* Neal H. Walfield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030120 19:10]:
> > 3.
> > Portability
> > glibc:Portable to more than one Kernel and hence large
> > BSD libc:Dont attempt to be portable across kernels and hence
> > smaller.
>
> I do not see the logic. If you are speaking about lines of code in
> the dis
* Michael Goetze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [021030 10:11]:
>
> > The value of an OpenBSD port extends beyond the potential security
> > benefits. Making packages portable across kernels is very valuable. I
> > would like to be able to go into any OS and run a Debian system.
>
> The point is that, as fa
* Andreas Schuldei ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [021022 23:58]:
> There are several indications that openbsd's security is more or
> less up to the level what can be achived with todays debian
> gnu/linux.
>
> The kernel code seems to have severe race conditions and the
> userspace
There are several indications that openbsd's security is more or
less up to the level what can be achived with todays debian
gnu/linux.
The kernel code seems to have severe race conditions and the
userspace seems to be bitten by a compareable number of security
incidents as e.g. a stabel debian wi
* Elie Rosenblum ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [020724 02:13]:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 01:58:00AM +0200, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> That's the idea...for anything not part of the 'base' distribution
> (as defined by whatever platform you're building for), we should
> be
* Michael Graff ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [020724 01:28]:
> IMHO, this is the wrong way to look at things. If packages are so
> linux (and glibc is linux slanted, IMHO) they should be fixed to be
> more unix, not making the unix world more linux.
The debian packages would need work to build cleanly on
* Gustavo Franco ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [020515 17:41]:
> On Tue, 14 May 2002 19:05:09 -0400
> Nathan Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Description : FreeBSD kernel, libc and utilities for freebsd-i386 port
> >
> > I have it packaged. Will upload after bug #146977 is closed.
> Where is the
i would like your advice on this. is symbol versioning required
to be able to have nice upgradeabel libs as needed for debian
packages of libs?
--- Begin Message ---
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 11:47:53AM +0200, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> * Marc Espie ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [020417 01:28]:
> >
* Joel Baker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [020409 03:11]:
> 2) pmake (aka /usr/src/usr.bin/make) - the source tree for this on the
> various BSD flavors differ significantly, but all appear to share some
> basic level of functionality. How similar are they? I'm looking at taking
> over the pmake package, an
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [020204 21:29]:
> I think it would be best if we can agree on a solution that works for all
> three
> BSD's. That could save work, and it would definitely simplify getting patches
> merged back into Debian.
sadly, openbsd has no getopt_long, only getopt.
o
Markus Brinkmanm (of HURD fame) has written this
http://master.debian.org/~brinkmd/arch-handling.txt
which is mandatory reading for us.
they (the hurd people) are very interested in working closely
together with us, simply since we together might have enough
weight to make debian make more archit
concerning the dpkg patch, which mail i deleted accidently.
I have some more changes to the buildsystem which are needed on
openbsd, mainly because it is broken and does not support some
stuff.
this is for example a configure check for gnu make, ncurses vs
curses, problems with __va_copy and add
* Michael Goetze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [020127 02:37]:
> Still at it, eh? Mind telling us how far along you are? I haven't heard from
> you for a long time.
I spare myself and you all the excuses for not beeing as far as
the netbsd port. Not so much happend, but I still work on it if i
have time. I
* Jimmy Kaplowitz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [020126 21:19]:
> The uname command will not in any
> way reflect GNU or Debian, since we will be using NetBSD's kernel. So,
> what is the best way to check for the GNU userland tools?
This is also a major pain for debian/OpenBSD, which tries to keep
the Open
I am trying to get a working binutils to interact with
dpkg-shlibsdeb and debhelper.
Openbsd's is broken, but netbsd's seem to work fine. So I am
trying to recompile the netbsd tools and libs needed for
compiling the netbsd objdump on openbsd. I think I came quite far
allready, but fail right now
Who can tell me how to compile (parts of) the netbsd source tree
on openbsd? I need the binutils (especially objdump) for the
debian-openbsd port. the openbsd objectdump is broken beyond
hope.
Because netbsd's objdump is linked against some other libs, I
need to compile those first. Right now I d
I have given talks about Debain Gnu/OpenBSD on DebCon 1 and
Linuxtag 2001. Beside getting many more signatures on my debian
key, I think I was also able to win some peoples sympathy for
this efford.
please find the link to the slides and questions and answers
here: (look for openbsd)
http://www.n
I see a strange problem, which I can not explain really.
I build and make install dpkg, changing stuff. But the binary I
execute seems to stay the old one. It seems to hang somewhere in
the background, like cached. I would like to purge that cache to
be able to debug my current version.
Has some
I understand that most people here are more interested in
FreeBSD. It would be contraproductiv to keep them on working on
somthing they do not want.
Who wants to work on OpenBSD?
* Wartan Hachaturow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [010210 00:53]:
> When I've been making debhelper port, I've changed calls of "find" and
> "xargs" to "gfind" and "gxargs", but we should really think about it.
I think, your second option - install the gnu tools as package
tools - is the most effective and
* Mark Berry ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [010207 15:32]:
> > I don't know if it's silly, but that's my vision as well. Not exactly
> > Linux-like, I'd say Debian-like. I just love the manageability
> > APT + Debian
> > Policy give me. If that functionality was available to BSD I
> > would probably
> > have
Last friday I started Debian OpenBSD with the following targets
and milestones:
I aim for a secure OS, that is highliy modular and maintainable.
For that reason I decided to use OpenBSD kernel and userspace.
I expect the security of debian GnuLinux to raise dramatically
once the code audit and bug
* Mark W. Eichin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [010202 01:18]:
> It would be even more useful if people *checked the archives* instead
> of blindly posting "gee, what are you doing?" but I'm cynical enough
> not to expect that :-)
OK, get the archive and post it to me.
go and check: it is not on lists.d.o
I was thinking of the cool security features of OpenBSD for some
time now. THe recent diskussion on security and source audits
intensified that, I guess.
I think we are a long way behind in security, but at least as far
ahead in maintainability.
Of cause the optimal soulution would be to combine
24 matches
Mail list logo
