On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 08:29:30AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > > 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. It's precisely the same. Suites and architectures can be added now, but they still need to be clearly worthwhile. > > > 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 asking me to work on it right now. > > 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. I'm glad you're convinced, but I'm not. > And if you think that some of those goals are not reached, I would much rather be swept off my feet by how clearly the goals have been reached, beyond my wildest expectations. Surely if kfreebsd is worth doing, it should be spectacularly amazing, not barely reaching whatever minimal levels get set. I'm not opposed, I'm just not convinced. Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature