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

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


On Mon, 05 Mar 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 02:51:19PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > On Sun, 04 Mar 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > The other side is just making the Debian mirror network available for
> > > kfreebsd users. With only a couple of dozen apparent users, I'm not
> > > really convinced that's particularly valuable though. YMMV.
> > Why did we do SCC for then ?
> So that we could cope with the increasing size of the archive.

The announce mentioned the possibility to add some suites due to that. It
didn't mention the possibility to add new architectures... but I feel that
the logic is the same. Now that the mirrors are not required to mirror
everything, I believe that providing kfreebsd-i386 as a "SCC" port is

> > I'm certainly uneasy with your answers. To me, having a Debian GNU/FreeBSD
> > looks like a very valuable goal and we should support it, each at our own
> > level. One shouldn't need more "justification" than this.
> The first pass justifications we have are at
> 	http://ftp-master.debian.org/archive-criteria.html
> If you're already satisfied that kfreebsd is a "valuable goal" you should
> work on it, not expect anyone else to.

You're not asked to work much on it. You're asked to accept it into the
central archive so that this port can build on existing, common,
documented practice to continue their growth.

> There are people who would like to repackage all of Debian optimised for
> their particular processor, or without Gnome libraries, and all sorts
> of other things. That's fine -- if that's what they want, they should
> do it. But to actually have it be in the archive and on the mirrors,
> it should pass some basic minimum standards of being useful.

I don't discuss that. I simply say that IMO kfreebsd-i386 has reached
those goals. 

And if you think that some of those goals are not reached, you must say
which one (given the answers of the porters). And if you really want to
require having a separate diff for this new architecture, you should
outline how this could be doable within dak so that someone else can
implement that part.

> > Most of your other answers relate to possible problems that do not
> > concern the ftpmasters in the first place. 
> What would be your reaction if I said "Most of your comments related to
> possible problems that do not concern you." ?

This was not meant to silence you, but rather to ask you to not let your
personal opinion interfer with your ftpmaster decision.

IMO the criteria should be simple:
- have people expressed interest for running FreeBSD with Debian tools?
- do we have volunteers that are willing to maintain that port and that
  have proved that they can do it on the long term?
- is it realistic? 

Most of your questions concern the third point in a way or another.

Raphaël Hertzog

Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux :

Reply to: