I removed a lot of CC's, since this comment isn't relevant to the rest of the discussion, really...
On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 04:39:47PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: [snip] > I explained that "Debian GNU/KNetBSD" was actually a separate effort, > primarily by Robert Millan, to port Debian to a system consisting of > NetBSD's kernel (thus, 'KNetBSD') and a ported GNU libc, while the other > effort was aimed at a NetBSD kernel and native NetBSD libc. I did, however, > say that I (at least) would be happy to try to find a name they found > equally suitable, for the same reasons, rather than continue to use the > current one. Are you saying that we're going to have both a Debian GNU/KNetBSD distribution, which, since it uses glibc presumably would be able to use the same binaries as the GNU/Linux architecture for _most_ packages (please correct me if I'm wrong) _and_ a distribution based on NetBSD's libc, which would required close to every damn binary to have separate packages. Thus, given NetBSD's multiplatform support, almost doubling the size of the Debian archives?! Madness lies that way. Yes, choice is good, but sometimes, just sometimes too much choice will make you choke... /David -- /) David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> /) Northern lights wander (\ // Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky // \) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Full colour fire (/
