Re: Maintainers, porters, and burden of porting

[Bernd Zeimetz <bernd@bzed.de>]

On 08/31/2011 11:35 AM, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * 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.

Strong ack. Not to forget various NAS and embedded boxes like the
Sheevaplug which are shipped with Debian (or Ubuntu..).

>> 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.

Hurd is far away from being useful while kfreebsd offers a great mic of
a good kernel and a usable userland (instead of the imho slightly
annoying FreeBSD userland). Definitely not a playground.


-- 
 Bernd Zeimetz                            Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 http://bzed.de                                http://www.debian.org
 GPG Fingerprints: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F