I finally got to the end of the messages in this thread.
My view FWIW follows ...
Should Savannah require projects to be at least build-able on
of the GNU systems.
The answer is no. Savannah is about hosting free software, in general.
Everything on Savannah should potentially be usable in GNU, but that is
only in terms of licensing, and is very different from *requiring*
submitters use an approved GNU distro (even just for purposes of
submission, which seems to be what you're proposing). That has never
been the goal. Many people use unapproved distros, or home-grown os's,
or whatever, but still want to write and release 100% free software, and
we are (should be) happy to support them in doing so.
Of course ultimately it is rms who determines these sorts of policies.
We (you) could raise the issue with him if you wish, but I'm 99% certain
that he won't want to change it. His underlying point of view has
always been "the more free software available, the better". How well it
works, or if it works, is distinctly secondary.
On the other hand, I completely agree that we should *encourage* people
to use the free distros, and/or make it easier for evaluators wherever
possible. Changing the wiki page to strongly recommend giving exact
package names for dependencies where possible, and (even more so) to
check copyright statements for themselves, would be excellent
improvements. I'm sure plenty more could be done there, and/or on the
submission page itself. Let's continue on that path.
Finally, I agree with Ineiev that the numerous nonfunctional projects
simply are not a problem. I would guess without looking that the
majority of the ~3500 projects on Savannah are not functional and not
being actively developed. That doesn't mean they are consuming any
notable resources beyond some disk space (we have plenty), and certainly
doesn't mean they should be deleted.
All the best,
Karl
