Hi Guillem, On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 04:09:33AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-05-22 at 01:47:42 +0100, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: > > On 22 May 2013 01:16, Michael Biebl <bi...@debian.org> wrote: > > > Am 22.05.2013 02:00, schrieb Dmitrijs Ledkovs: > > >> On 21 May 2013 21:53, Lucas Nussbaum <lu...@debian.org> wrote: > > >>> On 20/05/13 at 18:19 +0200, Michael Stapelberg wrote: > > >>> - Neither systemd nor upstart are likely to be ported to kfreebsd soon, > > >>> as they both rely on many Linux-specific features and interfaces. > > >> Well, Colin Watson, Matthias Klose, Steve Langasek, James Hunt and I > > >> have discussed the state of the kfreebsd possibility a few times over > > >> the past year or so. > I started porting libnih and upstart to GNU/kFreeBSD some months ago, > just for fun, whenever I had nothing else to do. But then I'm not > interested in assigning my copyright to a for-profit company that is > not employing me (and no, this is not a job request); so I didn't > post anything yet, because I don't use upstart, didn't want to promise > anything (still don't), and it would present as an _interesting_ > situation for the Debian upstart maintainers (either reject the > patches or carry them forever as a small fork...). This is interesting to know. Out of curiosity, if you don't intend to license your patch under the Canonical CLA, what was your aim in doing this port? I'm not sure where that puts us; we're certainly interested in seeing a BSD port of upstart, but obviously being unable to integrate that port upstream is less than ideal. By chance is there anyone else among the BSD porters who would be more willing to do do such a port under the CLA terms? Or do you think Scott's original suggestion to maintain the bsd port as a separate branch (which for Debian's purposes might imply a separate source package; or else a patch stack in the source package that needs forward-ported after each upstream release) is viable? Oh, FYI, libnih is not covered by the Canonical CLA; Canonical is not the sole copyright holder on it, and Scott, not Canonical, is the upstream maintainer. > As mentioned on the porting guide above, waitid() should be replaceable > with kqueue's EVFILT_PROC anyway. While it's good in a general sense to know that there are comparable facilities that upstart *could* be ported to on BSD, I don't see a port being successful without direct engagement from a BSD porter. Certainly, I don't see Canonical being the ones to drive this forward. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
