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

Re: Question to the candidates: inclusion of the kFreeBSD-* ports

On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 08:33:44PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 09:58:48AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Le dimanche 04 mars 2007 à 18:13 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit :
> > > I'm not seeing why you need to be in the archive to do NMUs to improve
> > > packages?
> > Because some maintainers refuse such NMUs for unofficial architectures.
> This sounds like a problem independant of this particular port - do
> people give reasons for this?  If the patch is invasive or likely to
> have additional problems I can understand a response like that (indeed,
> one of my packages has such a patch) but I can't imagine too many
> packages would run into that sort of issue.

  as kfreebsd is basically just another kernel (and a few low-level
tools), with a glibc-based runtime, I'd say that 80% of the patches are
just autoconf/libtool patches, and are not very involved.

  for the other 20% it's due to some linux-only things that either need
to be deactivated (see one of the bug# in the thread that consist to
build some things without selinux support, as it's linux-only), some
laptop lowlevel tools are linux-only too, or inotify or... well, I think
you see the big picture.

  It can lead to some build-deps to be removed as well as e.g. alsa does
not exists on kfreebsd.

  ttbomk very few of the patches are very involved, and it's a shame
that maintainers do not include them asap.

·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O                                                madcoder@debian.org
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org

Attachment: pgpsTEVDRRt6v.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: