On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 07:24:29PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> 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?!
Probably not exactly. It is the case at the moment, but hopefully it
won't stay that way. You are incorrect about glibc allowing the use of
the same binaries. It doesn't work that way, because kernel struct's and
constants differ. (Among other things. Actually, the BSD's can run
regular Debian binaries in Linux emulation mode, so that's really not
necessary. The problem is that dpkg doesn't understand that, so you have
to use a chroot.) The use of glibc gains some source compatiblity at the
expense of an unstable libc that will require a lot more work to fully
support the BSD kernels. I don't believe that this work will ever really
get done, giving the native libc port an advantage.
Also, I would be really surprised if the glibc port gets past i386, since
there's a lot more effort involved in doing that.
> Madness lies that way.
>
> Yes, choice is good, but sometimes, just sometimes too much choice will
> make you choke...
True.
---Nathan
