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 ar
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
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 Mon, Nov 22, 1999 at 07:53:54PM +0100, Filip Van Raemdonck wrote:
> 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
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 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 li
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 wit
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
>
On Sun, Nov 21, 1999 at 08:53:25PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > Well, that's true. But syscall itself is just a libc function.
>
> Yes, but I am not sure if even a subset of the available syscalls are
> standardized across platform anywhere.
We should probably concentrate on the subset of
> > 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
On Sun, Nov 21, 1999 at 02:41:16PM -0500, 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 kern
> 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
On Nov 20, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Don't forget about competition for archive space resources.
Agreed. ILS (linux.it) just bought a new disk for ftp.it.debian.org and
I see the distribution has grown nearly half GB in the last month.
I really would be upset if all linux/i386 will
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
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
> 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 differ
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 dif
> 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 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,
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 12:41:42AM +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
On Sat, Nov 20, 1999 at 03:38:43PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> The port isn't being approached with an eye towards conserving archive
> space -- everything is being recompiled. Supposedly the goal of
> this project is to give linux users the option of using a bsd kernel.
> So the first goal should
On Sat, Nov 20, 1999 at 07:33:36AM -0800, Craig Brozefsky wrote:
> 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 Deb
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
On Fri, Nov 19, 1999 at 01:55:10PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> Anthony Towns 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
>
On Fri, Nov 19, 1999 at 03:00:31PM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> On Nov 19, John Goerzen wrote:
> > Anthony Towns writes:
> > > You're insane.
> >
> > I guess this is welcome, as when one's opponent resorts to ad hominem
> > attacks, it usually means that one is on the right side of the issue
>
On Nov 19, John Goerzen wrote:
> Anthony Towns 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
Anthony Towns 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 software community
>
Mike Goldman wrote:
> Once dpkg is ported to FreeBSD, we
> might convince the FreeBSD porters to use it instead
Well, I don't know what this problem between *BSD (seems like FreeBSD in
particular) and GNU camps is exactly about, but I know it exists. Since
dpkg uses the GPL I don't see it being a
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 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 Sour
John Goerzen wrote:
> 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
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.
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?
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.
Some people consider that weakness a st
On Nov 18, John Goerzen wrote:
> 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 people
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
38 matches
Mail list logo
