On Wed, 21 Jul 1999, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
# On Tue, Jul 20, 1999 at 08:04:49AM -0500, Steve Price wrote:
# > Same goes for FreeBSD. Many ports have knobs but we only ship
# > a package for them with a single set. You want different ones,
# > we either create multple ports (a2ps-${PAPER_SIZE}) o
On Tue, Jul 20, 1999 at 08:04:49AM -0500, Steve Price wrote:
> Same goes for FreeBSD. Many ports have knobs but we only ship
> a package for them with a single set. You want different ones,
> we either create multple ports (a2ps-${PAPER_SIZE}) or you grab
> the port's sources and tweak them yours
On Tue, 20 Jul 1999, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
# For the benefit on non-Debian folks: dpkg just knows how to install,
# manipulate, and remove .deb packages. It doesn't know how to download them,
# and it isn't very intelligent about installing them in the correct order.
# There's a front-end gui call
On Tue, 20 Jul 1999, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
# A query about the ports: when they fetch source via FTP, do they have
# an exact version they need, or will they search for the newest and attempt
# to use it?
The majority of the time they get only the one they need. No
searching, no fuss, it is all
On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 03:48:25PM -0500, Steve Price wrote:
> the wire. The Ports Collection tree is the "source" people
> like Satoshi, Justin, Garrett, and myself use to build the
> packages. Since the tree is available to everyone many of
> the more accomplished hacker types took to using the
On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 11:41:14AM -0700, Brent Fulgham wrote:
> 3. If it is determined that having the raw source is very desirable for
> certain packages, it should be possible to use the dpkg-source tool as a
> basis for dpkg to handle the install and build of packages. Our
> autobuilders (at
On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 09:23:26PM -0700, Gary Kline wrote:
> Yeah, but what's particularly funny here is that a good
> chunk of BSD relies | defaults to things-GNU. gcc, g++,
> RCS, ispell, and on and on and on.
True, but there are a lot of tools which ARE available in GNU versi
According to Hamish Moffatt:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 02:39:15PM -0700, Gary Kline wrote:
> > If the Core members of FreeBSD would agree to fully
> > integrate the best of GNU into our BSD, that would be
> > outstanding.
>
> Perhaps, but I think there are many BSD users who would n
According to Hamish Moffatt:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 05:50:00PM -0500, Steve Price wrote:
> > Linux has a sex appeal that BSD doesn't. Many of the "newer,
> > intell..." have an easier time equating themselves with Linus
> > (and some want to be just like him), but few see themselves
> > hanging
On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 02:39:15PM -0700, Gary Kline wrote:
> If the Core members of FreeBSD would agree to fully
> integrate the best of GNU into our BSD, that would be
> outstanding.
Perhaps, but I think there are many BSD users who would not be impressed
with a GNU invasion
On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 02:11:47PM -0500, Steve Price wrote:
> like your xterm's background blue and I like my compiler to be
> egcs just isn't an effort I'm interested in.
No argument there -- Debian 2.2 has egcs installed as /usr/bin/gcc.
I think we would have done that in Debian 2.1 as well, b
On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 10:59:35AM -0500, Steve Price wrote:
> BTW, what does FHS mean? Something like 'man 7 hier' on a
> BSD box?
Very much like that. It explains what should go where on the file system
and the rationale. I can't find a URL for it just at the moment though.
Hamish
--
Hamish
On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 05:50:00PM -0500, Steve Price wrote:
> Linux has a sex appeal that BSD doesn't. Many of the "newer,
> intell..." have an easier time equating themselves with Linus
> (and some want to be just like him), but few see themselves
> hanging out with a 50+ year old hippy with a g
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Gary Kline wrote:
# If the Core members of FreeBSD would agree to fully
# integrate the best of GNU into our BSD, that would be
# outstanding.
I can't speak for -core or FreeBSD for that matter. I speak
for myself. You'll have to ask them what they will
According to Steve Price:
> On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Gary Kline wrote:
>
> # I think that over time (months to a few years) a DebianBSD
> # distribution would attract newer and seasoned users from every
> # corner. Nobody who is hardcore BSD or hardcore Debian is going
> # to be `conv
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Brent Fulgham wrote:
[nice synopsis of how dpkg and friends work removed]
# The point of all this is that it should be feasible to formalize the use of
# this tool as something an end-user might be able to use. The "pristine
# source + Debian diff" is very similar sounding (
According to Brent Fulgham:
> > Could it be that a large chunk of the Linux users are not
> > hackers and wouldn't know C from csh scripts that they are
> > happy with drop-in binaries?
> >
> Yes -- this is very true. As Linux has matured, we observe a large shift
> in the user base.
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Gary Kline wrote:
# I think that over time (months to a few years) a DebianBSD
# distribution would attract newer and seasoned users from every
# corner. Nobody who is hardcore BSD or hardcore Debian is going
# to be `converted' ... and that's fine.
> Could it be that a large chunk of the Linux users are not
> hackers and wouldn't know C from csh scripts that they are
> happy with drop-in binaries?
>
Yes -- this is very true. As Linux has matured, we observe a large shift
in the user base. Linux used to be predominantly a
For the benefit of non-Debian list readers, I want to explain a few things
about how Debian handles its source builds. Hamish, please correct me where
I misspeak:
To accommodate the various platforms we support, and to provide a nominal
"chain-of-custody" for our software, all uploads involve a f
According to Brent Fulgham:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 03:23:16PM +0200, Per Lundberg wrote:
[[ ... ]]
> >
> Could there be performance advantages achieved when you create a
> platform-specific compile of a particular software entity? For example,
> we all realize the benefits of
According to Per Lundberg:
> On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
> > I'd be interested to know what that is (that people prefer to compile
> > from source). I can't see the advantage myself, especially for large
> > packages
> > like X and libc.
For the huge(er) suites like X11
According to Hamish Moffatt:
> On Sun, Jul 18, 1999 at 11:12:13PM +0200, Per Lundberg wrote:
> > On Sun, 18 Jul 1999, Gary Kline wrote:
> >
[[ ... ]]
>
> That's a fine idea, but my response is always: to whom would this be valuable?
> What is the target audience of the "Debian GNU/FreeBS
>
> On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 03:23:16PM +0200, Per Lundberg wrote:
> > I think this has to with the fact that most BSD people prefers
> > to compile stuff themselves, which makes the package handling quite
> > immature (esp. compared to Debian's, but you probably already know
> > that. :)
>
> I
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Per Lundberg wrote:
# > That's an excellent point -- I'd forgotten about that. How are upgrades of
# > the base system handled?
#
# I don't even know if it's possible (I'm quite fresh in the BSD world, but
# I definitely hope it's doable).
There are several ways actually. T
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
# On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 03:04:30PM +0200, Per Lundberg wrote:
#
# > Yeah, that's one thing. The fact that the base system doesn't consist of
# > packages is also a really annoying thing. Simply put, it's too much like
# > Slackware and too little like
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> I'd be interested to know what that is (that people prefer to compile
> from source). I can't see the advantage myself, especially for large packages
> like X and libc.
No, me neither.
> I spent quite a while today talking to a BSD fan I know about th
On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 03:23:16PM +0200, Per Lundberg wrote:
> I think this has to with the fact that most BSD people prefers to compile
> stuff themselves, which makes the package handling quite immature (esp .
> compared to Debian's, but you probably already know that. :)
I'd be interested to k
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> Admittedly I've never done any kernel hacking, but it might be interesting
> to try it :-)
Actually, I've done quite some kernel hacking (I've written a kernel of my
own together with some friends, but that one is really different to this),
so I think
On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 03:04:30PM +0200, Per Lundberg wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
> > Well, perhaps we can help to make it work. What doesn't work?
>
> Some of the syscalls are unimplemented. 'sysinfo', for example (which is
> used by dpkg). Perhaps it would be better t
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> Well, perhaps we can help to make it work. What doesn't work?
Some of the syscalls are unimplemented. 'sysinfo', for example (which is
used by dpkg). Perhaps it would be better to improve the Linux emulation,
so that the rest of the FreeBSD community w
On Sun, Jul 18, 1999 at 11:12:13PM +0200, Per Lundberg wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Jul 1999, Gary Kline wrote:
>
> > So far, just some agreements on a few basics, such as using
> > the BSD (FBSD) Linux-``emultation'' rather than mis-invest
> > endless months in re-inventing wheels.
>
> To be
On Sun, 18 Jul 1999, Gary Kline wrote:
> [[ paring back the noise; esp'ly since you are on a per-minute
> line. (used to be same here) ]]
Oh, it's okay, I'm not on that line right now. When I'm home, I don't even
read my mail. :)
> dpkg requires TeX? (?)
For compilation, y
According to Per Lundberg:
> On Sun, 18 Jul 1999, Gary Kline wrote:
>
[[ paring back the noise; esp'ly since you are on a per-minute
line. (used to be same here) ]]
>
> > Do you have a working dpkg that could serve as a port to
> > FBSD?
>
> Yes. Since I'm on a "pay
On Sun, 18 Jul 1999, Gary Kline wrote:
> > To be honest, I think that's a bad idea. The Linux support is (at least in
> > FreeBSD) rather limited, and even if it worked it wouldn't feel as good
> > as a "real" system.
> Here is where I have no real bias. Since the xwp (WordPerfect-8)
>
that should be done anyway), but any experienced glibc hacker
> could probably do it in a weekend.
Ask the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list if the port hasn't already
been done. It may very well have been... . And yes, it isn't
that major a hack to do it entirely from scratc
l" Debian/BSD will take some longer, but most packages compile right
out of the box. What I think will take longest is porting glibc (which is
something that should be done anyway), but any experienced glibc hacker
could probably do it in a weekend.
I think, however, the project will benefit
According to Per Lundberg:
> Hello. I just subscribed to this list since I have been doing some
> experimental porting of Debian to FreeBSD myself, and would gladly share
> my experiences to the public. How far are we? What is currently being
> done?
>
Hi,
So far, just some agree
Hello. I just subscribed to this list since I have been doing some
experimental porting of Debian to FreeBSD myself, and would gladly share
my experiences to the public. How far are we? What is currently being
done?
39 matches
Mail list logo
