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

Re: where do NEW packages go?



On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 01:25:12PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 12:09:05AM +1000, Glenn McGrath wrote:
> > On Sat, 18 May 2002 10:07:41 -0300
> > "Henrique de Moraes Holschuh" <hmh@debian.org> wrote:
> 
> > > On Sat, 18 May 2002, Glenn McGrath wrote:
> 
> > > Maybe small parts of the FHS cause trouble for the Hurd; these could be
> > > changed for Debian. HOWEVER, Debian GNU/Hurd is *not* to be GNU/Hurd
> > > with Debian packages.  It is to be a _Debian_ system with the Hurd
> > > kernel.  So, whatever isn't kernel-specific IS supposed to be the same. 
> > > If being"Hurdish" is more important to you than being "Debianish", then
> > > as far as*I* am concerned, you are welcome to fork the project, and go
> > > away.
> 
> > You would have to drag me kicking and screaming.
> 
> > > 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 ?
> 
> I assume that you're suggesting here that standardizing on the LSB would
> be a logical next step for Linux supporters to take after the FHS.
> That's not the case.  The FHS is useful to Debian because having *some*
> standard describing the system layout is necessary to ensure that we
> produce an internally-consistent system that's easy for both users and
> other developers to work with; and all other things being equal, using
> a common standard is better than developing our own because it lets us
> leverage greater mindshare.  In stark contrast, the LSB is a standard
> that only benefits /vendors/ directly; indeed, by requiring conformance
> with a frozen ABI, the LSB makes /more/ work for developers.  If the LSB
> is supported at all, it will be through the efforts of a small group of
> concerned developers to bring this about in a policy-conformant way --
> *not* through the use of policy as a club.

It's useful to have such a standard, that's why it's specified in the
GNU Coding Standard. I don't think the FHS is a good standard
however. The fact is that the loader in *BSD is in libexec and that's
part of the ABI. It isn't in GNU/Hurd, I don't know why, maybe to be
compatible with GNU/Linux or for some other reason.

> That being the case, I can't imagine that anyone's going to expect the
> Debian Hurd port to be ABI-compatible with a vendor specification
> written for a different kernel that's external to Debian itself.

I can image, because it's not that difficult to do and you get a lot
from it. The only problem is that we also get some things we don't
want: non-free (binary-only) software for GNU/Linux would also run on
GNU/Hurd. And that's why we aren't going to do any Linux emulation and
aren't going to be LSB-compliant.

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

Attachment: pgpBdu9tOAVRD.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: