On 12/03/2014 19:04, Niels Thykier wrote:
> As I read/understand the above, you basically say (something along the
> lines of):
>
> """
> The Debian kFreeBSD porters will not support packages, where upstream
> have no (visible) interest/intention of being portable (beyond
> ${OS}-any) nor their re
On 2014-02-19 17:32, Robert Millan wrote:
> On 29/01/2014 23:03, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> I believe this is a first for us (as well) - at the very least, I won't
>> claim to have all the answers. Anyhow, as I see it, we want you to
>> choose a set of supported packages, then we will probably ask ho
On 19/02/2014 16:45, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Robert Millan (2014-02-19):
>> After some discussion we've reached the following position statement, which
>> has the approval of Steven, Petr and myself:
>>
>> ~~~
>> It is with m
Em 2014-02-19 13:45, Cyril Brulebois escreveu:
Robert Millan (2014-02-19):
After some discussion we've reached the following position statement,
which
has the approval of Steven, Petr and myself:
~~~
It is with much regre
Robert Millan (2014-02-19):
> After some discussion we've reached the following position statement, which
> has the approval of Steven, Petr and myself:
>
> ~~~
> It is with much regret that we observe that GDM has grown hard
On 29/01/2014 23:03, Niels Thykier wrote:
> I believe this is a first for us (as well) - at the very least, I won't
> claim to have all the answers. Anyhow, as I see it, we want you to
> choose a set of supported packages, then we will probably ask how / why
> you made that choice and, quite possi
On 16/02/2014 08:49, Niels Thykier wrote:
> I believe Robert concluded that it was possible to use an alternative to
> gdm3 (I forgot if it was lightdm or xdm).
Well, not exactly.
I think we're at a cross-roads. My understanding is that this used to be
possible
until now, but the GNOME maintaine
On 2014-02-14 00:32, brunomaxi...@openmailbox.org wrote:
>>> Secondly, there are cases like GDM, where a single unsupported package
>>> have rather "long reaching" consequences. In the concrete example,
>>> GNOME (via gnome-core) strictly depends on gdm3, meaning that if gdm3
>>> goes, (more or le
On 2014-02-14 00:23, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> On 12/02/14 20:06, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> kFreeBSD is just shy of 90%, whereas most other release architectures
>> are at 96%[1]. Here kFreeBSD has increased in the past quarter from
>> ~89.5% to "almost, but not quite 90%".
>
> I'm a little puzzl
* Robert Millan (r...@debian.org) [140214 00:11]:
> On 12/02/2014 20:06, Niels Thykier wrote:
> > As I see it, there are two concrete problems with the (number of)
> > supported packages. First, the number of packages actually built on
> > kFreeBSD is just shy of 90%, whereas most other release arc
Secondly, there are cases like GDM, where a single unsupported package
have rather "long reaching" consequences. In the concrete example,
GNOME (via gnome-core) strictly depends on gdm3, meaning that if gdm3
goes, (more or less) all of gnome goes with it[2]. That in turn means
that task-gnome-de
On 12/02/14 20:06, Niels Thykier wrote:
> kFreeBSD is just shy of 90%, whereas most other release architectures
> are at 96%[1]. Here kFreeBSD has increased in the past quarter from
> ~89.5% to "almost, but not quite 90%".
I'm a little puzzled you mention this as a problem because...
> Here we n
On 12/02/2014 20:06, Niels Thykier wrote:
> As I see it, there are two concrete problems with the (number of)
> supported packages. First, the number of packages actually built on
> kFreeBSD is just shy of 90%, whereas most other release architectures
> are at 96%[1]. Here kFreeBSD has increased i
On 2014-01-30 16:23, Robert Millan wrote:
> On 30/01/2014 00:03, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> @Robert: Re your "Could you elaborate?". I haven't forgotten it, but I
>> out of time - so I will get back to you on that.
>
> It's ok.
>
> I wanted more detail both on the problem and on the solution. You j
Em 2014-01-30 16:05, Russ Allbery escreveu:
Robert Millan writes:
On 30/01/2014 08:15, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
So the console kit path seems like the only option so far (unless
someone ports logind to use some other freebsd technology).
I'm not an expert on session or console management, b
Robert Millan writes:
> On 30/01/2014 08:15, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>> So the console kit path seems like the only option so far (unless
>> someone ports logind to use some other freebsd technology).
> I'm not an expert on session or console management, but seeing how XDM
> has managed to work w
On 30/01/2014 08:15, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> So the console kit path seems like the only option so far (unless someone
> ports logind to use some other freebsd technology).
I'm not an expert on session or console management, but seeing how XDM has
managed to work without consolekit for the last 2
On 30/01/2014 00:03, Niels Thykier wrote:
> @Robert: Re your "Could you elaborate?". I haven't forgotten it, but I
> out of time - so I will get back to you on that.
It's ok.
I wanted more detail both on the problem and on the solution. You just provided
the second, which I believe is the most i
On Thu, January 30, 2014 00:03, Niels Thykier wrote:
> On 2014-01-29 23:24, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
>> What exactly does the 'scope of the port' mean? Suites of packages,
>> tasksel tasks, desktop environments? Particular use cases (server,
>> laptop, desktop)? Or something else?
> So, at this
On Wed, 29 Jan 2014, Russ Allbery wrote:
> aren't as large of a porting issue). Rather, the question is whether it
> is actually viable to separate those services from systemd as init and
> port logind to non-Linux, whether that work will be done in time for
> jessie, and who is going to do it.
S
Steven Chamberlain writes:
> Sorry, I got completely the opposite impression from this tonight:
> On 29/01/14 17:41, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> Because it needs logind.
>> https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/01/msg00360.html
> So, even having an adequate logind substitute, GNOME is expec
On 29/01/14 22:50, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Per Josselin's latest discussion of this, there doesn't appear to be any
> direct GNOME dependencies on systemd itself that would be blocking for
> jessie.
Sorry, I got completely the opposite impression from this tonight:
On 29/01/14 17:41, Josselin Mouet
On 2014-01-29 23:24, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> On 29/01/14 22:11, Robert Millan wrote:
>> On 29/01/2014 19:41, Niels Thykier wrote:
>>> * kfreebsd-amd64 and kfreebsd-i386
>>>- On one hand, we are unconvinced that kFreeBSD will be able
>>> to be on par with other release architectures in
Robert Millan writes:
> On 29/01/2014 23:24, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
>> If some packages (potentially the whole GNOME desktop environment) get
>> a hard systemd dependency that would somewhat reduce the scope of the
>> port for us I think.
> From what I can see in previous TC discussion, it se
On 29/01/2014 23:24, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> If some packages (potentially the whole
> GNOME desktop environment) get a hard systemd dependency that would
> somewhat reduce the scope of the port for us I think.
>From what I can see in previous TC discussion, it seems that the plan
is for sysvi
On 29/01/14 22:11, Robert Millan wrote:
> On 29/01/2014 19:41, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> * kfreebsd-amd64 and kfreebsd-i386
>>- On one hand, we are unconvinced that kFreeBSD will be able
>> to be on par with other release architectures in terms of
>> supported packages for Jessie.
>>
Hi Niels,
On 29/01/2014 19:41, Niels Thykier wrote:
> * kfreebsd-amd64 and kfreebsd-i386
>- On one hand, we are unconvinced that kFreeBSD will be able
> to be on par with other release architectures in terms of
> supported packages for Jessie.
>- On the other hand, we believe k
27 matches
Mail list logo
