Re: HURD/Linux/BSD* ... Loosing focus.
On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 01:11:16PM +0200, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote:
> It seems to me that most of us are trying to meaninglessly force the HURD to
> be Linux compliant
Nope. The question is whether hurd should be debian compliant. It is
obvious that there are certain minor differences that debian needs to
take into account for each architecture, and those are acceptable,
basically technical, issues. People will certainly quibble about the
details, ask proponents to defend claims, etc., but at the end of the
day it is inevitable that reasonable, *technical* requirements will be
accomodated.
> , where this is not necessary. What is the problem if the
> HURD systems have a '/{hurd,servers,libexec}'? Do you wary you will see those
> `frightening monstrosity' in you `marvelous' Linux system?
Quite the opposite. I worry that debian/hurd will be gratuitously
different from debian/linux in places where it doesn't have to be. The
specific standards are negotiable, but the ideal that linux and hurd are
each only parts of the overall debian system shouldn't be, IMO. To wit,
I don't consider that I run a "marvelous linux system"; I consider that
I run a marvelous *debian* system.
> OTOH, why a Linux or BSD* system should install or consider those architecture
> specific components? Why should Debian HURD or BSD* have '/lib/modules',
> '/proc' or whatever '/sblisca/antani' dir Linux depends on? should i go on
> with examples?
No, please don't, because your examples are misguided. I don't believe
that I've heard any serious suggestion that hurd should be forced to
have a /proc. It is a red herring that I've heard dragged out for FUD
purposes ad nauseum. I wish that people would credit debian developers
with enough sense not to believe that an empty /proc on hurd is a
long-term goal of the project.
> We do have an ambitious goal: the universal operating system.
> To me, this means that we aim to have an consistent operating system on any
> architecture. Hence, it means we should focus on providing an operating system
> that *MUST* offer the same interface for those packages that declares to
> work on multiple or any architecture.
*We* agree here. But does everyone? There still is this fundamental
question of whether the goal is Debian on hurd, or a Debian-branded
version of GNU (which happens to include hurd but is not limited to
that, and which implies that gnu standards should trump debian policy,
rather than the opposite.)
--
Mike Stone
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: