Re: The project
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)
> works on both this FBSD-2.2.8 and on my experimental FBSD-3.2
> systems, the linux compat isn't much of as issue ((to me!)).
Well, it works pretty well for me too, but I think it feels like a
kludge.. but maybe that's just me.
> What I'd really like to see is the superiority of a FBSD
> kernel with the superiority of the tons of the best freeware
> from GNU. (Plus any other kind of open-source software,
> of course.)
Yes, that's something I would really like too. I would like to be able to
do an 'apt-get upgrade' under FreeBSD as well as under Linux, and get the
same programs.
> I'd really like to see the Linux drivers integrated
> into the BSD kernel... but this isn't very clear because some
> people have a strong bias one way or the other.
I think the main problem with this is the license struggle. BSD people in
general are very much against the GPL, and the reverse. Myself, I prefer
GPL to the BSD license, but both are "good" in that they are free. But
that's a discussion better kept of this list...
> > 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.
> Ask the hackers@freebsd.org list if the port hasn't already
> been done. It may very well have been...
Okay, I will.
> Yes, I think so, too. Whether we need Yet-Another-BSD is
> pure flame-bait; my take on the matter is that the world
> would benefit endlessly if people could learn to comprimise
> enough to cooperate on a full-blown DebianBSD.
I agree on this matter. I would myself prefer the Debian/BSD system to the
Debian/Linux, since I think the Linux kernel pretty much sucks.
> Do you have a working dpkg that could serve as a port to
> FBSD?
Yes. Since I'm on a "pay-per-minute" connection at home, I couldn't afford
to get the latest version of everything, so my port is based on 1.4.0.33
(I think. It's the one shipped with slink)
> Steve Price (who is on the list) said that he has one almost
> ready to go. Yours, perhaps??
I would gladly upload my patches, yes. Unfortunately, they're at home and
I'm currently doing my service.. so it'll have to wait until wednesday,
when I get home next time. Steve, is this okay?
I haven't been able to generate a dpkg package yet since it required TeX
wich took a while to compile.. (I had to get X up first) but it shouldn't
be a problem since it compiles and build correctly (except for the
documentation directory).
> Anyhow, if you would send me the source (or pointer to it),
> I'll see if it builds. Send a few cookbook instructions and
> I'll see if all the GNU suites just-drop-in. :-)
It's just a matter of doing a ./configure && make. I think you need
your /usr/bin/make to be GNU make, however.
> > Anyway, with a working dpkg that could generate and install packages, I
> > started doing what else I thought I could need. The following packages
> > compiled with no or little patching:
+ autoconf, automake, m4 and some other stuff.
> We've got patch and make (gmake); our make is really pmake,
> the Berkeley parallel make.
Yeah, but it lacks some features necessary to compile most packages.
> > binutils (the problem was that the make process defaulted to a.out)
> > gcc (same for this, and is probably easy solved)
> Isn't this just a flag like -ELF or the like?
No, you do something like ./configure --target=i386-debian-freebsdelf. But
it should definitely be easibly solvable.
> > Any volunteer? :)
> For the next several months I've got little to 0.0 time to
> get into this. But check with the hackers list first. Or
> post a note to questions@freebsd.org; somebody there knows
> the details.
I will do this too.
Thank's anyway.
Reply to: