Re: portability as a goal for debian?
On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 05:51:57PM -0300, Carlos Laviola wrote:
> On 07-Mar-2001 Michael Piefel wrote:
> > Am 7.03.01 um 10:40:23 schrieb Andreas Schuldei:
> >> But this is just a symtom of our focus on gnu tools, without beeing
> >> explicit about it.
> >
> > I feel that calling the whole thing Debian GNU/Linux is quite explicit
> > already. What more do you ask for?
>
> It's called GNU/Linux because it uses the GNU tools and the Linux kernel, but
> that doesn't mean we _are_ GNU zealots. The DFSG makes no discrimination
> against other licenses such as the BSD-type ones.
Debian doesn't just use the GNU tools; they are the standard with in Debian.
Almost all of the programs in Debian which are expected to exist on any
self-respecting UNIX-like operating system are provided by GNU software.
If Debian is to expand to include other kernels, then the GNU tools should (and
probably must, to be successful) be used there as well. Since the GNU tools
are (in general) very portable, they can provide a compatibility layer that
will enable the Debian infrastructure and software packages to interface with
any kernel/OS core.
I understand that using the GNU tools may, in a real, non-philosophical,
technical sense, be contrary to the goals of a Debian/OpenBSD hybrid because
OpenBSD's value lies primarily in its extensive, audited code base.
Why not instead work on packaging OpenBSD's software for Debian, so that,
network services, privileged tools and other security-sensitive software can
(at the user's option) be used instead of the more traditional Linux tools?
This is already done for netkit ftpd vs. OpenBSD ftpd (though I understand that
the Linux port is a fork), and (under somewhat different circumstances)
OpenSSH. Perhaps the Debian community would benefit from a packaging of the
OpenBSD portmapper, cron, etc. I would be glad to help with such an initiative
by doing real packaging work.
--
- mdz
Reply to: