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

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



On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 12:44:07PM -0500, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 02:58:42PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> > I really need to sit down and write a proposal / patches for NetBSD to
> > support the 'vendor' sysctl tree, that can be checked usefully. Since that
> > would be the canonical way of testing this (a 'debian' vendor could have a
> > sub-field indicating which sort of port it was).
> 
> There is one possible problem with that. It occurred to that it is quite
> possible now to run regular freebsd in a jail or chroot on a debian
> freebsd box, and vice versa. I assume the same is true for the netbsd
> port. If we use sysctl or uname to make the distinction, that jail or
> chroot usage will be affected.

This is, in fact, an issue with my chroot environment which I have to
spend some amount of effort to work around.

The nicer solution, IMO, would be user-mode-<foo>BSD, akin to
user-mode-linux. Especially when combined with bind mounts, this has the
potential to be very powerful, indeed.

Unfortunately, I'm still not entirely clear on what all would need to be
done, to accomplish this properly.
-- 
Joel Baker <fenton@debian.org>                                        ,''`.
Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter                                       : :' :
                                                                     `. `'
				                                       `-

Attachment: pgpwEOm4_Yp_T.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: