Tollef Fog Heen <tfh...@err.no> writes: > | The main issue I have with dropping kFreeBSD & HURD would be (apart from > | losing two platforms I use - even if for fun only; I don't want to use a > | distribution that doesn't allow me to have as much fun as I do now) that > | it leads down the path of dropping whatever a vocal upstream decides to > | don't care about. > > Just for the record: Hurd's no longer in unstable and hasn't been for a > while.
True, but kFreeBSD is, and it's even growing a mipsel (or was it mips?) leg, if I understood correctly. > | What if next year $upstream_of_an_important_package decides that he only > | cares about amd64 and arm? The rest of the world is obsolete anyway... > > Then we patch it or work around it somehow. > > I'm not arguing for dropping kfreebsd, and I would like some of the > kFreeBSD porters to speak up with suggestions on how to handle the > situation best for them. After all, it's they who have to live with > whatever solution we end up with. Yup, completely agreed. My response was towards those who even considered dropping an architecture as even a remotely possible solution, and began arguing about what "Universal" meant. (Personally, I like the patch systemd path best, and time and skill permitting, I'd be happy to help, if so need be.) -- |8] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87r55nhk4m....@balabit.hu
