On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 11:46:52AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > You're wrong again. Doesn't seem to me that any decision has been made > or that the hurd developers have changed anything. I guess you misread > "has forced hurd to abandon"--because I don't see that the hurd's been > forced to do anything in your example. Not for lack of trying on your part. You seriously need to get over this mindless anti-Hurd bias. Operating systems are not football teams. Debian is large enough to accomodate more than one kernel. Let the *BSD and Hurd ports toil away in a labortatory-style environment -- which means relaxing the rules a little bit -- until they're ready to operate on the Debian release timetable. Two simple rules of thumb: 1) If a Debian developer asks you to patch your package so as to improve its portability, whether on the basis of machine architecture, underlying OS kernel, endianness issue, or whatever, you should take that request seriously. You should go ahead and apply it if you can determine that it does not (adversely) change the package's behavior on its already-supported platforms. 2) If the Hurd or BSD developers want to experiment with modifications to the FHS in pursuit of a higher goal[1] (a better, more consistent, and more logical operating environment for users and programs), and they're not asking you to change how your package is laid out today, you need to not give a fuck about it. If and when Hurd, BSD, or other developers want sanctioned deviations from the FHS or other aspects of Debian policy, there is an appropriate forum for such issues, and that's the Debian Policy group. Until then, they understand that they have no prayer of tarnishing the Debian operating system's track record of 100% compliance with its own Policy Manual[2] by being permitted to release. If your concept of Debian doesn't have room for kernels[3] other than Linux, then Debian doesn't have room for you. Go away. If you are having difficulty distinguishing code from personalities, I suggest you killfile Jeroen Dekkers and go about your business. That he appears to have far more time for arguing than coding should not be indictment of other people who happen to work on projects that he advocates. It's a good thing Jeroen isn't some sort of raving advocate for XFree86, or perhaps sure you'd be calling for the removal of XFree86 from Debian. Aristotle gave you logic. Apply it. [1] Lest we forget, the FHS is not an end in itself. It is a means to an end. Review <URL:http://www.pathname.com/fhs/2.2/fhs-1.1.html>. If you want a religious text, I suggest you turn to something other than standards documents. [2] This must be the case since people seem to be far more concerned about the Hurd's policy violations than those that would actually be releasing in Debian 3.0. [3] or kernel-replacing technology :) -- G. Branden Robinson | Debian GNU/Linux | Music is the brandy of the damned. branden@debian.org | -- George Bernard Shaw http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgpI8ItyS9Xfj.pgp
Description: PGP signature