On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 10:39:28AM +0100, Michael Ritzert wrote:
> What do we want to have? At present, i am tending more toward 2) (reason: broader audience)
> but i am convincable of alternatives.
The first is the one that I've been working towards.
> Well, aren't they already part of linux, especially ash?
There's some NetBSD tools that would need to be packaged (things tied to
the kernel), and there's a few bits and pieces that would benefit from
being packaged anyway but nobody's got round to it.
> For a good start we should simply define an initial version and freeze that until the 1st release.
I'm happy working on 1.6 for now. Tracking CVS would be something of a
> > Is it a problem if we build software on different OSes for cross
> > compiling? Might actually be easier to cross compile. I would probably
> > install linux on one for the other disks.
> I agree.
There should be no real problem with this, except that you'll need native
versions of some of the NetBSD tools used during make (the NetBSD make,
for a start). Make doesn't trivially build on Linux, but if someone wants
to take a look at that it'd be a sensible thing to package.
Matthew Garrett | firstname.lastname@example.org
- re: Hello
- From: matthew green <email@example.com>
- Re: Hello
- From: Michael Ritzert <firstname.lastname@example.org>