Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.cs.su.oz.au!inferno.mpx.com.au!news.mel.aone.net.au!grumpy.fl.net.au!news.webspan.net!news.tacom.army.mil!news2.acs.oakland.edu!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!newsxfer3.itd.umich.edu!howland.erols.net!ais.net!cdc2.cdc.net!news.texas.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!192.89.123.24!nntp.inet.fi!news.funet.fi!news.abo.fi!not-for-mail
From: mandtbac@news.abo.fi (Mats Andtbacka)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc
Subject: Re: Linux vs BSD
Followup-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc
Date: 28 Jan 1997 10:55:20 GMT
Organization: Unorganized Usenet Postings UnInc.
Lines: 40
Distribution: comp
Message-ID: <5ckluo$mbl@josie.abo.fi>
References: <32DFFEAB.7704@usa.net> <5c39sk$ddl@troma.rv.tis.com> <5c8jlm$50u@cynic.portal.ca> <5c9444$9vq@lace.colorado.edu> <5c98sl$gbn@cynic.portal.ca>
Reply-To: mandtbac@abo.fi
NNTP-Posting-Host: fa.abo.fi
X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950520BETA PL0]
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.misc:156960 comp.os.linux.networking:67681 comp.os.linux.setup:96097 comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:5935 comp.unix.bsd.misc:2384
Curt Sampson, in <5c98sl$gbn@cynic.portal.ca>:
[...]
>This shows to me in that I have still to find a userland source
>tree for Linux. The arrangement seems to be that you drop your
>various programs into various directories, cd to each one in turn,
>and type `make'.
yes, that's basically the arrangement. whether or not this is a good
thing depends, i suspect, on taste: i would claim that the *BSD
concept of one "make" in one tree does everything, while certainly
convenient, is more suitable to people somewhat afraid of their
compiler. less, after all, to compile, or so it appears to the person
just typing one "make".
how do you configure all those sources pre-compilation? wouldn't you
have to delve deep into /usr/src to hack the headers and/or Makefiles?
how do you choose what gets compiled, which versions of what patched
how? wouldn't it all, in the end, add up to as much work as Linux's
way of doing it?
granted, the *BSD object directory system is worth drooling over, i'd
love to see that in many Linux sources - not least the kernel. but i'd
also like to see separate source packages stay separate; if not, then
somebody would have to decide which packages to include in the one
official userland source tree, and reaching consensus would probably
prove impossible - i, personally, would dissent to practically any
list of to-be-includeds i didn't draw up myself.
the hazard with having one "standard" userland source tree would be
something like:
>Most Linux systems seem to come with things like perl pre-installed,
>whereas you have to grab it and compile it for NetBSD.
...repeated ad nauseam for any amount of stuff. would it be worth
that? it's a judgement call, in the end, but i'd most likely judge
nay.
--
"...it's all wrong
but it's alright..." -- Clapton