Re: Question to the candidates: inclusion of the kFreeBSD-* ports
Hi Julien,
On Tue, 27 Feb 2007, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> Since then, the SCC split happened and ftp-master moved to ries, so
> adding more architectures to the archive is no longer a problem, AIUI.
>
> Hence, what is your position on including those new, non-Linux ports ?
I have no problem with them and I welcome them.
> What would the timeframe be like, according to you ?
I have no idea of the reasons explaining the delays. But it would seem
logical to do that soon in the lenny cycle (a few weeks after etch
released).
If some other problems are to be resolved, then we should ask the
ftpmasters what they are. Anthony's answer to this question might
bring us some more light on this topic.
> If an ftpmaster was to charge an amount of money to include the new
> architectures (as was the case for amd64), what would, according to
> you, be a reasonable amount ?
An ftpmaster must not require money to integrate a new architecture.
I know Anthony got paid for AMD64 but AFAIK it's mainly because the SCC
split was blocking the inclusion of AMD64. Since people got fedup, a
company helped resolve the problem by giving time to Anthony to actually
make it happen sooner (even though we were already quite late).
It's in the spirit of his "AJ Market" experiment:
http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/blog/2005/11/16
I would worry much more if ftpmasters refused patches implementing
their projects when at the same time they are seeking funding. It's
unlikely to ever happen IMO.
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog
Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/
Reply to: