Carsten Schoenert, le sam. 13 avril 2019 12:41:25 +0200, a ecrit: > Am 13.04.19 um 12:06 schrieb Samuel Thibault: > >> Both architectures haven't seen any major development in the past years > > > > They have. > > O.k. need to be more specific, so the same as you mentioned further > down, ..."in the context of Debian, the packages of Debian and it releases".
In the context of Debian as a distribution itself, there is not much more to be done actually: the distro can be installed with the normal debian installer, we don't depend on unreleased patches to have a working system. We even have gotten llvm working recently. In a broader Debian meaning, for instance with Helmut we have achieved cross-bootstrappability of hurd-i386 from amd64, which is really a great thing, because we know that we can now reboostrap the whole distribution thanks to this if needed. > > Patching software should be handled upstream indeed. > > Yes, but most upstreams are a bit reserved You mean, more than the Debian maintainers? Well, at some point, "so be it, you won't have the works-on-Hurd badge". For base packages like librsvg, the question is of a bigger importance, for the port of course, but also for computer science in general: if base packages can't easily be ported to new operating systems, the whole computer science will be just stuck with Linux, and I don't think it's a good thing. That reminds me a recent paper about the requirement for fork() in the Unix interface (https://lwn.net/Articles/785430/), which notably says that because of the complexity for implementing it, it's hard to create new operating systems with new ideas while providing a POSIX interface for being useful in general. > >> So I disagree on "One person is enough" > > > > I meant only for the Debian-specific things, I am the only DD who > > currently uses its key for signing packages, making CD images, etc. > > That's what I meant by "the daily ports things". > > Well, I guess it's not that easy I fear as there are no parts that can > be seen as separate standalone things, it's all connected in various ways. Yes, these are very intertwinned, but I like working on it and the current Debian infrastructure makes it easy enough to do. > But realistically it's not enough in my eyes to keep Hurd on even > tracking the normal evolving of Debian. I have since long stopped hoping that the Hurd port would ever be an arch released in Debian (see previous threads in the past years about moving to debian-ports). Just for the security guarantees it would require, that can't work. But as a debian-ports, I believe it can continue working just like it has in the past years. Samuel