Subject: Re: [HEADS UP] Platform support
To: Joerg Sonnenberger <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: OBATA Akio <email@example.com>
Date: 07/21/2007 13:53:13
--On 2007-07-21 02:48 +0200 Joerg Sonnenberger <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> For a platform to be supported, it should at the very least have regular
> bulk builds. This can be both the old style mk/bulk as well as the newer
> pkgtools/pbulk based build. If a platform can't get at least that much
> support, we should not advertise it as supported. I'm not yet sure how
> we should name platforms that were supported in the past or have other
> reasons for not fulfilling this requirement, but that is a different
> issue for now.
I have to disagree. Why "bulk build" means "supported"?
If someone bulk build on a platform yearly,
only 100 packages was built successfully,
result of binary packages don't provided,
nobody fixes breaks on the platform,
is the platform really "supported"?
IMO, "supported" platform is:
* There are responsible developers for the platform.
* Binary packages for the platform are provided.
"Of course I love NetBSD":-)
OBATA Akio / email@example.com