Re: Bits from the DPL

[Andreas Schuldei]

* Sam Hocevar ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070427 05:55]:
> Meetings
> 
> 
>Matt Taggart proposed that dpkg developers meet in person during a
> dpkg summit[9] to talk about future dpkg development. The meeting would
> be sponsored at least by Debian and HP. I suggested inviting people from
> the Fink and ipkg projects as well as other distributions, too.

when planning that event with taggart we thought it best to
let first the people we hope to attend confirm their attendence
and then open up the event for other people.

do you think the overlap with the other projects is significant?
i just dont know.

/andreas


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

Re: Bits from the DPL

[Sam Hocevar]

[moving to -project as I should have done with my original message]

On Fri, Apr 27, 2007, Andreas Schuldei wrote:

> >Matt Taggart proposed that dpkg developers meet in person during a
> > dpkg summit[9] to talk about future dpkg development. The meeting would
> > be sponsored at least by Debian and HP. I suggested inviting people from
> > the Fink and ipkg projects as well as other distributions, too.
> 
> when planning that event with taggart we thought it best to
> let first the people we hope to attend confirm their attendence
> and then open up the event for other people.

   Of course. Given the short timeframe until the currently suggested
date, it's good that everyone is at least aware of its existence,
though.

> do you think the overlap with the other projects is significant?
> i just dont know.

   I thought ipkg was interesting because it is a full rewrite
that addresses issues the embedded world has (such as the huge and
functionally unnecessary /usr/share/doc and /usr/share/man). Fink is
just a port of dpkg and does not have any link with Debian AFAIK but
its developers might be interested in both requesting/contributing new
features and learning about the dpkg developers' future plans.

Cheers,
Sam.
-- 
echo "creationism" | tr -d "holy godly goal"


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

Re: Bits from the DPL

[Keith Edmunds]

Hi Steve

> the more installation and upgrade testing we can do now, the
> better.

I'm really sorry to trouble you directly as I'm sure you have better
things to do than reply to mails such as this; however, I'd like to help
test the Etch -> Lenny upgrade, but I can't find the Lenny release notes
(particularly the upgrade part) anywhere. I've tried Google, I've tried
the debian.org site.

Could you tell me where they are and, possibly, make it a little easier
for others to find them (maybe put a link on the Lenny .iso download page)?

Thanks,
Keith


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

Re: Bits from the DPL

[The Fungi]

On Sat, Oct 04, 2008 at 12:38:35PM +0100, Keith Edmunds wrote:
[...]
> I can't find the Lenny release notes (particularly the upgrade
> part) anywhere. [...] Could you tell me where they are
[...]

For now, it looks like you can at least browse DocBook sources for
it on svn.debian.org:

http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/ddp/manuals/branches/release-notes/lenny/en/

I have no idea how complete it is yet (nor how complete the 21 other
translations there are, if you weren't seeking an English-language
copy).

For the record, I located this from reading the "New In Lenny" wiki:

http://wiki.debian.org/NewInLenny

Hope that helps!
-- 
{ IRL(Jeremy_Stanley); PGP(9E8DFF2E4F5995F8FEADDC5829ABF7441FB84657);
SMTP([EMAIL PROTECTED]); IRC([EMAIL PROTECTED]); ICQ(114362511);
AIM(dreadazathoth); YAHOO(crawlingchaoslabs); FINGER([EMAIL PROTECTED]);
MUD([EMAIL PROTECTED]:6669); WWW(http://fungi.yuggoth.org/); }


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

Re: Bits from the DPL

[Jonathan Carter]

On 2022/04/20 08:25, j...@debian.org wrote:

2022-01-12  - Milestone 1 - Transition and toolchain freeze 2022-02-12  -
Milestone 2 - Soft Freeze 2022-03-12  - Milestone 3 - Hard Freeze - for key
packages and packages without autopkgtests To be announced - Milestone 4 
- Full

Freeze


Oops, that was a copy and paste from an initial incorrect mail, the 
dates are of course meant to be for 2023, not 2022.


-Jonathan


OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Bits from the DPL

[Christian Kastner]

Hi Jonathan,

just a brief correction:

On 2024-04-01 18:05, Jonathan Carter wrote:
> I don't want to single out DSA there, it's difficult and affects many
> other teams. The Salsa CI team also spent a lot of resources (time and
> money wise) to extend testing on AMD GPUs and other AMD hardware. It's
> fantastic and interesting work, and really more people within the
> project and in the outside world should know about it!

The AMD GPUs are not part of the official CI yet, as both our official
infrastructure (hosting the GPUs) and our policies (expressing hardware
relationships) do not permit it.

We are running a fork of debci and other packages at
https://ci.rocm.debian.net. Our forks have a number of experimental
features, notably our architectures are [CPU ISA]+[GPU ISA], for example
amd64+gfx1030 (Navi 21) or amd64+gfx1100 (Navi 31).

Our fork currently automatically tracks all Debian packages which
reverse-depend on any of our libraries. Developers are invited to add
ROCm support to their packages if it's supported upstream, and the
packages will automatically be tested on over a dozen AMD GPU
architectures within our infra.

We're finalizing our upgrade to ROCm 5.7+ (also on Ubuntu), and a proper
write-up will follow on Debian Planet.

Best,
Christian

PS: Our intention is of course to feed back all our changes to debci,
Policy and so on, but some of these are entirely novel and require
experimentation first, followed by discussion.

Re: Bits from the DPL: Looking forward

[Anthony Towns]

On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 03:39:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> BSPs in Vienna (Switzerland) [3], 

I was assuming, of course, that "Switzerland" was some foreign word
meaning "snowy place", but apparently it's actually a country all of
its own, entirely separate to Austria...

On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 03:43:52PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> (b) Firmware vote
> proposal, as amended by Manon Srivastava (Message-id:

And while _Manon des sources_ might've been a neat French film, I don't
think it's actually got all that much to do with Manoj...

Cheers,
aj


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Bits from the DPL: Looking forward

[Josselin Mouette]

Le mardi 03 octobre 2006 à 15:39 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit :
> And
> that's all the excuse I need to mention the coolness that is compiz,
> which has finally made it's way to unstable -- kudos to Thierry Reding,
> and his sponsor David Nusinow; it's always nice when someone else does
> the work to make your campaign promises [1] happen. :)

Maybe it should be mentioned that some ftpmaster has fast-tracked this
package out of NEW - maybe to fullfill his campaign promises? - despite
the copyright file being incorrect (GPL instead of MIT), the package
being in an unreleasable state [1] and the NEW queue being full [2].

 [1] http://bugs.debian.org/compiz
 [2] http://haydn.debian.org/~corsac-guest/new/
-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom

Re: Bits from the DPL: Looking forward

[Junichi Uekawa]

> Of course, even while that's being organised, people are getting serious
> about where DebConf will be held in 2008 [17]. AIUI, the theory is that
> DebConf will change continents each year, and there's been interest shown
> from Japan [18], Argentina and Venezuela [19], as well a thoughts about
> holding the 2009 DebConf in Canada [20] or Thailand [21].
> 
>  [18] http://wiki.debian.org/DebConf/Japan

It might be a bit hard to read since it's really written in Japanese only at 
the moment, 
but due to delay in selecting suitable venue for Debconf, our current timeline 
is:


2007 join as support team to Debconf
2008 propose Japan as Debconf candidate
2009 hold Debconf in Japan.


We're currently lacking some manpower, really.


regards,
junichi
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED],netfort.gr.jp}   Debian Project


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

Re: Bits from the DPL: Looking forward

[Holger Levsen]

Hi,

On Thursday 05 October 2006 16:12, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> 2007 join as support team to Debconf
> 2008 propose Japan as Debconf candidate
> 2009 hold Debconf in Japan.

This timeline won't work :-) At least the debconf-team hopes so:

From 2007 we want to decide the venue two years in advance, that is, during 
debconf7 we want to decide on the venue for 2009.

To make this switch to two years planning possible, we want to decide about 
debconf8 around the end of this year (2006) or the beginning of the next, see 
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2006/09/msg00137.html


regards,
Holger


pgpH47N7iKIBP.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Bits from the DPL: Looking forward

[Junichi Uekawa]

Hi,

> On Thursday 05 October 2006 16:12, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> > 2007 join as support team to Debconf
> > 2008 propose Japan as Debconf candidate
> > 2009 hold Debconf in Japan.
> 
> This timeline won't work :-) At least the debconf-team hopes so:
> 
> From 2007 we want to decide the venue two years in advance, that is, during 
> debconf7 we want to decide on the venue for 2009.
> 
> To make this switch to two years planning possible, we want to decide about 
> debconf8 around the end of this year (2006) or the beginning of the next, see 
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2006/09/msg00137.html

so, an amendment.
The earliest possible timeline in view of current constraints:

2007/6 Join Debconf as support team 
2007/12 Propose Japan as Debconf Candidate
2009/6 Hold Debconf in Japan.


regards,
junichi
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED],netfort.gr.jp}   Debian Project


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

Re: bits from the DPL: June 2012

[Jakub Wilk]

* Stefano Zacchiroli , 2012-07-03, 21:24:
Since [OIN][19] was seeking comments on their [Linux System 
definition][12] (not really openly though: I learned about it last 
minute from people directly in touch with OIN representatives), I've 
contacted them proposing to include all "Debian main" packages in their 
definition. I haven't yet hear back from them, but I doubt they'll 
accept the idea. It'd be nice to have an official answer about why, 
though.


Why do we care? What's the point of such definition?

I'm honestly curious.

--
Jakub Wilk


--
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/20120704151721.ga5...@jwilk.net

Re: bits from the DPL: June 2012

[Simon McVittie]

On 04/07/12 16:17, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Stefano Zacchiroli , 2012-07-03, 21:24:
>> Since [OIN][19] was seeking comments on their [Linux System
>> definition][12]
[...]
> Why do we care? What's the point of such definition?

"Patents owned by Open Invention Network® are available royalty-free to
any company, institution or individual that agrees not to assert its
patents against the Linux System."

The broader their definition of "the Linux System" is, the broader that
agreement becomes: if it covered all of Debian main, then nobody relying
on an OIN patent license could assert their patents against anything in
Debian main, which would be nice.

S


-- 
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/4ff473cc.4020...@debian.org

Re: bits from the DPL - May 2013

[Norbert Preining]

On Mi, 05 Jun 2013, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> expiration of debian-multimedia.org
> ===
> debian-multimedia.org was an unofficial, popular repository of Debian 
> packages. After a discussion last year, the service moved to another domain.
> Debian offered to cover costs for the transfer of the debian-multimedia.org 
> domain to prevent it from expiring and falling into a domain squatter's hands 
> (or worse).  Unfortunately, the debian-multimedia.org maintainer decided not
> to cooperate with Debian, and let the domain expire. The domain has now 

Although I agree that it was not handled cooperatively, I have to
say that stating
"After a discussion ..."
is a bit an euphemism for forcing the hand over 

Please stand to your actions (you as in "we" as in Debian)

Norbert


PREINING, Norbert   http://www.preining.info
JAIST, Japan TeX Live & Debian Developer
DSA: 0x09C5B094   fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76  A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094



-- 
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/20130605130237.gd...@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at

Re: bits from the DPL - August 2013

[Lucas Nussbaum]

On 11/09/13 at 22:09 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Participation in OpenZFS initiative
> ===
> Debian was invited to participate in the OpenZFS community[1].
> Interestingly, Debian supports ZFS on Debian GNU/kFreeBSD, and on Debian
> GNU/Linux with the FUSE implementation, and with the native ZFS-on-linux
> implementation.
> 
> [1] http://open-zfs.org/

It was pointed out on IRC that I was a bit too optimistic, since
zfs-linux is in NEW:
http://ftp-master.debian.org/new/zfs-linux_0.6.2-1.html

Lucas


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: bits from the DPL -- September 2013

[Wouter Verhelst]

On 09-10-13 07:58, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>  other
> - Debian Code of Conduct (C: http://deb.li/3wRWh  N: iterate with a new 
> version?)

Yes, indeed.

Unfortunately, since debconf, I've been extremely swamped with work,
which is why no further updates on this point have been forthcoming from
me so far.

The busy period is just about to end, however, and I'll try to get an
update in the next week or so.

-- 
This end should point toward the ground if you want to go to space.

If it starts pointing toward space you are having a bad problem and you
will not go to space today.

  -- http://xkcd.com/1133/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: bits from the DPL: August 2012

[Matthias Urlichs]

Ummm …

Stefano Zacchiroli:
> Dear project members, August has been a month with a good deal of
> vacations for many of us, including yours truly. Therefore the monthly
> report of DPL activities will be briefer than usual. Which is good, as
> it'll leave all my readers more time to do NMUs and fix RC bugs!
> 
Shouldn't we fix RC bugs first and do NMUs second?

SCNR,
-- 
-- Matthias Urlichs


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: bits from the DPL: December 2012

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 05:31:46PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>   buildd usage for events like BSP. Many thanks to Lucas Nussbaum and

Erm, typo here. This should have been "Many thanks to Lucas Nussbaum and
James Bromberger". Sorry James!

-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli  . . . . . . .  z...@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o
Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o
Debian Project Leader . . . . . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o .
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: bits from the DPL: January 2013

[Steve Langasek]

Hi Zack,

On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 06:28:29PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> - The long standing issue of writing a proper (outbound) trademark
>   policy for Debian marks has been completed. I've reviewed on -project
>   outstanding items from the last discussion, and documented how they've
>   been implemented in a new policy draft [5]. Later on, I've published
>   the updated policy draft on our website [6].



> [6]: http://www.debian.org/trademark

This policy states that the contact for trademark questions is
tradem...@debian.org.  Where does this address go?  I think it's important
for transparency that the responsible parties be listed on
; I can't tell if this is an alias
for leader@, or a team, or what.  (/etc/aliases on master mentions it going
to leader@, but this entry is commented out.)

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


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: bits from the DPL: January 2013

[Nikolaus Rath]

Stefano Zacchiroli  writes:
>
> - The long standing issue of writing a proper (outbound) trademark
>   policy for Debian marks has been completed. I've reviewed on -project
>   outstanding items from the last discussion, and documented how they've
>   been implemented in a new policy draft [5]. Later on, I've published
>   the updated policy draft on our website [6].
>
[...]
>
> [6]: http://www.debian.org/trademark


The "You can see a non-exhaustive list of Debian trademarks [...] at our
trademarks page" link just loops back to the page itself, but there
doesn't seem to be a list anywhere on it.


Best,

   -Nikolaus

-- 
 »Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«

  PGP fingerprint: 5B93 61F8 4EA2 E279 ABF6  02CF A9AD B7F8 AE4E 425C


--
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/8738x3sqtm@vostro.rath.org

Re: bits from the DPL: January 2013

[Tollef Fog Heen]

]] Steve Langasek 

> (/etc/aliases on master mentions it going to leader@, but this entry
> is commented out.)

Use exim -bt $address on master to find out.  It goes to leader@ + an
archive.  (I agree it should probably go on the org page too.)

-- 
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are


-- 
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/87txpjuwuy@xoog.err.no

Re: bits from the DPL: January 2013

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 03:16:05PM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> The "You can see a non-exhaustive list of Debian trademarks [...] at our
> trademarks page" link just loops back to the page itself, but there
> doesn't seem to be a list anywhere on it.

Oh but there is. The very first section on that page, named "Trademarks"
give a natural language description of the trademarks we currently own,
with pointers to the relevant offices who have registered them. It's
possibly not very well structured, but it has been considered good
enough by Debian legal support at SPI.

Cheers.
-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli  . . . . . . .  z...@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o
Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o
Debian Project Leader . . . . . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o .
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: bits from the DPL: January 2013

[Nikolaus Rath]

Stefano Zacchiroli  writes:
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 03:16:05PM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
>> The "You can see a non-exhaustive list of Debian trademarks [...] at our
>> trademarks page" link just loops back to the page itself, but there
>> doesn't seem to be a list anywhere on it.
>
> Oh but there is. The very first section on that page, named "Trademarks"
> give a natural language description of the trademarks we currently own,
> with pointers to the relevant offices who have registered them. It's
> possibly not very well structured, but it has been considered good
> enough by Debian legal support at SPI.

That's probably true, but as a layperson I still have no idea what the
Debian trademarks are. My guess is that it's the phrase "Debian" and the
spiral logo. But I can't confirm that from the webpage at all, and it
also doesn't give me any clue if there might be other Debian trademarks
(e.g. what about "The universal operating system"?).

But maybe I misunderstood the purpose of the page.


Best,

   -Nikolaus

-- 
 »Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«

  PGP fingerprint: 5B93 61F8 4EA2 E279 ABF6  02CF A9AD B7F8 AE4E 425C


--
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/87fw12nw55@vostro.rath.org

Re: Bits from the DPL (December 2018)

[Nikolaus Rath]

On Dec 31 2018, Chris Lamb  wrote:
>  * Followed-up on progress regarding potential new "Member Benefits"
>[9] and ensured that some previously-promised reports for events
>funded by Debian ended up appearing on Planet [10].
>
>I also provided solicited (!) advice to a few other developers on
>conference booths and suitable/alternative conferences they may
>wish to attend instead.

Is there something missing here? Attend instead of what, and how does
that relate to member benefits?


Best,
-Nikolaus

-- 
GPG Fingerprint: ED31 791B 2C5C 1613 AF38 8B8A D113 FCAC 3C4E 599F

 »Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«

Re: Bits from the DPL (December 2018)

[Chris Lamb]

Hi Nikolaus,

> >  * Followed-up on progress regarding potential new "Member Benefits"
> >[9] and ensured that some previously-promised reports for events
> >funded by Debian ended up appearing on Planet [10].
> >
> >I also provided solicited (!) advice to a few other developers on
> >conference booths and suitable/alternative conferences they may
> >wish to attend instead.
> 
> Is there something missing here? Attend instead of what, and how does
> that relate to member benefits?

I don't believe anything is missing; these are two standalone
sentences on different topics. ("X conference? Thought about Y
conference instead?")


Regards,

-- 
  ,''`.
 : :'  : Chris Lamb
 `. `'`  la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk
   `-

Re: Bits from the DPL (December 2018)

[Nikolaus Rath]

On Jan 01 2019, Chris Lamb  wrote:
> Hi Nikolaus,
>
>> >  * Followed-up on progress regarding potential new "Member Benefits"
>> >[9] and ensured that some previously-promised reports for events
>> >funded by Debian ended up appearing on Planet [10].
>> >
>> >I also provided solicited (!) advice to a few other developers on
>> >conference booths and suitable/alternative conferences they may
>> >wish to attend instead.
>> 
>> Is there something missing here? Attend instead of what, and how does
>> that relate to member benefits?
>
> I don't believe anything is missing; these are two standalone
> sentences on different topics. ("X conference? Thought about Y
> conference instead?")

Then maybe a missing bullet point for the second paragraph? But even
with that I remain rather confused. What is the conference for which
these developers wanted an alternative, and why?

(I'm just very curious)

Best,
-Nikolaus

-- 
GPG Fingerprint: ED31 791B 2C5C 1613 AF38 8B8A D113 FCAC 3C4E 599F

 »Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«

Re: Bits from the DPL (April 2019)

[Esokrates]

Thanks very much for the reply!
Have you been discussing this with the gitlab people?
They seem very open to discuss with projects, e.g. see
https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/53206
I understand your points (especially agree on moving bugs between
different projects) and that there is no solution at this time, but it
would be great if Debian would try to collaborate with gitlab on this
issue so in the future the switch would be possible.

On 30.04.19 19:32, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> "Esokrates" == Esokrates   writes:
> 
> Esokrates> Hi, Thanks very much for the report!  Regarding
> Esokrates> transition to salsa: I would consider it to be a great
> Esokrates> idea to move bug reporting to gitlab too.  Most users
> Esokrates> today are more comfortable with web based bug reporting
> Esokrates> and it's more convenient to have everything in one place.
> Esokrates> For outside observers and possible new contributors it's
> Esokrates> otherwise a really a confusing situation.
> 
> There has been a lot of discussion over the years of improving our bug
> tracking, but I don't think gitlab's issue tracking meets our needs:
> 
> * bug numbers are per project not global.  Debian bugs move around too
>   much between packages.
> 
> * Gitlab doesn't have a good email interface for  bugs.  Yes, we need a
>   better web interface, but dealing with bugs via email is almost
>   certainly a must have for Debian.  As an example people want to be
>   able to manage bugs on a plane and to mix bugs and mailing list
>   conversation.
> 
> * Debian specific version tracking, cloning of bugs, and fixed version
> tracking are critical to us.
> 
> So, while I think a lot of us agree that it would be great to have bugs
> and code in one place and great to have a better web interface for bugs,
> I don't think today's Gitlab meets Debian's needs.
> 

Re: Bits from the DPL (May 2019)

[Norbert Preining]

Hi,

(please Cc, not reading d-d)

On Sun, 02 Jun 2019, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Dh as a Preferred Packaging Style
> =
> 
> As promised, I started a discussion [3] on whether we wanted to prefer
> (and in some cases require) the dh sequencer from Debhelper as a package
> building tool.
> 
> We had a great discussion.  I published my understanding of our project
> consensus.  We are seeking final comments until June 16.  At this point,

And would you be so helpful in providing a link to that understanding
of consensus? Only posting a link to the start of a long thread is not
really helpful.

> Git on Salsa
> 
> 
> The next discussion I will drive is a discussion of whether we want to
> strongly recommend Debian packaging be done using Git on
> salsa.debian.org.

Well, recent event have shown that *I* will not return to salsa. It did
cost me an incredible amount of time to re-create all archives on github
so that I can continue developing again.

Feel free to recommend it, but I won't follow this recommendation in any
case.

Best

Norbert

--
PREINING Norbert   http://www.preining.info
Accelia Inc. +JAIST +TeX Live +Debian Developer
GPG: 0x860CDC13   fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0 ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13

Re: Bits from the DPL (May 2019)

[Sam Hartman]

> "Norbert" == Norbert Preining  writes:

Norbert> Hi, (please Cc, not reading d-d)

Norbert> On Sun, 02 Jun 2019, Sam Hartman wrote:

Norbert> And would you be so helpful in providing a link to that
Norbert> understanding of consensus? Only posting a link to the
Norbert> start of a long thread is not really helpful.

This was an intentional choice on my part.
The summary of consensus is a tool for those who participated in the
discussion while the comment period is open.
I'll definitely post a link when we're done.

Several key factors contribute to a consensus forming discussion:

* All the participants are informed or are working to be informed

* the people are working together to try and find common ground and
address issues

It's really impossible to have that without actually participating in
the discussion and reading some significant chunk of it.

That said,
https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/tsl5zpyigx4@suchdamage.org


>> Git on Salsa 
>> 
>> The next discussion I will drive is a discussion of whether we
>> want to strongly recommend Debian packaging be done using Git on
>> salsa.debian.org.

Norbert> Well, recent event have shown that *I* will not return to
Norbert> salsa. It did cost me an incredible amount of time to
Norbert> re-create all archives on github so that I can continue
Norbert> developing again.

I'll take this as input that we should have better transition strategies
for salsa when a project owner's status changes.

I appreciate that is unlikely to be sufficient to change your personal
opinion, but  it is something the community should discuss.

--Sam

Re: Bits from the DPL (May 2019)

[Norbert Preining]

Hi,

> https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/tsl5zpyigx4@suchdamage.org

Thanks, sounds reasonable.

> I'll take this as input that we should have better transition strategies
> for salsa when a project owner's status changes.

I would propose something else: Debian rights are defined by
presence/absence of a GPG key in certain key rings. This should be
completely independent from what one can do on salsa.
So I propose that whatever one's level within Debian is, it should not 
change the status on salsa.

> I appreciate that is unlikely to be sufficient to change your personal
> opinion, but  it is something the community should discuss.

There you are 100% correct.

Best

Norbert

--
PREINING Norbert   http://www.preining.info
Accelia Inc. +JAIST +TeX Live +Debian Developer
GPG: 0x860CDC13   fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0 ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13

Re: Bits from the DPL (May 2019)

[Sam Hartman]

> "Norbert" == Norbert Preining  writes:

Norbert> I would propose something else: Debian rights are defined
Norbert> by presence/absence of a GPG key in certain key rings. This
Norbert> should be completely independent from what one can do on
Norbert> salsa.  So I propose that whatever one's level within
Norbert> Debian is, it should not change the status on salsa.

Well, developers are also granted rights in the debian group on salsa,
and that is tied to whether you are currently a developer.

Re: Bits from the DPL (May 2019)

[Adrian Bunk]

On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 10:14:50AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "Norbert" == Norbert Preining  writes:
> 
> Norbert> I would propose something else: Debian rights are defined
> Norbert> by presence/absence of a GPG key in certain key rings. This
> Norbert> should be completely independent from what one can do on
> Norbert> salsa.  So I propose that whatever one's level within
> Norbert> Debian is, it should not change the status on salsa.
> 
> Well, developers are also granted rights in the debian group on salsa,
> and that is tied to whether you are currently a developer.

But personal rights (including own repositories) do not.

cu
Adrian

-- 

   "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
   "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
   Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

Re: Bits from the DPL (May 2019)

[Andreas Tille]

On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 10:14:50AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "Norbert" == Norbert Preining  writes:
> 
> Norbert> I would propose something else: Debian rights are defined
> Norbert> by presence/absence of a GPG key in certain key rings. This
> Norbert> should be completely independent from what one can do on
> Norbert> salsa.  So I propose that whatever one's level within
> Norbert> Debian is, it should not change the status on salsa.
> 
> Well, developers are also granted rights in the debian group on salsa,
> and that is tied to whether you are currently a developer.

I fully agree with Norbert.  You might argue that a developer who was
removed from the keyring could write a script and do some harm on all
git repositories in the debian group to take some "revenge" for becoming
expelled.  I see no practival relevance for such a scenario.  As far as
I understood Norberts case it was not intended to block him from
contributing - but removing his permissions on salsa made it very hard
for him to contribute.

I do not have any idea whether there is an easy technical implementation
for Norberts suggestion but I'm in favour of it.

Kind regards

   Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de

Re: Bits from the DPL (May 2019)

[Alexander Wirt]

On Thu, 06 Jun 2019, Andreas Tille wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 10:14:50AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > > "Norbert" == Norbert Preining  writes:
> > 
> > Norbert> I would propose something else: Debian rights are defined
> > Norbert> by presence/absence of a GPG key in certain key rings. This
> > Norbert> should be completely independent from what one can do on
> > Norbert> salsa.  So I propose that whatever one's level within
> > Norbert> Debian is, it should not change the status on salsa.
> > 
> > Well, developers are also granted rights in the debian group on salsa,
> > and that is tied to whether you are currently a developer.
> 
> I fully agree with Norbert.  You might argue that a developer who was
> removed from the keyring could write a script and do some harm on all
> git repositories in the debian group to take some "revenge" for becoming
> expelled.  I see no practival relevance for such a scenario.  As far as
> I understood Norberts case it was not intended to block him from
> contributing - but removing his permissions on salsa made it very hard
> for him to contribute.
> 
> I do not have any idea whether there is an easy technical implementation
> for Norberts suggestion but I'm in favour of it.
The whole group is basically ldap controlled. And in fact salsa didn't
removed any permission. The account was disabled in LDAP and therefore
disabled on salsa (which makes perfectly sense in my eyes). So unless you
create a new account state in ldap I don't see any good solution for changing
the current behaviour. Of course we want to also disable @debian.org accounts
when they are disabled in (ud)ldap.

Alex
 

Re: Bits from the DPL (May 2019)

[Alexander Wirt]

On Wed, 05 Jun 2019, Adrian Bunk wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 10:14:50AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > > "Norbert" == Norbert Preining  writes:
> > 
> > Norbert> I would propose something else: Debian rights are defined
> > Norbert> by presence/absence of a GPG key in certain key rings. This
> > Norbert> should be completely independent from what one can do on
> > Norbert> salsa.  So I propose that whatever one's level within
> > Norbert> Debian is, it should not change the status on salsa.
> > 
> > Well, developers are also granted rights in the debian group on salsa,
> > and that is tied to whether you are currently a developer.
> 
> But personal rights (including own repositories) do not.
If a @debian.org account is disabled in udldap it gets of course disabled in
salsa. 

Alex

Re: Bits from the DPL (May 2019)

[Sam Hartman]

> "Alexander" == Alexander Wirt  writes:

Alexander> On Wed, 05 Jun 2019, Adrian Bunk wrote:

I understand that is how it is today.
Disabling an account is something we clearly want to be able to do.


However, it's a lot easier to get a foo-guest account on salsa than it
is to get a foo guest account in Debian LDAP.

There are transitions like someone retiring from the project where we
actually would be delighted if they continued to use salsa in some
capacity.
Making the transition from foo to foo-guest is currently incredibly
expensive for the person involved.

It's reasonable for us to discuss as a community whether this is
something we want to change as part of recommending salsa more strongly.
This is one of the issues we will discuss later this month.  I hope the
salsa admins will join that discussion.  I think it would be better to
focus on what you want the state to be in the future and the
cost/requirements for any changes than to focus on where things stand
today.

--Sam

Re: Bits from the DPL (May 2019)

[Bastian Blank]

Hi Sam

On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 11:57:41AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> However, it's a lot easier to get a foo-guest account on salsa than it
> is to get a foo guest account in Debian LDAP.

A guest account in Debian LDAP does not get a Salsa account, at least
not an usable one.  Currently only users in the Debian group are
allowed.

> There are transitions like someone retiring from the project where we
> actually would be delighted if they continued to use salsa in some
> capacity.

The largest technical problem with that is providing the user with a
valid e-mail address.  Apart from that we need DSA to properly define
states in LDAP.

> Making the transition from foo to foo-guest is currently incredibly
> expensive for the person involved.

Yes, it is.

> This is one of the issues we will discuss later this month.  I hope the
> salsa admins will join that discussion.

Well, you could just ask.

Bastian

-- 
Beam me up, Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here!

Re: Bits from the DPL (May 2019)

[Sam Hartman]

> "Bastian" == Bastian Blank  writes:

Bastian> Hi Sam
Bastian> On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 11:57:41AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> However, it's a lot easier to get a foo-guest account on salsa
>> than it is to get a foo guest account in Debian LDAP.

Bastian> A guest account in Debian LDAP does not get a Salsa
Bastian> account, at least not an usable one.  Currently only users
Bastian> in the Debian group are allowed.

No, but my understanding is that basically anyone on the internet can go
sign up for foo-guest at salsa.

>> There are transitions like someone retiring from the project
>> where we actually would be delighted if they continued to use
>> salsa in some capacity.

Bastian> The largest technical problem with that is providing the
Bastian> user with a valid e-mail address.  Apart from that we need
Bastian> DSA to properly define states in LDAP.

OK, that's useful input.
I do feel we're talking past each other here though.

Norbert and some other folks said they wanted salsa to behave
differently.

Alex jumped in and said "salsa doesn't work that way."
Sure, we all know that.
And yet, salsa and really all of Debian can change if we want them to
and the right we are willing to do the work.

I tried to explain why some people might want a change and said I'd
bring that up as one of the points to consider.

Now you're talking about why the change would be hard.
I do think understanding the cost of a change is important, but
sometimes I also think it's helpful not to jump right to the technical
details.  Sometimes I think it might help to spend a bit of time asking
in the abstract what we want before getting micro-focused on how we'd
get it if we did.

Obviously you can't entirely separate these things.  Things cost
people's time, money, and various other things (like risk of security
compromise).
But I think sometimes it harms a discussion if you jump right to the
implementation challenges.

--Sam

Re: Bits from the DPL (May 2019)

[Alf Gaida]

> A guest account in Debian LDAP does not get a Salsa account, at least
> not an usable one.  Currently only users in the Debian group are
> allowed.Hmm - so salsa is useless at all - i don't think so. Change 
your pov and see it otherwise: A guest can open a project - all members 
of the Debian group have no saying and no rights. Some would call it 
nice and the best outcome ever. Joke aside: If i want to have any rights 
as a DM in some repositories i contribute to i had to ask for polite - 
no problem for me, as the very most people in Debian are very kind. Same 
is for Debian Developers when they want to provide to a project that was 
started by a DM - just fair, isn't it?


>> There are transitions like someone retiring from the project where we
>> actually would be delighted if they continued to use salsa in some
>> capacity.The rights to use salsa should not be coupled with the 
status as DD, DM or whatever - imho different things. The outcome is: 
People bitten by this will put their repos on github, gitlab or 
whatever. Do we really want this as a project? Imho no, if these issues 
could be solved i would go so far that i would expect that packages in 
debian are managed within debian infrastructure - SCM included.


> The largest technical problem with that is providing the user with a
> valid e-mail address.  Apart from that we need DSA to properly define
> states in LDAP.If it is only a technical problem - solve it.>
>> Making the transition from foo to foo-guest is currently incredibly
>> expensive for the person involved.
>
> Yes, it is.
>
>> This is one of the issues we will discuss later this month.  I hope the
>> salsa admins will join that discussion.
>
> Well, you could just ask.
>
> Bastian
>
Cheers Alf

Re: Bits from the DPL (May 2019)

[Alexander Wirt]

On Thu, 06 Jun 2019, Sam Hartman wrote:

> > "Bastian" == Bastian Blank  writes:
> 
> Bastian> Hi Sam
> Bastian> On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 11:57:41AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >> However, it's a lot easier to get a foo-guest account on salsa
> >> than it is to get a foo guest account in Debian LDAP.
> 
> Bastian> A guest account in Debian LDAP does not get a Salsa
> Bastian> account, at least not an usable one.  Currently only users
> Bastian> in the Debian group are allowed.
> 
> No, but my understanding is that basically anyone on the internet can go
> sign up for foo-guest at salsa.
> 
> >> There are transitions like someone retiring from the project
> >> where we actually would be delighted if they continued to use
> >> salsa in some capacity.
> 
> Bastian> The largest technical problem with that is providing the
> Bastian> user with a valid e-mail address.  Apart from that we need
> Bastian> DSA to properly define states in LDAP.
> 
> OK, that's useful input.
> I do feel we're talking past each other here though.
> 
> Norbert and some other folks said they wanted salsa to behave
> differently.
> 
> Alex jumped in and said "salsa doesn't work that way."
> Sure, we all know that.
> And yet, salsa and really all of Debian can change if we want them to
> and the right we are willing to do the work.
No, I said why salsa works the way it works. If you want a special state for
"not so really disabled accounts" salsa isn't the right place to implement
that. 

Btw. nobody ever came to us and said "Hey, that account is disabled, are
there any options to behave differently". So the steps are: define how those
"not so really disabled" account should behave, implement them in udldap and
then we can adjust the syncer.

Alex



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

[Jerome BENOIT]

On 19/09/2019 00:46, Sam Hartman wrote:

> Init System Diversity
> =

> So perhaps sysvinit and init scripts have had their chance and it is
> time to move on.  We could move away from init scripts as the default
> representation.  We could stop caring about sysvinit (which isn't quite
> the same thing but is related).  That would leave non-linux ports in an
> unfortunate position.  But right now there are no non-linux ports in the
> main archive.  So perhaps we don't even care about that.  Again, a
> change, but a change that we can ask ourselves if we are ready to make.

This does not look as diversity.

Otherwise I am very surprise that Devuan was not mention at all.
May be it is time to work with the Devuan team and merge Devuan to Debian.

hth,
Jerome



-- 
Jerome BENOIT | calculus+at-rezozer^dot*net
https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=calcu...@rezozer.net
AE28 AE15 710D FF1D 87E5  A762 3F92 19A6 7F36 C68B



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

[Sam Hartman]

> "Jerome" == Jerome BENOIT  writes:

Jerome> On 19/09/2019 00:46, Sam Hartman wrote:

>> Init System Diversity =
Jerome> 
>> So perhaps sysvinit and init scripts have had their chance and it
>> is time to move on.  We could move away from init scripts as the
>> default representation.  We could stop caring about sysvinit
>> (which isn't quite the same thing but is related).  That would
>> leave non-linux ports in an unfortunate position.  But right now
>> there are no non-linux ports in the main archive.  So perhaps we
>> don't even care about that.  Again, a change, but a change that
>> we can ask ourselves if we are ready to make.

Jerome> Otherwise I am very surprise that Devuan was not mention at
Jerome> all.  May be it is time to work with the Devuan team and
Jerome> merge Devuan to Debian.

Devuan developers have been working with Debian to reduce the number of
differences.  Several of the people involved in these discussions have
been Devuan developers as well as members of this community.  I think a
couple might even call themselves Devuan rather than Debian, although
when you send that many messages to Debian bugs and lists, I personally
think you're part of the Debian community too.

I have explicitly been working with people in the Devuan community.  But
it's never come up whether they represent Devuan.  They were
constructively working to solve problems in both distributions so I
worked with them.

Jerome> This does not look as diversity.

What is diversity?

Is diversity about being able to develop new software?  Is it about
trying new things, trying to build better init systems over time?  Is it
about trying to consider solutions to the things people don't like about
systemd?
If that's diversity, sysvinit isn't very interesting.  The design of
sysvinit has not evolved and changed significantly.  It has not learned
from the mistakes of systemd.  It's interface has been static for years.

Or is diversity because you actually want to be using sysvinit.  If the
entire point of your interest in diversity is that static interface,
then sysvinit is  interesting to you in the diversity argument.

We can judge the second category of users based on who actually uses
sysvinit.  And honestly, that's not a lot of Debian users.  Some of them
have probably migrated to Devuan or other distros.  Many have realized
that systemd actually can meet their needs.  But for whatever reason,
not a lot of people use sysvinit on Debian.

And honestly, a lot of these technical problems get more complicated
because we want to be able to swap out implementations.  Elogind is a
lot easier to deal with if you know that your distro is always using
elogind.  Init system choice is a lot easier to deal with if you know
that you only have one init system.  Personally, I don't think there are enough
sysvinit users in Debian to justify keeping sysvinit around because
people want to use it.  If sysvinit on Linux was the only thing to
consider, I'd recommend we look at having something like Devuan be all
sysvinit and Debian be all systemd.  We could work with them as a
downstream and avoid needing to deal with the complexity of switching
init systems, libsystemd implementations, etc.


To me the question of future choice is far more interesting.  First,
current users today cannot be used as an effective argument about what
we'll do in the future.  So it's harder to answer the question.
Secondly, Debian has always put a fairly high value on enabling
experimentation and evolution.  And a significant fraction of our
community do share some of the concerns about the Systemd design
approach.

In that model, sysvinit is much more of a stub than an init system.
It's something we can run inbetween experiments as a sanity check that
things still work without systemd and that we have not locked ourselves
into systemd.  If some users actually want to run sysvinit, and it works
well for them, that's great, but at least for me personally, that is not
a priority.


Obviously some people have different values.

So, I think we have multiple questions on the table.  What is init
system diversity?  Do we want init system diversity?  What are we
willing to do to get any init system diversity we decide we want.

--Sam

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

[Evilham]

On dj., set. 19 2019, Jerome BENOIT wrote:


On 19/09/2019 00:46, Sam Hartman wrote:


Init System Diversity
=


So perhaps sysvinit and init scripts have had their chance and 
it is
time to move on.  We could move away from init scripts as the 
default
representation.  We could stop caring about sysvinit (which 
isn't quite
the same thing but is related).  That would leave non-linux 
ports in an
unfortunate position.  But right now there are no non-linux 
ports in the
main archive.  So perhaps we don't even care about that. 
Again, a
change, but a change that we can ask ourselves if we are ready 
to make.


This does not look as diversity.

Otherwise I am very surprise that Devuan was not mention at all.
May be it is time to work with the Devuan team and merge Devuan 
to Debian.



As someone involved in Devuan: please don't pull it into this.

Sam's *full* message, and not just the bit you quoted, is what 
*Debian* needs, which is what his current role asks for.


Mark (elogind's developer) works closely with Devuan but in 
general over there, there is consensus that whatever changes are 
worth having in Debian should happen in Debian whenever possible, 
which is where it has the greatest impact, and that is what this 
is about: determining if it is possible and desirable for Debian 
that this particular bit *also* happens in Debian.


And that truly has nothing to do with Devuan or what people think 
of it.

--
Evilham

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

[Martin Steigerwald]

Hi Sam!

I took long time to write this even on still recovering from a pace in 
my life that feels too quick for me. But I intended this to be carefully 
worded in order to not hurt anyone. I hope I succeeded. My invitation: 
Before taking anything personal and making the choice to feel hurt about 
it, please talk to me so we can see to resolve this. I have written this 
with the best intentions as best I can.

Sam Hartman - 18.09.19, 22:46:14 CEST:
> And yet the systemd maintainers and to a lesser extent release team
> face conduct that is frankly unacceptable.  And in some cases that
> conduct is the frustrated reaction to years of interactions complex
> enough that we'll never untangle them.  No matter how unfortunate the
> conduct is, the frustrations, anger and hurt are real.
> 
> I want to stress that I can understand both sides here.  If I were
> maintaining systemd I know I'd be absolutely done dealing with some
> people who have been involved in this discussion. If I were trying to
> get an alternate init system to continue to work, I'd be really
> frustrated.  I'm not in either of those roles, and I do not fully
> understand either side's needs or feelings, but I can understand how
> we got here as a project.

As someone who engaged with the Devuan project people after a longer 
time of observing whether they are serious about it, as someone who made 
friends with them and as someone who helped to facilitate a peaceful and 
friendly cooperation between Devuan and Debian people, a cooperation 
that has been so very much fruitful and filled with the best intentions, 
and after seeing all the wonderful work of the people from the Debian 
init diversity sub project that started as a result of the decision to 
cooperate, I feel really sad after reading your above comment.

Cause it already contains a deep designation in "years of interactions 
complex enough that we will never untangle them". I see it here and 
elsewhere that the running away from moving through conflicts in a 
beneficial way for everyone involved for whatever good and understandable 
reason hurts freedom in how to use free software and more importantly 
harms communities. In conflicts there are often two, maybe three patterns 
involved:

1) Attacking and be aggressive.

2) Running away, 

3) Freeze.

Silent or not so silent resignation may be between 2 and 3.

Yet all of them stem from a time where conflicts often meant survival or 
death for a living human being. However… here is no physical survival in 
danger. *Not at all*. And conflict with all the confusion that comes with 
it is part of facilitating and creating something new and better for all 
involved. Humankind needs this in a much, much, much broader scope also 
when it comes to climate change, diversity of animals and plants and in 
general in how we treat other other and the planet.

I feel sad about giving up to use this chance to mature in how we 
interact with one another in order bring forth an even better Debian 
universal operating system than before.

I feel also sad cause I wonder whether all my meditation efforts back 
then have been in vain – all those long, carefully written mails in 
order ensure to not hurt anyone, for nothing?

Well, I bet they haven't, whatever will happen now, there will be a 
benefit. And I feel sad cause I see the running away from moving through 
conflict in a beneficial way is hurting the free software community in a 
much much greater scale in other communities as well. I was happy to see 
user space and kernel space developers talking to one another again 
about the intricacies of entropy in Linux and computers in general. 
Maybe one of my mails in that thread on LKML and other Linux kernel 
related mailing lists helped to encourage and facilitate that.

I also feel sad cause I saw the enormous efforts of Devuan and Debian  
people as well as the new Sysvinit upstream maintainer to improve the 
quality of sysvinit, startpart, insserv, runit, openrc you name them 
packages and to actually introduce elogind to Debian. The great care, 
the willingness to cooperate, the willing to step over own shadows into 
light… all of this in vain?

Again, I believe there will be a benefit, what ever the outcome of the 
discussion or decision making process you just started, Sam, will be.

And to me, most of it, is not a technical issue. It is a people talking 
with each other soft skill related issue. I am so happy to see that in 
KDE community there have been teachings about non violent communications 
recently.

It is not just technical. It never was just technical.

No amount of technical excellence which there is many to find with the 
people involved, is going to resolve this. 

Talking to, talking *with* each other can.

And if hurt can be created, healing of hurt can be created as well.

All can heal.

That is my conviction. I even have a lot of constructive ideas, but 
ultimately they all require willingness to engage.

We have enough tech

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

[Bálint Réczey]

Hi,

Sam Hartman  ezt írta (időpont: 2019. szept. 18.,
Sze, 22:47):
>
>
> Dear Debian:
>
...
> Init System Diversity
> =
..
> Honestly, I'm not entirely sure how to move forward.  Perhaps it's just
> that I haven't talked to someone I need to.  Perhaps someone will read
> this, and let me know that if I'd included them, we could get the right
> skills and authority engaged.  I'll feel embarrassed and we'll all move
> on if that's the case.  But I think we may be approaching a point where
> we need to poll the project--to have a GR and ask ourselves how
> committed we are to the different parts of this init diversity
> discussion.  Reaffirming our support for sysvinit and elogind would be
> one of the options in any such GR.  If that option passed, we'd expect
> all the maintainers involved to work together or to appoint and empower
> people who could work on this issue.  It would be fine for maintainers
> not to be involved so long as they did not block progress.  And of
> course we would hold the discussions to the highest standards of
> respect.
>
> Things may have changed since our last GR on the issue.  There are 1033
> non-overridden instances of lintian detecting a service unit without an
> init.d script [7].  The false positive rate seems high especially for
> packages that break their systemd integration.  There's been discussion
> on debian-devel about moving to using service units as the default
> rather than init scripts [8].
>
> So perhaps sysvinit and init scripts have had their chance and it is
> time to move on.  We could move away from init scripts as the default
> representation.  We could stop caring about sysvinit (which isn't quite
> the same thing but is related).  That would leave non-linux ports in an
> unfortunate position.  But right now there are no non-linux ports in the
> main archive.  So perhaps we don't even care about that.  Again, a
> change, but a change that we can ask ourselves if we are ready to make.

I would like to just remind ourselves that in WSL and Docker
containers systemd is not running as the init system and systemd
services can't be started easily but init.d scripts can be.
There is very significant interest from users to run services easily
in those and other similar environments and dropping init.d scripts
would make their life much harder.
I do see that maintaining init.d scripts is work but speaking for
myself I'm happy to maintain them
in my packages even when I use those packages only with systems running systemd.

My two cents is that in init system diversity decisions please
consider the environments where none of our packaged init systems are
running, but which are perfectly capable to run useful services.

Cheers,
Balint

...
>   [7]:
>   
> https://lintian.debian.org/tags/package-supports-alternative-init-but-no-init.d-script.html
>   [8]: 
> https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/87h86qvh1q@proton.d.airelinux.org
...

PS: I marked #856268 as wontfix before sending this email to debian-devel.
https://balintreczey.hu/blog/my-debian-devel-pledge

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

[Jonathan Carter]

On 2019/09/19 11:18, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> I also feel sad cause I saw the enormous efforts of Devuan and Debian  
> people as well as the new Sysvinit upstream maintainer to improve the 
> quality of sysvinit, startpart, insserv, runit, openrc you name them 
> packages and to actually introduce elogind to Debian. The great care, 
> the willingness to cooperate, the willing to step over own shadows into 
> light… all of this in vain?

FWIW, I don't think any of these efforts are in vain at all. Running
alternative (alternative as in, not the default) init systems on Debian
is easier now than it was when stretch was released. I've been trying
out runit in containers and it seems to be working really well for my
use cases (a lot lighter than systemd and does everything I want it to).
I'm also a bit curious about openrc and tini and either way I think
these are important for our non-linux kernels too (which some people
seem to like snuffing at but they are actually important).

I appreciate the work that all the people have been doing to help
preserve the possibility of having an init system other than systemd,
and I'm sure there are many Debian users who are probably not on this
list that feel the same way.

-Jonathan

-- 
  ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀  Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) 
  ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  Debian Developer - https://wiki.debian.org/highvoltage
  ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋   https://debian.org | https://jonathancarter.org
  ⠈⠳⣄  Be Bold. Be brave. Debian has got your back.

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

[John Goerzen]

On Thu, Sep 19 2019, Bálint Réczey wrote:
> I would like to just remind ourselves that in WSL and Docker
> containers systemd is not running as the init system and systemd
> services can't be started easily but init.d scripts can be.

FWIW, with buster, systemd becomes possible in unprivileged docker
containers, and I use it extensively in my debian-base-* images:

https://hub.docker.com/r/jgoerzen/debian-base-standard

- John

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

[Samuel Thibault]

Hello,

Sam Hartman, le mer. 18 sept. 2019 16:46:14 -0400, a ecrit:
> We could stop caring about sysvinit (which isn't quite the same thing
> but is related).  That would leave non-linux ports in an unfortunate
> position.  But right now there are no non-linux ports in the main
> archive.  So perhaps we don't even care about that.

Not being in the main archive does _not_ mean we don't care about it.

It only means that non-linux are not on par with e.g. hardware support
or security support compared to the mainstream linux ports, so we can't
claim they have the same quality as the released archs, that's all.

A problem with sticking to systemd only is that it means sticking to
linux only, and not leaving any room for any alternative, since systemd
is not to be seen ported on any non-linux.  I don't think we want to
care only about linux, for various reasons.

I'm not saying maintainers should spend time on maintaining init files
etc. but at least leave room for people who want to do it.

Samuel

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

[Sam Hartman]

> "Samuel" == Samuel Thibault  writes:

Samuel> Hello, Sam Hartman, le mer. 18 sept. 2019 16:46:14 -0400, a
Samuel> ecrit:
>> We could stop caring about sysvinit (which isn't quite the same
>> thing but is related).  That would leave non-linux ports in an
>> unfortunate position.  But right now there are no non-linux ports
>> in the main archive.  So perhaps we don't even care about that.

Samuel> Not being in the main archive does _not_ mean we don't care
Samuel> about it.

What I'm trying to say is that were the project to drop sysvinit, it
would make things harder for the non-Linux ports.

I think that if there were any non-Linux ports in the main archive, the
project should either keep sysvinit or remove the non-Linux ports from
the main archive when it dropped sysvinit.

I think you've done a good job of summarizing the argument in favor of
caring about the non-Linux ports:


Samuel> A problem with sticking to systemd only is that it means
Samuel> sticking to linux only, and not leaving any room for any
Samuel> alternative, since systemd is not to be seen ported on any
Samuel> non-linux.  I don't think we want to care only about linux,
Samuel> for various reasons.

Samuel> I'm not saying maintainers should spend time on maintaining
Samuel> init files etc. but at least leave room for people who want

Obviously if we had a vote the project could choose to agree with you or
not.

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

[Mo Zhou]

Hi,

On 2019-09-23 23:29, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Samuel> I'm not saying maintainers should spend time on maintaining
> Samuel> init files etc. but at least leave room for people who want
> 
> Obviously if we had a vote the project could choose to agree with you or
> not.

FYI, two important things to mention for current non-systemd Debian
users:

In Jan or Feb 2019 I did a lot of tests in virtualbox to switch from
systemd to sysvinit (or openrc). Init switching is still working well,
but apparently, services of which maintainers had decided to drop
the non-systemd support were somewhat out-of-control. For example,
the systemd-only ZFS package won't automatically mount ZFS pools
on boot by starting the corresponding services. That said, the
most important services were still within control.

For desktop users, non-systemd init plus a mordern desktop environment
such as Plasma or Gnome would be impossible on Debian, as they depend on
systemd. Some other distro such as Gentoo and FreeBSD have somehow
removed the systemd dependency for Gnome but I'm sure how much amount
of patchwork is required.

With that being said, I still agree with Samuel. If there would be a
vote, I'd vote for the anti-systemd-monopoly side.

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

[Martin Steigerwald]

Dear Mo.

Mo Zhou - 24.09.19, 04:58:06 CEST:
> For desktop users, non-systemd init plus a mordern desktop environment
> such as Plasma or Gnome would be impossible on Debian, as they depend
> on systemd. Some other distro such as Gentoo and FreeBSD have somehow
> removed the systemd dependency for Gnome but I'm sure how much amount
> of patchwork is required.

This is clearly not true with current Debian Sid (and a little glue 
package from experimental at the moment). This laptop is testimony to 
that. I am writing this with KMail on a KDE Plasma desktop and no 
systemd / libsystemd packages installed, using sysvinit instead. It is 
running like this for *months* already.

They depend on systemd-logind which can be replaced by elogind – 
actually that is a huge part of the discussion in this thread, did you 
actually *read* it? elogind as I remember is coming from Gentoo / BSD 
efforts. And I am not sure whether KDE Plasma really depends on it or 
whether it could still be used with ConsoleKit 2, which may not really 
be maintained anymore I read somewhere.

However I did not test GNOME myself, but saw reports of Devuan users 
that it works. And if it works in Devuan it likely would work with 
Debian as well, as Devuan developers work on the necessary packages 
within Debian in the debian-init-diversity initiative.

Please do not spread rumors on the state of what is possible in Debian 
if you did not test for yourself. Thank you.

Of course another question would be whether such a setup would be 
supported by upstream developers or by package maintainers. For KDE 
upstream developers I am pretty confident that they would accept bug 
reports from users of such setups.  They are at least semi-officially 
supporting FreeBSD. For many bug reports it would not even matter what 
is running as PID 1. Similar goes with Debian/Kubuntu Qt/KDE team, I 
believe they would at least look at bug reports from users with of a 
different PID 1 than systemd. I did not ask them yet, so, of course this 
is only my own guessing for now.

Of course there is an increased risk that with an alternative init 
system you are a more likely being asked to keep the pieces in case 
something breaks. But I am prepared for that. I know my way with Linux 
enough in order to deal with such situations.

Best,
-- 
Martin

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

[Mo Zhou]

On 2019-09-24 07:34, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> Dear Mo.
> 
> Mo Zhou - 24.09.19, 04:58:06 CEST:
>> For desktop users, non-systemd init plus a mordern desktop environment
>> such as Plasma or Gnome would be impossible on Debian, as they depend
>> on systemd. Some other distro such as Gentoo and FreeBSD have somehow
>> removed the systemd dependency for Gnome but I'm sure how much amount
>> of patchwork is required.
> 
> This is clearly not true with current Debian Sid (and a little glue 
> package from experimental at the moment). This laptop is testimony to 
> that. I am writing this with KMail on a KDE Plasma desktop and no 
> systemd / libsystemd packages installed, using sysvinit instead. It is 
> running like this for *months* already.
>
> They depend on systemd-logind which can be replaced by elogind – 
> actually that is a huge part of the discussion in this thread, did you 
> actually *read* it? elogind as I remember is coming from Gentoo / BSD 
> efforts. And I am not sure whether KDE Plasma really depends on it or 
> whether it could still be used with ConsoleKit 2, which may not really 
> be maintained anymore I read somewhere.
> 
> However I did not test GNOME myself, but saw reports of Devuan users 
> that it works. And if it works in Devuan it likely would work with 
> Debian as well, as Devuan developers work on the necessary packages 
> within Debian in the debian-init-diversity initiative.
> 
> Please do not spread rumors on the state of what is possible in Debian 
> if you did not test for yourself. Thank you.

Ok. Previous post was about my observation in Jan/Feb this year,
which only works for Buster but not the current Sid. I didn't
read the threads so sorry for the discrepancy and my obsolete
comment.

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

[Holger Levsen]

Dear Sam,

first of all, many thanks for writing these 'Bits from the DPL' mails
regularily, much appreciated!

On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 04:46:14PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Git Packaging
> =
[...]
> The discussion generated enough mail that I have not yet found time to
> issue a consensus call.  Here are some of the results I'm fairly sure
> of:
[...] 
> I expect to start discussions on maintainer branch format and upstream
> tarballs in early October.

I believe you are missing a crucial detail here, that is, this
discussion spawned like 300 emails in August and September and that many
(too many?) people are not able to follow such big discussions in such a
timespan. IOW: I believe your consensus is build on much weaker ground
than I believe you believe.

So to me this is more the consensus of those with the priveledge to
read, process and repond to this mailinglist, yet there are many more
people packaging software in Debian.

I'm not sure what to take from this observation.(!) (Because obviously
it's good to have this discussion and try to find out what the consensus
is on debian-devel@l.d.o.) Maybe just that the information about this
discussion happening should be spread to more places and/or maybe rather
that this discussions should be given more time.

And then, 'spreading to more places' reminds me of another critisism I
have with your reports: they are too long. :-D (I wonder if I'm the
first to say that...)
You might not notice this or dont think its bad, but long emails are hard 
for people with a little of time and are harder to comprehend for non-native
speakers, esp. those with little time. 

(If you dont believe me and if you use notmuch, search for 
'to:debian-devel-announce subject:DPL', DPL summaries used to be roughly
half as long.)

And of course this is not a problem per se, but it has an impact on who
is able to participate in these discussions. I spent a long time on
email and still I decided to not have the bandwidth to participate in
this git packaging discussion anymore. And I ment to write this email
since two weeks.)

HTH, really.

> Feedback
> ==
> 
> As always, feedback is welcome.  Please don't hesitate to reach out to
> lea...@debian.org.

Thanks & sorry, I'd rather have this discussion in pubcic.


-- 
cheers,
Holger

---
   holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
   PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

[Sam Hartman]

> "Holger" == Holger Levsen  writes:


Holger> So to me this is more the consensus of those with the
Holger> priveledge to read, process and repond to this mailinglist,
Holger> yet there are many more people packaging software in Debian.

I'd say it is a consensus of those who prioritize participating in this
discussion enough to do so, consented to by the rest of the project.
If we get it sufficiently wrong people in the broader community will let
us know.

Yes, because of privilege some people can prioritize more things
successfully.

Holger> I'm not sure what to take from this observation.(!) (Because
Holger> obviously it's good to have this discussion and try to find
Holger> out what the consensus is on debian-devel@l.d.o.) Maybe just
Holger> that the information about this discussion happening should
Holger> be spread to more places and/or maybe rather that this
Holger> discussions should be given more time.

I think giving things more time makes sense.  Looking at where we are
now, let's try to get a summary of the round 2 discussion out within
October.  Let's try to have the maintainer branch/upstream discussions
in November or December, with the understanding that we may need to
spread things out more given holidays.

Holger> And then, 'spreading to more places' reminds me of another
Holger> critisism I have with your reports: they are too long. :-D


What would be more useful than this criticism  is concrete advice on how
I can shorten them while still accomplishing my goals.
--Sam

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

[Sean Whitton]

Hello Sam,

On Tue 01 Oct 2019 at 09:57AM -04, Sam Hartman wrote:

> Holger> And then, 'spreading to more places' reminds me of another
> Holger> critisism I have with your reports: they are too long. :-D
>
>
> What would be more useful than this criticism  is concrete advice on how
> I can shorten them while still accomplishing my goals.

May I ask whether you review your d-d-a e-mails, specifically with an
eye to brevity, before sending them out?  Given how many people read
them, time invested in editing for brevity would be well spent.

You might separate your detailed, narrative descriptions of how
discussions went from what you took away from the discussions.  You
could either drop the former, or put it in a "read this if you want more
details" section.

-- 
Sean Whitton


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

[Holger Levsen]

On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 07:21:20AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> May I ask whether you review your d-d-a e-mails, specifically with an
> eye to brevity, before sending them out?  Given how many people read
> them, time invested in editing for brevity would be well spent.

that.

> You might separate your detailed, narrative descriptions of how
> discussions went from what you took away from the discussions.  You
> could either drop the former, or put it in a "read this if you want more
> details" section.

and that.

Thanks, Sean.


-- 
cheers,
Holger

---
   holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
   PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

[Holger Levsen]

On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 09:57:38AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I'd say it is a consensus of those who prioritize participating in this
> discussion enough to do so, consented to by the rest of the project.

I'm sorry, but I disagree. Silence is not always consent.
 

-- 
cheers,
Holger

---
   holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
   PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

[Enrico Zini]

On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 02:32:10PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 09:57:38AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > I'd say it is a consensus of those who prioritize participating in this
> > discussion enough to do so, consented to by the rest of the project.
> I'm sorry, but I disagree. Silence is not always consent.

I understand this is why we have multiple rounds of discussion with
summaries inbetween.

I personally do not see the length of discussions as much of an issue
for consent here. My main worry would be the level of potential
heat that I need to accept I have to deal with, if I choose to
participate in a discussion.

I notice that it takes me a significant amount of self esteem to send
mail to a debian list, and not everyday I have it. The thing is, if
people generally approve of what I write, the feedback I usually seem to
get is mostly silence. If someone, even just one person over many, has
an issue with it, then I get criticism.

If I say something that 1000 people like and one person hates, the
net visible effect in my inbox is probably one angry reply.

I think this could still work if the criticism were polite and
constructive. Some people in Debian disagree in a way that is pure
pleasure to read, as they bring new scope and possibilities to a
discussion.

We however have frequent examples of feedback that can be very harsh[1],
or passive aggressive and not really constructive, and I need to accept
that if I post to a Debian list, I expose myself to that.

So, as long as long threads are summarised and the summary has a round
of review, I don't see a problem with mail or thread length in consensus
building.

I rather see a challenge in building a discussion culture where people
actually feel good in participating, both in reading, and in writing
when they have something to ask or say.


Enrico

[1] recent examples off the top of my head:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2019/09/msg00365.html
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2019/09/msg00366.html
-- 
GPG key: 4096R/634F4BD1E7AD5568 2009-05-08 Enrico Zini 


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

[Sam Hartman]

> "Sean" == Sean Whitton  writes:

Sean> You might separate your detailed, narrative descriptions of
Sean> how discussions went from what you took away from the
Sean> discussions.  You could either drop the former, or put it in a
Sean> "read this if you want more details" section.

I've found that if you do that, people get surprised and upset when it
is not obvious how you got to a decision.  Basically I've found that
enough people are upset without a narrative that you get much more
overall mail and less confidence in the process without.

I do organize my mail so people can skip sections, and I do try to
consistently put the conclusions after the narrative.

--Sam

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

[Michael Lustfield]

On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 14:32:10 +
Holger Levsen  wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 09:57:38AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > I'd say it is a consensus of those who prioritize participating in this
> > discussion enough to do so, consented to by the rest of the project.  
> 
> I'm sorry, but I disagree. Silence is not always consent.

^ 100% agreed- silence does not mean consensus/consent

When it comes to things like forcing the use of Debian's Gitlab (& other
topics), I've remained silent because my disagreement was already voiced by
others, with more detailed reasoning than I would have provided.

Am I really expected to add a "me too" response every time I agree with what
someone else took the time to write... making it harder for people with limited
time to follow? This seems especially cruel to those that don't speak English
natively, and those that rely on translation services.

-- 
Michael Lustfield

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

[Sam Hartman]

> "Michael" == Michael Lustfield  writes:

Michael> On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 14:32:10 +
Michael> Holger Levsen  wrote:

>> On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 09:57:38AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> > I'd say it is a consensus of those who prioritize participating
>> in this > discussion enough to do so, consented to by the rest of
>> the project.
>> 
>> I'm sorry, but I disagree. Silence is not always consent.



Michael> When it comes to things like forcing the use of Debian's
Michael> Gitlab (& other topics), I've remained silent because my
Michael> disagreement was already voiced by others, with more
Michael> detailed reasoning than I would have provided.

Makes sense.

And for this specific issue, there is no consensus in favor of forcing
anyone to use Debian's Gitlab.

Michael> Am I really expected to add a "me too" response every time
Michael> I agree with what someone else took the time to
Michael> write

If you think the discussion is trending in a direction you disagree
with, speaking up can often help.  But it is fine for you to wait for
the summary.  If you think that whoever posts the summary has misread
the consensus of the community having the discussion, then yes please
write in.

--Sam

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

[Samuel Henrique]

>
> Am I really expected to add a "me too" response every time I agree with
> what
> someone else took the time to write... making it harder for people with
> limited
> time to follow? This seems especially cruel to those that don't speak
> English
> natively, and those that rely on translation services.
>

I can't help but feel we should be using better tooling for discussions.
There are various cases where I would like to +1 but I know this is frowned
upon
when dealing with email threads.

I feel much more committed to Debian than to hackernews, although I
participate
much more in discussions there than in Debian ones.

If we remove the fact that these tools are proprietary/not-accessible,
event the worst
social networks are better at doing forum type discussions than email
threads.

The ability to +1 without having to add something substantial to the
discussion,
the ease to see all the subthreads (sub discussions) without having to dig
into
the mail box trying to figure it out which one is about what, and the
centralization
of the discussion in a "tree like" structure are things that I miss a lot
here.

Here's me hoping that somebody has the time to propose some solution
for this problem that doesn't fall into N subthreads that most of the people
don't even bother trying to find or give up participating because they can't
just "+1".

Regards,

-- 
Samuel Henrique 

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

[Sam Hartman]

A couple of people active in Gnome have suggested discourse for this
sort of thing.
It's got enough email integration that perhaps we would not lose people
who want that interface.

I t would be interesting if someone wanted to spend the time to pilot
that.

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

[Jonathan Carter]

Hi Sam

On 2019/10/01 15:57, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I'd say it is a consensus of those who prioritize participating in this
> discussion enough to do so, consented to by the rest of the project.
> If we get it sufficiently wrong people in the broader community will let
> us know.
> 
> Yes, because of privilege some people can prioritize more things
> successfully.

I try to follow debian-devel really closely, and mostly manage to
succeed, but this was probably the toughest topics for me to follow,
there's lots of repetition, me-toos, posts that don't really address
either the issue at hand and overall, it just feels like I have to
fine-comb it for information and my concentration span just can't handle it.

I concur with what others have said in this thread, that we need a
better discussion culture, and I think ideally one that has respect for
the time of others.

-Jonathan

-- 
  ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀  Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) 
  ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  Debian Developer - https://wiki.debian.org/highvoltage
  ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋   https://debian.org | https://jonathancarter.org
  ⠈⠳⣄  Be Bold. Be brave. Debian has got your back.

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

[Sam Hartman]

> "Jonathan" == Jonathan Carter  writes:


Jonathan> I try to follow debian-devel really closely, and mostly
Jonathan> manage to succeed, but this was probably the toughest
Jonathan> topics for me to follow, there's lots of repetition,
Jonathan> me-toos, posts that don't really address either the issue
Jonathan> at hand and overall, it just feels like I have to
Jonathan> fine-comb it for information and my concentration span
Jonathan> just can't handle it.

This is close enough to repeating myself that I won't do some more than
this last time, but   several people have talked about the role of the
summary in the process.  It's fine if you disagree that the summaries
are sufficient, but  I'd really appreciate it if you would acknowledge
what we've said rather than just ignoring it.

I absolutely agree especially this last thread has been a lot to
follow.  Even I haven't followed it completely enough to produce a
summary yet.
I agree with you that some cultural changes could make this last round
better.
We're all learning together.

But my job as facilitator is to follow everything and produce a summary.
Your job is to follow what you choose to follow and to see if my summary
seems reasonable given how much you follow.
If my summary doesn't seem reasonable in an area, it's worth focusing
some energy there.  That energy can include letting people know that the
summary might not be right and then having people read the relevant part
of the discussion.

You do need to follow the parts of the discussion you most care about
enough to understand and think about arguments others are making so that
people aren't talking past each other.  But it's OK if you don't follow
everything.

--Sam

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

[Jeremy Stanley]

On 2019-10-01 16:13:03 -0400 (-0400), Sam Hartman wrote:
> A couple of people active in Gnome have suggested discourse for
> this sort of thing. It's got enough email integration that perhaps
> we would not lose people who want that interface.
> 
> I t would be interesting if someone wanted to spend the time to
> pilot that.

Discourse is a Web forum platform with some mailing list features
bolted on. An alternative might be Mailman 3, which is a mailing
list platform with Web forum features bolted on. Both suffer from
the same problem though, which is that people who want to interact
via Web forums and people who want to interact via mailing lists
have preferences for different communication styles with some
fundamental incompatibilities, particularly where the relative
culture and etiquette of those diverge.

Discourse is not currently packaged for Debian while Mailman 3 is
(mailman3-full metapackage), though I gather that distinction makes
little difference to DSA as members have stated on multiple
occasions they prefer not to rely on Debian packaging for services
they operate.
-- 
Jeremy Stanley


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

[Bernd Zeimetz]

On 10/1/19 3:57 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> "Holger" == Holger Levsen  writes:
> 
> 
> Holger> So to me this is more the consensus of those with the
> Holger> priveledge to read, process and repond to this mailinglist,
> Holger> yet there are many more people packaging software in Debian.
> 
> I'd say it is a consensus of those who prioritize participating in this
> discussion enough to do so, consented to by the rest of the project.
> If we get it sufficiently wrong people in the broader community will let
> us know.

Several people including myself tried to do so, getting answers like
"not being part of the consensus" because mails arrive later than you
expected them.
While I think you are trying to do the right thing, the way you are
doing it is the worst I've seen in Debian so far.

> Yes, because of privilege some people can prioritize more things
> successfully.

So its privilege what counts in Debian? Not what you are doing? Or how
much time you are spending in Debian? Those, who actually do most of the
work in Debian behind the scenes, haven't been seen at all in these
discussions. Please go away with your privileges



> What would be more useful than this criticism  is concrete advice on how
> I can shorten them while still accomplishing my goals.

How can you accomplish your goals if nobody knows your goals because
nobody reads your mails till the end? Maybe because they are just not
privileged enough to have the time to do so...



-- 
 Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer
 http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org
 GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485  DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

[Bernd Zeimetz]

On 10/1/19 3:57 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:

> What would be more useful than this criticism  is concrete advice on how
> I can shorten them while still accomplishing my goals.

after flying over your d-d-a mail again, my suggestion:

- create a blog post for each point you are discussing
- summarize that post in 3-4 lines and add a link to the blog post.
- send that to d-d-a.

That will
- give people an overview of what you are doing without spending lots of
time on it.
- those who want to know the details can read your blog posts

If you really want to send everything by mail:

- create a tl;dr with the summaries on top.
- interested parties can still read the long version below and reply to
it. Although that will be annoying to follow as those replies will
handle more than one topic...


-- 
 Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer
 http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org
 GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485  DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

[Jean-Philippe MENGUAL]

Hi,

An idea: establishing a time of discussion. At the end, if there is not
consensus (as Gitlab), there is not. If there is, ensuring every DD can
still have an opinion via GR or changes proposals in some guidelines
(Debian Policy, etc). While mails are too much and so long to be
followed by "silent" DDs, no DD can ignore a GR or a change in the
guideline, or he is respnosible. Would help for ensuring a full
consensus, limiting some repeats mails. We do his successfully for DPL
election.

Regards



Jean-Philippe MENGUAL
Le 01/10/2019 à 23:12, Bernd Zeimetz a écrit :
> 
> 
> On 10/1/19 3:57 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
> 
>> What would be more useful than this criticism  is concrete advice on how
>> I can shorten them while still accomplishing my goals.
> 
> after flying over your d-d-a mail again, my suggestion:
> 
> - create a blog post for each point you are discussing
> - summarize that post in 3-4 lines and add a link to the blog post.
> - send that to d-d-a.
> 
> That will
> - give people an overview of what you are doing without spending lots of
> time on it.
> - those who want to know the details can read your blog posts
> 
> If you really want to send everything by mail:
> 
> - create a tl;dr with the summaries on top.
> - interested parties can still read the long version below and reply to
> it. Although that will be annoying to follow as those replies will
> handle more than one topic...
> 
> 

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

[Vincent Bernat]

 ❦  2 octobre 2019 05:47 +02, Jean-Philippe MENGUAL :

> An idea: establishing a time of discussion. At the end, if there is not
> consensus (as Gitlab), there is not. If there is, ensuring every DD can
> still have an opinion via GR or changes proposals in some guidelines
> (Debian Policy, etc). While mails are too much and so long to be
> followed by "silent" DDs, no DD can ignore a GR or a change in the
> guideline, or he is respnosible. Would help for ensuring a full
> consensus, limiting some repeats mails. We do his successfully for DPL
> election.

If a consensus is needed on debian-devel@ldo to get to the next step, we
will never have it. When was the last time we did get a consensus here?
-- 
Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time
to reform.
-- Mark Twain


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

[Salvatore Bonaccorso]

Hi Sam!

First of all thanks for your work you do as DPL, you put a lot of
energy, time and enthusiasm in it, and this is very visible!

On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 09:57:38AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "Holger" == Holger Levsen  writes:
> 
> 
> Holger> So to me this is more the consensus of those with the
> Holger> priveledge to read, process and repond to this mailinglist,
> Holger> yet there are many more people packaging software in Debian.
> 
> I'd say it is a consensus of those who prioritize participating in this
> discussion enough to do so, consented to by the rest of the project.
> If we get it sufficiently wrong people in the broader community will let
> us know.

I noticed the above, and while I'm usually rather silent on the
mailinglist I though it might be good to comment as well from my veryp
ersonal point of view.

For me it would be important to keep on track on new stuff happening
in Debian, but on the other side I have to admit that given the free
time is limited, even though the above, I rather prefer to work on the
things I'm in directly, are already quite involving and the free time
is not infinite. This does not mean that I would agree on such
conclusions, but rather in the light of what I have just written, that
I need to prioritize and simply do not have time to be involved in
these discussions (and not all are native english speakers).

I regularly just need to mark threads as read, which would be
important to follow, or longisher mails, because of lack of the needed
time to dedicate as well for that.

Regards,
Salvatore

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

[Sean Whitton]

Hello,

On Tue 01 Oct 2019 at 12:22PM -04, Sam Hartman wrote:

>> "Sean" == Sean Whitton  writes:
>
> Sean> You might separate your detailed, narrative descriptions of
> Sean> how discussions went from what you took away from the
> Sean> discussions.  You could either drop the former, or put it in a
> Sean> "read this if you want more details" section.
>
> I've found that if you do that, people get surprised and upset when it
> is not obvious how you got to a decision.  Basically I've found that
> enough people are upset without a narrative that you get much more
> overall mail and less confidence in the process without.

That's fair enough.

> I do organize my mail so people can skip sections, and I do try to
> consistently put the conclusions after the narrative.

Okay, cool -- I must admit that I have not readily been able to observe
you doing that, so perhaps the distinction between the two kinds of text
could be made more pronounced.

-- 
Sean Whitton


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

[Wouter Verhelst]

Sorry about the lateness here, been busy...

On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 12:22:34PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "Sean" == Sean Whitton  writes:
> 
> Sean> You might separate your detailed, narrative descriptions of
> Sean> how discussions went from what you took away from the
> Sean> discussions.  You could either drop the former, or put it in a
> Sean> "read this if you want more details" section.
> 
> I've found that if you do that, people get surprised and upset when it
> is not obvious how you got to a decision.  Basically I've found that
> enough people are upset without a narrative that you get much more
> overall mail and less confidence in the process without.
> 
> I do organize my mail so people can skip sections, and I do try to
> consistently put the conclusions after the narrative.

That's great. It does help to be explicit about it then:

"if you're short on time and/or not interested in the details, please
skip ahead to the conclusion in section XYZ".

I did miss that in your most recent "Bits" email, and I do think it
could be useful for those of us who are short on time.

-- 
To the thief who stole my anti-depressants: I hope you're happy

  -- seen somewhere on the Internet on a photo of a billboard

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

[Thomas Goirand]

On 10/1/19 5:06 PM, Enrico Zini wrote:
> If I say something that 1000 people like and one person hates, the
> net visible effect in my inbox is probably one angry reply.

I very much agree with that. Which is why I don't feel comfortable when
Sam making summaries and conclusions of discussions we have.

I also find it difficult to read long threads, and Sam "summaries" are
also too long too read for me (sorry Sam, I do feel like you're putting
a lot of effort on this, but that's harsh reality).

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

[Thomas Goirand]

On 9/19/19 6:30 AM, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
> 
> 
> On 19/09/2019 00:46, Sam Hartman wrote:
> 
>> Init System Diversity
>> =
> 
>> So perhaps sysvinit and init scripts have had their chance and it is
>> time to move on.  We could move away from init scripts as the default
>> representation.  We could stop caring about sysvinit (which isn't quite
>> the same thing but is related).  That would leave non-linux ports in an
>> unfortunate position.  But right now there are no non-linux ports in the
>> main archive.  So perhaps we don't even care about that.  Again, a
>> change, but a change that we can ask ourselves if we are ready to make.
> 
> This does not look as diversity.
> 
> Otherwise I am very surprise that Devuan was not mention at all.
> May be it is time to work with the Devuan team and merge Devuan to Debian.
> 
> hth,
> Jerome

FWIW, I'd be very much against aggressively dropping the support for
sysv-rc, and I've completely missed the discussion. Was it on -devel?

Thomas

Re: Bits from the DPL (August 2019)

[Thomas Goirand]

On 10/1/19 9:24 PM, Samuel Henrique wrote:
> and the centralization
> of the discussion in a "tree like" structure are things that I miss a
> lot here.

Are you saying that you're reading -devel without the "tree like"
display of the thread? Outch! I'd strongly suggest using a better client
if yours isn't capable of such a display... (FYI all of these clients
can do it: thunderbird, evolution, mutt)

Thomas

Firmwares (was Re: Bits from the DPL)

[Vincent Bernat]

On 2024-04-01 18:05, Jonathan Carter wrote:

The included firmware contributed to Debian 12 being a huge success,
but it wasn't the only factor.


Unfortunately, the shipped firmwares are now almost a year old, 
including for unstable. I am following the progress since quite a few 
years and I have seen many possible contributors trying to help and 
fail. The current situation is that Debian does not work well with 
recent AMD-based laptops due to firmware being too old. Therefore, we 
are back at users trying to update the firmware by copying them from 
random places (as for myself, I am using the deb generated by upstream's 
Makefile).


My personal impression is that we are repeating a common scheme in 
Debian: maintainers don't have time to move forward due to the task 
being non-trivial for reasons of our own, people are proposing to help 
(6 people in [1]), but this is ignored by the maintainers as they don't 
have time.


[1]: https://salsa.debian.org/kernel-team/firmware-nonfree/-/merge_requests

Re: Bits from the DPL (December 2017)

[Leonard Wallentin]

unsubscribe

Den 31 dec. 2017 7:04 em skrev "Chris Lamb" :

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Dear fellow developers,
>
> I hope you have all had a merry Christmas and are currently enjoying
> seeing in
> the New Year.
>
> Before I head out myself for this evening's festivities, here's a brief
> update
> on what I've been getting up to as your DPL during December 2017:
>
> Finances
> 
>
> I pre-approved, evaluated and/or answered queries on a number of travel,
> conference and general financial enquiries requests this month, including:
>
>  * Further followups to FOSScamp [0] funding.
>
>  * Various DSA [1] expenses, such as a new hard drive and machine
> replacements
>in general.
>
>  * Outreachy internship sponsorships. [2]
>
>  * MiniDebConf 2017 in Toulouse, France expense handling
>
>  * Reproducible builds summit [3] expense administration.
>
>  * A Debian Ports / Rebootstrap reimbursement request.
>
>  * FOSDEM 2018 [4] requests.
>
>  * Treasurer and auditor team [5] sprint funding approval.
>
>  * Video Team Sprint [6] reimbursement admin.
>
> In addition, I:
>
>  * Responded to a request to post Debian merchandise to Mexico.
>
>  * Fielded initial enquiries or feelers regarding a potential MiniConf
>in India.
>
>  * Participated in a discussion about being lent hardware, re. taxes/import
>duties etc.
>
>  * Responded to donation from Tuxis Internet Engineering [7].
>
>
>  [0] https://fosscamp.cc/
>  [1] https://dsa.debian.org/
>  [2] https://www.outreachy.org/
>  [3] https://reproducible-builds.org/events/berlin2017/
>  [4] https://fosdem.org/2018/
>  [5] https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Treasurer
>  [6] https://wiki.debian.org/DebianEvents/gb/2017/
> MiniDebConfCambridge/Videoteam
>  [7] https://www.tuxis.nl/
>
>
> Events
> ==
>
> Winter in Europe can be grey and boring, and FOSDEM is too short to
> satisfy our
> need to meet Debian people, so isn't this a good time to spend near the
> Italian
> lakes where the weather is dry and relatively warm? If you are tempted,
> please
> see the SunCamp 2018 wiki page [8].
>
> In addition, registration and a call for speakers for a MiniDebConf in
> Curitiba
> [9] has been announced [10]. The 2018 edition will happen at the main
> Campus of
> The Federal Technological University of Technology of Paraná (UTFPR
> Curitiba),
> between April 11th and 14th 2018.
>
> Two people claimed the small token of appreciation if they managed to
> attend
> both MiniDebConfs that took place during November (in Toulouse [11] and
> Cambridge [12] respectfully) which I sent out during the month.
>
> On the topic of events, I also sent a number of followups after Debian was
> represented at the SFLC 2017 Annual Conference [13] at Columbia Law School.
>
> Lastly, I sent a number of follow-ups ensuring people posted updates to
> Planet
> Debian [14] if they attended a conference using Debian funds.
>
>
>  [8] https://wiki.debian.org/DebianEvents/it/2018/SnowCamp
>  [9] https://minidebconf.curitiba.br/en/
>  [10] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2017/12/msg2.html
>  [11] https://wiki.debian.org/DebianEvents/fr/2017/Toulouse
>  [12] https://wiki.debian.org/DebianEvents/gb/2017/MiniDebConfCambridge
>  [13] https://www.softwarefreedom.org/events/2017/conference/
>  [14] https://planet.debian.org/
>
>
> BSP Reimbursements
> ==
>
> The Debian Project is willing and able to reimburse up to USD 100 (or
> equivalent in your currency) for accommodation/travel expenses to attend
> Bug
> Squashing Parties (BSP) [15]. If there are no BSPs near to you (see [16]),
> please do help organise one!
>
> Reimbursement requests must meet the following conditions:
>
>  * The requester should agree to communicate about their activities
>during the BSP (in blog post or similar). The goal here being to
>increase the visibility of such work.
>
>  * The requester must be a Debian contributor or have demonstrated an
>ability to contribute to that kind of work.
>
>  [15] https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/DPL/Reimbursement
>  [16] https://wiki.debian.org/BSPPlanning
>
>
> Other
> =
>
> In addition to the above, I spent time on:
>
>  * Connecting Software Package Data Exchange (SPDX) [17] with the
> Manifest.fm
>package management podcast [18].
>
>  * Engaging in further issues / conversations in the area of
> anti-harrassment.
>
>  * Moderating and contributing to the /r/debian subreddit [19].
>
>  * Responding to queries regarding a potential new Technical Committee
> member.
>
>  * Redirecting more private support queries sent to the `leader@` alias
> to more
>suitable venues. I also fielded even more requests to remove emails
> from our
>bug tracking system.
>
>  * Enquiring why a particular developer does not providing attribution
>for patches.
>
>  * Responding to leader feedback as requested in my previous emails.
> Thanks to
>all who responded to this!
>
>  * Yet more administrative work on Debian

Re: Bits from the DPL (May 2018)

[Yves-Alexis Perez]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

On Thu, 2018-05-31 at 17:33 +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
>  * Discussing a potential scenario where we could provide hardware
>encryption keys for all Developers, partly as another benefit of being a
>DD [25] but moreoever to raise the general level of security in the
>Project. Unfortunately, this now appears like it will not happen.

Hi Chris,

would it be possible to get more details on this? If it was already discussed
publicly I have missed it, that's entirely possible, so feel free to point me
to that discussion.

Regards,
- -- 
Yves-Alexis
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEE8vi34Qgfo83x35gF3rYcyPpXRFsFAlsQWycACgkQ3rYcyPpX
RFsfuAf/T7YfRypgSOO7W2+PJQSZodO4bcECAJztsy7wvdv1KMgdkqDrxIIQ30cL
zXhBdSTFWVmRd6L/MjVN9sEq2eFD3W1V3mER05pYWo4BTEl8sXSqm54tkCbNxGQS
51hXERwrX+fxNj9H/4QmbHazLTCydiuNQU+c2Uhl4QjmasHLRsp0VN5dl79fskMY
cc0r8lgdU0aPTiDL064xHhnSQD/4Jz45rO/JEcpHzKs8QNJKjznK0gjj6xc3Gzc6
1xvw6tl2UbypHKHVTS4oci/HB19nbHQziVDchWRYz9CRQhOJ3T6ooowlr3j12eUe
HDOaYUdyevOHTIp8FjFpRVHZ/z3rDg==
=vx50
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Bits from the DPL (May 2018)

[Chris Lamb]

Hi Yves-Alexis,

> >  * Discussing a potential scenario where we could provide hardware
> >encryption keys for all Developers,
[…]
> would it be possible to get more details on this? If it was
> already discussed publicly I have missed it

You did not miss anything; it was not discussed in public.

I can let you know the details privately if you wish, but I'd rather
not shout the parties involved from the rooftops just in case it could
still happen, but mostly because it could prevent other firms from
suggesting partnerships with Debian in future.

Most of these ideas fall through, alas :)


Best wishes,

-- 
  ,''`.
 : :'  : Chris Lamb
 `. `'`  la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk
   `-

Re: Bits from the DPL (May 2018)

[Yves-Alexis Perez]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

On Thu, 2018-05-31 at 21:40 +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
> You did not miss anything; it was not discussed in public.

Ok.
> 
> I can let you know the details privately if you wish, but I'd rather
> not shout the parties involved from the rooftops just in case it could
> still happen, but mostly because it could prevent other firms from
> suggesting partnerships with Debian in future.

No need, thanks. It was merely just to know if the reason was technical or
not, and if it was something we could do something about.

Regards,
- -- 
Yves-Alexis
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEE8vi34Qgfo83x35gF3rYcyPpXRFsFAlsRJgAACgkQ3rYcyPpX
RFvBhQgA5nM96b51E5kjnwmPBnBd8pdjdU+TC67UN0A1yWu7j9P4gVlEgy/wW/+N
vn0m1SeMn43jlc/pDD2O775+rhKcrtN/0yjVgpSigcuZjHChVXtThF54VQ7BzjIy
5tKtVnLqTdRFuGkVyVBo6ZkubKi6ccu1gILTu5aTeJoEV2+NC3oaEaifg1cO2nG2
h592YlkHLYA33GxRGfd02WUSMKpPm/cGBHtXTRE50lj3IAT9M4N2/cba5781BuyK
Jo/lYgFnRHCCohY14EvwvMpLoKvrQ0pogkOaAJ/OT6upXJq8j4erGKkY6J7tS8Ee
6Q4V6xiKTzI5k13QByNXaimDUHbIYQ==
=YBa/
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Bits from the DPL (May 2018)

[Chris Lamb]

Dear Yves-Alexis,

> > I can let you know the details privately if you wish, but I'd rather
> > not shout the parties involved from the rooftops
[…]
> No need, thanks. It was merely just to know if the reason was technical or
> not

Thank you for thinking of this.  Alas, not all problems can be solved
with code… :)


Best wishes,

-- 
  ,''`.
 : :'  : Chris Lamb
 `. `'`  la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk
   `-

Re: Bits from the DPL (June 2017)

[Alex ARNAUD]

Sorry to disturb you but I'm a low-vision person, what is the way to 
answer on HN? It seems it's no longer possible.


Best regards.

Le 01/07/2017 à 17:01, Chris Lamb a écrit :

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

Dear fellow developers,

Here's what I've been getting up to as your DPL in June:


«stretch» release
=

In case you somehow missed it (!), we released "stretch" on June 17th! [0]

Whilst I haven't upgraded all of my systems yet, I'm really enjoying
the new stable release and I'm sure you are too. I also hope most of
you managed to attend a release party, at least in spirit. I attended
one at Tsinghua University [1] in Beijing - thanks to the local "TUNA"
[2] user group for welcoming me so warmly.

As part of the release I posted to Hacker News with the question "What
do you want to see in Debian 10?" [3], a shameless copy of a recent
Ubuntu request which appeared to result in fruitful and helpful
responses.

  [0] https://lists.debian.org/debian-announce/2017/msg3.html
  [1] http://www.tsinghua.edu.cn/publish/newthuen/
  [2] https://tuna.moe/
  [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14579080


Hong Kong Open Source Conference 2017
=

On 9th & 10th June I represented Debian at HKOSCon 2017 [4] in Hong
Kong, speaking on the topic of Reproducible Builds[5]. I had many
interesting discussions about Debian, especially how free software
communities in China et.  al., can regrettably have somewhat of a silo
mentality, including the possible reasons and how it could potentially
be avoided.

  [4] hkoscon.org/2017/
  [5] https://reproducible-builds.org/


OCF.tw "Trusted Organisation" process
=

Our constitution (sections 5.1.11 and 9) describes a process to manage
the list of "Trusted Organizations", entities that hold/manage (mostly
financial) assets for Debian.

As part of this I formally concluded the application process for
OCF.tw to handle DebConf 18 financial concerns, etc. [6]

  [6]  https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2017/06/msg0.html


LinuxCon China 2017
===

On 16th and 17th June I represented Debian at LinuxCon China 2017[7]
where I had further interesting discussions about Debian, especially
around some some specific embedded hardware support, its use in
Internet of Things (IoT) devices as well as Debian's use in the cloud
and container environments in general.

  [7] https://www.lfasiallc.com/linuxcon-containercon-cloudopen-china


Policy team delegation
==

The Debian Policy team [8] defines Debian's technical framework,
including the structure and contents of the Debian archive, design
issues of the operating system as well as technical requirements that
all packages must satisfy.

I've recently been working to ensure this important team is active and
well-staffed. As part of this, I was very happy to redelegate the team
[9], notably to add Sean Whitton.

There will be a Policy Team spring throughout DebCamp, so do look out
for that if you are interested in participating in this significant
part of what makes Debian what it is.

  [8]  https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Policy
  [9]  https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2017/06/msg5.html


Pre-installed Debian hardware
=

I've also been talking to a growing number of companies with respect
getting Debian offered as a first class, pre-installed, branded and
fully-supported distribution on various bits of consumer hardware such
as laptops and tablets.

Each discussion is in a different state at the moment but I'm excited
about the progress being made and am looking forward to be able to
announce when this this will have concrete results.

Most of the talks are involving some form of discount for Debian
Developers too, adding to our growing list of member benefits [10]. If
there are any other firms who would like to be part of such
discussions, please do get in touch.

  [10] https://wiki.debian.org/MemberBenefits


Technical committee
===

The Technical Committee is established by the Debian Constitution,
section 6.  It is the body which makes the final decision on technical
disputes in the Debian project [11].

As defined by section 6.2.2, the Technical Committee recommended [12]
the appointment of a new member to the Technical Committee so this
month I was very happy to follow their recommendation and appoint Niko
Tyni to the Committee [13].

  [11] https://www.debian.org/devel/tech-ctte
  [12] https://bugs.debian.org/836127#90
  [13] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2017/06/msg7.html


DebConf17
=

As part of the preparations for DebConf17, I:

  * Approved a large equipment purchase for the DebConf Video Team.

  * Signed-off on temporary and limited access to the SPI PayPal account.

  * Approved an enlargement of the DebConf Bursary funding.


Expenses


I also pre-approved a large number of trav

Re: (My last) bits from the DPL

[Adam Majer]

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 04:47:19PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>
> Libdvdcss and ZFS soon in Debian?
> =
> 
> We received legal advice from Software Freedom Law Center about the
> inclusion of libdvdcss and ZFS in Debian, which should unblock the
> situation in both cases and enable us to ship them in Debian soon.

Hello,

Could this legal advice be posted to debian-legal or elsewhere in
public?

Thanks,
Adam

-- 
Adam Majer
ad...@zombino.com


-- 
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/20150416152047.ga21...@mira.lan.galacticasoftware.com

Re: Bits from the DPL -- June 2016

[Jonathan Wiltshire]

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 06:10:00PM +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> Newmaint delegation revoked
> ===
> 
> The Newmaint team is responsible of checking new Debian Maintainers
> applications, and ask addition of the applicants keys to the Debian
> Maintainers keyring.

Could you please clarify exactly which delegation is being revoked? I do
not recognise the "Newmaint" team.

debian.org/intro/organization list:
 - New Members Front Desk (administrative; un-delegated by neilm)
 - Debian Account Managers
 - Debian Maintainer Keyring maintainers

I'm assuming you refer to the last one in that list.

(Please CC me on replies.)

Thanks,
-- 
Jonathan Wiltshire  j...@debian.org
Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw

4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC  74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Bits from the DPL -- June 2016

[Iustin Pop]

On 2016-06-27 18:10:00, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> - - Approved purchase of PGP hardware tokens for DAMs. (Up to 200€)

Could you please tell which hardware was this? Just curious for my own
use—still have to migrate to such a solution, so I'm wondering what are
others use, especially in/related to Debian.

thanks,
iustin


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Bits from the DPL -- June 2016

[Mehdi Dogguy]

Hi,

On 27/06/2016 20:52, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 06:10:00PM +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
>> Newmaint delegation revoked
>> ===
>>
>> The Newmaint team is responsible of checking new Debian Maintainers
>> applications, and ask addition of the applicants keys to the Debian
>> Maintainers keyring.
> 
> Could you please clarify exactly which delegation is being revoked? I do
> not recognise the "Newmaint" team.
> 
> debian.org/intro/organization list:
>  - New Members Front Desk (administrative; un-delegated by neilm)
>  - Debian Account Managers
>  - Debian Maintainer Keyring maintainers
> 
> I'm assuming you refer to the last one in that list.
> 

I am sorry if it was not clear and it is indeed the last one. I thought it
was clear enough given the context described in my email (Newmaint, Debian
Maintainers, etc...). Besides, we will probably stop listing it in the
organization page as "Debian Maintainer Keyring maintainers" since the
sole keyring maintainers Debian has nowadays are keyring-maint.

I hope this clarifies things.

-- 
Mehdi



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Bits from the DPL -- June 2016

[Mehdi Dogguy]

Hi,

On 27/06/2016 21:26, Iustin Pop wrote:
> On 2016-06-27 18:10:00, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
>> - - Approved purchase of PGP hardware tokens for DAMs. (Up to 200€)
> 
> Could you please tell which hardware was this? Just curious for my own
> use—still have to migrate to such a solution, so I'm wondering what are
> others use, especially in/related to Debian.
> 

So DAMs asked to purchase Yubikey 4 tokens. They now have a common GPG key
to make it easier to contact them confidentially (rather than have to look
up their individual keys).

I /think/, but I am not sure, that DSA is also using similar tokens to store
SSH keys (and maybe other secrets on the token).

Regards,

-- 
Mehdi

Re: Bits from the DPL -- June 2016

[Jonathan Wiltshire]

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 10:03:49PM +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> I am sorry if it was not clear and it is indeed the last one. I thought it
> was clear enough given the context described in my email (Newmaint, Debian
> Maintainers, etc...). Besides, we will probably stop listing it in the
> organization page as "Debian Maintainer Keyring maintainers" since the
> sole keyring maintainers Debian has nowadays are keyring-maint.
> 
> I hope this clarifies things.

Yes; thank you.

-- 
Jonathan Wiltshire  j...@debian.org
Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw

4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC  74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Bits from the DPL -- June 2016

[Tollef Fog Heen]

]] Mehdi Dogguy 

> So DAMs asked to purchase Yubikey 4 tokens. They now have a common GPG key
> to make it easier to contact them confidentially (rather than have to look
> up their individual keys).

We have a sponsorship from Yubico for some more yubikeys, so we can
probably use those for the DAMs too.

> I /think/, but I am not sure, that DSA is also using similar tokens to store
> SSH keys (and maybe other secrets on the token).

We're investigating their use for use for Secure Boot as well as for
buildd signing keys.

-- 
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are

Re: Bits from the DPL: Freedom and etch

[Pierre Habouzit]

Le lun 28 août 2006 20:35, Anthony Towns a écrit :
> Hello, world!
>
> […]
>
> Note that both these polls are just an informal way of finding out
> what people think, and while they will be considered and taken into
> account, they won't necessarily be the final word on the matter.

  I'm very suprised by that mail that completely forgot to mention the 
ongoing discussions about a GR about firmwares. There is already three 
proposals for that GR[1] and I wonder why those have not been 
mentionned.

  I'm also worried that the debate seems to be presented as "relase etch 
in time and put firmwares in main" versus "care about firmware freeness 
and release later". That's not what has been discussed on debian-vote 
for one or two weeks already. The current amendments all have the 
corrolary that etch won't be delayed, either because an exception will 
be proposed (don's proposal) or because we don't care about firmware 
until we have a viable technical solution to do the split (joss's 
proposal) or because we decide that firmwares are not programatical 
things (steve's proposal).

  Given that, and that you are not able to assure the users that the 
result of their poll will be followed:
 * I fear that the issues of those polls would put pressure on the GR
   voters,
 * I also fear that if the GR issue is not what the polls showed that
   the user wanted, we will have a hard time to cope with our angry
   users, that will feel they have been made as a fool of that story.

  So question to the DPL: I really wonder why a formal announce of that 
unofficial poll has been made, instead of encouraging people to review 
the amendments that have been proposed, and even propose a new one if 
needed, so that that GR can come, and that we know where we are going 
instead of guessing.


 [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/08/msg00032.html
 http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/08/msg00215.html
 http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/08/msg00185.html
-- 
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OOOhttp://www.madism.org


pgp5nZKmCUBrq.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Bits from the DPL: Freedom and etch

[Anthony Towns]

On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 12:39:03PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>   I'm very suprised by that mail that completely forgot to mention the 
> ongoing discussions about a GR about firmwares. There is already three 
> proposals for that GR[1] and I wonder why those have not been 
> mentionned.

Err, but it did:

] One way or another we're going to have to make a decision on what
] approach to take fairly soon -- and general resolutions on how to square
] up the approach we take are already being discussed on the debian-vote
] list. [...]

...?

> The current amendments all have the 
> corrolary that etch won't be delayed, either because an exception will 
> be proposed (don's proposal) 

TTBOMK, Don's proposal doesn't actually include that exception, just
mentions that it would be a possibility.

>   So question to the DPL: I really wonder why a formal announce of that 
> unofficial poll has been made, instead of encouraging people to review 
> the amendments that have been proposed, and even propose a new one if 
> needed, so that that GR can come, and that we know where we are going 
> instead of guessing.

There isn't a secret agenda here -- I'm planning on using the information
from those polls to work out what I'll focus on as far as the GRs are
concerned. Others probably will too, while still others will make up
their mind entirely on their own, or possibly already have.

Personally, I also think it's worthwhile having some announcements that
focus on what we've actually achieved, rather than the controversies
generated by the few things that are still on our TODO list. YMMV.

Cheers,
aj



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Bits from the DPL: Freedom and etch

[Nathanael Nerode]

Anthony Towns wrote:


> (c) A number of drivers in the Linux kernel include firmware to be
> uploaded to the chipsets they support that is provided as
> either a sequence of hex codes, or as a separate binary file --
> while modifying the code is allowed, in many if not most or all
> such cases, the firmware is effectively being provided without
> useful source.

It would have been very helpful, Anthony, if you had linked to the list of
*exactly* what drivers are at issue.  (And exactly what the legal issues are
for each one: GPL-without-source and no-license-text drivers are serious and
separate issues, and affect far more drivers than properly-licensed
sourceless firmware affects.)

I suggest a d-d-a post adding this link:

http://doolittle.icarus.com/~larry/fwinventory/2.6.17.html

-- 
Nathanael Nerode  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he in prison yet?...


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

Re: bits from the DPL for January 2012

[Josh Triplett]

On Sat, Feb 04, 2012 at 12:51:20PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> - We got from SPI a prepaid and rechargeable credit card that we can use
>   for expenses or other kind of guarantees. Many thanks to Michael
>   Schulteiss, SPI treasurer, for his help with that.  Using it, we've
>   redeemed 10k$ of credits offered to us by Amazon, that (thanks to
>   ongoing work by Lucas Nussbaum) we're going to use to make our QA
>   rebuilds independent from the underlying computing infrastructure.

For the benefit of other people or projects who might want to set up
such a thing, what mechanism did SPI use to obtain this card?

- Josh Triplett


-- 
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/20120204154537.GI23398@leaf

Re: (deferred) bits from the DPL: March 2012

[Benjamin Drung]

Am Sonntag, den 15.04.2012, 20:19 +0200 schrieb Stefano Zacchiroli:
> - as part of a discussion on unofficial "debian" repositories [9],

Which discussion? ;)

>   I've
>   proposed to open up the list of *.debian.net domains. As nobody
>   disagreed, consensus has been quickly reached and the announced [10]
>   change is now imminent. Thanks to Carsten Hey and Gerfried Fuchs for
>   their help in figuring out the details of the last discussion on the
>   matter and DSA for their feedback.
> 
>   [10] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2012/03/msg8.html

-- 
Benjamin Drung
Debian & Ubuntu Developer


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

Re: (deferred) bits from the DPL: March 2012

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 05:12:07PM +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> Am Sonntag, den 15.04.2012, 20:19 +0200 schrieb Stefano Zacchiroli:
> > - as part of a discussion on unofficial "debian" repositories [9],
> 
> Which discussion? ;)

Right, sorry for the dangling link, although it's referenced from the
other link [10]:

> >   [10] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2012/03/msg8.html

quoting from it:

> After discussion on -devel [3,4] we --- as in: DSA and myself --- have
> decided to open up the list of debian.net entries. The dnsZoneEntry LDAP
> attribute, currently only queryable from debian.org machines, will be
> made publicly accessible.
>
> [3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/03/msg00123.html
> [4] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/03/msg00167.html

Enjoy the (transitive :-)) footnotes!

Cheers.
-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences   ..   http://upsilon.cc/zack   ..   . . o
Debian Project Leader...   @zack on identi.ca   ...o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: bits from the DPL: March-April 2013

[Wouter Verhelst]

Hi Zack,

On 16-04-13 16:37, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>   (see John's brief summary [10]) and discuss further technical
[...]
>   workshop of FSFE's European Legal Network [10]; slides are available
[...]
> [10]: http://fsfe.org/activities/ftf/ftf.en.html

You made a minor mistake here; there is no "brief summary" at [10], it
seems to only refer to that european legal network thing.

-- 
Copyshops should do vouchers. So that next time some bureaucracy
requires you to mail a form in triplicate, you can mail it just once,
add a voucher, and save on postage.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: bits from the DPL: March-April 2013

[Holger Levsen]

Dear Zack,

/me bows, thanking you for three great years! It's been a real pleasure to see 
you work, you were and are doing an amazing job.

If I wanted to give Lucas an advice here, I think it is to keep your tradition 
of keeping day-to-day activity logs and regular postings of destilled bits 
from those logs. This really made a difference (and should be rather easy to 
copy, cough, though it needs a lot of discipline to keep this going for 3 
years!), "though" it's just one of the many bits were you acted outstandingly.

Oh, well, I should rather keep this short, so:


Thanks again and keep up the fun!
Holger



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

Re: bits from the DPL: March-April 2013

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 04:47:34PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> You made a minor mistake here; there is no "brief summary" at [10], it
> seems to only refer to that european legal network thing.

Sorry for the wrong like, the correct one should have been
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/fsf-collab-discuss/2013-March/000383.html

FWIW it's fixed in the version of the report that is going to show up on
Planet.

Cheers.
-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli  . . . . . . .  z...@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o
Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o
Debian Project Leader . . . . . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o .
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: bits from the DPL: March-April 2013

[Peter Samuelson]

Zack,

Thank you SO MUCH for your service this past 3 years.  Your hard work,
persistence, calm voice and especially your transparency have been much
appreciated.  

Peter


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature