Re: A few observations about systemd
Tollef Fog Heen <email@example.com> writes:
> | The main issue I have with dropping kFreeBSD & HURD would be (apart from
> | losing two platforms I use - even if for fun only; I don't want to use a
> | distribution that doesn't allow me to have as much fun as I do now) that
> | it leads down the path of dropping whatever a vocal upstream decides to
> | don't care about.
> Just for the record: Hurd's no longer in unstable and hasn't been for a
True, but kFreeBSD is, and it's even growing a mipsel (or was it mips?)
leg, if I understood correctly.
> | What if next year $upstream_of_an_important_package decides that he only
> | cares about amd64 and arm? The rest of the world is obsolete anyway...
> Then we patch it or work around it somehow.
> I'm not arguing for dropping kfreebsd, and I would like some of the
> kFreeBSD porters to speak up with suggestions on how to handle the
> situation best for them. After all, it's they who have to live with
> whatever solution we end up with.
Yup, completely agreed. My response was towards those who even
considered dropping an architecture as even a remotely possible
solution, and began arguing about what "Universal" meant.
(Personally, I like the patch systemd path best, and time and skill
permitting, I'd be happy to help, if so need be.)