On Sat, Feb 19, 2000 at 01:36:36PM -0500, Dan Papasian wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 19, 2000 at 02:47:34PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > And why not? Try reading the FHS -- there's rationale in there for
> > everything. It all makes perfect sense to me -- /usr/local/var is a load
> > of crap, if you wan
On Sat, Feb 19, 2000 at 02:47:34PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> And why not? Try reading the FHS -- there's rationale in there for
> everything. It all makes perfect sense to me -- /usr/local/var is a load
> of crap, if you want to label something.
Make /usr/local/var a symlink then to /var.
_lo
On Sat, Feb 19, 2000 at 02:28:47PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> Sorry, Debian isn't in the business of repeating UNIX mistakes.
What UNIX mistakes are you referring to?
I recall Linus making Linux so he could get a UNIX without paying
through his teeth- apparently _he_ thinks that there is noth
On Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 10:55:21AM -0500, Dan Papasian wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 09:33:17PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 06:32:35PM -0500, Dan Papasian wrote:
> > > Can you even tell the difference between GNU cp and BSD cp?
> >
> > Yes, no cp -a on FreeBSD (not
On Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 10:51:37AM -0500, Dan Papasian wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 09:31:55PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > Those are weird directories. /usr is by definition (in the FHS
> > anyway) fairly static -- so /usr/local/var is a contradiction to me.
>
> The FHS is a load of crap.
On Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 06:28:54PM -0500, Dan Papasian wrote:
> If I understand properly, FHS is a "linux standard"
>
> I'm not understanding this. There are already UNIX standards out
> there, such as SUSv2, and SysV and BSD systems to study.
>
> It would make more sense for Linux to follow an
On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 02:43:52PM -0500, Dan Papasian wrote:
> The GPL prohibits companies from using the software and improving/distributing
> it, unless they want to give away all of their changes. I don't see how that
> allows EVERYBODY to use the software.
No, that's not it. If you sell the
On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 04:11:01PM -0500, Dan Papasian wrote:
> Well, sendmail is in the base OS, yes. So you'll have to add
> sendmail_enable="NO" to rc.conf or whatnot, not a big hack.
>
> And for deleting it, I'm not sure where the baggage is besides the
> actual binary.
But the exim port can
On Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 03:45:23PM -0600, Dan Potter wrote:
> (...) The /usr/local/var thing is
> still a problem there of course since you wouldn't want stuff installed in
> /usr/local to dump things into /var but I don't know how that's resolved.
/var/local
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
On Sat, 12 Feb 2000, Dan Papasian wrote:
>
> The FHS is a load of crap. There are plently of standards existing
> beforehand for the layout of the UNIX filesystem.. Linux, aiming to act
> exactly like a UNIX, should follow these, not set their own standards.
>
Plenty of standards? Isn'
On Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 09:33:17PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 06:32:35PM -0500, Dan Papasian wrote:
> > Can you even tell the difference between GNU cp and BSD cp?
>
> Yes, no cp -a on FreeBSD (not on 3.3, I just checked).
Do any specifications dictate this feature? W
On Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 09:31:55PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> separation which BSD does, which is good IMHO. But I don't know
> FreeBSD well enough to be sure about any of this.
It all comes down to this. Use FreeBSD first, make suggestions next.
If suggestions are rejected, continue work on
Looks like we need to define some terms here.
Everything below /usr (stand, bin, sbin) are what is required
for an admin trying to get the system back up and running with /usr..
In other words, these are the files that are needed to _boot_ the system.
Then on /usr you have the minimum files needed
On Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 06:32:35PM -0500, Dan Papasian wrote:
> Can you even tell the difference between GNU cp and BSD cp?
Yes, no cp -a on FreeBSD (not on 3.3, I just checked).
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB. CCs of replies on mailing lists are welcome.
On Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 02:16:16PM -0500, Dan Papasian wrote:
> You seem to imply that Debian would be bringing stability to FreeBSD.
> Isn't stability already there? Please elaborate.
