On 10/11/14 at 22:09 +0000, Steven Chamberlain wrote: > Petr Salinger wrote: > > >Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: > > >>[...] though we do hope that the > > >>porters will be able to make a simultaneous unofficial release. > > > > It is unclear, what we have to duplicate. Do we stay in testing ? > > I'd like to know this as soon as possible as it affects our planning. > Thanks. Hi, I fully understand and support the decision of our release team to not include kfreebsd-* as an official architecture in jessie. However, even if it is understandably too difficult to support as an architecture officially part of our stable releases, I think that kfreebsd-* is widely considered as a great asset for Debian (similarly to our other non-Linux port, and unofficial architectures on debian-ports.org). Not just for the obvious coolness factor of having official or semi-official ports for kfreebsd, hurd, x32, m68k, etc. but also because working on those ports has proven able to uncover issues that affect other architectures, and to robustify Debian as a whole. I would love to see the kfreebsd team keep kfreebsd-* as close as possible from an official release architecture, and I would like to re-state that, if that's helpful, Debian funds could be allocated to that effect. (Note that, concretely, I don't really see how Debian funds could help here; but you might have more ideas) Lucas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature