On Mon, Nov 22, 1999 at 09:55:09AM +0100, Piotr Roszatycki wrote:
Again, Linux couldn't mount FreeBSD partition. I'm afraid they should
use theirs native file system..
Are you sure? I think I have mounted my FreeBSD partition in linux.
It has been a long time since I tried it though since I do
On Tue, 23 Nov 1999, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Mon, Nov 22, 1999 at 09:55:09AM +0100, Piotr Roszatycki wrote:
Again, Linux couldn't mount FreeBSD partition. I'm afraid they should
use theirs native file system..
Are you sure? I think I have mounted my FreeBSD partition in linux.
It has
On Tue, Nov 23, 1999 at 02:31:28PM +0100, Piotr Roszatycki wrote:
What about booting FreeBSD from extfs?
Good question. Not yet, it seems. I'm running 3.1-RELEASE or 3.2-RELEASE
though, I don't remember which (I don't use it).
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB. CCs of replies on mailing lists
I guess you just can't see how this is different from the case where
you have two different kernels for the same cpu, and they already have
the capability of running many of the same binaries?
On Sun, Nov 21, 1999 at 02:01:46PM -0500, Clint Adams wrote:
They can? I thought iBCS was dead.
On Sun, 21 Nov 1999, Clint Adams wrote:
I think the issue is not if we don't want to have any package recompilation.
The issue is if we can take advantage of binary compatibility where it
doesn't make a difference.
By attempting to fill demand for FreeBSD kernel with Debian by
providing
On Sun, 21 Nov 1999, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
I am not sure about BSD. It depends if you really are going to use FreeBSDs
libc or glibc. What I said applies mostly to the latter case. If you are
going with a different libc, it depends on the ABI exposed. As it is most
likely incompatible with
On Mon, Nov 22, 1999 at 10:01:32AM +0100, Piotr Roszatycki wrote:
On Sun, 21 Nov 1999, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
I am not sure about BSD. It depends if you really are going to use FreeBSDs
libc or glibc. What I said applies mostly to the latter case. If you are
going with a different libc, it
Piotr Roszatycki wrote:
AFAIR, FreeBSD can't boot from ext2fs partition. Maybe I am wrong,
so is it possible?
I seriously doubt it. I has been a while (about a month or two) since I
messed around with device files on FreeBSD (and I am not at home right
now so I can't check it out), but there's
On Sun, Nov 21, 1999 at 12:41:42AM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
Please note that Debians architecture and ftp set up make it difficult at
least to say:
This package is for all linux systems.
This package is for all linux systems, but needs to be recompiled on each.
This package is for
* 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
On Sun, Nov 21, 1999 at 12:35:11AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
(1) FreeBSD's support for running linux binaries needs to be enhanced.
If done, that reduces the scope of the problem. If not done the problem
is rather nasty. [I understand that dpkg and bash have problems running
under this
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,
On Sun, Nov 21, 1999 at 02:41:13PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
syscalls are a different issue. Software using syscalls can be declared
as such, and only installed on systems that provide such syscalls or an
emulation.
Well, that's true. But syscall itself is just a libc function.
Also,
While there's nothing inherently wrong with rebuilding the world, in the
current circumstances it seems more like a competitive strategy than an
enhancement strategy.
Sure. Let's get functional i386-emulation for sparc, m68k, and
alpha, and then we can save a whole lot of archive bloat and
On Sun, Nov 21, 1999 at 12:33:27PM -0500, Clint Adams wrote:
Sure. Let's get functional i386-emulation for sparc, m68k, and
alpha, and then we can save a whole lot of archive bloat and they
can save the trouble of porting and rebuilding everything.
I guess you just can't see how this is
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
I guess you just can't see how this is different from the case where
you have two different kernels for the same cpu, and they already have
the capability of running many of the same binaries?
They can? I thought iBCS was dead.
Or did you have a point?
Why would emulation under a different
Hi,
On Sun, Nov 21, 1999 at 09:05:29AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sun, Nov 21, 1999 at 02:41:13PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
syscalls are a different issue. Software using syscalls can be declared
as such, and only installed on systems that provide such syscalls or an
emulation.
On Sun, Nov 21, 1999 at 02:01:46PM -0500, Clint Adams wrote:
Why would emulation under a different kernel be any more acceptable
than emulation of a different processor?
Because the first is not emulation in the usual case. Because you don't
emulate a processor. Because you don't provide a
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
I think the issue is not if we don't want to have any package recompilation.
The issue is if we can take advantage of binary compatibility where it
doesn't make a difference.
By attempting to fill demand for FreeBSD kernel with Debian by
providing a FreeBSD kernel with Linux binary support and
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
-free software, so that makes us the enemey, right?
Hell, some of us write non-free software, so we must be a bunch of sickos,
right?
And in any case, you've just admitted that Debian FreeBSD would be
assisting a portion of the free software community. At worst, it might
help a bunch of other
of hurt it?
I don't see how Debian/FreeBSD would do anything to jeopardize
existing Debian ports. It may suck up the time of some developers,
but since all developers are volunteers, that is their own
perogative. It will not force any Debian software to go with a BSD
license, or require
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.
Peter Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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.
The fact that SPI will not make it proprietary does
[ 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
On Thu, Nov 18, 1999 at 10:06:18PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Please, people, if you have not thought through the ramifications of
what you are trying to do, take a step back and look at the big
picture first. Why not try to help the free software community
instead of hurt it?
So the BSD
On Thu, Nov 18, 1999 at 10:06:18PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
The fact that SPI will not make it proprietary does not prevent it
from becoming so. The BSD license permits it. And people have, and
continue to, exploit this weakness in the BSD license.
Well, which parts of Debian GNU/FreeBSD
On Thu, Nov 18, 1999 at 10:06:18PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Please, people, if you have not thought through the ramifications of
what you are trying to do, take a step back and look at the big
picture first. Why not try to help the free software community
instead of hurt it?
Argh.
IMHO,
On Thu, Nov 18, 1999 at 10:06:18PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
The fact that SPI will not make it proprietary does not prevent it
from becoming so. The BSD license permits it. And people have, and
continue to, exploit this weakness in the BSD license.
Actually it complies with the Open Source
On Thursday 18 November 1999, at 22 h 6, the keyboard of John Goerzen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is no mere political thing as you try to make it. What you and
others are trying to do is, in my opinion, seriously damaging to the
Free Software community. ...
Let's stamp out the BSD
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
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
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.
- Original Message -
From: Clint Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org; debian-project@lists.debian.org
Sent: Friday, November 19, 1999 11:31 AM
Subject: Re: Debian FreeBSD
Let's say you want bash on your FreeBSD system. Which
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
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Thu, Nov 18, 1999 at 10:06:18PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Please, people, if you have not thought through the ramifications of
what you are trying to do, take a step back and look at the big
picture first. Why not try to help the free
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
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
40 matches
Mail list logo