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
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
Gary Kline writes:
> On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 03:01:35PM +0000, 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 w
The biggest problem was that no more than two or three people ever really did
anything. Everyone else sat around and flamed each other. Some people joined
the list for the sole purpose of flaming everyone else on it, and trying to
convince them not to sully the perfection of BSD, or Debian. One of
Andreas Krennmair writes:
This is a vote what system that we should take as basis for our project.
1) Which kernel?
a) OpenBSD kernel
b) NetBSD kernel
c) FreeBSD kernel
d) Darwin kernel
c, a, or b in that order of preference. FreeBSD seems to be the most
featured for i386, which is the m
Agreed except for s/NetBSD/FreeBSD/g in my case. NetBSD has nothing I'm
really interested in, while FreeBSD does.
It might be reasonable to just work on both, and see what happens. I expect
that any work done on one would probably be at least somewhat helpful to the
other.
Nathan Myers writes
Yes, I'd also be interested in that. I tried compiling the dpkg from woody
on FreeBSD, and ran into conflicts over libintl.h It didn't want to use
either the one under /usr/local from ports, or the one in the source.
Wartan Hachaturow writes:
On Thu, Jul 05, 2001 at 02:29:08PM +0200, Andreas
I will be setting up a box running FreeBSD, hopefully by the end of this
week.
Quic.net, the ISP which will be hosting for the box, will probably want me
to restrict shell accounts to Debian developers. Hopefully this won't be a
problem.
---Nathan
Ian Miller writes:
hello all.
In
I've also been looking at sysvinit. It definitely isn't as portable as
typical GNU programs are, but I guess most people don't replace their init
program very often I'd say it's more hooked to glibc than to Linux from
what I could see.
Wartan Hachaturow writes:
Maybe, we should put up a kind
Nathan Myers writes:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 03:16:42PM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Michael Goetze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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.
The packages I'm building are probably a bit worse than "aren't totally
coherent." Quite a few compiled fine, but there are some where I had to make
changes to run on FreeBSD, and a few where I had to disable things like
documentation, just because I didn't have SGML tools or TeX available yet.
I'm aware FreeBSD has a different way to handle shadow passwords. The
difficulty is that update-passwd doesn't know that. It thinks it needs some
of those functions to work. Quite a few debian packages rely on
update-passwd to be able to add users and groups, so I'm probably going to
need to lo
I'm don't follow the Hurd project closely, because it's of limited interest
to me. However, I do try to stay informed.
Here are some obvious differences:
* The Hurd is using glibc, while Debian BSD will need to start with native
libc. The different libc accounts for most of my problems right n
As I said, I'll try to get time to make a tar of what I have now, and upload
somewhere. However, "working" is stretching things a bit. There are parts
that actually work, and parts that are badly broken.
Some of the current bugs and glitches:
1. sysvinit/who breaks on utmp.h Wartan may hav
Wade wrote:
Have you any plans for X? I will wait if you do have plans, but if not
I will roll my own so that I can use the debian-freebsd as my main
system [and hence report useful bugs].
I have X working, but haven't got the patch cleaned up. The X server
worked ok on my test box, but I had tr
Original Message
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (uid 1032) by quic.net
with local; Tue, 14 May 2002 15:13:33 -0400
From: Nathan Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking Sy
Original Message
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (uid 1032) by quic.net
with local; Tue, 14 May 2002 19:03:02 -0400
From: Nathan Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking Sy
to be following a different strategy with
this.
---Nathan
Gustavo Franco wrote:
On Tue, 14 May 2002 19:05:09 -0400
Nathan Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[..]
Package: wnpp
Version: N/A; reported 2002-05-14
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: freebsd
Version : 4.5-
Matthew Garrett wrote:
In porting stuff, I've found several cases where modifying the source to
build on Debian potentially breaks it on plain NetBSD. After talking to
Nathan about this, we came up with a couple of ideas:
1) Modify the kernel build so uname -v includes "Debian" - this is a
pretty t
Robert Millan wrote:
On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 06:51:34PM -0400, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
1) Modify the kernel build so uname -v includes "Debian" - this is a
pretty trivial change. It does present problems if people build kernels on
their own - one option w
Tony Finch wrote:
> AFAIK FreeBSD-CURRENT is OK with gcc-3.1 (which is now the system compiler)
apart from some work still to do with c++ libraries.
Tony.
Thanks, I'll take another look at CVS. Last I checked, gcc 3.x was still
on another branch, and not completely merged.
---Nathan
--
To
matthew green wrote:
1) Modify the kernel build so uname -v includes "Debian" - this is a
pretty trivial change. It does present problems if people build kernels on
their own - one option would be to make sure that the kernel build system
ensures that this is set.
i think this will
Robert Millan wrote:
On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 01:09:30AM -0400, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
They will have to use the package. This is basically not going to be
optional for a while. Sorry, but Debianized and reliable are my
priorities for the freebsd source package right now. Flexibility
features
Robert Millan wrote:
On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 01:53:50AM -0400, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
Another example would be installing various build tools like BSD make
into /usr/bsd instead of /usr/bin.
There has just been a long discussion in debian-devel about the GNU/Hurd
system breaking FHS. I don't
Robert Millan wrote:
On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 01:00:21PM -0400, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
I've read parts of that thread. For the most part, I'm not in sympathy
with the Hurd on this. Filesystem should be laid out according to FHS
unless there's a compelling reason not to, in which ca
Robert Millan wrote:
On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 02:05:47PM -0400, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
Looked like a bourne shell to me. Default root shell is /bin/csh on
FreeBSD, but I believe /bin/sh is basically the same as ash.
Interestingly, MAKEDEV fails to work with bash but works fine with ash.
Weird
matthew green wrote:
Looked like a bourne shell to me. Default root shell is /bin/csh on
FreeBSD, but I believe /bin/sh is basically the same as ash.
Interestingly, MAKEDEV fails to work with bash but works fine with ash.
i'm not sure about freebsd, but netbsd has used ash in /bin/s
Daniel Burrows wrote:
On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 02:43:28PM -0400, Nathan Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
skaro:/dev# /sbin/MAKEDEV all
MAKEDEV: line 1292: syntax error near unexpected token `)'
MAKEDEV: line 1292: ` )'
What does line 1292 look like? This sounds
On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 11:57:30PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * Nathan Hawkins
> | I hope to be able to get the FreeBSD binutils and gcc out of there
> | sometime, since they're only used to build the kernel, and from what
> | I'm told -CURRENT should be buildable with
Yes, I am aware of this. I got a copy of it Monday, just haven't yet dug
into building and testing it.
---Nathan
James Morrison wrote:
Hey,
I haven't seen this on the debian-bsd list in the last couple months so I
will mention it. Bruno Haible has got glibc ported to freebsd. This p
Thank you. I will take a look at it, and see about updating it.
At the moment, I'm thinking in terms of going to two pages, one
explaining what the port is, motivations, etc., and another containing a
news log ordered by date.
---Nathan
Josip Rodin wrote:
Hi,
After a short discussion, I
Yes, this seems like the right thing to do. FreeBSD doesn't use the
note, so it doesn't cause any problems with it. Otherwise, I suspect
Bruno would already have done this for FreeBSD.
---Nathan
matthew green wrote:
I've been working on getting Bruno's work on the FreeBSD port of glib
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> I have a sufficiently working glibc that I can build binutils and gcc
> against it and then use them to rebuild a working glibc, but it'll
> need some work yet before it's even vaguely production ready. The
> general opinion at Debconf seemed to be that going with glibc was
These are opinions, not proven facts.
It is not yet entirely clear what the whole situation with glibc will
be. I am working with it on FreeBSD, but have by no means decided for or
against it yet. I am still assessing it. This is what I have found so far:
Pros
* Makes a dramatic difference in th
Ian Jackson wrote:
This whole conversation seems baffling to me. Have any of the people
posting opinions actually looked at the source code of the two libcs ?
I have. I've done some hacking on both the FreeBSD libc and glibc.
glibc is a complex horror [1]; the BSD libc is a fairly nice and clean
i
matthew green wrote:
Think you could port BSD libc to Linux without making a mess?
considering that we (netbsd) basically have a source-compat layer
for netbsd software on linux, this actually is a whole lot simplier
and easier than you may otherwise think.
Could be. I know my way around Fr
I've been working on FreeBSD with glibc. There hasn't been much to say.
glibc works great for Debian sources, but most of the BSD system
utilities like mount wouldn't build. I'm changing that, but it's going
slow. I'm making a library of routines that are in FreeBSD's libc, but
not in glibc, an
I've been tinkering with it for a while now. It works, but I've been
having a lot of trouble with /usr/include/sys, trying to get things to
the point where I can build some of the FreeBSD sources for /sbin.
---Nathan
Jeff Bailey wrote:
I haven't paid much attention to the BSD port, but I
Jeff Bailey wrote:
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 10:57:14PM -0400, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
I haven't paid much attention to the BSD port, but I notice that
glibc now includes support for FreeBSD again. Should I be tooling
glibc up to produce libc1 packages for you?
I've been tinkering with it f
This is a wishlist of things that would be helpful for all three ports.
None should really require a Debian BSD system to work on.
Filesystem stuff:
* Parted support. It would be nice if parted would build on BSD, and
supported UFS. (I think disklabel support is there already, but I'm not
sure.
matthew green wrote:
* UFS detection in fsck. fsck is actually a wrapper that tries to detect
the filesystem, and DTRT. It would be helpful if it could identify UFS,
and run fsck.ufs, like it does with all the Linux filesystems.
FWIW, in netbsd fsck(8) is a front end to fsck_ffs(8)
Jeff Bailey wrote:
On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 09:59:19AM -0400, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
Hmm. Might as well add to the control file. It looks like
freebsd-i386 will probably go with glibc.
Is there a FreeBSD box that I can get access to for some quick tests?
It would just save me the trouble of asking
Joel Baker wrote:
On Sat, Sep 07, 2002 at 05:42:09PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 08:29:18PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
The only packages where this caused any great trouble were gcc and
binutils, and that was fairly easily rectified.
Hmmm. GCC seems to be content as long
Hello all,
I thought it's about time I updated people on what's happening with the
FreeBSD port.
I've been busy working on glibc. It looks like that'll be the way to go,
since it seems to drastically reduce the amount of patches that have to
be added to Debian packages. I have to monkey with th
matthew green wrote:
bsdutils, e2fsprogs, login, mount, and util-linux.
mount? this one is going to be fairly tied to the kernel...
Yes, and I have no intention of trying to port it. I got the FreeBSD
mount sources to build on glibc, and that's good enough for me.
Actually, bsdutils,
Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
* Nathan Hawkins
| Actually, bsdutils, mount and util-linux are built from the same
| source. I've already worked on this, and got the pieces I needed
| working on BSD libc, so I'll probably pick that up again later on.
Having a fdisk-udeb package would be ni
Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
* Nathan Hawkins
| Hmm. fdisk in util-linux probably isn't usable. It won't build, and I
| doubt it can reasonably be made to. Also, I'm not even sure it can
| create FreeBSD slices and partitions correctly on Linux. I can build
| FreeBSD fdisk and disklab
More updates:
Nathan Hawkins wrote:
Open issues:
* glibc port is incomplete. glibc changes are being merged into CVS, but
I can't build a package yet. Threads support doesn't work yet.
Threads are working now, and glibc is working well except for DNS
resolution. It should be packaged
Henrique,
I just happened to read your changelog uploaded with 20020703.1:
* DEBIAN *BSD GUYS: CONTACT GNU CONFIG UPSTREAM ABOUT THE DEBIAN *BSD
REQUIREMENTS FOR GNU CONFIG ASAP! DON'T COMPLAIN LATER, YOU HAVE
BEEN WARNED, BOTH BY THIS LOG EMAILED TO YOU, AND DIRECTLY AT
DEBCONF2
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 01:21:50AM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 05:15:05PM +1000, matthew green wrote:
> >
> >Hmmm. The origional plan had said /lib.
