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

Re: Glibc-based Debian GNU/KNetBSD

On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 05:19:41PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 01:52:01AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > Please avoid the "third party" euphemism. If you want to run non-free software
> > on a Glibc-based system, you can use the NetBSD libc since it's no technical
> > problem to provide it as alternative (ala Linux libc5)
> "Third party" includes the large body of Free software that isn't 
> shipped by Debian, plus unmodified upstream code not supplied by Debian. 
> There's no need whatsoever to start assuming that it's a euphemism.
> Look, Robert, what is it about you and your complete inability to 
> actually work with others whose goals aren't identically aligned to 
> yours? You're managing to piss off NetBSD upstream (telling people 
> who've been hacking on difficult code that porting something similar is 
> trivial is not a good way to ingratiate yourself), and frankly I don't 
> get warm fuzzyness reading your emails either (telling myself and Joel 
> that you're not impressed with the relatively minor patches required to 
> make XFree or PAM build isn't really a good plan, especially since 
> you're already benefitting from code that we've got integrated).

I find myself similarly annoyed. This list has always had a tendacy to
go up in flames, and we really don't need this.

> I'm entirely happy to cooperate and assist in both projects, despite my 
> own preferences being fairly clear. So far your contribution appears to 
> be to send patches which accidently remove the native libc and to tell 
> us that our work is of low quality. It's not a good way to encourage a 
> decent working relationship.
> > And that doesn't apply to the other port? Well, I think we should
> > postpone the discussion untill the port is ready for production use,
> > in a pair of weeks.
> Nothing is ready for production use with that little testing.

Absolutely not. One of the reasons I want to use FreeBSD is because
Linux is too unstable for me. I've begun to conclude that the glibc port
on FreeBSD has actually kept freebsd-i386 from becoming usable. I can
live with a port where most packages need a little porting. But I can't
live with one that doesn't have a working DNS resolver, and a poorly
supported, barely ported libc. That is _not_ suitable for production.


Reply to: