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
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 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
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
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 Fri, Nov 19, 1999 at 01:55:10PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
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
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This happpened to BSD. It continues to happen with it. Commercial
interests steal the code (which they are permitted to do), make it
proprietary, and never help out the original authors with code or give
out their code. It is an open invitation for
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 not
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
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
26 matches
Mail list logo
