On Sat, 11 Aug 2012, Faidon Liambotis wrote: > On 08/11/12 01:12, Russ Allbery wrote: > > There are choices that we don't support because the process of supporting > > that choice would involve far more work than benefit, and the final goal > > is excellence, not choice for its own sake. For example, we don't allow > > users to replace the system C library with a different one. That's > > something that we *could* do, but the general consensus of the project is > > that investing our effort in that is not the best way to produce > > excellence. > > I kind of disagree with that. I don't think that the fact that we don't > support multiple C libraries is the result of a "consensus decision". > > I think it's just because noone attempted to properly do that and prove > it's viability and usefulness either to a portion of the userbase or the > project as a whole. > > Similarly, I don't think the kFreeBSD ports or any of the other Linux > architecture ports were a consensus decision. People just did it, the > work was of reasonable standards and useful both to expanding the > userbase and to improving the quality of the other ports. > > People are working on building Debian with LLVM (which is great IMHO). > Very few people complained about that and the talk was very much > welcomed at DebConf. We even have a GSoC project about it. There are > other similar examples. > > As for OpenRC, as far as I understand it, it's similar -but with its LSB > header compatibility much less intrusive- with file-rc. None of the two > are an /sbin/init replacement. In fact file-rc now supports depedency based booting and lsb headers. This is not yet in wheezy but will hopefully get into wheezy.
Alex -- 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/20120811090705.gb8...@snow-crash.org
