RE: assimilating OpenBSD
Sorry bout the typo, AndreAS :( Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa
On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, John Galt wrote:
>
>I think I've said this before, but it isn't archived, so I get to say it
>again :) There is nothing stopping us from going with packages for all
>kernels once we get going. The big thing is to get one ready for prime
>time first, then go for the rest. Andreas has pointed us in the direction
>of OpenBSD with his _fait accompli_. My suggestion is to hold off
>starting anything that conflicts with Andrei's efforts until you're sure
>that you won't be taking anything away from the main thrust: getting a BSD
>kernel packaged and ready for inclusion in the main project.
>
>On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, Mark Berry wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Andreas Schuldei [mailto:andreas@schuldei.org]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 10:17 AM
>>> To: Mark Berry
>>> Subject: Re: assimilating OpenBSD
>>>
>>>
>>> * Mark Berry (mark@shareaphoto.com) [010207 11:01]:
>>> > So basically what you are doing (if you don't mind me probing
>>> .. I wan't be
>>> > clearly on the same page if we are to work together on this
>>> project).. is
>>> > installing a 'base' version of OpenBSD and moving in the pkg mgr and and
>>> > debian tools on top of it.
>>>
>>> yes. plus you will need gmake from the ports. For personal
>>> convenience I also installed bash and vim, but that is not
>>> important.
>>>
>>> > Which version of OpenBSD are you working with?
>>>
>>> I took the current snapshot from the ftp servers. And this
>>> morning I checked out the CVS and recompiled tar, it was broken.
>>>
>>> > Is it going to be a full fork or run on top of future versions of BSD.
>>>
>>> I wnat to take advantage of the continuing code review of
>>> OpenBSD. I want to be able to keep on top of that an later have
>>> some kind of autobuilder running, which will happily compile
>>> away.
>>>
>>
>>Can I ask a fundamental question.. I prefer to use FreeBSD as a server,
>>userland.. etc. I know that OpenBSD is a great box in terms of security
>>(the Best?) ... but... if I was ultimately concerned enough to sacrafice
>>all the user-side benifits of FreeBSD/Linux based distro.. wouldn't I want
>>to use a 'secure' version of OpenBSD? I can't imagine that too many people
>>use OpenBSD for the great driving experience. The installation, etc is a
>>bit more dificult.
>>
>>Now on the same note... BSD has a great packaging and porting system,
>>arguably as good if not better than debians. I like the idea of using
>>debians packaging system to try cleanly organize and merge the porting of
>>code effort between the two systems.
>>
>>I guess I must say that my main interest is having a distribution that would
>>be Linux-Like with a BSD core. (Is that silly?) It's all about
>>consistancy.
>>
>>Now I am not going to abandon the idea if we all agree to move forward with
>>OpenBSD. ... but I think that it must be understood that the benifits of
>>secure and audited code will very quickly go away as we start to debianize
>>the distro.
>>
>>If those benifts are gone should we look at using FreeBSD?
>>
>>Should we look at even a more heavily striped down version such as the
>>Darwin kernel? (Though I don't know what we will do for drivers, etc..
>>probably not a good idea).
>>
>>I will take your milestone list and goals and maybe make some modifications
>>to it if you don't mind with some of my proposals and see if we logically
>>decide what BSD we wish to use based on what our needs our out of the
>>system. I think that we have to do it in a way that will keep the DebianBSD
>>in line with the movement of the BSD system we are following. Maybe the end
>>result is a agnostic BSD based package managment system.
>>
>>Anyway, all these are points of discussion but I would like to see these
>>decisions made sooner rather than later as I am anxious to use apt-get with
>>my BSD based system with my linux like environment. (Ok, thats my idea of
>>how it would be.. open for comments!) :)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> > (It's not going to just be a package port to OpenBSD and support future
>>> > versions of OpenBSD..) Or is it?
>>>
>>> That can happen as a addition later, if people want to use
>>> gphoto or Kdevelope on their Debian OpenBSD machine and this is
>>> not in OpenBSD yet. Did I understand the question correctly?
>>>
>>> > All of the gnu tools will port over quite easily.. (tar, etc etc).
>>>
>>> If we find no other way to get the packages build , we might
>>> install them, but I would try to get along with the OpenBSD
>>> tools, first. But I allready consider to use the gnutools for the
>>> packaging. I can hardly imagine how that should endanger any box
>>> but the build system.
>>>
>>> > The
>>> > Ports effort of BSD is great in that they do help maintain the subtle
>>> > differences in the OS and should be the base of the package
>>> building effort.
>>> > Probably wouldn't take too long to setup a 'base' server type
>>> distribution
>>> > with all the base gnu tools as well as things such as apache, sendmail,
>>> > zope, mysql, postgresql, gnu tools and make them accessable
>>> through apt-get.
>>>
>>> I guess so too. That would be a good alternative for step 7. I
>>> agree.
>>>
>>> > My company does run an ASP business and we have an emence amount of
>>> > bandwidth for hosting an ftp server for the packages and
>>> distribution and
>>> > would be happy to help there as well.
>>>
>>> It would be cool to have an OpenBSD box to fiddel around on and
>>> have accounts for several people to work on the job8 perhaps.
>>>
>>
>>On this note, I have a SGI 1200 w/Dual CPU 700 PIII w/512MB ram and dual
>>SCSI 9GIG I could probably donate to this cause. I will set it up with the
>>BSD distro we all agree to use and haul it down to London (Our datacenter is
>>in the AboveNet London fascility).
>>
>>We will need to setup a list of the people who will be involved with this
>>project and create accounts for key developers/members. (For obvious
>>reasons I don't want to have a hundred people running around chewing up my
>>bandwidth un-necesarily).. but we can do what we can. It will give a
>>reasonable box for testing and development.
>>
>>
>>> I use an old i486 here, which is slow but works. The Debian
>>> Network is also availabe for Package hosting. Since there is
>>> encryption in the source it should be outside the US. Where are
>>> you?
>>> I use pandora.debian.org right now.
>>
>>
>>--
>>To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-request@lists.debian.org
>>with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>>
>
>
--
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.
Who is John Galt? galt@inconnu.isu.edu, that's who!
Reply to: