Re: X Strike Force SVN commit: rev 183 - in branches/4.3.0/sid/debian: . patches
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 10:17:14PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote: And the NetBSD one is *not* GNU-based, Actualy I agree with that. which is even more reason to split the Debian-specific bits into a different file from the GNU-specific bits. That's fine; then there are only Glibc-specific bits left. ISHIKAWA, what about splitting all common stuff into Debian.cf, and Glibc-specific stuff into Glibc.cf? -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: X Strike Force SVN commit: rev 183 - in branches/4.3.0/sid/debian: . patches
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 01:48:42PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 10:17:14PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote: And the NetBSD one is *not* GNU-based, Actualy I agree with that. which is even more reason to split the Debian-specific bits into a different file from the GNU-specific bits. That's fine; then there are only Glibc-specific bits left. ISHIKAWA, what about splitting all common stuff into Debian.cf, and Glibc-specific stuff into Glibc.cf? I disagree with this approach. Please see my other mail on the subject. -- G. Branden Robinson|A committee is a life form with six Debian GNU/Linux |or more legs and no brain. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Robert Heinlein http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: X Strike Force SVN commit: rev 183 - in branches/4.3.0/sid/debian: . patches
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 03:44:12AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 09:27:31AM +0900, ISHIKAWA Mutsumi wrote: In [EMAIL PROTECTED] Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: btw, if someone is going to fix gnu.cf, please consider splitting it into a gnu-common.cf file so that it can be shared with gnu-freebsd.cf (see the header comments in patch #820) I just wrote same idea into my TODO list (xfree86/people/ishikaawa/TODO). I'm planning to work for this hack on this weekend :-) glad to hear that! after looking at your TODO, i have a pair of comments on your plan: - i think site.def is a more adequate place for debian-specific stuff see what the upstream docs say about site.def (INSTALL-X.org, section 3.5) - you're moving stuff into debian.cf that isn't actualy debian-specific. when i said gnu-common.cf i meant stuff common to GNUish systems (mostly related to Glibc and userland), but not debian-specific. [1] I think we should take care to do these modifications in a way that they are acceptable for upstream. So if you split into gnu-common.cf the common stuff that isn't debian-specific, and into debian.cf (or site.def) the debian-specific stuff, we'd just have to send gnu-common.cf to upstream and maintain debian.cf/site.def in debian. [1] as of now GNU/Hurd and GNU/*BSD only exist in Debian, but we can't assume that for a configuration file. And the NetBSD one is *not* GNU-based, which is even more reason to split the Debian-specific bits into a different file from the GNU-specific bits. -- Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpeU4hmexE5l.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: X Strike Force SVN commit: rev 183 - in branches/4.3.0/sid/debian: . patches
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 03:44:12AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
after looking at your TODO, i have a pair of comments on your plan:
- i think site.def is a more adequate place for debian-specific stuff
see what the upstream docs say about site.def (INSTALL-X.org, section 3.5)
I disagree and do not support that approach. Debian is a vendor. And,
strictly speaking, Debian is a meta-vendor.
- you're moving stuff into debian.cf that isn't actualy debian-specific.
when i said gnu-common.cf i meant stuff common to GNUish systems
(mostly related to Glibc and userland), but not debian-specific. [1]
I think we should take care to do these modifications in a way that they are
acceptable for upstream. So if you split into gnu-common.cf the common
stuff that isn't debian-specific, and into debian.cf (or site.def) the
debian-specific stuff, we'd just have to send gnu-common.cf to upstream
and maintain debian.cf/site.def in debian.
Here's what I think:
The Linux, Hurd, and *BSD .cf files should be split into kernel-space
and user-space files.
E.g.,
gnu-userspace.cf
bsd-userspace.cf
linux.cf would #include gnu-userspace.cf. This can be conditionalized
based on a de-facto vendor define (like LinuxDistribution) if there is
ever a Linux distribution with a BSD userspace. Other stuff in this
file would be restricted to kernel-specific stuff (which isn't much).
hurd.cf would #include gnu-userspace.cf and contain #defines relevant
to the Hurd's kernel architecture.
{Free,Net,Open}BSD.cf would have conditionalized #defines similar to the
way linux.cf already does. On a Debian system, FreeBSD.cf would
#include gnu-userspace.cf; otherwise, #include bsd-userspace.cf.
--
G. Branden Robinson| Mob rule isn't any prettier just
Debian GNU/Linux | because you call your mob a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | government.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
pgpCJRMw7RyjG.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: X Strike Force SVN commit: rev 183 - in branches/4.3.0/sid/debian: . patches
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 11:33:02AM +0900, ISHIKAWA Mutsumi wrote: I don't think so. site.def uses site local specific setting. Distribution common settings should not into this file. ok. - you're moving stuff into debian.cf that isn't actualy debian-specific. when i said gnu-common.cf i meant stuff common to GNUish systems (mostly related to Glibc and userland), but not debian-specific. [1] I think we should take care to do these modifications in a way that they are acceptable for upstream. So if you split into gnu-common.cf the common stuff that isn't debian-specific, and into debian.cf (or site.def) the debian-specific stuff, we'd just have to send gnu-common.cf to upstream and maintain debian.cf/site.def in debian. Please define `waht is GNUish system' and `waht is GNUish systems common stuff', I can not image them. Any system that is majoritarily based on components from the GNU system. For me, GCC, binutils, Glibc and coreutils is what comes to mind here. Please look at the diff between gnu.cf and gnu-freebsd.cf; they're really almost the same file only a few lines are changing. If all the common lines (which is most of the file) can be split into a file common to all Debian ports, i'd be very happy with that. However, note that: - this changes are not debian-specific, and could be sent upstream in a file common to all gnuish systems - since there are debian ports targetted at using another libc, and even debian ports targetted at using non-gnu userland, it might be interesting to have a file for all the gnuish stuff (not debian-specific), and a separate file for the debian-specific stuff. that way only gnuish ports would include that file. Currently linux.cf already have Distribution specific part, and most of all of entries are shared linux.cf and gnu.cf, netbsd.cf and gfbsd.cf. So, I'll happy to split off them to common file easy to maintain them. Sure, splitting the Distribution-specific part is a good idea. P.S: argh, if we just had autoconf : -- Robert Millan
Re: X Strike Force SVN commit: rev 183 - in branches/4.3.0/sid/debian: . patches
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 10:17:14PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote: And the NetBSD one is *not* GNU-based, Actualy I agree with that. which is even more reason to split the Debian-specific bits into a different file from the GNU-specific bits. That's fine; then there are only Glibc-specific bits left. ISHIKAWA, what about splitting all common stuff into Debian.cf, and Glibc-specific stuff into Glibc.cf? -- Robert Millan
Re: X Strike Force SVN commit: rev 183 - in branches/4.3.0/sid/debian: . patches
Robert Millan wrote: ISHIKAWA, what about splitting all common stuff into Debian.cf, and Glibc-specific stuff into Glibc.cf? Isn't it right that any glibc-based system is GNU system? Glibc requires GCC[1], which in turn requires (in most cases[2]) GNU binutils. [1] http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/FAQ.html#s-1.2 [2] http://gcc.gnu.org/install/prerequisites.html Regards -- Ognyan Kulev [EMAIL PROTECTED], \Programmer\ 7D9F 66E6 68B7 A62B 0FCF EB04 80BF 3A8C A252 9782
Re: X Strike Force SVN commit: rev 183 - in branches/4.3.0/sid/debian: . patches
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 01:48:42PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 10:17:14PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote: And the NetBSD one is *not* GNU-based, Actualy I agree with that. which is even more reason to split the Debian-specific bits into a different file from the GNU-specific bits. That's fine; then there are only Glibc-specific bits left. ISHIKAWA, what about splitting all common stuff into Debian.cf, and Glibc-specific stuff into Glibc.cf? I disagree with this approach. Please see my other mail on the subject. -- G. Branden Robinson|A committee is a life form with six Debian GNU/Linux |or more legs and no brain. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Robert Heinlein http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgp5STwBwZ3nA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: X Strike Force SVN commit: rev 183 - in branches/4.3.0/sid/debian: . patches
In [EMAIL PROTECTED] X Strike Force SVN Admin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Author: daniel Date: 2003-06-12 08:21:25 -0500 (Thu, 12 Jun 2003) New Revision: 183 Added: branches/4.3.0/sid/debian/patches/820_gnu-freebsd_config.diff branches/4.3.0/sid/debian/patches/821_gnu-freebsd_xdm.diff branches/4.3.0/sid/debian/patches/822_gnu-freebsd_xload.diff branches/4.3.0/sid/debian/patches/823_gnu-freebsd_xterm.diff Modified: branches/4.3.0/sid/debian/control Log: Initial commit of Debian GNU/FreeBSD support. I still need a MANIFEST.freebsd-i386, and I need to find out which virtual package FreeBSD provides (note the debian/control change: instead of kernel-headers-2.4 | hurd | ...), it's now a per-architecture Build-Dep. Perhaps, #820 patch is needed to add Xrender,Xft and Xcursor related defined. They are also need in #800(gnu.cf) and #824 (NetBSD.cf). - # define HasXftLibraryYES # define BuildXcursorLibrary NO # define HasXcursorLibraryYES # define BuildRenderLibrary NO # define HasRenderLibrary YES # ifdef UseInstalled #define RenderLibraryDir /usr/X11R6 #define XftLibraryDir /usr/X11R6 #define XcursorLibraryDir /usr # else /* for Debian xfree86 build hack */ #define RenderLibraryDir $(TOP)/../../debian/local/exports #define XftLibraryDir $(TOP)/../../debian/local/exports #define XcursorLibraryDir $(TOP)/../../debian/local/exports # endif - -- ISHIKAWA Mutsumi [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: X Strike Force SVN commit: rev 183 - in branches/4.3.0/sid/debian: . patches
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 01:55:06AM +0900, ISHIKAWA Mutsumi wrote: In [EMAIL PROTECTED] X Strike Force SVN Admin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Author: daniel Date: 2003-06-12 08:21:25 -0500 (Thu, 12 Jun 2003) New Revision: 183 Added: branches/4.3.0/sid/debian/patches/820_gnu-freebsd_config.diff branches/4.3.0/sid/debian/patches/821_gnu-freebsd_xdm.diff branches/4.3.0/sid/debian/patches/822_gnu-freebsd_xload.diff branches/4.3.0/sid/debian/patches/823_gnu-freebsd_xterm.diff Modified: branches/4.3.0/sid/debian/control Log: Initial commit of Debian GNU/FreeBSD support. I still need a MANIFEST.freebsd-i386, and I need to find out which virtual package FreeBSD provides (note the debian/control change: instead of kernel-headers-2.4 | hurd | ...), it's now a per-architecture Build-Dep. Perhaps, #820 patch is needed to add Xrender,Xft and Xcursor related defined. They are also need in #800(gnu.cf) and #824 (NetBSD.cf). Thanks, Ishikawa-san. I'll fix this up tonight, if you haven't already. -- Daniel Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] KDE: Konquering a desktop near you - http://www.kde.org pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: X Strike Force SVN commit: rev 183 - in branches/4.3.0/sid/debian: . patches
In [EMAIL PROTECTED] Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: btw, if someone is going to fix gnu.cf, please consider splitting it into a gnu-common.cf file so that it can be shared with gnu-freebsd.cf (see the header comments in patch #820) I just wrote same idea into my TODO list (xfree86/people/ishikaawa/TODO). I'm planning to work for this hack on this weekend :-) -- ISHIKAWA Mutsumi [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: X Strike Force SVN commit: rev 183 - in branches/4.3.0/sid/debian: . patches
In [EMAIL PROTECTED] Daniel Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps, #820 patch is needed to add Xrender,Xft and Xcursor related defined. They are also need in #800(gnu.cf) and #824 (NetBSD.cf). Thanks, Ishikawa-san. I'll fix this up tonight, if you haven't already. Good morning, Daniel. I'm planning a hack `OS core independent entries into Debian common .cf' on this weekend (just posted on this ML). So, please wait it will be done :-) -- ISHIKAWA Mutsumi [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: X Strike Force SVN commit: rev 183 - in branches/4.3.0/sid/debian: . patches
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 09:27:31AM +0900, ISHIKAWA Mutsumi wrote: In [EMAIL PROTECTED] Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: btw, if someone is going to fix gnu.cf, please consider splitting it into a gnu-common.cf file so that it can be shared with gnu-freebsd.cf (see the header comments in patch #820) I just wrote same idea into my TODO list (xfree86/people/ishikaawa/TODO). I'm planning to work for this hack on this weekend :-) glad to hear that! after looking at your TODO, i have a pair of comments on your plan: - i think site.def is a more adequate place for debian-specific stuff see what the upstream docs say about site.def (INSTALL-X.org, section 3.5) - you're moving stuff into debian.cf that isn't actualy debian-specific. when i said gnu-common.cf i meant stuff common to GNUish systems (mostly related to Glibc and userland), but not debian-specific. [1] I think we should take care to do these modifications in a way that they are acceptable for upstream. So if you split into gnu-common.cf the common stuff that isn't debian-specific, and into debian.cf (or site.def) the debian-specific stuff, we'd just have to send gnu-common.cf to upstream and maintain debian.cf/site.def in debian. [1] as of now GNU/Hurd and GNU/*BSD only exist in Debian, but we can't assume that for a configuration file. -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: X Strike Force SVN commit: rev 183 - in branches/4.3.0/sid/debian: . patches
In [EMAIL PROTECTED] Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 09:27:31AM +0900, ISHIKAWA Mutsumi wrote: In [EMAIL PROTECTED] Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: btw, if someone is going to fix gnu.cf, please consider splitting it into a gnu-common.cf file so that it can be shared with gnu-freebsd.cf (see the header comments in patch #820) I just wrote same idea into my TODO list (xfree86/people/ishikaawa/TODO). I'm planning to work for this hack on this weekend :-) glad to hear that! after looking at your TODO, i have a pair of comments on your plan: - i think site.def is a more adequate place for debian-specific stuff see what the upstream docs say about site.def (INSTALL-X.org, section 3.5) I don't think so. site.def uses site local specific setting. Distribution common settings should not into this file. - you're moving stuff into debian.cf that isn't actualy debian-specific. when i said gnu-common.cf i meant stuff common to GNUish systems (mostly related to Glibc and userland), but not debian-specific. [1] I think we should take care to do these modifications in a way that they are acceptable for upstream. So if you split into gnu-common.cf the common stuff that isn't debian-specific, and into debian.cf (or site.def) the debian-specific stuff, we'd just have to send gnu-common.cf to upstream and maintain debian.cf/site.def in debian. Please define `waht is GNUish system' and `waht is GNUish systems common stuff', I can not image them. Currently linux.cf already have Distribution specific part, and most of all of entries are shared linux.cf and gnu.cf, netbsd.cf and gfbsd.cf. So, I'll happy to split off them to common file easy to maintain them. -- ISHIKAWA Mutsumi [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: X Strike Force SVN commit: rev 183 - in branches/4.3.0/sid/debian: . patches
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 03:44:12AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 09:27:31AM +0900, ISHIKAWA Mutsumi wrote: In [EMAIL PROTECTED] Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: btw, if someone is going to fix gnu.cf, please consider splitting it into a gnu-common.cf file so that it can be shared with gnu-freebsd.cf (see the header comments in patch #820) I just wrote same idea into my TODO list (xfree86/people/ishikaawa/TODO). I'm planning to work for this hack on this weekend :-) glad to hear that! after looking at your TODO, i have a pair of comments on your plan: - i think site.def is a more adequate place for debian-specific stuff see what the upstream docs say about site.def (INSTALL-X.org, section 3.5) - you're moving stuff into debian.cf that isn't actualy debian-specific. when i said gnu-common.cf i meant stuff common to GNUish systems (mostly related to Glibc and userland), but not debian-specific. [1] I think we should take care to do these modifications in a way that they are acceptable for upstream. So if you split into gnu-common.cf the common stuff that isn't debian-specific, and into debian.cf (or site.def) the debian-specific stuff, we'd just have to send gnu-common.cf to upstream and maintain debian.cf/site.def in debian. [1] as of now GNU/Hurd and GNU/*BSD only exist in Debian, but we can't assume that for a configuration file. And the NetBSD one is *not* GNU-based, which is even more reason to split the Debian-specific bits into a different file from the GNU-specific bits. -- Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: X Strike Force SVN commit: rev 183 - in branches/4.3.0/sid/debian: . patches
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 03:44:12AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
after looking at your TODO, i have a pair of comments on your plan:
- i think site.def is a more adequate place for debian-specific stuff
see what the upstream docs say about site.def (INSTALL-X.org, section 3.5)
I disagree and do not support that approach. Debian is a vendor. And,
strictly speaking, Debian is a meta-vendor.
- you're moving stuff into debian.cf that isn't actualy debian-specific.
when i said gnu-common.cf i meant stuff common to GNUish systems
(mostly related to Glibc and userland), but not debian-specific. [1]
I think we should take care to do these modifications in a way that they are
acceptable for upstream. So if you split into gnu-common.cf the common
stuff that isn't debian-specific, and into debian.cf (or site.def) the
debian-specific stuff, we'd just have to send gnu-common.cf to upstream
and maintain debian.cf/site.def in debian.
Here's what I think:
The Linux, Hurd, and *BSD .cf files should be split into kernel-space
and user-space files.
E.g.,
gnu-userspace.cf
bsd-userspace.cf
linux.cf would #include gnu-userspace.cf. This can be conditionalized
based on a de-facto vendor define (like LinuxDistribution) if there is
ever a Linux distribution with a BSD userspace. Other stuff in this
file would be restricted to kernel-specific stuff (which isn't much).
hurd.cf would #include gnu-userspace.cf and contain #defines relevant
to the Hurd's kernel architecture.
{Free,Net,Open}BSD.cf would have conditionalized #defines similar to the
way linux.cf already does. On a Debian system, FreeBSD.cf would
#include gnu-userspace.cf; otherwise, #include bsd-userspace.cf.
--
G. Branden Robinson| Mob rule isn't any prettier just
Debian GNU/Linux | because you call your mob a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | government.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: X Strike Force SVN commit: rev 183 - in branches/4.3.0/sid/debian: . patches
In [EMAIL PROTECTED] X Strike Force SVN Admin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Author: daniel Date: 2003-06-12 08:21:25 -0500 (Thu, 12 Jun 2003) New Revision: 183 Added: branches/4.3.0/sid/debian/patches/820_gnu-freebsd_config.diff branches/4.3.0/sid/debian/patches/821_gnu-freebsd_xdm.diff branches/4.3.0/sid/debian/patches/822_gnu-freebsd_xload.diff branches/4.3.0/sid/debian/patches/823_gnu-freebsd_xterm.diff Modified: branches/4.3.0/sid/debian/control Log: Initial commit of Debian GNU/FreeBSD support. I still need a MANIFEST.freebsd-i386, and I need to find out which virtual package FreeBSD provides (note the debian/control change: instead of kernel-headers-2.4 | hurd | ...), it's now a per-architecture Build-Dep. Perhaps, #820 patch is needed to add Xrender,Xft and Xcursor related defined. They are also need in #800(gnu.cf) and #824 (NetBSD.cf). - # define HasXftLibraryYES # define BuildXcursorLibrary NO # define HasXcursorLibraryYES # define BuildRenderLibrary NO # define HasRenderLibrary YES # ifdef UseInstalled #define RenderLibraryDir /usr/X11R6 #define XftLibraryDir /usr/X11R6 #define XcursorLibraryDir /usr # else /* for Debian xfree86 build hack */ #define RenderLibraryDir $(TOP)/../../debian/local/exports #define XftLibraryDir $(TOP)/../../debian/local/exports #define XcursorLibraryDir $(TOP)/../../debian/local/exports # endif - -- ISHIKAWA Mutsumi [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: X Strike Force SVN commit: rev 183 - in branches/4.3.0/sid/debian: . patches
In [EMAIL PROTECTED] Daniel Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps, #820 patch is needed to add Xrender,Xft and Xcursor related defined. They are also need in #800(gnu.cf) and #824 (NetBSD.cf). Thanks, Ishikawa-san. I'll fix this up tonight, if you haven't already. Good morning, Daniel. I'm planning a hack `OS core independent entries into Debian common .cf' on this weekend (just posted on this ML). So, please wait it will be done :-) -- ISHIKAWA Mutsumi [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: X Strike Force SVN commit: rev 183 - in branches/4.3.0/sid/debian: . patches
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 09:27:31AM +0900, ISHIKAWA Mutsumi wrote: In [EMAIL PROTECTED] Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: btw, if someone is going to fix gnu.cf, please consider splitting it into a gnu-common.cf file so that it can be shared with gnu-freebsd.cf (see the header comments in patch #820) I just wrote same idea into my TODO list (xfree86/people/ishikaawa/TODO). I'm planning to work for this hack on this weekend :-) glad to hear that! after looking at your TODO, i have a pair of comments on your plan: - i think site.def is a more adequate place for debian-specific stuff see what the upstream docs say about site.def (INSTALL-X.org, section 3.5) - you're moving stuff into debian.cf that isn't actualy debian-specific. when i said gnu-common.cf i meant stuff common to GNUish systems (mostly related to Glibc and userland), but not debian-specific. [1] I think we should take care to do these modifications in a way that they are acceptable for upstream. So if you split into gnu-common.cf the common stuff that isn't debian-specific, and into debian.cf (or site.def) the debian-specific stuff, we'd just have to send gnu-common.cf to upstream and maintain debian.cf/site.def in debian. [1] as of now GNU/Hurd and GNU/*BSD only exist in Debian, but we can't assume that for a configuration file. -- Robert Millan
