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

Re: A request from the NetBSD folks [ please discuss ]



On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 09:41:00AM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Hi Joel,
> 
> On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 01:50:16PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> > I've been contacted by a member of the NetBSD team, who expressed that the
> > general opinion seems to be that "Debian GNU/KNetBSD" is a better name for
> > the port than "Debian GNU/NetBSD", both because it is more specific about
> > what's going on, and because it doesn't dilute the NetBSD trademark. While
> > the former is less true of, say, my work, the latter is certainly a valid
> > concern.
> 
> This summer Robert and I were discussing on the naming convention and
> concluded that we would like to use KFreeBSD wherever possible, for
> consistrency and to not confuse users or developers, etc. So now we have:
> 
> 	uname -s:		GNU/KFreeBSD
                                Uhm. I'd have to turn on my box to check
				this. I think I may have left uname -s
				alone, but changed uname -v to something
				like Debian/NetBSD.
> 	config.guess triplet:	<arch>-(pc|unknown)-kfreebsd<version>-gnu
                                <arch>-(pc|unknown)-netbsd-gnu
> 	Debian port name:	Debian GNU/KFreeBSD
                                Debian GNU/NetBSD
				Debian GNU NetBSD/i386
				(yes, it's inconsistant; should perhaps
				be Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386), or whatever
				variant on that we end up with)
> 	Debian arch name:	freebsd-<arch>
                                netbsd-<arch> (specfically, -i386)
> 
> The Debian arch name is not consistent, because the dpkg maintainers
> disagreed with the name change, and we didn't want to discuss it
> endlessly, we wanted the patches integrated to have a functional system.

Frankly, they're probably waiting to see who emerges from the smoke and
rubble as actually capable of being used as a working port...

> My question is, what names were you thinking on changing (if that change
> is considered) ?

The config.guess triple is going to be exceptionalyl difficult to change
at this point, for very little return (and the -gnu suffix is already
sufficient to indicate exactly what's going on, in the exact sense that
config.guess uses those fields; a NetBSD core, with gnu userland).

The port name is trivial to change; I think the only places it shows up
regularly are the web pages (which DDs can get access to fix, including
myself), and my .signature. :)

The arch name isn't going to change, for obvious reasons, I think. I've
waffled extensively over what various parts of uname should say, though I'd
like to have some rational, useful way of deciding that.
-- 
Joel Baker <fenton@debian.org>                                        ,''`.
Debian GNU NetBSD/i386 porter                                        : :' :
                                                                     `. `'
				                                       `-

Attachment: pgpzuUtf1gKCF.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: