Re: Question to the candidates

[Charles Plessy]

Le Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 11:49:53PM -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> As a developer, how do you embody the spirit and culture that has made
> Debian a great operating system?
> 
> If elected DPL, how will you inspire the same in others?

Hi Steve,

we have to inspire each other and the DPL does not make exception. But if the 
spirit and culture that has made Debian a great operating system is
universality, one single individual can not impersonate every facets.

Nevertheless, in addition to universality, I think that one major element of
Debian's culture is to aim at excellence, and that a DPL should be careful of 
being clear and accurate in his work and communication.

I will do my best to inspire others by doing what I say and saying what I do,
staying neutral and humble, and not engage into or provoke conflicts.

Have a nice day,

--
Charles


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100331155255.gb15...@kunpuu.plessy.org

Re: Question to the candidates

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

[ oops, looks like this one has slipped through the cracks of my mutt ]

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 11:49:53PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> As a developer, how do you embody the spirit and culture that has made
> Debian a great operating system?

I surely don't claim to embody all of the spirit and culture of Debian:
I believe it is a kind of collective spirit/culture, a share of which
I'm proud to hold.

For once, I see as some of the Debian founding values: freedom,
collaboration, and volunteer "service" to others. These are some of the
defining values in my life, not only as a geek. I think this is why I'm
that enthusiastic about Debian, and why it is unsurprising for me to end
up talking about Debian when I'm asked what I do in life by a stranger:
it is one of the few things that I'll surely mention.

More specifically, what I think is most characteristic of my Debian life
is that I'm a good team player. I'm way more productive, and excited
about what I do, when I work with others rather than alone.

I think to have other traits that are useful in community-building
(e.g. I'm thoughtful, listen to others, ready to change my mind when
presented with good arguments, and generally calm), but I won't say that
those are somehow specific to Debian spirit/culture, they are more
general in any kind of community.

> If elected DPL, how will you inspire the same in others?

By example, being ready to admit when I myself have set a bad standard.

Cheers.

-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..|  .  |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...| ..: | Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Question to the candidates

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 11:49:53PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> As a developer, how do you embody the spirit and culture that has made
> Debian a great operating system?

I think I'm a person who's not afraid to try something if I think it
will improve the project in some way. I'm also not afraid to back out if
I made a mistake; I've done so on several occasions. This is similar to
how Debian keeps its mistakes and problems in public -- we even made
that part of our social contract.

I do not really embody the 'spirit and culture' of flaming people
(although there have been exceptions), but I don't think that's a great
loss.

> If elected DPL, how will you inspire the same in others?

Passively, by example; Actively, by (politely) challenging people who
are working in what I feel to be a counterproductive way, and by
encouraging others to do the same.

-- 
The biometric identification system at the gates of the CIA headquarters
works because there's a guard with a large gun making sure no one is
trying to fool the system.
  http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/01/biometrics.html


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Question to the candidates

[Margarita Manterola]

On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 3:49 AM, Steve Langasek  wrote:
> As a developer, how do you embody the spirit and culture that has made
> Debian a great operating system?

This is a very difficult question, because answering it implies that I
accept that I do embody such spirit and culture, and I find this
statement too arrogant to make it myself.

Instead, I'll say that the most important thing about Debian, for me,
is that "Our priorities are our users and free software". This line
has shaped a lot of what we do in Debian, towards making the Universal
OS.

One of the great things about our priority being "our users" is that
we don't specify which users.  Servers, desktops or embedded users;
sysadmins, engineers, websurfers or gamers, they are all "our users",
and thus we need to work real hard to make the best OS possible for
all of them at the same time.

I find this very inspiring, and it has shaped how I do my work for
Debian. Trying to have the best for everybody is hard, but I think
it's worth all the work done.

> If elected DPL, how will you inspire the same in others?

As I said in my platform, I think we should have project-wide goals.
I plan to set goals that would help Debian be even better than what it
is today, and hope to inspire more people to work on those goals.  I
don't plan to come up with these specific goals all by myself, though,
I plan to do it in consultation with the whole developer body, but I'd
make sure that these goals all had "our users and free software" as
their priority.

-- 
Besos,
Marga


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/e8bbf0361003241236n4ed5edd0t105e67867ec43...@mail.gmail.com

Question to the candidates

[Steve Langasek]

As a developer, how do you embody the spirit and culture that has made
Debian a great operating system?

If elected DPL, how will you inspire the same in others?

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Question to the candidates: RC bugs fixe

[Thaddeus H. Black]

On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 12:47:00PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> As I'm sure you're aware, there is no cabal; there's only a bunch of
> people who put in massive amounts of time and get the blame when
> important stuff is delayed. And as any sysadmin will tell you, *every*
> request is important.
> 
> (that's not to say there's no room for improvement, but calling them a
> "cabal" is overdoing it IMHO).

I call James Troup and Ryan Murray the cabal because that is the word
disapproving DDs have used to name them for a long time.  If the word is
wrong, then I would gladly learn better language, but it seems that
every word used to name them (including their own names, oddly) is
somehow regarded by their apologists as objectionable.  Such objections
exist to silence legitimate debate.

As far as putting in massive amounts of time is concerned, I have no
idea what James and Ryan are doing with all this time.  They don't tell
me.  What I know is that James and Ryan---the cabal, or whatever you
want to call them---exercise tremendous control over the Project.  Why
the Project continues to submit to their control, I cannot explain.

Admittedly, this is an old discussion.  You and I are not going to shed
any new light on it here.  I believe that for several reasons, if
elected, you would make a fine DPL.  Your platform seems perfectly
consistent with your actions over the past years.  Both platform and
actions are admirable.  I do not believe that you stand any realistic
chance to succeed in cleaning up the Project's cabal mess, though.

[This message regrettably comes just two hours before the end of the DPL
campaign period.  Wouter ought to be allowed to reply if he wishes.
He can have the last word; I'll not answer again.  Should Wouter's reply
slip past the end of the period, please blame me not him in the matter.]

> > Still, there exist many, sometimes contradictory reasons to vote for
> > or against a candidate; and, this year, I find a close four-way
> > contest at the top of my own ballot.  My question to all candidates
> > who wish to respond, to resolve the contest:
> > 
> > Please brag about RC bugs you have fixed since sarge's release,
> > excluding bugs in your own packages.
> 
> I put in at least a few hours _per day_ for Debian, and only expect to
> increase that. Over the last year, I set up and have been maintaining
> the box that builds the powerpc d-i dailies; have been doing maintenance
> and buildd admin work of between 2 and 7 buildd machines (the number
> varied because of system breakdown, mainly; some even have broken down,
> were then repaired, and broke down again) for the armeb and m68k
> architectures for unstable and (in the case of m68k) experimental; and I
> have single-handedly started work on the debian coldfire port. I've also
> worked on the d-i port to the m68k architecture (though not in the past
> year).
> 
> For my own packages, I've been working with belpic's upstream to get a
> reasonably working build system (there's still a lot of work to do in
> that area; also, to my horror, they've switched to SCons now), have had
> to take over upstream maintenance of nbd since a few years (which sucks
> up a rather large amount of time, too), and have had to figure out a
> bunch of problems in m68k assembly to be able to figure out what was
> wrong with the emile boot sequence (which turned out to be
> Debian-specific).
> 
> Currently, I have 15 bugs open (in all) against my packages; this is a
> record (I've never had as much open bugs), and this is happening now
> mostly because I do not consider any of them important enough to warrant
> a release exception at this time, and because some of them require me to
> learn new stuff (which will happen eventually, but not just yet).
> 
> Apart from that, I can only "brag" about having tested the fix for #376812
> (grave bug on libglide2 which required hardware that the maintainer did
> not have, and which I did) and about having provided fixes for #255457
> (Large File Support for perforate; wishlist), and some other similar
> ones. Working on other people's bugs just isn't something I spend a lot
> of time on; I take great pride in being a good maintainer of my _own_
> stuff, and I do not feel that it is, or should be, a requirement of any
> Debian Developer to work on stuff that is not their responsability.

-- 
Thaddeus H. Black
508 Nellie's Cave Road
Blacksburg, Virginia 24060, USA
+1 540 961 0920, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Question to the candidates: RC bugs fixed

[Steve McIntyre]

On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 07:17:59PM +, Thaddeus H. Black wrote:
>
>Please brag about RC bugs you have fixed since sarge's
>release, excluding bugs in your own packages.  Of
>interest are both the quantity and intractability of the
>bugs.  If you have not fixed RC bugs but have made
>another noteworthy Project-oriented technical
>contribution---again not concerning your own
>packages---then please speak of that, instead.

I got involved in several of the BSPs in Europe[1-5] late last year. I
worked on lots of RC bugs, alongside some debian-cd work and giving
quite a lot of help to others at those same meetings to allow them to
get involved.

[1]  http://blog.einval.com/2006/10/03#2006_Utrecht
[2]  http://blog.einval.com/2006/10/11#2006_Zurich
[3]  http://blog.einval.com/2006/10/17#2006_Munich
[4]  http://blog.einval.com/2006/11/22#2006_Cambridge
[5]  http://blog.einval.com/2006/11/22#2006_Helsinki

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Google-bait:   http://www.debian.org/CD/free-linux-cd
  Debian does NOT ship free CDs. Please do NOT contact the mailing
  lists asking us to send them to you.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Question to the candidates: RC bugs fixe

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 07:17:59PM +, Thaddeus H. Black wrote:
> An admittedly modest technical contributor to Debian, I have not
> earned the right to complain often, so I don't.  Nevertheless, I agree
> pretty much completely with the words of Andreas Tille, Clint Adams
> and Frans Pop; and I feel strongly that Debian's foremost problems are
> cabal-oriented and social in nature.

As I'm sure you're aware, there is no cabal; there's only a bunch of
people who put in massive amounts of time and get the blame when
important stuff is delayed. And as any sysadmin will tell you, *every*
request is important.

(that's not to say there's no room for improvement, but calling them a
"cabal" is overdoing it IMHO).

> Still, there exist many, sometimes contradictory reasons to vote for
> or against a candidate; and, this year, I find a close four-way
> contest at the top of my own ballot.  My question to all candidates
> who wish to respond, to resolve the contest:
> 
> Please brag about RC bugs you have fixed since sarge's release,
> excluding bugs in your own packages.

I put in at least a few hours _per day_ for Debian, and only expect to
increase that. Over the last year, I set up and have been maintaining
the box that builds the powerpc d-i dailies; have been doing maintenance
and buildd admin work of between 2 and 7 buildd machines (the number
varied because of system breakdown, mainly; some even have broken down,
were then repaired, and broke down again) for the armeb and m68k
architectures for unstable and (in the case of m68k) experimental; and I
have single-handedly started work on the debian coldfire port. I've also
worked on the d-i port to the m68k architecture (though not in the past
year).

For my own packages, I've been working with belpic's upstream to get a
reasonably working build system (there's still a lot of work to do in
that area; also, to my horror, they've switched to SCons now), have had
to take over upstream maintenance of nbd since a few years (which sucks
up a rather large amount of time, too), and have had to figure out a
bunch of problems in m68k assembly to be able to figure out what was
wrong with the emile boot sequence (which turned out to be
Debian-specific).

Currently, I have 15 bugs open (in all) against my packages; this is a
record (I've never had as much open bugs), and this is happening now
mostly because I do not consider any of them important enough to warrant
a release exception at this time, and because some of them require me to
learn new stuff (which will happen eventually, but not just yet).

Apart from that, I can only "brag" about having tested the fix for #376812
(grave bug on libglide2 which required hardware that the maintainer did
not have, and which I did) and about having provided fixes for #255457
(Large File Support for perforate; wishlist), and some other similar
ones. Working on other people's bugs just isn't something I spend a lot
of time on; I take great pride in being a good maintainer of my _own_
stuff, and I do not feel that it is, or should be, a requirement of any
Debian Developer to work on stuff that is not their responsability.

-- 
 Home is where you have to wash the dishes.
  -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Question to the candidates: RC bugs fixed

[Sam Hocevar]

On Thu, Mar 15, 2007, Thaddeus H. Black wrote:

> Please brag about RC bugs you have fixed since sarge's release, excluding
> bugs in your own packages. Of interest are both the quantity and
> intractability of the bugs. If you have not fixed RC bugs but have made
> another noteworthy Project-oriented technical contribution---again not
> concerning your own packages---then please speak of that, instead.

   I honestly cannot keep track of the bugs I fixed (not that there
are that many of them, but I try to focus on my bugs and my teams'). I
took part in two BSPs [1] [2] and was the only Debian Developer present
at the second event, so more than fixing bugs myself I did a great
deal of sponsoring and mentoring.

   I don't think I did anything really groundbreaking outside of my own
packages. What I'm the most happy with is my "hijack" of libSDL and the
creation of the SDL team, and my moving of around 40 of my packages to
team repositories on Alioth such as pkg-games. Almost two thirds of my
packages are now co- or team-maintained.

1. http://wiki.debian.org/FrenchBSP/200606
2. http://wiki.debian.org/TanneriesBSP

Regards,
-- 
Sam.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Question to the candidates: RC bugs fixed

[Josselin Mouette]

Le jeudi 15 mars 2007 à 23:29 +0100, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
> For readers who are interested in a more neutral point of view, I invite
> them to read the archives of debian-python during the month of june:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2006/06/threads.html

I don't think you make a good advocate for neutrality here. You were one
of those who made this horrible mess a political affair.

> And in particular this message where Joss decides alone to throw away the
> small agreed-upon bits that we had without any discussion:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2006/06/msg00210.html

Seeing the current state of python-support now I have stopped listening
to incompetent people, I am confident this was the right decision.

> As far as RC bug are concerned, the code of dh_python still lives in
> dh_pycentral and works well there. The main reason why it has been thrown
> away is because Joey Hess didn't want to keep dh_python and hasn't
> expressed that soon enough in the process. 

The main reason why it was thrown away is because it was breaking the
former dh_python behavior in a horrible way.

> And Joey didn't participate
> because the discussion with Josselin and Matthias have been needlessly
> hostile and difficult.

"Needlessly hostile"? Do you really want to see how python packages
would look like today if people hadn't been hostile against Matthias'
crap? I admit - and assume - my hostility, but you've got some nerve to
call it needless.

> That was my last message in this (unconstructive) sub-thread.

Oh, sure. You start by attributing to yourself other people's work, then
you throw the thread away. After all, it's not as if you started it.

-- 
 .''`.
: :' :  We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code.
`. `'   We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to
  `-our own. Resistance is futile.


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message	numériquement signée

Re: Question to the candidates: RC bugs fixed

[Raphael Hertzog]

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 15 mars 2007 à 23:04 +0100, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
> > On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > >   Uuuh which part do you refer to ?
> > 
> > The part that I did and that nobody else was willing to do. Discuss with
> > Josselin and Doko so that we actually have gone forward even if it has
> > been very problematic because both have very strong opinions and refuse to
> > work together. Then help them implement stuff when we had sort of
> > agreements.
> 
> This part is true. You made us agree to one thing: revert all your
> modifications, in order to fix the RC bugs introduced in dh_python and
> to convince joeyh not to abandon the package.

For readers who are interested in a more neutral point of view, I invite
them to read the archives of debian-python during the month of june:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2006/06/threads.html

And in particular this message where Joss decides alone to throw away the
small agreed-upon bits that we had without any discussion:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2006/06/msg00210.html

As far as RC bug are concerned, the code of dh_python still lives in
dh_pycentral and works well there. The main reason why it has been thrown
away is because Joey Hess didn't want to keep dh_python and hasn't
expressed that soon enough in the process. And Joey didn't participate
because the discussion with Josselin and Matthias have been needlessly
hostile and difficult.

That was my last message in this (unconstructive) sub-thread.

Cheers,
-- 
Raphaël Hertzog

Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Question to the candidates: RC bugs fixed

[Josselin Mouette]

Le jeudi 15 mars 2007 à 23:04 +0100, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> >   Uuuh which part do you refer to ?
> 
> The part that I did and that nobody else was willing to do. Discuss with
> Josselin and Doko so that we actually have gone forward even if it has
> been very problematic because both have very strong opinions and refuse to
> work together. Then help them implement stuff when we had sort of
> agreements.

This part is true. You made us agree to one thing: revert all your
modifications, in order to fix the RC bugs introduced in dh_python and
to convince joeyh not to abandon the package.

-- 
 .''`.
: :' :  We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code.
`. `'   We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to
  `-our own. Resistance is futile.


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message	numériquement signée

Re: Question to the candidates: RC bugs fixed

[Raphael Hertzog]

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>   Uuuh which part do you refer to ?

The part that I did and that nobody else was willing to do. Discuss with
Josselin and Doko so that we actually have gone forward even if it has
been very problematic because both have very strong opinions and refuse to
work together. Then help them implement stuff when we had sort of
agreements.

>   Don't reward yourself with work you didn't really accomplished.

You would lie if you say that I've not been involved in that process and
that I haven't played an important role. I'm glad for all the work you did
and I certainly don't want to take credit for your work.

You know "management" doesn't mean "I have been doing everything alone".

Cheers,
-- 
Raphaël Hertzog

Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Question to the candidates: RC bugs fixed

[Pierre Habouzit]

On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 10:10:17PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Thaddeus H. Black wrote:
> > Please brag about RC bugs you have fixed since sarge's
> > release, excluding bugs in your own packages.  Of
> > interest are both the quantity and intractability of the
> > bugs.  If you have not fixed RC bugs but have made
> > another noteworthy Project-oriented technical
> > contribution---again not concerning your own
> > packages---then please speak of that, instead.
> 
> My biggest technical contributions over the last year are:
> 
> - the management of the Python transition and the
>   development/fixing/modifications of the
>   corresponding dh_{python,pycentral,pysupport} scripts.
>   http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/06/msg00014.html

  Uuuh which part do you refer to ?

  * the catastrophically broken so-called policy that has been pushed at
debconf ?
  * the rewrite of that policy Manoj performed using valuable input from
(among others) Joss and I ?
  * the tracking of the transition that _I_ performed [0] ?
  * the 120 NMU I did (most of them are still accounted to me[1]) ?
  * or the (broken with critical bugs) NMUs on dh_python uploads that
finally got reverted to a more sane state that Joss, Joey Hess and
Matthias coordinated to go to a saner state where even
untransitionned package continued to work ?

  Don't reward yourself with work you didn't really accomplished.

> - concerning the fix of (RC) bugs I count 27 NMUs in my NMU directory (I
>   don't know when I last cleaned it). Most are related to python packages,
>   this excludes the packages maintained by the python modules team that I
>   might have updated.
>   Some examples taken from this list:
>   Python related:
>   #387414 #399697 #397006 #401040 #41 #398636 
>   Others:
>   #374955 #374730 #328579

  [0] http://bugs.debian.org/submitter:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  http://blog.madism.org/index.php/2006/08/01/97-python-transition

  [1] http://qa.debian.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- 
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OOOhttp://www.madism.org


pgpI0J4izLGr9.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Question to the candidates: RC bugs fixed

[Josselin Mouette]

Le jeudi 15 mars 2007 à 22:10 +0100, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
> My biggest technical contributions over the last year are:
> 
> - the management of the Python transition and the
>   development/fixing/modifications of the
>   corresponding dh_{python,pycentral,pysupport} scripts.
>   http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/06/msg00014.html

I don't think there's anything to be proud of in the way this transition
was handled.

-- 
 .''`.
: :' :  We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code.
`. `'   We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to
  `-our own. Resistance is futile.


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message	numériquement signée

Re: Question to the candidates: RC bugs fixed

[Raphael Hertzog]

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Thaddeus H. Black wrote:
> Please brag about RC bugs you have fixed since sarge's
> release, excluding bugs in your own packages.  Of
> interest are both the quantity and intractability of the
> bugs.  If you have not fixed RC bugs but have made
> another noteworthy Project-oriented technical
> contribution---again not concerning your own
> packages---then please speak of that, instead.

My biggest technical contributions over the last year are:

- the management of the Python transition and the
  development/fixing/modifications of the
  corresponding dh_{python,pycentral,pysupport} scripts.
  http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/06/msg00014.html

- some updates to the Package Tracking System:
  http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/07/msg6.html

- the migration of Alioth to a new host and a new version of gforge:
  http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/10/msg00025.html

- concerning the fix of (RC) bugs I count 27 NMUs in my NMU directory (I
  don't know when I last cleaned it). Most are related to python packages,
  this excludes the packages maintained by the python modules team that I
  might have updated.
  Some examples taken from this list:
  Python related:
  #387414 #399697 #397006 #401040 #41 #398636 
  Others:
  #374955 #374730 #328579

Cheers,
-- 
Raphaël Hertzog

Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Question to the candidates: RC bugs fixed

[Thaddeus H. Black]

An admittedly modest technical contributor to Debian,
I have not earned the right to complain often, so I
don't.  Nevertheless, I agree pretty much completely
with the words of Andreas Tille, Clint Adams and Frans
Pop; and I feel strongly that Debian's foremost problems
are cabal-oriented and social in nature.  Still, there
exist many, sometimes contradictory reasons to vote for
or against a candidate; and, this year, I find a close
four-way contest at the top of my own ballot.  My
question to all candidates who wish to respond, to
resolve the contest:

Please brag about RC bugs you have fixed since sarge's
release, excluding bugs in your own packages.  Of
interest are both the quantity and intractability of the
bugs.  If you have not fixed RC bugs but have made
another noteworthy Project-oriented technical
contribution---again not concerning your own
packages---then please speak of that, instead.

-- 
Thaddeus H. Black
508 Nellie's Cave Road
Blacksburg, Virginia 24060, USA
+1 540 961 0920, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Question to the candidates: inclusion of the kFreeBSD-* ports

[Anthony Towns]

On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 06:18:56PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Anthony Towns  writes:
> > I'd love to be proved wrong on kfreebsd's value to users and the project.
> I'd personally find it frustrating and demoralizing if, after working
> really hard on a project for quite some time, I asked for it to be
> included and got back "mmm, sorry, no, you didn't blow me away, but I'm
> not going to tell you what would blow me away so that you could remedy
> it."  I don't think that's what you're really trying to say, but I'm not
> sure I can figure out what you *are* trying to say from this thread.

Try "please, blow me away". 

If kfreebsd gets added to Debian, I'm going to get asked "So, kfreebsd,
huh?" and I'd love to be able to respond in a really positive way:
"yes, it solves  a problem" or "it demonstrates this really awesome
new technique, _, that's miles beyond anything else, even linux"
or /something/. 

For GNU/Solaris, that would be "dtrace" amongst other things for Linux
people, and "well supported packaging" for Solaris people. But for
kfreebsd, I'm lost as to any answer beyond "oh, some people get a kick
out of it, it doesn't actually achieve anything much beyond what Debian
GNU/Linux does, or what regular FreeBSD does".

A Debian port of ReactOS or Minix or Plan9 or FMI/OS would likewise be
interesting in their own right, afaics -- they're significantly different
operating system concepts to what Debian already does, and afaik they
don't already have an effective distribution.

If we were seriously planning on trying to have Debian ports of
all sorts of different operating systems -- Hurd, FreeBSD, NetBSD,
OpenBSD, GNU/Solaris, ReactOS, Minix _and_ FMI/OS eg, it'd be easy to
say "supporting kfreebsd is part of our aim to truly be the universal
distribution, supporting absolutely everything we can". That would
absolutely blow me away if done seriously [0]. In that case it's not
the BSDs that are what's interesting, they're as much part of the path
to supporting everything than a destination in their own right.

One thing I'd like to see for candidate x86/x86_64 architectures is a
preinstalled vmware-format image (which aiui will work under both qemu
and vmplayer) that can be used to easily demonstrate what's so fantastic
about a new OS.

Given something fantastic that makes it all worthwhile, all the practical
things can be solved. Without any particularly interesting goals that
get people excited and involved and can be clearly described, I think
there'll be long term problems in keeping the port active.

Cheers,
aj

[0] By "seriously" I mean recognising the problems -- eg the lack of
success we've had with making the Hurd suitable for general use,
or the devisions within the BSDs, and the GPL v CDDL concerns for
Nexenta, etc -- and dealing with them; which might mean talking to
upstream, or creating new technologies, or establishing convincingly
that concerns within the Debian project aren't actually justified,
or whatever else.



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Question to the candidates: inclusion of the kFreeBSD-* ports

[Russ Allbery]

Anthony Towns  writes:

> I'd love to be proved wrong on kfreebsd's value to users and the project.

I'm having a hard time figuring out, from this thread, what would
constitute proof for you.  Are you looking specifically for high popcon
numbers?  Lots of developers stepping forward and saying they're working
on kfreebsd?  Those are the only things I've been able to glean from this
thread that you feel are missing.

I'd personally find it frustrating and demoralizing if, after working
really hard on a project for quite some time, I asked for it to be
included and got back "mmm, sorry, no, you didn't blow me away, but I'm
not going to tell you what would blow me away so that you could remedy
it."  I don't think that's what you're really trying to say, but I'm not
sure I can figure out what you *are* trying to say from this thread.

(Of course, this probably also isn't the right forum.)

-- 
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Question to the candidates: inclusion of the kFreeBSD-* ports

[Anthony Towns]

On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 10:33:40AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> kfreebsd is working at least as well as hurd.  

I would have said better, currently.

Hurd's sat in the archive for almost a decade without without managing a
release or, as far as I've seen, being a feasible alternative operating
system that people will want to use for real work at all. I'm pretty
disappointed by that, personally, and I'd rather put my effort, as a DD,
as an ftpmaster, as DPL, or whatever, in areas where it's actually going
to help users.

> I think it's really strange
> to include one of them and not the other.  I can see making them both
> second-class citizens in the archive until usage is proven, but including
> hurd as an official port but not kfreebsd at this point makes no sense to
> me.

It's not a question of including either or both of Hurd or kfreebsd;
it's a question of including kfreebsd or throwing out Hurd or both or
neither. A new architecture being added should be significantly better
than an old architecture getting removed.

My impression, which isn't terribly informed and may be wrong, is that
Hurd's been better supported and more valuable to our users in the past
than kfreebsd is currently.

I'd love to be proved wrong on kfreebsd's value to users and the project.

Cheers,
aj



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Question to the candidates: inclusion of the kFreeBSD-* ports

[Russ Allbery]

Anthony Towns  writes:
> On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 08:29:30AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:

>> And if you think that some of those goals are not reached, 

> I would much rather be swept off my feet by how clearly the goals have
> been reached, beyond my wildest expectations. Surely if kfreebsd is
> worth doing, it should be spectacularly amazing, not barely reaching
> whatever minimal levels get set. I'm not opposed, I'm just not
> convinced.

kfreebsd is working at least as well as hurd.  I think it's really strange
to include one of them and not the other.  I can see making them both
second-class citizens in the archive until usage is proven, but including
hurd as an official port but not kfreebsd at this point makes no sense to
me.

Disclaimer: I don't find either personally interesting, but I've found the
quality of the patches and responsiveness of the porters for both kfreebsd
and hurd to be excellent and ongoing and I'm happy to apply their work to
my packages and don't want to see us stand in the way of their goals.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Question to the candidates: inclusion of the kFreeBSD-* ports

[Pierre Habouzit]

On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 12:29:58AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 08:29:30AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > > > Why did we do SCC for then ?
> > > So that we could cope with the increasing size of the archive.
> > The announce mentioned the possibility to add some suites due to that. It
> > didn't mention the possibility to add new architectures... but I feel that
> > the logic is the same. 
> 
> It's precisely the same. Suites and architectures can be added now,
> but they still need to be clearly worthwhile.

  h, I'm curious, what is the definition of worthwhile for you ? I
thought passing the SCC conditions was beeing worthwhile, excuse me if I
look confused, but I _really_ am here.

  And I do ask for two of your hats, the ftpmaster and the DPL
candidate.

> > > > I'm certainly uneasy with your answers. To me, having a Debian 
> > > > GNU/FreeBSD
> > > > looks like a very valuable goal and we should support it, each at our 
> > > > own
> > > > level. One shouldn't need more "justification" than this.
> > > The first pass justifications we have are at
> > >   http://ftp-master.debian.org/archive-criteria.html
> > > If you're already satisfied that kfreebsd is a "valuable goal" you should
> > > work on it, not expect anyone else to.
> > You're not asked to work much on it. 
> 
> You're asking me to work on it right now.

  Where ? I've seen Aurélien asking what the candidates thought of
integrating kfreebsd, most answered that it had to be done just after
etch release (and I concur). I've not seen anyone asking for immediate
action, or this was behind the scenes...

> > > There are people who would like to repackage all of Debian optimised for
> > > their particular processor, or without Gnome libraries, and all sorts
> > > of other things. That's fine -- if that's what they want, they should
> > > do it. But to actually have it be in the archive and on the mirrors,
> > > it should pass some basic minimum standards of being useful.
> > I don't discuss that. I simply say that IMO kfreebsd-i386 has reached
> > those goals. 
> 
> I'm glad you're convinced, but I'm not.
> 
> > And if you think that some of those goals are not reached, 
> 
> I would much rather be swept off my feet by how clearly the goals have
> been reached, beyond my wildest expectations. Surely if kfreebsd is worth
> doing, it should be spectacularly amazing, not barely reaching whatever
> minimal levels get set. I'm not opposed, I'm just not convinced.

  /me stares incredulously

  When I see some of our _official_ ports (you know like hurd-i386 where
we have bugs like "nice() doesn't work", "select() is buggy" and so
on[0], am I allowed not to understand how we can have hurd as an
official port, and not kfreebsd that is able to build a significant part
of the archive _and_ having it working ?  I'm sorry, but there _must_ be
a step I'm missing here.



  [0] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=libc0.3;dist=unstable
-- 
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OOOhttp://www.madism.org


pgp9TJ1KT2kc9.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Question to the candidates: inclusion of the kFreeBSD-* ports

[Anthony Towns]

On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 08:29:30AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > > Why did we do SCC for then ?
> > So that we could cope with the increasing size of the archive.
> The announce mentioned the possibility to add some suites due to that. It
> didn't mention the possibility to add new architectures... but I feel that
> the logic is the same. 

It's precisely the same. Suites and architectures can be added now,
but they still need to be clearly worthwhile.

> > > I'm certainly uneasy with your answers. To me, having a Debian GNU/FreeBSD
> > > looks like a very valuable goal and we should support it, each at our own
> > > level. One shouldn't need more "justification" than this.
> > The first pass justifications we have are at
> > http://ftp-master.debian.org/archive-criteria.html
> > If you're already satisfied that kfreebsd is a "valuable goal" you should
> > work on it, not expect anyone else to.
> You're not asked to work much on it. 

You're asking me to work on it right now.

> > There are people who would like to repackage all of Debian optimised for
> > their particular processor, or without Gnome libraries, and all sorts
> > of other things. That's fine -- if that's what they want, they should
> > do it. But to actually have it be in the archive and on the mirrors,
> > it should pass some basic minimum standards of being useful.
> I don't discuss that. I simply say that IMO kfreebsd-i386 has reached
> those goals. 

I'm glad you're convinced, but I'm not.

> And if you think that some of those goals are not reached, 

I would much rather be swept off my feet by how clearly the goals have
been reached, beyond my wildest expectations. Surely if kfreebsd is worth
doing, it should be spectacularly amazing, not barely reaching whatever
minimal levels get set. I'm not opposed, I'm just not convinced.

Cheers,
aj



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Question to the candidates: inclusion of the kFreeBSD-* ports

[Raphael Hertzog]

Hello,

On Mon, 05 Mar 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 02:51:19PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > On Sun, 04 Mar 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > The other side is just making the Debian mirror network available for
> > > kfreebsd users. With only a couple of dozen apparent users, I'm not
> > > really convinced that's particularly valuable though. YMMV.
> > Why did we do SCC for then ?
> 
> So that we could cope with the increasing size of the archive.

The announce mentioned the possibility to add some suites due to that. It
didn't mention the possibility to add new architectures... but I feel that
the logic is the same. Now that the mirrors are not required to mirror
everything, I believe that providing kfreebsd-i386 as a "SCC" port is
OK.

> > I'm certainly uneasy with your answers. To me, having a Debian GNU/FreeBSD
> > looks like a very valuable goal and we should support it, each at our own
> > level. One shouldn't need more "justification" than this.
> 
> The first pass justifications we have are at
> 
>   http://ftp-master.debian.org/archive-criteria.html
> 
> If you're already satisfied that kfreebsd is a "valuable goal" you should
> work on it, not expect anyone else to.

You're not asked to work much on it. You're asked to accept it into the
central archive so that this port can build on existing, common,
documented practice to continue their growth.

> There are people who would like to repackage all of Debian optimised for
> their particular processor, or without Gnome libraries, and all sorts
> of other things. That's fine -- if that's what they want, they should
> do it. But to actually have it be in the archive and on the mirrors,
> it should pass some basic minimum standards of being useful.

I don't discuss that. I simply say that IMO kfreebsd-i386 has reached
those goals. 

And if you think that some of those goals are not reached, you must say
which one (given the answers of the porters). And if you really want to
require having a separate diff for this new architecture, you should
outline how this could be doable within dak so that someone else can
implement that part.

> > Most of your other answers relate to possible problems that do not
> > concern the ftpmasters in the first place. 
> 
> What would be your reaction if I said "Most of your comments related to
> possible problems that do not concern you." ?

This was not meant to silence you, but rather to ask you to not let your
personal opinion interfer with your ftpmaster decision.

IMO the criteria should be simple:
- have people expressed interest for running FreeBSD with Debian tools?
- do we have volunteers that are willing to maintain that port and that
  have proved that they can do it on the long term?
- is it realistic? 

Most of your questions concern the third point in a way or another.

Cheers,
-- 
Raphaël Hertzog

Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Question to the candidates: inclusion of the kFreeBSD-* ports

[Anthony Towns]

On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 02:51:19PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Mar 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > The other side is just making the Debian mirror network available for
> > kfreebsd users. With only a couple of dozen apparent users, I'm not
> > really convinced that's particularly valuable though. YMMV.
> Why did we do SCC for then ?

So that we could cope with the increasing size of the archive.

> I'm certainly uneasy with your answers. To me, having a Debian GNU/FreeBSD
> looks like a very valuable goal and we should support it, each at our own
> level. One shouldn't need more "justification" than this.

The first pass justifications we have are at

http://ftp-master.debian.org/archive-criteria.html

If you're already satisfied that kfreebsd is a "valuable goal" you should
work on it, not expect anyone else to.

There are people who would like to repackage all of Debian optimised for
their particular processor, or without Gnome libraries, and all sorts
of other things. That's fine -- if that's what they want, they should
do it. But to actually have it be in the archive and on the mirrors,
it should pass some basic minimum standards of being useful.

> Most of your other answers relate to possible problems that do not
> concern the ftpmasters in the first place. 

What would be your reaction if I said "Most of your comments related to
possible problems that do not concern you." ?

Cheers,
aj



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Question to the candidates: inclusion of the kFreeBSD-* ports

[Aurelien Jarno]

Anthony Towns a écrit :
> On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 09:50:24AM +0100, Petr Salinger wrote:
>>> seems to list under three DDs actively involved in the port,
>> OK, we miss one more current DD listed here.
> 
> Yup, though that shouldn't be much of a challenge. The other problem
> is that the list doesn't seem active, so it's not incredibly clear that
> people are actively maintaining the port.

That's not true, here are the numbers of messages posted in the last two
months:
   jan  feb
debian-68k 197  152
debian-alpha   112  121
debian-amd64   331  159
debian-arm 114  152
debian-bsd  77   64
debian-hppa 77   58
debian-ia64 23   16
debian-mips 57   27
debian-powerpc  93  119
debian-s390 129
debian-sparc84   92

Looking at these number you could see that debian-mips, debian-ia64,
debian-s390 and debian-hppa are generating less traffic than debian-bsd.

BTW, I wonder if we really need a debian-s390 mailing list that almost
only catch spam.

Cheers,
Aurelien

-- 
  .''`.  Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
 : :' :  Debian developer   | Electrical Engineer
 `. `'   [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   `-people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Question to the candidates: inclusion of the kFreeBSD-* ports

[Pierre Habouzit]

On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 08:33:44PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 09:58:48AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Le dimanche 04 mars 2007 à 18:13 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit :
> 
> > > I'm not seeing why you need to be in the archive to do NMUs to improve
> > > packages?
> 
> > Because some maintainers refuse such NMUs for unofficial architectures.
> 
> This sounds like a problem independant of this particular port - do
> people give reasons for this?  If the patch is invasive or likely to
> have additional problems I can understand a response like that (indeed,
> one of my packages has such a patch) but I can't imagine too many
> packages would run into that sort of issue.

  as kfreebsd is basically just another kernel (and a few low-level
tools), with a glibc-based runtime, I'd say that 80% of the patches are
just autoconf/libtool patches, and are not very involved.

  for the other 20% it's due to some linux-only things that either need
to be deactivated (see one of the bug# in the thread that consist to
build some things without selinux support, as it's linux-only), some
laptop lowlevel tools are linux-only too, or inotify or... well, I think
you see the big picture.

  It can lead to some build-deps to be removed as well as e.g. alsa does
not exists on kfreebsd.

  ttbomk very few of the patches are very involved, and it's a shame
that maintainers do not include them asap.


-- 
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OOOhttp://www.madism.org


pgpkvM0SuzGoQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Question to the candidates: inclusion of the kFreeBSD-* ports

[Mark Brown]

On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 09:58:48AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le dimanche 04 mars 2007 à 18:13 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit :

> > I'm not seeing why you need to be in the archive to do NMUs to improve
> > packages?

> Because some maintainers refuse such NMUs for unofficial architectures.

This sounds like a problem independant of this particular port - do
people give reasons for this?  If the patch is invasive or likely to
have additional problems I can understand a response like that (indeed,
one of my packages has such a patch) but I can't imagine too many
packages would run into that sort of issue.

-- 
"You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever."


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Question to the candidates: inclusion of the kFreeBSD-* ports

[Julien BLACHE]

Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Hi,

>>Hence, what is your position on including those new, non-Linux ports ?
>>What would the timeframe be like, according to you ?
>
> I have no problem with including them, but equally I don't see them as
> a very high priority *right* now. After Etch is released, I'd happily
> support proposals for inclusion.

It was a post-etch question indeed, we obviously can't introduce new
architectures in the archive a couple of weeks before a release, that
would be unreasonable.

Thanks for your answers,

JB.

-- 
 Julien BLACHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  |  Debian, because code matters more 
 Debian & GNU/Linux Developer|   
 Public key available on  - KeyID: F5D6 5169 
 GPG Fingerprint : 935A 79F1 C8B3 3521 FD62 7CC7 CD61 4FD7 F5D6 5169 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Question to the candidates: inclusion of the kFreeBSD-* ports

[Frank Küster]

Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Le dimanche 04 mars 2007 à 18:13 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit :
>> But what I mean is more that maintaining two simple Debian patches (one
>> for Linux, one for kFreeBSD) is probably simpler than maintaining one
>> complicated Debian patch (with some conditional make cruft).
>
> BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA.
>
> Sorry, but reading this just makes it obvious - to those who didn't
> already know it - that you have not been doing serious maintainer work
> lastly.

That, or the fact that the reality he believes in is formed by his
opinion, not by perceiving what happens outside.  This leads to the
creation of ugly hybrids as dunc-tank.

Regards, Frank

-- 
Dr. Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)

Re: Question to the candidates: inclusion of the kFreeBSD-* ports

[Steve McIntyre]

On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 05:17:01PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
>Hi DPL candidates,

Hi Julien,

>The kFreeBSD ports are now in a good enough shape to be included in
>unstable. Aurélien Jarno got ftpmaster's approval for that during an
>informal conversation at debconf5 [1] but so far, there's been no
>progress on this front.
>
>Since then, the SCC split happened and ftp-master moved to ries, so
>adding more architectures to the archive is no longer a problem, AIUI.
>
>Hence, what is your position on including those new, non-Linux ports ?
>What would the timeframe be like, according to you ?

I have no problem with including them, but equally I don't see them as
a very high priority *right* now. After Etch is released, I'd happily
support proposals for inclusion.

>If an ftpmaster was to charge an amount of money to include the new
>architectures (as was the case for amd64), what would, according to
>you, be a reasonable amount ?

I don't expect that money should be needed for this sort of thing.

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Support the Campaign for Audiovisual Free Expression: http://www.eff.org/cafe/


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: One more question to the candidates

[Steve McIntyre]

On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 10:31:29AM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
>Forgot to ask this question: In your opinion, what is a good length of
>total term for a DPL?

As long as the DDs are convinced the person in question is doing a
good job, to be honest. For some people, that may be 1 year; for
others it could be 5 or more.

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Because heaters aren't purple!" -- Catherine Pitt


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Question to the candidates: inclusion of the kFreeBSD-* ports

[Aigars Mahinovs]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

> The kFreeBSD ports are now in a good enough shape to be included in
> unstable. Aurélien Jarno got ftpmaster's approval for that during an
> informal conversation at debconf5 [1] but so far, there's been no
> progress on this front.
> 
> Since then, the SCC split happened and ftp-master moved to ries, so
> adding more architectures to the archive is no longer a problem, AIUI.
> 
> Hence, what is your position on including those new, non-Linux ports ?
> What would the timeframe be like, according to you ?

As I am not aware of any technical issues blocking such inclusion, I
would assume that it would be appropriate to include it soon after the
next release.

- --
Best regards,
Aigars Mahinovsmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 #--#
 | .''`. Debian GNU/Linux  LAKA |
 |: :' :  http://www.debian.org  &  http://www.laka.lv  |
 |`. `' |
 |  `-  |
 #--#
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFF6ud+MzCiFWcgm94RAlYrAJ456MPA6soccI1crK2KghUa5FWQTgCeKyMx
aJQOIl3XgqdSEf6MtPKjPVY=
=S3hl
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: One more question to the candidates

[Aigars Mahinovs]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

> Forgot to ask this question: In your opinion, what is a good length of
> total term for a DPL?

IMHO one year is good enough as it provides a good way to re-evaluate
the plans. If a DPL is doing his job good enough, then he should be
re-elected to continue his plans. In that context the term becomes
irrelevant.

- --
Best regards,
Aigars Mahinovsmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 #--#
 | .''`. Debian GNU/Linux  LAKA |
 |: :' :  http://www.debian.org  &  http://www.laka.lv  |
 |`. `' |
 |  `-  |
 #--#
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFF6tLBMzCiFWcgm94RAj++AKCoFHrTMUrd/7spmhrFdA6BOj/XCwCgqEGs
K7V+0uCfwVp67PgB0TWuExg=
=cfLK
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Question to the candidates: inclusion of the kFreeBSD-* ports

[Raphael Hertzog]

On Sun, 04 Mar 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
> The other side is just making the Debian mirror network available for
> kfreebsd users. With only a couple of dozen apparent users, I'm not
> really convinced that's particularly valuable though. YMMV.

Why did we do SCC for then ?

I'm certainly uneasy with your answers. To me, having a Debian GNU/FreeBSD
looks like a very valuable goal and we should support it, each at our own
level. One shouldn't need more "justification" than this. Then we can
discuss constraints and related problems if there are some.

It seems pretty clear that they have done much progress already, and we
should be glad that they want to go to the next step. 

Most of your other answers relate to possible problems that do not
concern the ftpmasters in the first place. I'd like to know what problems
the inclusion of kfreebsd-i386 would create for ftpmasters.

Cheers,
-- 
Raphaël Hertzog

Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Question to the candidates: inclusion of the kFreeBSD-* ports

[Mike Hommey]

On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 06:13:28PM +1000, Anthony Towns 
 wrote:
> But what I mean is more that maintaining two simple Debian patches (one
> for Linux, one for kFreeBSD) is probably simpler than maintaining one
> complicated Debian patch (with some conditional make cruft). And probably
> more importantly, it means that you can do immediately upload stuff for
> kfreebsd without *any* risk of breaking the Linux version. And even if
> you do autoimport patches from Linux to kFreeBSD, you have the option
> of not uploading the source for BSD unless it does actually build for BSD.

All this applies to the Hurd, and yet, it is an official port.

Mike


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Question to the candidates: inclusion of the kFreeBSD-* ports

[Josselin Mouette]

Le dimanche 04 mars 2007 à 18:13 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit :
> Yup, though that shouldn't be much of a challenge. The other problem
> is that the list doesn't seem active, so it's not incredibly clear that
> people are actively maintaining the port.

The number of patches submitted for this port should clarify the state
of its maintenance.

> > >I don't really see how it would benefit from being added to the archive,
> > porters NMU, 
> 
> I'm not seeing why you need to be in the archive to do NMUs to improve
> packages?

Because some maintainers refuse such NMUs for unofficial architectures.
Practically speaking, it is impossible to achieve the conditions for
testing qualification without being official. The amd64 port was
exceptional on this matter because it could gather a great number of
contributors, who could compensate for the extra amount of work required
because they were outside the archive.

> > posibility to start negotiation with RM to be included with 
> > lenny (after etch is out, of course), ...
> 
> That doesn't look realistic to me, and seems a bit premature as a
> justification for getting into the archive anyway.

Both kfreebsd ports are currently the closest ones to be able to reach
testing qualification, and they are much closer to it than the Hurd
port. If you reject them, what are you going to accept?

> But what I mean is more that maintaining two simple Debian patches (one
> for Linux, one for kFreeBSD) is probably simpler than maintaining one
> complicated Debian patch (with some conditional make cruft).

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA.

Sorry, but reading this just makes it obvious - to those who didn't
already know it - that you have not been doing serious maintainer work
lastly.

> And probably
> more importantly, it means that you can do immediately upload stuff for
> kfreebsd without *any* risk of breaking the Linux version. 

Yeah, sure, relibtoolize patches and conditional configure options have
caused incredible numbers of bugs. What an important problem with the
inclusion of this port, sure.

> Does that make it a bit clearer what I mean b?

Yes, it makes clear that you are ready to say anything to justify not
doing your ftpmaster job correctly.

> The other side is just making the Debian mirror network available for
> kfreebsd users. With only a couple of dozen apparent users, I'm not
> really convinced that's particularly valuable though. YMMV.

Again, you're dismissing requests with an egg-and-chicken loop.

-- 
 .''`.
: :' :  We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code.
`. `'   We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to
  `-our own. Resistance is futile.


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message	numériquement signée

Re: Question to the candidates: inclusion of the kFreeBSD-* ports

[Anthony Towns]

On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 09:50:24AM +0100, Petr Salinger wrote:
> >seems to list under three DDs actively involved in the port,
> OK, we miss one more current DD listed here.

Yup, though that shouldn't be much of a challenge. The other problem
is that the list doesn't seem active, so it's not incredibly clear that
people are actively maintaining the port.

> >I don't really see how it would benefit from being added to the archive,
> porters NMU, 

I'm not seeing why you need to be in the archive to do NMUs to improve
packages?

I mean, you need to make sure you don't break the package (on Linux,
Hurd, whatever) while you fix it for kfreebsd, and you don't get to
do 0-day NMUs, or ignore feedback from the maintainer, and such -- but
sending patches to the BTS, tracking them with a usertag, and NMUing the
ones that don't get added still seems entirely reasonable, and feasible.

That's still about improving Debian, in that case you're just making
the source we distribute able to be easily compiled for GNU/FreeBSD.

> posibility to start negotiation with RM to be included with 
> lenny (after etch is out, of course), ...

That doesn't look realistic to me, and seems a bit premature as a
justification for getting into the archive anyway.

> >Personally, due to things like [0],
> There are only different arguments passed to configure ...

It's extra complexity. Thinking about it in a different context, it's
not the right solution either -- that would be (afaics) to autodetect
the presence of SELinux in ./configure, so you only need an option if
you're being exceptional.

But what I mean is more that maintaining two simple Debian patches (one
for Linux, one for kFreeBSD) is probably simpler than maintaining one
complicated Debian patch (with some conditional make cruft). And probably
more importantly, it means that you can do immediately upload stuff for
kfreebsd without *any* risk of breaking the Linux version. And even if
you do autoimport patches from Linux to kFreeBSD, you have the option
of not uploading the source for BSD unless it does actually build for BSD.

Does that make it a bit clearer what I mean b?

> >I tend to think having different sources for different OSes
> >is likely to make sense; which isn't something we can manage
> >with the main archive as it stands.

?

The other side is just making the Debian mirror network available for
kfreebsd users. With only a couple of dozen apparent users, I'm not
really convinced that's particularly valuable though. YMMV.

Cheers,
aj



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Question to the candidates: inclusion of the kFreeBSD-* ports

[Petr Salinger]

Hi.

Anthony Towns  wrote:


seems to list under three DDs actively involved in the port,


OK, we miss one more current DD listed here.


I don't really see how it would benefit from being added to the archive,


porters NMU, posibility to start negotiation with RM to be included with 
lenny (after etch is out, of course), ...



Personally, due to things like [0],


There are only different arguments passed to configure ...


I tend to think having different sources for different OSes
is likely to make sense; which isn't something we can manage
with the main archive as it stands.


Please, could you elaborate a little bit more with your
ftpmaster hat on in #369797 and ask for help with this issue ?

Regards

Petr


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Question to the candidates: inclusion of the kFreeBSD-* ports

[Julien BLACHE]

Anthony Towns  wrote:

> Personally, due to things like [0], I tend to think having different
> sources for different OSes is likely to make sense; which isn't something
> we can manage with the main archive as it stands.

I disagree here.

Building for different OSes from the same source will improve
portability and quality.

We have a long history of helping make free software more portable
accross architectures, let's just take it to the next step.


As for the number of developers, there are a couple more than is told
on the qualification page, although obviously not all of them are DDs
(but that can be fixed).

I think we'll attract even more people once kFreeBSD will be an
official port. Also, consider that kFreeBSD enthusiasts will probably
join some of the biggest maintenance teams to help out with kFreeBSD
issues, which will also benefit to the current Linux ports.


And I truly hope Sun will re-license OpenSolaris under the GPL so we
can have an official OpenSolaris port too.

JB.

-- 
 Julien BLACHE - Debian & GNU/Linux Developer - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
 
 Public key available on  - KeyID: F5D6 5169 
 GPG Fingerprint : 935A 79F1 C8B3 3521 FD62 7CC7 CD61 4FD7 F5D6 5169 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Question to the candidates: inclusion of the kFreeBSD-* ports

[Frank Küster]

Anthony Towns  wrote:

> Personally, due to things like [0], I tend to think having different
> sources for different OSes is likely to make sense; which isn't something
> we can manage with the main archive as it stands.
>
> Cheers,
> aj
>
> [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/06/msg00012.html

I'm puzzled.  The mail you cite explains a really simple way to make a
source buildable with SElinux on linux, and without on other OSes.  

How can you take that as an argument for separating the archives?

Regards, Frank
-- 
Dr. Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)

Re: Question to the candidates: inclusion of the kFreeBSD-* ports

[Anthony Towns]

On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 05:17:01PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> The kFreeBSD ports are now in a good enough shape to be included in
> unstable. Aur?lien Jarno got ftpmaster's approval for that during an
> informal conversation at debconf5 [1] but so far, there's been no
> progress on this front.

http://wiki.debian.org/ArchiveQualification/kfreebsd-i386

seems to list under three DDs actively involved in the port, about 40
systems in total using it, and 20% of the archive unbuildable.

I don't really see how it would benefit from being added to the archive,
tbh: it looks like a niche distribution that's working fine as it is.

Personally, due to things like [0], I tend to think having different
sources for different OSes is likely to make sense; which isn't something
we can manage with the main archive as it stands.

Cheers,
aj

[0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/06/msg00012.html



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Question to the candidates: inclusion of the kFreeBSD-* ports

[Gustavo Franco]

On 2/27/07, Julien BLACHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Hi DPL candidates,

The kFreeBSD ports are now in a good enough shape to be included in
unstable. Aurélien Jarno got ftpmaster's approval for that during an
informal conversation at debconf5 [1] but so far, there's been no
progress on this front.

Since then, the SCC split happened and ftp-master moved to ries, so
adding more architectures to the archive is no longer a problem, AIUI.

Hence, what is your position on including those new, non-Linux ports ?
What would the timeframe be like, according to you ?
(...)


Hi Julien,

I care a lot about the kfreebsd-* ports, i've been around #debian-bsd
since the OpenBSD port was still being worked on, but due to time
constraints i wasn't too helpful since then. With that in mind, i
wrote the answer for your question almost a month ago in the second
paragraph of my platform that you will be able to read soon. In a few
words: After elected, i'll do my best to push kfreebsd-* to be
officially released together with Lenny.

I think with the milestone above in mind, and also considering a goal
based release schedule (more on the subject on my platform), we will
have enough time to add the arches to the archive and work on the
pending bugs.

regards,
-- stratus
http://stratusandtheswirl.blogspot.com

Re: Question to the candidates: inclusion of the kFreeBSD-* ports

[Sam Hocevar]

On Tue, Feb 27, 2007, Julien BLACHE wrote:

> Hence, what is your position on including those new, non-Linux ports ?

   Favourable.

> What would the timeframe be like, according to you ?

   I see no reason to wait a single day more.

   For newer ports not already mentioned, I would like to make the
process even faster. Provided the maintainers for it are here, once a
bootstrapping process and a build daemon exist, the port should benefit
from our infrastructure (build.d.o, bugs.d.o, ftp archive) as soon as
possible.

> If an ftpmaster was to charge an amount of money to include the new
> architectures (as was the case for amd64), what would, according to
> you, be a reasonable amount ?

   I don't know. How much is a pony nowadays?

Regards,
-- 
Sam.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Question to the candidates: inclusion of the kFreeBSD-* ports

[Petr Salinger]

Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Ah, I expected the candidates to take the 5 minutes it takes to get up
to speed wrt the kFreeBSD ports by reading the appropriate status
pages.


I can't be expected to know everything about Debian; in this particular
case, I didn't even know there *were* such status pages. If you could
give me a link, I wouldn't mind reading it and perhaps following up with
a better response.



Please, look at mail to d-d-a from this month

http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2007/02/msg3.html

It contains all information from porters side.
ftpmaster side is just silent :-(

Petr


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Question to the candidates: inclusion of the kFreeBSD-* ports

[Aurelien Jarno]

Julien BLACHE a écrit :
> Hi DPL candidates,
> 
> The kFreeBSD ports are now in a good enough shape to be included in
> unstable. Aurélien Jarno got ftpmaster's approval for that during an
> informal conversation at debconf5 [1] but so far, there's been no
> progress on this front.
> 
> Since then, the SCC split happened and ftp-master moved to ries, so
> adding more architectures to the archive is no longer a problem, AIUI.

Note that we have also been asked to filled a page on the wiki, and this
has been done [1].

Cheers,
Aurelien

[1] http://wiki.debian.org/ArchiveQualification/kfreebsd-i386

-- 
  .''`.  Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
 : :' :  Debian developer   | Electrical Engineer
 `. `'   [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   `-people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Question to the candidates: inclusion of the kFreeBSD-* ports

[Julien BLACHE]

Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>> Totally agreed.  Also, I think it was both courteous and wise to try
>> to respond promptly; if you let a question sit, in my experience, it
>> becomes harder to answer.
>
> In particular if one wants to answer the rest of the mail at once.
> People start wondering "why is he avoiding that part?".

In such cases, something along the line of "I need some more time to
answer this particular point, let me get back to you on that ASAP"
comes to mind.

JB.

-- 
 Julien BLACHE - Debian & GNU/Linux Developer - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
 
 Public key available on  - KeyID: F5D6 5169 
 GPG Fingerprint : 935A 79F1 C8B3 3521 FD62 7CC7 CD61 4FD7 F5D6 5169 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Question to the candidates: inclusion of the kFreeBSD-* ports

[Frank Küster]

Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 07:05:02PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 06:51:24PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
>> > If you're not doing that when answering questions during the campaign,
>> > how can I assume that you'll actually do when you'll be DPL ?
>> 
>> The amount of questions asked during a typical DPL campaign period is
>> nearly insane.
>> 
>> I'd rather have a DPL that can prioritize and spend his time on what
>> would benefit the project the most than one that'd try to do everything
>> at the same time as good as it gets -- and running the risk of in the
>> end not achieving much at all.
>
> Totally agreed.  Also, I think it was both courteous and wise to try
> to respond promptly; if you let a question sit, in my experience, it
> becomes harder to answer.

In particular if one wants to answer the rest of the mail at once.
People start wondering "why is he avoiding that part?".

Regards, Frank
-- 
Dr. Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)

Re: Question to the candidates: inclusion of the kFreeBSD-* ports

[Cyril Brulebois]

Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (27/02/2007):
> I'd rather have a DPL that can prioritize and spend his time on what
> would benefit the project the most [...]

Like talking about ponies?

-- 
Cyril Brulebois


pgpsMgHYKjhFF.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Question to the candidates: inclusion of the kFreeBSD-* ports

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 06:51:24PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Ah, I expected the candidates to take the 5 minutes it takes to get up
> >> to speed wrt the kFreeBSD ports by reading the appropriate status
> >> pages.
> >
> > I can't be expected to know everything about Debian; in this particular
> > case, I didn't even know there *were* such status pages. If you could
> > give me a link, I wouldn't mind reading it and perhaps following up with
> > a better response.
> 
> From my recollection, there even was such a page written for m68k at
> the time. As an m68k porter, I just thought you knew a couple of
> things about the whole archive qualification process and the
> associated wiki pages.
> 
> I even find your name on
> 

*That* is what you're talking about. Okay.

Still, the second paragraph in my initial response (which you happily
snipped away) explains what I think should be done about this: the DPL
should not be telling people what to do; rather, the people involved
(porters, release managers, and ftpmasters) should discuss together what
the current state is; they should outline the work required to get from
the current state of affairs to the desired state; and *they*, not the
DPL, should come up with a plan to fix this.

If you're asking *me* for an estimate, then I'd say a few months after
the release of etch does not sound unreasonable. But it's not my call to
make.

> My point is, you did not have to reply today, so you could have taken
> the time to google for it or to ask around on IRC to get /some/
> information about the whole thing.

True.

On the other hand, in all fairness you'll have to agree that you did not
exactly give a lot of information or context either. Sure, I can look
that up myself, but if I need to spend ten minutes for just *finding*
context information (let alone *reading* it) for every question on this
mailinglist, then I'll never be able to answer all of them. I had to
google around and ask around for your statement that "ftpmasters were
charging an amount of money to include amd64", too. Not everyone
remembers these things, especially not if they don't consider them to be
a big deal, as was the case for me. If you would have just added a link
to the relevant pages and/or Message-ID's, I could much easier have
answered your question.

Anyway, EOT for me now -- I wasted way too much time on this thread
already.

-- 
 Home is where you have to wash the dishes.
  -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Question to the candidates: inclusion of the kFreeBSD-* ports

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 07:05:02PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 06:51:24PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> > If you're not doing that when answering questions during the campaign,
> > how can I assume that you'll actually do when you'll be DPL ?
> 
> The amount of questions asked during a typical DPL campaign period is
> nearly insane.
> 
> I'd rather have a DPL that can prioritize and spend his time on what
> would benefit the project the most than one that'd try to do everything
> at the same time as good as it gets -- and running the risk of in the
> end not achieving much at all.

Totally agreed.  Also, I think it was both courteous and wise to try
to respond promptly; if you let a question sit, in my experience, it
becomes harder to answer.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Question to the candidates: inclusion of the kFreeBSD-* ports

[Sune Vuorela]

On 2007-02-27, Julien BLACHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If an ftpmaster was to charge an amount of money to include the new
> architectures (as was the case for amd64), what would, according to

Huh? what has been the case for amd64? please enlighten me.

/Sune


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Question to the candidates: inclusion of the kFreeBSD-* ports

[Jeroen van Wolffelaar]

On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 06:51:24PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> If you're not doing that when answering questions during the campaign,
> how can I assume that you'll actually do when you'll be DPL ?

The amount of questions asked during a typical DPL campaign period is
nearly insane.

I'd rather have a DPL that can prioritize and spend his time on what
would benefit the project the most than one that'd try to do everything
at the same time as good as it gets -- and running the risk of in the
end not achieving much at all.

--Jeroen

-- 
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357)
http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Question to the candidates: inclusion of the kFreeBSD-* ports

[Julien BLACHE]

Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Giving a reasonable time estimate would require me to know a *slight*
> bit more about the FreeBSD ports than I do at this point in time; so I
> won't try it.

Ah, I expected the candidates to take the 5 minutes it takes to get up
to speed wrt the kFreeBSD ports by reading the appropriate status
pages.

You just lost my vote.

JB.

-- 
 Julien BLACHE - Debian & GNU/Linux Developer - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
 
 Public key available on  - KeyID: F5D6 5169 
 GPG Fingerprint : 935A 79F1 C8B3 3521 FD62 7CC7 CD61 4FD7 F5D6 5169 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Question to the candidates: inclusion of the kFreeBSD-* ports

[Mohammed Adnène Trojette]

On Tue, Feb 27, 2007, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> I would worry much more if ftpmasters refused patches implementing
> their projects when at the same time they are seeking funding. It's
> unlikely to ever happen IMO.

What do you think about them just "refusing patches" or ignoring them
(not commenting on how the patch should be improved to get included)?

-- 
Mohammed Adnène Trojette


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Question to the candidates: inclusion of the kFreeBSD-* ports

[Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt]

Sune Vuorela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2007-02-27, Julien BLACHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If an ftpmaster was to charge an amount of money to include the new
>> architectures (as was the case for amd64), what would, according to
> Huh? what has been the case for amd64? please enlighten me.

Please wait for -private declassification.

kthxbye,
Marc
-- 
BOFH #224:
Jan  9 16:41:27 huber su: 'su root' succeeded for  on /dev/pts/1


pgpCZxpOvAQJt.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Question to the candidates: inclusion of the kFreeBSD-* ports

[Julien BLACHE]

Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>> Ah, I expected the candidates to take the 5 minutes it takes to get up
>> to speed wrt the kFreeBSD ports by reading the appropriate status
>> pages.
>
> I can't be expected to know everything about Debian; in this particular
> case, I didn't even know there *were* such status pages. If you could
> give me a link, I wouldn't mind reading it and perhaps following up with
> a better response.

>From my recollection, there even was such a page written for m68k at
the time. As an m68k porter, I just thought you knew a couple of
things about the whole archive qualification process and the
associated wiki pages.

I even find your name on



My point is, you did not have to reply today, so you could have taken
the time to google for it or to ask around on IRC to get /some/
information about the whole thing.

If you're not doing that when answering questions during the campaign,
how can I assume that you'll actually do when you'll be DPL ?

JB.

-- 
 Julien BLACHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  |  Debian, because code matters more 
 Debian & GNU/Linux Developer|   
 Public key available on  - KeyID: F5D6 5169 
 GPG Fingerprint : 935A 79F1 C8B3 3521 FD62 7CC7 CD61 4FD7 F5D6 5169 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: One more question to the candidates

[Sam Hocevar]

On Mon, Feb 26, 2007, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:

> I was unclear again. I meant, "how many times will you seek
> re-election if you are re-elected?"

   Zero times.

   I think one year is already enough to achieve great things. Two years
is OK if the project believes the DPL did good. After that, fresh ideas
are needed.

Regards,
-- 
Sam.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Question to the candidates: inclusion of the kFreeBSD-* ports

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 05:17:01PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> Hi DPL candidates,
> 
> The kFreeBSD ports are now in a good enough shape to be included in
> unstable. Aurélien Jarno got ftpmaster's approval for that during an
> informal conversation at debconf5 [1] but so far, there's been no
> progress on this front.
> 
> Since then, the SCC split happened and ftp-master moved to ries, so
> adding more architectures to the archive is no longer a problem, AIUI.
> 
> Hence, what is your position on including those new, non-Linux ports ?
> What would the timeframe be like, according to you ?

Giving a reasonable time estimate would require me to know a *slight*
bit more about the FreeBSD ports than I do at this point in time; so I
won't try it.

It seems prudent, however, to have a look at this together with everyone
involved: the porters, the ftpmasters, and the release team. If they
manage to come up with a plan, we should implement it. I think the role
of the DPL in that picture does not have to be much more than getting
the different parties talking, if even that.

> If an ftpmaster was to charge an amount of money to include the new
> architectures (as was the case for amd64), what would, according to
> you, be a reasonable amount ?

That's up to the ftpmaster and the person paying. The alternative is to
wait until one of the ftpmasters has time to do the necessary work,
which may well take too long.

-- 
 Home is where you have to wash the dishes.
  -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Question to the candidates: inclusion of the kFreeBSD-* ports

[Raphael Hertzog]

Hi Julien,

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> Since then, the SCC split happened and ftp-master moved to ries, so
> adding more architectures to the archive is no longer a problem, AIUI.
> 
> Hence, what is your position on including those new, non-Linux ports ?

I have no problem with them and I welcome them.

> What would the timeframe be like, according to you ?

I have no idea of the reasons explaining the delays. But it would seem
logical to do that soon in the lenny cycle (a few weeks after etch
released).

If some other problems are to be resolved, then we should ask the
ftpmasters what they are. Anthony's answer to this question might
bring us some more light on this topic.

> If an ftpmaster was to charge an amount of money to include the new
> architectures (as was the case for amd64), what would, according to
> you, be a reasonable amount ?

An ftpmaster must not require money to integrate a new architecture.

I know Anthony got paid for AMD64 but AFAIK it's mainly because the SCC
split was blocking the inclusion of AMD64. Since people got fedup, a
company helped resolve the problem by giving time to Anthony to actually
make it happen sooner (even though we were already quite late).

It's in the spirit of his "AJ Market" experiment:
http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/blog/2005/11/16

I would worry much more if ftpmasters refused patches implementing
their projects when at the same time they are seeking funding. It's
unlikely to ever happen IMO.

Cheers,
-- 
Raphaël Hertzog

Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Question to the candidates: inclusion of the kFreeBSD-* ports

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 06:25:31PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > Giving a reasonable time estimate would require me to know a *slight*
> > bit more about the FreeBSD ports than I do at this point in time; so I
> > won't try it.
> 
> Ah, I expected the candidates to take the 5 minutes it takes to get up
> to speed wrt the kFreeBSD ports by reading the appropriate status
> pages.

I can't be expected to know everything about Debian; in this particular
case, I didn't even know there *were* such status pages. If you could
give me a link, I wouldn't mind reading it and perhaps following up with
a better response.

-- 
 Home is where you have to wash the dishes.
  -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Question to the candidates: inclusion of the kFreeBSD-* ports

[Raphael Hertzog]

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007, Mohammed Adnène Trojette wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2007, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > I would worry much more if ftpmasters refused patches implementing
> > their projects when at the same time they are seeking funding. It's
> > unlikely to ever happen IMO.
> 
> What do you think about them just "refusing patches" or ignoring them
> (not commenting on how the patch should be improved to get included)?

That's obviously part of the generic "communication" problem. I treat that
in my platform.

Cheers,
-- 
Raphaël Hertzog

Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Question to the candidates: inclusion of the kFreeBSD-* ports

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 06:20:14PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 05:17:01PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> > If an ftpmaster was to charge an amount of money to include the new
> > architectures (as was the case for amd64), what would, according to
> > you, be a reasonable amount ?
> 
> That's up to the ftpmaster and the person paying. The alternative is to
> wait until one of the ftpmasters has time to do the necessary work,
> which may well take too long.

I was told on IRC that this statement seems to "support ftpmasters
soliciting bribes". That's not what it intended to say, so let me
clarify.

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with a third party
(either a person or a company) paying a Debian Developer to do some work
on a given task; doing so would allow that Developer to prioritize that
particular task above other things which would otherwise get in the way,
and if that person or company has a business that could make a lot more
money if the task in question got done sooner rather than later, that
would quite clearly help them.

The amount of money required for the ftpmaster to indeed prioritize the
task in question above other things (like "paid work") is up to
negotiation between the Debian Developer and the third party.

A Debian Developer should not, however, refuse to do a given task unless
he or she is paid, and should also not stand in the way of other
developers stepping up to do that task in their place.

-- 
 Home is where you have to wash the dishes.
  -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Question to the candidates: inclusion of the kFreeBSD-* ports

[Julien BLACHE]

Hi DPL candidates,

The kFreeBSD ports are now in a good enough shape to be included in
unstable. Aurélien Jarno got ftpmaster's approval for that during an
informal conversation at debconf5 [1] but so far, there's been no
progress on this front.

Since then, the SCC split happened and ftp-master moved to ries, so
adding more architectures to the archive is no longer a problem, AIUI.

Hence, what is your position on including those new, non-Linux ports ?
What would the timeframe be like, according to you ?

If an ftpmaster was to charge an amount of money to include the new
architectures (as was the case for amd64), what would, according to
you, be a reasonable amount ?

Thanks,

JB.

[1] 


-- 
 Julien BLACHE - Debian & GNU/Linux Developer - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
 
 Public key available on  - KeyID: F5D6 5169 
 GPG Fingerprint : 935A 79F1 C8B3 3521 FD62 7CC7 CD61 4FD7 F5D6 5169 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: One more question to the candidates

[Anthony Towns]

On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 10:31:29AM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> Forgot to ask this question: In your opinion, what is a good length of
> total term for a DPL?

AIUI, we've never had a DPL last for three years -- Ian Murdock and Bruce
Perens were two-and-a-half each (and didn't have competed elections),
Wichert Akkerman and Martin Michlmayr were two years each, and everyone
else has only had one.

TBH, after last year, I'm half tempted to say "six months" -- but
hopefully more if you have multiple people who're essentially capable
of being DPL on their own, but are working together instead.

Cheers,
aj



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: One more question to the candidates

[Gustavo Franco]

On 2/26/07, Kalle Kivimaa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Forgot to ask this question: In your opinion, what is a good length of
total term for a DPL?


Hi Kalle,

Maybe one year isn't enough to work on key topics to see a release (as
a DPL), but i don't plan to be a candidate for a second time, if
elected. My plan is cover every topic i wrote in my platform you will
read soon, in one year.

thanks,
-- stratus
http://stratusandtheswirl.blogspot.com


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: One more question to the candidates

[Raphael Hertzog]

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 10:31:29AM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> >> Forgot to ask this question: In your opinion, what is a good length of
> >> total term for a DPL?
> >
> > I have always thought that a one-year term might be too short, since it
> > does not allow for too much action by the DPL. However, I never felt
> > strongly enough about this to actually take the necessary steps to
> > increase the term.
> 
> I was unclear again. I meant, "how many times will you seek
> re-election if you are re-elected?"

I don't know and I don't care much. I'll try to do as much as possible in
the first term and then I'll check if I have energy left and confidence
that I can still be useful in that position.

In my case, given that I promote a DPL board, it would be interesting to
have a rotation of a half or a third of the board each year. It gives more
continuity to the position. But that's constitutional details that I keep
for the future when we have some more positive experience with a board.

Cheers,
-- 
Raphaël Hertzog

Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: One more question to the candidates

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 04:18:05PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 10:31:29AM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> >> Forgot to ask this question: In your opinion, what is a good length of
> >> total term for a DPL?
> >
> > I have always thought that a one-year term might be too short, since it
> > does not allow for too much action by the DPL. However, I never felt
> > strongly enough about this to actually take the necessary steps to
> > increase the term.
> 
> I was unclear again. I meant, "how many times will you seek
> re-election if you are re-elected?"

Oh, okay. I don't feel it's prudent to comment on that right now; many
things can happen in a year, and even if I do feel that a one-year term
might be too short, fact is that we /do/ have a one-year term now.

Whether I will run next year will highly depend on what Debian looks
like by then. Since I'm not a fortuneteller, I can't know what Debian
will look like one year from now, nor whether I think running then will
be a good idea.

Having said that, I don't think I won't run again next year if I feel
there's something I can do to improve Debian by then.

-- 
 Home is where you have to wash the dishes.
  -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: One more question to the candidates

[Kalle Kivimaa]

Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 10:31:29AM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
>> Forgot to ask this question: In your opinion, what is a good length of
>> total term for a DPL?
>
> I have always thought that a one-year term might be too short, since it
> does not allow for too much action by the DPL. However, I never felt
> strongly enough about this to actually take the necessary steps to
> increase the term.

I was unclear again. I meant, "how many times will you seek
re-election if you are re-elected?"

-- 
* Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P)  *
*   PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer   *


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: One more question to the candidates

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 10:31:29AM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> Forgot to ask this question: In your opinion, what is a good length of
> total term for a DPL?

I have always thought that a one-year term might be too short, since it
does not allow for too much action by the DPL. However, I never felt
strongly enough about this to actually take the necessary steps to
increase the term.

-- 
 Home is where you have to wash the dishes.
  -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

One more question to the candidates

[Kalle Kivimaa]

Forgot to ask this question: In your opinion, what is a good length of
total term for a DPL?

-- 
* Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P)  *
*   PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer   *


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: A(nother) question to the candidates

[Martin Michlmayr]

* Mario Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-22 14:14]:
> OK, I admit I am late.  I wanted to ask this some days ago, but
> apparently forgot about it, and now, the voting period already
> started.  If you feel for some reason that it is inappropriate to
> answer this question after the voting period has started, I'll have
> to accept this.

Since the campaigning period is over, I've responded off-list.  If
anyone is interested in the reply, feel free to contact me.
-- 
Martin Michlmayr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: A(nother) question to the candidates

[Mario Lang]

"Benj. Mako Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 02:14:39PM +0100, Mario Lang wrote:
>> I have seen lots of discussions about CDD and splitting up Debian
>> into a core and more-or-less independent topic specific sections
>> recently. While I can perfectly understand the motivation behind
>> these discussions, I have one particular "fear" in this direction.
>> To the candidates: What do you think how we should determine which
>> software components go into the core system, and which have to go
>> into separately provided "distros"?  On which criteria, in our
>> opinion, should we base those decisions?
>
> I'm not sure who is advocating this vision of CDDs your question seems
> to be related to.
>
> AIUI the dominant CDD vision (the one being pushed by
> Debian-Edu/Skolelinux, Debian-NP, and some others) is a framework that
> allows people to create Custom Distribution *fully* within a Debian
> system through two types of work (the technology people are using
> right now is different but we all think it would be great to work on a
> common infrastructure as well):
>
> (1) Custom package selection: some people are big on tasks; others
> like Meta-Packages; others are happy with a list of packages
> passed to the installer and never referred to again.
>
> (2) Custom package configuration. The only compelling solution I've
> heard of to do this within Debian is the addition of low-priority
> or un-asked Debconf questions to existing packages.
>
> Now obviously, achieving these goals is going to take some time and
> those of us that would like usable distros in the near future are
> going to need to find (and in fact have found) interim solutions.
>
> More information is on our wiki page:
>   http://wiki.debian.net/index.cgi?CustomDebian

Thanks for this clarification.  It definitely sounds good to me
if the long-term goal at least is to integrate the results of such work
back into Debian.

> In any case, I don't know know of any CDD developers who are
> advocating breaking up Debian into a core system and other bits. I
> have heard something like this discussed in terms of making releases
> more easy by limiting a release to a small core part of the
> distro. CDDs may have been brought up in this regard.

Yes, it seems I fell victim to the confusion you mentioned above.
I should really get it into my head that CDD is a kind of a trademark,
not just a name for a concept.  I tend to think abut all the
splitting ideas as CDD, simply because "Custom" is a good word for any kind
of customisation, not necessarily limited to the ones that are
fed back into the original tree.

> Quite honestly, I think there's *way* too much overlap between different
> CDDs to make this sort of division very practical.

Thats what I've read other people say too.

OK, thanks to you and Gergely for taking the time to reply,
and my appologies to all others for even raising this issue
at such an inappropriate point of time.  I had no evil intentions,
I can assure you.

-- 
CYa,
  Mario | Debian Developer http://debian.org/>
| Get my public key via finger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| 1024D/7FC1A0854909BCCDBE6C102DDFFC022A6B113E44


pgpN75EA1pNLE.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: A(nother) question to the candidates

[Martin Michlmayr]

* Mario Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-22 14:14]:
> OK, I admit I am late.  I wanted to ask this some days ago, but
> apparently forgot about it, and now, the voting period already
> started.  If you feel for some reason that it is inappropriate to
> answer this question after the voting period has started, I'll have
> to accept this.

Since the campaigning period is over, I've responded off-list.  If
anyone is interested in the reply, feel free to contact me.
-- 
Martin Michlmayr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: A(nother) question to the candidates

[Mario Lang]

"Benj. Mako Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 02:14:39PM +0100, Mario Lang wrote:
>> I have seen lots of discussions about CDD and splitting up Debian
>> into a core and more-or-less independent topic specific sections
>> recently. While I can perfectly understand the motivation behind
>> these discussions, I have one particular "fear" in this direction.
>> To the candidates: What do you think how we should determine which
>> software components go into the core system, and which have to go
>> into separately provided "distros"?  On which criteria, in our
>> opinion, should we base those decisions?
>
> I'm not sure who is advocating this vision of CDDs your question seems
> to be related to.
>
> AIUI the dominant CDD vision (the one being pushed by
> Debian-Edu/Skolelinux, Debian-NP, and some others) is a framework that
> allows people to create Custom Distribution *fully* within a Debian
> system through two types of work (the technology people are using
> right now is different but we all think it would be great to work on a
> common infrastructure as well):
>
> (1) Custom package selection: some people are big on tasks; others
> like Meta-Packages; others are happy with a list of packages
> passed to the installer and never referred to again.
>
> (2) Custom package configuration. The only compelling solution I've
> heard of to do this within Debian is the addition of low-priority
> or un-asked Debconf questions to existing packages.
>
> Now obviously, achieving these goals is going to take some time and
> those of us that would like usable distros in the near future are
> going to need to find (and in fact have found) interim solutions.
>
> More information is on our wiki page:
>   http://wiki.debian.net/index.cgi?CustomDebian

Thanks for this clarification.  It definitely sounds good to me
if the long-term goal at least is to integrate the results of such work
back into Debian.

> In any case, I don't know know of any CDD developers who are
> advocating breaking up Debian into a core system and other bits. I
> have heard something like this discussed in terms of making releases
> more easy by limiting a release to a small core part of the
> distro. CDDs may have been brought up in this regard.

Yes, it seems I fell victim to the confusion you mentioned above.
I should really get it into my head that CDD is a kind of a trademark,
not just a name for a concept.  I tend to think abut all the
splitting ideas as CDD, simply because "Custom" is a good word for any kind
of customisation, not necessarily limited to the ones that are
fed back into the original tree.

> Quite honestly, I think there's *way* too much overlap between different
> CDDs to make this sort of division very practical.

Thats what I've read other people say too.

OK, thanks to you and Gergely for taking the time to reply,
and my appologies to all others for even raising this issue
at such an inappropriate point of time.  I had no evil intentions,
I can assure you.

-- 
CYa,
  Mario | Debian Developer http://debian.org/>
| Get my public key via finger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| 1024D/7FC1A0854909BCCDBE6C102DDFFC022A6B113E44


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: A(nother) question to the candidates

[Benj. Mako Hill]

Yes. I know I'm not a candidate but I thought I'd answer this anyway
to clarify what CDDs are doing and advocating. :)

On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 02:14:39PM +0100, Mario Lang wrote:
> I have seen lots of discussions about CDD and splitting up Debian
> into a core and more-or-less independent topic specific sections
> recently. While I can perfectly understand the motivation behind
> these discussions, I have one particular "fear" in this direction.
> To the candidates: What do you think how we should determine which
> software components go into the core system, and which have to go
> into separately provided "distros"?  On which criteria, in our
> opinion, should we base those decisions?

