Thomas Goirand <[email protected]> writes: > On 04/17/2013 02:49 PM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>> I think it does: I might be interested in running less trusted code in >> KVM, since it provides more isolation, and more trusted code in lxc, >> which provides less isolation, so running both lxc and kvm at the same >> time certainly makes a ton of sense to me. > You guys are writing this as if it was impossible to switch from one > hypervisor to another. Yet this is simply not the case. I don't think you understood what Tollef said. He's not talking about switching from one to another. He's talking about running both at the same time. Other people have commented similarly. > If we consider that I'm requesting 5 more binary packages, and that we > have 30 000 packages in Debian, we are talking about 0.016% more binary > packages in Debian. I can't believe that only for 0.016% more binaries > is so unbearable for the archive. I addressed this point in a previous message. Briefly, this is one of those fuzzy creeping problems. Each individual case looks reasonable in isolation, but the cumulative impact can be significant, so ftp-master is in the unenviable position of having to apply a general policy that makes each individual packager unhappy. (And which prompts arguments that *their* individual package won't cause an *immediate* problem, which have indeed predictably been raised in every discussion I've seen of this particular problem.) -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
