[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bits from the Release Team: Architecture health check

On 2014-01-29 23:24, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> On 29/01/14 22:11, Robert Millan wrote:
>> On 29/01/2014 19:41, Niels Thykier wrote:
>>>  * kfreebsd-amd64 and kfreebsd-i386
>>>    - On one hand, we are unconvinced that kFreeBSD will be able
>>>      to be on par with other release architectures in terms of
>>>      supported packages for Jessie.
>>>    - On the other hand, we believe kFreeBSD could be improved by
>>>      reducing the scope of the port for Jessie.
>> Could you elaborate? I.e. what is the problem and what solution you
>> have in mind.
> What exactly does the 'scope of the port' mean?  Suites of packages,
> tasksel tasks, desktop environments?  Particular use cases (server,
> laptop, desktop)?  Or something else?


I believe this is a first for us (as well) - at the very least, I won't
claim to have all the answers.  Anyhow, as I see it, we want you to
choose a set of supported packages, then we will probably ask how / why
you made that choice and, quite possibly, poke a bit at making you
choosing a slightly larger set etc.

So, at this point, I think that you get to choose an initial draft for
the "scope of the port".  Of course, I don't expect you to list some
18k+ source packages, so defining it as something like "Desktop
environments except GNOME plus tasksel task X, Y and Z".
  Alternatively, you may want to define it as the set of packages you
won't support (e.g. "KDE, all webservers (except apache2 with PHP5), etc.")
  In fact, it is probably best for you if you combine the two
approaches.  But anyhow, you get to serve the ball on this one.  Just
remember, we will probably ask "why did you choose this set?" (or maybe
even "what would it take for you to also support Y?")

> I'm grateful we've been given another 2 months to work on this.

You are welcome.

>  The
> init system debate might have come to a conclusion by then, and it could
> have some bearing on this.  If some packages (potentially the whole
> GNOME desktop environment) get a hard systemd dependency that would
> somewhat reduce the scope of the port for us I think.
> Regards,

I believe Robert already concluded that GDM was likely a lost cause for
kFreeBSD atm.  I suppose that is what you are referring to?

@Robert: Re your "Could you elaborate?".  I haven't forgotten it, but I
out of time - so I will get back to you on that.


Reply to: