On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 11:12:09AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote: > On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 14:51:52 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 06:22:11PM +0000, W. Borgert wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 07:29:31PM +0200, Adrian von Bidder wrote: > >> > really matters: can we (the Debian project) maintain the port? Thus I > >> > propose we only limit on the number of developers: are there people who > >> > are willing and competent to maintain kernel, boot loader, platform > >> > specific installer bits, libc and toolchain?
> >> That sounds sensible. > >It ignores the fact that every port is a drain on centralized project > >resources, whether it has users or not. > Even a userless port is a service to the community. I have, for > example, a package whose upstream is a keen reader of our buildd logs > to improve on his package's portability. So we should spend 4-5GB of disk space per architecture on ftp-master.d.o for ports with no users, just so upstreams can see how portable their code is to architectures that have no users? No thanks. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
