Re: Plan B for kfreebsd
On 10 November 2014 00:15:36 CET, Steven Chamberlain <steven@pyro.eu.org> wrote:
>Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
>> We discussed kfreebsd at length, but are not satisfied that a
>> release with Jessie will be of sufficient quality. We are dropping
>> it as an official release architecture,
Hi, long time lurker and closet Debian/kfreebsd fan, here. Where can I find a record/summary of this discussion?
With all due respect to the release team, I can't see how kfreebsd can be seen as being significantly worse off than the Linux port (other than the obvious: more popular and a long, rich history). Especially seeing as how "rich" the discussion remains on something as crucial as the init system (eg: what to do on 7.0->8.0 upgrades).
I would be very sad to see kfreebsd lose out on resources at this point in time (both in terms of infrastructure and testing/visibility). Arguably a viable port to a different kernel is one of the most exciting developments in Debian in a long time.
Note: I fully understand this might be a done deal; I'd just like to understand how the team's great response to the concerned email from September fell short. It is important not just for this concrete release, but also for future developments (Official Debian/kOpenSolaris for instance?).
Please do not take my earlier remark on init-systems as intended to start (yet another) flamewar on the subject; I merely whish to point out that the Debian/GNU Linux also appear to have some very real challenges uncomfortably close to freeze - at least how I understand the situation.
As a potential user of kfreebsd, I certainly hope this can be sorted. Without infrastructure to provide security updates, the port will remain a novelity. I'd hate for it to remain that for a whole other release cycle. I'd at least love to understand why.
Finally, allow me to express my gratitude to everyone, both the release team and the kfreebsd team, for all the hard work!
Best regards,
Eirik Schwenke
Reply to: