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. > 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. 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. > 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." ? Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature