Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 06:37:56PM -0600, Kevin Kreamer wrote:
> [I am not subscribed to debian-bsd.]
>
> On Dec 17, 2003, at 10:20, Branden Robinson wrote:
> >Given that we're going to be saddled with with a comprehension problem
> >anyway, I say we abandon the effort to be descriptive in the product
> >name. I proposed having a correlation between the first letter of the
> >product name and the underlying BSD variant simply as a mnemonic
> >convenience for people who already know what the products are supposed
> >to be.
>
> We don't have to *completely* give up the effort to be descriptive.
> How about just calling it:
>
> Debian GNU/NBSD
> Debian GNU/FBSD
> Debian GNU/OBSD (if there's ever an OpenBSD port)
>
> It would have the advantage of being recognizable to most people,
> without actually using 'NetBSD' or so anywhere in the name.
>
> [ The following suggestion is possibly flameworthy. Please consider
> the above separate from the below. ]
>
> In the case of a NetBSD libc, you could use
>
> Debian NBSD/NBSD
>
> basically having the first half signify which libc is used. However,
> if Debian is always going to use the GNU/ prefix, then perhaps make it
> something like
>
> Debian GNU/NBSD/NBSD
>
> with the third part signifying the libc used.
I would better say that the second part be the libc, and that it can be
omitted if it is the same as most userland.
That said, we don't have only GNU stuff as userland.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: