#ubuntu-ports 2007-08-05
<lamont> jbailey: thanks for the email
<lamont> is this turning into a kernel patch? or elsewhere?
<jbailey> kernel patch.
#ubuntu-ports 2009-07-31
<NCommander> lamont, you around?
<lamont> yeah
<NCommander> lamont, question, what does it take to get a new port of Ubuntu off the ground so the speak
<NCommander> (in an official way)
<lamont> hardware for the DC, and a working bootstrap world, plus people working on it
<lamont> at a minimum
<NCommander> lamont, see PM :-)
<jbailey> NCommander, Awww.  You're not gonna share?
<jbailey> lamont, You forgot the critical bits of overcoming James' hatred for the port and convincing kernel + toolchain people that you're not a muppet.
<lamont> jbailey: that was encapsulated in the "at a minimum" :-p
<jbailey> lamont, You left out the hardest part.
<jbailey> Otherwise we'd have m68k already, wouldn't we? =)
<lamont> as for the kernel/toolchain, the port must provide a responsible muppet^Wporter of sufficient competence to at least get James back to neutral from hating the port for the drain that it is otherwise.
<lamont> also, the port needs to be to a point where it reliably runs, even when building gcc and glibc (and openoffice/java??)
<jbailey> I was more thinking that you probably want commit access to the kernel and the toolchain.
<jbailey> Yeah, Java's pretty standard these days.
<jbailey> You have a pile of VMs to port if they don't work: Python, Java, Mono, Guile.
<jbailey> They're all in main these days.
#ubuntu-ports 2009-08-01
<NCommander> jbailey, are you interested in a mipsn32el port?
