[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Is it _really_ dead?

At 06:56 PM 10/14/00 -0500, Steve Price wrote:
On Sat, Oct 14, 2000 at 04:02:55PM -0700, Gary Kline wrote:
#       I still think that a system that provided the stability
#       of a BSD kernel with the rest Debian would be the winner for a
#       network service OS.  Also that it is not going to get done unless
#       and until 3 or 4 people go off in a huddle and just-do-it.
#       Too many folks have time to exercise the jaws to flame whoever
#       steps beyond their ideas, and little else.

Alright I can't just sit quietly any longer. :)  I don't remember
all the "flames" on this list that everyone is spouting off about.
What I remember was that there was a mixture of emotions of whether
this was going to create a fork.  The way I see it there are two
possibilities here.

First Debian's userland gets a BSD kernel in which case people here
should just go off and do it.  Not likely to drum up a lot of coders
in the BSD community to help (and it doesn't look like many in the
Debian community are interested in it either), though they will
probably lend an ear to questions should you have them.

The second is that BSD needs a package system similar to Debian's and
in the best of cases emcompasses all the strengths of both and the
weaknesses from neither.  Many in the BSD community believe this would
be advantageous.  If this is really what everyone is interested
in then I suggest they head over to http://www.openpackages.org/
and sign up to help.  There is no Debian presence there yet, but
nothing says there can't be.

There was one other thing mentioned on this list in the early days
and it involves replacing the BSD userland with an all GNU userland
and I'd don't believe there will be many in the BSD community that
will be into supporting such an effort.  You are welcome to try but
this IMHO will result in a fork and dividing all of our efforts again
in support of another project doesn't help either community.

So huddle if you must, but I'd rather these projects get sanctioned
by one or both of these projects lest the work done by these people
either goes unused or ends up in a dreaded fork.

Just my $0.02.


consider me as a newbe to the techie part but reading up abt
linux/bsd  and using free/debian/slackware/redhat etc... this is what I feel.

Among BSD 4.4 descendants,

netbsd is after reorganising the OS parts in HW and non-HW specific
freebsd is intel optimised port with efforts towards a proper packaging system and
        smooth upgrades to new updates etc

Netbsd soon duplicated a Fbsd style packaging system and built their ports collection but the packages are not usable on both, for whatever diff these to BSD varients have.

Their is a feeling in BSD camp that,
* some unified packaging system will help (check daemonnews.org) and,
* a recent post by Jordan Hubbard on freebsd maillists abt FBSD package and
   install tools also touches this subject.

[REF: Title: FreeBSD installation and package tools, past, present and future
Date: September 17th, 2000 Version: 1.2]

I have used FBSD style packaging system, and I sincerely think that, they wouldn't
actually want debian style packaging system. Their's work well and the problems
have also been discussed in the above mentioned article.

What BSD camp would like though is some way to use the debian's extensive
package collection, and some way to use any sw if it's already packaged, by
let's say debian. Currently Freebsd runs linux binaries if one installs a redhat
based compatibility package and enables a boot-time option. But the way redhat
brings out their distro versions, actually going to redhat site, and trying to install an RPM is not something a user like me does. Instead, their are linux compiled packages like acrobat 4, Staroffice 5.2 in FBSD's on ftp site, which use the
compat feature.

What Debian Camp (Or a few in the camp) would like is the proof of concept
implementation, indicating debian is really kernel independant distribution, by
incorporating BSD kernel, besides gnu-hurd.

Technically I might be totally missing the point, but this would probably require,
C library/compiler
essential OS utils
debian package management sys etc

etc bundled with BSD kernel.

Now *bsd also uses GCC compiler, so what parts will actually be diff is not clear
to me.

Maintaining such a distro, when the compiler/Clib/BSD kernel etc updates and
compiling the rest of the things that depend on these might be a sizable job.

If the major pieces of a distro are made replacable, it should be easy for a
user to customize his own vanilla system to what he wants. Being a kernel
independant system, however thinking the kernel itself can be replacable by a
is something I can't comment on, as I don't know if it's possible.
Maybe other basic components, like C library might also not be replacable
at user level.

However, like some new test version of debian that will automatically be built as I
read a few days ago, if compiling the imp parts and having a distro with major
components replaced with alternatives from BSD land is possible, it will be great.

so, IF I AM NOT not totally absurd,
        either the above scheme,
a packaging scheme which will allow packages from either camp to be used
        on other's system,

will help.

/prasad gadgil (se-mumbai)

"What you do when you don't have to, determines what you will be when you
 can no longer help it." -Rudyard Kipling

Reply to: