On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 01:39:03PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: > Jeroen Dekkers <jeroen@dekkers.cx> cum veritate scripsit: > > > On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 11:17:39AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: > > > - Debian on Athlon Project (!) :P > > > > This doesn't have to be a seperate project if we just implement > > http://master.debian.org/~brinkmd/arch-handling.txt after 3 years of > > ignoring it. > > No, we don't need proposals without solid working > test system. > > The purpose of my project is to create a testbed, and > test implementation so that the system can be evaluated. > > Proposals without solid testable implementation is > just useless. (er... actually, unusable :P ) If somebody volunteered to work out the details and make test implementations I don't see any problem. However, if nobody replies it and offers a little help (not everything can be done without help of some dpkg hacker, for example), busy people who volunteered tend to work on other tasks they want to do. I'm not going to blame anybody on this, but I don't think it's fair that the Hurd port is blamed for not wanting intergration with Debian, which was said so on IRC yesterday. But I'm volunteering to do some work. I'm certainly interesting in the Debian on Athlon Project and how they do everything. The Hurd port was also blamed for doing everything different. Now we don't do _everything_ different, but we do some things different. Things we consider better the way we are doing, but we try to be compatible with the rest of Debian. But please face it: the Hurd port is different from all the other ports in Debian. It's a whole new OS, not just a port of GNU/Linux to another architecture. Also, the Hurd itself is not just another implementation of the unix kernel. Altough we do things different, we try to be compatible, with the POSIX standard for example. If the are bugs in the compatibility, please let us now about it. We can't fix things without bug reports. For the FHS: we care about it, especially as it is in the Debian policy. However I don't expect the FHS to include all things possible on the Hurd. The Hurd has a very flexible filesystem namespace, I could write a document longer than the FHS about all his possibilities. ;-) We are compatible however, we have the /usr -> / symlink, and *all* packages should reference files in the /usr location, it doesn't matter that's physically in another place. Making /usr a directory should also work and report if it doesn't. We have our reasons to have this symlink at the moment. We want to use shadowfs in the future, which in our opinion solves the problem of needing a small partition to boot from in a better way. For the autobuilder issue, turle is in a long term hibernation. The problems we had with glibc are fixed now and we are going to start building packages linked against our new libc0.3 (Yeah, also different from GNU/Linux, we don't consider our ABI stable enough yet) using the normal autobuilder. Just wait a few weeks and the you can see the number of hurd-i386 packages increasing. And you can see bug reports saying that your package doesn't build of course. But you don't have to wait for that, you can fix your MAXPATHLEN problems already. :)) For the people complaining about the intergration of the Hurd port: We have a mailinglist to ask questions on and file bugs (but RTFM please first). AFAIK the people saying on IRC that we don't want intergration never asked anything about the problems they saw. If you read our archive, you see that we have talked about the FHS. We care and I'm going to write a proposal for the OS-specific annex and check if we are compliant with the FHS. Now let's stop blaming others. Let's think about the future instead of the past. We are also getting the *BSD (* includes GNU/) port(s) now, let's fix the problems the Hurd and *BSD ports are having. Let's cooperate. We all have a common goals, only trying to do it in different way: Making Debian better, making Debian *the* distribution for everything and supporting Free Software. Wouldn't it be nice to have total world liberation? ;-) I don't think one kernel fits for all purposes. Of course I don't deny I think the Hurd port will fit for all purposes in the future, but the people working on other ports also think that about their ports. That doesn't have to be a problem, Debian can have different kernels. Ket's just hack and see what the future brings us. Maybe we win, maybe you win, maybe we both win and Debian will have 10 different kernels in the future. Wouldn't it be cool to have the Debian installer question: "What kernel do you want to install?" I think that's easier to do than it looks like. We don't have to fight each other, we could cooperate instead. Jeroen Dekkers -- Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: jdekkers@jabber.org Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org IRC: jeroen@openprojects
Attachment:
pgpIWki8qeGnj.pgp
Description: PGP signature