[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [Lennart Poettering] Re: A few observations about systemd

Adam D. Barratt <adam <at> adam-barratt.org.uk> writes:
> On Tue, 2011-07-19 at 19:48 +0000, Uoti Urpala wrote:
>> There was a discussion about whether future Debian would be
>> based on kFreeBSD, and kFreeBSD failed that on its own merits, not due to any
>> consideration of systemd (or actually there wasn't much of a discussion, but
>> that was only because kFreeBSD's failure was so obvious). Future Debian will
>> not be based kFreeBSD, nor will it even be an important alternative.
> Please share more details of this discussion to which you refer.  Whilst
> doing so, it might be worth bearing in mind that I'm (at least) the
> second member of the release team to reply in this thread and that there
> are no current plans for kfreebsd-{amd64,i386} to cease being release
> architectures for Debian.

>From the part you already quoted: "or actually there wasn't much of a
discussion, but that was only because kFreeBSD's failure was so obvious". You
seem to interpret "Debian would be based on kFreeBSD" as "we have some official
support for kFreeBSD", but that's not what I was talking about.

I know there have been "official" Debian/kFreeBSD releases, but those make very
little difference - someone published a set of files which were then ignored by
about everyone. I'm talking about what kernel people use when they use "Debian",
and what platform development that creates the software in the distribution
happens on. There's no plan to migrate from Linux to BSD kernel (and very little
chance of such a migration happening to any significant degree without an
explicit decision or consensus as a result of just having a kFreeBSD release
available). By contrast releasing Linux with systemd would mean actual
widespread use and would have a practical effect for a large number of people.
So the comparison of "systemd blocks kFreeBSD" vs "kFreeBSD blocks systemd" that
I was originally replying to was comparing very different things.

Reply to: