Re: Question to the candidates: inclusion of the kFreeBSD-* ports
Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 08:29:30AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>> 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.
kfreebsd is working at least as well as hurd. I think it's really strange
to include one of them and not the other. I can see making them both
second-class citizens in the archive until usage is proven, but including
hurd as an official port but not kfreebsd at this point makes no sense to
me.
Disclaimer: I don't find either personally interesting, but I've found the
quality of the patches and responsiveness of the porters for both kfreebsd
and hurd to be excellent and ongoing and I'm happy to apply their work to
my packages and don't want to see us stand in the way of their goals.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: