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

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



On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 11:22:36AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> 
> So. I propose the following, and, barring objections over the next week
> or so, I'll take steps to update what I can to reflect this:
> 
> uname -s will remain 'NetBSD'.
> 
> uname -v will continue to have distinguishing features (I really wish the
> NetBSD folks had working 'vendor' fields, so I could just fill them in;
> maybe I should raise this on tech-user, as well, though I did at one point
> and mostly got told that it has never worked; of course, I didn't offer any
> patches, either, so I can't much complain).
> 
> The last part of the config triplet will remain '-netbsd-gnu' (origionally
> this was supposed to be -netbsd-debian, as a vendor field, but the GNU
> upstream preferred -gnu as a userland indicator, since that appears to be
> what the suffix is really intended to reflect).
> 
> The Debian port name will be "Debian GNU/KLNetBSD(i386)" (or KNetBSD for
> Robert's stuff, but that's not mine to decide :)
> 
> The Debian architecture will remain 'netbsd-i386', with the known issue
> that we'll have to resolve this at some point with the dpkg maintainers and
> the ftpmasters.
> 
> (And, in a week, barring any objections, I'll write a summary of what's
> going on, and post it to debian-devel and probably mail it to Debian News).

This was written last Thursday, mid-day - thus, you have slightly less than
24 hours (assuming I'm feeling pedantic about exactly when I do this, but I
won't guarantee anything *more* than 7x24 hours from the origional posting)
to raise objections, if you have any.

I believe the only one so far (by Robert, regarding the Debian architecture
string being used for patches) has been addressed, insofar as it is
possible to address, and certainly isn't any worse than what we have today.

Thus, barring any other objections, I'll assume everyone is either OK with
it, or doesn't much care (okay, it's probably the latter, but that will
suffice :)
-- 
Joel Baker <fenton@debian.org>                                        ,''`.
Debian GNU NetBSD/i386 porter                                        : :' :
                                                                     `. `'
				                                       `-

Attachment: pgpBEmAgPGM9e.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: