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

Re: where do NEW packages go?



On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 11:23:58PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sun, 19 May 2002, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 07:57:37PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > You want to make the GNU system a real operating system for general
> > > use. Debian already is a real operating system for general use, so you
> > > can't *make* it that way.
> > 
> > Debian is a distribution.
> 
> Of what?

Of software.
 
> A kernel?

There are some kernels yet. There are about 50 kernels in Debian, most
of them are just different versions of Linux however.
 
> That's hardly an operating system, is it? Or do you suddenly think it's no
> longer necessary to call it 'Debian GNU/Linux'?

No.
 
> Linux is not a complete operating system. As of now, there's no complete
> GNU operating system either. However, Debian is an operating system.

There is a complete GNU Operating System. Please don't spread lies
about GNU.

Debian distributes 3 different operating systems, GNU/Linux, BSD and
GNU. Debian itself isn't an operating system.

> > The DFSG are just guidelines, not definitions.
> 
> The DFSG defines what Debian calls 'Free Software'. If that would not be
> the case, then why do we call something that is not DFSG-free 'non-free'?
> 
> The DFSG is *way* too strict to be something general as a 'guideline'. In
> fact, the GNU definition of Free Software fits the term 'guideline' better
> in my opinion (not that there's anything wrong with that...)

No. Because the DFSG is some mere approximation. To give you an
example, clause 8 of the GPL could be conflicting with DFSG clause
5. But if you use the FSF definition (which specify the 4 freedoms you
*must* have) and apply logic, you see that the GPL is free
software. Now only if people would do the same for the FDL...

> > > > The only incompatible I know of is the atistic
> > > > license.
> > > 
> > > Think FDL.
> > 
> > You said "free software".
> 
> Granted. Still, it clearly shows that although for the most parts Debian
> and GNU agree, there are places where they do not.

True.
 
> > > > A very big part of Debian is implementing the GNU Coding Standards
> > > > upstream. Why change it in Debian?
> > > 
> > > One could also argue that a very big part of Debian implements the FHS
> > > upstream. This argument is bogus.
> > 
> > That would be compatible, the other way around isn't.
> 
> Bull. If not having /libexec on a BSD-system makes the ABI incompatible,
> then having /libexec where it is not expected does exactly the same thing.

No, because the ld.so can just keep to be in /lib for the reason of
compatibility.

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

Attachment: pgpMA8SnLDLzZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: