Steve Langasek writes ("Re: Upstart & kFreeBSD port for Debian"):
> 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?
Perhaps the intent is a long-term fork. If someone wants to maintain
an open and portable version of upstart then that is surely a good
thing.
> 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.
Well, _we_ in Debian cannot integrate that upstream - that's up to
upstream. This is true of any project: upstream integration is
something that upstream decides on.
And there is of course nothing stopping upstream from integrating that
port themselves - apart from upstream's insistence that they want to
be able to take upstart proprietary in the future.
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20894.4556.599800.469...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
