Re: where do NEW packages go?
On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 11:51:29AM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> This is completely the wrong forum. The person editing the draft will not
> even see it here.
I'm happy to throw my weight around on Debian lists, where I've at least
been around a while and contributed something useful. I don't particularly
feel competent to throw any weight around on Hurd lists. There seem to
be plenty of Hurd hackers on this list who can take any good ideas that
come up and get them moved along appropriately.
> > (By comparison, we don't really care if people follow the Linux coding
> > standards (linux/Documentation/CodingStyle) or the GNU coding standards,
> > so there's no real confusion to be had there)
> I am refering to what the GNU coding standard has to say about where in the
> filesystem which type of files should end up.
I'm not really sure what you're talking about, but it says things like
"The default value of prefic should be `/usr/local'" and such, which aren't
particularly interesting.
In any event, we follow the FHS, we don't follow the GNU coding standards,
so there isn't really much of an analogy to be drawn.
> > If you want to consider Linux-based systems "GNU systems", then it's not
> > reasonable to go around calling Hurd-based systems "*the* GNU system".
> > It's too complicated, it's too confusing, and it's too prone to error.
> Well, a Hurd-based GNU system is called *the* GNU system since well, I guess
> ever since, including a timespan before Linux was started.
Well, if you're really serious about "GNU/Linux" being the GNU system with
a Linux kernel, then it's time to stop calling Hurd-based systems *the*
GNU system. Certainly there shouldn't be any doubt by the time the FHS
came about, let alone by the time you want to patch the FHS.
If it's not the GNU system we're running on top of Linux (which is what
seems to implied by the hedging in one of the GNU/FSF manifestos:
] Around 1992, combining
] Linux with the not-quite-complete GNU system resulted in a complete
] free operating system. (Combining them was a substantial job in
] itself, of course.) It is due to Linux that we can actually run a
] version of the GNU system today.
-- http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html:
While the FSF and the GNU project might consider Linux to be a
half-hearted stop gap measure, that's *their* opinion only. I consider
it to be complete and quite satisfactory in and of itself, personally. I
don't like the way the "GNU" in "GNU/Linux" seems to be being used to
say that my operating system of choice is just a pit stop on the way to
some brave new world.
Marcus, I'm not remotely accusing you of having that attitude; but it
seems to be reflected at least in the use of "GNU" in the draft FHS
stuff and the use of "i386-gnu" instead of "i386-hurd". While the latter
might be an historical artifact from pre-Linux days, the former certainly
isn't. And it's certainly the GNU project's privilege to say that "the
GNU system" runs the Hurd, not Linux. But you don't get to have it both
ways: either the GNU system can run on top of either Linux or the Hurd,
or GNU and the Hurd are essentially synonymous.
IMO, of course.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``BAM! Science triumphs again!''
-- http://www.angryflower.com/vegeta.gif
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: