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

Re: Hello

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 | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org

Reply to: