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

Re: where do NEW packages go?

On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 10:25:13AM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include <hallo.h>
> Jeroen Dekkers wrote on Sun May 19, 2002 um 04:17:34AM:
> > > Why can't you follow FHS to the letter if you want to?
> > 
> > Why don't you CC to debian-hurd or CC him? Maybe he can defend his
> > opinion then.
> Why don't _you_ provide a FAQ about this issue, or even provide some
> realistic arguments that others can reproduce? Sorry people, but I
> cannot see where the problems with Hurd are and as long as I do not see
> any, I must presume that there are some vain people going to reinvent
> the wheel.

YOU are actually one of those problems, you are somebody who
downgrades grave bugs to wishlist because the Hurd is unreleased. I
don't need to write a FAQ about that, it's already documented that if
a package doesn't build it's a grave bug. 

Yeah we know the Hurd is an unreleased architecture and the bts
doesn't understand that, that's why we file the bug as important
instead of grave. But that doesn't mean that the bug is wishlist, it's
still a grave bug. This is all documented, no need for me to write it
down another time.

And of course people reinvent the wheel. Do you know why? Because some
people just don't want to cooperate to do it together all at once.
> > allowed to add extra directories to / for example, but the system
> > would be unusable without /hurd. For *BSD, libexec is part of their
> > ABI as that's the directory of their loader.
> What is the problem? Make it /lib/exec and it is FHS compliant *g*.

The problem is that binaries from *BSD won't run on Debian *BSD and we
have to change every GNU package and the GNU coding standards. 

If you look at portability and compatiblity, those 'linux people' are
just as worse as Microsoft, the company they hate so much. The
difference is just that they use free software and the biggest part of
the GNU system. And I think that's a problem, because I want GNU/Hurd
to be compatible and portable.

> > The FHS says it's for "UNIX-like operating systems". GNU isn't
> > UNIX-like, you know what the acronym means. It's only POSIX
> > compatible. Other than that, the only OS specific annex is for
> > GNU/Linux. No BSD too. The FHS is just GNU/Linux, nothing more. Don't
> It does not mean GNU/Linux and only this duo. It may be your personal
> interpretation, not the common one.

Can you give me another OS which is compliant with the FHS?

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

Attachment: pgpYTTfdZ6ST1.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: