Re: Debian FreeBSD
On Sat, Nov 20, 1999 at 08:33:46PM -0800, Joel Klecker wrote: > No you don't, a native FreeBSD port of glibc2 wouldn't have any need of > Linux system call emulation. So the library maps a standard set of syscalls onto whatever kernel you're actually using? (Sorry for the dumb questions; I'm just not too familar with how syscalls actually work in practice, despite spending many hours in lectures on how they work in theory ;-) Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB. CCs of replies on mailing lists are welcome.
Re: Debian FreeBSD
On Sat, 20 Nov 1999, Joel Klecker wrote: > No you don't, a native FreeBSD port of glibc2 wouldn't have any need of > Linux system call emulation. > glibc is designed to be portable, the majority of its code is system > independant, system dependencies are in a hierarchial directory structure > (sysdeps/) from least specific to most specific as you traverse deeper in > the tree. I think it would be even reasonable and possible to edit the FreeBSD kernel headers in such a way that glibc was *binary compatible* with linux glibc - this would mean that to run freebsd kernel all you need is to recompile glibc, the kernel and a handfull of system utilites (route, ifconfig, etc) The rest of the system would run natively. Of course this would be utterly binary incompatible with a normal FreeBSD system, but I don't think that is an issue. What I am thinking of in particular are changes to numbered constants like E*, signal numbers, protocol numbers, etc that glibc uses from the kernel. Jason
Re: Debian FreeBSD
At 12:33 +1100 1999-11-21, Hamish Moffatt wrote: >On Fri, Nov 19, 1999 at 10:38:50PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote: >> Who said anything about emulated binaries? Port glibc to freebsd, and use it >> natively. > >You still need syscall emulation, which is what the BSD linux-compat >stuff does. No you don't, a native FreeBSD port of glibc2 wouldn't have any need of Linux system call emulation. glibc is designed to be portable, the majority of its code is system independant, system dependencies are in a hierarchial directory structure (sysdeps/) from least specific to most specific as you traverse deeper in the tree. glibc1 was ported to NetBSD and several commercial unices. In glibc2 the sysdeps for all the glibc1 ports are still present in the source tree, but most of them wewren't ported to glibc2 and don't have anyone supporting them (save for solaris2 which had a bit of work done towards the end of the glibc 2.1 development cycle). -- Joel Klecker (aka Espy)Debian GNU/Linux Developer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://web.espy.org/> http://www.debian.org/>
Re: Debian FreeBSD
On Sun, Nov 21, 1999 at 01:25:26PM +0100, Stig Sandbeck Mathisen wrote: > What, then, does it take to _be_ debian? Is it the people? The > policy? The debian-administration and package-bulding packages? > Are these less important than any single package? Depends on context. Certainly, the essential packages are an essential part of debian, while the optional packages are optional. Policy is rather significant as well. But debian wouldn't be anything without its people. -- Raul
Re: Debian FreeBSD
On Sun, Nov 21, 1999 at 12:33:35PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > On Fri, Nov 19, 1999 at 10:38:50PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote: > > Clint Adams wrote: > > > Why would you use an emulated binary when you can > > > easily have a native one? > > > > Who said anything about emulated binaries? Port glibc to freebsd, and use it > > natively. > > You still need syscall emulation, which is what the BSD linux-compat > stuff does. For many software, you won't, I think. Marcus -- `Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org Check Key server Marcus Brinkmann GNUhttp://www.gnu.orgfor public PGP Key [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]PGP Key ID 36E7CD09 http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian FreeBSD
* Jason Gunthorpe (Sat, Nov 20, 1999 at 11:16:41PM -0700) > I would be inclined to say that any attempt to port Debian to > *BSD or otherwise should include glibc - it would not longer > *BE* Debian unless it included glibc and the rest of our > standard packages. (IMHO) What, then, does it take to _be_ debian? Is it the people? The policy? The debian-administration and package-bulding packages? Are these less important than any single package? -- SSM - Stig Sandbeck Mathisen Trust the Computer, the Computer is your Friend pgpJ5aHT2lwjW.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian FreeBSD
On Fri, 19 Nov 1999, Joey Hess wrote: > Clint Adams wrote: > > Why would you use an emulated binary when you can > > easily have a native one? > > Who said anything about emulated binaries? Port glibc to freebsd, and use it > natively. I would be inclined to say that any attempt to port Debian to *BSD or otherwise should include glibc - it would not longer *BE* Debian unless it included glibc and the rest of our standard packages. (IMHO) Jason
Re: Debian FreeBSD
On Fri, Nov 19, 1999 at 10:38:50PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote: > Clint Adams wrote: > > Why would you use an emulated binary when you can > > easily have a native one? > > Who said anything about emulated binaries? Port glibc to freebsd, and use it > natively. You still need syscall emulation, which is what the BSD linux-compat stuff does. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB. CCs of replies on mailing lists are welcome.
Re: Debian FreeBSD
> Who said anything about emulated binaries? Port glibc to freebsd, and use it > natively. Raul did. Did you miss the "keep everything the same but the kernel and a compatibility package" plan? I can't imagine why anyone would find this appealing.
Re: Debian FreeBSD
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Clint Adams wrote:
>> Why would you use an emulated binary when you can
>> easily have a native one?
> Who said anything about emulated binaries? Port glibc to freebsd, and use it
> natively.
But who's going to do it? They don't particularly like each other apparently.
--
Debian GNU/Linux 2.1 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ )
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
Re: Debian FreeBSD
Clint Adams wrote: > Why would you use an emulated binary when you can > easily have a native one? Who said anything about emulated binaries? Port glibc to freebsd, and use it natively. -- see shy jo
Re: Debian FreeBSD
On Fri, Nov 19, 1999 at 02:32:41PM -0500, Clint Adams wrote: > Or maybe SCO will free their kernel and we can run Debian > under iBCS. If anyone cares. -- Raul
Re: Debian FreeBSD
On Fri, Nov 19, 1999 at 02:04:38PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > Are we talking about wedging Debian software into a FreeBSD system, or > are we talking about making the FreeBSD kernel available to Debian users. Please join the debian-bsd mailing list for this discussion. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB. CCs of replies on mailing lists are welcome.
Re: Debian FreeBSD
On Nov 19, Raul Miller wrote: > Are we talking about wedging Debian software into a FreeBSD system, or > are we talking about making the FreeBSD kernel available to Debian users. I think we're talking about making Debian run without Linux emulation under the FreeBSD kernel. I guess the purpose is to make the equivalent of a "FreeBSD distribution," even though there is no such beast (there's FreeBSD, but it's not a "FreeBSD distribution" in the sense that Red Hat and Debian are "Linux distributions", since it's all one big happy package). > If the former, why even bother calling it debian? Or are we expecting > FreeBSD to start following debian policy. My suspicion is that we're creating FreeBSD-native packages that will follow Debian policy, running under the FreeBSD kernel. Chris -- = |Chris Lawrence| Visit my home page!| | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | http://www.lordsutch.com/chris/ | | || | Open Directory Editor| Visit the Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5: | | http://dmoz.org/ | <*> http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/ <*> | =
Re: Debian FreeBSD
> If the latter, you'd provide a freebsd-kernel and a freebsd-debian-compat > package, which a debian user could install in place of a > linux-kernel. [And, possible the compat package would depend on some > collection of packages -- I don't know what the linux compat library > specifically requires be installed on the system]. Perhaps you'd even > make some effort to allow the debian user to choose between a freebsd > kernel and a linux kernel at boot time. Or maybe SCO will free their kernel and we can run Debian under iBCS.
Re: Debian FreeBSD
> > Very little software should need to be recompiled in this case -- just > > use the bsd kernel with the linux compatability library. > > > > The post I saw looked like an attempt to marshal support for recompiling > > every debian package. > > > > If the purpose is indeed what you say the approach is all wrong. On Fri, Nov 19, 1999 at 11:31:36AM -0500, Clint Adams wrote: > Let's say you want bash on your FreeBSD system. Which approach > are you going to take? Are we talking about wedging Debian software into a FreeBSD system, or are we talking about making the FreeBSD kernel available to Debian users. If the latter, you'd provide a freebsd-kernel and a freebsd-debian-compat package, which a debian user could install in place of a linux-kernel. [And, possible the compat package would depend on some collection of packages -- I don't know what the linux compat library specifically requires be installed on the system]. Perhaps you'd even make some effort to allow the debian user to choose between a freebsd kernel and a linux kernel at boot time. If the former, why even bother calling it debian? Or are we expecting FreeBSD to start following debian policy. -- Raul
Re: Debian FreeBSD
- Original Message - From: Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: ; Sent: Friday, November 19, 1999 11:31 AM Subject: Re: Debian FreeBSD > Let's say you want bash on your FreeBSD system. Which approach > are you going to take? > > A) > > cd /usr/ports/.../bash > make > make install Ultimately, it should be possible to debianize all ports, so that building for Debian FreeBSD should be identical to doing so for Debian GNU/Linux, i.e.: dpkg-source -x bash*dsc cd bash* debuild -us -uc sudo dpkg -i ../bash*deb This might well be built into the port's Makefile, however, thus the actual sequence would be exactly as specified in A. This is probably less confusing for those used to the BSD way of doing things. What FreeBSD has that Debian has previously lacked is the automatic source code updation, using CVSup. Debian for i386 does now have CVSup, but it depends upon Modula-3 for building, which is not yet available on other platforms. I've begun work on porting PM3 to Debian alpha, but will need help getting it to other platforms as well. (FWIW, the upstream maintainer has agreed to incorporate all Debian ports, and is installing Debian for himself.) In fact, if FreeBSD ports can be debianized, and CVSup can be incorporated into Debian on all platforms, then the ultimate next step would be to adopt ports for Debian.
Re: Debian FreeBSD
> Very little software should need to be recompiled in this case -- just > use the bsd kernel with the linux compatability library. > > The post I saw looked like an attempt to marshal support for recompiling > every debian package. > > If the purpose is indeed what you say the approach is all wrong. Let's say you want bash on your FreeBSD system. Which approach are you going to take? A) cd /usr/ports/.../bash make make install B) (make sure linux compatibility is compiled into kernel) (make sure all the necessary compatibility libraries are installed) (get the deb) dpkg -i bash*deb (check to see if /bin/bash is properly branded.. oops, it isn't) brandelf -t Linux /bin/bash C) apt-get install bash You'd probably do A? Why? Because that's pretty much your only option. C is unavailable right now, and nobody in their right mind would do B. Why would you use an emulated binary when you can easily have a native one?
Re: Debian FreeBSD
> Another problem is that we are essentially giving first aid to > software that is dying (and rightfully so) because of its license. We > should not be inflating the stature of BSD in the eyes of those that > seek to undermine free software, as so doing only serves to increase > the pressure to proprietarize it. I don't know about you, but I see an increasing number of Linux users switching to FreeBSD. It is far from dying.
Re: Debian FreeBSD
On 19 Nov 1999, Peter Makholm wrote: > John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > This is a very bad idea. > > > Why? The BSD license. > > I see no problem with SPI supporting all kinds of free software and > Debian FreeBSD won't become propitary it can't nobody can tell us > (Debian) to stop developing it as a piece of free software. > Just to state that i fully approve of this. I see no problem with commercialization of Debian as long as it stays free. That's why we (among other things) we provide our distribution e.g. for entities like Corel, don't we? A distribution which is not commercially viable in the Real World[TM] is not very likely to be widely used. I personally have no interest working in a project which creates only products for an irreal ideal world made only for clinically clean free software zealots. Cheers, P. *8^) -- If not specific to HP please always reply to "Paul Seelig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"
Re: Debian FreeBSD
At 21:14 -0800 1999-11-18, Joey Hess wrote: >I don't get it. Debian/BSD will still use glibc, bash, etc, will it not? How >does replacing one GPL (weakended) compondent with one BSD component affect >much of anything when core components remain under the GPL? Not glibc unless someone picks up the port. -- Joel Klecker (aka Espy)Debian GNU/Linux Developer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://web.espy.org/> http://www.debian.org/>
Re: Debian FreeBSD
[ moved to the appropriate forum ] On Thu, Nov 18, 1999 at 09:59:28PM -0600, Andrew G . Feinberg was heard to say: > > Some might quibble with "will" above. I think it's only a matter of > > time. We've seen it hapen so much already. It serves our Free > > Software community poorly to produce software that is simply > > proprietarized by any company that wishes. > If we were to release a BSD-based distro, we could have a corel-beta > scenario all over again, and could do _nothing_. Bad. How would the fact that the kernel of the system is BSD make it OK to violate the GPL license on dpkg, apt, *emacs, gcc, Gnome, KDE, ? Daniel
Re: Debian FreeBSD
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This is a very bad idea. > Why? The BSD license. Yes, The BSD license. A very nice readable license (which I wouldn't call the GPL) and it's fair too (which GPL also is If I read it corectly) I see no problem with SPI supporting all kinds of free software and Debian FreeBSD won't become propitary it can't nobody can tell us (Debian) to stop developing it as a piece of free software. We had this discussion before (on -devel, not personally) and that is why the debian-bsd list was made. We now have a debian-projects list for "Debian project related non-technical (i.e. political, organizational, etc.) discussions." so please keep the political there. -- I congratulate you. Happy goldfish bowl to you, to me, to everyone, and may each of you fry in hell forever. -- Isaac Asimov, "The Dead Past"
