|
Here is my ideas about the
project.
1. License issues
In case we use the
software which is written under BSD, it should be BSD. If it's GPL, it should
stay GPL. It's as simple as it sounds. All the Debian-specific tools are GPL, so
we don't have to worry about possible steal of our code :)
2. Userland
I think there is no need in
GNU userland porting to the BSD, since the differences is not so big -- it's a
useless waste of time. We have a lot more work to do. And, at last, we can
create two base packages -- with BSD userland and with GNU one, just to satisfy
the needs of addicted ones ;)
3. [Main one :)]
Ports/Sources/Binaries
In my mind, having the binaries is a
Good Thing for people with slow network connections and slow machines, so
it's better to distribute binary packages for most users (those who have
fast machines and networks anyway wouldn't want to wait until the compilation is
done :). Concerning Linux compat issue: we are trying to build good stable and
secure system, don't we? We would achieve that only using native-compiled
binaries. _Only_ in the cases we have no choice, we should use linux-compat, but
i think we should avoid it everywhere it's
possible.
4. Configuration.
Important one. Personally, I don't like BSD
configuring style -- the SysV way is much more convinient for me. But most of
the BSD guys would want to have BSD.
This is the thing which should be heavily
discussed -- we should decide if SysV way is the right way for every Debian
OS or not.
I belive much of the debian-specific tools is
based on the configuring style, and we should stay on SysV.
Btw, what way Hurd uses?
So, here is the summary of mine: BSD
userland+Natively compiled deb's+SysV.
Maybe, we can make a kind of polling and once
we decide we have enough votes to judge, start working?
The discussions here may last forever
:))
---
TIA, Wartan.
|