debian-bsd port(?) name(s)
[please CC me where appropriate]
It's important to remember the bigger "problem" is likely not the uname or
the triplet, but the Debian port name and maybe even the arch name. Likely
just the Debian Port name as it's the "name" and the rest is technical.
It's like someone trademarking the name "ls", but as Branden suggests it
is probably important to get the trademark issue clarified.
As far as a new name goes.. Since this is seen as a problem (legal or
political) I'd prefer Joel Baker, Robert Millan and other debian-bsd
people be motivated to use their names in the official Debian port names.
This would match with Debra Ian (Debian).
Perhaps: Debian GNU/NetBaker, Debian GNU/FreeBaker and Debian
GNU/FreeMillan, Debian GNU/NetMillan
Or: Debian GNU/NetJB, Debian GNU/FreeRM... Debian GNU/NJB, Debian GNU/FRM
...
Some other people who have made notable contributions include (I'm
probably missing some):
[2] Nathan P. Hawkins, Jimmy Kaplowitz, Michael Weber
[3] Matthew?
[4] rmh?
It may also be worth using Debian in the port name like Debian
GNU/FreeBSD/Debian.
I could probably come up with some more pleasing ideas with time, but I've
been sitting on this message and don't want to miss the chance to give my
input.
I also am uncertain as to when the userland or system becomes not GNU. I'd
leave it to Joel Baker (and others?) to determine if the GNU should be
dropped since he's using BSD's libc. My preference would be to drop it
from the *BSD libc port name to make it still be correct if/when the GNU
tools become replaceable.
As to what's used elsewhere (and earlier?) see
http://www.nongnu.org/glibc-bsd/
I also wonder why we're having such a long discussion given that I would
imagine that some day we'll look at it as the NetBSD kernel package etc.
and not as a port. To illustrate this point, where's the Linux port? But
then this is a different subject altogether.
As to
http://lists.debian.org/debian-bsd/2003/debian-bsd-200312/msg00233.html my
vote would be:
[ x ] Further discussion
My rational being that we should probably wait until we hear more from the
NetBSD people. They may have better suggestions or may help us choose more
wisely.
As to point 3 in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-bsd/2003/debian-bsd-200312/msg00098.html
> 3) The GNU config triple will have '-netbsd-gnu' as it's third part.
> (This is unchanged - and don't blame me for a 4-part triplet. I didn't
> start it, merely maintained consistancy with -linux-gnu).
Why not -netbsd<version> where the version could somehow indicate the
"fork" to tools? Why the -gnu here? What effects will this have on
libtool/autotools-dev's use/implementations? I don't mean to cause alarm,
I would however be more at ease if my questions are answered.
[1] Suggested in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-bsd/2003/debian-bsd-200312/msg00199.html
[2] Found at http://www.debian.org/ports/netbsd/people
[3] http://www.debian.org/ports/netbsd/
[4] http://www.debian.org/ports/freebsd/gnu-libc-based
Drew Daniels
Reply to: