On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 07:24:29PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> I removed a lot of CC's, since this comment isn't relevant to the rest
> of the discussion, really...
>
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 04:39:47PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> [snip]
> > I explained that "Debian GNU/KNetBSD" was actually a separate effort,
> > primarily by Robert Millan, to port Debian to a system consisting of
> > NetBSD's kernel (thus, 'KNetBSD') and a ported GNU libc, while the other
> > effort was aimed at a NetBSD kernel and native NetBSD libc. I did, however,
> > say that I (at least) would be happy to try to find a name they found
> > equally suitable, for the same reasons, rather than continue to use the
> > current one.
>
> Are you saying that we're going to have both a Debian GNU/KNetBSD
> distribution, which, since it uses glibc presumably would be able to
> use the same binaries as the GNU/Linux architecture for _most_ packages
> (please correct me if I'm wrong) _and_ a distribution based on NetBSD's
> libc, which would required close to every damn binary to have separate
> packages. Thus, given NetBSD's multiplatform support, almost doubling
> the size of the Debian archives?!
>
> Madness lies that way.
>
> Yes, choice is good, but sometimes, just sometimes too much choice will
> make you choke...
Mostly, I'm saying that the debian-bsd ports list is much like the
classical herd of cats, and the debate over which kernel, core libraries,
and userland to use has gone on for... well, pretty much as long as the
list has existed, as far as I can tell from the archives.
The specific efforts talked about are those with "code on the ground", that
is, those which actually have a package archive of some fashion, visible
progress in getting things to a useable state, and enduring effort applied
to them.
The expectation, as far as I can tell, is that we'll be expected to
resolve this in some sane and rational fashion before the ftpmasters
let us anywhere near the archive. Right now, both NetBSD ports use the
'netbsd-i386' name, which works solely because nobody attempting to use
this tries to pull from more than one of the APT archives.
It also doesn't bar the possibility of ending up with a port which, for
example, has a 'core' libc from NetBSD, but has a copy of GNU libc which
some applications link against for specific things. Porting the GNU libc is
a topic better addressed elsewhere (and has been, fairly recently).
In other words: yes, it's a bit mad. We're trying fairly hard not to
inflict that madness on anyone we don't have to, and expect that it will
settle out at some point. :)
--
Joel Baker <fenton@debian.org> ,''`.
Debian GNU/KLNetBSD(i386) porter : :' :
`. `'
`-
Attachment:
pgpeg3QaK9mSW.pgp
Description: PGP signature