Re: FTP Team -- call for volunteers
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 12:25:24PM -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: > > 2) We would be very limited in what checks we could actually do on new > > packages. If we look too closely at packages, we stop being a > > distributor, and start being a publisher. I'm not sure that we want to > > move towards just being a distribution platform, rather than actually > > doing QA checks. > > I'm confused. As near as I can tell, we already are looking super > closely at new packages. > Yes, and there's the problem. To move from a situation where we try and say "we're a distributor, not a publisher", then we would need to stop doing some of those checks, or at least work out a way of automating them. Apologies if the below is stuff you already know, but it may be useful for others. Please also note, this is an oversimplification of the way that this all works. There are two models of getting software from third parties into the hands of users - one is to be a "publisher", and one is to be a "distributor". Both are ways of trying to reduce the risk of putting on the web some bad software (as in, trademark infringing, copyright infringing etc). In the "publishing" model, you accept some software from a third party. You then run various checks on it, making sure it has a good licence, it complies with trademark and copyright law, and then we publish it. This is the way that Debian works at the moment. In the "distribution" model, you accept some software from a third party, and put it on the web. You don't look at it closely, but rely on your terms of service which says that the initial uploader is responsible for everything they upload, and making sure it is distributable etc. This is the way that sals/github/google play store etc work. To relieve the work on ftpmasters, some people are suggesting we move from the former to the latter. Now, imagine you have a law suit where Debian has shipped some proprietary code to millions of users. The upstream for this isn't happy. They come to Debian and complain. Debian says "oh, but we're just a distributor. The liability lies with the person who uploaded it". Unfortunately, we're doing checks on the package. Upstream can then claim that becasue we're looking at and approving packages, we're not just a platform who distributes software, we're actively publishing it by having editorial control over what gets published or not. So, to ease the burden on ftp-masters by trying to say that > the responsibility of the right to redistribute of the uploaded > software be moved on the uploader instead as suggested by Alexis, means we need to be very careful about /not/ looking too closely at what we put out. Sorry for the long mail, but hoepfully this clarifies. Neil -- signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: FTP Team -- call for volunteers
Hi Scott, On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 10:43:33PM +, Scott Kitterman wrote: > As long as there are people involved, a certain amount of it is > inevitable. Putting it in the requirements is bowing to reality. The > FTP Team sometimes has to make unpopular decisions and it's inevitable > that people won't always react well. > > If Sean hadn't mentioned it, I think it would have been a disservice > to potential volunteers. People should know what they are signing up > for. Honestly it's not a lot of the feedback, most of what we get > back is positive, but it's enough that it's worth mentioning. > I think that mentioning it is absolutely the right thing to do, and I'm certainly aware (having been release manager for *mumble* years) that unpopular decisions can lead to unpleasant reactions. I think my point is that we should strive to reach the point where it's not inevitable, and that our reality can change. It should never be the case that making a hard decision leads to abusive messages, and I believe as a project we must act to try and achieve this goal. For leadership roles, such as release manager, or ftp master, I think it's doubly important. Putting aside the issue of current volunteers, and the project's duty to ensure a safe and welcoming environment, this affects the overall ability for the project to attract new volunteers at all. These key posts can be aspirational for new contributors - the concept that one day you could be an ftp-master is attractive. However, if we accept that in order to reach one of these key roles you have to be willing to accept a certain level of abuse, then we have failed to produce that welcoming community, and will fail to attract and retain a diverse and thriving team. This is obviously not something that ftp-masters can solve, but I think it is useful to highlight this issue for the wider project. Thanks, Neil -- signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: FTP Team -- call for volunteers
On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 08:13:37PM +0100, Alexis Murzeau wrote: > If it's just about legal risk, couldn't the responsibility of the > right to redistribute of the uploaded software be moved on the > uploader instead ? > So the uploader takes the responsibility of any redistribution of the > uploaded software by Debian itself, the same way if he would have > uploaded it to a social media are whatever. > > That way, the legal responsibility burden is distributed on many > peoples instead of a small number. If one is not sure that the > software is distributable, he can mail the upstream maintainers for a > clue. > I am also not a lawyer, but have consulted with lawyers over similar questions. This doesn't mean that Debian should consider this legal advice, as Debian's situation is different than the one I have asked about. In theory, yes - this would move the liability to the uploader. However, there are two issues with this: 1) The liability now rests with the uploader. This isn't something that has really been done before, and we'd need to make sure that we're comfortable with this. 2) We would be very limited in what checks we could actually do on new packages. If we look too closely at packages, we stop being a distributor, and start being a publisher. I'm not sure that we want to move towards just being a distribution platform, rather than actually doing QA checks. Neil -- signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: FTP Team -- call for volunteers
Hi debian-project and ftpmaster folks, On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 01:37:59PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > - cope well with flames in response to your decisions > - after training, comfortable with being on the other end of the > ftpmaster@ alias, which receives a huge volume of > not-always-pleasant messages daily. I hope I am not the only one to be deeply concerned that this should be a requirement on volunteers. For me, it is absolutely unacceptable that people should put up with unplesentness or flames that come from doing a difficult job. Putting this in the requirements is, for me, a failure of the project. Sean: do you have any ideas on how we can reduce this aspect of the valuable work that ftpmasters do? Do you have some (anonymised) examples of the areas of abuse that you receive perhaps? Thanks, Neil -- signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: help
Hi! On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 07:09:18PM +, seydi mouhamadou moustapha ndiaye wrote: > I'm a student in computer engineering field from africa and I look for a > mentor who can help me to accurate my computer skills mainly on coding. > That's fantastic, it's really good to see new people come along and want to help out, thank you for your time! >From what you've said, probably the best way of getting involved in Debian is through packaging software for inclusion in the distribution. There are a number of guides that run through this, which are linked from https://wiki.debian.org/DebianMentorsFaq If you're not sure on areas that need help, installing the how-can-i-help package will give you some ideas. Finally, I would suggest dropping a mail over to the debian-mentors mailing list, there's a load of people there who can assist you. You can find that list at http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors. There's also support on IRC via the #debian-mentors channel. More information on IRC can be found at https://wiki.debian.org/IRC Hope this helps, Neil
Re: Apt-secure and upgrading to bullseye
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 07:51:18PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote: > Thanks to everyone for suggestions; I discovered "apt update" through > a Google search. > I've submitted a patch against the release notes to explicitly mention this: https://salsa.debian.org/ddp-team/release-notes/merge_requests/50 > But I realised later that this is going to bite all users when they > come to upgrade from buster. Perhaps some aptitude and apt-get > patches can go into a stable (buster) point release, so that fewer > users are hurt by this in 2-3 years' time? It is quite a showstopper! > Given the release notes tell people to use "apt update", I'd be interested to know if there was any documentation you read or followed during the upgrade. If you didn't use the release notes, is there a reason why? Could a tl;dr version make you more likely to read them? Neil -- signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Let's stop using CVS for debian.org website
Hi there, On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 04:17:27PM +0800, Boyuan Yang wrote: > 在 2016年11月20日星期日 SGT 下午12:08:04，您写道： > > For what it's worth, there's also git-cvsimport(1) and > > git-cvsexportcommit(1) that can be used if someone really wants to > > contribute and doesn't want to touch cvs itself. > > Sure. I tried git-cvsimport to convert the cvs repo into a git repo (with -r > option enabled and -A disabled). The whole process took ~60 hours and the > final > git bare repo is ~260MiB large. > > I also found that the process is incremental after the initial import as long > as the history is not modified, which is a really good news for those who > wants > to work on the transition. > Thanks for that, it's certainly useful data! > I think we can make a smooth transition through the following process: > > * open a git repository under the webwml alioth team, make an initial import. > * set up a crontab job somewhere (e.g., directly on alioth.d.o) and sync from > the cvs repository to git repository several times every day. Incremental > update is easy and can be finished within 10 minutes every time we sync them. > * gradually port all potential infrastructures (e.g., tools used to update > debian.org website) from cvs repository to git repository. This is the main issue - the actual tooling is fairly straightforward in terms of the get-from-git-and-compile system, but there's a large non-trivial amount of work for the translation systems. Laura Arjona Reina is currently looking at this, and the current thinking (AIUI) is that we need to: * Update the translation system to use Po4a::Wml * Deploy weblate for translations, or modify the process to use hashes rather than version numbers * Update large chunks of the site to use pofiles. Some files use it but not for all content, and there's a number of files that don't use it at all. Help with the above is welcome :) Neil signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian books (Was: Bits from the DPL - July)
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 01:11:08PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 15/07/15 at 19:37 +0100, Neil McGovern wrote: > > Press and articles > > -- > > Quite a bit of press and general Debian outreach in the last few weeks: > > * Debian Jessie book preface [0] > > > > [0] http://www.linux-journalist.com/bucher/ > > Given that there's now a Free (as in Software) Debian book[0], with a > suitable translation infrastructure, I wonder if we shouldn't refrain > from advertising or endorsing non-free alternatives, and rather > encourage contributions to this initiative? > Well, I'm more of the view that I think the project would like to know what the DPL has been up to, which may involve engaging with groups or people who aren't using DFSG software. This also helps spread Debian and free software more widely. (ie: I suspect that people who only use entirely free software probably have an idea about what Debian is already.) Should any of the other alternatives wish me to write a foreword, I'll be happy to do so and include it in my next bits mail :) Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: The Spirit of Free Software, or The Reality
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 07:17:03AM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: > I, myself, find our DFSG-freeness pickiness going too far, and I'm sick > of this icon thing. So, here's what I'm going to do: unless I hear > non-IANAL objection until the next upstream release due on august 11 > (and I'm BCCing the DPL in case he wants to have the SPI lawyer(s) look > into this), I will remove the replacement of the bundled icons with > urls. > In this case, I don't intend on doing so. If you (as the maintainer) or the FTPMasters want me to, I'll forward it on, but I don't particularly want to waste lawyers time on what seems to be a minor issue. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GitLab B.V. to host free-software GitLab for Debian project (was: debian github organization ?)
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 01:25:42PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: > Sytse Sijbrandij writes: > > > Awesome that you are considering to move to Git. > > Note that this is not “moving to Git”. A great deal of Debian > development is already done using Git, and that's not going to be > directly affected much by a Debian GitLab instance. > > Rather, this is the Debian project considering our own instance of a > first-class Git hosting platform. > > > GitLab B.V. would be more than happy to help with gitlab.debian.net > > and pay for the hosting. This in collaboration with volunteers such as > > Praveen and while ensuring that Debian is fully in control. > > Fantastic, thank you! > > > "Pirate Praveen" writes: > > > It will be an instance of gitlab CE, under MIT license and managed by > > Debian. Gitlab folks will just sponsor the hosting. > > Much appreciated, thank you to GitLab B.V. for this generous offer. > Indeed, thanks! A quick reminder though - can anyone who wants to push this forward make sure that DSA are kept in the loop? Thanks, Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Summary:Re: Bug#762194: Proposal for upgrades to jessie
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 03:24:18PM +0100, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > On Fri, 28 Nov 2014, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > > > No, the ctte did not say that. We had a flamewar about that > > interpretation before. > > That was almost word by word from > https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2014/11/msg0.html > Hi Thorsten, I think you may be misreading the text there. They /did not/ say that the init system should not be switched. I'll try a simplified version of the resolution below. 0) This is advice, it's non-binding. 1) The previous resolution was silent on automatic switching. 2) We've been asked to decide about automatic switching and... 3) We don't want to decide this while there's a GR going on. 4) Please propose changes which would make new installations get systemd, and upgrades retain existing init so that... 5) We can decide what to do after the GR is over. Hope this clarifies. Neil -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141128143245.go17...@halon.org.uk
Re: Bug#762194: Proposal for upgrades to jessie
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 04:23:19PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote: > On Wed, 2014-11-26 at 14:46 +0000, Neil McGovern wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 09:29:28PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote: > > > 1) Heavily advertise (release-notes?) that doing an upgrade from > > > wheezy/etc to jessie will give you systemd as init system and inform > > > about the apt pinning solution. > > > > > > 3) Heavily advertise (again in release notes?) that you need to install > > > sysvinit-core and add the pinning file _before_ dist-upgrading. > > > > > > > See > > https://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/ddp/manuals/trunk/release-notes/en/issues.dbk?view=markup > > lines 170 to 223. > > > > Are you after something different? How about raising a bug against the > > release-notes package before asking tech-ctte to do something? > > Is it possible to get access to edit those pages? By filing a bug > against release-notes? > https://www.debian.org/doc/cvs, though I suggest a patch would probably be better, and that should be a bug against release-notes. > > > Note that the only technical in the above is the creation of a debconf > > > prompt in pre/post-inst of the init package. All the rest is just a > > > matter of writing. > > To clarify: debconf "prompt" -> debconf "message", meaning that the > install is not to be aborted, only an informal message is written and > . Is it possible to propose a text here? > > > Alternatively: The only hard bit of the above is the creation of the > > release notes. All the rest is just a matter of coding. > Indeed, my point was that 'just writing text' doesn't mean it happens - we've traditionally been very understaffed in that bit of the project. Neil -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141126153726.gg17...@halon.org.uk
Re: Bug#762194: Proposal for upgrades to jessie
Hi, On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 09:29:28PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote: > 1) Heavily advertise (release-notes?) that doing an upgrade from > wheezy/etc to jessie will give you systemd as init system and inform > about the apt pinning solution. > > 3) Heavily advertise (again in release notes?) that you need to install > sysvinit-core and add the pinning file _before_ dist-upgrading. > See https://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/ddp/manuals/trunk/release-notes/en/issues.dbk?view=markup lines 170 to 223. Are you after something different? How about raising a bug against the release-notes package before asking tech-ctte to do something? > Note that the only technical in the above is the creation of a debconf > prompt in pre/post-inst of the init package. All the rest is just a > matter of writing. > Alternatively: The only hard bit of the above is the creation of the release notes. All the rest is just a matter of coding. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Let's abandon debian-devel.
On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 02:13:20PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Dienstag, 11. November 2014, Matthias Urlichs wrote: > > > I'd be willing to help out. > > So would I. > me too, should this road be chosen. > Excellent. In that case, my position is now "meh" :) Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Let's abandon debian-devel.
On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 01:30:58PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote: > Andrey Rahmatullin: > > > I know. So? If the first email of a non-DD gets delayed for a few hours, > > > that's an acceptable price to pay IMHO. > > Nothing about delays wasn't mentioned in your previous email > > Moderating (some) emails to d-d implies delaying those emails until > a human moderator looks at them. To me at least. Therefore I didn't > think of explicitly mentioning that; sorry if that was unclear. My concern would be around /which/ human moderator does this. The project passed a GR about declassifying -private, for example, and this had never been achieved because the people who are willing to put the work in don't exist. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 06:12:46PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Neil McGovern writes ("Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system
> coupling"):
> > Indeed, unfortunately so. Given the rather rushed nature though, it
> > would be nice to try and work out a way of avoiding having to do this
> > manual action in future. I'm currently working from
> > http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/users/neilm/devotee.git/ if anyone
> > fancies adding extra support to devotee.
>
> I have a half-written series to make it cope with lettered, rather
> than numbered, options. Would it be worth my while finishing that off
> (in my CFT) ?
>
I think that would probably be helpful, yes! Not only in the case where
we get more than 9 options on the ballot, but I also think it would help
clarify some of the voting options when you're ranking options.
Neil
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141110183135.gf10...@halon.org.uk
Re: Jessie Freeze -> What is the next release name? (jessie+1)
On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 10:23:01AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote: > Hi, > > Osamu Aoki: > > I thought usually this type of announcement comes with next release > > name. > > > > I was going to update web site (later) and debian-reference package (in > > November) in proper timing. Did I miss some announcement? > > > See the debian-devel archives from mid-Fenruary 2014. According to Neil > McGovern, the code name shall be "zurg". > > >>> https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/02/msg00905.html > > While that was in no way official, at the time it kindof struck a chord, > so I'd like us to just go with it. > > After all the init/GR/what-have-you brouhaha, we can do with some levity. :-) > Also, please see the footnote in my mail above. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 04:12:20PM +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote: > On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 04:10:13PM +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 11:53:43PM +0000, Neil McGovern wrote: > > > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > > > 57dd4d7c-3e92-428f-8ab7-10de5172589e > > > [ 5 ] Choice 1: Packages may not (in general) require a specific init > > > system > > > [ 2 ] Choice 2: Support for other init systems is recommended, but not > > > mandatory > > > [ 1 ] Choice 3: Packages may require specific init systems if maintainers > > > decide > > > [ 3 ] Choice 4: General Resolution is not required > > > [ 4 ] Choice 5: Further Discussion > > > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > > > > > Ouch, that got send to the wrong address. :( > > Neil: There was no Reply-To set in the reissued call for votes :( > Indeed, unfortunately so. Given the rather rushed nature though, it would be nice to try and work out a way of avoiding having to do this manual action in future. I'm currently working from http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/users/neilm/devotee.git/ if anyone fancies adding extra support to devotee. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Call for Votes: General Resolution: Init system coupling
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 05:53:36PM +, Neil McGovern wrote: > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > 57dd4d7c-3e92-428f-8ab7-10de5172589e > [ ] Choice 1: Packages may not (in general) require a specific init system > [ ] Choice 2: Support alternative init systems as much as possible > [ ] Choice 3: Packages may require specific init systems if maintainers > decide > [ ] Choice 4: General Resolution is not required > [ ] Choice 5: Further Discussion > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- All, For avoidance of doubt, and as I've been asked on IRC, all options have a 1:1 majority requirement. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Results for init system coupling
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 02:43:13PM +, devo...@vote.debian.org wrote: > This message is an automated, unofficial publication of vote results. > Official results shall follow, sent in by the vote taker, namely > Debian Project Secretary Whelp, that wasn't meant to happen. Apologies for the spam. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: ITP: runit-init -- a UNIX init scheme with service supervision
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 07:56:25AM +, Gerrit Pape wrote: > This essentially is a reintroduction of the package "runit-run", which > was added to Debian end of 2002, and removed on request of the release > team end of 2010, with the package name changed. Since then, a backward > compatibility feature for running sysv rc scripts was added, ideally to > be replaced by runit service directories eventually. > I don't think that's entirely accurate - it was removed from unstable at your own request, and then removed from testing due to it no longer being present in unstable. The issue under contention was #562945 - which I confirmed would be an RC bug, and thus not suitable for release. This doesn't mean it couldn't belong in Debian at all. It's good to see that runit will now allow a system to boot (and actually run init scripts), which is great to see. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 03:03:05PM +0200, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Yeah, but Md is an arsehole anyway and requires printf to be > a /bin/sh builtin instead of just adding /usr/bin to $PATH, > especially now that the initrd mounts /usr already anyway, > and CTTE decided to rather offend me than Md because he is > maintainer of the more important packages, or those where > it’s hard to find someone else for. > Thorsten, Could you please keep your tone more civil? Personal attacks on fellow project members and conspiracy theories does nothing to further your technical arguments - in fact it makes me more likely to dismiss any valid point you may have. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop
On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 03:15:17PM +0400, vita...@yourcmc.ru wrote: > I'm not a Debian developer, just a Debian user, and I want to say that I was > happy to see XFCE being the default DE. Just because it's small, classic and > neutral DE - which GNOME 3 definitely isn't. I think XFCE is a better > default... because I think it's not that uncommon for people to really > dislike GNOME 3. > Got bored. Made this: http://www.halon.org.uk/simplechooser/ Can we do useful work instead now? Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: MATE 1.8 has now fully arrived in Debian
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 10:43:15AM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Sune Vuorela wrote: > > >The way is to put your time/money where your mouth is and provide the > >code. Asking others to do all the work is not the way forward in OSS. > > I highly doubt you can call _me_ someone who does not do work in OSS. I think Sune may have phrased it badly, but I read his text to be "all the work in this area". > You know, methods to clone a human being, time turners, etc. have not > been invented yet. I'd like to think I'm doing enough considering that > I also have a dayjob. > > That being said: people have different experiences in different areas. > So, yes, it's a give-and-take, and I can fully well expect other people > to do my work (in areas I have less experience in) just as I do other > peoples' work in areas I'm good in. > I'd add some subtlety here: you can expect others to do work that they a) find interesting, b) is useful for them, and/or c) is not an inconvenience for them. What you can't expect is that they'll do a non-trivial amount of work just because it's something you personally want. This is pretty much what's enshrined in the Debian constitution. > Some OSS "advocates" say "it's OSS, just do it yourself". This is a > harmful attitude and has turned away people often enough. Luckily, > these are getting less and less. Do not become one of them, please. > I do appreciate your work in Debian. However, as this is the development mailing list, there needs to be an impetus for things to happen. I believe that the suggestion is that if you want to see this happen, you need to try and gather sufficient support for what you want, possibly by finding other like minded people. Simply saying "I don't like $foo, change it" is not going to work with a volunteer project. Neil -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140627132809.gs11...@halon.org.uk
Re: New project goal: Get rid of Berkeley DB (post jessie)
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 12:49:52AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > So, do I understand well that it's your view that just linking with > AGPLv3 make it mandatory to re-license using AGPLv3? Is there such a > clause in the AGPLv3 license? > No, it's required to re-licence it to AGPLv3, or an AGPLv3 compatable licence. See, for example, http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL and https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: systemd - some more considerations
On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 11:12:12AM +0900, Norbert Preining wrote: > Is this the upstream Debian wants to base its "life" on? > According to the technical committee, and the lack of support for the GR, the answer is yes. If you don't like this answer, please put effort into doing the work to provide a viable alternative, rather than bringing this issue up yet again. I, for one, consider this issue/decision to be closed already. Nothing productive will come by revisiting this. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Press updates [Was: Re: default init on non-Linux platforms]
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 03:45:12PM +, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: > On 19 February 2014 15:28, Ondřej Surý wrote: > > are you aware that media are already quoting your blogpost as official > > announcement of next Debian codename? > > > > Nah, wasn't aware =) I blame Neil, I thought he still was a release manager > ;-) > Any reason, not to make it official? =) > You should read your lovely bits mails more carefully then :) I also wouldn't call phoronix "the media". And on a slight tangent, I'd always welcome more people who are interested in the press and publicity team :) Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: default init on non-Linux platforms
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 11:37:08PM +1300, Chris Bannister wrote: > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 06:31:12PM +0000, Neil McGovern wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 07:18:30PM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: > > > [0] Can we haz a release name? > > > > > > > Sure. It's Debian 8.0, "zurg". [0] > > > > Neil > > [0] Note: may be a lie. > > Umm, Debian 9.0? > For those who may not be following along at home, I'm no longer a release manager. I don't get to pick release names. The use of 8.0 was deliberate to try and make it clearer that I have no say in the matter. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: default init on non-Linux platforms
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 07:18:30PM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: > [0] Can we haz a release name? > Sure. It's Debian 8.0, "zurg". [0] Neil [0] Note: may be a lie. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Valve games for Debian Developers
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 03:01:28PM +, Ofek Rakesh wrote: > Is this meant as "Debian keyring" as in > > 1. http://keyring.debian.org/ > > or > > 2. /usr/share/keyrings/debian-keyring.gpg but not in > /usr/share/keyrings/debian-maintainers.gpg ? > It's the former, I believe. Well, more precicely: < directhex> i'm validating against the debian keyring files < directhex> which are about 1000 DDs, 200 DMs, and 10 non-uploading contributors Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Delegation for the Release Team
On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 01:23:42PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > I'd like to note that the discussion on this delegation was inconclusive > on a couple of points: > > 1) it does not include anything about defining rules for NMU delays. > > The last time the NMU "policy" was changed was in 2011. The process used > back then was: > - the release team announced its intention to change the policy in > https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2011/03/msg00016.html > - #625449 was filed against developers-reference > - there was some discussion > - the proposed change made it into developers-reference > > I believe that this was a very reasonable way to make such a change, and > that there is no need to give explicit authority to the release team over > the definition of the recommended delays for NMUs in developers-reference[1]. > [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.en.html#nmu > > Of course, if recommended NMU delays are discussed again in the future, > I think that the release team's opinion should be heard with great > attention, given the role of NMUs in achieving quicker bug fixing and, in > fine, faster releases. > Hi Lucas, This is somewhat troubling, as I pointed out in http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/dpl-helpers/2013-December/000124.html Explicitly again: Please see the last 7 years worth of bits mails, where the release team have lowered this without advance notice, for BSPs etc. As you have chosen to explicitly remove this role of the release team, without consensus, could you please state who you are now allowing to change NMU policy? Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Is GCC really wrongly optimizing code leading to several bugs and vulnerabilities?
On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 09:21:35PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/~xi/papers/stack-sosp13.pdf > > Thoughts anyone? > See the thread on -security starting at <52900522.9040...@affinityvision.com.au> Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#727708: tech-ctte: Decide which init system to default to in Debian.
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 05:23:33PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Also, why have people been shying back from GRs like they are a > plague? They are a good, and _the_, way to ask the people that > make up Debian for their opinion. As someone else said in one of > these threads: they don’t eat babies. I think “base democracy” is > a much lesser evil than “parlamentarian democracy” (even if both > usually end up beating minorities). > Debian is not a democracy. See, amongst others: http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/developer-duties#voting https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=debian+is+not+a+democracy Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Looking for ideas for merging a micro package...
On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 02:18:40PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Philipp Kern debian.org> writes: > > > > I absolutely do not want to see anything related to ruby on my > > > systems. > > > > How is that relevant for Debian? > > SC#4 and not forcing bad things on users. > Fantastic. In that case I propose we remove mksh from the archive as that's forcing bad things on our users. More seriously though, this kind of attitude is not something I expect from any developer - we can have opinions on suitability of software, but to enforce your own opinions on others is quite simply, a dick move. How would you feel if I started asking for complete removal of all your software because I think it's crap? This is software that has mostly been developed by *volunteers* in their spare time, who are all dedicated to making thing better for people. Please do NOT denegrade software like this. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Longer maintainance for (former) stable releases of Debian (Re: Dreamhost dumps Debian)
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 04:29:08PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote: > On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 07:52:33PM +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote: > > I don't really understand it myself as server packages and their > > dependencies tend to be stable and I tend to want the latest versions of > > dovecot, unbound etc.. > > > > However perhaps there is a divide here between servers which want longer > > support for few packages and desktops which want stable but secure yet > > as featureful as is sensible desktops. > > I think you have a very valid point here. I kind of doubt many people would > like to run on a five year old desktop. > Stats seem to disagree: http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=11&qpcustomb=0 Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Longer maintainance for (former) stable releases of Debian (Re: Dreamhost dumps Debian)
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 11:41:58AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > The challenge was: who is willing to do the work. Your answer is: me, > but only everyone else helps. > > That doesn't answer the challenge at all. > > It's hard enough to get maintainers to fix bugs in current stable > (backporting can be difficult, and some just don't care), let alone > another 3 years of LTS. > Indeed. Look at the security team for example. In theory, if all maintainers cared enough about the older packages, we woudn't need the level of people we currently do. So, if you want to see a longer support period, then *first* you should join the teams who support the stable releases, and encourage others to do the same. Neil signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Longer maintainance for (former) stable releases of Debian (Re: Dreamhost dumps Debian)
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 11:14:25AM +0200, Balint Reczey wrote: > Hi All, > > On 08/26/2013 09:31 AM, Mike Gabriel wrote: > > Hi Charles, > > > > On Di 20 Aug 2013 02:04:40 CEST Charles Plessy wrote: > > > >> Altogether, it is a lot of work, but if we have enough people for > >> doing it, think that it would be very positive for us. > > > > /me raises his hand for giving his work for longer maintainance of > > former Debian stable releases. For customer sites 2.5yrs + 1yr > > stable/oldstable does not suffice. > Me too. > I think we should match the five years Ubuntu LTS offers for at least > part of the packages like Ubuntu does with main/universe [1] distinction. > I'm hoping that these raising of hands are also offers to help do the work to make it happen. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: 7.0-> 7.1: any reasons for switching from {4,5,6}.0.x scheme?
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 05:17:32PM +0200, Christoph Berg wrote: > Re: Neil McGovern 2013-06-17 <20130617111457.gg22...@halon.org.uk> > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 04:32:47PM +0530, Praveen A wrote: > > > Many were curious on diaspora about the change[1]. There is no > > > rationale given in release news[2] about this change. Was there some > > > major change in this release or did we change the version scheme? Any > > > pointers would be welcome. > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > Given that the middle '0' was redundant, and we now do X.0 for all > > major releases, it was simply removed. > > #712586 > So... why is postgres relying on an undocumented numbering schema, and breaking when it doesn't match what it expects? Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: 7.0-> 7.1: any reasons for switching from {4,5,6}.0.x scheme?
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 04:32:47PM +0530, Praveen A wrote: > Many were curious on diaspora about the change[1]. There is no > rationale given in release news[2] about this change. Was there some > major change in this release or did we change the version scheme? Any > pointers would be welcome. > Hi, Given that the middle '0' was redundant, and we now do X.0 for all major releases, it was simply removed. (additionally, there were never any 4.0.x releases...) Neil -- 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/20130617111457.gg22...@halon.org.uk
Re: RFH: two base wheezy bugs
On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 09:49:41AM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: > I'm at loss with what to do with #710047. (random freeze since wheezy) > For info, I'm also experiencing this. I'm having quite a bit of trouble tracking it down, though I *suspect* at the moment it may have something to do with the Intel graphics drivers on Thinkpads. Leave that one with me, I'll try and triage and reassign as appropriate. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: default MTA
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 08:08:17AM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote: > On 12/06/13 00:02, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > > On 2013-06-11 23:50:01 +0200 (+0200), Daniel Pocock wrote: > >> Something that doesn't have these limitations: > >> > >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2487#section-7 > > [...] > > > > That basically just makes the case for relying on (E)SMTP only for > > transporting messages, but leveraging OpenPGP or S/MIME to provide > > authentication and confidentiality where required (or for anonymity, > > Mixmaster et al). > > > OpenPGP and S/MIME don't guarantee anonymity as they don't (and can't > really) encrypt the headers/envelope > > That is the type of `metadata' that allows a hostile party to start > building a social graph of who knows who. Even if they can't see the > contents of the communications, those social graphs are undesirable and > an ideal solution would prevent that. > Can I just check - have we really gone from a (far too long, IMO) discussion on what default MTA we provide, to replacing SMTP? Just so I know if it's worth killfiling the entire thread. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian development and release: always releasable (essay)
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:29:11AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > Some upstreams have a testing branch of there software and a > release branch. It's sometimes useful to have people test the > version in from the testing branch, and having it available in > Debian makes it easier for people to test it. > A couple of options seem to present itself (under current scheme) - a) upload to experimental and publically call for testing b) upload to unstable and file an RC bug yourself so it doesn't migrate c) upload to unstable, wait for migration, then file an RC bug so we don't release with it. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: alternative debian/rules
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 01:25:00AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 04/25/2013 12:10 AM, Neil McGovern wrote: > > If you're deliberately obfuscating debian/rules when there's no or very > > little advantage, then you shouldn't be producing the package. > I'm not the one claiming that using echo and cat is obfuscation! > Perhaps you should go read the bug report first. As you seem to be unwilling to actually do research, I'll include the relevant section for your benefit: - 1: deliberate obfuscation for no benefit: echo .nr g 2 | cat - cpio.1 | \ gzip -n9 >debian/pax/usr/share/man/man1/paxcpio.1.gz Just add the extra top line to the upstream or create a patch already. then you'd have something approaching sane: cp cpio.1 debian/pax/usr/share/man/man1/paxcpio.1 gzip -n9 debian/pax/usr/share/man/man1/paxcpio.1 Even that is two lines repeated three times (once for each manpage) instead of just dh_installman on a single line and a small .install file but that just demonstrates the insanity of the current rules. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: alternative debian/rules
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:19:48PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 04/24/2013 10:39 PM, Neil McGovern wrote: > > I'm sorry, but can I just clarify: do you think that it's an advantage > > that your custom debian/rules prevents others from understanding your > > package? > > > I don't think anyone ever wrote that. Jakub was quite clear, IMO. > No, he wasn't. Which is why I wanted to clarify. > If you are scared by "echo x | cat - y", that it prevents you from > understanding the rules files, then you shouldn't touch the package > anyway. > If you're deliberately obfuscating debian/rules when there's no or very little advantage, then you shouldn't be producing the package. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: alternative debian/rules
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 04:25:42PM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote: > * Timo Juhani Lindfors , 2013-04-22, 13:22: > >>Thorsten, you should have kept your custom debian/rules. If it > >>prevented incompetent developers from NMUing the package, then > >>all good for you and for Debian. > >Was there perhaps some emoticon missing? > > Sorry, yes, this one: > :/ > > >Uncommon debian/rules setups might be required in some cases but > >surely they should not be used to intentionally make it harder for > >other developers to understand? > > Of course, scaring certain developers away should never be a goal. > It can be a nice side-effect, though. > I'm sorry, but can I just clarify: do you think that it's an advantage that your custom debian/rules prevents others from understanding your package? Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Derivatives, MongoDB and freezes
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 11:58:33PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Steve Langasek wrote: > > But for new packages, where Canonical is striking out on its own > > to deliver significant new functionality and the folks working on these > > packages are not DDs, there's a clear pragmatic argument for doing the work > > directly in Ubuntu rather than blocking the work on finding folks able to > > upload to Debian and willing to maintain the packages there. > > To be a devil's advocate: when the Debian Developers that a company > has been able to contact (inside or outside the company) do not > consider a package to be ready for upload, it is not hard to > contribute the packaging to Debian in an RFP bug to avoid duplication > of effort. > Indeed, this answers the first point, but the second is more significant - willing to maintian the packages there. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: R 3.0.0 and required rebuilds of all reverse Depends: of R
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 04:22:14PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > So, transitions could be avoided in a social way. No need for a freeze. > Let's see how well that works - look at the very first message in this thread. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: R 3.0.0 and required rebuilds of all reverse Depends: of R
On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 05:48:13PM +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote: > Neil McGovern wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 02:38:51PM +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote: > > > It is unreasonable to tell the users and upstreams that Debian is > > > going to keep users on a known inferior version by default for a long > > > time, just in case more testing is needed to discover problems in the > > > release version (often in addition to multiple already discovered > > > problems that Debian is intentionally leaving for users to suffer > > > from, as the most natural way to fix them would be to update to a > > > newer upstream version). > > > > > > > You may consider it most natural, the rest of the project values > > stability and not introducing untested new features. > > I think you misunderstood that as saying I wanted to change packages in > stable; the above was from the perspective of unstable (the natural way > to fix known issues in unstable would be to upload a new upstream > version). I do not believe there is any project-wide consensus to avoid > newer versions in unstable. > http://wiki.debian.org/DebianStability. Also see dev-ref 3.1. And the huge amount of discussion that lead to http://wiki.debian.org/ReleaseProposals in 2005. As for consensus, have a read over this thread to see if there's anyone supporting your views. > > Perhaps you may > > feel more at home in a different distribution which aligns with your > > priorities more. > > I think unstable works reasonably well outside release problems (there > are sometimes issues with new enough packages not being available, but I > think those are mostly due to activity of individual maintainers, not > project priorities). > And I don't believe it to be a shared view of all Debian maintainers > that only stable releases matter, and users of unstable are only tools > to use to polish stable. > Nor do I believe that all other users of unstable are only trying to > help create stable releases for others to use, intentionally > sacrificing their own experience to do so. > And whatever distro I personally choose, as upstream of packaged > software I certainly do not approve of Debian leaving its upstable > users at a known inferior version during long release freezes. > Wow. I would have liked to find a source in dev-ref or something which pointed out explicitly the commitment to releases. But I can't because we've been doing releases for NEARLY 20 YEARS. You seem to believe that unstable is more important than stable releases. I do not. One of us is in the wrong project. Neil -- 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/20130401154519.gn7...@halon.org.uk
Re: R 3.0.0 and required rebuilds of all reverse Depends: of R
On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 02:38:51PM +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote: > It is not. You can't reasonably install things from experimental rather > than unstable by default, nor is there a flag for "this really should be > in unstable if not for badly managed release" I'm getting rather annoyed by this accusations of a "badly managed release", and the continual diatrade from yourself blaming me and the rest of the release team. > It is unreasonable to tell the users and upstreams that Debian is > going to keep users on a known inferior version by default for a long > time, just in case more testing is needed to discover problems in the > release version (often in addition to multiple already discovered > problems that Debian is intentionally leaving for users to suffer > from, as the most natural way to fix them would be to update to a > newer upstream version). > You may consider it most natural, the rest of the project values stability and not introducing untested new features. Perhaps you may feel more at home in a different distribution which aligns with your priorities more. As it happens, I'm currently canvassing a release weekend when everyone who needs to do work on the day can make it. Messages such as the above do not help in any way, shape or form. Neil -- 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/20130401120313.gm7...@halon.org.uk
Re: Bug#688772: [CTTE #688772] Dependency of meta-gnome on network-manager
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 01:39:44PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote: > On 27.02.2013 00:50, Chris Knadle wrote: > > When this was brought up in the bug report, the response was > > "network-manager > > can be installed, then disabled", but how to do that wasn't documented > > anywhere in the network-manager package. Instead the next suggestion was > > documenting this issue in the Wheey errata [2], but I don't see network- > > manager or wicd mentioned there, nor mentioned in the Installation Guide > > [3] > > for Wheezy. > > > > Suggestions? > > I will try to add a section to README.Debian which should be re-usable > for the release notes / errata. > > Neil, who should I contact getting those changes into the release notes? > If anyone is willing to review the text, even better. > The release-notes pseudopackage, and the debian-doc mailing list are good places to start. http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/ddp/manuals/trunk/release-notes/ contains the actual source. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#688772: [CTTE #688772] Dependency of meta-gnome on network-manager
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 06:50:51PM -0500, Chris Knadle wrote: > Instead the next suggestion was documenting this issue in the Wheey > errata [2], but I don't see network- manager or wicd mentioned there, > nor mentioned in the Installation Guide [3] for Wheezy. > I'm guessing that's because no one has produced a patch, or stepped up to help with the release notes (see https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2013/01/msg5.html) Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [cut-team] Time to merge back ubuntu improvements!
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 06:55:04PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote: > Of course there was a reason for introducing testing. And I did not > propose it to go away either. It should stay for packages marked as > being part of unstable at freeze time. Probably a separate repo for > frozen unstable is needed. > Q. How can you tell that Debian is trying to release? A. There's always a huge discussion about release processes, covering almost every previously discussed and documented[0] proposal. Oh, and someone whines about the name. I haven't seen the headlines that we're late in the release yet though, so that's a refreshing change. Neil [0] http://wiki.debian.org/ReleaseProposals -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Knowing the release names in advance
On Tue, Jan 01, 2013 at 03:55:22AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > Wouldn't it be more simple to just choose a name and we would never ever > have to talk about it again, and never ever have to process any of such > unblocks? > Sure thing: The next release after Jessie will be called Thomas. [0] Neil [0] The chances of this actually being true is directly proportional to the amount of RC bugs you fix, minus the amount of time you've managed to waste for the release on this thread. -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Really, about udev, not init sytsems
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:15:55AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > I actually don't really take it very seriously, it just helps > to waiting while things are building ... :) > I actually agree it's pointless (because it's very unlikely > that there will be any outcome), but I also find it fun. I'm sorry, but are you actually stating that you get involved in flamewars on a public mailing list because you're *bored* and you find it *fun*? > Even though I don't like it, I do admit that prudishness seems > to be the standard and that I shall (and will try to) respect it. :) > This is absolutely not about prudishness. It's about respect for fellow professionals in the software industry. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Really, about udev, not init sytsems
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 11:28:57PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > It is truth that there's a general movement inside RedHat to fuck-up > everything. You are right, I should have mention that more clearly : > it's not only about Lennart and systemd guys, and I should take the > blame for not highlighting that it's a more widespread non-sense! > I try not to get involved in pointless flames, but I feel that I have to raise this. Thomas - your behaviour and tone here are completely unacceptable from a member of the Debian Project. I'm sure Red Hat are working hard to try and spread the use of Linux and open source software, and simply saying that they're actively working against this is disingenuous to the extreme. The blame you should take is your seeming inability to disagree without attacking other people or companies. I believe you owe an apology here. > However, picking PulseAudio as an example of broken software by > its author was a quite funny read, don't you think? > No. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: release goal for jessie! (Re: Source-only uploads (was: procenv_0.9-1_source.changes REJECTED)
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 01:32:16PM -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Nov 23, 2012, at 03:06 PM, YunQiang Su wrote: > >you always need to build for one arch and test, then why not upload it? > > I think there are a lot of good reasons to do source-only uploads, even when > you should be building locally for testing purposes. > > * Reproducibility - buildds provide a more controlled environment than > developers' machines. [snip] > * Testability - Is there any guarantee that a package's tests have been run > during the local build process? [snip] These both would be provided by throwing away the built component and rebuilding in a closed environment, which is (I believe) the current thinking of the best way forward. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bits from the release team - Freeze update
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 12:37:42PM +0100, Benjamin Drung wrote: > The version in testing has a known security vulnerability, which was > fixed by upstream in their newer upstream release. I sent a more > stripped debdiff to make the review easier. Removing Windows/MacOS > changes and auto-generated autotools file changes reduces the diff size > by factor 2.4. > At this point, we prefer a targetted fix rather than a new upstream release. Please backport the security fix and produce a debdiff against the version in testing, via a bug against release.debian.org Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Wheezy-ignore for good-not-evil bugs
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 04:58:45PM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote: > * Neil McGovern , 2012-11-16, 15:46: > >These bugs aren't gonna get fixed in time - tagging ignore > >appropriately. > > Excellent. Now Mr Crockford can say that his license is good enough > for Debian. > No he can't. Neil (Providing as much useful content as you did in your message) -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Wheezy-ignore for good-not-evil bugs
tags 692614 + wheezy-ignore tags 692619 + wheezy-ignore tags 692624 + wheezy-ignore tags 692625 + wheezy-ignore tags 692627 + wheezy-ignore tags 692628 + wheezy-ignore tags 692629 + wheezy-ignore tags 692630 + wheezy-ignore tags 692631 + wheezy-ignore tags 692613 + wheezy-ignore tags 692615 + wheezy-ignore tags 692626 + wheezy-ignore tags 692621 + wheezy-ignore thanks These bugs aren't gonna get fixed in time - tagging ignore appropriately. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bits from the release team - Freeze update
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 06:54:23AM +0100, Christian PERRIER wrote: > Quoting Benjamin Drung (bdr...@debian.org): > > Am Donnerstag, den 08.11.2012, 20:35 + schrieb Jon Dowland: > > > On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 08:29:02PM +0100, Benjamin Drung wrote: > > > > Hm, I filed two unblock requests after that deadline, but before reading > > > > the announce mail about it. > > > > > > You don't state whether the decision impacts them or not, but so it goes… > > > > The requested updates (for vlc and devscripts) fix bugs, but not release > > critical bugs. I am unsure whether these updates get unblocked even > > after the reduced acceptance criteria. > > > Well, I bet that our estimated colleagues in the Release Team are not > robots, so discussing with them might be possible..:-) > Additionally, the mails didn't make it to the list due to the size of the attached diff. You may want to consider that an indication of our willingness to review the provided diff. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bits from the release team - Freeze update
On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 05:18:55PM +, Jon Dowland wrote: > On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 10:40:18PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > > Which policy applies to #685913 (and all the other open unblocks)? The > > policy announced at the beginning of the freeze or the current policy? > > …or the time the unblock was filed? > Apologies for the lack of clarity in the d-d-a posting - the new acceptance criteria are for unblocks filed after 11:54:49 + today. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bits from the release team - Freeze update
On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 08:09:51PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Neil McGovern wrote: > > > Unblocks and Freeze Policy > > -- > > ... > > We're also reducing the acceptance criteria [RM:POLICY] - we're now only > > going > > to accept: > > ... > > Which policy applies in the case of unblock requests that are pending > action by the release team since before this mail? In particular I'm > thinking of the warzone2100 one. > The policy and diff from the start can be found at http://release.debian.org/wheezy/freeze_policy.html > > Package Removals > > > > We've recently revived the practice of removing buggy leaf packages. We're > > aiming at posting to -devel weekly a list of RC-buggy leaf packages which we > > intend to remove. The relevant maintainers are also copied on those mails. > > Please keep an eye on those and avoid your own packages getting in the list! > > This activity helps, but we will be running out of leaf packages pretty > > soon, > > so this is no excuse to ignore the others! Usertags can be seen at > > [BTS:RMTAG] > > It would be great to keep this up after the release too, preferrably > in a more automated way. > It's semi-automated - the list generation exists but needs manual checking. It would be good to have a look after the release on how things went, what to continue etc. I expect to have a release team retrospective, but a BoF at Debconf or a miniconf may be useful too. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: greater popularity of Debian on AMD64?
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 12:36:36PM -0400, W. Anderson wrote: > It is somewhat surprising and a little disappointing that Debian, or any > other GNU/Linux distribution would be making statements that, in effect, > give great public support to AMD in regard Linux, when the company has > for many years been decidedly ambivalent and generally uncooperative > towards the Linux community, particularly in cooperation with Microsoft > in their negative attitudes and /_actions _/toward Free/Open Source > Software communities. > Hi Wendell, Please see http://www.debian.org/ports/amd64/ - amd64 refers to the architecture which includes both AMD and Intel. Neil signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Fixing the mime horror ini Debian
severity 658139 serious clone 658139 -1 reassign -1 tech-ctte block 658139 by -1 thanks Hi Michael, As per http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#severities, the severity of this bug is serious as in the release manager's opinion, this makes the package unsuitable for release. Please do NOT simply downgrade this to wishlist a third time, especially without explanation. I have already said that you should re-assign to tech-ctte if you're not happy with this, and instead a wontfix tag has been given to the bug. Thus, I am reassigning to tech-ctte to ask if they wish to overrule this decision. Thanks, Neil On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 04:34:35PM -0600, Neil McGovern wrote: > Hence, I consider this bug serious and thus RC, and am reassigning to evince. > > Feel free to pop it over to tech-ctte if you don't agree. > > Thanks, > Neil > > > -- > 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/20120714223435.gu28...@halon.org.uk > > -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Fixing the mime horror ini Debian
severity 658139 serious reassign 658139 evince tags 658139 + patch retitle 658139 missing mime entry On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 12:09:27AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > > It does seem quite annoying. Have you considered asking the release > > team whether they would be inclined to agree that this bug is RC ? > > I'd be willing to do so but there was no clear consensus in the previous > discussion about the severity of this. > This bug seems to fall between a couple of stalls. I believe that not shipping this file will harm the release overall as I suspect users would very much like PDFs to open from programs like this. Hence, I consider this bug serious and thus RC, and am reassigning to evince. Feel free to pop it over to tech-ctte if you don't agree. Thanks, Neil -- 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/20120714223435.gu28...@halon.org.uk
Re: Fixing the mime horror ini Debian
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 06:13:43PM +0900, Norbert Preining wrote: > can we somehome make $subject a target for the *next* release? Hi, Please consider making this a release goal when we call for them after the release. Thanks, Neil -- 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/20120713161440.gl28...@halon.org.uk
Re: CD sizes again (and BoF reminder!)
On Sat, Jul 07, 2012 at 04:22:58PM -0600, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > Ansgar has been experimenting with .deb sizes to make the packages > needed for a minimal desktop installation fit in the first CD. It looks > like that's doable by switching to xz compression for the involved > binaries. Would you grant freeze exceptions for packages that only > changes that? > Hi, Although this doesn't actually fit with the criteria we've set up, I would consider having things actually fit on CDs. Thus lets just say that this is a release goal and get on with it. So yes. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#679236: O: ckport -- portability analysis and security checking tool
On Fri, Jul 06, 2012 at 02:49:54PM +0200, Philipp Schafft wrote: > PS: Release wasn't helpful in this case as well. They tell me they have > no opinion and are not interested in getting this fixed for stable (was > asking *before* freeze). I'm not mad on anyone of them personally, just > I don't think it is the right way to go. > For avoidance of doubt, the release team as a whole did not say anything of the sort. I personally, and not any other member of the release team gave the opinion that this ongoing argument is not something I wanted to get involved with, and that I would not try to dictate a developer's actions in this way. References can be found in the debian-release archives, http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2012/06/msg00388.html and beyond. Neil signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#679235: RFA: animals -- Traditional AI animal guessing engine using a binary tree DB
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 05:33:41PM +, The Fungi wrote: > On 2012-06-27 11:11:12 -0600 (-0600), Holger Levsen wrote: > > what??? -v please. > [...] > > Presumably a reference to http://bugs.debian.org/674634 . Given the timing, probably also due to my reply to the short thread starting at: https://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2012/06/msg00388.html Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bits from the Release Team: Final countdown!
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 06:04:20PM +0200, Agustin Martin wrote: > Will stuff already in the NEW queue not being really new packages (I mean > things like source or binary package renames) be given some special > consideration regarding the freeze? > Hi, Anything in the NEW queue will not count towards the unblock. If it's necessary for an rc fix, explain that to us, otherwise it's probably not going to make it. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: On the (ab)use of the Urgency field
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 12:08:53PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > As mentioned in the last mail we sent to d-d-a (and several at > various points before that) if you have serious concerns that > important updates to your package won't be included in the release, > the correct approach is to talk to us, not try and work around us. > The net effect of the above is more likely to be that the urgency > will be overriden on the britney side as if the package had been > uploaded with a lower urgency. > For information, I've added some more age-days 10 hints today. If you need a higher urgency, please mention why in the changelog. Otherwise I have to go through every bug you mention in it, and when I don't see anything that looks like it justifies a higher urgency, I'm having to assume it was uploaded with that urgency in error. Thanks, Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: switching from exim to postfix
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 03:13:48AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > Is this the right time to do it? > No, we're about to freeze. I would try and dig out the discussion from last time, when we were about to freeze, but I'm not sure it's worth it. If you want to do this, then please look at it during the *start* of a development cycle, not the end. Neil (Release Manager du jour) -- How to tell you're about to freeze #67: Someone will suggest switching the default MTA signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: A few observations about systemd
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 10:54:16AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Moritz Mühlenhoff writes: > > > There're other blockers beside systemd to KFreeBSD being a full Debian > > port, e.g. the lack of KMS in Xorg. Even the guy who gave a talk von > > FreeBSD at last year's DebConf didn't use FreeBSD on his desktop. > > It's one thing to not work well on desktops, though, and quite another to > not support init scripts. We have long-standing ports that have never > worked on desktops (like s390). > Just for information, and not to do with the current situation, but it should be noted that adding a new port doesn't necessarily have the same criteria as keeping an existing one. Neil -- "I will never drink gin again" - Harmoney -- 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/20110718195912.gf...@feta.halon.org.uk
Ask the Leader - Q&A session for the DPL at Debconf
Hi all, One of the events at DebConf that I'm running is a 'Ask the Leader' session. This is a town hall meeting event, where you have the opportunity to ask the DPL anything you want! To make sure we have enough questions on a broad range of topics, I'd like to get some prepared questions beforehad. Note that the DPL won't see these, or have time to prepare his answers. There'll also be a session of questions from the floor. You don't need to be attending to ask, simply drop a mail to ne...@debian.org and I'll try and get as many questions put as possible. Thanks, Neil -- Ganneff is just a big cuddly teddy bear. Our photo proves it. -- 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/20110717164955.gw...@feta.halon.org.uk
Re: Bits from the Release Team - Kicking off Wheezy
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 10:51:02AM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote: > Sprint > -- > We feel it would be useful for the Release Team as a whole to get > together to think about what the plans are for the next release. As > such, we're planning a sprint to meet in person. Details will follow > once diaries have been able to be synchronised! > Hi all, This now has a wiki page, at http://wiki.debian.org/Sprints/2011/Release We're hoping to hold this in two weeks time in Antwerp. Comments welcome! Neil -- <+Mulligan> Your folk tale is inconsistent and confusing. <+Mulligan> I shall round up your local population and tell them good CHRISTIAN folk tales. <+Mulligan> Then build churches on all your pagan temples in order to stamp out your heathen idolatry. <@Ulthar> How about I give you the finger, and you give me my temples back? <+Mulligan> Tell me Mr Ulthar. How will you gather faith when you have no followers? * Mulligan makes a gesture and converts everyone to Christianity. <+Mulligan> Wow. I think we just summarised 800 years of history in about six sentences. -- 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/20110522082049.gr...@feta.halon.org.uk
Re: Bits from the Release Team - Kicking off Wheezy
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 12:27:10AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > Why would it be the release team's responsibility to cherry-pick from > anywhere? It is the maintainer's responsibility to prepare packages that > are suitable for the next stable release. I don't see why this would > change. > Hi Lucas, I feel that this mail does somewhat identify what may be the core misunderstanding on what is done in the release team. At the moment, this is exactly what we do, and I strongly feel one of the reasons that Debian has a reputation for stable releases. In an ideal world maintainers would submit bug free packages, but this simply does not happen. As a maintainer of a package which was removed from the last stable release, I know only too well the apathy with support for stable at times, but this does NOT mean we should try and circumvent it. The manual checking of packages ensures a level of stability that other distributions are unable to match (IMO, YMMV etc). (Feel free to skip the rest of the mail, it is all personal opinion from now on...) This is one of the things that makes Debian what it is, and makes me want to be involved with the project. We don't chase after the latest and greatest new shiny thing. We don't boast about the number of users we have, or how many systems we run. We do what is legally *right*, technically *correct*, and morally *sound*. If this is ever forgotten, we simply become a Linux distribution, rather than the Debian project. Neil -- A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion Q. Why is top posting bad? gpg key - http://www.halon.org.uk/pubkey.txt ; the.earth.li A40F862E -- 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/20110430225716.gj...@feta.halon.org.uk
Re: Bits from the Release Team - Kicking off Wheezy
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 08:50:39PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > 2/ The discussion is also about better supporting testing using t-p-u more > extensively to bring important fixes (or important new upstream versions) > that are blocked in unstable. It would be unreasonable to ask Debian > developers to support testing and rolling.debian.net in parallel. > Indeed. Personally, I believe it would also be unreasonable to ask DDs, and indeed the release, security, and FTP teams to support testing and rolling. Especially before it has been proven to be negligible extra effort. > For all those reasons, I believe the only sane way to go forward is to > discuss with the release team to identify what needs to happen so that > not freezing testing can become a serious possibility. > For reference, speaking as a RM but not on behalf of the entire release team, I believe that the amount of work you are seemingly trying to prescribe on other people means that I cannot support this proposal in its current form. I understand the desire not to freeze, although I think we disagree about the importance of having a high quality release. > To better structure the discussion, and make incremental progress, Sean > and me have decided to draft a DEP on this topic. > A complete aside: I have yet to see DEPs being anything but a structured way to bikeshed. However, if you wish to go down this route, feel free. This does bring me full circle back to the start of my mail - if you want to push this, that's fine. But please don't try and make extra work for others. Thanks, Neil -- < linuxpoet> rails is a perversion < mc> someone who use pgsql as calculator shouldnt talk of perversion. -- 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/20110430194824.gi...@feta.halon.org.uk
Re: Bits from the Release Team - Kicking off Wheezy
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 10:51:02AM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote: > Retrospective > - > The first thing we would like to do is to consider how the previous > release went. We'd like to know what went well, what went badly, and > what to improve for the next release. > > Once again, we will use feedb...@release.debian.org and welcome all > comments before 11th April. > We've had a rather poor response to this request, so I'd encourage anyone who's been putting it off to send in their thoughts so it can be taken into account! Thanks, Neil -- Ganneff is just a big cuddly teddy bear. Our photo proves it. -- 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/20110409091319.gj6...@feta.halon.org.uk
Re: time based freezes
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 12:12:09PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Monday, April 04, 2011 12:05:09 PM Neil McGovern wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 08:38:18AM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote: > > > One thing that the release team already is improving is communication, > > > > [snip] > > > > > The other thing that has potential to be improved is the freezing. > > > > [snip] > > > > I also note a lack of replies to feedb...@release.debian.org - these > > mails are definately useful, but I really would appreciate any comments > > going there, so I don't have to spend days trawling archives to pick up > > people's points. > > That seems like an odd reply to a message in a thread you started on debian- > devel? > It would be, but I started it on d-d-a :) Neil -- I think it's your point of view and I don't agree with you here. I have a good relation with the upstream author and don't think it is necessary for me to understand the code. - Request for a freeze exception -- 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/20110404201136.gb46...@feta.halon.org.uk
Re: time based freezes
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 08:38:18AM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote: > One thing that the release team already is improving is communication, [snip] > The other thing that has potential to be improved is the freezing. [snip] I also note a lack of replies to feedb...@release.debian.org - these mails are definately useful, but I really would appreciate any comments going there, so I don't have to spend days trawling archives to pick up people's points. Cheers, Neil -- Damned Inselaffen. Oh, wait, that's 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/20110404160509.ga46...@feta.halon.org.uk
Re: Three common voting errors - how to avoid them
On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 07:20:14PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: > On 10/05/2010 02:34 PM, Neil McGovern wrote: > > >> Then mail the ballot to: gr_nonpackag...@vote.debian.org. > > > > This means it shouldn't be sent to secret...@debian.org. I'm re-attaching > > the ballot below, with a Reply-To set for convenience. > > Setting a proper reply-to in the announcement-mail would hav ebeen nice. I > almost sent mine to secretary@, too :) > Yes, it would. And so would expecting people to read the mail. Given that there were a number (28?) sent before voting peoriod started, I'm not convinced that people will actually do that. I'll be looking at automating how the announcements are sent out in future to help this. Neil -- A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion Q. Why is top posting bad? gpg key - http://www.halon.org.uk/pubkey.txt ; the.earth.li A40F862E -- 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/20101005220453.gw4...@halon.org.uk
Three common voting errors - how to avoid them
On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 08:47:49PM +0100, Debian Project Secretary - Neil McGovern wrote: > In the brackets next to your preferred choice, place a 1. Place a 2 in > the brackets next to your next choice. You may rank options equally (as > long as all choices X you make are 1 or 2). Please make sure you use a 1 or a 2. 'X' is not a valid vote. If you want to just mark the one you prefer, you can use a "1" next to the option you prefer. > Then mail the ballot to: gr_nonpackag...@vote.debian.org. This means it shouldn't be sent to secret...@debian.org. I'm re-attaching the ballot below, with a Reply-To set for convenience. > NOTE: The vote must be GPG signed with your key that is in the Debian > keyring. Please remember to sign your vote :) - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 95912f50-8ac1-4eff-bed0-5c15aab62c72 [ ] Choice 1: Welcome non-packaging contributors as project members [ ] Choice 2: Further discussion - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Thanks, Neil -- No matter whether you use charcoal or pine-cones, you've got to ignite the fuel somehow. The traditional way is to use pieces of bark from a birch-tree. In the soviet era, we used Pravda, the newspaper of the Communist Party. Proprietary software licenses work just as well. http://tinyurl.com/yqnm58 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#505111: will suggest removal from testing
Well, it seems that other people haven't taken an interest in the bug, and we've now frozen, again. As there isn't a resolution in sight, I'll add a hint at the end of August for the removal of the package unless there's significant progress to fixing the issue. Neil -- the hacklab room is the one with a pirate flag, and a venezuelan flag, and a third flag the other hacklab room is the "other hacklab room" -- 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/20100807130820.ga3...@halon.org.uk
courier-authlib shlibs missing
Hi, With regards to #554788, is there a chance that this could be fixed, or even replied to? I really would rather not remove courier from testing. Neil -- What is a sane place to look for washing machines around Manchester? enrico: the canals :-) -- 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/20100805174604.gt9...@halon.org.uk
Unidentified subject!
pkg-clamav-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org Bcc: Subject: ClamAV supportability in stable releases Reply-To: Hi, The release team have been asked to remove ClamAV from testing (and hence the next stable release. See bug #587058. The issue seems to be that it's not supportable in stable due to the upstream maintainers deciding to upgrade their data files in a way that isn't binary compatable with previous versions. A couple of options have been mentioned for what to do with this, including volatile. I'm opening this mail thread for discussion, and if no one comments then I'll go ahead and action the bug report in two weeks. For avoidance of doubt, this will also affect reverse depends, see dd-list below. Thanks, Neil (Release team hat) Daniel Leidert (dale) gurlchecker Argos php-clamav ClamAV Team clamav-unofficial-sigs clamsmtp libclamunrar Debian Python Modules Team pyclamd Cédric Delfosse python-clamav Robert S. Edmonds clamassassin Jochen Friedrich c-icap Thomas Goirand dtc Stephen Gran libclamunrar (U) Marc Haber clamav-getfiles Scott Kitterman klamav Rene Mayrhofer havp Michael Meskes clamsmtp (U) David Paleino clamtk Siegfried-Angel Gevatter Pujals pyclamd (U) Michael Tautschnig libclamunrar (U) Alexander Wirt dansguardian Paul Wise clamav-unofficial-sigs (U) -- < linuxpoet> rails is a perversion < mc> someone who use pgsql as calculator shouldnt talk of perversion. -- 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/20100802163019.ga3...@halon.org.uk
Re: Bug#571041: ITP: dreampie -- advanced Python shell
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 12:48:11AM +0100, Luca Falavigna wrote: > Description : advanced Python shell > > This Python shell permits to work in a more productive way with Python > interpreter providing features not yet implemented in standard IDLE. > This short and long description need quite a bit of work. May I suggest debian-l10n-engl...@lists.debian.org if you need some help? Neil -- * stockholm bangs head against budget outsch h01ger: it is still very soft, i did not hurt myself stockholm: But you bled on the budget, and now it's red again! -- 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/20100223003345.gy22...@halon.org.uk
Re: GPL-licensed software linked against libssl on buildds!
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:32:17PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote: > > Would it be time to start looking at LVM snapshops + sbuild perhaps? > > we already have two or three buildds doing that... The buildd team (esp. > HE) working on that and if it works out to be stable enough, we can see > if we can roll out it to all buildds. > Excellent, thanks for this. Neil -- automake: the emo of Debian software. "You just don't understand me." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: GPL-licensed software linked against libssl on buildds!
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 02:36:08PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Neil McGovern writes: > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:59:35AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > > >> This is a bug in the netatalk Debian packaging. You cannot assume the > >> package will be built in a clean chroot; among other things, the buildd > >> software explicitly does not guarantee that all packages will be > >> removed. > > > Would it be time to start looking at LVM snapshops + sbuild perhaps? > > Well, I would argue that proper package builds in dirty environments is > something we want in Debian anyway, and while this isn't the ideal method > to find it, it would be a bug regardless of how the buildds worked. > I'm not arguing that finding these issues isn'[t something worth doing, but the headache of a broken chroot is (from the wrok I'm involved in) a much larger problem for us. Perhaps there could be a release goal / giant cluster-o-doom rebuild of the archive with commonly problematic libraries? Neil -- * Tolimar votes for debconf7 to be somewhere where he speaks the language. That would a veto for switzerland ;) Tolimar: that also vetos germany -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: GPL-licensed software linked against libssl on buildds!
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:59:35AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > This is a bug in the netatalk Debian packaging. You cannot assume the > package will be built in a clean chroot; among other things, the buildd > software explicitly does not guarantee that all packages will be removed. > Would it be time to start looking at LVM snapshops + sbuild perhaps? Neil -- Jump in and have a quim! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: rebuild test of Debian packages with GCC trunk 20100107
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 02:46:25AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > doesn't matter. GCC-4.5 won't be the default for squeeze. if the GCC-4.5 > release is done before the squeeze freeze, then it will be uploaded to > unstable and enabled to build for architectures where it doesn't show > regressions in the testsuite compared to 4.4. > Wouldn't this cause unstable to testing migration during the freeze be a bit broken, or am I misunderstanding? Neil -- 'Maybe you can try to find a nice hotel by shouting in the Mexico DF streets "where could a gringo find a decent hotel in this dirty third world lame excuse for a country?". I'm sure the people will rush to help you, as we south americans love to be called third world in a demeaning way.' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Possible MBF wrt common, FHS-compliant, default document root for the various web servers
On Sat, Nov 07, 2009 at 03:23:22PM +0100, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote: > Full ack, and I even like /usr/share/www. It's easy to understand and > pretty unprobable that we'd have a package called www in the archive > some day needing this location. > Sorry, I have to disagree with this approach. We would easily end up with items in /usr/share/www/bugzilla and also in /usr/share/bugzilla, how would you handle .inc files, for example? > > - Regarding the URL that would be mapped to that dir, I don't > > particularly like /debian/ (even though I've advanced it). However the > > alternative solutions I can come up with (e.g. /packages/) are > > actually uglier. So I guess /debian/ can stay. Some of the -webapps > > people can probably come up with wiser suggestions ... > > Manoj suggested '/vendor-apps' and I like that. It says what it should > say and doesn't steal any probable path. > I'm sorry, but I really don't see what this is trying to solve. >From 5.1.1 of the webapps policy: Web applications should be completely agnostic of the global document root. Both the above two points also cause issues with vhosting. How would you register bugzilla with domain foo.bar, but not wibble.baz? Many of these issues were discussed back in 2005 on the debian-webapps list, leading to the webapps policy paper. It's a good read, please make sure that you're aware of it :) Neil -- I use three different operating systems: Sarge, Etch, and Sid. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: /var/www is depracated, which directory to use?
On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 02:48:56PM +0100, Stig Sandbeck Mathisen wrote: > Should the web configuration be enabled by default? Assume apache2, and > add configuration to /etc/apache2/conf.d/munin.conf? > Have a read of http://webapps-common.alioth.debian.org/draft/html/ch-httpd.html Neil -- automake: the emo of Debian software. "You just don't understand me." signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: transitioning from a single to split package
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 12:25:51PM +0100, Penny Leach wrote: > The problem we've come across is how to handle migrations. If we have a > moodle package, that depends on moodle-mysql | moodle-pgsql, then package > managers that just install the first dependency, could cause a situation, > for example, where someone has configured their moodle installation to work > on postgres, but the upgrade installs moodle-mysql, which is obviously a > problem. We could detect this case in preinst, and complain bitterly and > refuse to install, but that's going to break upgrades, so is obviously a > no-goer. > Hi Penny, I'm slightly confused about the need to depend. Are the moodle-mysql/pgsql packages providing the support for the database schemes in moodle, or utilising the dependency structure to pull in the databases themselves (or both)? I'm thinking specifically of the case when the database is on a remote host, so the relevant db-connection libraries should be depended on, but not the database itself. Thanks, Neil -- hermanr_: I never studied german I can just read some of it because it makes sense . o O ( There is stuff Ganneff writes, which makes sense? ) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: udev and /usr
On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 04:47:54PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le mardi 01 septembre 2009 à 15:36 +0100, Chris Jackson a écrit : > > Well, /etc needs to be on /, since otherwise you can't get to fstab to > > mount it, and generally things like /etc/hostname will be different, so, > > while I suppose it's theoretically possible, I'd take it also to be > > somewhat sub-optimal. > > Ever heard of DHCP ? > Do we only support network configuration with DHCP now? Neil -- I don't see why anyone would want to "cyber" with a 16yo. IME none of them can spell, and they probably haven't had the relevant experience to write convincing prose. It's not like their ASCII is going to be any more supple for them being sixteen. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Webapps policy: final RFC
Hi, I've been tasked as part of the release team of finalising and pushing through the Webapps Policy, whcih can be found at http://webapps-common.alioth.debian.org/draft/html/ The source for this is at http://svn.debian.org/viewsvn/webapps-common/webapps-common/trunk/doc/Webapps-Policy-Manual-DRAFT.sgml?view=log Comments appreciated, I'd like to get these all in and integrated by end of August, to push to the policy team for inclusion. Thanks, Neil McGovern -- automake: the emo of Debian software. "You just don't understand me." signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Non-unified patches and dpkg source format ‘3.0 (quilt)’.
On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 10:45:14AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Giving a standard interface to reviewers is a laudable goal, but I do not see > reviewers except in elaborate scenarios about security. Therefore I will not > trade a real benefit for a hypothetical one, even if both are neglectible. > Also, I think that it is very important in a project of 1,000 persons to stick > to facts, and avoid building illusions together. So as long as there is no > reviewing process nor package reviews, there is no need to adapt to imaginary > reviewers. > /me raises his release team hat. Neil -- * Tolimar votes for debconf7 to be somewhere where he speaks the language. That would a veto for switzerland ;) Tolimar: that also vetos germany -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: upgrading dbus or running the init script kills X
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 01:50:02PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote: > Just to re-iterate from a release team PoV, this could really do with > fixing. > (for d-d readers, this is a awesome bug, where dbus upgrades kill X) > > This is holding up xcb-util, which is holding up python-visual, which is > preventing the removal (finally!) of GTK 1 > Thanks to those who helped on this. A patch is winging it's way to the BTS now. An expediant upload would be appreciated :) Neil -- "Debian women - porting the most succesfull operating system to the most unknown architecture" signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: upgrading dbus or running the init script kills X
Hi all, Just to re-iterate from a release team PoV, this could really do with fixing. (for d-d readers, this is a awesome bug, where dbus upgrades kill X) This is holding up xcb-util, which is holding up python-visual, which is preventing the removal (finally!) of GTK 1 Thanks, Neil -- hermanr_: I never studied german I can just read some of it because it makes sense . o O ( There is stuff Ganneff writes, which makes sense? ) signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Removal of remaining packages using GTK 1.2
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 10:12:04PM +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > icewm > linpopup > wmclockmon > cheops > codebreaker > gaby > dbmix > gcrontab > gbuffy > gcvs > gcx > geg > gman > gps > gqcam > gtkpool > libjsw > i2e > mah-jong > mbrowse > predict > xemacs21 > swami > xoscope > xscorch > All removed > ledcontrol > Age-days set to 8, new version now in testing. Neil -- bah Germans. You just put 100 DDs in one country and then they all become friends of each other. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: debian/copyright verbosity
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 12:53:58PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: > That would be premature. As I understand it, we're waiting on (and I'm > actively soliciting) input for other purposes of the information in the > ‘debian/copyright’ file; not least from the legal counsel at SPI. > I could be wrong, but I'm not aware that counsel has been asked. Have you got a messageid? Thanks, Neil -- No matter whether you use charcoal or pine-cones, you've got to ignite the fuel somehow. The traditional way is to use pieces of bark from a birch-tree. In the soviet era, we used Pravda, the newspaper of the Communist Party. Proprietary software licenses work just as well. http://tinyurl.com/yqnm58 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
