On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 12:11:06PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 05:40:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> As of kFreeBSD:
> > a. kfreebsd -- easy!
> > i. add it to the archive!
> > - straight after etch rel
On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 08:41:43PM -0600, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
> Should porters be required to NMU? I would hope not in this quantity as
> someone who NMU's should consider themselves a virtual maintainer until
> the next upload (or at least I've read this a few times from people such
> as aj?
On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 08:41:43PM -0600, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
> > > 68k seems to have elected to skip official etch, but also seems to
> > > have met the requirements. Some of the non-dd porters still want
> > > an official etch release.
> >
> > (They met the requirements after the architect
On Thu, 2007-03-08 at 20:41:43 -0600, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
> > > 68k seems to have elected to skip official etch, but also seems to
> > > have met the requirements. Some of the non-dd porters still want an
> > > official etch release.
> >
> > (They met the requirements after the architecture f
Drew Scott Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (08/03/2007):
> guillem's [0] list of bugs [1] shows the main problem for the kfreebsd
> porters. 93 "important" (probably release-critical for kfreebsd) with
> patches available! 105 bugs with patches not applied.
To be fair, 20+ were opened in the last 3 da
guillem's [0] list of bugs [1] shows the main problem for the kfreebsd
porters. 93 "important" (probably release-critical for kfreebsd) with
patches available! 105 bugs with patches not applied. Certainly getting
in the archive would give them more time though.
Should porters be required to NMU?
On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 05:40:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
As of kFreeBSD:
> a. kfreebsd -- easy!
> i. add it to the archive!
> - straight after etch release?
that's the matter of the discussion here, and i
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 12:34:44AM -0600, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
> Porting Debian to a non-Linux kernel. kFreeBSD opens the doors for knetbsd,
> Some highlights from there include devfs, OSS, OpenBSD Packet Filter
> (pf), jails, Xbox port, better in several benchmarks...
Does the Debian kFreeBS
On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 00:34:44 -0600, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
> I feel the real concerns for kfreebsd porters are in getting patches
> accepted, and having some additional resources. For now this may be
> accomplished outside the Debian resources, but official recognition might
> make things more
It seems the largest problem to including kfreebsd into the archive or
as an official Debian port is communications. There may be technical or
social reasons too, but they're sometimes difficult to identify without
enough communication.
On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 13:58:42 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On
10 matches
Mail list logo
