Re: Survey answers part 3: systemd is not portable and what this means for our ports

[John Paul Adrian Glaubitz]

On 07/14/2013 06:45 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:

These aren't the only viable option and you know it. FYI, OpenRC port to
Debian is doing well, and it is already able to boot a Debian system
with current init script unmodified. Remaining to do:
- support for update-rc.d
- support for invoke-rc.d
- finish the init.d script compatibility (not much remaining to do)
- make it work with an unmodified /etc/inittab
- add support for X-Start-Before (that might be the hardest part)


OpenRC has already been discussed for Debian for over a year, it's still 
not fully ported and working, yet you claim the port is doing well.


Are you seriously expecting anyone to use such a patch work on a 
productive machine?



These issues are fixable, and I have a good hope that it will happen
before the end of the GSoC project. And there's also upstart as a quite
realistic option too.


The difference is, however, systemd is already there, has matured and a 
strong upstream community. Why should we settle for something which 
doesn't even have a foreseeable future of upstream maintainership?



You also wrote more or less that systemd is the only way to support
cgroups, while this is untrue. OpenRC at least has support for it (and
probably upstart too? I'm not sure...), and it also builds on FreeBSD
(not yet Debian kFreeBSD, but that also should be easy to fix). The
argument that to support modern things like cgroups, an init system has
to be incompatible with anything else than Linux is just simply false.


upstart is (or is going to use) the prctl Linux system call and 
therefore no longer compatible with non-Linux kernels.


Adrian

> [1] 
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/FoundationsTeam/Specs/RaringUpstartUserSessions#Respawning_user_jobs_and_PID_tracking


--
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/51e267f3.8060...@physik.fu-berlin.de

Re: Survey answers part 3: systemd is not portable and what this means for our ports

[Marco d'Itri]

On Jul 14, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz  wrote:

> OpenRC has already been discussed for Debian for over a year, it's
> still not fully ported and working, yet you claim the port is doing
> well.
And even if ported and fully working it will still lack the features 
needed by a modern init system.
OpenRC is too little and too late, and it's a shame a GSoC project is 
wasted on this dead end.

-- 
ciao,
Marco


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Survey answers part 3: systemd is not portable and what this means for our ports

[Moritz Mühlenhoff]

John Paul Adrian Glaubitz  schrieb:
> On 07/13/2013 11:46 PM, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
>> since some people might not read planet debian, here is a link to my
>> third blog post in a series of posts dealing with the results of the
>> Debian systemd survey:
>>
>> http://people.debian.org/~stapelberg/2013/07/13/systemd-not-portable.html
>
> This has risen a question here: How many people are actually using the 
> kFreeBSD port. Are there any rough numbers?

If the kfreebsd port wants to have a chance to succeed it should be trimmed down
to sensible use cases, e.g.
- file server, where people want to run ZFS
- firewall system, where people want to run pf

For these narrowed down set there would even be a chance to have tested/working 
sysv init scripts.

kfreebsd and freebsd are simply lacking too many features (starting with
graphics drivers el al) to ever be a viable base for a desktop system.

Cheers,
Moritz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/slrnku4v65.6eu@inutil.org

Re: Survey answers part 3: systemd is not portable and what this means for our ports

[David Kalnischkies]

On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 10:57 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
 wrote:
> On 07/14/2013 06:45 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>>
>> These aren't the only viable option and you know it. FYI, OpenRC port to
>> Debian is doing well, and it is already able to boot a Debian system
>> with current init script unmodified. Remaining to do:
>> - support for update-rc.d
>> - support for invoke-rc.d
>> - finish the init.d script compatibility (not much remaining to do)
>> - make it work with an unmodified /etc/inittab
>> - add support for X-Start-Before (that might be the hardest part)
>
>
> OpenRC has already been discussed for Debian for over a year, it's still not
> fully ported and working, yet you claim the port is doing well.
>
> Are you seriously expecting anyone to use such a patch work on a productive
> machine?

At least I am seriously expecting that Debian isn't discarding the outcome
of a project it has officially endorsed to be under its umbrella for GSoC
without even the slightest bit of consideration.

GSoC in Debian was announced a long time ago, enough time to raise
any objections against any proposed project. Either this wasn't done or
it wasn't done loud enough as the OpenRC project was accepted and is now
being worked on by a student, so its too late to voice any concerns now
as this is just slapping the student right across the face. Its at least
nothing I would do while trying to hook a student to continue working
in/on Debian even long after a specific project is done (and GSoC ended).

Feel free to evaluate (any project) after it is finished and draw your
conclusions from that (for the specific project, GSoC in general, …),
but don't complaining about it without even trying.

Last I heard, that was exactly systemd fanbase complain: that everyone
just complained without even trying it based on hearsay.
So, lets try "leading by example", shall we?

>> These issues are fixable, and I have a good hope that it will happen
>> before the end of the GSoC project. And there's also upstart as a quite
>> realistic option too.
>
>
> The difference is, however, systemd is already there […]

It is not "already there".
That was the whole freaking point of this "survey".

There is still enough time for anythings fanbase to bash each other.
Just avoid beating new contributors in the process who might not have
developed a thick enough skin just yet.


Best regards

David Kalnischkies, who couldn't care less about init systems^W^W"System and
Service Managers" so try to avoid putting him in some fanbase camp please.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/CAAZ6_fD_jO6u4hZXhvE=wvr9rpoegvoy9q0ekzfx3cjdt...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Survey answers part 3: systemd is not portable and what this means for our ports

[Nicolas Dandrimont]

* Marco d'Itri  [2013-07-14 11:26:29 +0200]:

> On Jul 14, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz  wrote:
> 
> > OpenRC has already been discussed for Debian for over a year, it's
> > still not fully ported and working, yet you claim the port is doing
> > well.
> And even if ported and fully working it will still lack the features 
> needed by a modern init system.
> OpenRC is too little and too late, and it's a shame a GSoC project is 
> wasted on this dead end.

It's a shame that such objections haven't been raised in a timely manner
and through the proper channels.
-- 
Nicolas Dandrimont
wearing his Debian GSoC Org Admin hat


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Berkeley DB 6.0 license change to AGPLv3

[Florian Weimer]

* Scott Kitterman:

> Sorry, I can't quite let this pass.  I just went and looked at the
> AGPL v3 again and one implication of the license is that you can't
> locally fix a security issue without immediate disclosure.  This
> doesn't fit my personal ethics at all and at least IMO makes it
> pretty unsuitable as a license for any network facing service.

But who can do that anyway?

By definition, most people administrating machines do not have access
to embargoed security information.

Most organizations with teams who have access to such information
cannot roll out patches because that would give hundreds, if not
thousands, of people access to the availability and nature of the fix.
This conflicts with the need-to-know principle that governs all
handling of embargoed security information.

In addition, commercial software companies are usually in the services
business as well (because they have cloud offerings), and thus compete
to some extent with their user base.  Traditionally, there is a
Chinese Wall between hosted services (include its infrastructure
security part) and product security, and hosted services are treated
as just another customer, without privileged access, because of
concerns that sharing security information internally could be seen as
unfair competition (at least by the customers who pay for security
support).

On the other hand, if the AGPL prevents organizations from sitting on
security fixes for code they depend on because they cannot be bother
to get the disclosure process going (which can admittedly be quite
time-consuming), that seems a good thing to me.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87fvvh48eu@mid.deneb.enyo.de

Re: Survey answers part 3: systemd is not portable and what this means for our ports

[Marco d'Itri]

On Jul 14, Nicolas Dandrimont  wrote:

> > OpenRC is too little and too late, and it's a shame a GSoC project is 
> > wasted on this dead end.
> It's a shame that such objections haven't been raised in a timely manner
> and through the proper channels.
I did it here and in #684396, so I think that it counts as "timely and 
through the proper channels".

-- 
ciao,
Marco


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Survey answers part 3: systemd is not portable and what this means for our ports

[Marco d'Itri]

On Jul 14, David Kalnischkies  wrote:

> At least I am seriously expecting that Debian isn't discarding the outcome
> of a project it has officially endorsed to be under its umbrella for GSoC
> without even the slightest bit of consideration.
I am seriously expecting that Debian will not waste time with what is 
clearly an inferior solution just because somebody approved a GSoC 
project for it.

> GSoC in Debian was announced a long time ago, enough time to raise
> any objections against any proposed project. Either this wasn't done or
> it wasn't done loud enough as the OpenRC project was accepted and is now
It was done by me and others in the related BTS bug (#684396), and I 
believe that I was loud enough.

> being worked on by a student, so its too late to voice any concerns now
> as this is just slapping the student right across the face. Its at least
I am quite sure that the quality of Debian and its continued viability 
as a modern OS is way more important than anybody's feelings.

> Feel free to evaluate (any project) after it is finished and draw your
> conclusions from that (for the specific project, GSoC in general, …),
> but don't complaining about it without even trying.
There is no reason to wait, since the GSoC project cannot solve the 
fundamental issues about GSoC.

> Last I heard, that was exactly systemd fanbase complain: that everyone
> just complained without even trying it based on hearsay.
I am not a systemd fan, I am a modern init fan. We have at least two of 
these around: systemd and upstart. OpenRC does not qualify.

-- 
ciao,
Marco


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Survey answers part 3: systemd is not portable and what this means for our ports

[John Paul Adrian Glaubitz]

On 07/14/2013 01:09 PM, David Kalnischkies wrote:

At least I am seriously expecting that Debian isn't discarding the outcome
of a project it has officially endorsed to be under its umbrella for GSoC
without even the slightest bit of consideration.


I didn't know that someone is working on OpenRC under the umbrella of 
GSoC. Don't make any assumptions, please.



GSoC in Debian was announced a long time ago, enough time to raise
any objections against any proposed project. Either this wasn't done or
it wasn't done loud enough as the OpenRC project was accepted and is now
being worked on by a student, so its too late to voice any concerns now
as this is just slapping the student right across the face. Its at least
nothing I would do while trying to hook a student to continue working
in/on Debian even long after a specific project is done (and GSoC ended).


Well, if I had known it, I'd have voted against it. And, I am sorry, but 
just because a GSoC student is working on OpenRC in Debian doesn't make 
it any more appealing or sensible in my eyes.


If we made decisions based on this fact, Hurd would have to be a
release kernel by now.


Feel free to evaluate (any project) after it is finished and draw your
conclusions from that (for the specific project, GSoC in general, …),
but don't complaining about it without even trying.


As I said before, this whole OpenRC in Debian has been announced almost 
over a year ago, yet there isn't any fully working implementation while 
systemd is already in production use.



Last I heard, that was exactly systemd fanbase complain: that everyone
just complained without even trying it based on hearsay.
So, lets try "leading by example", shall we?


There is no systemd fanbase. I am not favoring systemd because I like 
Lennart or because I think the name is cool, but because systemd is 
objectively the far superior solution developed by experienced developers.


Debian isn't a toy project, it's supposed to be used on production systems.


These issues are fixable, and I have a good hope that it will happen
before the end of the GSoC project. And there's also upstart as a quite
realistic option too.



The difference is, however, systemd is already there […]


It is not "already there".
That was the whole freaking point of this "survey".


You can install and use it. It's unfortunately just horribly outdated in 
Debian for whatever reason I still don't know of.



There is still enough time for anythings fanbase to bash each other.
Just avoid beating new contributors in the process who might not have
developed a thick enough skin just yet.


Could you please leave the "fan base" accusations out of here? I am not 
a fan, I don't care about what init system we are using as long it's the 
best solution.



David Kalnischkies, who couldn't care less about init systems^W^W"System and
Service Managers" so try to avoid putting him in some fanbase camp please.


You don't sound like you're not biased, however.

Adrian

--
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/51e29baa.5010...@physik.fu-berlin.de

Re: Survey answers part 3: systemd is not portable and what this means for our ports

[Florian Weimer]

* David Kalnischkies:

> GSoC in Debian was announced a long time ago, enough time to raise
> any objections against any proposed project.

Not really, a GSoC project doesn't come with any guarantee, implied or
otherwise, that any deliverable is actually used by the mentoring
organization.

(Of the twelve 2012 projects, only two were actually picked up by
Debian, as far as I could tell.)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87bo6545ka@mid.deneb.enyo.de

Re: Survey answers part 3: systemd is not portable and what this means for our ports

[Игорь Пашев]

Why not to use different init systems on different kernels?
Debian already supports 3 (three) init systems *at once*, sysvinit,
upstart, systemd.
This is much harder that using single system.

FYI, on Dyson [1] I've made dh_installinit noop, and working on dh-smf [2]


[1] http://osdyson.org
[2] http://cgit.osdyson.org/dh-smf.git


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/CALL-Q8zaRq=VOdjj9E7ED3eEP7R1CQ6=2gnrop8deb3jhgd...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Survey answers part 3: systemd is not portable and what this means for our ports

[Thomas Goirand]

On 07/14/2013 04:57 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On 07/14/2013 06:45 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> These aren't the only viable option and you know it. FYI, OpenRC port to
>> Debian is doing well, and it is already able to boot a Debian system
>> with current init script unmodified. Remaining to do:
>> - support for update-rc.d
>> - support for invoke-rc.d
>> - finish the init.d script compatibility (not much remaining to do)
>> - make it work with an unmodified /etc/inittab
>> - add support for X-Start-Before (that might be the hardest part)
> 
> OpenRC has already been discussed for Debian for over a year, it's still
> not fully ported and working, yet you claim the port is doing well.
> 
> Are you seriously expecting anyone to use such a patch work on a
> productive machine?

I'm mentoring the GSoC port, and yes, it's doing well: there is
improvements every week. I was impressed last time I tried by what has
been done.

> The difference is, however, systemd is already there, has matured and a
> strong upstream community. Why should we settle for something which
> doesn't even have a foreseeable future of upstream maintainership?

Ah... So you believe Gentoo will die? Interesting view point!

Thomas


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/51e2afa6.9020...@debian.org

Re: Survey answers part 3: systemd is not portable and what this means for our ports

[Thomas Goirand]

On 07/14/2013 08:31 PM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jul 14, David Kalnischkies  wrote:
> 
>> At least I am seriously expecting that Debian isn't discarding the outcome
>> of a project it has officially endorsed to be under its umbrella for GSoC
>> without even the slightest bit of consideration.
> I am seriously expecting that Debian will not waste time with what is 
> clearly an inferior solution just because somebody approved a GSoC 
> project for it.

Me as well! Though I don't think working on OpenRC is a waste, and it
isn't my view that it is an inferior solution: at least it will work for
kFreeBSD and Hurd, provide cgroup supports, and simplify init scripts.
The fact that it doesn't do too much and rewrite absolutely everything
from syslog to I-don't-know-what can be seen as a good thing, not a bad
one (this is my view that systemd is bloated).

