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

Re: where do NEW packages go?



On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 02:00:01PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> 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.

Wrong. It's called Debian GNU/Hurd because Debian GNU can be confused
with Debian GNU/Linux. GNU/Hurd == the GNU operating system, the GNU
Hurd is the core of GNU.

I didn't invent this thermology. But don't blame it on us, we weren't
the one who tried to fork the GNU system.

> > 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.

My opinion is that time should be spend on other things.
 
> > 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.

We agree then.
 
> > 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.

I tried to start a discussion about it first, because maybe Debian has
some brilliant reason for not having /libexec and I was just too stupid
to see it. But there is no brilliant and indeed filing a policy
amendment would be a logical step. It's just that I gave up about
Debian because I'm treated as a troll instead of being treated as
somebody who tries to improve Debian.

> > > > 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.

But the GNU system is of GNU. The Debian GNU/Hurd people care about
GNU, There is a relationship between Debian and GNU. A lot of GNU
developers are Debian developers too, Debian distributes the GNU
operating system. Some of the goals of both projects are the same. I
see no reason those 2 projects shouldn't cooperate to reach the goals
they share.

> <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.

There are people who think all black people should be murdered. That's
not right, that's wrong, even it's just an opinion. 

IMHO it's wrong to call it "Linux", that's why I don't want it to
happen. IMHO it's wrong to kill black people, that's why I don't want
it to happen.

It's an extreme example, but do you see the analogy? There is no sharp
line between opinion and acknowledgement and right or wrong.

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

Attachment: pgppBKISojzoF.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: