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

Re: libc strategy

Hi all!

[Disclaimer: I never touched BSD]

On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 08:12:37PM -0500, GT wrote:
> Quoting Will Yardley <william@hq.newdream.net>:
> > 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.
> I think that would defeat the whole point.  Debian is not Linux.  We
> have an impressive collection of packages available for the Debian
> system already, almost all of which compile into binary packages
> easily whether you use debian-i386, debian-alpha, debian-sparc, etc.
> Tapping into this would be a great boon to debian-bsd, and the fact
> that it's a different kernel is not an argument for why we shouldn't
> do this (unless you don't believe that "Debian is not Linux").  For
> that matter, debian-sparc does run under a different kernel than
> debain-i386, so your argument is spurious.  Ideally, debian-bsd
> should be just another branch that gets released with each Debian
> version.

This is not as trivial as it might seem and will require some severe
alterations to the policy.

Look at the stuff that is happening with hurd: there is i386-hurd now.
What will it be if the hurd gets ported to other arches? sparc-hurd,

What about (as already mentioned) to split kernel and arch into
seperate dimensions:

debian-all: binary compatability to all arches/all kernels (i.e.
	scripts et al)
debian-i386-all: binary-compat within intelworld (may be of little use
	with the hurd?)
debian-i386-{linux,bsd,hurd}: arch/kernel specific binaries for intel

likewise debian-sparc-bsd for sparc binaries using the BSD kernel.

On the other hand, depending on how good the BSDs compat-stuff is, it
might be a matter of booting another kernel??

Regards, David

PS: GT: could you please reply directly to the list?
Signaturen sind wie Frauen. Man findet selten eine Vernuenftige
	-- gesehen in at.linux

Reply to: