Re: Bits from the Release Team: Architecture health check
On 2014-02-19 17:32, Robert Millan wrote:
> On 29/01/2014 23:03, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Hi Niels,
>
> After some discussion we've reached the following position statement, which
> has the approval of Steven, Petr and myself:
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> It is with much regret that we observe that GDM has grown hard dependencies
> on a Linux-specific component (systemd). Although GDM still offers the
> possibility of running it using ConsoleKit, this codepath is no longer
> supported by upstream, and ConsoleKit itself is considered deprecated
> software and has been abandoned by its developers.
>
> Furthermore, we observe that the GNOME UI has grown hard dependencies on GDM,
> as well as other developments which make it impractical to run GNOME on
> kernels other than Linux. Our understanding is that GNOME release managers don't
> see this as a problem and are not actively trying to resolve this.
>
> In this situation we do not think it's reasonably practical for us to continue
> providing assistance to ensure portability of the GNOME desktop on GNU/kFreeBSD.
>
> When it comes to individual applications, we'd like to support as many of
> them as possible. As long as they are still intended to be portable by
> their upstream developers, and that they don't have any hard dependency
> on the GNOME desktop itself (i.e., they can be run as standalone apps), we
> intend to continue providing porting assistance for them.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
Hi,
Thanks for looking into this and I apologise for not following up any
sooner.
As I read/understand the above, you basically say (something along the
lines of):
"""
The Debian kFreeBSD porters will not support packages, where upstream
have no (visible) interest/intention of being portable (beyond
${OS}-any) nor their reverse dependencies. Examples of these include
(but are not limited to) systemd and GNOME (via GDM).
"""
It is not that I want to change your wording or anything. I just wanted
to make sure I had captured the important parts of it.
In any event, we will be evaluating kFreeBSD (along with other
architectures) relatively soon. Our current plans suggest early-mid
April, but I do not have a fixed date yet.
~Niels
Reply to: