Bug#804228: ITP: tryton-modules-sale-complaint -- Sale Complaint Module for the Tryton Application Platform
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Debian Tryton Maintainers * Package name: tryton-modules-sale-complaint Version : 3.8.0 Upstream Author : Tryton project (www.tryton.org) * URL : http://downloads.tryton.org/3.8/ * License : GPL-3+ Programming Lang: Python Description : Tryton Application Platform (Sale Complaint Module) Tryton is a high-level general purpose application platform. It is the base of a complete business solution as well as a comprehensive health and hospital information system (GNUHealth). . This module handles customer complaints about a sale or an invoice and provides actions that can be taken to solve the complaint. This package is another base module published by the Tryton project. pgp2remTzuvdn.pgp Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP
Re: Debian and the desktop (was: Re: Complaint about #debian operator)
also sprach Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.12.12.1405 +0100]: > I don't understand why for Etch, if a user chooses "Desktop" during > tasksel, they shouldn't get the just works[tm] experience. Yeah, and let's draw from the work by the Ubuntu guys, rather than doing it a different way! > Ubuntu's excellence shouldn't be an excuse to sit back and not > make our Desktop the best possible. Very well put. -- Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list! .''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' :proud Debian developer and author: http://debiansystem.info `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP (sub)keys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! it's as bad as you think, and they are out to get you. signature.asc Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)
Debian and the desktop (was: Re: Complaint about #debian operator)
(Dropping Josh and moving to -devel, as this is discussion is going elsewhere) On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 01:59:05PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: > However, some users just want a computer that works (the "plain > users"). They don't want to have to learn too much about Linux or > Debian, they just want to get work done. I don't understand why for Etch, if a user chooses "Desktop" during tasksel, they shouldn't get the just works[tm] experience. This might take some effort, and perhaps some more tuning than just a bunch of packages getting installed, but I think there is still time left to make Etch rock on the desktop. Hey, even Sarge seems pretty much good enough for a lot of users already. > Let them use Ubuntu. Ubuntu's excellence shouldn't be an excuse to sit back and not make our Desktop the best possible. cheers, Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Complaint about #debian operator
* Erinn Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005:12:11 19:43 -0500]: [...] Oops, this was meant for -project. Apologies for the noise. -- off the chain like a rebellious guanine nucleotide -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Complaint about #debian operator
* Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005:12:11 16:32 -0800]: > On Saturday 10 December 2005 12:07 pm, Josh Rehman wrote: > > > As for being warned, I was told that because my discussion was about > > ubuntu I should stop. Because I felt my discussion was not about > > ubuntu, I did not feel that I should have to stop. > > So you deliberately show newbie arrogance, get called on it, then complain? > Dude, you got what you deserved, now you're just embarrassing yourself with > how much you and most 13 year olds on AOL have in common. Paul, While it was kind of you to take time out of your busy schedule to berate Josh (I mean, I know -user needs a lot of attention from you...) could you please drop it? And FYI everyone else: Paul is not, to my knowledge, a regular in #debian, lest you be afraid this kind of behavior is tolerated in there. :) -- off the chain like a rebellious guanine nucleotide -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Complaint
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 03:58:21PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote: > On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 12:37:34AM +1100, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project > Leader wrote: > > > > - As http://buildd.debian.org/stats/graph-week-big.png shows, there > > > are some archs already have a working wanna-build access since days, > > > namely mips, mipsel and powerpc. > > > I really feel discriminated by this situation. > > And it's clearly an evil plot against you/m68k as can be seen in the > > graph above. > > Oh, great... I wouldn´t have expected that getting polemic is a necessary to > become DPL... :-// Yeah; thankfully we don't have to put up with that sort of thing since Branden Robinson wasn't elected DPL[1]. [1] If you need this sentence explained to you, please email me privately. :) -- G. Branden Robinson|There is no housing shortage in Debian GNU/Linux |Lincoln today -- just a rumor that [EMAIL PROTECTED] |is put about by people who have http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |nowhere to live.-- G. L. Murfin signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Complaint
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 11:03:01AM -0500, Kyle McMartin wrote: > On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 01:20:15PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote: > > I get the impression that there is some sort of a "Debian clan" that > > controls some important positions of the Debian project and that is > > protecting itself from being influence by the outside. This is my personal > > THERE IS NO CABAL! Only people who show only contempt of their fellow debian devels. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: Complaint
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 12:37:34AM +1100, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader wrote: > * Ingo Juergensmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-12-14 13:20]: > > - As http://buildd.debian.org/stats/graph-week-big.png shows, there > > are some archs already have a working wanna-build access since days, > > namely mips, mipsel and powerpc. > > > I really feel discriminated by this situation. > > And it's clearly an evil plot against you/m68k as can be seen in the > graph above. If I look at it, I see that most buildds are not > working, with some exceptions. A, ok, so the non acceptance of my new powerpc packages is an evil plot to hinder the work on non pmac ppc support by debian :))) Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: Complaint
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 01:20:15PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote: > This is an official complaint about the current buildd situation. > > The situation: > > - Wouter Verhelst wrote on Tue, December 9, 2003 18:40 to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > and the m68k porters list at [EMAIL PROTECTED] to get information about > the process of getting wanna-build access back. > > - James Troup wrote then (as a reply I think) on Thu, December 11, 2003 > 19:34 a mail to m68k-build list to get a status about the m68k buildd > machines (new ssh key, kernel info, etc.). He then got answers he asked for. > > - As http://buildd.debian.org/stats/graph-week-big.png shows, there are some > archs already have a working wanna-build access since days, namely mips, > mipsel and powerpc. > > > I really feel discriminated by this situation. > It seems as if the archs that are managed by Ryan Murray are preferred in > their restoring process whereas others doesn´t even get a status update when > they don´t ask for information and even then, nothing really happens for > days. > > I get the impression that there is some sort of a "Debian clan" that > controls some important positions of the Debian project and that is > protecting itself from being influence by the outside. This is my personal > and subjective impression, although I know of other people who are sharing > that impressions (in whole or in part). > I do hope that this is wrong. > But I think that a better and more open way of communication between some > Debian admins and users in a polite way would help. > > It´s simply impolite and embarrassing when you contact a person, who´s > administrating some service, and you get *NO* reaction from that person. It is not impolite, it is rude. And also a hinderance to the proper continued work of debian. > Sure, people can be overloaded with work, being too busy to answer > immediatedly, but when this extends to a longer time or is the default Hell, when they have time to discuss the issue with third parties, then they also assuredly have time to send an explanatory mail to the concerned maintainer. > behaviour they should consider to share his workload with other persons that > would like to help. But when they refuses that help, something is seriously > wrong and should be solved. > > This is not intended to be a flame or personal insult to anyone, but to be a > complaint, because I´m really unsatisfied with the current (non-)information > politic and the current buildd situation. Well, me to, i have a compliant. I uploaded a new powerpc kernel package, with many new binary packages, which allowed to boot on chrp, chrp-rs6k and prep, not only on pmac hardware, and it has been sitting in limbo for 5 or 6 weeks now. Notice that i am the powerpc kernel maintainer, but don't own a pmac, but only a machine of chrp lineage. I have gotten no response to why my package was still hold up in the NEW queue (for at least 2-3 weeks prior to the intrusion, so the intrusion is no excuse), altough i know elmo commented to joeyh about my package split negatively. I thus wrote a explanatory mail to ftp-master, but got no response, also later other members of the d-i powerpc team wrote to ftp-masters, but got no response, and i personnally wrote to aj, in response to a letter concerning the release schedule, and informed him that unless the ftp-master unblock the powerpc kernel package, there is no way the powerpc arch can be ready for release, but got no reply, and later, when i meet aj on irc, he denied having had any knowledge of these mails i sent to him, which makes me believe that ftp-masters forward all the incoming mail to /dev/null or something such. And then, when the local root exploit was discovered, i was expected to let everything fall, and to have a fix and upload a powerpc kernel for stable, without much advance warning, which i did. I fear that the above will be the same. Months lost in passive boycott of the ftp-masters, and then it will be expected of me that i forgot everything, and pass all my time fixing what needs fixing a few days before the release or something such. And worse, because of this lousy behavior of the ftp-masters, i am not able to fix the local root exploit in the sid kernel, since they will anyway not be accepted in the archive if i upload them. So this inadmissible behavior is not only causing delay, but is also the cause of a security menace in debian. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: Complaint
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 10:00:22AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > Sure, people can be overloaded with work, being too busy to answer > > immediatedly, but when this extends to a longer time or is the default > Hell, when they have time to discuss the issue with third parties, then > they also assuredly have time to send an explanatory mail to the > concerned maintainer. Well, what does it sound like to you when that´s not done? ;) > And then, when the local root exploit was discovered, i was expected to > let everything fall, and to have a fix and upload a powerpc kernel for > stable, without much advance warning, which i did. I fear that the above > will be the same. Months lost in passive boycott of the ftp-masters, and > then it will be expected of me that i forgot everything, and pass all my > time fixing what needs fixing a few days before the release or something > such. Yeah, funny situation, eh? When you want something they have no time, are busy or just ignore you. When they want something from you, you have to answer quick, polite and immediatedly. > And worse, because of this lousy behavior of the ftp-masters, i am not > able to fix the local root exploit in the sid kernel, since they will > anyway not be accepted in the archive if i upload them. So this > inadmissible behavior is not only causing delay, but is also the cause > of a security menace in debian. Maybe the next compromise (on ppc then) will ring the bells on them? ;) -- Ciao... // Ingo \X/
Re: Complaint
Ryan Murray said: > On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 01:20:15PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote: >> - James Troup wrote then (as a reply I think) on Thu, December 11, 2003 >> 19:34 a mail to m68k-build list to get a status about the m68k buildd >> machines (new ssh key, kernel info, etc.). He then got answers he asked for. > One person replied directly to me as was asked in the mail, others > replied to the m68k-build list. I was waiting for all of the > responses before I started, and didn't check the list right away. The mail said: ! For buildds, we're changing how that's handled on auric. For now, ! please send Ryan and me the following info: I don't want to nitpick, but the original mail doesn't imply for me sending you both a *private* mail. You're both subscribed to the list and have asked on the list. So, it's just obvious to answer via the list. Furthermore it's quite common for m68k-build to answer with hitting the "g" key for a group reply in mutt, which will result in a mail to the list and in a private mail. Therefore I'm quite sure that James got more private answers than you, because he was the author of the mail. Would you have contacted us directly on your own, I'm sure you would have received all mails as well as a private copy
Re: Complaint
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 01:20:15PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote: > - James Troup wrote then (as a reply I think) on Thu, December 11, 2003 > 19:34 a mail to m68k-build list to get a status about the m68k buildd > machines (new ssh key, kernel info, etc.). He then got answers he asked for. One person replied directly to me as was asked in the mail, others replied to the m68k-build list. I was waiting for all of the responses before I started, and didn't check the list right away. > - As http://buildd.debian.org/stats/graph-week-big.png shows, there are some > archs already have a working wanna-build access since days, namely mips, > mipsel and powerpc. Yes, these are the ones I was testing the new setup with. I'm sorry if you feel that this testing was some form of discrimination -- it's not. I'm sorry for the delay in adding the keys to the new system as I actually spent most of the weekend away from computers as a break. -- Ryan Murray, Debian Developer ([EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]) The opinions expressed here are my own. pgpQecpeVK33H.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Complaint
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 01:07:15AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > Unless you are the local administrator of one of the build daemons, I > > doubt you'd have seen any of his attempts at coordination. > He is, and hasn't seen any such attempt. Nor have I, being the DD > responsible for the buildd he's the local admin of. Well, this shows one funny thing at least: some people start to argue (just not to say "flame") even when they are knowing nothing about me, who I am, what I´m doing or my knowledge at all. > (Not that I agree with Ingo that there's reason for complaints -at > least, not yet- but that's a different matter entirely) Yeah, I know that you´re a little more patient than me, but from the response I got and the talks I´ve had after that post, I can state that I can´t completely wrong with my complaint because I got quite as many "you´re right, go ahead!" opinions as negative ones publicly in here. It´s even worse than I thought. Some DDs are thinking of retirement because of these reasons (and others of course). And some NMs being in the queue to become a DD are actually fearing negative effects on their application when they would start to say their opinion publicly. :-( But fear and angst are things that a dictorship is using to suppress their people. Did I missed a turn around of Debian from being an open minded and democratic effort to become some sort of dictatorshipment? Being the only one who complains in public doesn´t mean that I´m wrong. It shows only that noone else wants to have problems with the DAM, ftp-masters, etc. or have already given up (frustrated). -- Ciao... // Ingo \X/
Re: Complaint
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 01:07:15AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 11:19:47AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 05:55:30PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote: > > > > > > Try to coordinate? When there would have been a try to cooperate by > > > him, I wouldn´t complain... but I do complain. > > > > Unless you are the local administrator of one of the build daemons, I > > doubt you'd have seen any of his attempts at coordination. > > He is, and hasn't seen any such attempt. Nor have I, being the DD > responsible for the buildd he's the local admin of. > > (Not that I agree with Ingo that there's reason for complaints -at > least, not yet- but that's a different matter entirely) Then the portion of the paragraph which you decided not to quote would apply. I suggest you go read it again. -- Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,''`. Debian GNU/KLNetBSD(i386) porter : :' : `. `' `- pgpijJgqHQSXY.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Complaint
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 11:19:47AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: > On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 05:55:30PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 09:05:39AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: > > > Thus, he probably has little choice, in some cases, but to depend on > > > others > > > to deal with some of hte work, and try to coordinate with them (some of > > > > Try to coordinate? When there would have been a try to cooperate by him, I > > wouldn´t complain... but I do complain. > > Unless you are the local administrator of one of the build daemons, I > doubt you'd have seen any of his attempts at coordination. He is, and hasn't seen any such attempt. Nor have I, being the DD responsible for the buildd he's the local admin of. (Not that I agree with Ingo that there's reason for complaints -at least, not yet- but that's a different matter entirely) -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org "Stop breathing down my neck." "My breathing is merely a simulation." "So is my neck, stop it anyway!" -- Voyager's EMH versus the Prometheus' EMH, stardate 51462. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Complaint
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 09:21:02PM +0100, Julian Mehnle wrote: > So can we please end this flamewar before it really starts off? Why? Better give arguments than flames. So far I have not read any good argument why there is no good communication between the people that are working on recovering services and the people that need those services, f.e. the buildd folks. I can´t let the argument of "only 3 workdays" be valid. When Ryan has no time, than he have let him asked why he don´t have that time? One reason might be that he is responsible as a single person for all the buildds for three archs. Now remember the last months "MIPS port backlog, autobuilder machines and some arrogance" thread. It was stated during the discussion back then, that it should be easier to manage the buildds when only one person does it. Of course this will mean more workload for that person, regardless of the fact that m68k has proven that a buildd community is quite responsive and effective. And now the same people are stating that this poor person has no time to give some update information? Is it just me who finds that odd? -- Ciao... // Ingo \X/
Re: Complaint
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 08:29:35PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote: > True, if you try to get rid of the current volunteers, then publicly > criticising them is somewhat productive. This usually slows things > down, though, and I think that Ingo's point is that things are not > moving fast enough. Not quite... It´s about "When it´s not fast enough, it should be explained to the people that are involved, why it lasts so long." When there are reasons why not all archs are building packages again, the reasons should be explained to the porters, maybe asking in help to solve the problems faster than dealing with them on your own. As you can see in the mentioned graphs, first one arch started to work again and shortly after there were three archs. So, it seems to me that the problems are solved and the way of solving is known. So why isn´t that communicated to the other buildd people? It´s not that bad to wait, but it´s bad waiting without any information for how long you have to wait. I think I made my point clear? When you don´t communicate to the people that rely on your work, they start asking somewhen you. But when you are saying them "Hey, there is this and that problem and it will be possibly solved until next Wednesday...", people have all the info they need and don´t start to distrub you with questions. -- Ciao... // Ingo \X/
Re: Complaint
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 01:20:15PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote: > The situation: > > - Wouter Verhelst wrote on Tue, December 9, 2003 18:40 to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > and the m68k porters list at [EMAIL PROTECTED] to get information about > the process of getting wanna-build access back. > > - James Troup wrote then (as a reply I think) on Thu, December 11, 2003 > 19:34 a mail to m68k-build list to get a status about the m68k buildd > machines (new ssh key, kernel info, etc.). He then got answers he asked for. The developer machines suffer the same problems. They don't have access to the password db on newsamosa and no information about that was published. > I get the impression that there is some sort of a "Debian clan" that > controls some important positions of the Debian project and that is > protecting itself from being influence by the outside. This is my personal > and subjective impression, although I know of other people who are sharing > that impressions (in whole or in part). - Rayn Murray (buildd, -admin, ftp-master) - Martin Schulze (listmaster, -admin, -security) - James Troup (-admin, ftp-master, keyring) Bastian -- "Get back to your stations!" "We're beaming down to the planet, sir." -- Kirk and Mr. Leslie, "This Side of Paradise", stardate 3417.3 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
RE: Complaint
Ingo Juergensmann wrote: > Why people tend to become polemic when they have no arguments left? Very good question. Ingo Juergensmann wrote: > Oh, great... I wouldnÂt have expected that getting polemic is a > necessary to become DPL... :-// So can we please end this flamewar before it really starts off?
Re: Complaint
Ingo Juergensmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I already contacted Ryan for a different issue and got no response at all. > Go and figure out my motivation to ask him again. People do have different response times regarding different things. I may leave trivial questions lying in my mailbox for weeks whereas I try to respond to important things immediately. > Oh, and I´m not a volunteer? Geeez... then tell me please where I can get my > money for my work for Debian! I'm not criticising you, I'm just saying that your point is not valid, IMO. > When someone is making a pointless contribution to this discussion, then > it´s you. Fortunately we don't have to worry about each other's mails. -- * Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P) * * PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer *
Re: Complaint
Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> argument (publicly critising volunteers who are busy is not >> productive, even if you point is otherwise valid). > > The hell it isn't. True, if you try to get rid of the current volunteers, then publicly criticising them is somewhat productive. This usually slows things down, though, and I think that Ingo's point is that things are not moving fast enough. -- * Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P) * * PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer *
Re: Complaint
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 11:19:47AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: > > Well, compromise the machine of some DDs and you have the same. Compromising > > machines opens are serious security issue regardless for what the machine is > > used. > Yes. But debian-admin is not responsible for those machines; therefore, > they are irrelevant to the discussion of "why hasn't debian-admin fixed > ". That, and most developer machines tende to have a half dozen > packages, at most, rather than 9000... What makes you think that DSA is responsible for all buildds? > Or maybe it's an evil conspiracy. No, you're right, it must be; there's no > other *possible* explanation... Why people tend to become polemic when they have no arguments left? > > Try to coordinate? When there would have been a try to cooperate by him, I > > wouldn´t complain... but I do complain. > Unless you are the local administrator of one of the build daemons, I > doubt you'd have seen any of his attempts at coordination. Even if you > are, it's quite possible that he simply hasn't gotton that far down the > list yet. (Though I'd consider it a more significant failure, given that > he presumably should be sending some form of "let me know when you can be > available if we need it" emails). So, you obviously have no clue that I´m running a buildd, but you´re trying to comment on stuff you don´t know the stories behind? Funny... > > And as pointed out by me, It´s more than 1 business day. > Okay. So it's 3. That's still ludicrously good to have ANYTHING like the > amount of progress we've seen, given Debian's history. And, frankly, if > you've ever had to try to recover a compromised remote box which had stuff > on it that you couldn't just wipe out, I would expect you to have some > understanding of how good it is to manage to get as many buildds done as > quickly as has happened. And I can tell you that the process could have been faster. Of course it´s lot of work for a single person to manage several machines at the same time. > In other words, the only two explanations I can see are either that you > have no real concept of what you're discussing, or that you're being > deliberately obtuse about the lot of it. Don´t always speak with the man in the mirror. -- Ciao... // Ingo \X/
Re: Complaint
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 06:57:46PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> > Looking at the graphs ti seems obvious that the way how to get buildds
> > running again is known for about 5 days now.
> You're complaining about a delay of five days in a project run by
> volunteers and which has been hit very severly by a break-in? I would
> start complaining about missing services after about two months (or
> maybe after two weeks without no visible activity)...
No, I don´t complain about the delay but about the communication.
> I assume that you are in a position to help DSAs and Ryan regarding
> m68k-buildd. Have you asked this information directly from them ("Hi,
> what can I do to make your job easier regarding m68k-buildd?")? If
> not, what makes you think that volunteers work better if you complain
> publicly?
I already contacted Ryan for a different issue and got no response at all
Re: Complaint
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 05:55:30PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote: > On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 09:05:39AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: > > > Remember, these machines are, behind the archives, perhaps the most > > implicity trusted machines in the entire project. Compromise the archives, > > and you can silently sprinkle trojans throughout any package on any port. > > Compromise a buildd, and you can silently sprinkle trojans throughout any > > newly compiled package on one port. > > Well, compromise the machine of some DDs and you have the same. Compromising > machines opens are serious security issue regardless for what the machine is > used. Yes. But debian-admin is not responsible for those machines; therefore, they are irrelevant to the discussion of "why hasn't debian-admin fixed ". That, and most developer machines tende to have a half dozen packages, at most, rather than 9000... > > On the other hand, blowing away a machine without losing the *valuble* data > > on it, then manually checking that data before it goes onto anything new, > > along with a complete reinstall, can be a pretty non-trivial task, and one > > that often requires console access - which, in itself, may be a non-trivial > > task for a number of these machines. > > You don´t need to tell me that. I´m doing my work mainly remotely, sometimes > with hundreds or thousands of km between the machine and me, including > kernel updates and remote installations. Then, if you'll pardon me, you appear to be being deliberately obtuse. > > Why should it be easier to get the machines Ryan works with regularly > > running again? Probably because he knows how to arrange any required > > access, where there might be data that needs to be copied/inspected, what > > that data might be, and what it SHOULD look like, along with probably > > having installed the machines in question at least once, and thus being > > familiar with any quirks they may have. Oh, and he can probably GET to > > them, which may well be physically impossible for him with others. > > No, I doubt that Ryan travelled to Germany to get the buildds up again. Probably not. Maybe he just happened to know where all the data was, pulled it off, and got ahold of the remote admin who happened to have the time to spare, right then. Or maybe it's an evil conspiracy. No, you're right, it must be; there's no other *possible* explanation... > > Thus, he probably has little choice, in some cases, but to depend on others > > to deal with some of hte work, and try to coordinate with them (some of > > Try to coordinate? When there would have been a try to cooperate by him, I > wouldn´t complain... but I do complain. Unless you are the local administrator of one of the build daemons, I doubt you'd have seen any of his attempts at coordination. Even if you are, it's quite possible that he simply hasn't gotton that far down the list yet. (Though I'd consider it a more significant failure, given that he presumably should be sending some form of "let me know when you can be available if we need it" emails). > > whom may be as much as 10 hours offset from him, which I can tell you > > from experience coordinating things between the US and the "Far East", > > is no small handicap). And, as has been pointed out to you, it has been > > *one* business day since the 12th, assuming that message went out at the > > beginning of the 12th and not the end. > > And as pointed out by me, It´s more than 1 business day. Okay. So it's 3. That's still ludicrously good to have ANYTHING like the amount of progress we've seen, given Debian's history. And, frankly, if you've ever had to try to recover a compromised remote box which had stuff on it that you couldn't just wipe out, I would expect you to have some understanding of how good it is to manage to get as many buildds done as quickly as has happened. In other words, the only two explanations I can see are either that you have no real concept of what you're discussing, or that you're being deliberately obtuse about the lot of it. Debian may have a lot of issues at times. I'd be one of the last to deny it. But given what a good job HAS been done, this time, continuing to complain while it's ongoing is likely to get you dumped into the bucket of "some people will complain if it takes 10 minutes, instead of 5, when it should take 5 days". You certainly haven't convinced me this complaint deserves to be put anywhere else, yet. -- Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,''`. Debian GNU/KLNetBSD(i386) porter : :' : `. `' `- pgpW1sL5HHbJ9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Complaint
> argument (publicly critising volunteers who are busy is not > productive, even if you point is otherwise valid). The hell it isn't.
Re: Complaint
Ingo Juergensmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Looking at the graphs ti seems obvious that the way how to get buildds
> running again is known for about 5 days now.
You're complaining about a delay of five days in a project run by
volunteers and which has been hit very severly by a break-in? I would
start complaining about missing services after about two months (or
maybe after two weeks without no visible activity)...
> Granted. It´s easier to find a solution for one buildd.
> But the solution is there for 5 days now. It is known to be working and
> still there is no information yet, what is changed nor what other archs can
> do to speed up the restore of their buildds.
I assume that you are in a position to help DSAs and Ryan regarding
m68k-buildd. Have you asked this information directly from them ("Hi,
what can I do to make your job easier regarding m68k-buildd?")? If
not, what makes you think that volunteers work better if you complain
publicly?
> Yes. In both cases the informationwas given nearly instantly - and nothing
> happened yet.
So you think that the response time of DSAs should be one working day
or three days including holidays? Do you know that the DSAs are not
paid for 24/7 support?
>> Sorry, I just cannot take your complaint seriously.
> That´s sad - for you, not for me, that you´re taking complains not serious
> although there are reasons for doing so. :-(
I have to agree with Martin. If you have too much time in your hands
go and fix some RC bugs. If you are busy doing other work, fine.
> So, you´re telling that only one person can fix things?
If you feel that there should be more people in the DSA group, go
ahead and suggest people who are both willing to take the job and
qualified enough to be allowed.
> You excuse James as being busy with more important things and denying the
> same for me? How can you know that I don´t have other important things to do
You seem to have enough free time to spend in a basically pointless
argument (publicly critising volunteers who are busy is not
productive, even if you point is otherwise valid).
> How can I help to fix situation when I´m not allowed to? Or even don´t get
You cannot. You can, however, try to put yourself into a position
where you can help in the future. The choice is yours.
--
* Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P) *
* PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer *
Re: Complaint
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 09:05:39AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: > Remember, these machines are, behind the archives, perhaps the most > implicity trusted machines in the entire project. Compromise the archives, > and you can silently sprinkle trojans throughout any package on any port. > Compromise a buildd, and you can silently sprinkle trojans throughout any > newly compiled package on one port. Well, compromise the machine of some DDs and you have the same. Compromising machines opens are serious security issue regardless for what the machine is used. > On the other hand, blowing away a machine without losing the *valuble* data > on it, then manually checking that data before it goes onto anything new, > along with a complete reinstall, can be a pretty non-trivial task, and one > that often requires console access - which, in itself, may be a non-trivial > task for a number of these machines. You don´t need to tell me that. I´m doing my work mainly remotely, sometimes with hundreds or thousands of km between the machine and me, including kernel updates and remote installations. > Why should it be easier to get the machines Ryan works with regularly > running again? Probably because he knows how to arrange any required > access, where there might be data that needs to be copied/inspected, what > that data might be, and what it SHOULD look like, along with probably > having installed the machines in question at least once, and thus being > familiar with any quirks they may have. Oh, and he can probably GET to > them, which may well be physically impossible for him with others. No, I doubt that Ryan travelled to Germany to get the buildds up again. > Thus, he probably has little choice, in some cases, but to depend on others > to deal with some of hte work, and try to coordinate with them (some of Try to coordinate? When there would have been a try to cooperate by him, I wouldn´t complain... but I do complain. > whom may be as much as 10 hours offset from him, which I can tell you > from experience coordinating things between the US and the "Far East", > is no small handicap). And, as has been pointed out to you, it has been > *one* business day since the 12th, assuming that message went out at the > beginning of the 12th and not the end. And as pointed out by me, It´s more than 1 business day. -- Ciao... // Ingo \X/
Re: Complaint
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 03:58:21PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote: > > Looking at the graphs ti seems obvious that the way how to get buildds > running again is known for about 5 days now. > And 5 days are not enough time to inform other archs or give them access as > well? > Why should it be easier to get the buildds on mips(sel) and powerpc running > than to tell others how to do the same? Please give explanation. > AFAIK the source of buildd is the same for all archs. So, I can´t see any > difference in setting up the buildd for other archs than setting it up for > the above mentioned archs. > And when the source should be different now, why haven´t the other archs be > informed to build a new buildd from CVS? I would hazard a (fairly strong) guess that the source code involved in running the buildds has not changed appreciably. That isn't what has to be done, to restore a buildd to a trustable status. Remember, these machines are, behind the archives, perhaps the most implicity trusted machines in the entire project. Compromise the archives, and you can silently sprinkle trojans throughout any package on any port. Compromise a buildd, and you can silently sprinkle trojans throughout any newly compiled package on one port. Clearing out and restarting the buildd itself probably takes a nearly negligible amount of time - at least, that's been my experience, when experimenting with the entire buildd/wanna-build setup, for the NetBSD porting work, to figure out which things were actually required, and which were just nice. On the other hand, blowing away a machine without losing the *valuble* data on it, then manually checking that data before it goes onto anything new, along with a complete reinstall, can be a pretty non-trivial task, and one that often requires console access - which, in itself, may be a non-trivial task for a number of these machines. Why should it be easier to get the machines Ryan works with regularly running again? Probably because he knows how to arrange any required access, where there might be data that needs to be copied/inspected, what that data might be, and what it SHOULD look like, along with probably having installed the machines in question at least once, and thus being familiar with any quirks they may have. Oh, and he can probably GET to them, which may well be physically impossible for him with others. Thus, he probably has little choice, in some cases, but to depend on others to deal with some of hte work, and try to coordinate with them (some of whom may be as much as 10 hours offset from him, which I can tell you from experience coordinating things between the US and the "Far East", is no small handicap). And, as has been pointed out to you, it has been *one* business day since the 12th, assuming that message went out at the beginning of the 12th and not the end. Three weeks is a long time to go without a reply. Three days is not. Even outside of Debian, which I will cheerfully admit has (and often rail about having) some communication issues, three days just isn't a crisis. Particularly not when dealing with things that *paid professionals* can, at times, take a week or more doing, when being paid 8 hours a day. Let's save it for the really egregious times. So far, the entire recovery has been suprisingly *well* communicated, compared to a lot of points in Debian's history. -- Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,''`. Debian GNU/TBD**BSD(i386) porter : :' : `. `' `- pgp3AkxaxDKsb.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Complaint
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 01:20:15PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote: > I get the impression that there is some sort of a "Debian clan" that > controls some important positions of the Debian project and that is > protecting itself from being influence by the outside. This is my personal THERE IS NO CABAL! -- Kyle McMartin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 1024D/191FCD8A - 331A 9468 C04D 3A76 5C56 BA68 7EB7 92DF 191F CD8A 2048R/F515317D - 68 A9 0D 28 1B DF 8D 42 0F CC AF 98 A8 D5 A4 04
Re: Complaint
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 12:37:34AM +1100, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader wrote: > > - As http://buildd.debian.org/stats/graph-week-big.png shows, there > > are some archs already have a working wanna-build access since days, > > namely mips, mipsel and powerpc. > > I really feel discriminated by this situation. > And it's clearly an evil plot against you/m68k as can be seen in the > graph above. Oh, great... I wouldn´t have expected that getting polemic is a necessary to become DPL... :-// > If I look at it, I see that most buildds are not > working, with some exceptions. That I´m complaining doesn´t necessarily mean that other archs/persons don´t feel the same. It just means that the others are just not complaining. > > It seems as if the archs that are managed by Ryan Murray are > > preferred in their restoring process > This might be related to the fact that Ryan is responsible for the > whole buildd infrastructure. Clearly it must be easier to get his > buildds running, then others, as the latter involves coordination with > others, etc. Looking at the graphs ti seems obvious that the way how to get buildds running again is known for about 5 days now. And 5 days are not enough time to inform other archs or give them access as well? Why should it be easier to get the buildds on mips(sel) and powerpc running than to tell others how to do the same? Please give explanation. AFAIK the source of buildd is the same for all archs. So, I can´t see any difference in setting up the buildd for other archs than setting it up for the above mentioned archs. And when the source should be different now, why haven´t the other archs be informed to build a new buildd from CVS? > And please remember that this is not a competition > between e.g. mips and m68k. Why do you suppose something that wasn´t included in my original post? That´s your personal assumption and not mine. > We're trying to restore our services, and > obviously the crucial or easy ones come first. You have to start with > on buildd, and it's fairly obvious to start with the one you're in > control of. Granted. It´s easier to find a solution for one buildd. But the solution is there for 5 days now. It is known to be working and still there is no information yet, what is changed nor what other archs can do to speed up the restore of their buildds. > > whereas others doesn´t even get a status update when > Mails like > http://mailman.nocrew.org/pipermail/m68k-build/2003-November/007792.html > or > http://mailman.nocrew.org/pipermail/m68k-build/2003-December/007932.html > show that updates are being made, or information being asked for > needed for the restoration. Yes. In both cases the informationwas given nearly instantly - and nothing happened yet. When I tell someone "Give me some information to get the service working again" that person can expect that when he is giving the information to me, the service will be available again to him. So, when requesting new ssh keys from me make me believe that I´ll get access to w-b back as soon as I give the needed information, I can expect that this will happen asap. It didn´t happen so far. > > - James Troup wrote then (as a reply I think) on Thu, December 11, > > 2003 19:34 a mail to m68k-build list to get a status about the m68k > > buildd machines (new ssh key, kernel info, etc.). He then got > > answers he asked for. > So basically your complaint is that after 3 days (including the > weekend, so effectively 1 business day) it's not fixed yet. No. My complaint is that there is no information *what* is happening nor *when* it will happen, whereas other archs are already working for *days*. > Sorry, I just cannot take your complaint seriously. That´s sad - for you, not for me, that you´re taking complains not serious although there are reasons for doing so. :-( > I'm not saying that > everything's perfect, but I know that debian-admin is working as hard > as they can. So do I. I´m really satisfied and happy about the work the admin team did to get services back shortly after the compromise. But the complaint is not only about the non-working services but as well about the bad way of communication. For example James could have mentioned in his mails why he needs these information and when the service will be back. "Please give me your new ssh keys, so we can setup access again within two days." instead of "Please give me your new ssh keys." > I also know that James for example fixed nm.d.o on > Friday and worked on a very important issue which is more important > than any buildd (or than nm.d.o). And he's away for the weekend. Of So, you´re telling that only one person can fix things? Thank you to agree with my opinion. :-> > c
Re: Complaint
* Ingo Juergensmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-12-14 13:20]: > - As http://buildd.debian.org/stats/graph-week-big.png shows, there > are some archs already have a working wanna-build access since days, > namely mips, mipsel and powerpc. > I really feel discriminated by this situation. And it's clearly an evil plot against you/m68k as can be seen in the graph above. If I look at it, I see that most buildds are not working, with some exceptions. > It seems as if the archs that are managed by Ryan Murray are > preferred in their restoring process This might be related to the fact that Ryan is responsible for the whole buildd infrastructure. Clearly it must be easier to get his buildds running, then others, as the latter involves coordination with others, etc. And please remember that this is not a competition between e.g. mips and m68k. We're trying to restore our services, and obviously the crucial or easy ones come first. You have to start with on buildd, and it's fairly obvious to start with the one you're in control of. > whereas others doesn´t even get a status update when Mails like http://mailman.nocrew.org/pipermail/m68k-build/2003-November/007792.html or http://mailman.nocrew.org/pipermail/m68k-build/2003-December/007932.html show that updates are being made, or information being asked for needed for the restoration. > - James Troup wrote then (as a reply I think) on Thu, December 11, > 2003 19:34 a mail to m68k-build list to get a status about the m68k > buildd machines (new ssh key, kernel info, etc.). He then got > answers he asked for. So basically your complaint is that after 3 days (including the weekend, so effectively 1 business day) it's not fixed yet. Sorry, I just cannot take your complaint seriously. I'm not saying that everything's perfect, but I know that debian-admin is working as hard as they can. I also know that James for example fixed nm.d.o on Friday and worked on a very important issue which is more important than any buildd (or than nm.d.o). And he's away for the weekend. Of course, I'd like to see all issues fixed instantly; but not having fixed something non-essential after one business day is not that bad, given we have ~700 RC bugs. Why don't you contribute something worthwhile and complain about those people (to them), (or send in patches, hint hint). Yes, it would be nice if more people were working on our buildd infrastructure. Just giving root to every Debian developer so they can fix their issues themselves is not going to work. So we're left with having well respected people doing the work. So, contribute some work, gain respect, and help fix the situation. But with complaints like these, people will just start ignoring you. -- Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Complaint
This is an official complaint about the current buildd situation. The situation: - Wouter Verhelst wrote on Tue, December 9, 2003 18:40 to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and the m68k porters list at [EMAIL PROTECTED] to get information about the process of getting wanna-build access back. - James Troup wrote then (as a reply I think) on Thu, December 11, 2003 19:34 a mail to m68k-build list to get a status about the m68k buildd machines (new ssh key, kernel info, etc.). He then got answers he asked for. - As http://buildd.debian.org/stats/graph-week-big.png shows, there are some archs already have a working wanna-build access since days, namely mips, mipsel and powerpc. I really feel discriminated by this situation. It seems as if the archs that are managed by Ryan Murray are preferred in their restoring process whereas others doesn´t even get a status update when they don´t ask for information and even then, nothing really happens for days. I get the impression that there is some sort of a "Debian clan" that controls some important positions of the Debian project and that is protecting itself from being influence by the outside. This is my personal and subjective impression, although I know of other people who are sharing that impressions (in whole or in part). I do hope that this is wrong. But I think that a better and more open way of communication between some Debian admins and users in a polite way would help. It´s simply impolite and embarrassing when you contact a person, who´s administrating some service, and you get *NO* reaction from that person. Sure, people can be overloaded with work, being too busy to answer immediatedly, but when this extends to a longer time or is the default behaviour they should consider to share his workload with other persons that would like to help. But when they refuses that help, something is seriously wrong and should be solved. This is not intended to be a flame or personal insult to anyone, but to be a complaint, because I´m really unsatisfied with the current (non-)information politic and the current buildd situation. -- Ciao... // Ingo \X/
