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.
<snip>
> 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?
No.
> 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.
<snip>
> > > 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.
Jeez.
<snip>
> 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 debian-hurd-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: