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

Re: Maintainers, porters, and burden of porting

On 31/08/11 at 11:24 +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net> (31/08/2011):
> > 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.
> http://lists.debian.org/87r55kzz6d.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu

I know that there's a lot of good stuff in the FreeBSD kernel, such as
ZFS, PF, DTrace (though I'm not sure if it's available on amd64 now?).
And I also know that the Debian userland (esp. package management)
is much better than the FreeBSD one. I used FreeBSD on my desktop
between 2000 and 2002, and when I installed FreeBSD this week-end to
debug a kfreebsd issue, it seemed that userland had not made much

But a different thread library that has clear POSIX compliance bugs[*]
is the kind of things that make me fear that many more packages than we
see currently are broken on kfreebsd. And I'm not sure that it's where
we want to spend our manpower.

[*] due to linuxthreads: #639658 [kfreebsd] waitpid from a thread does
not work for child processes created by other threads.
there's also some signals+thread fun.


Reply to: