Re: where do NEW packages go?
On Sun, 19 May 2002, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 01:51:57PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Actually, I got that feeling from Jeroen's mails. That was the main reason
> > I sent this mail, not because I think or feel that the line is there.
> No. It's GNU/Linux on one side, the GNU system on the other side and
> BSD on the third side. Those are 3 different operating systems. Debian
> wants to be package those. It not that is one operating system.
This is the main point where we disagree, I'm afraid. Debian is (or at
least, should be) an operating system with an exchangeable kernel. When
the first non-Linux port is released, you'll be able to run Debian on the
Linux kernel, or on the kernel in that released non-Linux port.
Debian can not provide "the GNU system", as I said in another mail. Also,
Debian/BSD will never be the same as NetBSD (although it uses the NetBSD
kernel). It will be Debian, using a BSD kernel. Therefore, it is not wrong
to use a different file hierarchy.
> > After all, I'm not involved in the Hurd port in any way.
> You don't have to be involved, just apply common sense.
I think I did, thank you.
> > The way I understand Jeroen's mails is "GNU Coding standards are the way
> > to go; everything else is braindead". If that understanding is incorrect,
> > then forget everything I mailed on the subject; if not, then I feel you
> > (Jeroen) should implement GNU's coding standards somewhere else. Debian
> > has its own "Coding Standards", and they're different from what GNU
> > says. The Hurd port should implement Debian's policy wherever possible,
> > and issue policy amendments through proper channels where not instead of
> > saying that Debian's policy is braindead, and ignoring it.
> The GNU Coding Standards are the way to go in the GNU system.
Again, I don't think Debian can provide "the GNU system".
> I think that the FHS is braindead and I
> have my reasons for thinking that. I think the GNU Coding Standards
> are much better. I have the right to think and say that,
I did not state otherwise.
> I wanted to make the FHS compatible with the GNU Coding Standards, but
> because I already saw what the people on debian-devel thought about
> libexec and other things, I don't really feel like going to those
> closed-minded FHS people to change their opinion. I will be treated as
> a fool anyhow, just like here.
If you don't try, don't accuse people.
> And the common opinion here is that the FHS should be used for the GNU
That is not true; the common opinion here is that the FHS should be used
for Debian. That's not the same thing.
> I'm not going to fuck up the GNU system with the FHS, just
> because the Debian dictators think the GNU system should be exactly
> like GNU/Linux.
Nobody's saying that. People are just saying that Debian GNU/Hurd should
be the same as Debian GNU/Linux, as much as technically possible.
> I wanted to change Debian, but I walked to a wall of arrogant
> closed-minded people with no time and those people have all the power
> over Debian.
You shouldn't change Debian. Or the Hurd.
You should change both, so that they cooperate. Or develop "the GNU
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