On 15347 March 1977, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
1) So, if you were asked to write a Social Contract paragraph about our universality, defining/outlining both what we aim for, and also maybe some limits to that quest for universality, what would it be?
I wouldn't be the one to write such a paragraph, sorry. There are people who are way better with the language to get a nice and clear one written. The limits, IMO, would be in terms of cost. Universality is nice, but if it means (as an example) each maintainer has to take an extra 3 hours per upload just for it, it wouldn't be a good thing to do. If it would "just" waste some CPU/RAM/DISK otoh, it would be good.
2) More specifically, if you believe that we should not aim for being fully universal, *how* (in terms of decision-making processes) do you think that we should draw a line about what's acceptable, for example to decide how to cater to the needs of an hypothetical Debian GNU/Darwin on m68k port? And what's your own opinion on where that line should be (specific examples could rely on debian-ports, release architectures, support for non-Linux kernels, init systems, ...)
I believe we should aim to be as universal as possible without bending ourself too much. As above, cost, manpower is a size that is not hard to measure. Applied to the whole project, and it should be clear if a thing like a Debian Darwin m68k is a viable thing. -- bye, Joerg