On 01/05/12 10:12, Simon McVittie wrote: > I can *just about* see how running a Quake dedicated server on the FreeBSD > kernel might be a rational thing to do, if you're really, really keen on > FreeBSD's firewalling...
Hi! You seem skeptical... Arguably it could also have better security/uptime, or even performance if some benchmarks could be believed (thus allowing a less-powerful server to do the job). Maybe the ability to use jails, if we can get those working, to efficiently host multiple dedicated servers for different users/customers on the same hardware. Even if users want none of these things, there may be other things forcing them to use a FreeBSD kernel on a particular box or desktop. Maybe Linux doesn't work well on that particular hardware, in which case still being able to install their favourite Debian packages is great. So as you said, to increase the "proportion of Architecture:any packages that compile" was in fact my goal when I originally filed the bug+patch. Unfortunately I couldn't test it yet but but someone else has in the meantime (thanks David). I would also have written my patch in a way that helps things on GNU/Hurd if I'd known how to at the time. And I would have used wishlist severity had I not misunderstood policy thinking it should be RC. I'm curious if Svante is right that FTBFS+patch on a release arch qualifies as important? Even if it has not built before? > ... but the right answer for high-quality code would be to make this list > of special cases irrelevant. Great, that's another good (but less obvious) thing that I think comes out of porting efforts. It has highlighted some questionable code, that could equally have been broken by some future change in Linux headers, or might have been broken/insecure already. Thanks for looking into it, and hopefully upstream could improve it someday. > ...getting it to compile successfully on a particular kernel is > no guarantee that it'll work correctly, or fail without crashing..., But if we can't get it built+installed in the archive there are few people who would really test it. Leaving things uncompiled sort of relegates GNU/kFreeBSD to being a source-based distribution which is not what Debian is popular for. Anyway, thanks again for uploading a fixed version. Regards, -- Steven Chamberlain ste...@pyro.eu.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