> >
> > yeah, i know. that's why i told you :-) basically, enough people
> > complained that not using /libexec/ld.e
Joel Baker wrote:
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 12:45:56AM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
On Oct 14, Joel Baker wrote:
Er. Given that 'libc' is under the 4-clause license, if this is true... or
does that not apply to 'system' libraries? NetBSD certainly has a fair bit
of GPLed code, including dist/gnu in t
Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 03:47:01PM +1000, matthew green wrote:
as far as i'm aware, there are very conflicting views on mixing
GPL & 4-clause software. to me, calling them "incompatible" such
that you refuse to link apps & libraries because of it is way over
stepping the mar
I've been comparing the packages I have with the debootstrap script for
sid. This is where things stand on freebsd-i386 now:
Not working yet:
aptitude,base-config,bsdutils,e2fsprogs,ifupdown,libdb1-compat,libperl5.8
Built:
adduser,apt,apt-utils,at,base-files,base-passwd,bash,bsdmainutils,coreu
Robert Millan wrote:
On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 10:40:58PM -0400, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
Doesn't build, or otherwise not usable:
console-common,console-data,console-tools,console-tools-libs,fdutils,ipchains,iptables,
klogd,libcap1,libstdc++2.10-glibc2.2,lilo,makedev,manpages,mbr,modconf,mod
: Nathan Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This is an automatic notification regarding your Bug report
#163883: gcc-3.2: support for i386-freebsd-gnu (Debian freebsd-i386 port),
which was filed against the gcc-3.2 package.
It has been cl
I now have a patch for util-linux on freebsd-i386. It is definitely not
finished and ready to merge. There are some things that need work still,
but I'd like to find out what it needs for netbsd before continuing.
This is against 2.11u-2. Most of it is straightforward, except the
changes to deb
Pieter-Paul Spiertz wrote:
Hi,
I recently saw someone playing with a window-like interface in textmode.
It was not screen, but 'window' - a program from the BSD base system. It does
not seem to be available as a Debian package, nor can I find it with a quick
search in the Debian/FreeBSD package lis
Pieter-Paul Spiertz wrote:
I see. I'm having lots of small basic stupid compile errors indeed.
I just scp'ed the /usr/src/usr.bin/window from a FreeBSD 4.6.2 box to my
Debian unstable box, did the same for /usr/include/machine after pmake/cc
complained about a missing header file and now I'm stuck
Guillem Jover wrote:
I was going to install a Debian/FreeBSD to adapt my old util-linux port
to the Hurd again, and correct any issues found on the BSDs. It seems
you were faster :>
At present, I don't have freebsd-i386 in an installable state. After
this patch, I got deboostrap working, so that m
On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 10:50:05PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> Hello!
>
> What is the current status of GNU/FreeBSD with the Glibc?
I've had to put the work I was doing on hold. Bruno Haible doesn't seem
to have done much further with merging into glibc. There are
substantial problems with /u
On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 01:52:31PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> Please tar it up and put it in a public place, then more people can help.
I'll do that when I can... Right now, the system I was developing on
isn't even powered up. :(
> btw, i heard some time ago that the FreeBSD people were consi
On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 12:34:45PM +0300, Wartan Hachaturow wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 05:37:59PM -0500, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
>
> > Increasingly, I wonder about going back to the native libc. and
> > continuing to develop things like utmpx or libshadow. Keeping glibc
On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 09:42:55AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> > So, coming back to the main topic: how did the NetBSD/intel people
> > overcome these difficulties caused by bsd libc/glibc?
