Subject: Re: [HEADS UP] Platform support
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Juan RP <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 07/21/2007 12:35:11
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 13:53:13 +0900
OBATA Akio <email@example.com> wrote:
> --On 2007-07-21 02:48 +0200 Joerg Sonnenberger
> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > 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.
Exactly. A supported platform should be mesured by the number of
active developers and binary packages available for it.
Juan Romero Pardines - The NetBSD Project
http://plog.xtrarom.org - NetBSD/pkgsrc news in Spanish