Am 24.01.2017 um 23:02 schrieb Andrea Pescetti: > > I see some risk of confusion here. I mean, there is surely a set of > "privileged" platforms that are those for which we build and make > available releases from our download page: Windows, MacOS X, and Linux > variants. Then there is a set of "semi-privileged" platforms where we as > a project do not build releases, but that are aligned, submit patches > upstream and so on (and these would be OS/2 and FreeBSD). > > I don't know which group should be considered "supported" and I don't > think that reading policy or sending tons of links would help much here. > For sure if OS/2 is supported then FreeBSD is too. But if a user expects > that "supported" means "available in binary form from the official site > for this platform" then neither is supported. > > Personally, I don't have a strong opinion on this and I would be in > favor of adding FreeBSD to the "supported" list with the understanding > that this doesn't automatically imply that we will build a FreeBSD > release and make it available from the official site (we don't do that > for OS/2 either).
Ok, we have two categories of "support" for platformes: 1. those, for which we build and make available releases 2. those, that are aligned, submit patches upstream and so on IMO we should communicate these two categories of "support" clearly, so the user knows very well, what "support" in his/hers case mean. Kind regards Michael
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