>
> Most of the difficulties are non-portable code (such as code that uses GNU
> extensions *without* wrappin
On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 02:09:29PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 04:55:51AM +0100, henares sebastien wrote:
> > Hi, i'm looking to get a basic install of Debian GNU/FreeBSD, but in
> > the page http://www.debian.org/ports/freebsd/index.fr.html they point
> > at : http://sati
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 02:46:16AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 02:19:58PM -0500, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
> > At the moment, I'm lucky to have email. Uploading hundreds of megabytes
> > isn't possible for me right now. When I can, I'll try to
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 06:00:36PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 10:30:45AM -0500, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
> >
> > Yes. The main problem is that it is very difficult to get /usr/include
> > to a usable state. glibc breaks compiling nearly all the
On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 05:13:00PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 08:43:54AM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
> >
> > 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
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 01:36:44PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 05:33:58PM -0400, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 05:13:00PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> >
> > > that's great news!
> >
> > If so, please ask hi
On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 06:46:47AM +1000, Rudolph Pereira wrote:
> firstly, thanks for the explanation
>
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 03:08:23PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
> > What there is, is on the Ports page, mostly. Keep in mind that there are
> > (at least) two separate efforts that are being kep
On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 10:11:42PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
>
> hi!
>
> my GNU/FreeBSD chroot jail is finaly self-hosting. i
> could build Glibc 2.3, GCC 3.2.3 and binutils (cvs)
> within the jail, and these worked fine to compile
> other packages like coreutils, etc.
>
> i've uploaded a tarb
I've just finished* patching native libc (5.0) with a compatible
implementation of getpwent, getspent, and related functions. (Basically I
expanded my libshadow slightly, and patched it directly into libc5.)
With that, I believe the only major remaining compatibility problem is
solved.
libc5 h
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 07:24:18PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 03:11:46PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I don't know why, but I could not list any files via ftp in linux. however
> > on a
> > dos console I didn't have any trowble, I have to download this files on
>
On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 09:22:41PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> I just checked debian's ppp sources and it supports FreeBSD's kernel. I
> haven't tried, but in a quick look seems like adding "GNU/FreeBSD" to
> ./configure would get it working (stealing kernel options from "FreeBSD"
> and user opti
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:54:46PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 01:28:00PM +1000, matthew green wrote:
> >
> > no. "sys-bsd.c" is the code to talk to a BSD-like ppp kernel driver.
> > you will definately want this.
>
> ouch. I thought the /dev/ppp ioctl interface was
Robert Millan writes:
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 04:41:51AM +0100, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote:
Can you please submit the NetBSD patches to the author? The latest release
doesn't support FreeBSD or NetBSD and updating the FreeBSD patches is
non-trivial. This could be maintained in the ports tree and would
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 06:30:52PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I just made a run on Ruby, but it seems our broken binutils are playing
> bad on us. Latest binutils in CVS will hopefuly fix this, but see
> http://people.debian.org/~rmh/gnu-freebsd/tasks/binutils
>
> Juan, you said
On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 11:12:35AM +1100, matthew green wrote:
>A usable Debian GNU/KNetBSD system based on Glibc is now available:
>
>
> so... can someone explain what the plan is for deb/netbsd wrt libc?
>
> ie, will there be 2 systems one that is compatible with netbsd (ie
> that people c
On Sat, Nov 29, 2003 at 03:45:15PM +0100, Pavel Cahyna wrote:
> Please, how is threading implemented in the NetBSD (and FreeBSD) port
> of Glibc?
On the FreeBSD port, it uses linuxthreads. It isn't going to be good
enough long term.
The NetBSD port of glibc will probably do the same, at least ini
On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 07:31:09PM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
>
> Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> > Please, how is threading implemented in the NetBSD (and FreeBSD) port
> >> > of Glibc?
> >>
> >> On the FreeBSD port, it uses linuxthreads. It isn't going to be good
> >> enough long
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 01:43:11PM +0100, Filip Hroch wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I'm newbie in BSD and trying to mount of FreeBSD partition (by FreeBSD
> 5.1 instaler, slice editor) under unstable debian/linux and
> 2.6.0-test[5,9,11] kernel. The slices are detected as:
>
> hda: hda1 hda2 hda3 hda4
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 01:34:42PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 09:46:19PM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
> >
> > IMHO, the amount of work involved in making glibc stably work with
> > scheduler activations is likely prohibitive. You'll be chasing
> > problems in the librar
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 01:22:52PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > Please, how is threading implemented in the NetBSD (and FreeBSD)
> > port of Glibc?
>
> The goal is porting NPTL for both KFreeBSD and KNetBSD (K for 'kernel of').
> As of now, temporary solutions are being used: linuxthreads and l
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 01:56:04PM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
>
> Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 07:31:09PM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
> >> Although it is still not as stable as we'd like, the benchmarks of the
> >> native threads on NetBSD are pretty d
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 10:42:12PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 01:59:49PM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
> > If you had a list of functional deficiencies in the native libc,
> > though, it would probably be possible to re-implement them and fix
> > them in the native NetBSD
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 10:30:20PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 01:35:10PM -0500, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
> > I'd be more impressed with that analysis if the bugs were in fact
>
> Time to wait, then.
Yes, that's what I've been doing. I've
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 01:52:01AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 06:00:06PM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
> > As I said, though, it is likely that the NetBSD folks would happily
> > add needed stuff from glibc to the netbsd libc. I mean, who wants to
> > have a libc that won
> > > We fixed pam to run on native libc a long time ago. It wasn't that bad,
> > > once I got libshadow written. And last I knew you didn't have an X
> > > server package, which I had on the native libc a long time ago.
> >
> > I was referring to the GNU/NetBSD port. See bug #201683 for example,
On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 07:57:29PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> So I guess my question is, is the Debian-FreeBSD-libc5 port stalled? Is
> there anything I could to do help? I have a lot of programming
> experience, but I don't know how much I know about this particular area.
Yes. But I'
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 08:24:41PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 09:26:33PM -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> >
> > We've got about 4500 packages in pkgsrc -- a fraction of the number
> > some folks like Debian support, but quite a number -- and in the
> > course of making them
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 05:19:41PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 01:52:01AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
>
> > Please avoid the "third party" euphemism. If you want to run non-free
> > software
> > on a Glibc-based system, you can use the NetBSD libc since it's no technic
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 05:03:11PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 10:42:46PM -0500, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
> >
> > I'm getting kind of irritated with certain bugs in the glibc port.
>
> Asides from the DNS issue, is there anything else we should
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 be using
> the bareword 'NetBSD' in any context other than referring to the current
> software
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. Since that
> would be the canonical way of testing this (a 'debian' vendor could have a
> sub-field
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:
> > > I really need to sit down and write a proposal / patches for NetBSD to
> &g
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 06:56:21PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 12:36:05PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 05:16:42PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > The second effort was started up by Robert Millan and uses glibc. I'm
> > > not clear on how t
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 08:01:54PM +1100, Joshua Cummings wrote:
> I checked the list archives and google and found nothing similar to my
> problem, so I hope someone can help.
This sounds familiar. I think I've fixed a similar problem, but I don't
recall what the cause was. Try using sshd -d on
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 02:11:46AM +1100, Joshua Cummings wrote:
> I've written a fairly short and simple GNU/KFreeBSD installation guide
> based on the exisiting INSTALL file. It's just a bit more detailed and
> contains notes, warnings etc. based on my experience setting up a
> GNU/KFreeBSD syste
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 12:58:09AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:47:29PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
>
> Here's an update: newer binutils and gcc/g++ did not fix the ed
> segfaulting problem. I also cannot build apt right now. If I hack it
> enough to build, I get:
I re
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 08:40:35PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It looks like several (pam, shadow to name two) packages are not
> building on NetBSD due to utmp-related differences. Has anyone built
> these yet? Any suggestions?
This is a long-standing issue with the BSD ports. I addre
On Sat, Feb 07, 2004 at 10:51:31PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 07, 2004 at 03:28:21PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
>
> > 1) the various PNG libraries (I can't remember ATM which one failed...
> >I think some worked OK but some wouldn't build.)
>
> I seem to remember that at leas
1 - 100 of 110 matches
Mail list logo
