[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: where do NEW packages go?



On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 11:21:27AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Sun, 19 May 2002, Glenn McGrath wrote:
> > "Henrique de Moraes Holschuh" <hmh@debian.org> wrote:
> > > If you cannot agree to that, and do notice I never said we shouldn't
> > > change a few things on the way the filesystem is currently laid out in
> > > the Debian GNU/Linux side of things (FHS or no FHS), then you will be in
> > > for a very rough ride.
> > > 
> > And if Debian is commited to the LINUX Standards Base, do you expect
> > Debian GNU/hurd and Debian *bsd(s) to also comply to the LINUX Standards
> > Base ?
> 
> No.  For one, glibc versioning is different AFAIK.  *Unless* the other
> kernels are supposed to be running linux binaries, instead of native
> binaries for a large section of the archive (due to space constraints, or
> whatever); if that's the case, then yes, they would be expected to follow
> the LSB in their linux emulation layer.

The differences between both ABIs aren't that big anymore since the
switch to libio. We don't have all the old symbols however, but that's
only a problem if you want to run old binaries. We already talked
about making both ABIs compatible but that isn't possible yet at the
moment. If they are compatible a big part of the archive can be
shared.

We already have talked about linux emulation, but we don't want it as
we see no need for it. We don't want to be able to run LSB packages
either. The only thing we would care about is Debian and if we can
reduce the load of the ftp server we will be happy to do so. Marcus
was already thinking about this 3 years ago, see
http://master.debian.org/~brinkmd/arch-handling.txt.

> > To be practical we have to respect each others differences, to a certain
> > extent anyway.
> 
> Sure. But do notice that this means we must agree on a common filesystem
> layout for everything that is not kernel-specific.  Massive filesystem
> changes simply will never be agreed upon, so only a minimal approach has
> much better chances of success.

ABI compatiblities won't do it either. Both GNU and BSD have a
filesystem layout which are pretty compatible AFAIK. Only GNU/Linux
wants to differ for some reason still unknown for me.

> > I think Hurd people are getting a rough ride, but their strugle is making
> > debian better, i applaud their stamina. 
> 
> They would get a lot less flack if they tried to start these threads just
> after the woody release, when people will be in a mood to listen to big
> changes.

If I'm right woody isn't in freeze for 3 years. It's not that nobody
has talked about these problems before.

> > > I will love the day I can simply switch kernels on a Debian GNU/* system
> > > and not notice any changes in userlevel land, other than the tools that
> > 
> > Ive never even considered that it might be possible, i would also love to
> > see that day.
> 
> It should, for some of the BSDs at least. I don't know about the Hurd.

It's a bit hairy but not totally impossible. The libc ABI has to be
same for this however. Because the BSDs don't use glibc, we probably
have about 2 systems. It actually does make sense, because when you
look at the overall picture, there exist actually two free systems, BSD
and GNU, which both have their variants.

If somebody ports glibc to *BSD, it would be possible to also have
compatiblity between that. If I'm right glibc used to run on 4.3BSD,
so that's not entirely impossible.

Jeroen Dekkers
-- 
Jabber ID: jdekkers@jabber.org  IRC ID: jeroen@openprojects
GNU supporter - http://www.gnu.org

Attachment: pgp6LTDApnOhz.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: