Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
Ed Cogburn wrote: >Because its already been done. mtms announced earlier that he's keeping a >mirror of our old non-free. And he's not going to get sued by anyone either. > > If there's already a mirror available of amd64 non-free, then what on earth are you complaining about? Just use the bytekeeper source until amd64 gets into sid. -- Alexander Rapp -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
* Ed Cogburn | We ARE Debian for Heaven's sake! I can't see that you've done anything at all for the AMD64 port, nor are you a DD. Please go troll somewhere else. -- Tollef Fog Heen,''`. UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are : :' : `. `' `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
Hi everybody, I'm only have a doubt, if someone make a mirror of the official debian (including non-free) and all that packages are ditributed is in danger to being sued? Accordingly with Goswin that's nothing about complain, only the main server of the distribution don't have non-free, the main server of non-free packages is still being alioth. I hope that packages still having the same process to update-compile as before, is'n it? Have a nice day. -- Engañarse por amor es el engaño más terrible; es una pérdida eterna para la que no hay compensación ni en el tiempo ni en la eternidad. Kierkegaard Jaime Ochoa Malagón Integrated Technology Tel: (55) 52 54 26 10
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
Ed Cogburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > (Note to others: if you want to attack and ridicule me some more, you'll need > to CC me, as I'm not longer subscribed to this list) Thank god. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
Ed Cogburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sunday 08 May 2005 4:23pm, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: >> Ed Tomlinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > On Sunday 08 May 2005 09:27, Joerg Jaspert wrote: >> >> On 10283 March 1977, Ed Tomlinson wrote: >> >> >> Whats going on == someone needs to check it. Thats it. >> >> > >> >> > That was the point made by Ed Cogburn. Its already been checked in >> >> > the other arch! If this is not the case please explain why. Without >> >> > that explanation I am forced to agree with Ed - the problem are >> >> > political... Which is the bane of debian. >> >> >> >> We are *NOT* Debian, thats all you need to get! >> > >> > Ok. So from what I understand you are worried there are packages that >> > debian can distribute but only debian has the permission... If this is >> > the case is there not a way you can ask debian to distribute just the non >> > free stuff? ie. This project builds the packages from debian sources, >> > debian hosts the non free stuff on one of their servers. >> >> Who is to say we are allowed to build the binaries? > > > This isn't an answer to his question. Obviously it isn't an answere but a questions. One designed to show him the errors of his ways. The project can't just build the packages from non-free since nothing says we have the right to. And in fact there are known cases the specificaly say we DONT. Wether Debian distributes it or someone else doesn't even figure into that. > He's saying why not let the AMD64 > non-free be distributed from a Debian server, since you're original excuse > was that "you aren't Debian". The answer is of course that you never even > bothered to ask "Debian" for help or for a statement about your identity that > would eliminate any theoretical legal threat. Hell, you could have just kept Hell, no. Why would we ever ask? We also never got those negative responses and rejections about this from the ftp-masters, the DPL, the DAM, the RMs, the Security team, We never asked for amd64 to be added to sid over a year ago and never filed a bug about it. No never. > non-free on alioth and linked to it from AMD64's new location until a > solution to the problem was found since non-free by itself is very small and > the move away from alioth was because of space reasons, but no, even keeping > the old location temporarily wasn't acceptable, non-free had to go, period. Actualy no. Space reasons actualy never figured into that for me. The new system is just some 10-20 times faster, has the right infrastructure, the right software, someone with root on the project. And the old location is still there. Even now it still has non-free although the old main/contrib parts have been removed. There are also still at least 2 mirrors of it with public access as you might have seen if you had bothered to check. > You saw a chance to get rid of non-free, even though its temporary, even > though a majority of DDs have officially disagreed with you in a vote, and > its only result is to annoy the AMD64 users until AMD64 returns to a "Debian" > server, all because of your extremist ideology. No DD has voted on the legality of a project outside of debian blidnly building and distributing packages from non-free. And even if they had it would not have any weight. When it came to adding the packages from alioth into the DAK and we hit non-free we took a step back, looked, saw that we can't just add it and decided to put it off till someone can look it over in detail. As you might have known if you had volunteered, joined the irc channel, help patch things together, discussed solutions, etc. I didn't see you doing any of that. Not now and not in the last 2 years. > I've been using Debian since pre-1.0 days when I got it off an Infomagic CD > when I didn't have regular net access, but the times have changed, certainly > the people around Debian have. I never would have thought that Debian would > reach the point where it would deliberately and **pointlessly** annoy its own > users because of software religion, instead of just trying to produce the > best Linux distro possible, but its apparently come to that. No wonder > Ubuntu looms large over Debian now, they're taking the best of Debian, but > leaving behind the religious wars, and they will now gain strength and speed And Ubuntu also leaves behind suspectible non-free packages. > as Debian slows down due to endless religious infighting. Anyway, its been > fun, but its time to move on now, apparently. Goodbye all. Let me ask just one questions: Do you have any idea who I or the other debian-amd64 members are and what we have done the last 2 years? You might also want to check those names against db.debian.org. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 1:59am, mtms wrote: > On 11 May 2005, 00:40, Ed Cogburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Because its already been done. mtms announced earlier that he's keeping > > a mirror of our old non-free. And he's not going to get sued by anyone > > either. > > Wait a mo! Not me, bytekeeper.as28747.net keeps the mirror. I'm not > involved with them in any way :) Oops! :) You posted the message, so I figured you had something to do with it. I'm wrong. Making assumptions about the messenger based on his message is a mistake I always try to avoid, its too bad others don't try to avoid doing the same. I apologize for the mistake, mtms. At least you're now officially off the hook, so all those hundreds of people lining up to sue over Debian's AMD64 port because its temporarily not on a Debian server won't go after you now. :) (Note to others: if you want to attack and ridicule me some more, you'll need to CC me, as I'm not longer subscribed to this list) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
On 11 May 2005, 00:40, Ed Cogburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Because its already been done. mtms announced earlier that he's keeping a > mirror of our old non-free. And he's not going to get sued by anyone either. Wait a mo! Not me, bytekeeper.as28747.net keeps the mirror. I'm not involved with them in any way :) -- <@,@> Il corpo del povero cadrebbe subito in pezzi [`-'] se non fosse legato ben stretto dal filo dei sogni -"-"---Anonimo indiano -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
On Sunday 08 May 2005 4:23pm, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Ed Tomlinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Sunday 08 May 2005 09:27, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > >> On 10283 March 1977, Ed Tomlinson wrote: > >> >> Whats going on == someone needs to check it. Thats it. > >> > > >> > That was the point made by Ed Cogburn. Its already been checked in > >> > the other arch! If this is not the case please explain why. Without > >> > that explanation I am forced to agree with Ed - the problem are > >> > political... Which is the bane of debian. > >> > >> We are *NOT* Debian, thats all you need to get! > > > > Ok. So from what I understand you are worried there are packages that > > debian can distribute but only debian has the permission... If this is > > the case is there not a way you can ask debian to distribute just the non > > free stuff? ie. This project builds the packages from debian sources, > > debian hosts the non free stuff on one of their servers. > > Who is to say we are allowed to build the binaries? This isn't an answer to his question. He's saying why not let the AMD64 non-free be distributed from a Debian server, since you're original excuse was that "you aren't Debian". The answer is of course that you never even bothered to ask "Debian" for help or for a statement about your identity that would eliminate any theoretical legal threat. Hell, you could have just kept non-free on alioth and linked to it from AMD64's new location until a solution to the problem was found since non-free by itself is very small and the move away from alioth was because of space reasons, but no, even keeping the old location temporarily wasn't acceptable, non-free had to go, period. You saw a chance to get rid of non-free, even though its temporary, even though a majority of DDs have officially disagreed with you in a vote, and its only result is to annoy the AMD64 users until AMD64 returns to a "Debian" server, all because of your extremist ideology. I've been using Debian since pre-1.0 days when I got it off an Infomagic CD when I didn't have regular net access, but the times have changed, certainly the people around Debian have. I never would have thought that Debian would reach the point where it would deliberately and **pointlessly** annoy its own users because of software religion, instead of just trying to produce the best Linux distro possible, but its apparently come to that. No wonder Ubuntu looms large over Debian now, they're taking the best of Debian, but leaving behind the religious wars, and they will now gain strength and speed as Debian slows down due to endless religious infighting. Anyway, its been fun, but its time to move on now, apparently. Goodbye all. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
On Tuesday 10 May 2005 2:09pm, Alexander Rapp wrote: > Ed Cogburn wrote: > >If you had read my response to Goswin, you would know we aren't talking > > about release dates for anything, I'm talking about Sid, which will > > eventually become Etch, but obviously will exist for a long time before > > Etch does. :) The issue here is just the co-location of non-free and the > > AMD64 repository (whatever its called, wherever its located). Those 2 > > will find themselves together again on debian.org long before Etch sees > > the light of day, but the point is there is no reason to separate them > > *now*. > > If you are so certain that providing non-free amd64 from a non-debian > server will not pose any legal problems, and so determined that there > are packages (other than nvidia) in non-free that people actually want > to use, then why don't you host it yourself? You can "apt-get source > -b" the source packages from ftp.debian.org, upload the amd64-compiled > .debs to any webserver you have access to, and get a script to generate > Packages.gz. Because its already been done. mtms announced earlier that he's keeping a mirror of our old non-free. And he's not going to get sued by anyone either. There is no legal threat, that's just the excuse they used to get rid of something they never wanted to keep, even though a majority vote of DDs voted to keep it. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
On Tuesday 10 May 2005 3:22pm, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > On 10285 March 1977, Ed Cogburn wrote: > >> Will you pay us for the work and cover legal fees if any should arise? > > > > Sure. Because any rational person knows it won't happen. > > Laywers arent rationale. > > > Give us one reasonable example of why some one would waste time and > > money to sue the amd64.debian.net server owner in this matter, when > > they have absolutely nothing to gain, and potentially a lot to LOSE > > if the judge gets angry about the pointlessness of their suit? > > With that logic: Why does SCO still exist? All laywers are rational enough to know to not waste their time going after an organization THAT DOESN'T HAVE A BILLION DOLLARS. That's why nobody is going to care, Debian is broke anyway, there is no point in a lawsuit. > > > Yes you can. That's my point. Non-free has already been vetted by > > Debian itself, and we are part of Debian. Any rational judge will see > > that, if given evidence by the Debian organization itself (see below). > > No we cant. Just get a CLUE, we are *NOT* debian. We are as similar as > one can get, but the Debian stuff is on .d.o hosts. What difference does it make where we are located if Debian itself says we're part of them? > > user. I'll bet if you had asked on d.d you could have quickly put > > together a list of 30 - 50 packages which were ok. So why nothing in > > over a week? Are you holding up all of non-free just because of 1 > > package? > > No. Because of all the crap that is in there and because WE HAVE MORE > IMPORTANT THINGS TODO - which includes reading crap from someone who > just trolls on lists and not does any work for it. Nobody did any work before because it wasn't necessary. Now you're telling us there has been no work done at all on non-free. So you guys really had no plan at all to get non-free moved over, did you? So why didn't you just say that to begin with? > > > And what is the point? We are Debian. It doesn't matter which server > > we're on. > > We arent, get a clue. I'm not the clueless one here. > > > Hogwash again. We aren't talking about *release* dates, Goswin, we're > > only talking about how long it takes before debian.org is ready to move > > the amd64 port onto it. Once sarge is out, everybody can get back to > > moving *forward*, as opposed to running in place right now, which means > > the ftpmasters of debian.org can do what they need to do to make room for > > pure64 *Sid*, and move it over so we get synced up as Etch. Sarge can > > stay where it is, that's not the issue. Getting the *next* Debian AMD64 > > port onto debian.org is not going to take 3 years. > > Hell, please go and read what amd64.d.n is and you would see what a mess > you just wrote. amd64.d.n will exist as long as Sarge is there. And I've said twice now that I'm not talking about Sarge, I'm talking about Sid. This has nothing to do with release dates on anything, its just about co-location of the port and non-free. > And actually there was one who just went over the non-free crap, looking > at the licenses, giving us something to work with. > If non-free is so important for you - why did you wasted time writing > such mails and havent done that work yourself? Because the work has bloody well already been DONE! Everybody knows we are destined to return to debian.org, and we ARE Debian now in all but a technicality, a technicality that won't make a bit of difference in court and goes away with a simple statement from Debian that we are part of them, just not on their servers yet. But you guys never bothered to ask, you just threw out non-free without thinking about it, because it was something you wanted to do anyway. > > Thats my last mail in this thread, I have more important things todo. Yea, like annoying users by leaving non-free behind just because you're still mad that the DDs voted to keep it. Sure. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
This one time, at band camp, Ed Cogburn said: > On Tuesday 10 May 2005 12:44pm, Rafael Rodríguez wrote: > > I don't know why some of you are making all that noise... if I have > > understood correctly, non-free will be made available after sarge release > > (which is supposed to happen within 3 or 4 weeks)... so... why bother the > > developers instead of thaking them for all the work they've already made? > > > Just trying to be helpful and point out to those developers that's there no > reason to hold back non-free at all. There isn't a problem, except the one > they are conjuring up. Besides, according to Goswin in the post you > responded to, it could be 3 years, not 3 weeks, by his logic (which I > disagree with as well). In order to be reasonably helpful, why not do something instead of demanding that the volunteers who have very nicely, and on their own time, do more for you? It seems to me that you can: A) host non-free yourself B) Go through all of the licenses in all of the packages in non-free (with the help of counsel, if need be) and determine what are redistributable by parties not Debian. Afterwards, submit a report to the amd64 archive maintainers. C) Have a little patience. Pick any combination of the above, but only if you are actually interested in seeing this get done. If that's not the motivation, we can all listen to more reasons why the nice folks already shouldering all the load should get to do more. Take care, -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - pgpx5L3UruFPR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lennart Sorensen) writes: > On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 08:13:39PM +0200, mtms wrote: >> Just out of curiosity, are pine sources distributed in "official" Debian >> Sarge? >> >> (the usual yes/no reply will suffice :)) > > As far as I can tell it is not. pine-tracker is the closest thing I can > find in sarge. http://packages.qa.debian.org/p/pine.html Last version4.62-1 Testing 4.62-1 Stable 4.44-4 Priority & Section optional - non-free/mail lftp ftp.de.debian.org:/debian/pool/non-free/p/pine> ls -rw-r--r-- 1 ftp ftp 9106 Apr 17 2002 pine-tracker_4.44-4_all.deb -rw-r--r-- 1 ftp ftp 10396 Jan 22 17:47 pine-tracker_4.62-1_all.deb -rw-r--r-- 1 ftp ftp 39266 Apr 17 2002 pine_4.44-4.diff.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 ftp ftp 657 Apr 17 2002 pine_4.44-4.dsc -rw-r--r-- 1 ftp ftp 3478476 Jan 10 2002 pine_4.44.orig.tar.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 ftp ftp 34224 Jan 22 17:47 pine_4.62-1.diff.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 ftp ftp 608 Jan 22 17:47 pine_4.62-1.dsc -rw-r--r-- 1 ftp ftp 4108969 Jan 22 17:47 pine_4.62.orig.tar.gz % cat pine_4.62-1.dsc -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.0 Source: pine Version: 4.62-1 Binary: pine, pine-tech-notes, pilot, pine-tracker ... Pine sources are legal to distribute. Pine-tracker (achitecture independant) tracks source uploads of pine and warns the user of the pine package about it. The pine deb itself has to be build and installed manually by the user. The autobuilder (if it would include non-free) would build it and upload it against the explicit wish of the author as stated in the license. Pine is an example of software in non-free that may not be build and distributed. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
On 10285 March 1977, Ed Cogburn wrote: >> Will you pay us for the work and cover legal fees if any should arise? > Sure. Because any rational person knows it won't happen. Laywers arent rationale. > Give us one reasonable example of why some one would waste time and > money to sue the amd64.debian.net server owner in this matter, when > they have absolutely nothing to gain, and potentially a lot to LOSE > if the judge gets angry about the pointlessness of their suit? With that logic: Why does SCO still exist? > Yes you can. That's my point. Non-free has already been vetted by Debian > itself, and we are part of Debian. Any rational judge will see that, if > given evidence by the Debian organization itself (see below). No we cant. Just get a CLUE, we are *NOT* debian. We are as similar as one can get, but the Debian stuff is on .d.o hosts. > user. I'll bet if you had asked on d.d you could have quickly put together a > list of 30 - 50 packages which were ok. So why nothing in over a week? Are > you holding up all of non-free just because of 1 package? No. Because of all the crap that is in there and because WE HAVE MORE IMPORTANT THINGS TODO - which includes reading crap from someone who just trolls on lists and not does any work for it. > And what is the point? We are Debian. It doesn't matter which server we're > on. We arent, get a clue. > Hogwash again. We aren't talking about *release* dates, Goswin, we're only > talking about how long it takes before debian.org is ready to move the amd64 > port onto it. Once sarge is out, everybody can get back to moving *forward*, > as opposed to running in place right now, which means the ftpmasters of > debian.org can do what they need to do to make room for pure64 *Sid*, and > move it over so we get synced up as Etch. Sarge can stay where it is, that's > not the issue. Getting the *next* Debian AMD64 port onto debian.org is not > going to take 3 years. Hell, please go and read what amd64.d.n is and you would see what a mess you just wrote. amd64.d.n will exist as long as Sarge is there. And actually there was one who just went over the non-free crap, looking at the licenses, giving us something to work with. If non-free is so important for you - why did you wasted time writing such mails and havent done that work yourself? Thats my last mail in this thread, I have more important things todo. -- bye Joerg Some AM after a mistake: Sigh. One shouldn't AM in the early AM, as it were. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
Ed Cogburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tuesday 10 May 2005 1:33pm, Lennart Sorensen wrote: >> On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 01:12:22PM -0400, Ed Cogburn wrote: >> > Just trying to be helpful and point out to those developers that's there >> > no reason to hold back non-free at all. There isn't a problem, except >> > the one they are conjuring up. Besides, according to Goswin in the post >> > you responded to, it could be 3 years, not 3 weeks, by his logic (which I >> > disagree with as well). >> >> So you think Etch will be released soon? > > > If you had read my response to Goswin, you would know we aren't talking about > release dates for anything, I'm talking about Sid, which will eventually > become Etch, but obviously will exist for a long time before Etch does. :) > The issue here is just the co-location of non-free and the AMD64 repository > (whatever its called, wherever its located). Those 2 will find themselves > together again on debian.org long before Etch sees the light of day, but the > point is there is no reason to separate them *now*. And that is where you are wrong. The amd64.debian.net archive is for sarge/stable as much as anything else. If the plan where to merge into debian completly when etch comes to live we wouldn't have moved to a new server one month before that happens. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
Ed Cogburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tuesday 10 May 2005 12:44pm, Rafael Rodríguez wrote: >> I don't know why some of you are making all that noise... if I have >> understood correctly, non-free will be made available after sarge release >> (which is supposed to happen within 3 or 4 weeks)... so... why bother the >> developers instead of thaking them for all the work they've already made? > > > Just trying to be helpful and point out to those developers that's there no > reason to hold back non-free at all. There isn't a problem, except the one > they are conjuring up. Besides, according to Goswin in the post you > responded to, it could be 3 years, not 3 weeks, by his logic (which I > disagree with as well). The sarge amd64 archive will remain till etch is released. When amd64 enters sid only unstable/testing will be on ftp-master. So amd64.debian.net will have to maintain non-free stable till etch is released, may that be 18 month after sarge or 3 years. Who knows. A lot longer than 1 month anyway. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 01:07:30PM -0400, Ed Cogburn wrote: > On Tuesday 10 May 2005 11:19am, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > Seriously, get some patience and don't inflame the situation > > please. Things like "most of that" is of zero help in deciding what > > can go in and what not. We know most of it can, the question is what > > packages are those in particular. We can't just add all of non-free > > and say it is mostly OK. > > Yes you can. That's my point. Non-free has already been vetted by Debian > itself, and we are part of Debian. Any rational judge will see that, if > given evidence by the Debian organization itself (see below). Are you a lawyer? If not, I'm not particularly inclined to believe you on this count. > > > Just establish the non-free section and move everything over. If anyone > > > complains then just drop the package they're complaining about. Of > > > course, NO ONE is going to complain since they know we will "become" > > > Debian soon anyway (and for all intents we ARE Debian - just not on their > > > server), and they've already given Debian permission to distribute. For > > > the rest of non-free, permission to distribute is not an issue, and not > > > the reason they're in non-free to begin with. > > > > The pine author would for one thing. > > Then load everything up but pine, if that's the only one you know of. It's the only one we know of /now/. There might be more. That's the whole problem. [rest of blatter snipped, doesn't make sense anyway] -- The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the pavement is precisely one bananosecond -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 08:13:39PM +0200, mtms wrote: > Just out of curiosity, are pine sources distributed in "official" Debian > Sarge? > > (the usual yes/no reply will suffice :)) As far as I can tell it is not. pine-tracker is the closest thing I can find in sarge. > http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/non-free/n/nvidia-graphics-drivers/nvidia-graphics-drivers_1.0.7174-3/nvidia-glx.copyright > > I'm not a lawyer, but it seems quite clear to me. Isn't it? > > Btw, when will come the time to check non-free will you please, pretty > please, put an eye to lha package too? Thanks in advance :)) Maybe we need a new thread of packages that have been checked and are OK to include. Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
On 10 May 2005, 17:19, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Just establish the non-free section and move everything over. If anyone > > complains then just drop the package they're complaining about. Of course, > > NO ONE is going to complain since they know we will "become" Debian soon > > anyway (and for all intents we ARE Debian - just not on their server), and > > they've already given Debian permission to distribute. For the rest of > > non-free, permission to distribute is not an issue, and not the reason > > they're in non-free to begin with. > > The pine author would for one thing. Just out of curiosity, are pine sources distributed in "official" Debian Sarge? (the usual yes/no reply will suffice :)) > In one point you are right though: > > NO ONE IS GOING TO CARE ABOUT OUR NON-FREE! None of us anyway. With > the exception of nvidia* package it seems. That is the only package > that users missed so far. http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/non-free/n/nvidia-graphics-drivers/nvidia-graphics-drivers_1.0.7174-3/nvidia-glx.copyright I'm not a lawyer, but it seems quite clear to me. Isn't it? Btw, when will come the time to check non-free will you please, pretty please, put an eye to lha package too? Thanks in advance :)) -- <@,@> Il corpo del povero cadrebbe subito in pezzi [`-'] se non fosse legato ben stretto dal filo dei sogni -"-"---Anonimo indiano -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
Ed Cogburn wrote: >If you had read my response to Goswin, you would know we aren't talking about >release dates for anything, I'm talking about Sid, which will eventually >become Etch, but obviously will exist for a long time before Etch does. :) >The issue here is just the co-location of non-free and the AMD64 repository >(whatever its called, wherever its located). Those 2 will find themselves >together again on debian.org long before Etch sees the light of day, but the >point is there is no reason to separate them *now*. > > If you are so certain that providing non-free amd64 from a non-debian server will not pose any legal problems, and so determined that there are packages (other than nvidia) in non-free that people actually want to use, then why don't you host it yourself? You can "apt-get source -b" the source packages from ftp.debian.org, upload the amd64-compiled .debs to any webserver you have access to, and get a script to generate Packages.gz. There is no "rational" reason why pure64 main and pure64 non-free need to be on the same server. By building and hosting the packages yourself for the short time until amd64 gets into etch, you can solve your own problem and help the community without putting the project at risk legally. -- Alexander Rapp -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
Ed, El mar, 10-05-2005 a las 13:48 -0400, Ed Cogburn escribiÃ: > If you had read my response to Goswin, you would know we aren't talking about > release dates for anything, I'm talking about Sid, which will eventually > become Etch, but obviously will exist for a long time before Etch does. :) > The issue here is just the co-location of non-free and the AMD64 repository > (whatever its called, wherever its located). Those 2 will find themselves > together again on debian.org long before Etch sees the light of day, but the > point is there is no reason to separate them *now*. Except that you risk getting sued. That is a risk that, even if it's very unlikely to happen, nobody who is responsable for Debian AMD64 in any way wants to take. And you'd have to convince not only one of them, but all. I understand your disappointment (and also partially share it), but please, drop it. I suggest that instead you use your time to write a FAQ entry on how people can get the non-free packages by other completely legal means. NVidia users will find that particularly useful. Regards, -- Javier Kohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ: blashyrkh #2361802 Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 01:48:14PM -0400, Ed Cogburn wrote: > If you had read my response to Goswin, you would know we aren't talking about > release dates for anything, I'm talking about Sid, which will eventually > become Etch, but obviously will exist for a long time before Etch does. :) > The issue here is just the co-location of non-free and the AMD64 repository > (whatever its called, wherever its located). Those 2 will find themselves > together again on debian.org long before Etch sees the light of day, but the > point is there is no reason to separate them *now*. I for one as a user would like to be able to run sarge on my amd64 machine, and have the nvidia driver (and maybe a few other non-free packages), so not all of us are talking about sid and etch. A lot of us are talking about sarge for amd64 unofficial port. That will require checking of the non-free packages (or at least of the packages anyone cares about). At least non-US seems to have died out so we don't need to worry about that. Maybe I should go read the license about the nvidia driver and report on that one. If everyone reports on the packages in non-free they would like, we might get this job done soon. here is an excerpt from /usr/share/doc/nvidia-kernel-source/copyright: First a note from the README file Q: Why does NVIDIA not provide rpms anymore? A: Not every Linux distribution uses rpm, and NVIDIA wanted a single solution that would work across all Linux distributions. As indicated in the NVIDIA Software License, Linux distributions are welcome to repackage and redistribute the NVIDIA Linux driver in whatever package format they wish. To me this looks like nvidia drivers are fine for inclusion. Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
On Tuesday 10 May 2005 1:33pm, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 01:12:22PM -0400, Ed Cogburn wrote: > > Just trying to be helpful and point out to those developers that's there > > no reason to hold back non-free at all. There isn't a problem, except > > the one they are conjuring up. Besides, according to Goswin in the post > > you responded to, it could be 3 years, not 3 weeks, by his logic (which I > > disagree with as well). > > So you think Etch will be released soon? If you had read my response to Goswin, you would know we aren't talking about release dates for anything, I'm talking about Sid, which will eventually become Etch, but obviously will exist for a long time before Etch does. :) The issue here is just the co-location of non-free and the AMD64 repository (whatever its called, wherever its located). Those 2 will find themselves together again on debian.org long before Etch sees the light of day, but the point is there is no reason to separate them *now*. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 01:07:30PM -0400, Ed Cogburn wrote: > On Tuesday 10 May 2005 11:19am, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > Ed Cogburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Sunday 08 May 2005 9:27am, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > > > In fact, looking through the non-free docs section, most of that can go > > > in right now because they don't require anyone's permission to distribute > > > since they're in non-free because of the dispute between Debian and FSF > > > over documentation. > > > > Will you pay us for the work and cover legal fees if any should arise? > > > Sure. Because any rational person knows it won't happen. Odd. I'm a rational person, and I don't know that. Maybe I'm not really rational. I feel rational though. Hmm. > > Seriously, get some patience and don't inflame the situation > > please. Things like "most of that" is of zero help in deciding what > > can go in and what not. We know most of it can, the question is what > > packages are those in particular. We can't just add all of non-free > > and say it is mostly OK. > > Yes you can. That's my point. Non-free has already been vetted by Debian > itself, and we are part of Debian. Any rational judge will see that, if > given evidence by the Debian organization itself (see below). Ah, there we go with that word again... > > In one point you are right though: > > > > NO ONE IS GOING TO CARE ABOUT OUR NON-FREE! None of us anyway. With > > the exception of nvidia* package it seems. That is the only package > > that users missed so far. > > Right, only the relatively few users of this technically unofficial and > mostly > unknown-to-the-world official Debian port have noticed you left non-free > behind. So explain to us why you believe any copyright holder of one of > these problem packages OUTSIDE OF DEBIAN is going to find out about this, Well, first off, you just posted about it on a public list...duh. > and for some irrational reason bothers to sue amd64.debian.net, > because it isn't on debian.org (but its contents *is* Debian)? And there's that word AGAIN. > Geez, compared to that, I'd say me getting hit by a meteorite when I > next leave my apartment is a guaranteed certainty... heck, let me go > write my will before I go to the grocery store. Well, we can hope, because then this stupid thread might die. > All you need is official blessing from Debian proper, in writing, or at least > publicly announced on the net, that yes, the AMD64 port on amd64.debian.net > is officially part of Debian, and isn't on debian.org only because of > technical problems, but will be physically integrated soon (which is all > true). With that, you don't have to worry about any lawsuits. So please > stop with this weird excuse. And you can categorically state this on what authority? Can we assume you're a lawyer in whatever municipality has jurisdiction? Can you even tell me what municipality has jurisdiction? Sheesh, you might have a decent argument if you constrained yourself to facts instead of assertions... > But you do have the time to re-verify non-free all over again? So you've > wasted a whole week on this Oh my. A *whole week*? I can't believe it. Compared to how long it took to release sarge, that's... let's see... er... insignificant. That's the word I'm looking for. You know what - I don't give a shit about this subject, but I'm getting tired of posts like this one. Chill out. KEN -- Kenneth J. Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pgpMGLhpD6dIU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 01:12:22PM -0400, Ed Cogburn wrote: > Just trying to be helpful and point out to those developers that's there no > reason to hold back non-free at all. There isn't a problem, except the one > they are conjuring up. Besides, according to Goswin in the post you > responded to, it could be 3 years, not 3 weeks, by his logic (which I > disagree with as well). So you think Etch will be released soon? Until it is, Sarge AMD64 port (which will never be part of Debian as far as I know) is going to be around and maintained seperate from Debian, and anything in a non-free that it includes will have to be checked. If you think Etch will take less than 3 years, then well that's good. i sure hope so too, but who knows. The problem doesn't go away when Sarge is released and amd64 enters unstable/testing on Debian unfortunately. Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 05:44:29PM +0100, Rafael Rodr?guez wrote: > I don't know why some of you are making all that noise... if I have > understood correctly, non-free will be made available after sarge release > (which is supposed to happen within 3 or 4 weeks)... so... why bother the > developers instead of thaking them for all the work they've already made? If I have understood correctly, when sarge releases, the debian amd64 porters will be maintaining (seperately from debian) an amd64 sarge release, and maintain it until Etch releases. testing for Etch and unstable will contain amd64 after sarge releases, but if we don't get any of non-free setup on the porters maintained unofficial sarge for amd64, then it won't be there for anyone wanting to run amd64 with sarge (even though it is an unofficial sarge port). This is not a problem that will go away until Etch releases. Hence some people care, although mostly about the missing nvidia drivers. Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
On Tuesday 10 May 2005 12:44pm, Rafael Rodríguez wrote: > I don't know why some of you are making all that noise... if I have > understood correctly, non-free will be made available after sarge release > (which is supposed to happen within 3 or 4 weeks)... so... why bother the > developers instead of thaking them for all the work they've already made? Just trying to be helpful and point out to those developers that's there no reason to hold back non-free at all. There isn't a problem, except the one they are conjuring up. Besides, according to Goswin in the post you responded to, it could be 3 years, not 3 weeks, by his logic (which I disagree with as well).
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
On Tuesday 10 May 2005 11:19am, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Ed Cogburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Sunday 08 May 2005 9:27am, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > > In fact, looking through the non-free docs section, most of that can go > > in right now because they don't require anyone's permission to distribute > > since they're in non-free because of the dispute between Debian and FSF > > over documentation. > > Will you pay us for the work and cover legal fees if any should arise? Sure. Because any rational person knows it won't happen. Give us one reasonable example of why some one would waste time and money to sue the amd64.debian.net server owner in this matter, when they have absolutely nothing to gain, and potentially a lot to LOSE if the judge gets angry about the pointlessness of their suit? This would happen in Germany, and the German judicial system hasn't yet become as screwed up as the American system. Besides, by the time they FIND OUT, we'll be officially part of Debian anyway! > Seriously, get some patience and don't inflame the situation > please. Things like "most of that" is of zero help in deciding what > can go in and what not. We know most of it can, the question is what > packages are those in particular. We can't just add all of non-free > and say it is mostly OK. Yes you can. That's my point. Non-free has already been vetted by Debian itself, and we are part of Debian. Any rational judge will see that, if given evidence by the Debian organization itself (see below). > > Just establish the non-free section and move everything over. If anyone > > complains then just drop the package they're complaining about. Of > > course, NO ONE is going to complain since they know we will "become" > > Debian soon anyway (and for all intents we ARE Debian - just not on their > > server), and they've already given Debian permission to distribute. For > > the rest of non-free, permission to distribute is not an issue, and not > > the reason they're in non-free to begin with. > > The pine author would for one thing. Then load everything up but pine, if that's the only one you know of. I've already listed more packages that I know about, and I'm "just" a regular user. I'll bet if you had asked on d.d you could have quickly put together a list of 30 - 50 packages which were ok. So why nothing in over a week? Are you holding up all of non-free just because of 1 package? And what is the point? We are Debian. It doesn't matter which server we're on. > It will be at least 18 month going by the release plans till etch will > be stable and sarge amd64 can be dropped. Considering the track record > of past timelines 2-3 years is probably more accurate. That is a long > time for someone to start suing. Hogwash again. We aren't talking about *release* dates, Goswin, we're only talking about how long it takes before debian.org is ready to move the amd64 port onto it. Once sarge is out, everybody can get back to moving *forward*, as opposed to running in place right now, which means the ftpmasters of debian.org can do what they need to do to make room for pure64 *Sid*, and move it over so we get synced up as Etch. Sarge can stay where it is, that's not the issue. Getting the *next* Debian AMD64 port onto debian.org is not going to take 3 years. > In one point you are right though: > > NO ONE IS GOING TO CARE ABOUT OUR NON-FREE! None of us anyway. With > the exception of nvidia* package it seems. That is the only package > that users missed so far. Right, only the relatively few users of this technically unofficial and mostly unknown-to-the-world official Debian port have noticed you left non-free behind. So explain to us why you believe any copyright holder of one of these problem packages OUTSIDE OF DEBIAN is going to find out about this, and for some irrational reason bothers to sue amd64.debian.net, because it isn't on debian.org (but its contents *is* Debian)? Geez, compared to that, I'd say me getting hit by a meteorite when I next leave my apartment is a guaranteed certainty... heck, let me go write my will before I go to the grocery store. All you need is official blessing from Debian proper, in writing, or at least publicly announced on the net, that yes, the AMD64 port on amd64.debian.net is officially part of Debian, and isn't on debian.org only because of technical problems, but will be physically integrated soon (which is all true). With that, you don't have to worry about any lawsuits. So please stop with this weird excuse. > Please excuse us for not giving it higher > priority than fixing RC bugs or otherwise vital archive maintainance. But you do have the time to re-verify non-free all over again? So you've wasted a whole week on this, *but* you'd rather be doing "vital" work. Uh-huh. Well, I do agree with you on one thing Goswin, we all have important things that need to be done, so please stop this pointless exe
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
I don't know why some of you are making all that noise... if I have understood correctly, non-free will be made available after sarge release (which is supposed to happen within 3 or 4 weeks)... so... why bother the developers instead of thaking them for all the work they've already made? Regards, Rafael Rodríguez Goswin von Brederlow dijo: > Ed Cogburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> On Sunday 08 May 2005 9:27am, Joerg Jaspert wrote: >>> On 10283 March 1977, Ed Tomlinson wrote: >>> >> Whats going on == someone needs to check it. Thats it. >>> > >>> > That was the point made by Ed Cogburn. Its already been checked in >>> the >>> > other arch! If this is not the case please explain why. Without >>> that >>> > explanation I am forced to agree with Ed - the problem are >>> political... >>> > Which is the bane of debian. >>> >>> We are *NOT* Debian >> >> >> We ARE Debian for Heaven's sake! This move to another server is just >> TEMPORARY! We WILL be Debian as soon as sarge gets out and development >> on > > > You said it yourself. > >> etch picks up. Who in the world is going to get upset when they know we >> will >> soon be part of official Debian, and they've already given permission >> for >> Debian to distribute their stuff! Get real people! >> >> How many non-free packages have been cleared? Why haven't you at least >> set up >> non-free and moved the packages known to be ok into it? I know for sure >> that >> the rogue-like games in non-free are perfectly fine and can brought >> on-line >> now, since they and a lot of other stuff is in non-free just because >> they are >> "old" pre-GPL software with "don't sell for money" restrictions which >> make >> them fail the DFSG test on distribution, but are otherwise fully >> open-source >> (and who's earlier authors can no longer be found to ask them if they'd >> agree >> to a change to the GPL or some other Free license). >> >> In fact, looking through the non-free docs section, most of that can go >> in >> right now because they don't require anyone's permission to distribute >> since >> they're in non-free because of the dispute between Debian and FSF over >> documentation. > > Will you pay us for the work and cover legal fees if any should arise? > > Seriously, get some patience and don't inflame the situation > please. Things like "most of that" is of zero help in deciding what > can go in and what not. We know most of it can, the question is what > packages are those in particular. We can't just add all of non-free > and say it is mostly OK. > >>> thats all you need to get! >> >> >> Hogwash. This sounds like an extremely defensive response. How many >> packages >> have been cleared for non-free? Why haven't you just put up a non-free >> section with the stuff thats been cleared? Why has it been more than a >> week, >> with no non-free section at all, no indication of how the "vetting" >> process >> is going, and with you telling us above that we don't need to know >> anything >> more? Now do you understand why I'm just a little bit skeptical? > > We had (an empty) non-free right after the dns switch so apt-get > wouldn't fail. And we told you exactly what the status is: "Someone > has to do the work". > >> Just establish the non-free section and move everything over. If anyone >> complains then just drop the package they're complaining about. Of >> course, >> NO ONE is going to complain since they know we will "become" Debian soon >> anyway (and for all intents we ARE Debian - just not on their server), >> and >> they've already given Debian permission to distribute. For the rest of >> non-free, permission to distribute is not an issue, and not the reason >> they're in non-free to begin with. > > The pine author would for one thing. > >> Re-evaluating non-free is just silly when we're going to "officially" >> become >> Debian again in a few months, certainly less than a year, anyway >> (assuming >> Debian gets Sarge out soon). Heck, Debian doesn't even advertise us, >> we're >> the bastard child they don't want to talk about, because when they do it >> reignites the argument about which architectures to "officially" >> support, and >> why... and why not. NO ONE IS GOING TO CARE ABOUT OUR NON-FREE! > > It will be at least 18 month going by the release plans till etch will > be stable and sarge amd64 can be dropped. Considering the track record > of past timelines 2-3 years is probably more accurate. That is a long > time for someone to start suing. > > In one point you are right though: > > NO ONE IS GOING TO CARE ABOUT OUR NON-FREE! None of us anyway. With > the exception of nvidia* package it seems. That is the only package > that users missed so far. Please excuse us for not giving it higher > priority than fixing RC bugs or otherwise vital archive maintainance. > > MfG > Goswin > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact > [EMAIL PROTECTED
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
Ed Cogburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sunday 08 May 2005 9:27am, Joerg Jaspert wrote: >> On 10283 March 1977, Ed Tomlinson wrote: >> >> Whats going on == someone needs to check it. Thats it. >> > >> > That was the point made by Ed Cogburn. Its already been checked in the >> > other arch! If this is not the case please explain why. Without that >> > explanation I am forced to agree with Ed - the problem are political... >> > Which is the bane of debian. >> >> We are *NOT* Debian > > > We ARE Debian for Heaven's sake! This move to another server is just > TEMPORARY! We WILL be Debian as soon as sarge gets out and development on You said it yourself. > etch picks up. Who in the world is going to get upset when they know we will > soon be part of official Debian, and they've already given permission for > Debian to distribute their stuff! Get real people! > > How many non-free packages have been cleared? Why haven't you at least set > up > non-free and moved the packages known to be ok into it? I know for sure that > the rogue-like games in non-free are perfectly fine and can brought on-line > now, since they and a lot of other stuff is in non-free just because they are > "old" pre-GPL software with "don't sell for money" restrictions which make > them fail the DFSG test on distribution, but are otherwise fully open-source > (and who's earlier authors can no longer be found to ask them if they'd agree > to a change to the GPL or some other Free license). > > In fact, looking through the non-free docs section, most of that can go in > right now because they don't require anyone's permission to distribute since > they're in non-free because of the dispute between Debian and FSF over > documentation. Will you pay us for the work and cover legal fees if any should arise? Seriously, get some patience and don't inflame the situation please. Things like "most of that" is of zero help in deciding what can go in and what not. We know most of it can, the question is what packages are those in particular. We can't just add all of non-free and say it is mostly OK. >> thats all you need to get! > > > Hogwash. This sounds like an extremely defensive response. How many > packages > have been cleared for non-free? Why haven't you just put up a non-free > section with the stuff thats been cleared? Why has it been more than a week, > with no non-free section at all, no indication of how the "vetting" process > is going, and with you telling us above that we don't need to know anything > more? Now do you understand why I'm just a little bit skeptical? We had (an empty) non-free right after the dns switch so apt-get wouldn't fail. And we told you exactly what the status is: "Someone has to do the work". > Just establish the non-free section and move everything over. If anyone > complains then just drop the package they're complaining about. Of course, > NO ONE is going to complain since they know we will "become" Debian soon > anyway (and for all intents we ARE Debian - just not on their server), and > they've already given Debian permission to distribute. For the rest of > non-free, permission to distribute is not an issue, and not the reason > they're in non-free to begin with. The pine author would for one thing. > Re-evaluating non-free is just silly when we're going to "officially" become > Debian again in a few months, certainly less than a year, anyway (assuming > Debian gets Sarge out soon). Heck, Debian doesn't even advertise us, we're > the bastard child they don't want to talk about, because when they do it > reignites the argument about which architectures to "officially" support, and > why... and why not. NO ONE IS GOING TO CARE ABOUT OUR NON-FREE! It will be at least 18 month going by the release plans till etch will be stable and sarge amd64 can be dropped. Considering the track record of past timelines 2-3 years is probably more accurate. That is a long time for someone to start suing. In one point you are right though: NO ONE IS GOING TO CARE ABOUT OUR NON-FREE! None of us anyway. With the exception of nvidia* package it seems. That is the only package that users missed so far. Please excuse us for not giving it higher priority than fixing RC bugs or otherwise vital archive maintainance. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
Ed Cogburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > NO ONE IS GOING TO CARE ABOUT OUR NON-FREE! You're entirely right. After having to read that lot, I'd be impressed if anyone cared about making sure amd64 shipped with non-free. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
On Sunday 08 May 2005 9:27am, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > On 10283 March 1977, Ed Tomlinson wrote: > >> Whats going on == someone needs to check it. Thats it. > > > > That was the point made by Ed Cogburn. Its already been checked in the > > other arch! If this is not the case please explain why. Without that > > explanation I am forced to agree with Ed - the problem are political... > > Which is the bane of debian. > > We are *NOT* Debian We ARE Debian for Heaven's sake! This move to another server is just TEMPORARY! We WILL be Debian as soon as sarge gets out and development on etch picks up. Who in the world is going to get upset when they know we will soon be part of official Debian, and they've already given permission for Debian to distribute their stuff! Get real people! How many non-free packages have been cleared? Why haven't you at least set up non-free and moved the packages known to be ok into it? I know for sure that the rogue-like games in non-free are perfectly fine and can brought on-line now, since they and a lot of other stuff is in non-free just because they are "old" pre-GPL software with "don't sell for money" restrictions which make them fail the DFSG test on distribution, but are otherwise fully open-source (and who's earlier authors can no longer be found to ask them if they'd agree to a change to the GPL or some other Free license). In fact, looking through the non-free docs section, most of that can go in right now because they don't require anyone's permission to distribute since they're in non-free because of the dispute between Debian and FSF over documentation. > thats all you need to get! Hogwash. This sounds like an extremely defensive response. How many packages have been cleared for non-free? Why haven't you just put up a non-free section with the stuff thats been cleared? Why has it been more than a week, with no non-free section at all, no indication of how the "vetting" process is going, and with you telling us above that we don't need to know anything more? Now do you understand why I'm just a little bit skeptical? Just establish the non-free section and move everything over. If anyone complains then just drop the package they're complaining about. Of course, NO ONE is going to complain since they know we will "become" Debian soon anyway (and for all intents we ARE Debian - just not on their server), and they've already given Debian permission to distribute. For the rest of non-free, permission to distribute is not an issue, and not the reason they're in non-free to begin with. Re-evaluating non-free is just silly when we're going to "officially" become Debian again in a few months, certainly less than a year, anyway (assuming Debian gets Sarge out soon). Heck, Debian doesn't even advertise us, we're the bastard child they don't want to talk about, because when they do it reignites the argument about which architectures to "officially" support, and why... and why not. NO ONE IS GOING TO CARE ABOUT OUR NON-FREE! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
Ed Tomlinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sunday 08 May 2005 09:27, Joerg Jaspert wrote: >> On 10283 March 1977, Ed Tomlinson wrote: >> >> >> Whats going on == someone needs to check it. Thats it. >> > That was the point made by Ed Cogburn. Its already been checked in the >> > other >> > arch! If this is not the case please explain why. Without that >> > explanation I am >> > forced to agree with Ed - the problem are political... Which is the bane >> > of debian. >> >> We are *NOT* Debian, thats all you need to get! > > Ok. So from what I understand you are worried there are packages that debian > can > distribute but only debian has the permission... If this is the case is > there not a way > you can ask debian to distribute just the non free stuff? ie. This project > builds the > packages from debian sources, debian hosts the non free stuff on one of their > servers. Who is to say we are allowed to build the binaries? Take pine for example. Distribution of binaries is specifically prohibited. Only source can be in non-free. If we just add non-free to the buildd and upload that anywhere we violate the license and risk getting sued. For other sources the maintainer has special permission to build and upload binaries for Debian but again we don't. And yes, Debian has the exact same problem. That is why non-free is not autobuild even in Debian. > Thanks > Ed Tomlinson MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
On Sunday 08 May 2005 09:27, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > On 10283 March 1977, Ed Tomlinson wrote: > > >> Whats going on == someone needs to check it. Thats it. > > That was the point made by Ed Cogburn. Its already been checked in the > > other > > arch! If this is not the case please explain why. Without that > > explanation I am > > forced to agree with Ed - the problem are political... Which is the bane > > of debian. > > We are *NOT* Debian, thats all you need to get! Ok. So from what I understand you are worried there are packages that debian can distribute but only debian has the permission... If this is the case is there not a way you can ask debian to distribute just the non free stuff? ie. This project builds the packages from debian sources, debian hosts the non free stuff on one of their servers. Thanks Ed Tomlinson -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
On 10283 March 1977, Ed Tomlinson wrote: >> >> Whats going on == someone needs to check it. Thats it. >> > That was the point made by Ed Cogburn. Its already been checked in the >> > other >> > arch! If this is not the case please explain why. Without that >> > explanation I am >> > forced to agree with Ed - the problem are political... Which is the bane >> > of debian. >> We are *NOT* Debian, thats all you need to get! > Ok. So from what I understand you are worried there are packages that debian > can > distribute but only debian has the permission... Right. > If this is the case is there not a way you can ask debian to > distribute just the non free stuff? ie. This project builds the > packages from debian sources, debian hosts the non free stuff on one > of their servers. Which will happen with the move of amd64 into the debian archive - but that wont happen for sarge. In the meantime someone pointed me to http://nonfree.alioth.debian.org/ where someone already did the work to classify the non-free crap. Which means that one amd64 guy now needs to sit down, kicking out anything thats undistributable for us, and then let us include it. (As *one random* example, distributed-net is undistribtable for us, as we arent Debian). *I* wont do it, I have more important things to do. I will only help with the final import into our archive after someone did the work. -- bye Joerg (Irgendwo von heise.de): Jesus war ein typischer Student: - Lebte bis er 30 war bei den Eltern, - Hatte lange Haare - Wenn er mal was tat dann wars ein Wunder -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
On 10283 March 1977, Ed Tomlinson wrote: >> Whats going on == someone needs to check it. Thats it. > That was the point made by Ed Cogburn. Its already been checked in the other > arch! If this is not the case please explain why. Without that explanation > I am > forced to agree with Ed - the problem are political... Which is the bane of > debian. We are *NOT* Debian, thats all you need to get! -- bye Joerg "Memory is like gasoline. You use it up when you are running. Of course you get it all back when you reboot..."; Actual explanation obtained from the Micro$oft help desk. pgpvfoJN8pEY0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
On Sunday 08 May 2005 05:02, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > On 10283 March 1977, Ed Cogburn wrote: > > >> Note: non-free is NOT provided yet. We need to decide what we do with > >> it, as we may be forbidden to distribute some of the software in it (we > >> aren't Debian). > > Wait a second, if you *aren't* Debian, it should be *easier* for you to > > provide non-free, not harder. > > No, not beeing Debian makes it only harder, not easier. > There may be stuff in it with "Yes, Debian is allowed to distribute it" > - which makes it undistributable for anyone else, except he gets the > same. > Or stuff you aren't allowed to built and then distribute or whatever > else some idiot thought about for his license. > > > The only problem with non-free is the internal politics of Debian. > > No. > > > Ubuntu certainly doesn't have any problem providing access to, but not > > support for, non-free. > > I dont care what/how they do it. Maybe they analyzed it, or just ignore > it and wait if someone plays law-games with them, i dont know. > I dont want law-games for me or for our mirrors or for the place where > we host the machine, thats not worth the stuff thats in there, so its > not added right away. > > > The best thing is to keep the packages you have now until we find what's > > going > > on. > > Whats going on == someone needs to check it. Thats it. That was the point made by Ed Cogburn. Its already been checked in the other arch! If this is not the case please explain why. Without that explanation I am forced to agree with Ed - the problem are political... Which is the bane of debian. Ed Tomlinson -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
Ed Cogburn wrote: >Wait a second, if you *aren't* Debian, it should be *easier* for you to >provide non-free, not harder. The only problem with non-free is the internal >politics of Debian. > No. Many (most?) non-free packages have a statement in their license agreement that you are forbidden to redistribute them without the permission of the copyright holder. In order to offer users the convenience of these packages (flash, netscape, nvidia-glx, etc) in deb format, Debian went and got permission from their copyright holders to redistribute them. However, debian-amd64 is not debian, so does not have permission to redistribute these packages. We need to check which packages require permission in order to make sure that we don't redistribute those. Looking at the Ubuntu archives you linked, they have very few packages in the "restricted" (non-free?) section, probably because of this same problem. -- Alexander Rapp -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
On 10283 March 1977, Ed Cogburn wrote: >> Note: non-free is NOT provided yet. We need to decide what we do with >> it, as we may be forbidden to distribute some of the software in it (we >> aren't Debian). > Wait a second, if you *aren't* Debian, it should be *easier* for you to > provide non-free, not harder. No, not beeing Debian makes it only harder, not easier. There may be stuff in it with "Yes, Debian is allowed to distribute it" - which makes it undistributable for anyone else, except he gets the same. Or stuff you aren't allowed to built and then distribute or whatever else some idiot thought about for his license. > The only problem with non-free is the internal politics of Debian. No. > Ubuntu certainly doesn't have any problem providing access to, but not > support for, non-free. I dont care what/how they do it. Maybe they analyzed it, or just ignore it and wait if someone plays law-games with them, i dont know. I dont want law-games for me or for our mirrors or for the place where we host the machine, thats not worth the stuff thats in there, so its not added right away. > The best thing is to keep the packages you have now until we find what's > going > on. Whats going on == someone needs to check it. Thats it. -- bye Joerg Lalalala ... Ich bin die Sponsoren-Schlampe - Wer hat heute Lust? pgpTLYJdWgIdR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
Ed Cogburn wrote: > > Note: non-free is NOT provided yet. We need to decide what we do with > > it, as we may be forbidden to distribute some of the software in it (we > > aren't Debian). > > > Wait a second, if you *aren't* Debian, it should be *easier* for you to > provide non-free, not harder. Nope. It is guaranteed that all packages in the main archive are distributable by anybody, whether they're the Debian project or not (DFSG#8). This is not necessarily the case for non-free packages, hence they'd have to be examined individually to determine whether the licence was acceptable. Cameron. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
On Friday 06 May 2005 11:22am, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > Hi > > Note: non-free is NOT provided yet. We need to decide what we do with > it, as we may be forbidden to distribute some of the software in it (we > aren't Debian). Wait a second, if you *aren't* Debian, it should be *easier* for you to provide non-free, not harder. The only problem with non-free is the internal politics of Debian. Ubuntu certainly doesn't have any problem providing access to, but not support for, non-free. If you're having problems that even Debian doesn't have, that sounds a little disturbing. Like you're adopting a militant position for the AMD64 port that was even rejected (by the vote to keep non-free) in Debian itself? That's scary. Just put up non-free, and we can eliminate "problem" packages as they are identified, rather than keeping ALL of non-free offline until "someone" (who?) is "satisfied" (according to what rules?) that non-free is "ok". If its available from Debian's non-free repository then that is *by definition* "ok" for us, unless we are just now learning that the AMD64 port is going to take a more hostile position against non-DFSG software than even the minority within Debian itself? What gives? Nvidia users: you can try getting the nvidia packages from Ubuntu at deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ hoary main restricted universe multiverse I don't know if they're compatible with Debian, but since Ubuntu still has Xfree in their archive too, they *should* be. I also don't remember which section they're in, probably 'restricted' but not sure. If all else fails, we could use their "source" file for the nvidia binary packages, and see if that builds for us (its a wrapper around nvidia's package that builds it The Debian Way - but I haven't tried it yet). The best thing is to keep the packages you have now until we find what's going on. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 archive move
John Verhoeven wrote: I have asked the sysadmins at planetmirror.com to mirror it. The old version was being mirrored (see below). We've chatted with the project maintainers, and they're happy for us to become a mirror. I've started a sync, and the archive should be available soon from http://planetmirror.com/pub/debian-amd64/ Thanks John, much appreciated. Pete -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 archive move
On Sat, 7 May 2005 07:16 am, Pete wrote: > Anybody know if there's going to be a mirror in or near Australia at > all? The mirrors are all quite far away from me here... I have asked the sysadmins at planetmirror.com to mirror it. The old version was being mirrored. >We've chatted with the project maintainers, and they're happy for us to >become a mirror. I've started a sync, and the archive should be available >soon from http://planetmirror.com/pub/debian-amd64/ -- _--_|\ John Verhoeven Database & System Administrator / \ Australian Railroad Group *_.--._/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] v"Smile! things could be worse... So I did... and they were..." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 archive move
On 10282 March 1977, Pete wrote: >>(And as always: More mirrors are always good, so just mail me if you >>want to be a mirror and get pushes whenever there are changes.) > Anybody know if there's going to be a mirror in or near Australia at > all? The mirrors are all quite far away from me here... Ask the mirror admins of whatever mirror server you may have down there if they want to provide one. If yes they should simply contact me. :) -- bye Joerg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Windows ME? Mit 13? Kann der nicht lieber Drogen nehmen wie andere Kinder in dem Alter? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 archive move
Joerg Jaspert wrote: There will be multiple mirrors, yes. Already mirroring are bytekeeper.as28747.net and bach.hpc2n.umu.se I already got asked by some others here from europe and from asia. (No, i havent lost your mails, you get the answer tomorrow. :) ) They will be added Wednesday evening (my time :) ) but yes, there will be different mirrors. As many as possible. :) We intend to do the following: Have 3 or 4 primary mirror sync directly from amd64.d.n, and let others sync from them. As one of the machines directly syncing is a very powerful one (both with bandwith and cpu) this one will take most of them. And we close amd64.d.n for direct access to have a fast and timely push to our mirrors. That should be the best for our users, fetching the stuff from a local mirror and not a machine that would get overloaded with everyone fetching from it centrally. :) One difference to debian is in this setup: We run our "dinstall" hourly, so we have more and smaller (well, one arch :) ) pushes. More will come with a general announcement in the next days, we are still cleaning some places here and there. :) Oh, we will also provide a mirrors.txt, so users can choose their mirrors to match their location. :) (And as always: More mirrors are always good, so just mail me if you want to be a mirror and get pushes whenever there are changes.) Hi all, Anybody know if there's going to be a mirror in or near Australia at all? The mirrors are all quite far away from me here... Thanks, Pete -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian AMD64 Archive Move
Hi As announced earlier the Debian AMD64 archive moved away from alioth on the weekend from April 30 til today, May 2. Well, we are still polishing some bits, but hey - 99% of it works. For the impatient here are the important things you need to know: - Modify /etc/apt/sources.list to include one deb-line from http://amd64.debian.net/README.mirrors.html and choose either sarge or sid to use. Choose the mirror that is nearest to you, to get the best possible result and to distribute the load to multiple hosts. All mirrors listed there get a "push" from the archive, so they are updated as soon as something changed. You will probably see that a lot of packages get refetched on the next apt-get/dselect/aptitude/whatever run you do. This is because amd64 no longer rebuilts the architecture independent packages anymore. As apt-get is sometimes a bit stupid you may need to do an apt-get clean run before you update your system, or it wont fetch the packages but keeps nagging you about them. Note: non-free is NOT provided yet. We need to decide what we do with it, as we may be forbidden to distribute some of the software in it (we aren't Debian). The best thing would be someone willing to do the work checking the licenses and telling us what's free enough to ship it. While you are doing the work - think about a bigger solution, usable by everyone, like a database of packages in non-free, that contains information about any package and its status. Probably compared against DFSG as a quick check and some more detailed check attached. Accessible for anyone who has interest in it. That would be most useful. If you are a mirror admin the next paragraph is for you, if not you can skip it. We already provide a bunch of mirrors with the so-called "push-mirroring", which means you (your mirror script) gets a notice to update its copy as soon as something is changed in our archive. If you are interested in this and also want it, please contact me directly and we set it up. While we are at it we would like to thank (in no particular order) Andreas 'aba' Barth, Kurt Roeckx, Goswin Brederlow and Joerg Jaspert, doing the work for the move, and FNB TU Darmstadt, who kindly host our machine. Now, for all the interested folks out there, some more information about the archive, the release we want to do and how we intend to handle some things. First the archive software - we are using dak[1] from the main Debian archive, so you can expect a similar behaviour. Of course we have differences, they are detailed here. - We are syncing our overrides strictly with Debian, so every package should go into the same section/priority. Changes in Debian will change our overrides too. - We sync our testing suite with the information from Debian's Britney (and a small script adapting that to our binary packages). That way we are as close to "official" Sarge as possible, except where we really need to patch a package (see below in security paragraph). - We are syncing our archive daily with new uploads to Debian. Basically, we just import the source and the binary_all debs and then let our autobuilders do the work. That happens somewhere in the night, after "dinstall" on debian finished and stuff is on the mirror network available. - Our new GPG Key for the archive (available on any keyserver that syncs), is pub 1024D/B5F5BBED 2005-04-24 Key fingerprint = C20C A1D9 499D ECBB D8BD ACF9 E415 B2B4 B5F5 BBED uid Debian AMD64 Archive Key sub 2048g/34FC6FE5 2005-04-24 The Key is signed by Andreas Barth, Tollef Fog Heen and me, and we are the only ones with access to it. Access to the main archive server "amd64.debian.net" is limited[2], only very few people who really need access to it actually have it. The public can access it via http, but probably prefers a local mirror. If you have administrative questions about the machine or some parts of this archive, please contact one of the following people: Joerg Jaspert, Admin of the whole machine and ftpmaster. Andreas 'aba' Barth, ftpmaster, beeing responsible for the amd64 w-b. Tollef Fog Heen, ftpmaster, will do security for the stable release. The contact address is [EMAIL PROTECTED], please never direct any amd64 related question to the @debian.org counterpart. There are more people, like our buildd admins Frederik Schueler Kurt Roeckx Tollef Fog Heen who keep the new .debs coming in[3]. If you are interested in build-logs of your package in AMD64 you may visit amd64.ftbfs.de. We will keep all our logs there, as long as we follow unstable/testing, later on we will keep the logs of stable-proposed-updates there.[4] cdimage.debian.org is going to build and host CD/DVD images in the same way it does for all other architectures. Which means netboot, jigdo, and whatever else is normally included. Next important point for users is packages.debian.org. We talked with the maintaine
Re: AMD64 archive move
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hello List, > > one additional remark: As main and contrib archives are now available on > amd64.debian.net it would be quite useful > to state the new url a) in a new version of the debian-.amd64 faq/howto > document and b) in the topic of the IRC channel #debian-amd64 in the > freenode network to prevent the same question every 5 minutes: Why the > hack does using debian-amd64.alioth.d.o. as apt source lead to error > messages? > > Best regards, > Marko Doesn't it? Works fine here. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 archive move
Max <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Joerg Jaspert wrote: >> Hi >> As announced earlier the Debian AMD64 archive moved away from alioth >> the weekend from 30. April til today, 2. May. > > But what happened with http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org/openoffice.org/ ? > It seemed to be moved away from alioth also but I cannot find it at > amd64.debian.net. > So where is it now? > > Max Gone till someone comes forward to maintain it. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 archive move
Hello List, one additional remark: As main and contrib archives are now available on amd64.debian.net it would be quite useful to state the new url a) in a new version of the debian-.amd64 faq/howto document and b) in the topic of the IRC channel #debian-amd64 in the freenode network to prevent the same question every 5 minutes: Why the hack does using debian-amd64.alioth.d.o. as apt source lead to error messages? Best regards, Marko -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 archive move
Joerg Jaspert wrote: Hi As announced earlier the Debian AMD64 archive moved away from alioth the weekend from 30. April til today, 2. May. But what happened with http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org/openoffice.org/ ? It seemed to be moved away from alioth also but I cannot find it at amd64.debian.net. So where is it now? Max -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 archive move
Stephan Seitz wrote: > On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 03:31:58PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > >>ftp://amd64.debian.net/debian work too. Is correct to use it? > >If you must. Http is prefered by almost everyone as it doesn't require > >makeing a new connection for every file and is thus faster and > >firewall friendlier. > > Now I'm confused. I thought http was the protocol making new > connections for every file, and ftp the protocol using one connection > for every action until you log out. HTTP makes a new request (not connection) for each file. That may reuse existing connections depending upon the http protocol version in use for that session. New ones reuse connections, old ones don't. I don't know if apt reuses connections. However even with opening new connections the apache server will prefork threads. This tends to level out the load on the machine and helps generally with the overall throughput. In this situation a preforking server like apache may have better throughput and a lower overall server load. Importantly with http the protocol can tell if the file is up to date and avoid downloading it in that case. This is a big win. (I don't think the ftp interface to apt does this IIRC and I think ftp downloads the Packages files each time. I have to admit I am not sure and I did not check.) And because there are well behaved http proxies available (unfortunately along with less well behaved ones) http tends to have less user problems with access. One of those "just works" things. Also ftp is troublesome for firewall implementors because of the way it works and so is often blocked. So http is generally useful and prefered. Often people who mirror like rsync. The rsync protocol has two personalities. In one personality it is transfering a new file. In that case it just transfers the new file and is similar in performance to either ftp or http. In the other it has an existing file to work with and works hard to only transfer the differences in the file. With fast servers over slow links this can really speed things up. But notice I said "works hard"? If you have many clients pulling files from a server the clients are all distributed work but the server is lumped work. The server in this case can be browned out by the extra work needed to calculate the xdelta to transfer. So used indiscriminately it has gotten a reputation as something that is hard on servers. But it depends on how it is used. More importantly with rsync for mirroring is that the main archive has continuous activity. New debs are being added to the pool and old ones removed. Using rsync poorly to mirror, such as in the simple case of just rsync'ing the entire archive, will almost certainly catch the archive in an inconsistent state. If you crosscheck your resulting Packages files with the files you have on disk you will find problems. There is a multipass method to pulling new packages first, Packages files second, then deleting old packages third. If people do that then fine but I fear (and hear) that people do not take the trouble do to it right. There are several programs such as debmirror, mirrorer and debian-multimirror which handle these problems for you and do the right thing. Bob signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: AMD64 archive move
Stephan Seitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 03:31:58PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: >>> ftp://amd64.debian.net/debian work too. Is correct to use it? >>If you must. Http is prefered by almost everyone as it doesn't require >>makeing a new connection for every file and is thus faster and >>firewall friendlier. > > Now I'm confused. I thought http was the protocol making new > connections for every file, and ftp the protocol using one connection > for every action until you log out. > > Shade and sweet water! > > Stephan Http (since 1.1, forever) has a Keep-Alive option that reuses the connection to fetch file after file. Ftp opens one control connection for the whole session and then initiates one data connection per file. Depending on active or passive ftp that connection comes from the client or server. Firewalls often don't like that. Under linux you need the ip_contrack_ftp and ip_nat_ftp modules to handle those. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 archive move
Stephan Seitz wrote on 04/05/2005 17:45: > On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 03:31:58PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > >>>ftp://amd64.debian.net/debian work too. Is correct to use it? >> >>If you must. Http is prefered by almost everyone as it doesn't require >>makeing a new connection for every file and is thus faster and >>firewall friendlier. > > Now I'm confused. I thought http was the protocol making new > connections for every file, HTTP/1.0 was, but HTTP/1.1 allows the use of a connection for multiple requests. Some proxies prevent that from happening though. > and ftp the protocol using one connection > for every action until you log out. ftp uses one _control_ connection per session and one _data_ connection for every transfer (including listing directories). cu, sven -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 archive move
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 03:31:58PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: ftp://amd64.debian.net/debian work too. Is correct to use it? If you must. Http is prefered by almost everyone as it doesn't require makeing a new connection for every file and is thus faster and firewall friendlier. Now I'm confused. I thought http was the protocol making new connections for every file, and ftp the protocol using one connection for every action until you log out. Shade and sweet water! Stephan -- | Stephan SeitzE-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | WWW: http://fsing.rootsland.net/~stse/| | PGP Public Keys: http://fsing.rootsland.net/~stse/pgp.html | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: AMD64 archive move
Olleg Samoylov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Joerg Jaspert wrote: >> For the impatient here are the important things you need to know: >> - Modify /etc/apt/sources.list to read like >> deb http://amd64.debian.net/debian/ DIST main contrib > > ftp://amd64.debian.net/debian work too. Is correct to use it? > > -- > Olleg Samoylov If you must. Http is prefered by almost everyone as it doesn't require makeing a new connection for every file and is thus faster and firewall friendlier. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 archive move
Joerg Jaspert wrote: For the impatient here are the important things you need to know: - Modify /etc/apt/sources.list to read like deb http://amd64.debian.net/debian/ DIST main contrib ftp://amd64.debian.net/debian work too. Is correct to use it? -- Olleg Samoylov smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: AMD64 archive move
Joerg Jaspert wrote: There will be multiple mirrors, yes. Already mirroring are bytekeeper.as28747.net and bach.hpc2n.umu.se Could someone post the URI on bach.hpc2n.umu.se: I only seem to be able to see the old mirror. Thankyou. ael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 archive move
On 10279 March 1977, Joerg Jaspert wrote: >> Is there any chance that http://amd64.debian.net is going to be >> reachable via IPv6? > At the moment - no. > Not yet possible. > Just ask your local ipv6 mirror to mirror us. :) Eh, of course if he has ipv4 too. :) -- bye Joerg Some AM to his NM on [11 Aug. 2004]: You already won't get through Front Desk and Account Manager approvals before sarge,[...] [Note: He made it! :) ] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 archive move
On 10278 March 1977, Petr Sebor wrote: > Is there any chance that http://amd64.debian.net is going to be > reachable via IPv6? At the moment - no. Not yet possible. Just ask your local ipv6 mirror to mirror us. :) -- bye Joerg Lalalala ... Ich bin die Sponsoren-Schlampe - Wer hat heute Lust? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 archive move
On 10278 March 1977, Stephen Frost wrote: >> >> We also intend to offer a push-mirror service for interested mirrors, so >> >> if you are an interested mirror admin please contact me and I will come >> >> back to you with further instructions, as soon as we are sure our >> >> archive is clean. >> > What about for private mirrors? Will rsync be available (as it was on >> > alioth)? If so, what's the rsync URL so I can update my mirror scripts? :) >> It is generally available, just limited to 6 concurrent users as to many >> rsyncs can kill machines. (Well, this should be able to do more, but atm >> we have 6 :) >> So best is for users to wait a few days and use one of the mirrors that >> are nearer to them. > Will there be a mirror which provides rsync, and if so which one? I don't > mind using a seperate mirror for my rsync (I do currently for the main > archive already). There will be multiple mirrors, yes. Already mirroring are bytekeeper.as28747.net and bach.hpc2n.umu.se I already got asked by some others here from europe and from asia. (No, i havent lost your mails, you get the answer tomorrow. :) ) They will be added Wednesday evening (my time :) ) but yes, there will be different mirrors. As many as possible. :) We intend to do the following: Have 3 or 4 primary mirror sync directly from amd64.d.n, and let others sync from them. As one of the machines directly syncing is a very powerful one (both with bandwith and cpu) this one will take most of them. And we close amd64.d.n for direct access to have a fast and timely push to our mirrors. That should be the best for our users, fetching the stuff from a local mirror and not a machine that would get overloaded with everyone fetching from it centrally. :) One difference to debian is in this setup: We run our "dinstall" hourly, so we have more and smaller (well, one arch :) ) pushes. More will come with a general announcement in the next days, we are still cleaning some places here and there. :) Oh, we will also provide a mirrors.txt, so users can choose their mirrors to match their location. :) (And as always: More mirrors are always good, so just mail me if you want to be a mirror and get pushes whenever there are changes.) -- bye Joerg and yes, the ftpmasters are not the most clueful people -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 archive move
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 08:27:46AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > On 10278 March 1977, Stephen Frost wrote: > > > * Joerg Jaspert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > >> We also intend to offer a push-mirror service for interested mirrors, so > >> if you are an interested mirror admin please contact me and I will come > >> back to you with further instructions, as soon as we are sure our > >> archive is clean. > > What about for private mirrors? Will rsync be available (as it was on > > alioth)? If so, what's the rsync URL so I can update my mirror scripts? :) > > It is generally available, just limited to 6 concurrent users as to many > rsyncs can kill machines. (Well, this should be able to do more, but atm > we have 6 :) > So best is for users to wait a few days and use one of the mirrors that > are nearer to them. This limit seems to have been reached already. You can also run rsync against bytekeeper.as28747.net::debian It's uptodate from an hour ago but now fails to mirror new changes because the limit of 6 has been reached. We're going to set up the push mirror on it this evening. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 archive move
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * Joerg Jaspert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >> On 10278 March 1977, Stephen Frost wrote: >> >> > * Joerg Jaspert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >> >> We also intend to offer a push-mirror service for interested mirrors, so >> >> if you are an interested mirror admin please contact me and I will come >> >> back to you with further instructions, as soon as we are sure our >> >> archive is clean. >> > What about for private mirrors? Will rsync be available (as it was on >> > alioth)? If so, what's the rsync URL so I can update my mirror scripts? :) >> >> It is generally available, just limited to 6 concurrent users as to many >> rsyncs can kill machines. (Well, this should be able to do more, but atm >> we have 6 :) >> So best is for users to wait a few days and use one of the mirrors that >> are nearer to them. > > Will there be a mirror which provides rsync, and if so which one? I don't > mind using a seperate mirror for my rsync (I do currently for the main > archive already). > > Thanks, > > Stephen ftp.de.debian.org, bluebyte, bach. All european. Don't know about the rest, you will just have to test. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 archive move
* Joerg Jaspert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On 10278 March 1977, Stephen Frost wrote: > > > * Joerg Jaspert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > >> We also intend to offer a push-mirror service for interested mirrors, so > >> if you are an interested mirror admin please contact me and I will come > >> back to you with further instructions, as soon as we are sure our > >> archive is clean. > > What about for private mirrors? Will rsync be available (as it was on > > alioth)? If so, what's the rsync URL so I can update my mirror scripts? :) > > It is generally available, just limited to 6 concurrent users as to many > rsyncs can kill machines. (Well, this should be able to do more, but atm > we have 6 :) > So best is for users to wait a few days and use one of the mirrors that > are nearer to them. Will there be a mirror which provides rsync, and if so which one? I don't mind using a seperate mirror for my rsync (I do currently for the main archive already). Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: AMD64 archive move
Hello, Is there any chance that http://amd64.debian.net is going to be reachable via IPv6? Regards, Petr -- Petr Sebor / SCS Software [ http://www.scssoft.com ] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 archive move
On 10278 March 1977, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Joerg Jaspert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >> We also intend to offer a push-mirror service for interested mirrors, so >> if you are an interested mirror admin please contact me and I will come >> back to you with further instructions, as soon as we are sure our >> archive is clean. > What about for private mirrors? Will rsync be available (as it was on > alioth)? If so, what's the rsync URL so I can update my mirror scripts? :) It is generally available, just limited to 6 concurrent users as to many rsyncs can kill machines. (Well, this should be able to do more, but atm we have 6 :) So best is for users to wait a few days and use one of the mirrors that are nearer to them. -- bye Joerg Yeah, patching debian/rules sounds like changing shoes while running the 100 meters track. -- Michael Koch -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 archive move
* Joerg Jaspert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > We also intend to offer a push-mirror service for interested mirrors, so > if you are an interested mirror admin please contact me and I will come > back to you with further instructions, as soon as we are sure our > archive is clean. What about for private mirrors? Will rsync be available (as it was on alioth)? If so, what's the rsync URL so I can update my mirror scripts? :) Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
AMD64 archive move
Hi As announced earlier the Debian AMD64 archive moved away from alioth the weekend from 30. April til today, 2. May. Yes, that is why there are so many days without updates. This is just a short information, and we are still evaluating the archive, so if you dont like the small chance to kill your system you maybe wait with a change until we sent out the full announce. We expect that to happen somewhere between now and Saturday night. It looks good for us, but we want to make sure it is fully working before we do something big with it. For the impatient here are the important things you need to know: - Modify /etc/apt/sources.list to read like deb http://amd64.debian.net/debian/ DIST main contrib and replace DIST with either sid or sarge (or testing/unstable), whatever you prefer to have. Thats it basically, now your system will do the right thing fetching the packages. Note: NO non-free is provided yet. We need to decide what we do with it, as some software in it may forbid us to distribute it (we arent Debian). Probably we will do a case-by-case study for things that we consider important and add them if license allows us to. We also intend to offer a push-mirror service for interested mirrors, so if you are an interested mirror admin please contact me and I will come back to you with further instructions, as soon as we are sure our archive is clean. -- bye Joerg Siliziumdioxid wird auf offenen LKWs durch Deutschland gefahren! Der Sauerstoffgehalt der Atmosphaere ist auf 21% gesunken! pgpASHB4z0oCK.pgp Description: PGP signature
