merged in upstream.
On Sun, Feb 03, 2002 at 11:02:22PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> I now have a self-hosting D
On Sun, Feb 03, 2002 at 09:39:50PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Two minor changes needed (other than s/freebsd/netbsd) for the sysvinit
> patch - NetBSD's reboot() doesn't seem to do poweroff, so I changed that
> #define to just halt the system, and reboot() takes two arguments, magic
> and a st
On Sun, Feb 03, 2002 at 09:02:57PM +, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> "Jeremy C. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >
> > On Sat, 2 Feb 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > getopt is in libiberty. It's also in glibc, and people have a bad
> > > habit of not checking for that in configure. I'm
Ok, here are patches for sysvinit and fakeroot. Fakeroot I've actually been
able to test, and it appears to work. sysvinit is waiting on me to finish
making my new (cleaner) chroot, and put on another box, so I can try booting.
---Nathan
diff -urN fakeroot-0.4.5/communicate.h fakeroot-0.4.
On Sun, Feb 03, 2002 at 05:59:28PM +0100, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> Markus Brinkmanm (of HURD fame) has written this
> http://master.debian.org/~brinkmd/arch-handling.txt
> which is mandatory reading for us.
You're right, that's a very good document. He's apparently been thinking along
similar li
On Sun, Feb 03, 2002 at 10:48:49AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> > Anything else need adding/updating?
>
> Packaging tool for the BSD kernel, kernel-tools, and libc.
I'm working on a package to do this for FreeBSD. At the moment, it works great
when I build it on FreeBSD, and I'm still trying to get
On Sun, Feb 03, 2002 at 03:42:31PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> This is what we have on the website:
>
> any of the libs in /lib or /usr/lib that aren't currently packaged need to
> be
>
> (still needs doing)
>
> base-passwd is desperately unhappy
>
> (seems happy now)
FYI, there is a bug t
Matthew,
I had to do the patch to environment.mak also. I believe I used Wartan's patch
that was on the list a few months ago.
I had problems with ftp-archive also. At different points, with different
versions, and different versions of g++, it has segfaulted, failed to compile,
and just plain won
I think an essential base package would make sense. If it's a shared library,
it will be required by too many package to make it build-essential. The -dev
package would be build-essential.
On Sat, Feb 02, 2002 at 11:31:42PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 02, 2002 at 10:09:33PM +, M
On Sat, Feb 02, 2002 at 11:58:11AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 02, 2002 at 12:15:46PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I think it might be a good idea to merge them. However, I need to upgrade
> > a bit first. I'm still using 1.9.16.
> >
> > Any thoughts about using wildcards in archt
getopt is in libiberty. It's also in glibc, and people have a bad habit of not
checking for that in configure. I'm thinking about packaging libiberty, and
making patches to check for getopt there. Might be easier to deal with than
fifty separate versions across fifty source packages...
On Sat, Feb
Sorry, but I think a CD release is a long ways away. I believe we're all still
basically bootstrapping, so it'll probably be a while yet before it even boots.
On Sat, Feb 02, 2002 at 01:25:26AM -0800, Gary Kline wrote:
>
>Gents,
>
>It's been great seeing the solid D-BSD progress in the p
I think it might be a good idea to merge them. However, I need to upgrade a bit
first. I'm still using 1.9.16.
Any thoughts about using wildcards in archtable? It'd be nice to be able to say
i386-unknown-freebsd*, and have configure work with that. Much nicer than
putting each release in there.
Here's an interesting message I saw in DWN. This seems to be a realistic
assessment of the the process of porting Debian to a new architecture. Actually
a bit simpler than what I'm presenting dealing with, though.
Anyway here it is:
To: Greg Ingram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: VAX port?
From:
On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 11:21:21PM +0100, Michael Weber wrote:
> * Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-01-30T10:55-0700]:
> > Two or three times now, I've run into bugs that were wishlisted or outright
> > closed because we are not considered an Official Architecture (tm) yet; the
> > determining
y be removed. It's based on FreeBSD 3 and
slink!)
> We can't forget utsl, the guy trying to do FreeBSD all by himself,
> either :-)
Of course not. And we'll see who gets something that boots first! ;-)
Put me down for the FreeBSD port. I am a Debian developer, userid is utsl.
On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 04:56:57PM -0500, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 09:53:12PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > One day, when the Hurd and BSD ports become more mature, we will definitely
>
I have written a patch for base-passwd that makes it work on FreeBSD. It isn't
exceptionally well tested, but it compiles and seems to work. (i.e. Converted
default FreeBSD master.passwd to a Debian-ized one.) I believe it would
probably also work on NetBSD, if the #ifdef's are changed to add NetBS
I know exactly how you feel. I seem to be working on the FreeBSD port alone,
also. Fortunately, some work can be shared back and forth.
On Sun, Jan 27, 2002 at 09:11:51PM +0100, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> * Michael Goetze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [020127 02:37]:
> > Still at it, eh? Mind telling us how
Agreed. It probably was for System V, which different vendors customized.
Hardware vendors don't customize Linux, distributors do.
However, that raises an interesting question: should uname be changed?
On Sat, Jan 26, 2002 at 05:30:29PM -0800, Michael Goetze wrote:
>
> > config.guess returns CP
Working on Debian FreeBSD, I have been putting BSD tools into /usr/bsd/bin, and
using PATH when I need them to build a package. The BSD kernel and libc want to
have the native make, rather than GNU make, so it seemed like an easy solution.
IIRC, Solaris has something similar in /usr/ucb/bin.
I'm h
I'd suggest looking through the diff for the package, and see if you can find
where it's adding the bits you don't want. That's probably the easiest way.
FreeBSD doesn't seem to have any langinfo stuff, or if they do, it's not in
/usr/include. I'm not sure what it's supposed to do, anyway. I suspe
I believe it does support it, but it may not ship with it.
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 01:24:51PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> Having looked into base-files, the only file that seems to be at issue in
> any form is nsswitch.conf - so, in quick summary, does NetBSD:
>
> A) Use this file at all?
>
> B)
> Fully agreed. So perhaps the proposal should expand to include the kernel
> as well as libc packages.
>
> Perhaps:
>
> libc-gnu-6.1
> kernel-source-linux-2.4.17
> kernel-headers-linux-2.4.17
I would prefer something like:
freebsd-kernel-4.3
freebsd-source-4.3
freebsd-libc4
linux-kernel-2.4.1
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 06:24:04PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 09:00:14PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> > Having run into a few packages, now, which have dependancies on specific
> > GNU libc versions (or rather, libc versions, when all that the packaging
> > system understa
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 10:41:16AM +0100, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
> Joel Baker wrote:
>
> >Since we've been going about on this one, I decided that I should post a
> >listing of the current packages I know of, and their status. The list is
> >in three parts:
> >
>
> That's nice.. what about
On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 11:23:57PM -0500, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:
> Please CC me on all replies, even though I am (finally) subscribed. It
> works better with my mail sorting setup.
>
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 09:00:14PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> > Having run into a few packages, now, which have d
On Tue, Jan 22, 2002 at 05:23:50PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2002 at 10:57:26AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 09:31:45PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 11:23:54PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > > > Is dpkg-shlibdeps broken on
On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 09:31:45PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 11:23:54PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > Is dpkg-shlibdeps broken on NetBSD or just FreeBSD?
>
> Well, that patch for using the NetBSD ldd binary. I don't currently have a
> FreeBSD setup of any sort (nor another
On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 03:36:01PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >>>>> "utsl" == utsl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> utsl> This is a good idea. I'm interested in it. Why not simply
> utsl> import the standard Debian source packages
This is a good idea. I'm interested in it.
Why not simply import the standard Debian source packages as vendor branches,
and use the normal CVS facilities to track the changes? This seems simpler than
keeping patches in separate files, as you describe below. Also, it should work
with cvsbuildpacka
On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 01:36:51PM +0100, Wessel Dankers wrote:
> On 2002-01-20 21:58:11-0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> > On a sidenote... I'm a bit worried at the errors I'm seeing out of the
> > shared-lib dependancy autogenerator stuff. Is this still broken? (I don't
> > mind re-building all of the p
Would you mind posting a patch? I'd like to see if I can get your modifications
to work in my FreeBSD chroot.
Thanks,
---Nathan
On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 12:27:23AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 04:27:33AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Ok, it turns out that t
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 02:47:40PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
> Hi. I'm not sure I see any conclusion to the apt thread. Does anyone
> have apt-get working (instead of segfaulting) using the apt in the
> distributed chroot? If so, how? If not, does anyone have apt working
> using other builds
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 03:12:30PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "Jeremy" == Jeremy C Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Jeremy> It all depends on your (or RMS's) personal definition of
> Jeremy> "freedom". Definitely BSD websites promote free software
> Jeremy> -- in fact, they
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 05:48:48PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 02:46:29AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > That approach gets rid of a lot of hassles associated with upgrading the
> > > sources, and allows people to rebuild their kernel and core system. You
> > > just
> Mind you, I don't think it's worth having a protracted flame war over.
Then let's just kill the thread now. Until it's a lot closer to a release,
discussing what the name should be seems a bit pointless.
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 04:27:33AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 09:16:10PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > * On the webpage, you mention problems with shadow:
> > I had the exact same problem with FreeBSD, and I see two choices. Either use
> > native passwd, adduser,
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 03:38:04PM +1100, matthew green wrote:
>
>utilities and libraries NEED to be built together with the kernel. It's a
>feature in the BSD world. It'd be easer to keep them in sync if they're
> built
>
>
> hmm, i wouldn't call it a feature :-) certainly in NetBS
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 02:46:29AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 09:16:10PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > * About packaging from /usr/src:
> > I had been planning on writing something similar to kernel-package for
> > FreeBSD.
> > The basic idea was to do a make bui
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 02:35:04AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> I've added a webpage (http://debian-bsd.sourceforge.net/why.html) with
> some reasons why I think this project is worthwhile. Does anyone have any
> objection to any of the reasons listed or have any suggestions for extra
> ones tha
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 12:08:00AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> I've now uploaded the web page to http://debian-bsd.sf.net and am
> redirecting people there from the old location. It's also reminded me that
> there's currently several libs in the chroot that are just copied in there
> rather tha
I have just put my FreeBSD box back online. So for anyone who's interested,
my Debian/FreeBSD chroot tar and debs are available at
ftp://trantor.utsl.org/pub
Unfortunately I haven't had time to work on this for a few months.
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 03:29:33PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Ther
How about being just a little bit more generic: Use an ABI tag, and let
kernel or library packages provide that ABI. Then, when you enable Linux binary
emulation on that NetBSD kernel, have it provide both "abi-netbsd" and
"abi-linux". At that point, it could allow packages for either to be
install
I just put my chroot into a tar. You'll need a working FreeBSD 4.x system to
check it out. I'm using FreeBSD
4.3, so that's most likely to work.
Go to ftp://skaro.quic.net/pub. You'll see world.tar.bz2, which is the chroot,
and a debs directory.
On Wed, Oct 24, 2001 at 07:52:58PM -0700, Santia
I have gcc and binutils in my FreeBSD chroot. If I get a chance, I'll make a
tar of it before I go on vacation, but I probably won't have time. :-(
I've attached the dpkg -l from my chroot. These packages mostly work, but there
are a few that aren't working yet. I've begun packaging FreeBSD compon
That's what it looked like in CVS. I briefly considered trying to port ldd from
NetBSD. They are implemented very differently. On NetBSD ldd does all the work,
while on Linux and FreeBSD, it is just a wrapper around ld.so. The difference
is that the ld.so on Linux has a workaround for shared librar
I'm using dpkg 1.9.16, which I believe was from unstable. I checked CVS, and it
looked like 1.9.16 had just been released when I got it. I'm using testing and
sid, for the most part. I had to downgrade a few things, like gcc and perl,
because I couldn't get the latest versions to compile. So for n
That's a good idea. I should subscribe to some of those lists, anyway. But now
that I have it working with ldconfig -r, I don't think it'll be necessary to
hack ldd.
Now if I could just figure out how to handle utmp... :-)
On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 01:11:04PM -0500, Steve Price wrote:
> On Sat, Aug
The list has been quiet the last couple days, so I thought I'd post some
updates from my adventures with FreeBSD:
Good news:
* I built my first package in the chroot. Bash was giving me problems with
libreadline, so I decided to try it in the chroot, and it worked. I had to
force install it
I'm in favour of improving things where possible. I'm also in favour of staying
reasonably compatible unless there's a compelling reason not to. Personally,
I think the ability to use scripts from /etc/init.d after booting is more
important than the details of how init runs them. Whether I use the
There are changes that would need to go in for utmp. Those affects sysvinit,
and the who program in the shellutils. Probably some other packages as well.
I had more problems with a handful of packages that were written for Debian,
because they assume that all of the libiberty functions are in the
I couldn't get gcc 3.0 to build. As for aims: this isn't exactly going to get
released with woody, or very likely with the next one. I'm going with anything
that I can get to work for right now.
On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 04:53:44PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 12:51:17AM +
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
