Re: Debian GNU/Hurd and Debian GNU/*BSD
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 11:52:08PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: El dt, 19 mar 2002 18:18:03 Branden Robinson ha escrit: Yes. The only thing holding me up with regards to Joel Baker and his requests for my help are the fact that support for a new architecture has to rank lower on the priority queue than: 1) getting xfree86 and xfree86v3 solid for woody 2) getting 4.2.0 packaged for woody+1 In other words, it's a resource allocation problem, not a philosophical objection problem. :) Of course; well I think it will take some time for Joel to have working patches, and I agree that the woody release is top priority. It's fine for me, and I guess so is for Joel :) Joel has mostly-working patches for 4.1.x, at this stage; most of the reason that they're not in a .deb is that I need Branden's advice on some esoterica about X itself and what it builds. I agree with his priorities, however - which means that most likely, you'll actually see some official stuff for 4.2.0 (once he releases the packages for it and I can see how much is broken in between - but most of the patches for *BSD aren't in areas that seem likely to change, unlike, say, GCC). On a side note - work has been insane, and thus, very little packaging work has gotton done recently. I don't really know if, or when, this will change (and if I change jobs, I lose my build machine entirely, so...) -- *** Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/
Re: Debian GNU/Hurd and Debian GNU/*BSD
El dt, 19 mar 2002 18:18:03 Branden Robinson ha escrit: Yes. The only thing holding me up with regards to Joel Baker and his requests for my help are the fact that support for a new architecture has to rank lower on the priority queue than: 1) getting xfree86 and xfree86v3 solid for woody 2) getting 4.2.0 packaged for woody+1 In other words, it's a resource allocation problem, not a philosophical objection problem. :) Of course; well I think it will take some time for Joel to have working patches, and I agree that the woody release is top priority. It's fine for me, and I guess so is for Joel :) Cheers, -- Robert Millan Debian GNU/* user zeratul2 wanadoo eshttp://getyouriso.dyndns.org/
Re: Debian GNU/Hurd and Debian GNU/*BSD
On Sat, Mar 09, 2002 at 03:03:46PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: My questions for the three candidates are: What is your personal opinion on those ports? I'm very enthusiastic about them. I don't have time at present to devote to helping them out very much at a technical level, unfortunately, but I'm quite interested in allocating some disk space to playing with them. I used 4.3BSD before I even knew about Linux. The Hurd also holds a great deal of interest for me. These projects seem to me to fall completely within Debian's charter, and I'd like to see them grow and thrive. Will you support the above mentioned changes? I'll support anything that doesn't have a long-term detrimental effect on Debian's already-installed base. -- G. Branden Robinson| It's not a matter of alienating Debian GNU/Linux | authors. They have every right to [EMAIL PROTECTED] | license their software however we http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | like. -- Craig Sanders pgpN4dJRdIlTQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian GNU/Hurd and Debian GNU/*BSD
Hi, Le Sat, Mar 09, 2002 at 03:03:46PM +0100, Robert Millan écrivait: What is your personal opinion on those ports? I'm in favor of those ports, and as such I'm willing to make the required changes. However I'm not sure they can get done for woody+1 considering that we are targetting on a shorter release. :-) But it is a work that should certainly start now because I guess that it will be a long-lasting effort. Anyway, I have to admit that I have used neither The Hurd nor any BSD. But I have several friends who switched from Debian to FreeBSD and I would like to provide them a Debian BSD. The BSD kernels also have a strong reputation and they look like good pieces of code; I don't see why they couldn't have their place within Debian. The Hurd is already integrated within Debian, and I wish it can continue its progress with those changes. Will you support the above mentioned changes? Yes. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog -+- http://strasbourg.linuxfr.org/~raphael/ Formation Linux et logiciel libre : http://www.logidee.com pgpgyYdcsXgZf.pgp Description: PGP signature
Debian GNU/Hurd and Debian GNU/*BSD
Hello! I would like to hear your opinion on Debian's kernel ports. Both the Hurd and *BSD ports are likely to be ready for release on woody+1 (sarge?), but there are serious difficulties originated in the Debian archive structure and dpkg's way of handling architectures. In other words, the Architecture tag, which has served well to maintain separate architecture ports of Debian, is not flexible enough to handle kernel ports properly. Nor is a kernel: tag I sent a wishlist item to dpkg for some time ago (#118910) We are going to need important changes in the archive system to obtain a complete Debian GNU/Hurd or Debian GNU/*BSD distribution. To get an idea on the scope of these changes, you can refer to this document written by Marcus Brinkmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]: http://master.debian.org/~brinkmd/arch-handling.txt However, this document is not a definitive proposal. Jeroen Dekkers [EMAIL PROTECTED] is working on a new document on the same line and will likely speak about it after the woody release. My questions for the three candidates are: What is your personal opinion on those ports? Will you support the above mentioned changes? Thank you very much for your attention, please keep the CCs to debian-hurd and debian-bsd Cheers, -- Robert Millan Debian GNU/* user zeratul2 wanadoo eshttp://getyouriso.dyndns.org/
