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

Re: heads up

At 16 Mar 2005 14:35:43 -0800,
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Does this mean eternally, or only for one week?  Who is going to
> > verify this?
> Verification isn't the point; if people can't be trusted not to lie,
> then everything is broken already.  But what it means actually, is
> uncertain.  I think it's a practical criterion, not a strict one.

Right.  But my point was not to subvert the rule.  Stability is highly
subjective.  By most criteria, the Hurd is not stable enough for any
real work, and won't be for a long time.  It just lacks the critical
mass of developers to sustain substantial stability.

> > > 4. the port must include basic unix functionality, e.g resolving
> > >    DNS names and firewalling
> > 
> > The firewalling requirement was specifically put in there for us, I
> > suppose.  AJ was quite upset when I told him we don't have it (years
> > ago).  The people asking for this seem to think that having a working
> > firewall is some kind of proof of something, I don't know what.  
> So, I've asked "what features are implied here", and we can simply add
> that feature.

I guess that's true.  I will be looking forward to the patches.  But
in all honesty, the Hurd is not secure, and won't be even with a
firewall.  If a firewall gives people a false sense of security, that
would not be good.
> > > 5. binary packages must be built from the unmodified Debian source
> > >   (required, among other reasons, for license compliance)
> > 
> > That was always a requirement.
> We've done it, but it's actually a change; there used to be procedures
> for porters to have private source for things.  

Yeah, I think I remember something like that.  But it was very
exceptional.  It was also before there were procedures to speed up
> > But even then I suggest to just reject this rule.  The software in
> > Debian is heavily biased towards GNU/Linux.
> Most packages are not.  Most packages are just ordinary libraries,
> gnome apps, etc.

If you paint the broad picture, then that is true.  But if you talk
about numbers, the details matter.  And there are numerous small
packages which make no sense for us but are architecture "any" because
nobdoy is going to list all the Linux architectures in the control
file just to exclude the Hurd, and there are many build failures and
unfulfilled build dependencies.
> It also merely requires that it build, *not* that it fully function.
> Let's not poke at that one, and just use it in our advantage.

I am not saying that 50% can't be achieved.  It probably can.  But 50%
for us is much harder than 50% for another Linux port, that's all I am
saying.  There should be some factor to take that into account.


Reply to: