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

Re: libc strategy

Nathan Myers wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 07:34:53AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > I haven't any great experience with the
> > Linux emulation in the BSDs - is it sufficiently good that things like
> > Linux ifconfig and fdisk will work? If not, I don't see any real advantage
> > in using it to get base transferred across though it would save us having
> > to recompile everything else to start with. 
> There is no need for Linux ifconfig or fdisk; BSD has its own
> equivalents that work with their kernel.  These are specifically 
> the sort of tools which there's no point in trying to port, because
> they're too closely tied to the Linux kernel.  (The package is
> called util-linux for a reason!)  Instead, just make a .deb of the 
> BSD equivalents, and call it util-netbsd.

Just a minor point... while I agree that ifconfig should use one that
groks the BSD kernel, natively, we do have to be careful about dealing
with the support scripts, and make sure the syntax isn't completely
out in left field (it certainly has been on some systems I've dealt
with, compared to the "native Linux" one).

This is the main reason I favor the GNU utilities, too - not that the
BSD ones are bad, but that they can completely break many of the scripts
in all of the packages. We have "Debian GNU/Linux". Perhaps we need to
be clear on whether this is "Debian GNU/<x>BSD"?

> The valuable ports, initially, will be the package-building tools.
> (Fortunately, those ports don't depend on any kernel peculiarities.)

Very fortunately. :)

> The differing file hierarchy cause some weirdness at first, but nothing
> "rm -f" can't fix.  :-)

Policy says FHS. I think that's a simple answer. :)
Joel Baker                           System Administrator - lightbearer.com
lucifer@lightbearer.com              http://www.lightbearer.com/~lucifer

Reply to: