Re: smarter way to differ architectures needed?
On Tue, Mar 30, 1999 at 04:29:36PM +0200, Brederlow wrote:
> Wasn't debian-hurd supposed to become compatible with normal linux
> binaries, so that no recompilation has to take place? That way
> <system> would not be needed.
Yes, there will be a certain degree of compatibility, even binary
compatibility. But, and this is a big but, we still need our own kernel,
translators, glibc, and some other low level stuff (network, etc).
Furthermore, the Hurd does quite some things differently then linux, and we
will exploit additional functionality beyond the usual Unix system. So,
special versions of tar etc will be used on Hurd.
Thus, a system field is still needed, especially because we diverge even in
arhcitecture all area.
> If hurd stays incompatible with linux, put hurd stuff into
> and netbsd stuff into
> and so on. Its no use mixing hurd stuff with linux stuff, iff they
> stay incompatible. People will get confused and download the wrong
I would feel disappointed by such a "solution". Seperating out a port will
make all integration efforts harder, and please consider the consequences
for our complete infrastructure (mirror, documentation, etc). Furthermore,
most of the binary all stuff is equally useful for both systems.
People won't get confused. They are not confused now. Why should they? Most
of the time they use apt or dselect anyway, and the people who manually get
packages from the ftp site will either know what they do or pay attention to
the names of the directories. Also, people should understand what Hurd and
Linux is and where they differ.
> Also its much easier to mirror or download the stuff.
How so? I don't see this.
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org finger brinkmd@
Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org master.debian.org
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de for public PGP Key
http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09