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

Re: NetBSD packages

> e2fsprogs (need to build an analogous ufsprogs package - does it need
> to provide: e2fsprogs?)

I think it would be best to make a virtual package called something
like rootfsprogs. Then your dependencies could look like:

xxx depends on rootfsprogs
e2fsprogs provides rootfsprogs
ufsprogs provides rootfsprogs
reiserfsprogs provides rootfsprogs

Oh, did I mention reiserfs? This would probably be a good way to ease
the transition from ext2 to reiser in the main Debian tree. Is anyone
subscribed to debian-devel (which I'm not) willing to propose this? If
not, I'll go do it myself...

> libstdc++ (NetBSD version)

I agree with the remark about GCC-3.0 here...

> sysvinit (need to decide what we're doing with this one - use BSD
> init and lose ability to switch runlevels, or port/write a System V
> style init)

I agree that SysV-style init is definitely one of the defining factors
for a Debian system, so in the long term I'd really like to see it
done. If it's more work than using BSD-init as an interim solution,
though, do that first.

- Michael

"I wanted to change the world. But I have found that the only thing
one can be sure of changing is oneself."
  -- Aldous Huxley

Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail

Reply to: