Re: Firmwares (was Re: Bits from the DPL)

On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 at 19:28, Vincent Bernat wrote: > > On 2024-04-01 18:05, Jonathan Carter wrote: > > The included firmware contributed to Debian 12 being a huge success, > > but it wasn't the only factor. > > Unfortunately, the shipped firmwares are now almost a year old, > including for

Re: Firmwares (was Re: Bits from the DPL)

Le lundi, 1 avril 2024, 19.41:45 h CEST Andrey Rakhmatullin a écrit : > Why is updating the firmware packages not trivial? Is it because of > licensing issues? I always thought it's just copying a bunch of files from > the linux-firmware repo (but I also often wondered why is the package > often

Re: Firmwares (was Re: Bits from the DPL)

Andrey Rakhmatullin dijo [Mon, Apr 01, 2024 at 10:41:45PM +0500]: > Why is updating the firmware packages not trivial? Is it because of > licensing issues? I always thought it's just copying a bunch of files from > the linux-firmware repo (but I also often wondered why is the package > often not

Re: Bits from the DPL

Hi Jonathan, just a brief correction: On 2024-04-01 18:05, Jonathan Carter wrote: > I don't want to single out DSA there, it's difficult and affects many > other teams. The Salsa CI team also spent a lot of resources (time and > money wise) to extend testing on AMD GPUs and other AMD hardware.

Re: Firmwares (was Re: Bits from the DPL)

On Mon, Apr 01, 2024 at 06:27:29PM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote: > On 2024-04-01 18:05, Jonathan Carter wrote: > > The included firmware contributed to Debian 12 being a huge success, > > but it wasn't the only factor. > > Unfortunately, the shipped firmwares are now almost a year old, including >

Firmwares (was Re: Bits from the DPL)

On 2024-04-01 18:05, Jonathan Carter wrote: The included firmware contributed to Debian 12 being a huge success, but it wasn't the only factor. Unfortunately, the shipped firmwares are now almost a year old, including for unstable. I am following the progress since quite a few years and I

Re: Bits from the DPL

On 2022/04/20 08:25, j...@debian.org wrote: 2022-01-12  - Milestone 1 - Transition and toolchain freeze 2022-02-12  - Milestone 2 - Soft Freeze 2022-03-12  - Milestone 3 - Hard Freeze - for key packages and packages without autopkgtests To be announced - Milestone 4 - Full Freeze Oops, that

Re: Bits from the DPL for March 2020

Hello Sam, Am Montag, 6. April 2020, 11:34:12 CEST schrieb Sam Hartman: > Thinking about Covid-19 and what this means for the world has taken up > much of my emotional bandwidth in March. I haven't read anything that describes what has happened to me as matching like this. *distance hugs*

Re: BITS from the DPL For September/October 2019

On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 7:06 AM Bernd Zeimetz wrote: > That leads to the question how long it takes until these bugs are being > noticed. > > I am definitely not going to test init scripts properly when the systemd > units are exactly doing what they are supposed to. The number of people > not

Re: BITS from the DPL For September/October 2019

On 10/31/19 8:07 PM, Alf Gaida wrote: > I read it the same way - and also a logical consequece: if these > patches lead to bugs, the maintainer should not be forced to fix the > mess. I for myself would just remove buggy things that nobody care in a > certain amount of time. That leads to the

Re: tomcat9 using systemd specific stuff is now vendor lock-in [was: BITS from the DPL For September/October 2019]

Le ven. 1 nov. 2019 à 00:48, Thomas Goirand a écrit : > > On 10/31/19 9:56 PM, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote: > > This isn't limited to just shipping an init script, have a look at the > > tomcat9 9.0.13-1 changelog entry which dropped the sysvinit script. > > Continuing to support an init script also

Re: BITS from the DPL For September/October 2019

❦ 31 octobre 2019 21:49 +01, Thomas Goirand : > The idea has always been that it would be on best-effort from people who > volunteer, without forcing anyone to do any sysv-rc support if they > don't feel like it. What you describe goes along this line. I have raised my concern about this a few

Re: tomcat9 using systemd specific stuff is now vendor lock-in [was: BITS from the DPL For September/October 2019]

On Nov 01, Thomas Goirand wrote: > Instead of using well understood parameters to adduser, which we've been > using for decades, and understand well the parameters, systemd provides Personally I never remember the exact semantics of many adduser/addgroup parameters and I have to double check

