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

Re: Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)



On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 12:24:31AM -0500, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 05:29:48PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> > My impression is that this will not satisfy The NetBSD Foundation, though
> > they could always suprise me. In part, their objection appears to be using
> > the bareword 'NetBSD' in any context other than referring to the current
> > software produced by the NetBSD Project, taken as a whole.
> > 
> > Much like we normally expect "Debian" to refer either to the project, or
> > to the entire system, rather than, say, just dpkg and apt.
> 
> So do we have a problem with packages named something like netbsd-kernel?

I'll ask, but I doubt it - in large part because the expectations in
different contexts (the formal name of a port, versus a descriptive string
saying where the code is from) are... different.

Would we mind someone putting together /usr/pkgsrc/debian-apt? I doubt
it; it's not going to be viewed as a statement of endorsement, or as an
assertion that that tool *is* Debian, only that it *came from* Debian.

The problem with the port naming is that the assumptions about what it
means (to Joe User) are far less clear. Or at least, that is my distinct
impression of what has been asked of us (note that they have not expressed
any issue with the uname or GNU triplet pieces, nor any particular worry
over the Debian architecture name; only the official port name).

Part of it is that something that claims to be "The NetBSD Kernel", and
which is, by and large, what is found in in /usr/src/sys on a NetBSD
system, is not an inaccurate name. It *is* the NetBSD kernel code; nothing
more, nothing less. The same for a 'netbsd-libc' that comes from the libc
source directory. Thus, the reason they were fine with something that
implied "NetBSD Kernel", rather than just "NetBSD", which is normally used
as a reference to the project as a whole.

I could, of course, be mistaken, and I'll ask for clarification to be
certain, but this is the consistant impression I have gotton from all of
the discussions about it.
-- 
Joel Baker <fenton@debian.org>                                        ,''`.
Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter                                       : :' :
                                                                     `. `'
				                                       `-

Attachment: pgpIyYFeqYExQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: