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

RE: assimilating OpenBSD

On Fri, 9 Feb 2001, Jeff Sheinberg wrote:

> Jeremy C. Reed writes:
>  > > First of all, this *BSD ports base is entirely unnecessary.
>  > 
>  > This makes sense -- especially because the dpkg/apt system is what really
>  > makes Debian.
>  > 
>  > > What's needed is a `base' debian-bsd system.  The basic (/bin,
>  > > /sbin) *BSD binaries is what is needed to be packaged the Debian
>  > > way.
>  > 
>  > I agree that the base system (to be Debian) should be packaged the
>                                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>  > Debian-way.
>    ^^^^^^^^^^
> I don't exactly understand your point.  Have you ever actually
> created a debian package?

I am talking about having packages for the default, standard base install,
for example: findutils, procps, fileutils, modutils. But using BSD
equivalents. (We are talking about the same thing I believe -- I was

>  > But many of the BSD /bin and /sbin binaries are not truly compatible with
>  > GNU equivalents. So does this mean forcing the Debian packages and Debian
>                                       ^^^^^^^
>  > routines (like dpkg pre-installation scripts) to use the BSD tools
>  > instead?
> Again, I don't exactly understand your point.  I will give you a

I used the word "forcing" because I can imagine that numerous installation
scripts may use GNU-specific commands. Things may need to be changed.

> hypothetical example, involving the packaging of the BSD
> `fileutils', by this I mean a package that consists of BSD
> versions of ls, mv, rm, mkdir, ln, etc, and provides similar
> functionality to the GNU fileutils package.
> This package would be a drop-in replacement for the GNU fileutils
> package.  It is the user's choice to choose which version, GNU or
> BSD, or both, that she wants installed.

I don't see how a BSD fileutils could be a drop-in replacement for a GNU
fileutils (without changing the BSD and GNU utilities to share exact
syntax, usage and results).

> Now let's assume that these BSD fileutils require pmake in order
> to build.  So, in my debian/rules file, I invoke `pmake...'.
> Naturally, this BSD fileutils package has a build-depends on
> pmake.  Now let's also assume that the `pmake...' rule eventually
> invokes a recursive make from its Makefile, and that its Makefile
> rule looks like this,
>     make...
> instead of the correct way, like this,
>     $(MAKE)
> so I have to fix the upstream Makefile.  This is normal, and is
> the expected kind of work that a debian package maintainer does.

That is a good example.

>  > Or should the BSD tools be changed? (But then it wouldn't be the
>  > "audited" BSD tools anymore.)
> I am personally interested in using FreeBSD as the base, so I have
> no particular interest in the OpenBSD `audited' tools.

Understood. In fact, I didn't use the term "OpenBSD". But I did say
"audited" -- which FreeBSD definitely does.

  Jeremy C. Reed
     BSD software, documentation, resources, news...

Reply to: