Wouter Verhelst <wouter <at> debian.org> writes: > On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 11:05:56PM +0000, Uoti Urpala wrote: > > I think the important question is whether portability to other kernels is or > > should be a "project's goal", and how much else you're willing to lose for > > the sake of that goal. > > Debian/kFreeBSD is here to stay, it's not going away. With that as a given, > systemd is suddenly a lot less interesting.
Once you stop taking things as a given there are a lot more opportunities for improvement. If you want to do whatever work is necessary to keep kFreeBSD working that's fine of course. But the attitude that it's OK for kFreeBSD to set limits on Linux development (or that developers working on Linux must handle the BSD porting/compatibility to be "permitted" to adopt a new technology) smells of trying to hold the project hostage, and I doubt it can have positive effects for the project overall. IMO letting kFreeBSD block a technology like systemd (or even letting it have a significant impact on the discussion about whether it's desirable to introduce the technology for the main Linux case) would only be justifiable if there were very solid arguments why kFreeBSD is a big net win for the project, or after a vote showing significant support for the port. > Whatever its features, if we have to jump through a large heap of hoops > to get it to work at all, or to make life for maintainers of daemon > packages not a complete nightmare, it's not likely to become the default > in Debian any time soon. I think the life of many maintainers of daemon packages is a "complete nightmare" now with sysvinit, compared to what it would be with systemd. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/loom.20110719t144003...@post.gmane.org