>> GSoC in Debian was announced a long time ago, enough time to raise
>> any objections against any proposed project. Either this wasn't done or
>> it wasn't done loud enough as the OpenRC project was accepted and is now
> It was done by me and others in the related BTS bug (#684396), and I 
> believe that I was loud enough.

Don't worry, you were loud enough, no doubts about that! :)

On 07/14/2013 08:38 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> As I said before

No need to repeat yourself then!

> this whole OpenRC in Debian has been announced almost over
> a year ago

Absolutely nobody made any announcement. Zero, none...
Also,

> yet there isn't any fully working implementation

I'm not sure what you call "fully working". If you are talking about the
software itself, well, Gentoo has been using it for years. For what I
can see in Debian, it currently boots and runs init scripts, and the
status I gave shows that only a few Debian integrations are missing. The
core system works, which was the biggest concern.

Is it your view that reimplementation of update-rc.d and invoke-rc.d
will need many years of testings to make sure they are correct? In that
case, systemd needs a millennium to be tested correctly!

> while systemd is already in production use.

Maybe you should give OpenRC (and the GSoC student) a chance. That's all
we asked. Please respect this project.

Seeing the shape the discussion is taking, it is very clear that people
like you, Marco and Michael, will dismiss OpenRC as a possibility,
whatever happens. It doesn't mater, feel free to do that, but *later on*
please, when we have the results at the end of the summer. Please
respect this project, and the people that believe in it.

Also, anyway what happens, even if we switch to systemd or upstart, both
wont work for anything else than Linux (as stated earlier in this
thread). So whatever happens, it will not be a waste.

Thomas


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/51e2b8b1.3020...@debian.org

openrc packaging status (Re: Survey answers part 3: systemd is not portable and what this means for our ports)

[Holger Levsen]

Hi,

On Sonntag, 14. Juli 2013, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > yet there isn't any fully working implementation
> I'm not sure what you call "fully working".

one which is at least installable with apt-get + sid sources.
that's still not the case, despite 684396 being announced here a year ago.


cheers,
Holger


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: openrc packaging status (Re: Survey answers part 3: systemd is not portable and what this means for our ports)

[Thomas Goirand]

On 07/14/2013 11:40 PM, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Sonntag, 14. Juli 2013, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>>> yet there isn't any fully working implementation
>> I'm not sure what you call "fully working".
> 
> one which is at least installable with apt-get + sid sources.
> that's still not the case, despite 684396 being announced here a year ago.

That's right, we're not there yet.

Thomas


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/51e2e27c.7070...@debian.org

Re: Survey answers part 3: systemd is not portable and what this means for our ports

[David Kalnischkies]

On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 2:38 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
 wrote:
> On 07/14/2013 01:09 PM, David Kalnischkies wrote:
>>
>> At least I am seriously expecting that Debian isn't discarding the outcome
>> of a project it has officially endorsed to be under its umbrella for GSoC
>> without even the slightest bit of consideration.
>
>
> I didn't know that someone is working on OpenRC under the umbrella of GSoC.
> Don't make any assumptions, please.

I am sorry, but I figured that because Thomas was talking about this project
with the keyword Debian and GSoC in his mail that this would be known.


>> Last I heard, that was exactly systemd fanbase complain: that everyone
>> just complained without even trying it based on hearsay.
>> So, lets try "leading by example", shall we?
>
>
> There is no systemd fanbase. I am not favoring systemd because I like
> Lennart or because I think the name is cool, but because systemd is
> objectively the far superior solution developed by experienced developers.
>
> Debian isn't a toy project, it's supposed to be used on production systems.

The benefit of being the "objectively far superior solution" is that you don't
need to be scared of competing with inferior solutions, as you will always
win in Debian. No name calling, no politics, no popularity contest, just pure
clear objective facts everyone can validate by trying it out.

If the student delivers a project which can be evaluated for its technical
merits, we have won a lot, as this automatically shuts up every "what if
we adapted this to our needs" …
That path was explored, it didn't prove useful because … kthxbye.
A lot better than trying to argue with not objective arguments.


I am not going to comment the other parts as I assume it is not meant to be
commented – especially as your second to last sentence suggests that we
actually have the same goal and just approach it differently.
I am suggesting to read about GSoC (and similar) in Debian though.


Best regards

David Kalnischkies


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/CAAZ6_fBUpjCPef9TzNrYDaH™dtpkpq0brdbpey+5t6vj7...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Survey answers part 3: systemd is not portable and what this means for our ports

[David Kalnischkies]

On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Florian Weimer  wrote:
> * David Kalnischkies:
>
>> GSoC in Debian was announced a long time ago, enough time to raise
>> any objections against any proposed project.
>
> Not really, a GSoC project doesn't come with any guarantee, implied or
> otherwise, that any deliverable is actually used by the mentoring
> organization.

That is fine (at least for some definitions of fine. Ideally everything would
be picked up – and of course also proposed in a way that it can be picked
up – but that is unrealistic).

But there is a difference between "not used after its done as the project
proofed that it is not able to deliver something more valuable" and
"saying midway that whatever the student does, it will be discarded".

We have a student who works on that stuff, so the least we can do is check
if whatever the outcome will be can be useful for Debian, even if the outcome
is that it is not useful for Debian at all – that is at least a
technical argument
someone can work with and removes a candidate from the pool.


Best regards

David Kalnischkies


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/CAAZ6_fCuLWPRr2+m+tZ=6xW+V3EE-Ji-qb=6mxkhsobtntf...@mail.gmail.com

DFSG claims BSD, not BSD 2/3-clause, is DFSG-free

[Richard Hartmann]

Dear all,

during my ongoing NM process, I have been asked to review several
Debian documents and propose any changes I would like to see.

While, to put it bluntly, I think the Debian Constitution is written
somewhat sloppily, it's most likely not worth going through a GR to
get what amounts to janitorial work through.

Something that _can_ easily be changed (afaik) is that the DFSG[1] states that

  'The GPL, BSD, and Artistic licenses are examples of licenses that
we consider free.'

It's quite obvious that this refers to 2- and 3- clause BSD, not
4-clause BSD. Still, that's not what it says. Same as above, this is
mainly janitorial, but still valid.
As I honestly don't know where to take this, I decided to open this
can of worms here.


Thanks,
Richard


PS: If anyone's seriously interested in the barrel or container of
worms of "clean up the Debian Constitution a bit and see those changes
implemented", maybe we should do that in another thread.

PPS: Same as whitespace commits, this type or janitorial work can be
rather political or even religious. I do not intend to offend your
FSM. Promise.


[1] http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/cad77+gsop_mwf7gcrus+t83nehxszk0q0wt02f0cl3q_snm...@mail.gmail.com

Re: DFSG claims BSD, not BSD 2/3-clause, is DFSG-free

[Paul Tagliamonte]

Perhaps you'd be interested in 20130105150458.ga6...@vasudev.homelinux.net

Cheers,
  Paul

On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Richard Hartmann
 wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> during my ongoing NM process, I have been asked to review several
> Debian documents and propose any changes I would like to see.
>
> While, to put it bluntly, I think the Debian Constitution is written
> somewhat sloppily, it's most likely not worth going through a GR to
> get what amounts to janitorial work through.
>
> Something that _can_ easily be changed (afaik) is that the DFSG[1] states that
>
>   'The GPL, BSD, and Artistic licenses are examples of licenses that
> we consider free.'
>
> It's quite obvious that this refers to 2- and 3- clause BSD, not
> 4-clause BSD. Still, that's not what it says. Same as above, this is
> mainly janitorial, but still valid.
> As I honestly don't know where to take this, I decided to open this
> can of worms here.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Richard
>
>
> PS: If anyone's seriously interested in the barrel or container of
> worms of "clean up the Debian Constitution a bit and see those changes
> implemented", maybe we should do that in another thread.
>
> PPS: Same as whitespace commits, this type or janitorial work can be
> rather political or even religious. I do not intend to offend your
> FSM. Promise.
>
>
> [1] http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
> Archive: 
> http://lists.debian.org/cad77+gsop_mwf7gcrus+t83nehxszk0q0wt02f0cl3q_snm...@mail.gmail.com
>



-- 
All programmers are playwrights, and all computers are lousy actors.

#define sizeof(x) rand()
:wq


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/cao6p2qtfuherrkzolcxeujgpvxq5hxodmgg1etqyq-yidrq...@mail.gmail.com

Re: DFSG claims BSD, not BSD 2/3-clause, is DFSG-free

[Russ Allbery]

Richard Hartmann  writes:

> Something that _can_ easily be changed (afaik) is that the DFSG[1]
> states that

>   'The GPL, BSD, and Artistic licenses are examples of licenses that
> we consider free.'

> It's quite obvious that this refers to 2- and 3- clause BSD, not
> 4-clause BSD.

It is?

The 4-clause BSD license is also DFSG-free.  We have a bunch of 4-clause
BSD licensed software in the archive.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/871u71gf9n@windlord.stanford.edu

Re: DFSG claims BSD, not BSD 2/3-clause, is DFSG-free

[Paul Tagliamonte]

On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 11:36:36AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Richard Hartmann  writes:
> 
> > Something that _can_ easily be changed (afaik) is that the DFSG[1]
> > states that
> 
> >   'The GPL, BSD, and Artistic licenses are examples of licenses that
> > we consider free.'
> 
> > It's quite obvious that this refers to 2- and 3- clause BSD, not
> > 4-clause BSD.
> 
> It is?
> 
> The 4-clause BSD license is also DFSG-free.  We have a bunch of 4-clause
> BSD licensed software in the archive.


The GPL incompatability might have tricked folks who aren't carefully
reading into thinking it's not free.

Either way, there's a more general point about DFSG 10, which has been
brought up a few times (usually by folks who assume the DFSG is the letter
of the law, whereas they're actually guidelines.)


My 2c,
  Paul

-- 
 .''`.  Paul Tagliamonte 
: :'  : Proud Debian Developer
`. `'`  4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352  D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87
 `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: DFSG claims BSD, not BSD 2/3-clause, is DFSG-free

[Florian Weimer]

* Richard Hartmann:

> Something that _can_ easily be changed (afaik) is that the DFSG[1] states that
>
>   'The GPL, BSD, and Artistic licenses are examples of licenses that
> we consider free.'
>
> It's quite obvious that this refers to 2- and 3- clause BSD, not
> 4-clause BSD.

The "BSD" hyperlink in the quote above used to refer to the text of
the 4-clause version.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87d2qlymry@mid.deneb.enyo.de

Re: Survey answers part 3: systemd is not portable and what this means for our ports

[Geoffrey Thomas]

On Sun, 14 Jul 2013, Marco d'Itri wrote:


being worked on by a student, so its too late to voice any concerns now
as this is just slapping the student right across the face. Its at least

I am quite sure that the quality of Debian and its continued viability
as a modern OS is way more important than anybody's feelings.


Sorry, I have to respond to this -- I have no strong opinions about init 
systems, but I do have strong opinions about how Debian treats new 
contributors.


The quality of Debian and its continued viability as a modern OS is 
directly dependent on people being willing to work on it, and the actions 
of Debian towards new contributors will last far longer than any technical 
decision today. And people's feelings impact their retention as 
contributors.


It's not very meaningful to say that a thing is more important than 
another thing that it depends on.


And if it turns out that systemd is today necessary for Debian's 
"viability as a modern OS", there are ways for the project to make that 
decision without being rude to folks who have been working on other 
systems (and, of course, without them being rude to folks working on 
systemd either). The objection is to the manner in which the statement was 
made; it was not a claim about the truth of the statement.


--
Geoffrey Thomas
http://ldpreload.com
geo...@ldpreload.com


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/alpine.deb.2.00.1307141141250.28...@dr-wily.mit.edu

Re: Survey answers part 3: systemd is not portable and what this means for our ports

[Marco d'Itri]

On Jul 14, Игорь Пашев  wrote:

> Why not to use different init systems on different kernels?
Because it would be stupid, since it requires either one of:
- implementing the equivalent of init scripts for each init system
- dumbing down the init systems to the lowest common denominator (and 
  when you have sysvinit or OpenRC then it's quite low)

> Debian already supports 3 (three) init systems *at once*, sysvinit,
> upstart, systemd.
No, not really: Debian supports sysvinit and allows installing upstart 
or systemd in a way that they will use the sysvinit init scripts. This 
is not very useful (especially with upstart), because it does not bring 
many improvements over sysvinit.
Then some people start duplicating in every package the init scripts for 
upstart and systemd, which is a waste of time and adds code which cannot 
be well tested.

-- 
ciao,
Marco


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Survey answers part 3: systemd is not portable and what this means for our ports

[Paul Tagliamonte]

On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 02:38:02PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On 07/14/2013 01:09 PM, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> >At least I am seriously expecting that Debian isn't discarding the outcome
> >of a project it has officially endorsed to be under its umbrella for GSoC
> >without even the slightest bit of consideration.
> 
> I didn't know that someone is working on OpenRC under the umbrella
> of GSoC. Don't make any assumptions, please.

There was a mail to d-d-a. (20130529003844.GA5280@loki.localdomain)
surely you read d-d-a :)

> >GSoC in Debian was announced a long time ago, enough time to raise
> >any objections against any proposed project. Either this wasn't done or
> >it wasn't done loud enough as the OpenRC project was accepted and is now
> >being worked on by a student, so its too late to voice any concerns now
> >as this is just slapping the student right across the face. Its at least
> >nothing I would do while trying to hook a student to continue working
> >in/on Debian even long after a specific project is done (and GSoC ended).
> 
> Well, if I had known it, I'd have voted against it. And, I am sorry,

To quote another DD I respect a great deal: "This is not a fucking
vote". They had a sane project that had a great chance of improving
Debian, and gives us options.

It's also about the *student*. We want more contributors. Why throw away
someone willing to do great work within Debian?

> but just because a GSoC student is working on OpenRC in Debian
> doesn't make it any more appealing or sensible in my eyes.

It gives us an option.

[...]

Cheers,
  Paul

-- 
 .''`.  Paul Tagliamonte 
: :'  : Proud Debian Developer
`. `'`  4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352  D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87
 `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Survey answers part 3: systemd is not portable and what this means for our ports

[Kevin Chadwick]

> since some people might not read planet debian, here is a link to my
> third blog post in a series of posts dealing with the results of the
> Debian systemd survey:

Well I am behind on my mailing list reading just at the time when it
matters for my concerns for debian. I disagree with many of the points
roger has/atleast had settled on for merging /usr and especially
discounting arguments but haven't had time to collate them and formulate
a comprehensive response as I had planned and unfortunately my care
for Linux is diminishing daily.

I certainly wouldn't run systemd on any of our systems including
production systems or products and in fact could never run it on some
of our embedded products because it is simply too resource hungry. 

What this survey that I have only just heard about after the fact and
don't know how the questions were put has pointed out to me is that
there are many very clever devs who disagree with the so-called
majority () and have very valid reasons against systemd. It is also of
such low total participants that it should be discarded on that alone.

What percentage would be perfectly happy with sticking to a simple and
standard script based system? Probably a far higher percentage, after
all anything useful systemd can do, a script based system like openrc
and optional daemons can do.

It is a far better and prove more workable and less problematic default
for corner case and controversial features (almost all of systemd can be
put under that category) that increase complexity and the number of
lines of code to be optionally installable such as monit, redundant
systems and carp or nagios for user access uptime than to make users
work backwards.

p.s. I haven't the time to talk about or even recollect a 20th of the
problems that systemd poses which should be enough for anyone to say
hang on, what is this mess, it is obviously not optimal or very
close to suitable for all as any init system should and always
has rightly been.

What do you really lose by sticking with a script based system,
potentially nothing is the point.

P.s. whenever I hear someone talk about Linux and Modern it is simply
proving to show that commenter's inexperience. Only idiots *require*
cgroups or parallelisation the latter being only required/beneficial
when the fastest bootup is required, which is almost never the case else
bioses wouldn't conduct post tests or memory checks.

-- 
___

'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work
together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a
universal interface'

(Doug McIlroy)
___


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/368458.87672...@smtp107.mail.ir2.yahoo.com

Re: Survey answers part 3: systemd is not portable and what this means for our ports

[Marco d'Itri]

On Jul 14, David Kalnischkies  wrote:

> But there is a difference between "not used after its done as the project
> proofed that it is not able to deliver something more valuable" and
> "saying midway that whatever the student does, it will be discarded".
Whatever the student will do it cannot change the fact that OpenRC is 
still going to be a minor improvement over sysvinit and too much far 
from upstart and systemd[1].
And again, this was explained clearly when the project was proposed.


[1] and let's not even start discussing the wisdom of adopting a totally 
unknown init system which nobody but Gentoo uses, because the people 
who don't even get this just make me sad.

-- 
ciao,
Marco


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Survey answers part 3: systemd is not portable and what this means for our ports

[Игорь Пашев]

2013/7/14 Marco d'Itri :
> which is a waste of time and adds code which cannot
> be well tested.


Isn't Debian itself is a  waste of time, while we have RedHat? :-P

Let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/call-q8zxs_0q2uofjz-+uryhs_ism7fr8je446uceetm1dk...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Survey answers part 3: systemd is not portable and what this means for our ports

[Matthias Klumpp]

Hi!

2013/7/14 Paul Tagliamonte :
> [...]
> It's also about the *student*. We want more contributors. Why throw away
> someone willing to do great work within Debian?
>
>> but just because a GSoC student is working on OpenRC in Debian
>> doesn't make it any more appealing or sensible in my eyes.
>
> It gives us an option.
I have to agree with that statement, even as strong supporter of
systemd. There is nothing wrong with exploring different options, even
if they might not be viable in future (who knows?). And even if we
switch to systemd completely, OpenRC might be a nice option for
non-Linux ports to use or for possible other use-cases.
Also, I am certain that the SoC student will gain a lot of knowledge
about the init-process and the structures in Debian itself, which
mages this GSoC project a perfectly sane choice.
Cheers,
Matthias

-- 
I welcome VSRE emails. See http://vsre.info/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/CAKNHny-DLKgrfZZEeY+Rz_c6-46LSp7MaAf=sndt3wwk-xi...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Survey answers part 3: systemd is not portable and what this means for our ports

[Russ Allbery]

Kevin Chadwick  writes:

> P.s. whenever I hear someone talk about Linux and Modern it is simply
> proving to show that commenter's inexperience. Only idiots *require*
> cgroups or parallelisation the latter being only required/beneficial
> when the fastest bootup is required, which is almost never the case else
> bioses wouldn't conduct post tests or memory checks.

I've been administering UNIX systems professionally for 20 years, from
SunOS and ULTRIX through AIX, HP-UX, IRIX, Solaris, and Linux.  In my
professional, *experienced* opinion, proper deployment of a modern init
system will make Debian considerably more robust, simpler to develop, and
simpler to administer.

You are certainly entitled to disagree.  There are valid reasons for
disagreement, which mostly amount to the weights that one puts on
different possible risks.  But it is simply not the case that everyone who
disagrees with you is simply an idiot.

This is the wrong mailing list to try to make an argument from personal
authority.  There are many people here who have just as much experience as
you do, if not more, and are not going to be impressed by your assertions
of expertise.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87k3ksgb6q@windlord.stanford.edu

/usr (was: Re: Survey answers part 3: systemd is not portable and what this) means for our ports

[Roger Leigh]

On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 08:19:58PM +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> > since some people might not read planet debian, here is a link to my
> > third blog post in a series of posts dealing with the results of the
> > Debian systemd survey:
> 
> Well I am behind on my mailing list reading just at the time when it
> matters for my concerns for debian. I disagree with many of the points
> roger has/atleast had settled on for merging /usr and especially
> discounting arguments but haven't had time to collate them and formulate
> a comprehensive response as I had planned

Assuming you're referring to myself, I'd certainly be happy to discuss
any of this--feel free to mail me privately if you like.

I don't think that we agreed on merging /usr at all.  I have written
some patches for initramfs-tools to permit fsck and mount of /usr
in the initramfs in addition to the rootfs, but that's as far as this
has gone.  There's no merging here, just changing where /usr is
mounted in the boot process.

I'll be happy to consider anything you want to raise in more detail;
nothing as yet has been changed, and there's certainly plenty of time
to revise things.


Regards,
Roger

-- 
  .''`.  Roger Leigh
 : :' :  Debian GNU/Linuxhttp://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
 `. `'   schroot and sbuild  http://alioth.debian.org/projects/buildd-tools
   `-GPG Public Key  F33D 281D 470A B443 6756 147C 07B3 C8BC 4083 E800


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130714203850.gs31...@codelibre.net

Bug#716924: ITP: hyperrogue -- non-euclidean graphical rogue-like game

[chrysn]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: chrysn 

* Package name: hyperrogue
  Version : 3.7
  Upstream Author : Zeno Rogue 
* URL : http://www.roguetemple.com/z/hyper.php
* License : GPL-2+
  Programming Lang: C++
  Description : non-euclidean graphical rogue-like game

 HyperRogue III is a game in which the player collects treasures and fights
 monsters -- a classical rogue-like but for the fact that it is played on the
 hyperbolic plane and not in euclidean space.
 .
 In HyperRogue, the player can move through different parts of the world, which
 are home to particular creatures and may be subject to own rules of "physics".
 .
 While it can use ASCII characters to display the world the classical rogue
 symbols, the game needs graphics to render the non-euclidean world.

hyperrogue is a straightforward package. upstream's build system is
plain make (thus debhelper for clean and install).

the package has to be made dfsg free by removing shipped dlls and the
bistream vera sans font, and some patching to bend paths to their proper
locations.

the debian extra mile involves desktop file, menu entry and man page.

work is in progress.

-- 
To use raw power is to make yourself infinitely vulnerable to greater powers.
  -- Bene Gesserit axiom


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [Popcon-developers] Encrypted popcon submissions

[Guillem Jover]

On Sat, 2013-07-13 at 15:32:15 +, brian m. carlson wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 02:33:57PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > Hmm, do you have a reference? I've looked in the gnupg git master and
> > stable-2.0 branches and I don't see any obvious mention of this on the
> > NEWS file, or commit messages after a quick search. I'd fine it very
> > strange that such option would disappear, and it would mean that for
> > example dpkg-dev could not use gnupg 2.x at all then.
> 
> Upstream has indicated an intention to remove multiple keyring support
> in GnuPG 2.1.  I can't find the reference to the explicit statement
> where Werner said he was going to do that, but you can see opposition on
> gnupg-users in the following threads:
> 
>   http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/2011-August/042699.html
>   http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/2011-August/042725.html
> 
> As you can see from the threads above, I agree that it is a bad idea.

Ah, from Werner's reply in

  

it would seem like gpgv would not lose such ability, only gpg, which
does not look that bad, I got the impression from your comment, support
for this was/would get removed from the entire gnupg project.

Thanks for the pointers.

Regards,
Guillem


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130714224118.ga29...@gaara.hadrons.org

Re: Survey answers part 3: systemd is not portable and what this means for our ports

[Ben Hutchings]

On Sun, 2013-07-14 at 13:09 +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 10:57 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
>  wrote:
> > On 07/14/2013 06:45 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> >>
> >> These aren't the only viable option and you know it. FYI, OpenRC port to
> >> Debian is doing well, and it is already able to boot a Debian system
> >> with current init script unmodified. Remaining to do:
> >> - support for update-rc.d
> >> - support for invoke-rc.d
> >> - finish the init.d script compatibility (not much remaining to do)
> >> - make it work with an unmodified /etc/inittab
> >> - add support for X-Start-Before (that might be the hardest part)
> >
> >
> > OpenRC has already been discussed for Debian for over a year, it's still not
> > fully ported and working, yet you claim the port is doing well.
> >
> > Are you seriously expecting anyone to use such a patch work on a productive
> > machine?
> 
> At least I am seriously expecting that Debian isn't discarding the outcome
> of a project it has officially endorsed to be under its umbrella for GSoC
> without even the slightest bit of consideration.
[...]

GSoC Debian projects are not 'officially endorsed by Debian'.  So far as
I understand it, they are supported by at least one DD (proposer and
mentor, may be the same person) and accepted by the GSoC coordinator;
that's all.  And they can be quite experimental, which is OK so long as
the project in general recognises that.

Neither do John or Marco speak for Debian, so nothing has been discarded
yet.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Humans are not rational beings; they are rationalising beings.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part