Subject: Re: [HEADS UP] Platform support
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Joerg Sonnenberger <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 07/21/2007 15:13:05
On Sat, Jul 21, 2007 at 01:53:13PM +0900, OBATA Akio wrote:
> I have to disagree. Why "bulk build" means "supported"?
Because it is the most basic measurement.
> 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"?
I intentionally didn't include Linux on the list. I don't think it is a
problem if something is broken on a platform. Happens all the time. But
it should be possible for someone interested in pkgsrc to find out if
the software he is interested in at least compiles.
IMO it is somewhat ignorant to talk about "nobody fixes breaks", if
(a) We don't have regular builds to know what is actually broken.
(b) Many issues on the supposed critical NetBSD platforms don't get
fixed in timely manners as well.
Nothing prevents us from making the requirements stricter over time. I
just want to start somewhere. A bulk build is something that needs a
limited amount of human attention and gives us a huge benefit as result.
Providing binary packages is a much harder barrier. If the platform has
a reasonable large set of working packages, we are talking multiple
multiple GB of data here. That is an issue for upload bandwidth etc. and
shouldn't be underestimated.