Re: Future of kFreeBSD in Debian unstable

On 2018-05-02 12:34, James Clarke wrote: > On 2 May 2018, at 10:52, Svante Signell wrote: > > 2) People seems to want asdfasdf and io back. How? > > From https://www.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu/ > > asdfasdf.debian.net (kfreebsd-amd64) and io.debian.net (kfreebsd-i386)

Re: Future of kFreeBSD in Debian unstable

On 2 May 2018, at 10:52, Svante Signell wrote: > On Mon, 2018-04-02 at 20:16 +0100, James Clarke wrote: >> On 2 Apr 2018, at 20:04, Svante Signell wrote: >>> On Mon, 2018-04-02 at 19:33 +0200, Svante Signell wrote: On Sat, 2018-03-31 at

Re: Future of kFreeBSD in Debian unstable

Svante Signell, on ven. 02 mars 2018 19:16:32 +0100, wrote: > On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 16:19 +, James Clarke wrote: > > The main issue now is the lack of porters, as there needs to be at > > least one person willing to spend time checking on the buildds [...] > > > > As has been mentioned

Re: Future of kFreeBSD in Debian unstable

On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 16:19 +, James Clarke wrote: > On 2 Mar 2018, at 00:12, Svante Signell > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Hi Svante, > Firstly thanks again for the VM offer. The main issue now is the lack > of porters, as there needs to be at least one person willing

Re: Future of kFreeBSD in Debian unstable

On 2 Mar 2018, at 00:12, Svante Signell wrote: > Hi, > > I'm offering you a VM on a fast computer as a buildd for Debian > GNU/kFreeBSD, similar to a buildd for Debian GNU/Hurd. Too sad to see > kFreeBSD fading away... > > Some computer data: lscpu > Architecture:

Re: Future of kFreeBSD in Debian unstable

Ansgar Burchardt wrote: >Though it might make sense to move kfreebsd-* to ports.d.o. That was >planned to happen for hurd-i386 too. That might be for the best… if not for this ultra-annoying shortcoming of mini-dak which hurts me on x32, and hurt me on m68k even more: when a new version of a

Re: Future of kFreeBSD in Debian unstable

Wouter Verhelst writes: > On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 01:32:08PM +, Steven Chamberlain wrote: >> Hi Ansgar, >> >> Ansgar Burchardt wrote: >> > however with the kFreeBSD buildds gone, we would also need at least some >> > people willing to maintain buildds (this is limited to Debian Developers >>

Re: Future of kFreeBSD in Debian unstable

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 01:32:08PM +, Steven Chamberlain wrote: > Hi Ansgar, > > Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > > however with the kFreeBSD buildds gone, we would also need at least some > > people willing to maintain buildds (this is limited to Debian Developers > > as long as the port lives on

Re: Future of kFreeBSD in Debian unstable

В Tue, 16 Jan 2018 23:23:43 +0100, Christoph Egger написа: > I guess the hurd example shows that very few people can sucecssfully run > a port -- for a release architecture you need a couple more people. Exactly. Right now the goal should be to run the port, with a priority to restore the

Re: Future of kFreeBSD in Debian unstable

On Monday 15 January 2018 11:10:18 CET Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > Hardware resources shouldn't be a problem: I'm fairly sure the buildds > were VMs anyway. Jep one VM with reasonable IO each and a second VM mostly due to redundancy requirements > kFreeBSD could have chosen to use another default

Re: Future of kFreeBSD in Debian unstable

Hi there, for a while now I am in the process of looking at another OS than stock Debian, which means either another Linux-based (hi, Slackware!) or FreeBSD (I need ZFS support). The above was the reason why on 2017-04-09 I installed my first Debian GNU/kFreeBSD, using the d-i available back

Re: Future of kFreeBSD in Debian unstable

Hi Ansgar, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > however with the kFreeBSD buildds gone, we would also need at least some > people willing to maintain buildds (this is limited to Debian Developers > as long as the port lives on ftp.debian.org). Assuming I could find/maintain a couple of VMs to build

Re: Future of kFreeBSD in Debian unstable

Yavor Doganov writes: > В Fri, 12 Jan 2018 11:08:20 +0100, Axel Beckert написа: >> I just read jcristau's mail: I don't see the difference between running >> buildds for jessie-kfreebsd and sid. Why can the one continue while the >> other can't/ > > I don't understand either. I guess DSA are

Re: Future of kFreeBSD in Debian unstable

В Fri, 12 Jan 2018 11:08:20 +0100, Axel Beckert написа: > I can imagine doing sysadmin work on buildds. I can also host a buildd at home, no restrictions AFAICT. Administration can be handled remotely by a DD if I'm not able to do the job properly and/or I'm not being trusted. I can't

Re: Future of kFreeBSD in Debian unstable

Hi, after more than a year or so, I recently revived my kFreeBSD box (an now about 10 years old not-meltdown-affected ASUS EeeBox) and just noticed that the kfreebsd buildds stopped working around the same time. That's why I looked into this mailing list again after quite a while, too. Yavor

Re: Future of kFreeBSD in Debian unstable

В Mon, 08 Jan 2018 12:32:33 +0100, Ansgar Burchardt написа: > But we would need people to commit to that: someone has to address > issues that arise (these do not have to be Debian Developers, though > ports should have at least some Debian Developers commit to them); I'm not qualified to work on

Re: Future of kFreeBSD in Debian unstable

Hi, Gianluca Bonetti writes: > I think it is a project worth keeping alive, even if not 100% workable. > Dumping it away is a great waste of previous and precious work on > portability and kernel abstraction. > kFreeBSD 7 was stable enough to be used as desktop, as I did on a secondary > box,

Re: Future of kFreeBSD in Debian unstable

В Fri, 05 Jan 2018 11:41:08 +0100, Ansgar Burchardt написа: > I'm wondering if there is still any interest in keeping kFreeBSD in > unstable? There is interest, but it is not clear to me what has to be done to keep the port alive. How can non-DDs help to resurrect the port?

Re: Future of kFreeBSD in Debian unstable

Hello I am not a debian developer, and I just use kFreeBSD on a VMs for testing purposes. I think it is a project worth keeping alive, even if not 100% workable. Dumping it away is a great waste of previous and precious work on portability and kernel abstraction. kFreeBSD 7 was stable enough to