On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 01:56:09PM -0500, Ryan Underwood wrote:
>
> 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?
The differences depend a lot on whether you view them as "what package is
it in and how is it provided" (significant) or "what the user sees" (as
minor as we can manage).
> 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?
Well, the 'arch' for the NetBSD/i386 is 'netbsd-i386'. Like I said before,
while I'd love to see linux- prefixes to the current architectures, and an
unprefixed arch be supported only as a legacy issue, I don't anticipate it
happening any time soon.
> Perhaps once the Debian/*BSD have stabilized and reach a greater level
> of usability, we can ask these questions again later...
Join us over on debian-bsd@lists.debian.org; we're discussing many of them
now (or, rather, as we run across bits of them that need discussion).
--
Joel Baker <fenton@debian.org> ,''`.
Debian GNU NetBSD/i386 porter : :' :
`. `'
`-
Attachment:
pgpRsr_2wbUwH.pgp
Description: PGP signature