Re: Censoring :) (was: Re: anarchism_7.7-1.deb)
On Mon, Sep 27, 1999 at 02:23:03PM +0200, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
> Scavenging the mail folder uncovered Siggy Brentrup's letter:
> > There should be one for the main distribution. Assume I want to go
> > into the CD business providing support for packages in the main
> > dist. No major problem with most of the packages, but I am not willing
> > to support packages with philosophical, political or religious
> > contents.
> >
> > The way it is, I can't say "Support for all of Debian's main dist".
> >
> > My point is, should there be subjective stuff in the main dist?
>
> I don't know the answer but having non-doc (in the sense of
> non-application-that-is-in-main-doc) stuff is bad. What if I package
> the 3 CD set of US maps that is publicy available? That is about 1.8Gb
> of sources plus 1.8Gb of .debs for about 3.6Gb of ftp space... and
> nobody can tell me don't do that!
OTH, everybody can say you to not do that. The only point where policy
say you not to do something, is about dfsg-freeness. Even there, they
just say you to put them in non-free. What protect Debian from abuse
is the eye-balls of everyone. The same ones who say: "He! new-maintainer
take too much time!" or "What all those packages waiting so long in
Incoming?" or even: "Should we consider a free client of a non-free
server to be non-free?". I have a great confidence about hearing the
herd of kitten if you really upload the US maps, I'm just not sure
if they'll just say you to remove it or ask you to upload the more
recent version ;)
>
> What about having Debian be an OS+apps and have SPI found a *new*
> association for the distribution of free *data*? The data can even use
> .deb format, but Debian/doc is definitely the wrong place for
> religious/political/etc stuff. IMHO!
Why can't Debian just can't be this association? That's right that
main/doc is missed named and that we need a better sectionning
(main/graphics is even worst and what about x11). When I submit
data, I knew that it was just a patch, an incomplete solution to
the problem. It has to be easily realisable, implementable and not
too much contrainst so that it will add to Debian without removing
anything. IMHO, that's why it was accepted with so few discussions.
It was just a first step but now it's done. Debian will continue
to grow and we will handle it better then some company that forget
their starter consumers to go for the mass market. It's simply not
the way we work.
Debian is one of the most interesting example of distributed development
I can see. A very flat organization, based on volunteers, distributed
around the world and with a organizational system to make it shame most
of the R&D directors of TOP500 companies. Sure, Debian don't follow
the same model but, that's ok: we don't even share the same goals; they
want to make money, we want to make the best distribution and have some
fun by doing so.
We have some fantastic tools: the build system, dpkg/apt, debconf/menu &
consors, the cd-scripts, dinstall, the BTS, the vote system, the build
queue, the policy modifications process, etc. All this tools manage the
growth of Debian fantastically. There still some bugs to work around
(growing numbers of critical bugs, lag in the new maintainer process...)
but new initiatives (qa.debian.org and the sponsorship page) proves that
we aware about them and that we are in the process of correcting them.
Maybe should we make more publicity about this aspect of Debian. I'll
just give a conference next month about the organization of Debian,
what we are, how we work and how can they work *with* us. A quick
poll of people around me, all implicated in Linux just show me a big
point: most (something like half the people) think that Debian is a
startup company like RH was a time ago. They can't believe that Debian
work the same way as Linux, even a more open one should I say. Maybe
ESR should brainwash them a little more about the OpenSource model ;)
To everyone, keep working on this, I'm pretty sure we can get out
of it *without* removing anything to Debian. Just make it even
better!
Ciao,
Fabien
{ who finally remove his Debian patriotic hat ;) }
BTW, why couldn't we make a Cecilia/RoseGarden/abc contest for a
Debian Hymn? The FSF has one, why not us ;)
>
> Ciao,
> Federico
>
> --
> Federico Di Gregorio [http://www.bolinando.com/fog] {Friend of Penguins}
> Debian GNU/Linux Developer & Italian Press Contact[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Try the Joy of TeX [http://www.tug.org]
> -- brought to you by One Line Spam
>
--
Fabien NinolesChevalier servant de la Dame Catherine des Rosiers
aka Corbeau aka le Veneur Gris Debian GNU/Linux maintainer
E-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
WebPage:http://www.tzone.org/~fabien
RSA PGP KEY [E3723845]: 1C C1 4F A6 EE E5 4D
Re: Censoring :) (was: Re: anarchism_7.7-1.deb)
[about a flat-file installation tool]. On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 07:58:02PM +0200, Remco Blaakmeer wrote: > If you make such a tool and people start to use it on a large scale, you'd > better be sure you get the package dependencies right. The context was data files which have no particular administrative requirements. Consider a tool which would install into a "safe" part of the namespace, and do something reasonable for a "package-name" [perhaps using some convention which is illegal for a debian package, to avoid any potential name conflicts.] There are complications -- for example, it's probably reasonable for a person to add documents to an existing collection (pseudo-package). It's also probably reasonable to define a mapping between some url and the local documents (allowing semi-automated or automated updating for frequently changing documents). [[I guess I'm currently describing something like a a cut down version of mirror, or maybe wget, with uninstall.]] But this idea probably needs to be fleshed out more (or shot full of holes) before it gets implemented. -- Raul
Re: Censoring :) (was: Re: anarchism_7.7-1.deb)
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > Exactly. A better designed package manager would support modular package > format handling. then we could simply do (let's call the package manager > hpm for now): > > hpm -i blacksteel.etheme instead dpkg -i etheme-blacksteel.deb > hpm -i realvideo.tar.gz instead alien; dpkg > hpm -i somestuff.rpm instead alien; dpkg > hpm -i CPAN:mymodule > hpm -i CTAN:mytexstyle > hpm -i gutenberg:faust > > and so on. If you make such a tool and people start to use it on a large scale, you'd better be sure you get the package dependencies right. RPM files have file dependencies, not package dependencies like DEB files have. TAR files have no dependencies at all. How are you going to find out which packages a TAR file depends on (and which versions of those packages)? And how would you handle conflicts between packages that should be there but aren't? It is already a problem to install RedHat RPMs on a SuSE system and vice versa. Please don't encourage people to install RPMs on a Debian system if they don't know exactly what they are doing. Their systems *will* break. And they will blame Debian for it. The idea to install E themes, CPAN modules, CTAN modules etc. this way seems nice to me, though. Just make sure all files within the themes / modules are in the right place. And add the right dependencies. For example, E14 themes should have something like "Depends: enlightenment (>= 0.14), enlightenment (<< 0.15)". Of course, you'd have to detect the version automatically. Not to say it's a bad idea, just that it will be a helluva lot of work to make it work the right way. Remco -- rd1936: 7:35pm up 6 days, 23:24, 6 users, load average: 1.26, 1.44, 1.77
Re: Censoring :) (was: Re: anarchism_7.7-1.deb)
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 01:12:06AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > > Alternate question: why do we even have to package up flat text files? > Why can't we just import them into debian in some regular manner? [I can > see that naming convention is important, but are there any other issues > beyond that? -- I mean, besides the issue of the current implementation > of dpkg.] Exactly. A better designed package manager would support modular package format handling. then we could simply do (let's call the package manager hpm for now): hpm -i blacksteel.etheme instead dpkg -i etheme-blacksteel.deb hpm -i realvideo.tar.gz instead alien; dpkg hpm -i somestuff.rpm instead alien; dpkg hpm -i CPAN:mymodule hpm -i CTAN:mytexstyle hpm -i gutenberg:faust and so on. I think we will be able to do this in a few years, because we have to to cope with the grow of free information and data available. Thanks, Marcus -- `Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org Check Key server Marcus Brinkmann GNUhttp://www.gnu.orgfor public PGP Key [EMAIL PROTECTED]PGP Key ID 36E7CD09 http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/
Re: Censoring :) (was: Re: anarchism_7.7-1.deb)
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: > > Why even involve debhelper? At least in the case of the Project Gutenberg > files some of which I have, they are just long ascii files so the rules > file could just stick them into (for example) /usr/share/doc/etexts call > doc-base and be done with it. AFAIK all the project Gutenberg files are > public domain so one generic fill in the blanks copyright file would > suffice. Voila you almost instantly have 2000 works containing more than > a gig of text. > > I'd buy such a CD if it were offered. And I know plenty of people who > would too. > I would, too. But I don't see the need to *package* large ascii files. What would be the difference between Gutenberg Debian-packaged and Gutenberg gzipped on CD or ftp? There *is* a difference for documents that require some technical setup to work (like the kjv-bible that needs a special viewer program) or are processed by other programs (like verse). Bj"orn Brill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Re: Censoring :) (was: Re: anarchism_7.7-1.deb)
On Sep 27, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Maybe it's time to fork off an independent documentation project? I agree. I'd like to see another organization supported by SPI packaging things like Project Gutemberg books and so on. -- ciao, Marco
Re: Censoring :) (was: Re: anarchism_7.7-1.deb)
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 12:05:37AM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: > Why even involve debhelper? At least in the case of the Project Gutenberg > files some of which I have, they are just long ascii files so the rules > file could just stick them into (for example) /usr/share/doc/etexts call > doc-base and be done with it. AFAIK all the project Gutenberg files are > public domain so one generic fill in the blanks copyright file would > suffice. Voila you almost instantly have 2000 works containing more than > a gig of text. > > I'd buy such a CD if it were offered. And I know plenty of people who > would too. Works for me. Real question is: does anyone care enough to bother? Alternate question: why do we even have to package up flat text files? Why can't we just import them into debian in some regular manner? [I can see that naming convention is important, but are there any other issues beyond that? -- I mean, besides the issue of the current implementation of dpkg.] -- Raul
Re: Censoring :) (was: Re: anarchism_7.7-1.deb)
On 28 Sep 1999, Siggy Brentrup wrote: > More serious: > Hahaha. > customer: I found a typo ... > |I don't understand that ancient word (very likely in over here) > | Luther's bible says ... but what you sold me is completely > different. > > |Why do you include philosophical texts > support: Sorry, if you buy Debian, you always get it. The opinions > expressed in Debian packages are not necessarily ours. At > present it's a bit biased since no one volunteered to > package opposite views. > Oh for crying out loud. I apologize to the entire list for my part in bringing about this silliness. -- Jaldhar H. Vyas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: Censoring :) (was: Re: anarchism_7.7-1.deb)
On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, Raul Miller wrote: > On Mon, Sep 27, 1999 at 11:46:39AM +0200, Siggy Brentrup wrote: > > Is it really censoring to keep all non-technical packages out of main? > > I don't say don't package it nor don't make it available. > > Maybe it's time to fork off an independent documentation project? > > We'd need to provide them a stable interface (probably just debhelper > and a basic template) for package construction. > Why even involve debhelper? At least in the case of the Project Gutenberg files some of which I have, they are just long ascii files so the rules file could just stick them into (for example) /usr/share/doc/etexts call doc-base and be done with it. AFAIK all the project Gutenberg files are public domain so one generic fill in the blanks copyright file would suffice. Voila you almost instantly have 2000 works containing more than a gig of text. I'd buy such a CD if it were offered. And I know plenty of people who would too. -- Jaldhar H. Vyas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: Censoring :) (was: Re: anarchism_7.7-1.deb)
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...] > if it's free and it's packaged then we accept it into the dist in the > location defined by policy - at the moment, that's debian main. we > probably should, as has been discussed before, have an etexts and a data > section for this kind of stuff. That's what I am asking for. > > > if something is free and someone does the work to package it then we > > > accept it in the distribution. > > > > There should be one for the main distribution. Assume I want to go > > into the CD business providing support for packages in the main > > dist. No major problem with most of the packages, but I am not willing > > to support packages with philosophical, political or religious > > contents. > > that's ludicrous. what support is needed for texts? > customer: i can't read foo-text. > tech support: have you tried opening your eyes sir? customer: I don't get verse to show me my daily devotional support: Use your brain. More serious: customer: I found a typo ... |I don't understand that ancient word (very likely in over here) |Luther's bible says ... but what you sold me is completely different. |Why do you include philosophical texts support: Sorry, if you buy Debian, you always get it. The opinions expressed in Debian packages are not necessarily ours. At present it's a bit biased since no one volunteered to package opposite views. -- noch nichts Aufregendes: Siggy Brentrup - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - voice: +49-441-6990134
Re: Censoring :) (was: Re: anarchism_7.7-1.deb)
On Mon, Sep 27, 1999 at 11:46:19AM +0200, Siggy Brentrup wrote: > Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > it's irrelevant whether other debian developers or users agree with me > > or disagree with me about the relative utility of these two packages. > > by not censoring packages, by refusing to censor packages, we create > > a distribution which is good and useful for everyone - not just those > > whose needs are the same as the censors. some find the bible package > > useful and i don't begrudge them that - if it makes debian more useful > > to them then it is a good thing that it is included. > > > > we should not be censoring, we should not be saying "the bible is good > > but the koran or bhagavid gita or even the anarchist faq is worthless". > > or vice-versa. > > Is it really censoring to keep all non-technical packages out of main? > I don't say don't package it nor don't make it available. that's a different question entirely, and not one that i'm addressing. my point is that if we accept one into main then we have no justification for not accepting all. if we decide that non-technical documents (i.e. anything which is not documentation or tutorial material for a program - literature, mythology, philosophy, etc) do not belong in main then that applies to all such packages. if it's free and it's packaged then we accept it into the dist in the location defined by policy - at the moment, that's debian main. we probably should, as has been discussed before, have an etexts and a data section for this kind of stuff. > > if something is free and someone does the work to package it then we > > accept it in the distribution. > > There should be one for the main distribution. Assume I want to go > into the CD business providing support for packages in the main > dist. No major problem with most of the packages, but I am not willing > to support packages with philosophical, political or religious > contents. that's ludicrous. what support is needed for texts? customer: i can't read foo-text. tech support: have you tried opening your eyes sir? craig -- craig sanders
Re: Censoring :) (was: Re: anarchism_7.7-1.deb)
I agree with you on this one, we do NOT need html, or text versions of the Bible, or other non-technical or computer related documents in main. As it is, potato is HUGE, larger than ANY other distribution. My thought is that if it is not a program, or does not enhance or assist in the use of a program, then it should probably not go into main. Note that documentation on Linux and Debian assist in the use of these programs. On the same note, debates about Linux vs. other operating systems and environments, these also fall under the, "Leave it out since it won't help with the use of what we provide". That is to be fair. Many people already put contrib and non-free into their sources.list, so it won't hurt anyone by putting these sort of things in contrib. Dave Bristel On 27 Sep 1999, Siggy Brentrup wrote: > Date: 27 Sep 1999 11:46:39 +0200 > From: Siggy Brentrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org > Subject: Censoring :) (was: Re: anarchism_7.7-1.deb) > Resent-Date: 27 Sep 1999 11:11:42 - > Resent-From: debian-devel@lists.debian.org > Resent-cc: recipient list not shown: ; > > *** Please _don't_Cc:_ me when following up to the list *** > > Sorry for responding late, had a mail hickup on sunday :( > > Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > [...] > > > it's irrelevant whether other debian developers or users agree with me > > or disagree with me about the relative utility of these two packages. > > by not censoring packages, by refusing to censor packages, we create > > a distribution which is good and useful for everyone - not just those > > whose needs are the same as the censors. some find the bible package > > useful and i don't begrudge them that - if it makes debian more useful > > to them then it is a good thing that it is included. > > > > we should not be censoring, we should not be saying "the bible is good > > but the koran or bhagavid gita or even the anarchist faq is worthless". > > or vice-versa. > > Is it really censoring to keep all non-technical packages out of main? > I don't say don't package it nor don't make it available. > > > if something is free and someone does the work to package it then we > > accept it in the distribution. > > There should be one for the main distribution. Assume I want to go > into the CD business providing support for packages in the main > dist. No major problem with most of the packages, but I am not willing > to support packages with philosophical, political or religious > contents. > > The way it is, I can't say "Support for all of Debian's main dist". > > My point is, should there be subjective stuff in the main dist? > > CU > Siggy > > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
Re: Censoring :) (was: Re: anarchism_7.7-1.deb)
On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 27, 1999 at 11:46:39AM +0200, Siggy Brentrup wrote:
> > Is it really censoring to keep all non-technical packages out of main?
> > I don't say don't package it nor don't make it available.
>
> Maybe it's time to fork off an independent documentation project?
This has been proposed several times, but actually never been implemented.
At least 2 categories have been identified:
etext: Packaged texts/books that are not directly related to Debian or
computer documentation (bible-kjv, anarchism-faq, etc...).
data: Data packaged for use by some Debian programs (astronomical data,
etc...)
> We'd need to provide them a stable interface (probably just debhelper
> and a basic template) for package construction.
