Re: where do NEW packages go?
On Sun, 19 May 2002, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> Debian GNU/Hurd are 2 things. One is Debian. The other is GNU/Hurd
> and the Hurd is GNU too, so it's actually just GNU. Is it so
> difficult to see that?
Debian GNU/Hurd can never be 2 things. GNU/Hurd can be one thing, and
Debian GNU/Hurd can be something else.
The name is "Debian GNU/Hurd" because GNU people wouldn't like it to be
called "Debian/Hurd", not because it's not that.
> A lot of packages in Debian follow the GNU
> Coding Standards because a lot of them come from GNU. And upstream
> Hurd developers are following the GNU Coding Standards, because the
> Hurd is GNU software. Is Debian willing to maintain all the patches
> for that software so it's compatible with the FHS instead of the GCS?
I have no idea.
> IMHO it won't be GNU/Hurd without being compliant with the GNU Coding
> Standards. And are you also asking the Debian *BSD people to change
> their ABI because of the FHS?
> I asked them what they thought about
> libexec and the FHS etc. and they said to me that they won't give up
> ABI compatibility for the FHS. So what do you think, should we get rid
> of both the Hurd and BSD ports or change Debian policy?
If what you say is true, then you should issue a policy amendment to get
rid of the FHS, or to allow libexec, or whatnot. You should *not*
blatantly ignore Debian's policy just because you think it's braindead.
> > > 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.
> > Simply because libexec isn't FHS-compliant. You knew that already.
> GNU doesn't care about what some GNU-bashing hobbyists who wrote a
> kernel and some other software which is most of the time incompatible
> with GNU itself.
I know; but *this* *is* *not* *GNU*. Debian *does* care.
> This is also a reason why I don't want to be in Debian. Most of the
> time the system is just called "Linux" by people who already know that
> it should actually be "GNU/Linux". I can't work with people who say
> wrong things when they are told it's wrong and the project already
> decided to say the right thing.
You can not decide what's right and what's wrong for everyone. Only for
yourselves. If you feel that the GNU part of a GNU/Linux distribution is
important enough to call it GNU/Linux, then do so; if you feel that it is
not, then just call it Linux.
This is about opinion and acknowledgement, not about right or wrong.
wouter dot verhelst at advalvas dot be
"Human knowledge belongs to the world"
-- From the movie "Antitrust"
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org