Re: Maintainers, porters, and burden of porting

[Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>]

* Lucas Nussbaum (lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net) [110831 10:56]:
> Also, in the case of architectures targetted at embedded systems (I'm
> thinking about mips and mipsel), what is important is that Debian
> infrastructure supports the development of those architectures, but I
> don't think that there's much to gain by being officially supported if
> it's only used in production through derivatives that can provide the
> official support.

You are aware that there are mipsel netbooks? And arm tablets? There
is hardware running standard Debian, and that's one of the large
advantages of Debian. I don't want to give that up.

> hurd-i386, kfreebsd-i386 and kfreebsd-amd64 are probably too
> experimental to be used on production systems. For kfreebsd, my main
> problem (with my Ruby hat) is the linuxthreads-based thread library, but
> there might be other problems.

I know people who put kbsd on edge firewalls because it's way easier
for a standard linux / debian admin. And please don't put hurd-i386 in
the same camp as kbsd. They're not.



Andi