I'm not sure who is advocating this vision of CDDs your question seems
to be related to.

AIUI the dominant CDD vision (the one being pushed by
Debian-Edu/Skolelinux, Debian-NP, and some others) is a framework that
allows people to create Custom Distribution *fully* within a Debian
system through two types of work (the technology people are using
right now is different but we all think it would be great to work on a
common infrastructure as well):

(1) Custom package selection: some people are big on tasks; others
like Meta-Packages; others are happy with a list of packages
passed to the installer and never referred to again.

(2) Custom package configuration. The only compelling solution I've
heard of to do this within Debian is the addition of low-priority
or un-asked Debconf questions to existing packages.

Now obviously, achieving these goals is going to take some time and
those of us that would like usable distros in the near future are
going to need to find (and in fact have found) interim solutions.

More information is on our wiki page:
  http://wiki.debian.net/index.cgi?CustomDebian

In any case, I don't know know of any CDD developers who are
advocating breaking up Debian into a core system and other bits. I
have heard something like this discussed in terms of making releases
more easy by limiting a release to a small core part of the
distro. CDDs may have been brought up in this regard. Quite honestly,
I think there's *way* too much overlap between different CDDs to make
this sort of division very practical. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding
though.

Regards,
Mako


-- 
Benjamin Mako Hill
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mako.yukidoke.org/



pgpa22l8fqDtF.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: A(nother) question to the candidates

[Gergely Nagy]

(Being a fun candidate has the advantage of being able to ignore any
said and unsaid rules or agreements and whatnot, so I can answer every
mail I want to >;)

> I have seen lots of discussions about CDD and splitting up Debian
> into a core and more-or-less independent topic specific sections recently.
> While I can perfectly understand the motivation behind
> these discussions, I have one particular "fear" in this direction.
> To the candidates: What do you think how we should
> determine which software components go into the
> core system, and which have to go into separately provided
> "distros"?  On which criteria, in our opinion, should
> we base those decisions?

In my opinion, the default setup should be kept as is - everything is
debian core. The separation should be optional, so hardcore users will
feel at home, while newer, less experienced ones will use the distros
layer.

Hm. This is not good. This seems to be a sensical answer. EEEK! HELP!
I'M SICK! SOMEONE PLEASE PASS OVER THE PIPE!

THANKS!
-- 
Gergelybrush Pipewood

Re: A(nother) question to the candidates

[Benj. Mako Hill]

Yes. I know I'm not a candidate but I thought I'd answer this anyway
to clarify what CDDs are doing and advocating. :)

On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 02:14:39PM +0100, Mario Lang wrote:
> I have seen lots of discussions about CDD and splitting up Debian
> into a core and more-or-less independent topic specific sections
> recently. While I can perfectly understand the motivation behind
> these discussions, I have one particular "fear" in this direction.
> To the candidates: What do you think how we should determine which
> software components go into the core system, and which have to go
> into separately provided "distros"?  On which criteria, in our
> opinion, should we base those decisions?

I'm not sure who is advocating this vision of CDDs your question seems
to be related to.

AIUI the dominant CDD vision (the one being pushed by
Debian-Edu/Skolelinux, Debian-NP, and some others) is a framework that
allows people to create Custom Distribution *fully* within a Debian
system through two types of work (the technology people are using
right now is different but we all think it would be great to work on a
common infrastructure as well):

(1) Custom package selection: some people are big on tasks; others
like Meta-Packages; others are happy with a list of packages
passed to the installer and never referred to again.

(2) Custom package configuration. The only compelling solution I've
heard of to do this within Debian is the addition of low-priority
or un-asked Debconf questions to existing packages.

Now obviously, achieving these goals is going to take some time and
those of us that would like usable distros in the near future are
going to need to find (and in fact have found) interim solutions.

More information is on our wiki page:
  http://wiki.debian.net/index.cgi?CustomDebian

In any case, I don't know know of any CDD developers who are
advocating breaking up Debian into a core system and other bits. I
have heard something like this discussed in terms of making releases
more easy by limiting a release to a small core part of the
distro. CDDs may have been brought up in this regard. Quite honestly,
I think there's *way* too much overlap between different CDDs to make
this sort of division very practical. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding
though.

Regards,
Mako


-- 
Benjamin Mako Hill
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mako.yukidoke.org/



pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: A(nother) question to the candidates

[Gergely Nagy]

(Being a fun candidate has the advantage of being able to ignore any
said and unsaid rules or agreements and whatnot, so I can answer every
mail I want to >;)

> I have seen lots of discussions about CDD and splitting up Debian
> into a core and more-or-less independent topic specific sections recently.
> While I can perfectly understand the motivation behind
> these discussions, I have one particular "fear" in this direction.
> To the candidates: What do you think how we should
> determine which software components go into the
> core system, and which have to go into separately provided
> "distros"?  On which criteria, in our opinion, should
> we base those decisions?

In my opinion, the default setup should be kept as is - everything is
debian core. The separation should be optional, so hardcore users will
feel at home, while newer, less experienced ones will use the distros
layer.

Hm. This is not good. This seems to be a sensical answer. EEEK! HELP!
I'M SICK! SOMEONE PLEASE PASS OVER THE PIPE!

THANKS!
-- 
Gergelybrush Pipewood


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

A(nother) question to the candidates

[Mario Lang]

Hi.

OK, I admit I am late.  I wanted to ask this some days ago,
but apparently forgot about it, and now, the voting period already
started.  If you feel for some reason that it is inappropriate
to answer this question after the voting period has started,
I'll have to accept this.  Please accept my apologies for
asking this so late, but I cant resist to still try it:

I have seen lots of discussions about CDD and splitting up Debian
into a core and more-or-less independent topic specific sections recently.
While I can perfectly understand the motivation behind
these discussions, I have one particular "fear" in this direction.
To the candidates: What do you think how we should
determine which software components go into the
core system, and which have to go into separately provided
"distros"?  On which criteria, in our opinion, should
we base those decisions?

I'd like to explain in more detail what I am trying to get at,
but I am a bit afraid that this would tell everyone what I am
actually wanting to hear, so I'll wait for the first replies
before I go into more detail.

-- 
CYa,
  Mario | Debian Developer http://debian.org/>
| Get my public key via finger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| 1024D/7FC1A0854909BCCDBE6C102DDFFC022A6B113E44


pgpUCV6zQuWBu.pgp
Description: PGP signature

A(nother) question to the candidates

[Mario Lang]

Hi.

OK, I admit I am late.  I wanted to ask this some days ago,
but apparently forgot about it, and now, the voting period already
started.  If you feel for some reason that it is inappropriate
to answer this question after the voting period has started,
I'll have to accept this.  Please accept my apologies for
asking this so late, but I cant resist to still try it:

I have seen lots of discussions about CDD and splitting up Debian
into a core and more-or-less independent topic specific sections recently.
While I can perfectly understand the motivation behind
these discussions, I have one particular "fear" in this direction.
To the candidates: What do you think how we should
determine which software components go into the
core system, and which have to go into separately provided
"distros"?  On which criteria, in our opinion, should
we base those decisions?

I'd like to explain in more detail what I am trying to get at,
but I am a bit afraid that this would tell everyone what I am
actually wanting to hear, so I'll wait for the first replies
before I go into more detail.

-- 
CYa,
  Mario | Debian Developer http://debian.org/>
| Get my public key via finger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| 1024D/7FC1A0854909BCCDBE6C102DDFFC022A6B113E44


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Question to the candidates about Debian and government

[Bdale Garbee]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dale E Martin) writes:

> Do you have ideas about/interest in these issues?  Is it Debian's role to
> play, or someone else's?

My gut feeling is that this role might be more suited to SPI than Debian.

Bdale

Re: Question to the candidates about Debian and government

[Raphael Hertzog]

Le Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 09:46:33AM -0500, Dale E Martin écrivait:
> Do you have ideas about/interest in these issues?  Is it Debian's role to
> play, or someone else's?

I think that we shouldn't be a force that can influence a
government or anything like that. However I believe that we could
support third party initiatives that already exists. For example
in France, we have several associations which are working to
promote free software (including within the government) and 
Debian's support may help them to be more credible.

This may be facilitated if we have local representatives
of Debian who can prepare announces to be submitted to
the press team.

Cheers,
-- 
Raphaël Hertzog -+- http://strasbourg.linuxfr.org/~raphael/
Formation Linux et logiciel libre : http://www.logidee.com


pgpNvBDA90DiD.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Question to the candidates about Debian and government

[Dale E Martin]

This is from Branden's platform:

> As DPL, I would like to take steps to get Debian's voice heard in the
> halls of government if and where appropriate, so that our ideals -- and
> our means of achieving them -- are not legislated out of existence by
> governments hostile to them (or, more likely, governments that have sold
> sections of their lawbooks to large corporations comfortable with past
> models of intellectual property and its distribution).

To Branden:
Do you feel this should be a function of Debian, SPI or both?  Should this
effort be in cooperation with OSSI [1] or separate from it?  What about
other country's governments? Do you have specific ideas here or is this
just a general notion of what you'd like to do?

To the other candidates: 
Do you have ideas about/interest in these issues?  Is it Debian's role to
play, or someone else's?

Thanks,
Dale

[1] http://oss-institute.org/new_what_is.htm

-- 
Dale E. Martin, Clifton Labs, Inc.
Senior Computer Engineer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.cliftonlabs.com
pgp key available


pgpbxtJtL6R3l.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Question to the candidates about Debian and government

[Bdale Garbee]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dale E Martin) writes:

> Do you have ideas about/interest in these issues?  Is it Debian's role to
> play, or someone else's?

My gut feeling is that this role might be more suited to SPI than Debian.

Bdale


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Question to the candidates about Debian and government

[Raphael Hertzog]

Le Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 09:46:33AM -0500, Dale E Martin écrivait:
> Do you have ideas about/interest in these issues?  Is it Debian's role to
> play, or someone else's?

I think that we shouldn't be a force that can influence a
government or anything like that. However I believe that we could
support third party initiatives that already exists. For example
in France, we have several associations which are working to
promote free software (including within the government) and 
Debian's support may help them to be more credible.

This may be facilitated if we have local representatives
of Debian who can prepare announces to be submitted to
the press team.

Cheers,
-- 
Raphaël Hertzog -+- http://strasbourg.linuxfr.org/~raphael/
Formation Linux et logiciel libre : http://www.logidee.com



msg01422/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Question to the candidates about Debian and government

[Dale E Martin]

This is from Branden's platform:

> As DPL, I would like to take steps to get Debian's voice heard in the
> halls of government if and where appropriate, so that our ideals -- and
> our means of achieving them -- are not legislated out of existence by
> governments hostile to them (or, more likely, governments that have sold
> sections of their lawbooks to large corporations comfortable with past
> models of intellectual property and its distribution).

To Branden:
Do you feel this should be a function of Debian, SPI or both?  Should this
effort be in cooperation with OSSI [1] or separate from it?  What about
other country's governments? Do you have specific ideas here or is this
just a general notion of what you'd like to do?

To the other candidates: 
Do you have ideas about/interest in these issues?  Is it Debian's role to
play, or someone else's?

Thanks,
Dale

[1] http://oss-institute.org/new_what_is.htm

-- 
Dale E. Martin, Clifton Labs, Inc.
Senior Computer Engineer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.cliftonlabs.com
pgp key available



msg01421/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature