Re: libc strategy
On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 05:31:18PM -0700, Will Yardley wrote:
> it seems to me that these are two different things since bsd isn't a hardware
> type; it's a kernel and operating system. so it seems to me that
> 'debian-bsd' should be something different from 'debian-sparc' or
> 'debian-alpha' since it's not using a linux kernel.
Yes, it will. It will be very much like Debian GNU (aka hurd-i386).
> i am not a huge expert on operating systems, but it seems that using gnu
> utilities and ext2 and making it more gnu/linux-like is taking away a lot of
> what makes *bsd so great; not that these are bad, but if people wanted them
> they'd use gnu/linux :>
>
> looking through the archives it seems that this is the never-ending debate...
Everyone wants something different (BSD/GNU userland, Free/Net/OpenBSD kernel,
BSD/GNU libc). That is not nearly so much of a problem as the fact that almost
none of the camps have sat down to do much real work.
Whoever builds the first prototype gets to choose the direction for the
project. If nobody wants this badly enough to actually do it, it will probably
never happen.
In case you're wondering, I'm subscribed to this list because I would be
interested in the result, not because I'm motivated to spearhead the project.
This list seems to be mostly populated by people with a similar view.
Is there anything particularly spectacular that one would be able to accomplish
with a Debian/BSD hybrid, something to make the sweat worthwhile for at least a
few people here? Does it scratch an itch? So far, it doesn't seem to be much
more than an "It would be nice if..." with some dpkg/apt diffs as a starting
point.
--
- mdz
Reply to: