Could you perhaps outline what exactly are all the problems the GNU/Hurd port is having right now. I don't follow debian-hurd and I'm sure a lot of other developers don't. I think we're all scratching our heads wondering what exactly are the technical problems being faced by it, and less interested in all of the rhetoric. * Jeroen Dekkers (jeroen@dekkers.cx) wrote: > On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 12:36:35AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > On Sat, 18 May 2002, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: > > > It's useful to have such a standard, that's why it's specified in the > > > GNU Coding Standard. > > > > Well, but GNU != Debian. Debian follows Debian Policy, not the GNU Coding > > Standard. If you want Debian to follow the GNU Coding Standard, go to > > debian-vote and issue an amendment to throw away Debian Policy (or any > > part thereof) and replace it with the GNU Coding Standard. If you get the > > majority of Debian's developers to agree, then we'll follow the GNU Coding > > Standard; until that time, Hurd developers need to follow Debian Policy > > wherever possible, even if it's braindead (which I don't think it is, but > > just in case). > > Debian GNU/Hurd are 2 things. One is Debian. The other is GNU/Hurd > and the Hurd is GNU too, so it's actually just GNU. Is it so > difficult to see that? A lot of packages in Debian follow the GNU > Coding Standards because a lot of them come from GNU. And upstream > Hurd developers are following the GNU Coding Standards, because the > Hurd is GNU software. Is Debian willing to maintain all the patches > for that software so it's compatible with the FHS instead of the GCS? > > > > I don't think the FHS is a good standard > > > however. > > > > That's your good right. Still, Debian uses FHS, so Debian GNU/Hurd will > > also be FHS-compliant. Else it won't be Debian GNU/Hurd. What's so hard > > about that? > > IMHO it won't be GNU/Hurd without being compliant with the GNU Coding > Standards. And are you also asking the Debian *BSD people to change > their ABI because of the FHS? I asked them what they thought about > libexec and the FHS etc. and they said to me that they won't give up > ABI compatibility for the FHS. So what do you think, should we get rid > of both the Hurd and BSD ports or change Debian policy? > > > I can understand that certain packages, like inet-utils for example, > > cannot be ported to Debian GNU/Hurd and thus need to be packaged > > separately. But that does not go for the filesystem. Debian GNU/Hurd > > will still be Debian; If GNU doesn't like that, then GNU must make > > it's own Hurd-distribution, and not try to change Debian. > > Do you mean the Linux netkit instead of inet-utils? Inetutils is GNU > software and works fine GNU/Hurd, *BSD and GNU/Linux (minus bugs). So > it is possible to have a coherent system. Is Debian GNU/Linux going to > make GNU inetutils and abandon the netkit package? If not, why should > we make the FHS the default on GNU/Hurd then? > > > > The fact is that the loader in *BSD is in libexec and that's > > > part of the ABI. It isn't in GNU/Hurd, I don't know why, maybe to be > > > compatible with GNU/Linux or for some other reason. > > > > Simply because libexec isn't FHS-compliant. You knew that already. > > GNU doesn't care about what some GNU-bashing hobbyists who wrote a > kernel and some other software which is most of the time incompatible > with GNU itself. So I really wonder why it isn't in libexec, because > it should be there. > > Before I get 25 "fan mails" that I say "hobbyists" I already back it > up: > "I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be > big and professional like gnu)." > > IMHO the same goes for the FHS. > > But everything available from GNU was used for 'his operating', we > have now the GNU OS with the kernel Linux and some other things not > available from GNU at that time and we call that GNU/Linux. And that's > exactly why it should be called like that. Linus' initial goal isn't > irrelevant to that. But telling this is useless anyhow as a lot of > people don't want to see it. It's just that it only takes a minute. > > This is also a reason why I don't want to be in Debian. Most of the > time the system is just called "Linux" by people who already know that > it should actually be "GNU/Linux". I can't work with people who say > wrong things when they are told it's wrong and the project already > decided to say the right thing. > > Sometimes the truth isn't the same as what you want to see. > > Jeroen Dekkers -- Eric Dorland <dorland@lords.com> ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: hooty@jabber.com 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Attachment:
pgp4DJPgRa_lL.pgp
Description: PGP signature