Let's not have an argument about stability -- I have never seen any
proof that one is more stable than the other
On Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 01:58:49AM -0600, 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, as someone
> mentioned offhand e
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, as someone
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
On Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 01:18:49PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 03:58:59AM -0500, 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.
>
> O
On Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 01:52:49PM -0500, Dan Papasian wrote:
> Considering with Debian you have a hodepodge of packages from different
> vendors,
Yes, but our policy and the Linux filesystem standard (FHS) ensure
that they appear to come from one vendor -- Debian. Yes, we modify
upstream sources
On Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 03:58:59AM -0500, 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.
OS-Vendor-provided stuff goes in /usr. Anything else installed by
the admin g
Unprotected? Oh please.
The GPL doesn't prohbit forks, either. I'm not saying anyone can't do anything,
but I'm showing how you all could be _considerate_ to another project.
I not once said that it couldn't be done. But it would be best for everyone
for it to be done how I may have stated in t
I'm not a fanatic, no.
I don't even know why licenses were brought up. But they were.
My friend Eivind Elkund is the best at explaining the faults of the GPL,
and I saved one of his explainations and it is as follows:
--- cut here ---
I don't hate the BSD license, I just think that the GPL i
On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 02:43:52PM -0500, Dan Papasian wrote:
> The GPL prohibits companies from using the software and improving/distributing
^^^
> it, unless they want to give away all of their changes. I don't see how that
> allows EVERYBODY to
If someone belives in free software, I'd prefer they'd just improve the
existing code base than fork it, unless there is a _distinct_ difference
in intent and plans for the future.
The GPL prohibits companies from using the software and improving/distributing
it, unless they want to give away all
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
On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 10:44:05PM -0600, Dan Potter was heard to say:
> Actually it looks like it works ok (at least on read-only, I haven't
> managed to get far enough through apt to test it fully). It's really brute
> force though =). It just reads the whole file into memory and then lets
> you
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
On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 08:55:02PM -0600, Dan Potter was heard to say:
> play. Apt needs to be cleaned up 'cause I really hosed that one trying to
> make it not use mmap at all for now.
It sounds like you didn't get that to work..but if you did, and you got decent
performance, please forward it
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
On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 08:55:02PM -0600, Dan Potter wrote:
> Linux --
>#include
>#include
>
>caddr_t mmap(void *start, size_t length, int prot , int
>flags, int fd, off_t offset);
>
> BSD --
> #include
> #include
>
> void *
> mmap(void
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
On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 08:39:56PM -0500, Jeff Sheinberg wrote:
> So, show me the port for sendmail.
sendmail is in the base OS. MySQL, which you used for your example, is
not.
> The Debian package maintainer takes care of these `insignificant
> details'. Since there is no BSD port of sendmail,
Dan Papasian writes:
> On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 02:26:16PM -0500, Jeff Sheinberg wrote:
> > The Debian package maintainer insures that upgrading mySQL from a
> > prior version goes smoothly.
> >
> > The Debian package maintainer insures that replacing mySQL with a
> > package of equivalent fu
On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 04:11:01PM -0500, Dan Papasian wrote:
> What do you think the port maintainer does?
Actually, one thing I've been wanting to do for awhile is build a variant
install (or, more likely, a wrapper for install) which registers what
it does in the dpkg database. The package nam
On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 07:38:55PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 03:32:30PM -0500, Dan Papasian wrote:
> > Bill Jolitz fathered 386BSD.
>
> Which, as I understand it, was the starting point for NetBSD, FreeBSD
> and OpenBSD.
When Jolitz abandoned 386BSD, various patchkits ev
On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 10:09:57PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > What did Jolitz write?
On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 03:32:30PM -0500, Dan Papasian wrote:
> Bill Jolitz fathered 386BSD.
Which, as I understand it, was the starting point for NetBSD, FreeBSD
and OpenBSD.
--
Raul
On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 05:34:55PM -0600, Steve Price wrote:
> #
> # Strange, you brag about the freedom of the BSD license, but when
> # someone proposes to play with your little toy with its neon `play
> # with me tag', you immediately begin to scream that your toy is
> # about to be violated by
#
# Strange, you brag about the freedom of the BSD license, but when
# someone proposes to play with your little toy with its neon `play
# with me tag', you immediately begin to scream that your toy is
# about to be violated by a rapist!
#
Please! I never said anything like this! These words a
On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 04:44:46PM -0600, Dan Potter was heard to say:
> > There's nothing getting done, so far
> > as I know. (I'm waiting on some hardware that I should have had back in
> > early December. I don't know much about what anyone else is doing, because
> > this list has mostly been di
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
On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 02:26:16PM -0500, Jeff Sheinberg wrote:
> The Debian package maintainer insures that upgrading mySQL from a
> prior version goes smoothly.
>
> The Debian package maintainer insures that replacing mySQL with a
> package of equivalent functionality goes smoothly.
>
> The Deb
On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 11:10:10PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> You mean this thing?
>
> $ apt-cache search jail
> jail - Just Another ICMP Logger
> $
No, he means jail the syscall and the program- much like chroot
except even root in a jailed enviorment can't get out of it, in any way.
And you
On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 10:09:57PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> What did Jolitz write?
Bill Jolitz fathered 386BSD.
He abandoned it because Sun Microsystems (whoever they are ) was taking
up more of his time.
-Dan
Steve Price writes:
> As for putting things like mySQL in /usr. You can still do this
> with the following command on FreeBSD.
>
> cd /usr/ports/databases/mysql322-server
> make PREFIX=/usr install
>
> Or
>
> pkg_add -p /usr -r mysql-server-3.22.30
The point is not _whe
Gary Kline writes:
> On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 03:01:35PM +, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
> > I really wish that the FreeBSD advocates on this list would realize that
> > there isn't a real desire to fork the system. But it could happen, and the
> > most likely reason would be if FreeBSD refuses patche
Raul Miller writes:
> On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 12:22:55AM -0600, Dan Potter wrote:
> > >] apropos jail
> > jail(2) - Imprison current process and future decendants
> >
> > This is different, it's a FreeBSD 4.0 kernel-based thing. It's much more
> > powerful than chroot but similar. It's chroot plus
On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 12:22:55AM -0600, Dan Potter wrote:
> >] apropos jail
> jail(2) - Imprison current process and future decendants
>
> This is different, it's a FreeBSD 4.0 kernel-based thing. It's much more
> powerful than chroot but similar. It's chroot plus it restricts root's
> capabiliti
On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 03:01:35PM +, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
>
> Now this is actually worthwhile discussion... :-)
>
> Dan Potter writes:
>
> > 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
Now this is actually worthwhile discussion... :-)
Dan Potter writes:
> 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
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
On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 07:51:45PM -0500, Dan Papasian wrote:
[ snip ]
: "BSD system" can mean many things. But if you mean the definition
: that I think you mean, then why is it any more reasonable to expect
: BSD to become a Linux system (In the case of Debian/FreeBSD) then it
: is to expect L
On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 09:46:15PM -0600, Dan Potter wrote:
> I don't think this would address the issue properly either. For one thing,
> there are some pieces to the system that simply have to be FreeBSD
> binaries, like the kld* utils.
You're right. Though that's a fairly constrained case and
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
On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 07:56:04PM -0500, Dan Papasian wrote:
> Are you suggesting to use the linux compatiblity mode to make
> mismatched worlds and kernels less of a problem? I'm not seeing the
> logic in that.
The context is how to produce a debian/bsd system. Someone suggested
that the changes
On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 07:51:45PM -0500, Dan Papasian wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 07:36:52PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Perhaps fork is the wrong term for a split which occurred because
> > the primary author did a rewrite.
>
> Primary author of what?
What did Jolitz write?
> "BSD syste
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
On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 07:49:22PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > Anyways, given this supposedly wonderful support for linux binaries,
> > > perhaps it could be built into something stable enough to support
> > > multiple bsd kernel versions?
