Heya,
On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 11:20:26PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mercredi 24 mai 2006 à 16:01 -0700, Erast Benson a écrit :
> > Thanks for all replies.
>
> In a private email you sent me, you said you were going to stop posting
> on Debian mailing lists. This was just another lie.
>
On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 11:20:26PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mercredi 24 mai 2006 à 16:01 -0700, Erast Benson a écrit :
> > Thanks for all replies.
>
> In a private email you sent me, you said you were going to stop posting
> on Debian mailing lists. This was just another lie.
Hmm, Debi
Le mercredi 24 mai 2006 à 16:01 -0700, Erast Benson a écrit :
> Thanks for all replies.
In a private email you sent me, you said you were going to stop posting
on Debian mailing lists. This was just another lie.
Furthermore this email was full of allegations and insults while you
perfectly knew y
> On Sun, 2006-05-21 at 09:44:50 -0700, Erast Benson wrote:
>> because non-glibc Debian architectures does exists (i.e.
>> FreeBSD,Solaris,Darwin), and it is time to consider them and accept
>> their existence. Those core architectures are open sourced and their
>> communities will only grow over t
On Sun, 2006-05-21 at 09:44:50 -0700, Erast Benson wrote:
> because non-glibc Debian architectures does exists (i.e.
> FreeBSD,Solaris,Darwin), and it is time to consider them and accept
> their existence. Those core architectures are open sourced and their
> communities will only grow over time. I
On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 11:30:59PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le samedi 20 mai 2006 à 19:43 -0700, Erast Benson a écrit :
> > Nexenta is absolutely rock stable OS (thanks to legendary Solaris
> > history)
>
> Solaris history is indeed legendary, but not for its stability.
Well, when you con
Le samedi 20 mai 2006 à 19:43 -0700, Erast Benson a écrit :
> Nexenta is absolutely rock stable OS (thanks to legendary Solaris
> history)
Solaris history is indeed legendary, but not for its stability.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'
Le dimanche 21 mai 2006 à 09:44 -0700, Erast Benson a écrit :
>
(Debian-devel, sorry for the spam.)
Erast, you shouldn't post on public mailing lists if you don't even
accept the email replies. Please fix your SMTP server by removing use of
the stupid and broken MAPS RBL, or simply stop posting.
Le dimanche 21 mai 2006 à 09:44 -0700, Erast Benson a écrit :
> because non-glibc Debian architectures does exists (i.e.
> FreeBSD,Solaris,Darwin)
Stop the lies.
* The FreeBSD port is glibc-based.
* There is no Darwin port. Fink is a toy based on APT and has
nothing in common w
On Sun, 2006-05-21 at 18:54 +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> > because non-glibc Debian architectures does exists (i.e.
> > FreeBSD,Solaris,Darwin), and it is time to consider them and accept
> > their existence. Those core architectures are open sourced and their
> > communities will only grow
On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 10:29:17AM -0700, Erast Benson wrote:
> "..there's limited manpower in the world..." can not be an acceptable
> argument for future development.
Why not? It's certainly better than “with an unspecified amount of work done
by an unspecified labor force, option A can be as go
On Sun, 2006-05-21 at 18:54 +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 09:44:50AM -0700, Erast Benson wrote:
> > So, why GLIBC is so important to you? What do you miss in SUN C library?
> > And why do you think technically impossible to extend SUN C library with
> > missing GLIBC
On Sun, 2006-05-21 at 19:40 +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> On Sunday 21 May 2006 19:06, Erast Benson wrote:
> -cut--
> > Clean way would be to extend SUN C library with missing GLIBC
> > functionality. Btw, have you seen SUN C library code? Its done very
> > clean, very polished code base which run
On Sunday 21 May 2006 19:44, Erast Benson wrote:
--cut--
> So, why GLIBC is so important to you? What do you miss in SUN C library?
> And why do you think technically impossible to extend SUN C library with
> missing GLIBC functionality? I'm just trying to understand your point of
> view..
Glibc i
On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 09:44:50AM -0700, Erast Benson wrote:
> So, why GLIBC is so important to you? What do you miss in SUN C library?
> And why do you think technically impossible to extend SUN C library with
> missing GLIBC functionality? I'm just trying to understand your point of
> view..
Th
On Sun, 2006-05-21 at 19:14 +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> On Sunday 21 May 2006 17:34, Erast Benson wrote:
> --cut--
> > > > But I hope you still got me right. For me, all these "things" are
> > > > existing applications which must run. The world is not 100% open
> > > > sourced yet and we are in
On Sunday 21 May 2006 19:06, Erast Benson wrote:
-cut--
> Clean way would be to extend SUN C library with missing GLIBC
> functionality. Btw, have you seen SUN C library code? Its done very
> clean, very polished code base which runs at least on i386, amd64, sparc
> and powerpc arches.
Peace, but
On Sunday 21 May 2006 17:34, Erast Benson wrote:
--cut--
> > > But I hope you still got me right. For me, all these "things" are
> > > existing applications which must run. The world is not 100% open
> > > sourced yet and we are in it, we are part of it, therefore my ideal OS
> > > need to be capab
On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 22:45 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 12:32 -0500, Michael Banck wrote:
> >> We had a pure NetBSD port before, but so far no non-glibc port got added
> >> to the archive officially (but that doesn't mean it woul
On Sun, 2006-05-21 at 17:09 +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> Erast Benson wrote:
> > On Sun, 2006-05-21 at 10:44 +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>
> >> Then provide the Solaris libc and other support libraries somewhere
> >> proprietary applications can use them, while building your system around
>
Erast Benson wrote:
On Sun, 2006-05-21 at 10:44 +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
Then provide the Solaris libc and other support libraries somewhere
proprietary applications can use them, while building your system around
glibc.
It is not easy possible to achieve. I'd say it would be impossibl
On Sun, 2006-05-21 at 09:49 +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> On Sunday 21 May 2006 05:35, Erast Benson wrote:
> > On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 21:11 +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> > > On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 11:51:09AM -0700, Erast Benson wrote:
> > > > Do you really believe so? Do you understand that
On Sun, 2006-05-21 at 10:44 +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> Erast Benson wrote:
> > On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 12:32 -0500, Michael Banck wrote:
> >> We had a pure NetBSD port before, but so far no non-glibc port got added
> >> to the archive officially (but that doesn't mean it would get rejected
> >>
On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 23:05 -0700, Matt Taggart wrote:
> Erast Benson writes...
>
> > Once you accompany OpenSolaris kernel with GLIBC, you will kill this
> > capability, you will not be able to run anything other than OSS compiled
> > for your particular distro. That was my point. And isn't LSB i
Erast Benson wrote:
On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 12:32 -0500, Michael Banck wrote:
We had a pure NetBSD port before, but so far no non-glibc port got added
to the archive officially (but that doesn't mean it would get rejected
if it was of release quality).
IMHO a glibc-based OpenSolaris would cert
On Sunday 21 May 2006 05:35, Erast Benson wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 21:11 +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> > On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 11:51:09AM -0700, Erast Benson wrote:
> > > Do you really believe so? Do you understand that such a "hybrid" will
> > > not run any existing Solaris apps lik
Erast Benson writes...
> Once you accompany OpenSolaris kernel with GLIBC, you will kill this
> capability, you will not be able to run anything other than OSS compiled
> for your particular distro. That was my point. And isn't LSB is what
> GNU/Linux moving towards to? In OpenSolaris we have its
Erast Benson writes...
> On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 12:32 -0500, Michael Banck wrote:
> > We had a pure NetBSD port before, but so far no non-glibc port got added
> > to the archive officially (but that doesn't mean it would get rejected
> > if it was of release quality).
> >
> > IMHO a glibc-based
On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 20:32 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> If you aren't getting Solaris-specific features (dtrace, etc ?),
> then what's the point of running Solaris?
Nexenta is absolutely rock stable OS (thanks to legendary Solaris
history) and moving towards running any applications written for So
On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 21:11 +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 11:51:09AM -0700, Erast Benson wrote:
> > Do you really believe so? Do you understand that such a "hybrid" will
> > not run any existing Solaris apps like you will not be able to run
> > simple thinks like Macr
--- Begin Message ---
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Roger Leigh wrote:
> Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 12:32 -0500, Michael Banck wrote:
>>> We had a pure NetBSD port before, but so far no non-glibc port got added
>>> to the archive officially
On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 12:37:36PM -0300, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
> Our Architecture: field is about the arches that Debian itself supports.
> If the meaning was broad as you describe, would we have to make sure our
> packages build on MS DOS?
>
> I'll agree with Josselin here: Debian is a GN
Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 12:32 -0500, Michael Banck wrote:
>> We had a pure NetBSD port before, but so far no non-glibc port got added
>> to the archive officially (but that doesn't mean it would get rejected
>> if it was of release quality).
>>
>> IMHO a
On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 11:51:09AM -0700, Erast Benson wrote:
> Do you really believe so? Do you understand that such a "hybrid" will
> not run any existing Solaris apps like you will not be able to run
> simple thinks like Macromedia flush player, JRE, JDK, Oracle, SAP, etc
> etc... Do you still w
On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 12:32 -0500, Michael Banck wrote:
> We had a pure NetBSD port before, but so far no non-glibc port got added
> to the archive officially (but that doesn't mean it would get rejected
> if it was of release quality).
>
> IMHO a glibc-based OpenSolaris would certainly be the b
On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 17:54 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le samedi 20 mai 2006 à 08:07 -0700, Erast Benson a écrit :
> > > Please wake up. Debian is a GNU system and needs a GNU environment. I
> > > doubt that more than half of the archive can build without the GNU libc.
> > > This is the reaso
On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 08:43:25AM -0700, Erast Benson wrote:
> > I'll agree with Josselin here: Debian is a GNU operatig system, not a
> > POSIX OS. If there are porting problems which are specific to Nexenta
> > and you want them to be integrated, you can provide patches. Or you can
> > port the
On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 12:37 -0300, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
> Em Sex, 2006-05-19 às 17:52 -0700, Erast Benson escreveu:
> > is platform independent and just works. And if Debian's meta-information
> > introduces problem for package which compiles and runs just fine from
> > out of upstream tarb
Le samedi 20 mai 2006 à 08:07 -0700, Erast Benson a écrit :
> > Please wake up. Debian is a GNU system and needs a GNU environment. I
> > doubt that more than half of the archive can build without the GNU libc.
> > This is the reason why the FreeBSD port started by porting the glibc.
>
> Let me ju
Em Sáb, 2006-05-20 às 08:07 -0700, Erast Benson escreveu:
> 14000+ (source ports) is quite a number and far bigger than the half of
> Debian APT repo.
Many of them are probably patched in the build process. I know that one
of my packages do get many patches on netbsd's pkgsrc, for instance,
althou
Em Sex, 2006-05-19 às 17:52 -0700, Erast Benson escreveu:
> is platform independent and just works. And if Debian's meta-information
> introduces problem for package which compiles and runs just fine from
> out of upstream tarball on non-glibc ports than maintainer might be
> interested to fix it,
On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 16:33 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le vendredi 19 mai 2006 à 13:15 -0700, Alex Ross a écrit :
> > Ideally though, there'd be an augmented policy of package acceptance,
> > reflecting the fact that the packages with "Architecture: any" should build
> > and run on one of the
On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 07:38 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Hendrik Sattler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Am Samstag, 20. Mai 2006 12:01 schrieb Petter Reinholdtsen:
>
> >> So I would say less than 20% of the free software is platform
> >> independent, based on personal problems.
>
> > And the oth
On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 12:01 +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Erast Benson]
> > And thanks to upstream folks, 90% of OSS software is platform
> > independent and just works.
>
> Just to get the facts straight here. I compile and port free software
> regularly to Linux, Solaris, Irix, HP-UX, Tr
Hendrik Sattler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Am Samstag, 20. Mai 2006 12:01 schrieb Petter Reinholdtsen:
>> So I would say less than 20% of the free software is platform
>> independent, based on personal problems.
> And the other authors cannot test on such system anyway as they often
> need spe
Le vendredi 19 mai 2006 à 13:15 -0700, Alex Ross a écrit :
> Ideally though, there'd be an augmented policy of package acceptance,
> reflecting the fact that the packages with "Architecture: any" should build
> and run on one of the Debian POSIX-compliant systems. NexentaOS is
> certainly one such
Am Samstag, 20. Mai 2006 12:01 schrieb Petter Reinholdtsen:
> [Erast Benson]
>
> > And thanks to upstream folks, 90% of OSS software is platform
> > independent and just works.
>
> Just to get the facts straight here. I compile and port free software
> regularly to Linux, Solaris, Irix, HP-UX, Tru
[Erast Benson]
> And thanks to upstream folks, 90% of OSS software is platform
> independent and just works.
Just to get the facts straight here. I compile and port free software
regularly to Linux, Solaris, Irix, HP-UX, Tru64 Unix, AIX and MacOSX,
and do not share your view that 90% of "OSS sof
On Fri, 2006-05-19 at 18:10 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Minimally, package maintainers and developers could take a look on our
> > logs and see if there's anything wrong. If there is, in many cases the
> > fix is obvious.
>
> You probably need to provide a view by maintainer in order to get
>
pe, 2006-05-19 kello 13:15 -0700, Alex Ross kirjoitti:
> Minimally, package maintainers and developers could take a look on our logs
> and see if there's anything wrong. If there is, in many cases the fix is
> obvious.
You're not going to get very many Debian package maintainers to look at
*yet*
On Fri, 2006-05-19 at 14:44 -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 01:15:44PM -0700, Alex Ross wrote:
> > Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > >On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 10:34:35AM -0700, Alex Ross wrote:
> > >>The following is based on premises that portability is good and that
> > >>POSIX is a
Alex Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Minimally, package maintainers and developers could take a look on our
> logs and see if there's anything wrong. If there is, in many cases the
> fix is obvious.
You probably need to provide a view by maintainer in order to get
visibility to many developers
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 10:34:35AM -0700, Alex Ross wrote:
The following is based on premises that portability is good and that
POSIX is a standard. A proposal.
I didn't see a concrete proposal in your email, only information about
where to find gnusolaris build logs. Ca
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 01:15:44PM -0700, Alex Ross wrote:
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 10:34:35AM -0700, Alex Ross wrote:
The following is based on premises that portability is good and that
POSIX is a standard. A proposal.
I didn't see a concrete propo
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 01:15:44PM -0700, Alex Ross wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> >On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 10:34:35AM -0700, Alex Ross wrote:
> >>The following is based on premises that portability is good and that
> >>POSIX is a standard. A proposal.
> >
> >I didn't see a concrete proposal in y
Alex Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The following is based on premises that portability is good and
> that POSIX is a standard. A proposal.
>
> Over the last couple months we've built about gazillion Ubuntu/Dapper
> packages. The process is heavily automated ([1], [2], [3]).
>
> And so, to loo
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 10:34:35AM -0700, Alex Ross wrote:
> The following is based on premises that portability is good and
> that POSIX is a standard. A proposal.
I didn't see a concrete proposal in your email, only information about where
to find gnusolaris build logs. Can you elaborate?
--
The following is based on premises that portability is good and
that POSIX is a standard. A proposal.
Over the last couple months we've built about gazillion Ubuntu/Dapper
packages. The process is heavily automated ([1], [2], [3]).
And so, to lookup the result of the XYZ build (where XYZ is a so
58 matches
Mail list logo
