Re: assimilating OpenBSD
What part of "let's not reopen the BSD flamewar" don't you understand?
On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, David Starner wrote:
>On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 06:51:06AM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
>> On 20010206T142640-0600, David Starner wrote:
>> > This
>> > looks to be closer to a BSD with dpkg and apt, which may be a good idea,
>> > but not within Debian.
>> Why not? It would not be Debian GNU, but are we going to restrict
>> ourselves to GNU systems only?
>Debian is a project to create an operating system. Including the Hurd
>streaches that a little, but since the Hurd runs the same libc and
>the same userland, it's feasible to do without most non-Hurd users
>and developers worrying about like. It can and has been considered
>little different from a new architecture.
>A BSD userland would mean that every package would have to be audited
>for GNUisms. Take the number of Bashisms found, and the fuss over the
>tar bzip option, and think about doing that for almost everything in
>standard. It's a lot of work for a lot of maintainers who may not care
>in the least about the Debian BSD project.
>The Debian project is here to make an operating system. People are
>always welcome to base their projects on Debian, and for something
>like this Software in the Public Intrest ought to be willing to
>help. But the extra work it adds to Debian means it shouldn't be
Armageddon means never having to say you're sorry.
Who is John Galt? email@example.com, that's who!