--
- Vincent RENARDIAS [EMAIL PROTECTED],pipo}.com,{debian,openhardware}.org} -
- Debian/GNU Linux: http://www.openhardware.orgExecutive Linux: -
- http://www.fr.debian.org Open Hardware: http://www.exelinux.com -
---
"J'adore la France :
c'est un pays superbe et surtout il n'y a pas d'Anglais." [Mick Jagger]
Re: Censoring :) (was: Re: anarchism_7.7-1.deb)
On Mon, Sep 27, 1999 at 11:46:39AM +0200, Siggy Brentrup wrote: > Is it really censoring to keep all non-technical packages out of main? > I don't say don't package it nor don't make it available. Maybe it's time to fork off an independent documentation project? We'd need to provide them a stable interface (probably just debhelper and a basic template) for package construction. -- Raul
data section! [was: Re: Censoring :) (was: Re: anarchism_7.7-1.deb)]
On Mon, Sep 27, 1999 at 02:23:03PM +0200, Federico Di Gregorio wrote: > Scavenging the mail folder uncovered Siggy Brentrup's letter: > > There should be one for the main distribution. Assume I want to go > > into the CD business providing support for packages in the main > > dist. > > > > The way it is, I can't say "Support for all of Debian's main dist". > > I don't know the answer but having non-doc (in the sense of > non-application-that-is-in-main-doc) stuff is bad. What if I package > the 3 CD set of US maps that is publicy available? That is about 1.8Gb > of sources plus 1.8Gb of .debs for about 3.6Gb of ftp space... and > nobody can tell me don't do that! > > What about having Debian be an OS+apps and have SPI found a *new* > association for the distribution of free *data*? We are already doing that - the proposal on the policy list regarding a new, data section of the FTP server has passed. Hopefully, it will be implemented in practice soon. -- enJoy -*/\*- don't even try to pronounce my first name
Re: Censoring :) (was: Re: anarchism_7.7-1.deb)
Scavenging the mail folder uncovered Siggy Brentrup's letter:
> There should be one for the main distribution. Assume I want to go
> into the CD business providing support for packages in the main
> dist. No major problem with most of the packages, but I am not willing
> to support packages with philosophical, political or religious
> contents.
>
> The way it is, I can't say "Support for all of Debian's main dist".
>
> My point is, should there be subjective stuff in the main dist?
I don't know the answer but having non-doc (in the sense of
non-application-that-is-in-main-doc) stuff is bad. What if I package
the 3 CD set of US maps that is publicy available? That is about 1.8Gb
of sources plus 1.8Gb of .debs for about 3.6Gb of ftp space... and
nobody can tell me don't do that!
What about having Debian be an OS+apps and have SPI found a *new*
association for the distribution of free *data*? The data can even use
.deb format, but Debian/doc is definitely the wrong place for
religious/political/etc stuff. IMHO!
Ciao,
Federico
--
Federico Di Gregorio [http://www.bolinando.com/fog] {Friend of Penguins}
Debian GNU/Linux Developer & Italian Press Contact[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Try the Joy of TeX [http://www.tug.org]
-- brought to you by One Line Spam
Censoring :) (was: Re: anarchism_7.7-1.deb)
*** Please _don't_Cc:_ me when following up to the list *** Sorry for responding late, had a mail hickup on sunday :( Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...] > it's irrelevant whether other debian developers or users agree with me > or disagree with me about the relative utility of these two packages. > by not censoring packages, by refusing to censor packages, we create > a distribution which is good and useful for everyone - not just those > whose needs are the same as the censors. some find the bible package > useful and i don't begrudge them that - if it makes debian more useful > to them then it is a good thing that it is included. > > we should not be censoring, we should not be saying "the bible is good > but the koran or bhagavid gita or even the anarchist faq is worthless". > or vice-versa. Is it really censoring to keep all non-technical packages out of main? I don't say don't package it nor don't make it available. > if something is free and someone does the work to package it then we > accept it in the distribution. There should be one for the main distribution. Assume I want to go into the CD business providing support for packages in the main dist. No major problem with most of the packages, but I am not willing to support packages with philosophical, political or religious contents. The way it is, I can't say "Support for all of Debian's main dist". My point is, should there be subjective stuff in the main dist? CU Siggy
