On Sat, 2011-02-12 at 11:04 +0100, [email protected] wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 11:24:20AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 06:41:25AM +0100, [email protected] > > wrote: > > > > What's so bad about someone speaking up? They keep bringing this up. > > > If nobody reacts, it's a sure sign nobody cares, and they are free > > > to drop it. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if that's the whole > > > point of bringing it up at all...
Do you think this is the plan? kfreebsd seems to have gained momentum within Debian, but not Hurd. > > First off, claiming that we got loads of newly interested > > users/developers recently isn't a good approach, it was shot down by > > Marco immediately. > > Yes, the wording wasn't ideal. Still better than no reaction at all > IMHO. At least some progress is made, but the patches offered to the DM-s are generally not adopted. Additionally Samuel is working hard with updates of libc and Hurd as well as new package namings for Mach and Hurd. > > I think we should revisit their old list of requirements and see how > > we do, prepare a report on that and ask them what else we should do > > now. Where to find that list? > Well, do you actually intend to do that? Speaking in the hypothetical > "should" isn't helpful... > > Either way, a (kinda) quick reaction was good IMHO. It doesn't preclude > a more sophisticated argument later on... Is anything happening here? The meeting starts on the 21st of March. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
