Re: kFreeBSD port in Jessie
Am 25.09.2014 um 23:10 schrieb Jonathan Wiltshire:
> Hi,
>
> The results of the final architecture qualification will soon be published.
> In there is reference to a number of concerns about the kFreeBSD port and
> its place in Jessie.
>
> We want to recognise that you have put in a lot of work recently, and even
> some personal expense, to keep the kFreeBSD port viable. However, we're
> greatly concerned that there remain only one, maybe two active porters in
> recent months and our criteria for Jessie states unambiguously that 5 is an
> absolute minimum.
>
> The rationale for this is that being part of a stable release involves, as
> you already know, at least three years committment to maintaining stable
> and oldstable, on top of continuing development in sid. It has implications
> for DSA, the security team, the release team and others.
>
> The problem with lack of manpower is borne out in reports such as #756464,
> which has been open at critical severity since July and was last updated
> getting on for a month ago. There's a stated aim to remove the kernel
> version 9 from Jessie, which hasn't happened yet. Some RC bugs are fixed in
> experimental but those fixes haven't been uploaded to sid.
How is this different than mips/mipsel? The list of porters lists buildd admins
as well, which don't act as porters. Please count the numbers of porters again,
after removing the buildd admins.
> Meanwhile, please take this mail as a courtesy in advance of publication of
> the architecture qualification, and we encourage you to keep in touch about
> your status and plans over the next few weeks.
Is this an issue for kfreebsd? Instead you are waiving the mips/mipsel hardware
support for the third release in a row, still listening on the promised fixes
... these didn't happen now for more than three years, why still waiting for those?
It looks like the kfreebsd and mips ports aren't measured the same way.
Matthias
Reply to: