util-linux

[Dale C. Scheetz]

I know my idea would require a maintainer to step up and do the work, and while I'm not certain I'm the one to do this, I would certainly collaborate with someone on the problem.

util-linux is free software, right?

So, fork off util-generic, fix the issues for hurd and bsd, and keep on truck'n.
If util-generic does the job on all platforms (including Linux) it might very well replace util-linux. At least, that's a level of competition that could be useful for all.

What do you think Robert?

BTW, the latest live bsd cd is MUCH better than the first one. Keep up the good work! I've been meaning to talk with you about applying Knoppix technology to that boot disk...

Waiting is,

Dwarf

On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 19:20:54 +0100
Robert Millan <rmh at aybabtu.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> Looks like util-linux will be a serious trouble.  Both upstream and debian
> maintainers have no interest in getting it to work on non-Linux.  AFAIK they
> require silly things like using unportable interfaces (ioctls) for the sake of
> supporting libc5 (!!), etc.
> 
> Guillem, do you expect they will ever accept to sanitise this in upstream?  If
> not, maybe we should insist to the debian maintainer, but expectation is not so
> good either.  From #debian-devel:
> 
> 19:13 < nyu> lamont-work: any concern with #333147 ?  (util-linux on GNU/kFreeBSD)
> 19:13 < lamont-work> nyu: just the same concern as util-linux on GNU/hurd
> 19:13 < lamont-work> it's called util-_LINUX_ for a reason...
> 19:13 < lamont-work> so I've been ignoring the bug
> 19:14 < nyu> lamont-work: but it has things like getopt, more and rev that aren't Linux-specific
> 19:14 < nyu> how about splitting the package?
> 19:14  * lamont-work will have to ponder.
> 19:14 < nyu> ok, don't bother then
> 19:15 < nyu> we'll have to arrange it with upstream first
> 19:15 < nyu> Guillem was on it, I think
> 
> Another alternative would be to ditch this package completely, but then we'd
> have to find alternatives:
> 
>   - rev:  Trivial to rewrite.  Could be in coreutils..
>   - more:  Symlink to less ?
>   - getopt:  No idea..
> 
> Maybe we could convince LaMont to split the package in source, so that there's a
> portable version and a non-portable one?
> 
> -- 
> Robert Millan
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Glibc-bsd-devel mailing list
> Glibc-bsd-devel at lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/glibc-bsd-devel
>