Re: tomcat9 using systemd specific stuff is now vendor lock-in [was: BITS from the DPL For September/October 2019]

On 10/31/19 9:56 PM, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote: > This isn't limited to just shipping an init script, have a look at the > tomcat9 9.0.13-1 changelog entry which dropped the sysvinit script. > Continuing to support an init script also means to retain on all the > packaging boilerplate which got

Re: BITS from the DPL For September/October 2019

Thomas Goirand schrieb: > "I’d very happily maintain the init script." > > I haven't read all the bug entry, but if someone is claiming that > accepting such contribution is mandatory, then that's very much right, > at least that the consensus we're in right now, indeed. This isn't limited to

Re: BITS from the DPL For September/October 2019

On 10/31/19 8:07 PM, Alf Gaida wrote: > I read it the same way - and also a logical consequece: if these > patches lead to bugs, the maintainer should not be forced to fix the > mess. I for myself would just remove buggy things that nobody care in a > certain amount of time. I'd be very much fine

Re: BITS from the DPL For September/October 2019

On 10/31/19 7:36 PM, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote: > Thomas Goirand schrieb: >> My understanding is that the current guidance is that doing init script >> isn't mandatory. > > With policy not updated, people claim it's mandatory, see e.g. > #925473 on Tomcat. Well, the policy is wrong, and should be

Re: BITS from the DPL For September/October 2019

Simon Richter dijo [Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 12:46:21PM +0100]: > Hi, > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 10:38:32PM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote: > > > If we have such vote again, I'll continue on this direction: I'd prefer > > if we didn't have to vote. > > >From a Policy perspective, packages are

Re: BITS from the DPL For September/October 2019

On Thu, 31 Oct 2019 18:40:58 +0100 Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 10/29/19 11:19 PM, Russ Allbery wrote: > > of clear project guidance, no one is clearly empowered to prevent > > it from bitrotting. What is wrong with bitrotting if nobody cares about - in case nobody cares about it's the logical

Re: BITS from the DPL For September/October 2019

Thomas Goirand schrieb: > My understanding is that the current guidance is that doing init script > isn't mandatory. With policy not updated, people claim it's mandatory, see e.g. #925473 on Tomcat. The discussed GRs would provide clarification on what the project at large actually wants (and

Re: BITS from the DPL For September/October 2019

Russ, On 10/29/19 11:19 PM, Russ Allbery wrote: > [...] we do not have clear > project consensus that sysvinit support is mandatory in new packages, so > the support is starting to bitrot, and given the lack of clear project > guidance, no one is clearly empowered to prevent it from bitrotting.

Re: BITS from the DPL For September/October 2019

Sam, thanks for the bits mail. Very interesting as usual! Just a minor nitpick... On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 01:16:21PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > * I spent some money. No, you didn't, Debian did, as you correctly described below. You approved that spending. -- cheers, Holger (I'm not

Re: BITS from the DPL For September/October 2019

Hi, On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 10:38:32PM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote: > If we have such vote again, I'll continue on this direction: I'd prefer > if we didn't have to vote. >From a Policy perspective, packages are supposed to integrate into the system by providing init scripts, and Policy has a

Re: BITS from the DPL For September/October 2019

> "Wouter" == Wouter Verhelst writes: Wouter> Having said that, Wouter> Sam: I notice that you've not sent a draft of your GR Wouter> proposal to the -vote mailing list yet. It has been my Wouter> experience over the years that that is not generally a good Wouter> idea.

Re: BITS from the DPL For September/October 2019

On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 03:19:03PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > We've now had several years of essentially declining to make a decision > and trying to see if the project can muddle through, and while I feel > somewhat vindicated by the fact that this didn't immediately fall apart > and has sort

Re: BITS from the DPL For September/October 2019

Thomas Goirand writes: > The last time we've had a GR on init systems, the general response was > that we don't want to vote, and we preferred the TC to decide. I don't think the core questions here are technical questions. I think they're more fundamental questions of project direction and

Re: BITS from the DPL For September/October 2019

On 10/29/19 6:16 PM, Sam Hartman wrote: > Init System Policy > == > > last Bits mail, I talked about how I was considering whether we needed a > GR on Init System Policy. The last time we've had a GR on init systems, the general response was that we don't want to vote, and we

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

On 10/1/19 9:24 PM, Samuel Henrique wrote: > and the centralization > of the discussion in a "tree like" structure are things that I miss a > lot here. Are you saying that you're reading -devel without the "tree like" display of the thread? Outch! I'd strongly suggest using a better client if

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

On 9/19/19 6:30 AM, Jerome BENOIT wrote: > > > On 19/09/2019 00:46, Sam Hartman wrote: > >> Init System Diversity >> = > >> So perhaps sysvinit and init scripts have had their chance and it is >> time to move on. We could move away from init scripts as the default >>

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

On 10/1/19 5:06 PM, Enrico Zini wrote: > If I say something that 1000 people like and one person hates, the > net visible effect in my inbox is probably one angry reply. I very much agree with that. Which is why I don't feel comfortable when Sam making summaries and conclusions of discussions we

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

Sorry about the lateness here, been busy... On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 12:22:34PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > > "Sean" == Sean Whitton writes: > > Sean> You might separate your detailed, narrative descriptions of > Sean> how discussions went from what you took away from the > Sean>

Re: Discussion tooling (was: Bits from the DPL (August 2019))

Hello, On Sat 05 Oct 2019 at 10:13PM +01, Samuel Henrique wrote: > I don't understand the argument of it being a social problem, isn't our > own constitution a technical solution to a social problem? Hmm, I think that "social problem" is not what I meant. It's difficult to communicate

Re: Discussion tooling (was: Bits from the DPL (August 2019))

On 2019-10-05 22:13:49 +0100 (+0100), Samuel Henrique wrote: [...] > And the problems with relying on the tree view of email subthreads > have already been exposed here as it depends on people formatting > the subthread in a specific way, which does always happens. [...] Not necessarily. For me

Re: Discussion tooling (was: Bits from the DPL (August 2019))

On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 14:51, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 01:37:58PM +0100, Samuel Henrique wrote: > > On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 10:48, Mathias Behrle wrote: > > > > > ...BTW no discussion tool can help in automating > > > separate discussion threads when the topic changes. > >

Re: Discussion tooling (was: Bits from the DPL (August 2019))

Hello, On Wed 02 Oct 2019 at 11:30AM +02, Mathias Behrle wrote: > first of all it would help a lot to identify when a new subthread is > openend and make this visible in the usual way (like this mail does). It would > increase a lot(!) the readability of Debian lists where this is an > often

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

Hello, On Tue 01 Oct 2019 at 12:22PM -04, Sam Hartman wrote: >> "Sean" == Sean Whitton writes: > > Sean> You might separate your detailed, narrative descriptions of > Sean> how discussions went from what you took away from the > Sean> discussions. You could either drop the

Re: Discussion tooling (was: Bits from the DPL (August 2019))

On 2019-10-02 10:51:22 -0300 (-0300), Antonio Terceiro wrote: > On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 01:37:58PM +0100, Samuel Henrique wrote: > > On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 10:48, Mathias Behrle wrote: > > > > > ...BTW no discussion tool can help in automating > > > separate discussion threads when the topic

Re: Discussion tooling (was: Bits from the DPL (August 2019))

On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 01:37:58PM +0100, Samuel Henrique wrote: > On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 10:48, Mathias Behrle wrote: > > > ...BTW no discussion tool can help in automating > > separate discussion threads when the topic changes. > > > > They can, I think reddit and hackernews are good at this.

Re: Discussion tooling (was: Bits from the DPL (August 2019))

Samuel Henrique writes: > On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 10:48, Mathias Behrle wrote: > >> ...BTW no discussion tool can help in automating >> separate discussion threads when the topic changes. >> > > They can, I think reddit and hackernews are good at this. > That's the "tree-like" structure that I

Re: Discussion tooling (was: Bits from the DPL (August 2019))

On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 10:48, Mathias Behrle wrote: > ...BTW no discussion tool can help in automating > separate discussion threads when the topic changes. > They can, I think reddit and hackernews are good at this. That's the "tree-like" structure that I mentioned in my email. > You will

Re: Discussion tooling (was: Bits from the DPL (August 2019))

On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 11:30:58AM +0200, Mathias Behrle wrote: > first of all it would help a lot to identify when a new subthread is > openend and make this visible in the usual way (like this mail does). It would > increase a lot(!) the readability of Debian lists where this is an > often

Discussion tooling (was: Bits from the DPL (August 2019))

* Jeremy Stanley: " Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)" (Tue, 1 Oct 2019 20:45:35 +): Hi, first of all it would help a lot to identify when a new subthread is openend and make this visible in the usual way (like this mail does). It would increase a lot(!) the readability of De

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

Hi Sam! First of all thanks for your work you do as DPL, you put a lot of energy, time and enthusiasm in it, and this is very visible! On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 09:57:38AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > > "Holger" == Holger Levsen writes: > > > Holger> So to me this is more the consensus

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

❦ 2 octobre 2019 05:47 +02, Jean-Philippe MENGUAL : > An idea: establishing a time of discussion. At the end, if there is not > consensus (as Gitlab), there is not. If there is, ensuring every DD can > still have an opinion via GR or changes proposals in some guidelines > (Debian Policy, etc).

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

Hi, An idea: establishing a time of discussion. At the end, if there is not consensus (as Gitlab), there is not. If there is, ensuring every DD can still have an opinion via GR or changes proposals in some guidelines (Debian Policy, etc). While mails are too much and so long to be followed by

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

On 10/1/19 3:57 PM, Sam Hartman wrote: > What would be more useful than this criticism is concrete advice on how > I can shorten them while still accomplishing my goals. after flying over your d-d-a mail again, my suggestion: - create a blog post for each point you are discussing -

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

On 10/1/19 3:57 PM, Sam Hartman wrote: >> "Holger" == Holger Levsen writes: > > > Holger> So to me this is more the consensus of those with the > Holger> priveledge to read, process and repond to this mailinglist, > Holger> yet there are many more people packaging software in

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

On 2019-10-01 16:13:03 -0400 (-0400), Sam Hartman wrote: > A couple of people active in Gnome have suggested discourse for > this sort of thing. It's got enough email integration that perhaps > we would not lose people who want that interface. > > I t would be interesting if someone wanted to

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

> "Jonathan" == Jonathan Carter writes: Jonathan> I try to follow debian-devel really closely, and mostly Jonathan> manage to succeed, but this was probably the toughest Jonathan> topics for me to follow, there's lots of repetition, Jonathan> me-toos, posts that don't really

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

Hi Sam On 2019/10/01 15:57, Sam Hartman wrote: > I'd say it is a consensus of those who prioritize participating in this > discussion enough to do so, consented to by the rest of the project. > If we get it sufficiently wrong people in the broader community will let > us know. > > Yes, because

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

A couple of people active in Gnome have suggested discourse for this sort of thing. It's got enough email integration that perhaps we would not lose people who want that interface. I t would be interesting if someone wanted to spend the time to pilot that.

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

> > Am I really expected to add a "me too" response every time I agree with > what > someone else took the time to write... making it harder for people with > limited > time to follow? This seems especially cruel to those that don't speak > English > natively, and those that rely on translation

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

> "Michael" == Michael Lustfield writes: Michael> On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 14:32:10 + Michael> Holger Levsen wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 09:57:38AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: >> > I'd say it is a consensus of those who prioritize participating >> in this > discussion

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 14:32:10 + Holger Levsen wrote: > On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 09:57:38AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > > I'd say it is a consensus of those who prioritize participating in this > > discussion enough to do so, consented to by the rest of the project. > > I'm sorry, but I

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

> "Sean" == Sean Whitton writes: Sean> You might separate your detailed, narrative descriptions of Sean> how discussions went from what you took away from the Sean> discussions. You could either drop the former, or put it in a Sean> "read this if you want more details"

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 02:32:10PM +, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 09:57:38AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > > I'd say it is a consensus of those who prioritize participating in this > > discussion enough to do so, consented to by the rest of the project. > I'm sorry, but I

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 09:57:38AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > I'd say it is a consensus of those who prioritize participating in this > discussion enough to do so, consented to by the rest of the project. I'm sorry, but I disagree. Silence is not always consent. -- cheers, Holger

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 07:21:20AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > May I ask whether you review your d-d-a e-mails, specifically with an > eye to brevity, before sending them out? Given how many people read > them, time invested in editing for brevity would be well spent. that. > You might

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

Hello Sam, On Tue 01 Oct 2019 at 09:57AM -04, Sam Hartman wrote: > Holger> And then, 'spreading to more places' reminds me of another > Holger> critisism I have with your reports: they are too long. :-D > > > What would be more useful than this criticism is concrete advice on how > I

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

> "Holger" == Holger Levsen writes: Holger> So to me this is more the consensus of those with the Holger> priveledge to read, process and repond to this mailinglist, Holger> yet there are many more people packaging software in Debian. I'd say it is a consensus of those who

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

Dear Sam, first of all, many thanks for writing these 'Bits from the DPL' mails regularily, much appreciated! On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 04:46:14PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > Git Packaging > = [...] > The discussion generated enough mail that I have not yet found time t

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

On 2019-09-24 07:34, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > Dear Mo. > > Mo Zhou - 24.09.19, 04:58:06 CEST: >> For desktop users, non-systemd init plus a mordern desktop environment >> such as Plasma or Gnome would be impossible on Debian, as they depend >> on systemd. Some other distro such as Gentoo and

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

Dear Mo. Mo Zhou - 24.09.19, 04:58:06 CEST: > For desktop users, non-systemd init plus a mordern desktop environment > such as Plasma or Gnome would be impossible on Debian, as they depend > on systemd. Some other distro such as Gentoo and FreeBSD have somehow > removed the systemd dependency for

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

Hi, On 2019-09-23 23:29, Sam Hartman wrote: > Samuel> I'm not saying maintainers should spend time on maintaining > Samuel> init files etc. but at least leave room for people who want > > Obviously if we had a vote the project could choose to agree with you or > not. FYI, two important

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

> "Samuel" == Samuel Thibault writes: Samuel> Hello, Sam Hartman, le mer. 18 sept. 2019 16:46:14 -0400, a Samuel> ecrit: >> We could stop caring about sysvinit (which isn't quite the same >> thing but is related). That would leave non-linux ports in an >> unfortunate

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

Hello, Sam Hartman, le mer. 18 sept. 2019 16:46:14 -0400, a ecrit: > We could stop caring about sysvinit (which isn't quite the same thing > but is related). That would leave non-linux ports in an unfortunate > position. But right now there are no non-linux ports in the main > archive. So

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

On Thu, Sep 19 2019, Bálint Réczey wrote: > I would like to just remind ourselves that in WSL and Docker > containers systemd is not running as the init system and systemd > services can't be started easily but init.d scripts can be. FWIW, with buster, systemd becomes possible in unprivileged

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

On 2019/09/19 11:18, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > I also feel sad cause I saw the enormous efforts of Devuan and Debian > people as well as the new Sysvinit upstream maintainer to improve the > quality of sysvinit, startpart, insserv, runit, openrc you name them > packages and to actually

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

Hi, Sam Hartman ezt írta (időpont: 2019. szept. 18., Sze, 22:47): > > > Dear Debian: > ... > Init System Diversity > = .. > Honestly, I'm not entirely sure how to move forward. Perhaps it's just > that I haven't talked to someone I need to. Perhaps someone will read > this,

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

Hi Sam! I took long time to write this even on still recovering from a pace in my life that feels too quick for me. But I intended this to be carefully worded in order to not hurt anyone. I hope I succeeded. My invitation: Before taking anything personal and making the choice to feel hurt

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

On dj., set. 19 2019, Jerome BENOIT wrote: On 19/09/2019 00:46, Sam Hartman wrote: Init System Diversity = So perhaps sysvinit and init scripts have had their chance and it is time to move on. We could move away from init scripts as the default representation. We

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

> "Jerome" == Jerome BENOIT writes: Jerome> On 19/09/2019 00:46, Sam Hartman wrote: >> Init System Diversity = Jerome> >> So perhaps sysvinit and init scripts have had their chance and it >> is time to move on. We could move away from init

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

On 19/09/2019 00:46, Sam Hartman wrote: > Init System Diversity > = > So perhaps sysvinit and init scripts have had their chance and it is > time to move on. We could move away from init scripts as the default > representation. We could stop caring about sysvinit

Re: MemberBenefits - Steam Keys (Was: Bits from the DPL (May 2018))

On 2019/08/06 09:46, Andrej Shadura wrote: > I’m really sorry if nobody did come back to you with this, apparently > your request fell through the cracks. Thanks! Just received your off-list email with the details. -Jonathan -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian

Re: MemberBenefits - Steam Keys (Was: Bits from the DPL (May 2018))

On 06/08/2019 09:44, Jonathan Carter wrote: > On 2018/06/01 19:22, Andrej Shadura wrote: >>> On 2018-05-31 12:33 PM, Chris Lamb wrote: [11] https://wiki.debian.org/MemberBenefits >>> Oh, this reminds me of something. >>> >>> Has anyone gotten replies to their requests sent to >>>

Re: MemberBenefits - Steam Keys (Was: Bits from the DPL (May 2018))

On 2018/06/01 19:22, Andrej Shadura wrote: >> On 2018-05-31 12:33 PM, Chris Lamb wrote: >>> [11] https://wiki.debian.org/MemberBenefits >> Oh, this reminds me of something. >> >> Has anyone gotten replies to their requests sent to >> debian-st...@collabora.com for the Steam subscriptions

Re: Salsa migration from foo-guest to foo [was: Bits from the DPL (May 2019)]

On Fri, 07 Jun 2019, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 6/5/19 4:08 PM, Norbert Preining wrote: > > This should be > > completely independent from what one can do on salsa. > > So I propose that whatever one's level within Debian is, it should not > > change the status on salsa. > > I also find it

Re: Salsa migration from foo-guest to foo [was: Bits from the DPL (May 2019)]

On 6/5/19 4:08 PM, Norbert Preining wrote: > This should be > completely independent from what one can do on salsa. > So I propose that whatever one's level within Debian is, it should not > change the status on salsa. I also find it surprising that the "feature" from Alioth that one has to

Re: Bits from the DPL (May 2019)

On Thu, 06 Jun 2019, Sam Hartman wrote: > > "Bastian" == Bastian Blank writes: > > Bastian> Hi Sam > Bastian> On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 11:57:41AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > >> However, it's a lot easier to get a foo-guest account on salsa > >> than it is to get a foo guest

Re: Bits from the DPL (May 2019)

> A guest account in Debian LDAP does not get a Salsa account, at least > not an usable one. Currently only users in the Debian group are > allowed.Hmm - so salsa is useless at all - i don't think so. Change your pov and see it otherwise: A guest can open a project - all members of the Debian

Re: Bits from the DPL (May 2019)

> "Bastian" == Bastian Blank writes: Bastian> Hi Sam Bastian> On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 11:57:41AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: >> However, it's a lot easier to get a foo-guest account on salsa >> than it is to get a foo guest account in Debian LDAP. Bastian> A guest account

Re: Bits from the DPL (May 2019)

Hi Sam On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 11:57:41AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > However, it's a lot easier to get a foo-guest account on salsa than it > is to get a foo guest account in Debian LDAP. A guest account in Debian LDAP does not get a Salsa account, at least not an usable one. Currently only

Re: Bits from the DPL (May 2019)

> "Alexander" == Alexander Wirt writes: Alexander> On Wed, 05 Jun 2019, Adrian Bunk wrote: I understand that is how it is today. Disabling an account is something we clearly want to be able to do. However, it's a lot easier to get a foo-guest account on salsa than it is to get a foo

Re: Bits from the DPL (May 2019)

On Wed, 05 Jun 2019, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 10:14:50AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > > > "Norbert" == Norbert Preining writes: > > > > Norbert> I would propose something else: Debian rights are defined > > Norbert> by presence/absence of a GPG key in certain key

Re: Bits from the DPL (May 2019)

On Thu, 06 Jun 2019, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 10:14:50AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > > > "Norbert" == Norbert Preining writes: > > > > Norbert> I would propose something else: Debian rights are defined > > Norbert> by presence/absence of a GPG key in certain

Re: Bits from the DPL (May 2019)

On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 10:14:50AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > > "Norbert" == Norbert Preining writes: > > Norbert> I would propose something else: Debian rights are defined > Norbert> by presence/absence of a GPG key in certain key rings. This > Norbert> should be completely

Re: Bits from the DPL (May 2019)

On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 10:14:50AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > > "Norbert" == Norbert Preining writes: > > Norbert> I would propose something else: Debian rights are defined > Norbert> by presence/absence of a GPG key in certain key rings. This > Norbert> should be completely

Re: Bits from the DPL (May 2019)

> "Norbert" == Norbert Preining writes: Norbert> I would propose something else: Debian rights are defined Norbert> by presence/absence of a GPG key in certain key rings. This Norbert> should be completely independent from what one can do on Norbert> salsa. So I propose that

Re: Bits from the DPL (May 2019)

Hi, > https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/tsl5zpyigx4@suchdamage.org Thanks, sounds reasonable. > I'll take this as input that we should have better transition strategies > for salsa when a project owner's status changes. I would propose something else: Debian rights are defined by

Re: Bits from the DPL (May 2019)

> "Norbert" == Norbert Preining writes: Norbert> Hi, (please Cc, not reading d-d) Norbert> On Sun, 02 Jun 2019, Sam Hartman wrote: Norbert> And would you be so helpful in providing a link to that Norbert> understanding of consensus? Only posting a link to the Norbert>

Re: Bits from the DPL (May 2019)

Hi, (please Cc, not reading d-d) On Sun, 02 Jun 2019, Sam Hartman wrote: > Dh as a Preferred Packaging Style > = > > As promised, I started a discussion [3] on whether we wanted to prefer > (and in some cases require) the dh sequencer from Debhelper as a package

Re: Bits from the DPL (April 2019)

Thanks very much for the reply! Have you been discussing this with the gitlab people? They seem very open to discuss with projects, e.g. see https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/53206 I understand your points (especially agree on moving bugs between different projects) and that there is

Re: Bits from the DPL (December 2018)

On Jan 01 2019, Chris Lamb wrote: > Hi Nikolaus, > >> > * Followed-up on progress regarding potential new "Member Benefits" >> >[9] and ensured that some previously-promised reports for events >> >funded by Debian ended up appearing on Planet [10]. >> > >> >I also provided solicited

Re: Bits from the DPL (December 2018)

Hi Nikolaus, > > * Followed-up on progress regarding potential new "Member Benefits" > >[9] and ensured that some previously-promised reports for events > >funded by Debian ended up appearing on Planet [10]. > > > >I also provided solicited (!) advice to a few other developers on > >

Re: Bits from the DPL (December 2018)

On Dec 31 2018, Chris Lamb wrote: > * Followed-up on progress regarding potential new "Member Benefits" >[9] and ensured that some previously-promised reports for events >funded by Debian ended up appearing on Planet [10]. > >I also provided solicited (!) advice to a few other

Re: MemberBenefits - Steam Keys (Was: Bits from the DPL (May 2018))

No, I have not received a reply. Cheers, On 2018-07-21 07:40 PM, Samuel Henrique wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I sent an email on 1st June (when this thread started) > to debian-steam[a]collabora.com requesting it > but got no response. > Is it still going? > > Did you

Re: MemberBenefits - Steam Keys (Was: Bits from the DPL (May 2018))

Hello everyone, I sent an email on 1st June (when this thread started) to debian-steam[a] collabora.com requesting it but got no response. Is it still going? Did you receive a reply Alexandre? Thanks On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 at 16:10, Alexandre Viau wrote: > On 2018-06-01 01:22 PM, Andrej Shadura

Re: MemberBenefits - Steam Keys (Was: Bits from the DPL (May 2018))

On 2018-06-01 01:22 PM, Andrej Shadura wrote: > The benefit should still be valid. The person responsible for it is > already looking into it, expect a reply shortly ;) Great, thanks :)! -- Alexandre Viau av...@debian.org signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: MemberBenefits - Steam Keys (Was: Bits from the DPL (May 2018))

On 01/06/18 17:31, Alexandre Viau wrote: > On 2018-05-31 12:33 PM, Chris Lamb wrote: >> [11] https://wiki.debian.org/MemberBenefits > Oh, this reminds me of something. > > Has anyone gotten replies to their requests sent to > debian-st...@collabora.com for the Steam subscriptions mentioned in

Re: MemberBenefits - Steam Keys (Was: Bits from the DPL (May 2018))

On Fri, 2018-06-01 at 11:31 -0400, Alexandre Viau wrote: > On 2018-05-31 12:33 PM, Chris Lamb wrote: > > [11] https://wiki.debian.org/MemberBenefits > > Oh, this reminds me of something. > > Has anyone gotten replies to their requests sent to > debian-st...@collabora.com for the Steam

  1   2   3   >