On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 07:58:40PM +0200, Adrian von Bidder wrote: > On Monday 22 August 2005 23.51, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 06:22:11PM +0000, W. Borgert wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 07:29:31PM +0200, Adrian von Bidder wrote: > > > > really matters: can we (the Debian project) maintain the port? Thus > > > > I propose we only limit on the number of developers: are there > > > > people who are willing and competent to maintain kernel, boot loader, > > > > platform specific installer bits, libc and toolchain?
> > > That sounds sensible. > > It ignores the fact that every port is a drain on centralized project > > resources, whether it has users or not. > How so? > (I mean, how does my proposal to drop the 'has users' requirement in favor > of 'do we have developers' ignore the resource usage. I certainly do not > dispute that a port uses resources.) Ok, then perhaps it doesn't ignore it, but I don't believe that it addresses it adequately. A 5GB repository on a central project machine, that adds to the maintenance load of DSA and the ftp-masters, is a rather expensive sandbox to give a handful of developers in the case that it doesn't forward the interests of our actual users. > And even if: would a userless port have the developers? For one thing, the > develoeprs are users themselves, and for another thing, even 'doorstop > architectures' where 90% of the users are seriously computer infected, only > a few of those are likely to be competent enough to maintain kernel and > toolchain. So I'd claim the (difficult to define) 'has users' requirement > is not so much different from a (IMHO easier to define) 'has developers' > requirement. I don't understand why you think it's "difficult to define" this requirement -- certainly not why it's difficult enough to warrant dropping it. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature