|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|
Re: [PLUG] debian-bsd (was: Re: when kswapd goes wild!)
|
> I do prefer to have things built from source, since internal bug
> and security fixes show up much more frequently than binary packages
> are built on most of the architectures I use (mac68k, next68k,
> macppc), but I do also get irked by how long rebuilding, say, teTeX
> can be, even on my 800 MHz AMD Thunderbird with a fast SCSI disk.
When I download and compile software from source, I generally make a Debian
package of it. Why? Because it's easy to do, produces a binary package
that's easier to manage, plus is very easy to copy and install on other
machines. If you need to recompile for another architecture, you now also
have an architecture-independent Debian source package which can be used to
produce an identical binary package. If you're managing a large number of
machines of different architectures, there are autobuilders you can use to
automate the process, plus, ofcourse, you can use apt to distribute your
packages internally.
> and I agree that it's good, but I'm not sure it's enough better
> than the quick hack I suggest above to grab a whole lot of (Net,
> at least) BSD users' attention. (That is, it looks prettier, but
> it's not clear that the functionality is inherently better.)
The fact that the Debian tools are (in our opinion) better is clear to a
large number of Debian administrators, who would like the option of using
those tools on a non-Linux kernel. Once the port is completed, if that
ever happens, I have no doubt that there will be a substantial userbase.
It is my personal opinion that it's the Debian packaging tools that makes
Debian superior to many alternatives, not the fact that it's a Linux based
distribution. The Debian packaging tools simply make unix system
administration a snap.
> None of that answered the "what's Debian besides apt" question,
Debian is a method of packaging software for a unix-like environment.
For the most part this refers to dpkg, not apt, but the line between the
two isn't always obvious to someone installing Debian for the first time.
The role of dpkg is to build, install, and manage packages, while apt is a
utility to automate the downloading of packages so they can be fed to dpkg,
and determining when newer versions of installed packages are available.
What this means, ofcourse, is that Debian isn't dependent on any particular
kernel. An example of this is the work being done on the GNU/Hurd port
(which is nearing completion, but unfortunately won't be ready in time for
the upcoming Debian 3.0 release).
So, to answer your original question, the debian-bsd mailing list was created
to address the possibilities of distributing a Debian port using a BSD kernel.
Issues of which kernel to try porting first, which set of userland tools to
use, and many other issues are still pending, and, as you've probably guessed,
are subject to a great deal of religious debate. Back when I was following
the list closely, that religious debate was the main obstacle, unfortunately.
> though. Is it? Is the point just to bring apt to BSD? On top of the
> existing BSD package systems or as a replacement for it?
The BSD community users who participated in the list where interested in
Debian adopting a packaging format closer to their own. This isn't likely
to happen. More likely, the port will take a BSD kernel and possibly some
of the userland tools, repackage them using dpkg, then use an autobuilder
to recompile the rest of the existing GNU/Linux Debian packages.
It's no small task. I hope one day they manage to pull it off.
-mct
|
|