> >
> > What is "it"? I'm not too sure what you are ref
On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 07:36:52PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Perhaps fork is the wrong term for a split which occurred because
> the primary author did a rewrite.
Primary author of what?
> I still think they should merge, however. They very much seem to
> dovetail.
Well, every day work is sha
On Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 10:27:34PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > This is presuming that the issues can't be dealt with in libc [or in
> > the linux compat library.]
On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 04:16:37PM -0500, Dan Papasian wrote:
> Every issue can be delt with, in some way. If you'd like to fix the
>
On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 04:11:09PM -0500, Dan Papasian wrote:
> Free/Net would unfork? There never really was a fork per se.
> after Jolitz abandoned 386BSD, people posted patches for everyone to use.
>
> Eventually these patch kits became two OSs- neither forked from another.
Perhaps fork is the
(lots of things snipped out)
On Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 04:38:42PM -0600, Dan Potter wrote:
> I recall waay back on Jan 30 when Dan Papasian wrote:
>
> > Same with the rest of the UNIX world. (FreeBSD Included)
> > Things in /usr/local were installed by the user. Things in /usr were
> > installed b
On Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 10:27:34PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> This is presuming that the issues can't be dealt with in libc [or in
> the linux compat library.]
Every issue can be delt with, in some way. If you'd like to fix the
relationship between the kernel so that mismatched worlds and kernel
On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 05:59:23AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> It works fine on most applications, but it's missing a couple things
> (syscall() support, last time I checked -- and I have a vauge recollection
> of something else).
I believe
> Ok. I was hoping that the two forks (Free/Net) would
On Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 01:18:40AM -0600, Dan Potter wrote:
> Dan Papasian wrote:
>
> > man 7 hier will explain the FS layout.
> > Between pkg_add -r and the ports system, I'm not sure what you find lacking
> > about it.
>
> I'm assuming you're involved with the development of FreeBSD (from the
>
On Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 10:13:05PM -0600, Steve Price wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
>
> # Anyways, given this supposedly wonderful support for linux binaries,
>
> It _is_ wonderful! Have you ever tried it?
It works fine on most applications, but it's missing a couple things
(
On Sun, 30 Jan 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
# Anyways, given this supposedly wonderful support for linux binaries,
It _is_ wonderful! Have you ever tried it?
# perhaps it could be built into something stable enough to support multiple
# bsd kernel versions?
I'm not sure what you mean here. The Li
On Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 06:26:44PM -0500, Dan Papasian wrote:
> Read my essay at http://bugg.strangled.net/debbsd.txt
Hmm.. on Linux this issue is mostly dealt with in the C library.
> I explain why Debian / FreeBSD could be bad to everyone, including
> existing FreeBSD users.
This is presuming
On Sun, 30 Jan 2000, Dan Potter wrote:
# Could I get a copy of that? It might save some trouble if I'm going to try
# this out.
http://www.freebsd.org/~steve/dpkg.tgz
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
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
> 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 and the Debian package system and the FreeBSD
>kernel? Isn't
On Sun, 30 Jan 2000, Steve Price wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2000, Steve Shorter wrote:
>
> # I would like GNU tools, debian package system, debian userland
> # with a FreeBSD kernel as an "out of the box" thing.
> If you haven't already you might want to install FreeBSD on
> a box next to your
On Sun, 30 Jan 2000, Dan Papasian wrote:
> I'll analyze these one by one.
>
> GNU tools: Which ones, and why replace the existing ones?
> Do you know/care if you have GNU find vs BSD find?
> Can you even tell the difference between GNU cp and BSD cp?
Yeh.
GNU cp
cp some_dir someother_d
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
On Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 06:24:59PM -0600, Steve Price wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2000, Steve Shorter wrote:
>
> # I would like GNU tools, debian package system, debian userland
> # with a FreeBSD kernel as an "out of the box" thing.
>
[[ ... ]]
>
> If you haven't already you might want
On Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 06:37:26PM -0600, Dan Potter wrote:
> 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 without hitting the man pages (like most modern GNU
> utils) and it also does color. BSD may do color with
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
On Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 06:28:54PM -0500, Dan Papasian wrote:
> If I understand properly, FHS is a "linux standard"
>
> I'm not understanding this. There are already UNIX standards out
> there, such as SUSv2, and SysV and BSD systems to study.
>
> It would make more sense for Linux to follow an
On Sun, 30 Jan 2000, Steve Shorter wrote:
# I would like GNU tools, debian package system, debian userland
# with a FreeBSD kernel as an "out of the box" thing.
Which GNU tools would you like on FreeBSD that it doesn't
already provide equivalents for? You'll find that many of
them _are_ th
I'll analyze these one by one.
GNU tools: Which ones, and why replace the existing ones?
Do you know/care if you have GNU find vs BSD find?
Can you even tell the difference between GNU cp and BSD cp?
Some GNU tools are used now, like gcc, awk, and diff.
Debian package system: We are addressing t
If I understand properly, FHS is a "linux standard"
I'm not understanding this. There are already UNIX standards out
there, such as SUSv2, and SysV and BSD systems to study.
It would make more sense for Linux to follow an existing UNIX standard
than create their own.
-Dan Papasian
<[EMAIL PROTE
On Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 04:38:42PM -0600, Dan Potter 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.
On Sun, 30 Jan 2000, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
>
> Oki :
> Debian FreeBSD/FreeBSD will install to /usr/local/
> Debian GNU/Linux will install to /usr/
> Debian GNU/Hurd will install to /
> Debian CygWin/NT will use C:\Program Files
>
> Is this acceptable solution ?
> (nothing is using /opt/ yet
On Sun, 30 Jan 2000, Dan Papasian wrote:
>
> As a contributor to FreeBSD, I need specific things that you'd like
> us to fix. FreeBSD has a good stability record too..
> The message I'm getting (Which I'm damn near positive you don't want
> to send) is "Well FreeBSD is great but it isn't debi
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
On Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 01:52:49PM -0500, Dan Papasian wrote:
> It isn't a bad thing. But the UNIX way always has been put the
> software that is part of the base OS's into /usr, and software installed
> over it into /usr/local.
>
> Considering with Debian you have a hodepodge of packages from d
On Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 01:52:49PM -0500, Dan Papasian wrote:
> It isn't a bad thing. But the UNIX way always has been put the
> software that is part of the base OS's into /usr, and software installed
> over it into /usr/local.
>
> Considering with Debian you have a hodepodge of packages from d
On Sun, 30 Jan 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
# On Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 01:52:49PM -0500, Dan Papasian wrote:
# > It isn't a bad thing. But the UNIX way always has been put the
# > software that is part of the base OS's into /usr, and software
# > installed over it into /usr/local.
#
# Remember that th
On Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 01:52:49PM -0500, Dan Papasian wrote:
> It isn't a bad thing. But the UNIX way always has been put the
> software that is part of the base OS's into /usr, and software
> installed over it into /usr/local.
>
> Considering with Debian you have a hodepodge of packages from
> di
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 to install mutt after I finish this)
From: Dan Potter <[EMAIL
It isn't a bad thing. But the UNIX way always has been put the
software that is part of the base OS's into /usr, and software installed
over it into /usr/local.
Considering with Debian you have a hodepodge of packages from different
vendors, the logical solution to keep with unix tradition would
On Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 03:33:03AM -0600, Dan Potter wrote:
> : Ahh, but that's just the thing! ;-) All that stuff in the main tree _does_
> : come from the distributor -- which in this case is Debian. This is
>
On Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 04:37:46AM -0500, Jerry Alexandratos wrote:
> No, it's bundled
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
On Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 03:33:03AM -0600, Dan Potter wrote:
: 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
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
On Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 01:18:40AM -0600, Dan Potter wrote:
: As far as I can tell, in Debian, everything that goes into /usr is
: something installed by the system. Of course this includes most of the
: useful parts of the operating system since Debian includes not one, not
: ten, but at least twe
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
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
