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 in the past quarter from > ~89.5% to "almost, but not quite 90%".
The release architecture criteria [1] says the target is 98% but hardware-specific packages are excluded. Does this apply to kernel ports by simply replacing "hardware-specific" with "kernel-specific"? [1] https://release.debian.org/jessie/arch_policy.html > 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-desktop cannot be installed on kFreeBSD (I presume this > will at least affect d-i). > Here we need you to assess what can you reasonably support. Once we > know that we can look at the consequences and how to deal with them. > > > By the way, when you present your set of supported packages, please > consider highlighting where you would like the "default" package set to > be different from current release architectures. E.g. with the TC's > decision on init systems, Linux will be using systemd as default init > system[3]. I presume kFreeBSD will go with a different init system. Thanks. We'll discuss this among ourselves and present a proposal. -- Robert Millan -- 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/52fd511d.8010...@debian.org
