Re: kernel-source == Linux or Hurd or ???
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 08:03:18PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
>
> This is a good point. Debian makes an effort to be kernel
> independent, so why does the kernel-source install Linux?
>
> I think we should rename to linux-kernel-source, linux-kernel-image
> and so on...
I very much agree with this sentiment. However, what about system-level
utilities and essential packages? How does a Debian *BSD system differ from
a Debian GNU system (or for that matter, a Debian GNU/*BSD system), and
how should the dependencies between "bare-metal" packages and the kernel
(whether it be linux-kernel-source, freebsd-kernel-source, etc) be
constructed?
Maybe this is silly, but perhaps the "arch" portion of the apt sources
could also be fine-tuned to include the kernel type. (I guess similar
to the unique machine strings from config.sub and friends). A
linux-gnu-i386 distribution, a freebsd-gnu-i386, freebsd-bsd-i386,
et. al. While this would certainly approach a goal of greater
universality and kernel/machine independence of the distribution, would
that gain be worth the effort?
Perhaps once the Debian/*BSD have stabilized and reach a greater level
of usability, we can ask these questions again later...
--
Ryan Underwood, <nemesis at icequake.net>, icq=10317253
Reply to: