[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: hurd does NOT need /hurd

On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 01:27:25PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> The Hurd is not such a system, but it's perfectly reasonable to
> imagine Debian ports that are only for such applications.  As long as
> we are clear and up-front about whatever limitations there might be,
> there is no problem here.

Except the obvious problem that such a system would probably be too
different to fit under the debian umbrella. A system with no concept of
users would be a bad fit for our policies on users, or our tools that
change user attributes, or our applications that expect users. The
reality is that debian/pocketwatch just doesn't make any sense; there is
some minimal level of functionality necessary for a system to be
"debian". No definition of the functionality debian needs has been made,
but it's probably a waste of time to write one--to paraphrase a u.s.
supreme court justice, we'll know it when we see it.

Mike Stone

Attachment: pgpmIpDd4orfO.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: