Re: Unofficial projects related with Debian.
Enrico Zini wrote: On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 09:55:33PM -0400, David B Harris wrote: http://www.debian.org/devel/, Projects section: * Debian Web Pages [...] * Alioth: Debian GForge Certainly seems that they're listed. The Debian Usability Research seems to be missing: http://deb-usability.alioth.debian.org Fixed. Regards, Joey -- If you come from outside of Finland, you live in wrong country. -- motd of irc.funet.fi Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.
Re: Unofficial projects related with Debian.
On Fri, 23 May 2003, Gustavo Franco wrote: Hi, [1] = Mono for Debian, ipv6 (is it official or unofficial?), ddtp, ... IPv6 is an official subproject founded by Craig Small, even if we host experimental packages outside Debian for various reasons. Thanks Fabio -- Our mission: make IPv6 the default IP protocol We are on a mission from God - Elwood Blues http://www.itojun.org/paper/itojun-nanog-200210-ipv6isp/mgp4.html
Re: Unofficial projects related with Debian.
Fabio Massimo Di Nitto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: IPv6 is an official subproject founded by Craig Small, even if we host experimental packages outside Debian for various reasons. I think that might be way, way too formal for what it is. I'm not too fussed what it is called as it was setup pragmatically for a practical purpose. The problem was with IPv6 was there was no coordination. Someone would make a package or have a technique for IPv6 but noone else knew about it so there was duplication and wastage. I thought this was silly, as did a lot of others but I was also a Debian webmaster (though in the end it didn't matter). So I went to the other webmasters and said I want to put up a page about IPv6 in Debian so there was a rallying point or a start where people could lookup the current status. Jay said fine, but you've got webspace as p.d.o/~csmall/ so stick it there because it is just a lot easier but there should be a link to it from the main Debian website and oh by the way there were these other things and they should have a link too so write up a page with all these Debian bits so we don't have to think too hard when the next one comes along. That's how the IPv6 sub-project started. I'm pleased that despite my lack of effort it has done very well. That is due to other people stepping up and doing things, such as Fabbione. Just like TINC, there are no subprojects, they're just a figment of a developer's Debian webspace and a link off the page on the main site. I'm not going to buy into what they *should* be, but a least you know how IPv6 started. - Craig I'm not on debian-devel, so please CC me. -- Craig Small VK2XLZ GnuPG:1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE 95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5 Eye-Net Consulting http://www.enc.com.au/[EMAIL PROTECTED] MIEEE [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian developer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Unofficial projects related with Debian.
On Sun, 25 May 2003, Craig Small wrote: Fabio Massimo Di Nitto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: IPv6 is an official subproject founded by Craig Small, even if we host experimental packages outside Debian for various reasons. I think that might be way, way too formal for what it is. I'm not too fussed what it is called as it was setup pragmatically for a practical purpose. Probably you are right that is way too formal. I just consider it as such due to the high response we got from the entire community. We are up to 50 pkgs in sid, 1.2GB of archive (including testing, woody and woody backports), mirrored by 15 different ISP's (most of them both ipv4 and ipv6). Several developers, official and unofficial, involved. More and more DD started including IPv6 patches, tested by us, directly in main. I considered these value as simptoms of acceptance from the community, but correct me if I am wrong. The problem was with IPv6 was there was no coordination. Someone would make a package or have a technique for IPv6 but noone else knew about it so there was duplication and wastage. These are the same reasons that motivated me to start. The entire IPv6 community made a very good job and it was extremely responsive. As well as the entire infrastructure has been growing a lot in the last year (Also due to the increasing interest in IPv6 all over the world), more pkgs, more mirrors, the stat section was born, irc channel and so on... That's how the IPv6 sub-project started. I'm pleased that despite my lack of effort it has done very well. Actually just the fact that you kept the links updated on www.d.o was quite good, since that page is still the first reference that IPv6 newbie will hit. I'm not going to buy into what they *should* be, but a least you know how IPv6 started. :-) Fabio -- Our mission: make IPv6 the default IP protocol We are on a mission from God - Elwood Blues http://www.itojun.org/paper/itojun-nanog-200210-ipv6isp/mgp4.html
Re: Unofficial projects related with Debian.
Le Fri, May 23, 2003 at 02:22:08PM -0300, Gustavo Franco écrivait: You didn't understand my affirmation.Debian Desktop is on www.debian.org and many others aren't there, for example: Mono for Debian and ipv6. What are the rules to be there? AFAIK, there are no documented rules. The rules are quite simple: is there someone willing to write those pages ? I have this very same problem for DebianEdu, if I want a page on www.debian.org I have to prepare it but I have no time for that. I also don't have any contributor willing to do that so we have to leave with the initial Wiki... Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog -+- http://www.ouaza.com Formation Linux et logiciel libre : http://www.logidee.com Earn money with free software: http://www.geniustrader.org
Re: Unofficial projects related with Debian.
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 09:55:33PM -0400, David B Harris wrote: http://www.debian.org/devel/, Projects section: * Debian Web Pages [...] * Alioth: Debian GForge Certainly seems that they're listed. The Debian Usability Research seems to be missing: http://deb-usability.alioth.debian.org Ciao, Enrico
Re: Unofficial projects related with Debian.
On Sat, 24 May 2003 10:19:38 +0200 Enrico Zini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.debian.org/devel/, Projects section: * Debian Web Pages [...] * Alioth: Debian GForge Certainly seems that they're listed. The Debian Usability Research seems to be missing: http://deb-usability.alioth.debian.org I think that's fairly new, eh? Might be a while before it shows up. (I don't know how anal the webmaster for that page is, but I know I'd give it a while to make sure it was a viable, active effort.) pgp6TA44JuDfw.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Unofficial projects related with Debian.
On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 10:28:19AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: The rules are quite simple: is there someone willing to write those pages ? I have this very same problem for DebianEdu, if I want a page on www.debian.org I have to prepare it but I have no time for that. I also don't have any contributor willing to do that so we have to leave with the initial Wiki... Which is exactly my problem: I'm quite busy already designing and writing debtags and related tools, and I can't dedicate much time and resources in promoting debtags and the other usability stuff I care to bring on. Which is especially bad because: 1) If I don't produce useful software, I miss my goal of increasing the quality of Debian 2) If I fail to promote my software (in the free software sense: create interest around it and his code), I risk being the only one in charge of caring for it 3) The more things I am the only one in charge of caring for, the less new things I can do. Which is a pity, because I have a lot of ideas for new things, and because doing new things from time to time definitely contributes to the fun. Free software in a way introduces the problem of creating sustainable software projects, which is in part obtained with the quality and usefulness of the sotware itself, and in part with the charisma and the ability of the maintainers to attract interest. Which means that a good project can fail not because the software is bad, but because the maintainer has no time, capacitiy or resources to promote it. It's been some time I'm having these thoughts, I'm happy I've finally found an occasion to share them. Ciao, Enrico -- GPG key: 1024D/797EBFAB 2000-12-05 Enrico Zini [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Unofficial projects related with Debian.
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 01:58:31PM -0300, Ben Armstrong wrote: Why Debian Desktop subproject is on official website and many others[1] aren't? You're on crack. http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-desktop/ It's hard to discern useful information when you start out by showing you haven't done the slightest hint of pre-investigation... Reread that. He said Debian Desktop *is* on the official website but others aren't. Ow, the word order completely threw off my vgrep. Apologies -- the crack pipe here is mine. ;( -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness.
Re: Unofficial projects related with Debian.
Em Sat, 24 May 2003 06:11:18 -0400, David B Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] escreveu: On Sat, 24 May 2003 10:19:38 +0200 Enrico Zini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.debian.org/devel/, Projects section: * Debian Web Pages [...] * Alioth: Debian GForge Certainly seems that they're listed. The Debian Usability Research seems to be missing: http://deb-usability.alioth.debian.org I think that's fairly new, eh? Might be a while before it shows up. (I don't know how anal the webmaster for that page is, but I know I'd give it a while to make sure it was a viable, active effort.) I'd instead show it around to help it being a viable, active effort =) []s! -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Gustavo Noronha http://people.debian.org/~kov Debian: http://www.debian.org * http://www.debian-br.org Dúvidas sobre o Debian? Visite o Rau-Tu: http://rautu.cipsga.org.br
Re: Unofficial projects related with Debian.
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 11:58:45AM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote: Why Debian Desktop subproject is on official website and many others[1] aren't? You're on crack. http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-desktop/ It's hard to discern useful information when you start out by showing you haven't done the slightest hint of pre-investigation... -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness.
Re: Unofficial projects related with Debian.
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 11:58:45AM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote: Hi, Why Debian Desktop subproject is on official website and many others[1] aren't? The Debian Desktop is a good initiative, but there are many others that are being excluded from the website.I've some ideas: - Guidelines to Debian subprojects (Do you known what are the official and unofficial subprojects now?); - List the subprojects in two areas of the website: * Developers' corner, to subprojects in initial state; * A new area called: Subprojects, containing full information about the subprojects considered mature. [1] = Mono for Debian, ipv6 (is it official or unofficial?), ddtp, ... I don't think there is any definition for what an official Debian subproject is. And even if there were, whether it's on www.debian.org or not would not be a reliable indicator. I choose to use www.d.o for Debian Jr. because it is convenient for me to keep the pages there. Other subprojects that might be considered official (whatever that means) are hosted elsewhere presumably because it is easier for the subproject leader to do so. Debian Jr. is a personal subproject[0] within Debian. It is my chosen area of focus for Debian, and as such, the only blessing I have had from the Debian project for it is the little parcel of web space I have for the Debian Jr. home page and the mailing list. That being said, there is certainly a difference between projects which fork Debian to make a new distro (i.e. providing own versions of existing Debian packages) vs. projects which add packages of their own (outside Debian) to extend Debian vs. projects which include all of their packages in Debian itself (or at least extend Debian's infrastructure itself, if the project doesn't have any packages of its own). Debian Jr. is of the latter sort. Which of these three kinds of projects are Mono, ipv6, and ddtp? [0] By personal subproject I don't mean to undervalue the contributions others have made. I'm certainly grateful for the input and support I have received from others both inside and outside the Debian project. I mean simply that it was born out of my personal interests, and remains primarily the work of one person: me. So again, I don't know what official means in this context. Ben -- ,-. nSLUGhttp://www.nslug.ns.ca [EMAIL PROTECTED] \`' Debian http://www.debian.org[EMAIL PROTECTED] ` [ gpg 395C F3A4 35D3 D247 1387 2D9E 5A94 F3CA 0B27 13C8 ] [ pgp 7F DA 09 4B BA 2C 0D E0 1B B1 31 ED C6 A9 39 4F ]
Re: Unofficial projects related with Debian.
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 05:51:14PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 11:58:45AM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote: Why Debian Desktop subproject is on official website and many others[1] aren't? You're on crack. http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-desktop/ It's hard to discern useful information when you start out by showing you haven't done the slightest hint of pre-investigation... Reread that. He said Debian Desktop *is* on the official website but others aren't. Ben -- ,-. nSLUGhttp://www.nslug.ns.ca [EMAIL PROTECTED] \`' Debian http://www.debian.org[EMAIL PROTECTED] ` [ gpg 395C F3A4 35D3 D247 1387 2D9E 5A94 F3CA 0B27 13C8 ] [ pgp 7F DA 09 4B BA 2C 0D E0 1B B1 31 ED C6 A9 39 4F ]
Re: Unofficial projects related with Debian.
On 2003.05.23 12:51, Josip Rodin wrote: On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 11:58:45AM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote: Why Debian Desktop subproject is on official website and many others[1] aren't? You're on crack. http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-desktop/ It's hard to discern useful information when you start out by showing you haven't done the slightest hint of pre-investigation... You didn't understand my affirmation.Debian Desktop is on www.debian.org and many others aren't there, for example: Mono for Debian and ipv6. What are the rules to be there? AFAIK, there are no documented rules. Cheers, Gustavo Franco -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Unofficial projects related with Debian.
I don't think there is any definition for what an official Debian subproject is. And even if there were, whether it's on www.debian.org or not would not be a reliable indicator. I choose to use www.d.o for Debian Jr. because it is convenient for me to keep the pages there. Other subprojects that might be considered official (whatever that means) are hosted elsewhere presumably because it is easier for the subproject leader to do so. The fact a project is hosted somewhere usually imply some special relations to his host. For instance, projects hosted by the FSF at freesoftware.fsf.org made often people wrongly assume that the projects were officially FSF projects. For the same problem, you will not get a project in www.gnu.org/software which is not a GNU Package. There are many examples like that, not specifically related to computers. If you get an article on the Washington Post website, you'll probably think that the article is somehow directly linked to the Washington Post, published by the Post and so think that the newspaper is responsible for it's content. So even if, for Debian people, being hosted on www.debian.org is not a reliable indicator, it's highly possible that many persons rely on it. Not being hosted on www.debian.org does not make an official project unofficial but being hosted on www.debian.org will probably make it in some manner official for (maybe) a lot of visitors. I do not say that's a problem, I don't know, it's up to you. My point is just the fact that the host name is not something completely free (as beer!) Regards, -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: Unofficial projects related with Debian.
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 07:37:21PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: The fact a project is hosted somewhere usually imply some special relations to his host. Sure. So even if, for Debian people, being hosted on www.debian.org is not a reliable indicator, it's highly possible that many persons rely on it. Well, I don't mean to say that my Debian Jr. project is not official and therefore people shouldn't rely on it. Rather, my point is that where the project is hosted shouldn't indicate that a project *isn't* official. If, for example, any project started by any Debian Developer in good standing which has been acknowledged by the community as making a positive contribution to Debian is deemed an official project, the developer shouldn't be forced to host it anywhere in particular, but rather should have the choice to host it wherever is convenient. That being said, I do believe we need a better (more comprehensive) list of such projects with higher visibility on the web site. But that list will likely consist of pointers both to www.d.o and other sites (people.debian.org, alioth, and *.debian.net being a few popular alternatives). Not being hosted on www.debian.org does not make an official project unofficial but being hosted on www.debian.org will probably make it in some manner official for (maybe) a lot of visitors. Right. I do not say that's a problem, I don't know, it's up to you. My point is just the fact that the host name is not something completely free (as beer!) I don't think there's a problem here. By mentioning that my project is a personal project I just meant to underline that to be accepted as a Debian subproject has very informal criteria. I think this is a good thing. As such, I am against making hosting a project on a particular site a requirement to bless it with official status. Was that a bit more clear? Ben -- ,-. nSLUGhttp://www.nslug.ns.ca [EMAIL PROTECTED] \`' Debian http://www.debian.org[EMAIL PROTECTED] ` [ gpg 395C F3A4 35D3 D247 1387 2D9E 5A94 F3CA 0B27 13C8 ] [ pgp 7F DA 09 4B BA 2C 0D E0 1B B1 31 ED C6 A9 39 4F ]
Re: Unofficial projects related with Debian.
On 2003.05.23 13:56, Ben Armstrong wrote: [...] Debian Jr. is a personal subproject[0] within Debian. It is my chosen area of focus for Debian, and as such, the only blessing I have had from the Debian project for it is the little parcel of web space I have for the Debian Jr. home page and the mailing list. I agree with it, but i guess that it needs rules. That being said, there is certainly a difference between projects which fork Debian to make a new distro (i.e. providing own versions of existing Debian packages) vs. projects which add packages of their own (outside Debian) to extend Debian vs. projects which include all of their packages in Debian itself (or at least extend Debian's infrastructure itself, if the project doesn't have any packages of its own). Debian Jr. is of the latter sort. Which of these three kinds of projects are Mono, ipv6, and ddtp? Forks aren't subprojects. Projects which add packages or features for packages that already exists or some sort of experimental infrastructure, these are IMHO good for Debian subprojects.Debian Jr., Mono, ipv6 and ddtp are covered by this description, no? [0] By personal subproject I don't mean to undervalue the contributions others have made. I'm certainly grateful for the input and support I have received from others both inside and outside the Debian project. I mean simply that it was born out of my personal interests, and remains primarily the work of one person: me. So again, I don't know what official means in this context. Yes, you're the leader of this subproject but IMHO you need be a developer to start/maintain a new subproject and follow (obviously) the DFSG and the decisions of the entire project.I'm just trying start some points to be included in the Debian subproject guidelines. Cheers, Gustavo Franco
Re: Unofficial projects related with Debian.
On 2003.05.23 15:10, Ben Armstrong wrote: [...] That being said, I do believe we need a better (more comprehensive) list of such projects with higher visibility on the web site. But that list will likely consist of pointers both to www.d.o and other sites (people.debian.org, alioth, and *.debian.net being a few popular alternatives). Yes and it isn't only a list containing these projects.As i said, we need the guidelines to subprojects too. [...] Cheers, Gustavo Franco -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Unofficial projects related with Debian.
El día 23 may 2003, Gustavo Franco escribía: Hi, Why Debian Desktop subproject is on official website and many others[1] aren't? The Debian Desktop is a good initiative, but there are many others that are being excluded from the website.I've some ideas: - Guidelines to Debian subprojects (Do you known what are the official and unofficial subprojects now?); - List the subprojects in two areas of the website: * Developers' corner, to subprojects in initial state; * A new area called: Subprojects, containing full information about the subprojects considered mature. [1] = Mono for Debian, ipv6 (is it official or unofficial?), ddtp, ... Just because nobody proposed it? debian-lex started no so much ago, and it was simply somebody proposing it and creating and mantaining it. BTW, apt-get install subproject-howto -- Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgplrzpXELG9I.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Unofficial projects related with Debian.
On 2003.05.23 16:06, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo wrote: [...] Just because nobody proposed it? debian-lex started no so much ago, and it was simply somebody proposing it and creating and mantaining it. BTW, apt-get install subproject-howto Hi, I guess that subproject-howto can be the start to 'Debian Subproject Guidelines' or 'Debian Subproject Policy'.What do you think, Ben? Cheers, Gustavo Franco -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Unofficial projects related with Debian.
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 04:56:06PM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote: I guess that subproject-howto can be the start to 'Debian Subproject Guidelines' or 'Debian Subproject Policy'.What do you think, Ben? Sure, it could be a start. The subproject-howto is intended to be a hands-on guide to creating and maintaining a subproject. It's pretty much a guidelines document already. However, a) it only contains my point of view and b) it is dreadfully incomplete. I don't think there needs to be a policy document. Policy is appropriate for our software because failure to comply with policy makes it difficult for parts of the system to cooperate with each other. Subprojects are much more self-contained, and there are as many ways of doing them as there are project leaders. So a guidelines document is all that is really needed. I'd like to see input from others into the subproject-howto document, particularly those who are in the process of creating new subprojects, and those who have already established their projects but may have done things differently than I have with Debian Jr. Would an Alioth project for subproject-howto help move this document along? Is the name subproject-howto OK? Ben -- ,-. nSLUGhttp://www.nslug.ns.ca [EMAIL PROTECTED] \`' Debian http://www.debian.org[EMAIL PROTECTED] ` [ gpg 395C F3A4 35D3 D247 1387 2D9E 5A94 F3CA 0B27 13C8 ] [ pgp 7F DA 09 4B BA 2C 0D E0 1B B1 31 ED C6 A9 39 4F ]
Re: Unofficial projects related with Debian.
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 03:01:46PM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote: That being said, there is certainly a difference between projects which fork Debian to make a new distro (i.e. providing own versions of existing Debian packages) vs. projects which add packages of their own (outside Debian) to extend Debian vs. projects which include all of their packages in Debian itself (or at least extend Debian's infrastructure itself, if the project doesn't have any packages of its own). Debian Jr. is of the latter sort. Which of these three kinds of projects are Mono, ipv6, and ddtp? Forks aren't subprojects. Sure. I just included it as a part of the spectrum for the sake of comparison. Projects which add packages or features for packages that already exists or some sort of experimental infrastructure, these are IMHO good for Debian subprojects.Debian Jr., Mono, ipv6 and ddtp are covered by this description, no? It sounds plausible. Debian Jr. is, at least. I didn't look at the others. That's why I was asking you, since you brought it up. :) Yes, you're the leader of this subproject but IMHO you need be a developer to start/maintain a new subproject and follow (obviously) the DFSG and the decisions of the entire project. Sure. So minimally, a subproject needs a DD to found the project and a DD to add what the project produces to Debian. But beyond that fairly self-evident point, what else can we say about what a subproject *should* do? There are probably lots of things that are *beneficial* to making a subproject work, but I can't think of anything else that is *necessary*. I'm just trying start some points to be included in the Debian subproject guidelines. And I'm glad you brought it up. I had hoped to get further with my subproject-howto, but ran out of oomph some time ago. :) Ben -- ,-. nSLUGhttp://www.nslug.ns.ca [EMAIL PROTECTED] \`' Debian http://www.debian.org[EMAIL PROTECTED] ` [ gpg 395C F3A4 35D3 D247 1387 2D9E 5A94 F3CA 0B27 13C8 ] [ pgp 7F DA 09 4B BA 2C 0D E0 1B B1 31 ED C6 A9 39 4F ]
Re: Unofficial projects related with Debian.
On Fri, 23 May 2003 11:58:45 -0300 Gustavo Franco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Why Debian Desktop subproject is on official website and many others[1] aren't? The Debian Desktop is a good initiative, but there are many others that are being excluded from the website.I've some ideas: - Guidelines to Debian subprojects (Do you known what are the official and unofficial subprojects now?); - List the subprojects in two areas of the website: * Developers' corner, to subprojects in initial state; * A new area called: Subprojects, containing full information about the subprojects considered mature. [1] = Mono for Debian, ipv6 (is it official or unofficial?), ddtp, ... http://www.debian.org/devel/, Projects section: * Debian Web Pages * Debian archive * Debian Documentation Project (DDP) * The X Strike Force * The Quality Assurance group * Debian GNU/Linux CD images * The sponsorship program * The key signing coordination page * Debian IPv6 Project * Debian Jr. Project * Debian-Med Project * Debian-Edu Project * Debian-Lex Project * The Debian Desktop Project * Automatic package building system * Technical Committee * Debian Description Translation Project (DDTP) * Alioth: Debian GForge Certainly seems that they're listed. pgps6ZrYkKk9O.pgp Description: PGP signature
