Re: Glibc-based Debian GNU/KNetBSD
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'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.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org
Reply to: