> > Could anyone brief me? Is there a FAQ or anything?
>
> I've been using Debian Linux and NetBSD for several years. I've been on
> this list for about 19 months. As far as I know there is no FAQ, webpage
> or official Debian statements. There has been a lot of discussion about
> what the goals o
On Tue, 24 Jul 2001, Will Yardley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I do like the idea of following the freebsd (i think net and open bsd may do
> this too) convention of putting everything that's not part of base in
> /usr/local/whatever - debian tends to put stuff in /usr for the most part -
> most o
NetBSD actually puts everything "third party" that's built with pkgsrc
into /usr/pkg/ (or for some things /usr/X11R6, which is hated by many
people). /usr/local is reserved for "local" things built by the local
administrator.
note that the path `/usr/pkg' is configurable in netbsd
On 24 Jul 2001, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
>
>Michael Goetze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > I just had a look. It is very similar to the NetBSD layout (which is
>> > very largely unchanged from 4.4BSD). There are some annoying
>> > differences, including /opt vs /usr/pkg, the whole BSD concept of
>
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>it was written:
>On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 04:41:05PM -0400, Richard Tibbetts wrote:
>> For what its worth, debian doesn't seem to really use /opt. At least
>> not for debian packages, which tend to put their stuff right in /usr.
>
>I do like the idea of following the fr
Michael Goetze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I just had a look. It is very similar to the NetBSD layout (which is
> > very largely unchanged from 4.4BSD). There are some annoying
> > differences, including /opt vs /usr/pkg, the whole BSD concept of
> > libdata and libexec, etc. However, the over
Will Yardley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 04:41:05PM -0400, Richard Tibbetts wrote:
> > For what its worth, debian doesn't seem to really use /opt. At least
> > not for debian packages, which tend to put their stuff right in /usr.
>
> I do like the idea of following the f
On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 04:41:05PM -0400, Richard Tibbetts wrote:
> For what its worth, debian doesn't seem to really use /opt. At least
> not for debian packages, which tend to put their stuff right in /usr.
I do like the idea of following the freebsd (i think net and open bsd may do
this too) co
> I do like the idea of following the freebsd (i think net and open bsd
> may do this too) convention of putting everything that's not part of
> base in /usr/local/whatever - debian tends to put stuff in /usr for
> the most part - most of the debian systems i've worked on have barely
> anything in
Michael Goetze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Color me an ignorant NetBSD hacker -- what is FHS?
>
> Filesystem Hierarchy Standard. http://www.pathname.com/fhs/
I never heard of it before.
I just had a look. It is very similar to the NetBSD layout (which is
very largely unchanged from 4.4BSD).
> I just had a look. It is very similar to the NetBSD layout (which is
> very largely unchanged from 4.4BSD). There are some annoying
> differences, including /opt vs /usr/pkg, the whole BSD concept of
> libdata and libexec, etc. However, the overall ideas seem to be
> pretty much similar.
You'l
On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 04:06:20PM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> (The lack of things like libexec seems like a serious deficit in the
> FHS -- it highly unclutters user executable directories. /opt is
> likely a religious issue which means trouble but if one anticipates
> trouble it is possible
Michael Goetze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And, looking at it from the other side, if all of the NetBSD core team
> jumped up today and said, "we want our entire distribution packaged
> Debian-style, and we want to make it our official distribution
> tomorrow," I would applaud them for their wis
> Color me an ignorant NetBSD hacker -- what is FHS?
Filesystem Hierarchy Standard. http://www.pathname.com/fhs/
- Michael
=
"I wanted to change the world. But I have found that the only thing
one can be sure of changing is oneself."
-- Aldous Huxley
_
Color me an ignorant NetBSD hacker -- what is FHS?
Perry
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > Yes, I can see that. There are things that I myself don't like about
> > Debian policy... such as FHS. I know that some pretty good BSD folks
> > have some pretty good reasons to dislike FHS. OTOH, there are s
Mark Eichin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > One misunderstanding that I have read, is that many Debian users believe
> > that the BSD ports/packages systems are week or don't work very well --
>
> The particular case that pkgsrc falls down on is upgrading a
> compatible library. In debian, if li
> Yes, I can see that. There are things that I myself don't like about
> Debian policy... such as FHS. I know that some pretty good BSD folks
> have some pretty good reasons to dislike FHS. OTOH, there are some
> advantages to the consistency given by the Debian system... there's
> lots of hypocrit
On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 06:52:24PM +1000, matthew green wrote:
> err, i've confused myself above -- i didn't intend to become project
> leader, just someone to present views to the netbsd folks.. :-)
I've sent this letter privately (to someone :) already, but I'll tell
this is public -- we don't
What we really need here is a contact person... someone willing to go
to the NetBSD folks, explain to them what it is we want and how it can
halp what they want. We also need a contact person to organize
webspace, etc., from the Debian project. Now, some time ago, so
What we really need here is a contact person... someone willing to go
to the NetBSD folks, explain to them what it is we want and how it can
halp what they want. We also need a contact person to organize
webspace, etc., from the Debian project. Now, some time ago, someone
realize
> Well, let me note this: the NetBSD project consists of people who are
> far better at managing a base Unix and its kernel than at handling
> certain kinds of day to day usability. We've got crappy install tools
> and such, and we're well aware of it. Closer cooperation with people
> who've got a
> One misunderstanding that I have read, is that many Debian users believe
> that the BSD ports/packages systems are week or don't work very well --
The particular case that pkgsrc falls down on is upgrading a
compatible library. In debian, if libpng2 gets a fix, a new rev of
libpng2 goes in "in
On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 05:39:36PM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> At the same time, however, we have a very large number of very smart
> systems hackers, and a huge legion of people who've already ported a
> large chunk of the software you're looking at to NetBSD before and
> therefore have seri
Michael Goetze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> To summarize, our goal is to create a BSD system with a mostly-GNU
> userland which complies to Debian Policy (e.g. Packaging Standards,
> FHS, etc.). In the universe of our dreams, anyone tired of Linux would
> just execute dselect, select a NetBSD/Fre
Perry,
On 23 Jul 2001, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> So I've been lurking on this list for a couple of weeks, since I found
> out about its existence -- seemed polite to figure out what was going
> on before posting a stupid question -- and I must admit that I remain
> a bit ignorant about what's goi
To summarize, our goal is to create a BSD system with a mostly-GNU
userland which complies to Debian Policy (e.g. Packaging Standards,
FHS, etc.). In the universe of our dreams, anyone tired of Linux would
just execute dselect, select a NetBSD/FreeBSD/OpenBSD kernel, unselect
the Linux kernel, fix
On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 03:23:23PM -0400, Dan Papasian wrote:
> We know it isn't Linux. Would it be GNU tools? dpkg/apt?
Going by the example of Debian GNU/Hurd, Debian GNU/NetBSD would be a
NetBSD kernel with a GNU userland conforming to Debian policy. For sanity
reasons, it should probably
On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 03:23:23PM -0400, Dan Papasian wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 06:32:57PM +0200, Andreas Krennmair wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 08, 2001 at 02:03:33AM +1000, Ian Miller wrote:
> > > Maybe making a NetBSD package that will mimic the debian way..would be
> > > alot better. I know
On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 03:23:23PM -0400, Dan Papasian wrote:
> How can you possibly define Debian besides behavior?
>
> We know it isn't Linux. Would it be GNU tools? dpkg/apt?
IMO Debian is a GNU system + FHS compliance + dpkg/apt/dselect + menu
system and all the other nifty stuff. This is wh
On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 06:32:57PM +0200, Andreas Krennmair wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 08, 2001 at 02:03:33AM +1000, Ian Miller wrote:
> > Maybe making a NetBSD package that will mimic the debian way..would be alot
> > better. I know this would be great for me, and alot less work. And then make
> > it bs
"Ian Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ok..
>
> I think its time we actually looked at the benifits of having a DebianBSD...
> Because quite frankly ... I can't see what we are going to do being much
> benifit at all.
Because at least some of the BSDs run on hardware that linux doesn't.
Like,
On Sun, Jul 08, 2001 at 02:03:33AM +1000, Ian Miller wrote:
> Maybe making a NetBSD package that will mimic the debian way..would be alot
> better. I know this would be great for me, and alot less work. And then make
> it bsd generic.
Go ahead. Let us know when you're done.
Nathan Myers
ncm at c
On Sun, Jul 08, 2001 at 02:03:33AM +1000, Ian Miller wrote:
> Maybe making a NetBSD package that will mimic the debian way..would be alot
> better. I know this would be great for me, and alot less work. And then make
> it bsd generic.
Do you always go the "way of least resistance"? If we did someth
33 matches
Mail list logo
