Participating on #SaveCodeShare from FSFE

[Carsten Schoenert]

Hi,

by some website I was guided this week to the Save Code Share campaign
[1] of the FSFE from September this year which is already some weeks
old. Unfortunately I haven't noticed this project before.

As Debian is a project which takes free software and user rights serious
I propose that the Debian Project could sign the open letter about the
campaign, I couldn't find any reference to Debian on the website or the
White Paper. Or at least I would like to encourage other Contributors to
sign this letter too.

It's a shame enough that the FCC had the power to make free and open
software more or less illegal [2] in the past. IMHO it's important this
isn't happen in a form of modification again in Europe.


[1] https://savecodeshare.eu/
[2]
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2339685/fcc-software-security-requirements.pdf

-- 
Regards
Carsten Schoenert

Bug#883133: Bug#883134: general: Add new package header Upstream-Version:

[Victor Porton]

On Thu, 2017-11-30 at 12:15 +0100, Geert Stappers wrote:
> Control: tags -1 moreinfo
> 
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 04:25:54AM +0200, Victor Porton wrote:
> > I am writing software which should call a program in specific
> > version range
> > (or fail to call it if the program in this version range is not
> > installed).
> 
> Please elaborate the problem you want to solve.

I am writing software for transforming between XML namespaces.

The transforming is done by "scripts" (Python scripts, XSLT scripts,
Ruby scripts, Bash scripts, etc.)

For each conversion I specify several alternative scripts.

A script may be specified by a user of my software by the URL of the
script and name and version range of the interpreter (simplified
explanation).
For example, in input of my software there may be the following
alternative converters:

Python 2.7.1 - 2.7.14 http://example.org/script.py
XSLT 1.0 - 1.1 http://example.org/script.xslt

To choose an installed interpreter, then my program should check if
"python2.7" is installed, if its version is in 2.7.1 - 2.7.14 range. It
also to check if "xsltproc" is installed and its version.

For this I need the upstream versions of "python2.7" and "xsltproc".

Re: ISO download difficult (was: Debian Stretch new user report (vs Linux Mint))

[eamanu15 .]

I agree with this mail. It was difficult for me, find  the ISO download
(especially non-free installer)

El vie., 1 de dic. de 2017 a la(s) 18:15, Luca Capello 
escribió:

> Hi there,
>
> On Fri, 01 Dec 2017 14:39:12 +0100, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
> > Quoting Paul Wise :
> > > It would have been best for him to download the ISO with non-free
> > > firmware embedded, do you know how he made the decision to download
> > > the ISO without non-free firmware?
> >
> > Every time I need a Debian ISO, it takes me minutes to find it.
> > I didn't even know, that there were an ISO with non-free firmware.
> >
> > There should be a beautiful ISO download page, e.g.
> > https://www.debian.org/download[s]/
> > with all architectures and supported releases, similar to
> > https://www.ubuntu.com/download
> > or
> > https://linuxmint.com/download.php
>
> Like the following?
>
>   
>
> Which is 3-click away from the main page:
>
>   Release Info => 
>stable => 
> 2nd sentence => <
> https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/debian-installer/>
>
> Or do you prefer another pointer in our official documentation?
>
>   
>
> OK, you need to dig deeper to find this, 4-click away from the main
> page:
>
>   Installation manual => <
> https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/installmanual>
>Installation Guide for 64-bit PC (amd64) => <
> https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/>
> 2.2. Devices Requiring Firmware => <
> https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/ch02s02.html.en>
>
>  [4th sentence]
>
>  However, this does not mean that such hardware cannot be used
>  during an installation. Starting with Debian GNU/Linux 5.0,
>  debian-installer supports loading firmware files or packages
>  containing firmware from a removable medium, such as a USB
>  stick. See Section 6.4, “Loading Missing Firmware” for detailed
>  information on how to load firmware files or packages during the
>  installation.
>
>   6.4.1. Preparing a medium => <
> https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/ch06s04.html.en>
>
>   [6th sentence]
>
>   Official CD images do not include non-free firmware. The most
>   common method to load such firmware is from some removable medium
>   such as a USB stick. Alternatively, unofficial CD builds
>   containing non-free firmware can be found at
>
> http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/cd-including-firmware/
> .
>
> However, given that no one reads the documentation today, but it relies
> on search engines, the first result in DuckDuckGo (and FWIW in Google as
> well) for "Debian Firmware" gives...
>
>   
>
> ...where the 3rd paragraph contains (copying it here for search
> engines):
>
>   Firmware during the installation
>
>   In some cases the installer detects the need for non-free firmware and
>   prompts the user to make the firmware available to the installer to
>   complete the installation. This can happen, for example, with wireless
>   network cards which often require non-free firmware to function (see
>   ipw2200 for an example).
>
>   A suggestion, especially while installation on hardware unfamiliar to
>   you, is to download the firmware archive for your platform and unpack
>   it into a directory named firmware in the root of a removable storage
>   device (USB/CD drive). When the installer starts, it will
>   automatically find the firmware files in the directory on the
>   removable storage and, if needed, install the firmware for your
>   hardware. You can find firmware downloads for your Debian version at
>   http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/firmware/.
>
>   In some cases, firmware supplied on removable media may not be
>   detected automatically (e.g. 740503). In these situations, drop to the
>   console and manually mount (see mount(8)) your removable storage on a
>   temporary directory (e.g. /media).
>
>   Alternatively, you can use one of the parallel installer image builds
>   that also include all the non-free firmware packages directly. We have
>   "netinst" CD images and also DVD installer images - see
>
> http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/cd-including-firmware/
>
> Thx, bye,
> Gismo / Luca
>
-- 
Arias Emmanuel
https://www.linkedin.com/in/emmanuel-arias-437a6a8a
http://eamanu.com

Re: Debian Stretch new user report (vs Linux Mint)

[eamanu15 .]

Hello everybody,

I started on the free software world 7 years ago. My first distro was
Debian. But in that time Debian was "complicate" for me. So, I change to
Ubuntu. I used to use them like a simple user.

A couple of month ago I decided to contribute to Free software, so I choose
Debian.

Now, with a little more experience with Linux-Based-OS like user, I feel
that Debian don't think about new user. I think that if we want to catch
more user, we have to make a more easily used OS. The First change (on my
point of view) is try to find the best order for the web-page. For me, was
a little complicate search the  non-free ISO installer (I was problem with
my WIFI device)

Regards!


El vie., 1 de dic. de 2017 a la(s) 21:34, Sven Hartge 
escribió:

> The Wanderer  wrote:
> > On 2017-12-01 at 16:44, Sven Hartge wrote:
> >> Luca Capello  wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 01 Dec 2017 14:59:53 -0500, James McCoy wrote:
>
>  People seem to be skipping over the fact that even after ntfs-3g
>  was installed, the user only had RO access.  That's the bigger
>  issue.
> >>
> >>> Exactly, which IIRC is the normal behavior if the NTFS filesystem
> >>> was not properly "closed", e.g. if Windows was hibernated (or it
> >>> uses the Fast Boot/Startup feature, thus suspend2both).
> >>
> >> Which is normal since at least Windows 7, maybe even Vista, to not
> >> shutdown completely, but only shutdown the applications and then
> >> hibernate the remaining Windows Kernel and memory to disk, leaving
> >> the filesystem unclean.
>
> > Are you sure?
>
> Not on the version specifics, to be honest.
>
> > I've been managing Windows 7 at my workplace for years now, and I've
> > never seen this "suspend in response to Shut Down" behavior there; the
> > first place I ever saw it was on a Windows 8 machine.  I'm not sure
> > I've yet seen it in our current Windows 10 pilot, either, but I also
> > haven't looked especially closely there.
>
> Maybe it happens only on Windows 7 on SSD? Or only in specific editions?
>
> But a quick web search reveals that Windows 8 was the first Windows to
> have "Fast Startup"/"Hybrid Shutdown" enabled per default and Windows 10
> has this feature enabled as well.
>
> I mostly deal, if I have to deal, with the server variant of Windows,
> which does not have this feature.
>
> But I have seen the NTFS-mount-only-as-RO problem on other peoples
> systems, when dual booting into Linux.
>
> S°
>
> --
> Sigmentation fault. Core dumped.
>
> --
Arias Emmanuel
https://www.linkedin.com/in/emmanuel-arias-437a6a8a
http://eamanu.com

Re: Debian Stretch new user report (vs Linux Mint)

[Sven Hartge]

The Wanderer  wrote:
> On 2017-12-01 at 16:44, Sven Hartge wrote:
>> Luca Capello  wrote:
>>> On Fri, 01 Dec 2017 14:59:53 -0500, James McCoy wrote:
 
 People seem to be skipping over the fact that even after ntfs-3g
 was installed, the user only had RO access.  That's the bigger
 issue.
>> 
>>> Exactly, which IIRC is the normal behavior if the NTFS filesystem
>>> was not properly "closed", e.g. if Windows was hibernated (or it
>>> uses the Fast Boot/Startup feature, thus suspend2both).
>> 
>> Which is normal since at least Windows 7, maybe even Vista, to not
>> shutdown completely, but only shutdown the applications and then
>> hibernate the remaining Windows Kernel and memory to disk, leaving
>> the filesystem unclean.

> Are you sure?

Not on the version specifics, to be honest.

> I've been managing Windows 7 at my workplace for years now, and I've
> never seen this "suspend in response to Shut Down" behavior there; the
> first place I ever saw it was on a Windows 8 machine.  I'm not sure
> I've yet seen it in our current Windows 10 pilot, either, but I also
> haven't looked especially closely there.

Maybe it happens only on Windows 7 on SSD? Or only in specific editions?

But a quick web search reveals that Windows 8 was the first Windows to
have "Fast Startup"/"Hybrid Shutdown" enabled per default and Windows 10
has this feature enabled as well.

I mostly deal, if I have to deal, with the server variant of Windows,
which does not have this feature.

But I have seen the NTFS-mount-only-as-RO problem on other peoples
systems, when dual booting into Linux.

S°

-- 
Sigmentation fault. Core dumped.

Re: seccomp jailing for applications (was: recommends for apparmor in newest linux-image-4.13)

[Colin Watson]

On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 12:05:20PM +0100, Andrew Shadura wrote:
> How about https://notabug.org/rain1/linux-seccomp-pledge/?

Promising enough idea, but it looks like the author gave up on it and
never finished the job.  This sort of thing is only really helpful if
it's maintained by somebody who's putting more work into keeping it
complete and current than I want to put into doing a small part of the
job. :-)

-- 
Colin Watson   [cjwat...@debian.org]

Re: Debian Stretch new user report (vs Linux Mint)

[The Wanderer]

On 2017-12-01 at 16:44, Sven Hartge wrote:

> Luca Capello  wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 01 Dec 2017 14:59:53 -0500, James McCoy wrote:
> 
>>> People seem to be skipping over the fact that even after ntfs-3g
>>> was installed, the user only had RO access.  That's the bigger
>>> issue.
> 
>> Exactly, which IIRC is the normal behavior if the NTFS filesystem
>> was not properly "closed", e.g. if Windows was hibernated (or it
>> uses the Fast Boot/Startup feature, thus suspend2both).
> 
> Which is normal since at least Windows 7, maybe even Vista, to not 
> shutdown completely, but only shutdown the applications and then 
> hibernate the remaining Windows Kernel and memory to disk, leaving
> the filesystem unclean.

Are you sure?

I've been managing Windows 7 at my workplace for years now, and I've
never seen this "suspend in response to Shut Down" behavior there; the
first place I ever saw it was on a Windows 8 machine.

I'm not sure I've yet seen it in our current Windows 10 pilot, either,
but I also haven't looked especially closely there.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Debian Stretch new user report (vs Linux Mint)

[Sven Hartge]

Luca Capello  wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Dec 2017 14:59:53 -0500, James McCoy wrote:

>> People seem to be skipping over the fact that even after ntfs-3g was
>> installed, the user only had RO access.  That's the bigger issue.

> Exactly, which IIRC is the normal behavior if the NTFS filesystem was
> not properly "closed", e.g. if Windows was hibernated (or it uses the
> Fast Boot/Startup feature, thus suspend2both).

Which is normal since at least Windows 7, maybe even Vista, to not
shutdown completely, but only shutdown the applications and then
hibernate the remaining Windows Kernel and memory to disk, leaving the
filesystem unclean.

S°

-- 
Sigmentation fault. Core dumped.

Re: ISO download difficult (was: Debian Stretch new user report (vs Linux Mint))

[Luca Capello]

Hi there,

On Fri, 01 Dec 2017 14:39:12 +0100, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
> Quoting Paul Wise :
> > It would have been best for him to download the ISO with non-free
> > firmware embedded, do you know how he made the decision to download
> > the ISO without non-free firmware?
> 
> Every time I need a Debian ISO, it takes me minutes to find it.
> I didn't even know, that there were an ISO with non-free firmware.
> 
> There should be a beautiful ISO download page, e.g.
> https://www.debian.org/download[s]/
> with all architectures and supported releases, similar to
> https://www.ubuntu.com/download
> or
> https://linuxmint.com/download.php

Like the following?

  

Which is 3-click away from the main page:

  Release Info => 
   stable => 
2nd sentence => 

Or do you prefer another pointer in our official documentation?

  

OK, you need to dig deeper to find this, 4-click away from the main
page:

  Installation manual => 
   Installation Guide for 64-bit PC (amd64) => 

2.2. Devices Requiring Firmware => 


 [4th sentence]

 However, this does not mean that such hardware cannot be used
 during an installation. Starting with Debian GNU/Linux 5.0,
 debian-installer supports loading firmware files or packages
 containing firmware from a removable medium, such as a USB
 stick. See Section 6.4, “Loading Missing Firmware” for detailed
 information on how to load firmware files or packages during the
 installation. 

  6.4.1. Preparing a medium => 


  [6th sentence]

  Official CD images do not include non-free firmware. The most
  common method to load such firmware is from some removable medium
  such as a USB stick. Alternatively, unofficial CD builds
  containing non-free firmware can be found at
  
http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/cd-including-firmware/.

However, given that no one reads the documentation today, but it relies
on search engines, the first result in DuckDuckGo (and FWIW in Google as
well) for "Debian Firmware" gives...

  

...where the 3rd paragraph contains (copying it here for search
engines):

  Firmware during the installation

  In some cases the installer detects the need for non-free firmware and
  prompts the user to make the firmware available to the installer to
  complete the installation. This can happen, for example, with wireless
  network cards which often require non-free firmware to function (see
  ipw2200 for an example).

  A suggestion, especially while installation on hardware unfamiliar to
  you, is to download the firmware archive for your platform and unpack
  it into a directory named firmware in the root of a removable storage
  device (USB/CD drive). When the installer starts, it will
  automatically find the firmware files in the directory on the
  removable storage and, if needed, install the firmware for your
  hardware. You can find firmware downloads for your Debian version at
  http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/firmware/.

  In some cases, firmware supplied on removable media may not be
  detected automatically (e.g. 740503). In these situations, drop to the
  console and manually mount (see mount(8)) your removable storage on a
  temporary directory (e.g. /media).

  Alternatively, you can use one of the parallel installer image builds
  that also include all the non-free firmware packages directly. We have
  "netinst" CD images and also DVD installer images - see
  http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/cd-including-firmware/

Thx, bye,
Gismo / Luca


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Debian Stretch new user report (vs Linux Mint)

[Luca Capello]

Hi there,

On Fri, 01 Dec 2017 14:59:53 -0500, James McCoy wrote:
> People seem to be skipping over the fact that even after ntfs-3g was
> installed, the user only had RO access.  That's the bigger issue.

Exactly, which IIRC is the normal behavior if the NTFS filesystem was
not properly "closed", e.g. if Windows was hibernated (or it uses the
Fast Boot/Startup feature, thus suspend2both).

Thx, bye,
Gismo / Luca


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Debian Stretch new user report (vs Linux Mint)

[James McCoy]

On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 12:23:14PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Am 01.12.2017 um 07:34 schrieb Paul Wise:
> > On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 1:36 AM, Arturo Borrero Gonzalez wrote:
> >> * no support for RW on NTFS drives, only RO. This wasn't fixed even by
> >> installing ntfs-3g [0].
> >> I didn't have the time to investigate the NTFS issue myself, sorry :-(
> > 
> > Sounds like you need to get him to file a bug against ntfs-3g and
> > against whichever meta-package or other component should be installing
> > ntfs-3g. For the latter, perhaps gnome-software/PackageKit needs some
> > sort of filesystem detector that installs relevant packages. I was in
> > the same position recently with the Apple HFS+ filesystem.
> > 
> 
> udisks2 already recommends ntfs-3g. Most major desktops should use and
> install udisks2. Which desktop environment did your user install and did
> he maybe choose to not install recommends?

People seem to be skipping over the fact that even after ntfs-3g was
installed, the user only had RO access.  That's the bigger issue.

Cheers,
-- 
James
GPG Key: 4096R/91BF BF4D 6956 BD5D F7B7  2D23 DFE6 91AE 331B A3DB

Re: ISO download difficult (was: Debian Stretch new user report (vs Linux Mint))

[Adam Borowski]

On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 07:08:07PM +0100, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
> > > > Of course, the stable amd64 netinst is useful only for VMs.
> > > 
> > > Why?
> > It doesn't contain non-free firmware.
> 
> OK, but that's an exaggeration. More often than not I was
> able to install Debian without non-free firmware. But YMMV.

Install: usually yes.

Have working Wifi: no way (100% non-free firmware required on x86 in my
personal experience).

Have working wired networking: usually but not guaranteed (yay fetching
firmware without network).

CPU crashes and data loss: see microcode in Ian's thread.

Working display: I had to replace a graphics card because nouveau crashed
once an hour while proprietary was stable; on current one nouveau works ok.

And so on, so on.


Meow!
-- 
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Mozilla's Hippocritic Oath: "Keep trackers off your trail"
⣾⠁⢰⠒⠀⣿⡁ blah blah evading "tracking technology" blah blah
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ "https://click.e.mozilla.org/?qs=e7bb0dcf14b1013fca3820...";
⠈⠳⣄ (same for all links)

Re: Debian Stretch new user report (vs Linux Mint)

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 12:02:45PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Look over the fence. How long did it
> take for Windows XP to disappear? Before that, how long was Windows 98
> king? How many users still cling to Windows 7? They don't need the
> newest, shiniest software. They want something stable that works,
Umm.
Over the fence you can install most of the newest, shiniest software on a
8 year old OS.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: ISO download difficult (was: Debian Stretch new user report (vs Linux Mint))

[Arturo Borrero Gonzalez]

On 1 December 2017 at 14:39, W. Martin Borgert  wrote:
> Quoting Paul Wise :
>>
>> It would have been best for him to download the ISO with non-free
>> firmware embedded, do you know how he made the decision to download
>> the ISO without non-free firmware?
>
>
> Every time I need a Debian ISO, it takes me minutes to find it.
> I didn't even know, that there were an ISO with non-free firmware.
>
> There should be a beautiful ISO download page, e.g.
> https://www.debian.org/download[s]/
> with all architectures and supported releases, similar to
> https://www.ubuntu.com/download
> or
> https://linuxmint.com/download.php

I couldn't agree more.

You all know the big amount of combinations we have:

suite - arch - ISO size/flavour - freeness

suite: stable , testing, whatever
arch: amd64, i386, arm, mips, whatever
size/flavour: DVD, CD-ROM, USB, netinst, whatever
freeness: including or not non-free, whatever

There doesn't seem to be a single page to find all these links.

And that should be easy to fix by anyone with the time, knowledge and
the will to do so.

Re: ISO download difficult (was: Debian Stretch new user report (vs Linux Mint))

[W. Martin Borgert]

Quoting Andrey Rahmatullin :

On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 05:10:37PM +0100, W. Martin Borgert wrote:

> Currently the stable amd64 netinst is linked from the front page (top
> right corner).

It is, indeed. Never saw it before...

It's a relatively recent improvement.


Well, I hadn't seen it, without you pointing me to it.


> Of course, the stable amd64 netinst is useful only for VMs.

Why?

It doesn't contain non-free firmware.


OK, but that's an exaggeration. More often than not I was
able to install Debian without non-free firmware. But YMMV.

Re: ISO download difficult (was: Debian Stretch new user report (vs Linux Mint))

[Gunnar Wolf]

W. Martin Borgert dijo [Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 02:39:12PM +0100]:
> Every time I need a Debian ISO, it takes me minutes to find it.
> I didn't even know, that there were an ISO with non-free firmware.
> 
> There should be a beautiful ISO download page, e.g.
> https://www.debian.org/download[s]/
> with all architectures and supported releases, similar to
> https://www.ubuntu.com/download
> or
> https://linuxmint.com/download.php
> 
> Who likes to the hero of the day? :~)

http://get.debian.org

Might not be beautiful, but it has the needed information, clearly
spelt out.

Re: Debian Stretch new user report (vs Linux Mint)

[Gunnar Wolf]

Arturo Borrero Gonzalez dijo [Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 01:15:04PM +0100]:
> >> It would have been best for him to download the ISO with non-free
> >> firmware embedded, do you know how he made the decision to download
> >> the ISO without non-free firmware?
> 
> What others say is true. It's not easy to find the download link, even
> for me as DD.
> 
> But this is something that we have already detected: our main website
> needs work.
> We just need someone doing the work.

Yes, but... this is an issue often brought up and discussed since I am
aware of, that is, for over 15 years. It's _hard_ work to properly
structure a web site as information-rich as ours, with as many
different user types as its targets. Even more, with moving targets,
as Web design styles rise and fade continuously.

And I am _not_ implying that not enough work has been done; the Debian
website has vastly improved since I know it. But properly organizing
it is something... VERY hard to get right.

> > udisks2 already recommends ntfs-3g. Most major desktops should use and
> > install udisks2. Which desktop environment did your user install and did
> > he maybe choose to not install recommends?
> 
> I don't really know, I would say gnome.
> We would have to check every desktop stack and review how things are
> for both NTFS and HFS+.

I think GNOME is a safe bet, as it is the "most defaultest" of all
desktops (even given "there is no default" ☺)

> Other thing is the branding topic. I would like to promote usage of
> Debian testing for standard desktop/laptop users in personal
> environments (not for business machines)
> but the 'testing' word scares people. I don't have a valid candidate :-(
> 
> But we should really point to stable to specific users rather than all
> by default.

This is something that does not seem to draw consensus. I am of the
opposite camp. Regular users should have stable, as they don't want
huge updates or regularly broken systems, missing pieces and so on. A
regular user should be fine with upgrading their desktop every two
years, if anything! I mean... Look over the fence. How long did it
take for Windows XP to disappear? Before that, how long was Windows 98
king? How many users still cling to Windows 7? They don't need the
newest, shiniest software. They want something stable that works, and
that _they know_ how to make work. The same should be valid for most
users over here.

Re: Debian Stretch new user report (vs Linux Mint)

[Roberto C . Sánchez]

On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 05:31:09PM +0100, Alf Gaida wrote:
> >
> Ian, thats dead easy - put the needed packages onto the iso and be done
> with. The installer should have an option to opt-in contrib and/or
> non-free. Done. Ok, that was the technical part.

Which has the potential to make the installer non-distributable or not
freely redistributable the same way as free packages.  Even if the
Debian project obtained the necessary permission/license to
redistributed, it would certainly have restrictions and I suspect it
would not likely be something that would autoatically transfer to other
entities (think users copying/sharing installers or derivative
distributions).

The situation is more complex than your characterization.

Regards,

-Roberto

Re: Debian Stretch new user report (vs Linux Mint)

[Ian Jackson]

Alf Gaida writes ("Re: Debian Stretch new user report (vs Linux Mint)"):
> On 01.12.2017 16:53, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > FAOD I agree that the current situation with install images for random
> > PCs is quite unsatisfactory, but I don't know how to square the circle.
>
> Ian, thats dead easy - put the needed packages onto the iso and be done
> with.

The problem is not technical, it is political/ethical/whatever.

And, contrary to the suggestions in your mail, the reason we don't
just do as you say is not because the FSF wouldn't like it.  It's
because the Debian Project itself is very uncomfortable with non-free
firmware.

OTOH, it might be worth revisiting this issue in a GR.

Ian.

-- 
Ian JacksonThese opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

Re: Debian Stretch new user report (vs Linux Mint)

[Alf Gaida]

On 01.12.2017 16:53, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Simon McVittie writes ("Re: Debian Stretch new user report (vs Linux Mint)"):
>> I find it interesting that we're having this conversation at the same
>> time as a thread about how there should be a configuration option that
>> denies our users the opportunity to choose to install non-free software.
> Perhaps you mean: a configuration option that allows a user not to be
> nagged to install non-free software.
>
> FAOD I agree that the current situation with install images for random
> PCs is quite unsatisfactory, but I don't know how to square the circle.
>
> Ian.
>
Ian, thats dead easy - put the needed packages onto the iso and be done
with. The installer should have an option to opt-in contrib and/or
non-free. Done. Ok, that was the technical part. The other part of the
story would be that the FSF wouldn't like us for that step. Anyways,
they don't recommend Debian because debian make it still to easy for
users to install non-free stuff, so i think this would be no real
probelm. Bradley M. would be upset too - and some other people who think
that every debian user need to be educated that one has to buy hardware
that would work without non-free things. The majority of the users would
be happy. Hmm, but there would be still the catch 22 with the social
contract and the free software guidelines. What do we weight more: Happy
users or free software? The FSF has answered this before - Debian is not
free, so they don't recommend us. Their choice. We choose to promote and
deliver iso's without any non-free. Our choice. And for the people with
the needed knowledge there are iso's that will work well with nearly all
hardware. Sounds fair, doesn't it?

The result will be: Normal users will use fedora, ubuntu etc - these
distributions that are proven to work otb with the most hardware in the
wild and are recommended by their friends who tested them before. Debian
will be limited to users who prefer free software or have the knowledge
to work around these limitations. Or are able to find the working isos
with non-free. To me it not sound like the best service for our users
_and_ free software. Free software is a learning process and my guess is
that this process will not start for a lot of people if they can't
install a working Debian firsthand. It might be that i see this to
simplified.

My 2¢

Alf

Re: ISO download difficult (was: Debian Stretch new user report (vs Linux Mint))

[Filippo Rusconi]

On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 05:10:37PM +0100, W. Martin Borgert wrote:

Quoting Andrey Rahmatullin :


Of course, the stable amd64 netinst is useful only for VMs.


Why?


I suspect that this means that this image is useful to install a guest machine
in a virtualized environment.  Maybe because indeed it does not need specific
non-free drivers or binary blobs since related aspects are dealt with by the
host machine ?

Just a guess :-)

Filippo

--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀  Filippo Rusconi, PhD   
⣾⠁⢰⠒⠀⣿⡁  public crypto key B053 304E 17D6 D419 DD9B 4651 41AB 484D 7694 CF42 @ pgp.mit.edu 
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋
⠈⠳⣄ 

Re: Debian Stretch new user report (vs Linux Mint)

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 03:34:04PM +, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> 
> 
> On December 1, 2017 7:15:04 AM EST, Arturo Borrero Gonzalez 
>  wrote:
> ...
> >Other thing is the branding topic. I would like to promote usage of
> >Debian testing for standard desktop/laptop users in personal
> >environments (not for business machines)
> >but the 'testing' word scares people. I don't have a valid candidate
> >:-(
> >
> >But we should really point to stable to specific users rather than all
> >by default.
> ...
> 
> Testing doesn't have security support (and since neither the security team 
> nor maintainers can upload to it, it's the most problematic choice from a 
> security support perspective).  I don't think that's suitable to recommend to 
> end users of any sort.
ALso AFAIK when packages are temporarily removed from testing for various
reasons that may break the user systems (or, at least, make their
experience worse when they want to install something). At least I've seen
a position of "testing is not for users but to help us make stable",
correct me if I'm wrong.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Debian Stretch new user report (vs Linux Mint)

[Philipp Kern]

On 01.12.2017 16:34, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Testing doesn't have security support (and since neither the security team 
> nor maintainers can upload to it, it's the most problematic choice from a 
> security support perspective).  I don't think that's suitable to recommend to 
> end users of any sort.

I mean that's not really true. Both can upload to it, it just needs to
be accepted manually. They generally don't do it, though. So whenever a
DSA is published you don't necessarily get an update right away. Many
advisories don't talk about unstable either and the maintainer might not
even be aware of the security issue[0]. It feels like at some point this
needs to be addressed in some way by the project, though.

(I know. We're all volunteers and all. But at the same time we try to
assemble something useful in the form of testing and by some extension
also unstable.)

Kind regards
Philipp Kern

[0] I hope that's actually wrong but I wouldn't be surprised if the
maintainer is not contacted in the most severe instances.

Re: ISO download difficult (was: Debian Stretch new user report (vs Linux Mint))

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 05:10:37PM +0100, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
> > Currently the stable amd64 netinst is linked from the front page (top
> > right corner).
> 
> It is, indeed. Never saw it before...
It's a relatively recent improvement.

> > Of course, the stable amd64 netinst is useful only for VMs.
> 
> Why?
It doesn't contain non-free firmware.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: ISO download difficult (was: Debian Stretch new user report (vs Linux Mint))

[W. Martin Borgert]

Quoting Andrey Rahmatullin :

Currently the stable amd64 netinst is linked from the front page (top
right corner).


It is, indeed. Never saw it before...


Of course, the stable amd64 netinst is useful only for VMs.


Why?

Re: Debian Stretch new user report (vs Linux Mint)

[Ian Jackson]

Simon McVittie writes ("Re: Debian Stretch new user report (vs Linux Mint)"):
> I find it interesting that we're having this conversation at the same
> time as a thread about how there should be a configuration option that
> denies our users the opportunity to choose to install non-free software.

Perhaps you mean: a configuration option that allows a user not to be
nagged to install non-free software.

FAOD I agree that the current situation with install images for random
PCs is quite unsatisfactory, but I don't know how to square the circle.

Ian.

-- 
Ian JacksonThese opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

Re: Debian Stretch new user report (vs Linux Mint)

[Scott Kitterman]

On December 1, 2017 7:15:04 AM EST, Arturo Borrero Gonzalez  
wrote:
...
>Other thing is the branding topic. I would like to promote usage of
>Debian testing for standard desktop/laptop users in personal
>environments (not for business machines)
>but the 'testing' word scares people. I don't have a valid candidate
>:-(
>
>But we should really point to stable to specific users rather than all
>by default.
...

Testing doesn't have security support (and since neither the security team nor 
maintainers can upload to it, it's the most problematic choice from a security 
support perspective).  I don't think that's suitable to recommend to end users 
of any sort.

If the label Testing scares some users off to Stable, then I think it's working.

Scott K

Re: ISO download difficult (was: Debian Stretch new user report (vs Linux Mint))

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 02:39:12PM +0100, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
> > It would have been best for him to download the ISO with non-free
> > firmware embedded, do you know how he made the decision to download
> > the ISO without non-free firmware?
> 
> Every time I need a Debian ISO, it takes me minutes to find it.
Currently the stable amd64 netinst is linked from the front page (top
right corner).
Of course, the stable amd64 netinst is useful only for VMs.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Arch-dependent Python libs

[Nico Schlömer]

I'm looking at VTK, a large C++ code that also provides Python bindings.
I'm wondering now where to install the Python files. From the Debian Python
guidelines [1] :

> Public Python 3 modules must be installed in the system Python 3 modules
directory, /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages.
> Architecture-independent public Python 3 modules must be installed to
/usr/lib/python3/dist-packages.

(And likewise for Python 2.) From this, I understand that for all arches,
the files go in `/usr/lib/python3/dist-packages`. Is this correct? If yet,
the wording in the guidelines could probable be improved.

Cheers,
Nico


[1]
https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-policy/ch-python.html

Bug#883270: ITP: r-cran-shinydashboard -- GNU R create dashboards with 'Shiny'

[Andreas Tille]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Andreas Tille 

* Package name: r-cran-shinydashboard
  Version : 0.6.1
  Upstream Author : Winston Chang 
* URL : https://cran.r-project.org/package=shinydashboard
* License : GPL
  Programming Lang: GNU R
  Description : GNU R create dashboards with 'Shiny'
 This GNU R package enables creations of dashboards with 'Shiny'. This package
 provides a theme on top of 'Shiny', making it easy to create attractive
 dashboards.


Remark: This package is needed to upgrade r-cran-rlumshiny to the latest
upstream version.  It will be maintained by the Debian Med team at
https://anonscm.debian.org/git/debian-med/r-cran-shinydashboard.git

ISO download difficult (was: Debian Stretch new user report (vs Linux Mint))

[W. Martin Borgert]

Quoting Paul Wise :

It would have been best for him to download the ISO with non-free
firmware embedded, do you know how he made the decision to download
the ISO without non-free firmware?


Every time I need a Debian ISO, it takes me minutes to find it.
I didn't even know, that there were an ISO with non-free firmware.

There should be a beautiful ISO download page, e.g.
https://www.debian.org/download[s]/
with all architectures and supported releases, similar to
https://www.ubuntu.com/download
or
https://linuxmint.com/download.php

Who likes to the hero of the day? :~)

Cheers

Re: Debian Stretch new user report (vs Linux Mint)

[Antonio Terceiro]

On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 01:22:03PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Am 01.12.2017 um 13:15 schrieb Arturo Borrero Gonzalez:
> > On 1 December 2017 at 12:23, Michael Biebl  wrote:
> >> Am 01.12.2017 um 07:34 schrieb Paul Wise:
> >>> On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 1:36 AM, Arturo Borrero Gonzalez wrote:
> 
>  * no support for RW on NTFS drives, only RO. This wasn't fixed even by
>  installing ntfs-3g [0].
>  I didn't have the time to investigate the NTFS issue myself, sorry :-(
> >>>
> >>> Sounds like you need to get him to file a bug against ntfs-3g and
> >>> against whichever meta-package or other component should be installing
> >>> ntfs-3g. For the latter, perhaps gnome-software/PackageKit needs some
> >>> sort of filesystem detector that installs relevant packages. I was in
> >>> the same position recently with the Apple HFS+ filesystem.
> >>>
> >>
> >> udisks2 already recommends ntfs-3g. Most major desktops should use and
> >> install udisks2. Which desktop environment did your user install and did
> >> he maybe choose to not install recommends?
> >>
> >>
> > 
> > I don't really know, I would say gnome.
> 
> A default gnome desktop installation will pull in ntfs-3g (you can try
> by running apt install task-gnome-desktop in a chroot).
> If the user had to manually install ntfs-3g, something went wrong.

He mentioned that wifi needed a non-free firmware package after the
install. I would say the installation was done offline, in which case
Recommends: will be happily skipped if the package is not available in
the install media.

Now, I have no idea whether ntfs-3g is on CD/DVD 1 or not. It's been a
while since I installed a system with somethign other than a netinstall
media.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#883267: ITP: r-cran-rhandsontable -- GNU R interface to the 'Handsontable.js' library

[Andreas Tille]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Andreas Tille 

* Package name: r-cran-rhandsontable
  Version : 0.3.4
  Upstream Author : Jonathan Owen 
* URL : https://cran.r-project.org/package=rhandsontable
* License : MIT
  Programming Lang: GNU R
  Description : GNU R interface to the 'Handsontable.js' library
 An R interface to the 'Handsontable' JavaScript library, which is a
 minimalist Excel-like data grid editor. See 
 for details.


Remark: This package is needed to upgrade r-cran-rlumshiny to its latest
upstream version.  It will be maintained by the Debian Med team at
https://anonscm.debian.org/git/debian-med/r-cran-rhandsontable.git

Re: Debian Stretch new user report (vs Linux Mint)

[Simon McVittie]

On Fri, 01 Dec 2017 at 13:15:04 +0100, Arturo Borrero Gonzalez wrote:
> But this is something that we have already detected: our main website
> needs work.
> We just need someone doing the work.

I don't think that's the only (or even the main) issue here. This new user
was able to find an ISO from which to install, so to at least that extent,
the website is working; but because Debian as a project is unwilling
to recommend an installer that contains any non-free software, they
didn't get the "officially unofficial" ISO with the necessary firmware
to make various bits of mainstream hardware work, which is the one that
many Debian developers would have recommended to this user if asked
as individuals.

If a helpful volunteer adjusted the Debian website to make the most
prominently-advertised installer image the one that contains non-free
firmware, or even to advertise that installer image on the main Debian
website at all, I suspect the most likely result would be a revert
followed by a flamewar. (I'd be happy to be proved wrong, because
as much as I'd like to be recommending the official, 100% Free
installer image, I think that's doing a disservice to our users.)

Our priorities are our users and free software, and this is one of the
unfortunate situations where the two priorities conflict. If it's really
that important to us to keep Debian (and in particular its official
install media) 100% Free Software, then the price we pay is that we
can't claim that it works as well on generic mainstream hardware as
a more pragmatic distro like Ubuntu or Fedora; and we certainly don't
get to claim we're surprised when new users use the install media we
officially recommend, rather than the unofficial install media built
on Debian infrastructure that we use ourselves, but officially don't
recommend for political reasons.

(See also many previous discussions about firmware, and in particular
 and
.)

smcv

Bug#883268: ITP: node-googlediff -- Drop in the original code form svn of Neil Fraser's diff_match_patch.

[Yash Bansal]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Yash Agarwal 
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org

* Package name: node-googlediff
  Version : 0.1.0
  Upstream Author : Neil Fraser  (
http://neil.fraser.name/)
* URL : http://code.google.com/p/google-diff-match-patch/
* License : Apache
  Programming Lang: JavaScript
  Description : Drop in the original code form svn of Neil Fraser's
  diff_match_patch.
 .
 Simple packaging of Neil Fraser's original google-diff-match-patch.
 .
 Node module for: http://code.google.com/p/google-diff-match-patch by Neil
 Fraser and contributors. This module is useful because you can use exactrly
 the same code on the serverside and on the client side.
 .
 Node.js is an event-based server-side JavaScript engine.
 .
 This package is a dependency for the tests in node-fast-diff package. To
 include tests in node-fast-diff, this package needs to be included in
debian
 repositories.
 .
 I would like to maintain this package as part of the JavaScript packaging
 team. Praveen has offered to sponsor this package.

Re: Has Copyright summarizing outlived its usefulness?

[Dominique Dumont]

On Thursday, 30 November 2017 11:26:31 CET Simon McVittie wrote:
> For a large package, gathering the list of copyright holders from
> the source into debian/copyright is clearly a lot of work.

For what it's worth, the amount of work can be reduced using 'cme update dpkg-
copyright' [1] (other tools exist [2])

HTH

[1] 
https://github.com/dod38fr/config-model/wiki/Updating-debian-copyright-file-with-cme
[2] https://wiki.debian.org/CopyrightReviewTools

-- 
 https://github.com/dod38fr/   -o- http://search.cpan.org/~ddumont/
http://ddumont.wordpress.com/  -o-   irc: dod at irc.debian.org

Re: Debian Stretch new user report (vs Linux Mint)

[Michael Biebl]

Am 01.12.2017 um 13:15 schrieb Arturo Borrero Gonzalez:
> On 1 December 2017 at 12:23, Michael Biebl  wrote:
>> Am 01.12.2017 um 07:34 schrieb Paul Wise:
>>> On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 1:36 AM, Arturo Borrero Gonzalez wrote:

 * no support for RW on NTFS drives, only RO. This wasn't fixed even by
 installing ntfs-3g [0].
 I didn't have the time to investigate the NTFS issue myself, sorry :-(
>>>
>>> Sounds like you need to get him to file a bug against ntfs-3g and
>>> against whichever meta-package or other component should be installing
>>> ntfs-3g. For the latter, perhaps gnome-software/PackageKit needs some
>>> sort of filesystem detector that installs relevant packages. I was in
>>> the same position recently with the Apple HFS+ filesystem.
>>>
>>
>> udisks2 already recommends ntfs-3g. Most major desktops should use and
>> install udisks2. Which desktop environment did your user install and did
>> he maybe choose to not install recommends?
>>
>>
> 
> I don't really know, I would say gnome.

A default gnome desktop installation will pull in ntfs-3g (you can try
by running apt install task-gnome-desktop in a chroot).
If the user had to manually install ntfs-3g, something went wrong.


-- 
Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the
universe are pointed away from Earth?



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Debian Stretch new user report (vs Linux Mint)

[Arturo Borrero Gonzalez]

On 1 December 2017 at 12:23, Michael Biebl  wrote:
> Am 01.12.2017 um 07:34 schrieb Paul Wise:
>> On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 1:36 AM, Arturo Borrero Gonzalez wrote:
>>
>>> * no support for the wifi interface of the dekstop machine (this was
>>> expected, fixed by installing non-free package by hand, since no
>>> network)
>>
>> It would have been best for him to download the ISO with non-free
>> firmware embedded, do you know how he made the decision to download
>> the ISO without non-free firmware?
>>

What others say is true. It's not easy to find the download link, even
for me as DD.

But this is something that we have already detected: our main website
needs work.
We just need someone doing the work.

>>> * no support for RW on NTFS drives, only RO. This wasn't fixed even by
>>> installing ntfs-3g [0].
>>> I didn't have the time to investigate the NTFS issue myself, sorry :-(
>>
>> Sounds like you need to get him to file a bug against ntfs-3g and
>> against whichever meta-package or other component should be installing
>> ntfs-3g. For the latter, perhaps gnome-software/PackageKit needs some
>> sort of filesystem detector that installs relevant packages. I was in
>> the same position recently with the Apple HFS+ filesystem.
>>
>
> udisks2 already recommends ntfs-3g. Most major desktops should use and
> install udisks2. Which desktop environment did your user install and did
> he maybe choose to not install recommends?
>
>

I don't really know, I would say gnome.
We would have to check every desktop stack and review how things are
for both NTFS and HFS+.

BTW filling bugs is ideal, but is something a new user [to linux
ecosystem] won't do (or unlikely).

I'm worried about this topic, I would love to lower the barrier for new users.
You can read related blog post I've written before about this [0][1].
The main website, www.debian.org, is the first point of contact for many people.
Identify the right download is hard, even if the information is well
organized, see for example the ubuntu page [2].

Other thing is the branding topic. I would like to promote usage of
Debian testing for standard desktop/laptop users in personal
environments (not for business machines)
but the 'testing' word scares people. I don't have a valid candidate :-(

But we should really point to stable to specific users rather than all
by default.

[0] http://ral-arturo.org/2017/05/11/debian-myths.html
[1] http://ral-arturo.org/2017/01/17/debian-puzzle.html
[2] https://www.ubuntu.com/download

Re: Automatic downloading of non-free software by stuff in main

[Holger Levsen]

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 01:52:18PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Over the years, d-legal has discussed a number of packages which
> automatically download non-free software, under some circumstances.

can you point to current examples in Debian main, either in sid or
stretch?
 

-- 
cheers,
Holger


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Debian Stretch new user report (vs Linux Mint)

[Michael Biebl]

Am 01.12.2017 um 07:34 schrieb Paul Wise:
> On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 1:36 AM, Arturo Borrero Gonzalez wrote:
> 
>> * no support for the wifi interface of the dekstop machine (this was
>> expected, fixed by installing non-free package by hand, since no
>> network)
> 
> It would have been best for him to download the ISO with non-free
> firmware embedded, do you know how he made the decision to download
> the ISO without non-free firmware?
> 
>> * no support for RW on NTFS drives, only RO. This wasn't fixed even by
>> installing ntfs-3g [0].
>> I didn't have the time to investigate the NTFS issue myself, sorry :-(
> 
> Sounds like you need to get him to file a bug against ntfs-3g and
> against whichever meta-package or other component should be installing
> ntfs-3g. For the latter, perhaps gnome-software/PackageKit needs some
> sort of filesystem detector that installs relevant packages. I was in
> the same position recently with the Apple HFS+ filesystem.
> 

udisks2 already recommends ntfs-3g. Most major desktops should use and
install udisks2. Which desktop environment did your user install and did
he maybe choose to not install recommends?



-- 
Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the
universe are pointed away from Earth?



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: seccomp jailing for applications (was: recommends for apparmor in newest linux-image-4.13)

[Colin Watson]

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 07:18:43PM -0800, Seth Arnold wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 01:29:44AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > but should be much easier to maintain, and would probably also make it
> > easier to switch to a syscall-set-confining library if such a thing
> > exists in the future.
> 
> Would a version of OpenBSD's pledge() system call have looked appealing to
> you, if it were implemented as a library interface around seccomp? There's
> already roughly two dozen categories, though not all may translate well to
> seccomp's abilities.
> 
> https://man.openbsd.org/pledge.2

Something like that, yes; maybe something like "stdio rpath flock proc
exec" in man-db's case, although I'm sure that would need some tweaking.

It's nice to be able to say "these sets, plus this handful of additional
syscalls", which pledge can't do.

Also, I'm very glad that seccomp persists across execve(2); I much
prefer this to the pledge model.

-- 
Colin Watson   [cjwat...@debian.org]

Re: Debian Stretch new user report (vs Linux Mint)

[Jonathan Dowland]

On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 02:34:40PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:

It would have been best for him to download the ISO with non-free
firmware embedded, do you know how he made the decision to download
the ISO without non-free firmware?


I can't even find it from following links on debian.org, although I know
that it exists. You don't seriously expect people new to Debian to both
divine its existence and find it?


Sounds like you need to get him to file a bug against ntfs-3g and
against whichever meta-package or other component should be installing
ntfs-3g.


We've missed the boat, he's not using Debian anymore.

--

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net
⠈⠳⣄ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.

Bug#883246: ITP: python-enum-compat -- Python enum/enum34 compatibility package

[Ondřej Nový]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: =?utf-8?b?T25kxZllaiBOb3bDvQ==?= 

* Package name: python-enum-compat
  Version : 0.0.2
  Upstream Author : Jakub Stasiak 
* URL : https://pypi.python.org/pypi/enum-compat
* License : Expat
  Programming Lang: Python
  Description : Python enum/enum34 compatibility package

This is a "virtual" package, its whole purpose is to install enum34 on Python 
older than 3.4. On Python 3.4+ it’s a no-op.

Re: Debian Stretch new user report (vs Linux Mint)

[Simon McVittie]

On Fri, 01 Dec 2017 at 14:34:40 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 1:36 AM, Arturo Borrero Gonzalez wrote:
> > * no support for the wifi interface of the dekstop machine (this was
> > expected, fixed by installing non-free package by hand, since no
> > network)
> 
> It would have been best for him to download the ISO with non-free
> firmware embedded, do you know how he made the decision to download
> the ISO without non-free firmware?

I doubt there was any such decision, except by not knowing there was a
decision that could be made. The official, fully Free ISO (which is OK
for VMs and some embedded systems, but normally a trap for the PCs we
expect new users to be using) is the one you get when you point a browser
to debian.org and click the prominent "Download Debian" link. The one
with the firmware is hidden behind a door marked "beware of the leopard"
because we don't want to be seen to be endorsing or recommending non-free
software.

I find it interesting that we're having this conversation at the same
time as a thread about how there should be a configuration option that
denies our users the opportunity to choose to install non-free software.

Regards,
smcv