On Wed, 2011-07-20 at 18:27 +0000, brian m. carlson wrote: > On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 04:36:35PM +0000, Uoti Urpala wrote: > > I think you're committing exactly the fallacy I described in the part you > > snipped. You think that "excluding" people who want a particular kernel is > > significant when it's a "big thing" like a kernel. But _any_ case of not > > supporting something can be described as "exclusion". Any time a package is > > dropped, Debian is "excluding" the people who want to use that package. Every > > time a decision is made not to package something people are being "excluded". > > When Debian Linux fails to run on a specific submodel X of hardware Y, people > > who use that hardware are "excluded". Any of those cases can affect a much > > larger number of people than kFreeBSD support. > > I think the difference with excluding a package is that nobody is > willing or able to do the work. Perhaps the package requires more time > than the maintainer has, or it's a very difficult package to maintain > and nobody that wants to is able to. > > In most cases, if a package is buggy on some platform, the porters will > either fix it or exclude it from that platform. Nevertheless, we expect > Essential packages to work on all of our systems. [...] Er, no: http://packages.debian.org/squeeze/freebsd-utils Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Absolutum obsoletum. (If it works, it's out of date.) - Stafford Beer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part