Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 05:03:55AM +0000, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Kevin Kreamer <email@example.com>
> > In the case of a NetBSD libc, you could use
> > Debian NBSD/NBSD
> > basically having the first half signify which libc is used.
> Wouldn't that be a major retcon? AFAIU the "GNU/" in Debian GNU/Linux
> says that we're using GNU userland tools such as cp, mv, diff, cc,
> make, nroff, etc. That's prominently visible to users; the libc is a
> technical detail that most users wouldn't care about unless it breaks.
Hardly. Guess which *roff, gcc, diff, tar, etc. is there in *BSD? And
considering the state of coreutils... not much to boast there.
About the only thing that gives any real weight to "GNU/" stuff is glibc -
the rest is either common on all free Unices (and GNU doesn't see that
as grounds for claim on renaming *BSD to GNU/*BSD) or... well, less than
impressive, to put it mildly.
IOW, about the only way GNU/Linux as a port name makes sense is "what libc
do we have here"/"what kernel does it run on".