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

Re: libc strategy

On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 07:45:05PM -0500, GT wrote:
> Quoting Nathan Myers <ncm@nospam.cantrip.org>:
> > Such a library already exists in BSD, and need only be packaged for 
> > Debian.  In effect, (c) is just an implementation detail of (b) that 
> > allows much of the porting effort to be shared among all the ported 
> > packages.  A person willing to put more work into a port might bypass 
> > the compat library.
> > 
> > Actually, the BSD compat library even provides a degree of binary 
> > compatibility, which we don't need.  Much of it could be discarded.
> If Nathan's right, I don't see why we couldn't start
> producing transitional packages Real Soon Now(tm).  

"Now(tm)" would be a good time.  Anybody with a Summer Vacation can 
go ahead and start packaging things Right Now.  There's no need for 
more talk; it's clear what has to happen, and either somebody just 
does it, or the project will have to be considered vaporware again.

To get started: if you don't have NetBSD, install a minimal system.
It's easy. 

Start Debianizing core BSD kernel-related packages.  Port dpkg, apt, 
and the package build tools.  Start replacing raw binaries by unpacking
your Debianized versions.  Phase 1 is complete when all the binaries
in the minimal system were unpacked from .deb files.

For Phase 2, port the Debain installer.  For phase 3, start building
non-kernel-related Debian packages for the system, patching as you go.  
(Phase 3 is never done.)

Don't worry about duplicating somebody else's work; the best of both
will end up used, and at worst you'll learn a lot.  There's no need to 
decide whether to use BSD libc or GNU libc; if you want to try porting 
GNU libc, just go ahead.  If you do a good job your work will be used, 
and adopted into the upstream package; the GNU libc project welcomes 
ports.  Debian GNU/BSD can use as many libc's as there are.  (Cygnus
newlib might be a good idea too.)

Nathan Myers
ncm at cantrip dot org

Reply to: