Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 06:34:16PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 01:13:36PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: -vote dropped On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 03:06:01PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote: i think someone running more than one autobuilder for more than _two_ years now (okay, not for the officical archive, but i see that as nonrelevant here) demonstrats very good that he mets your mentioned technical constraints. AIUI, Aurelian doesn't have the capability to run a non-emulated arm buildd. While http://blog.aurel32.net/?p=25 is a good demonstration of some things, I don't think it's the level of buildd we want for our release architectures. Wow, was there a point to your post or was pure insult? What's insulting in that (apart from the misspelling of Aurelien)? From http://blog.aurel32.net/?p=33: Yes I agree that real machines would be better, but I dont have a stack of fast ARM machines at home. so, afaict, he doesn't have the capability to run a non-emulated arm buildd. And hacking together a buildd quickly and easily is impressive and useful for new ports, but it's more important for buildds for release architectures to be well-connected and reliable over a long period. We probably could change that expectation and have buildds be put together by DDs from whatever they have lying around and hosting them at home; I don't think it'd be a good idea, but others mileage may vary. Not every criticism is an insult, and if you want to know why things don't happen you need to be able to take criticism without taking insult. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
Hi Anthony! * Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au [2007-02-15 09:37]: Not every criticism is an insult, and if you want to know why things don't happen you need to be able to take criticism without taking insult. To some readers of your last mail In general, I could pretty easily imagine a buildd that fails every one of those points still being suitable for a non-release arch for two years. could be read as an answer to i think someone running more than one autobuilder for more than _two_ years now (okay, not for the officical archive, but i see that as nonrelevant here) demonstrats very good that he mets your mentioned technical constraints. and therefore understood in the way that you don't think Martin complies to the points give. yours Martin -- http://martin.wuertele.net/ -- Debian -- OFTC -- SPI -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (...) Doch wenn ich den 2.4.18-SMP Kernel booten will, dann geht es in 3 von 2 Fällen nicht. -- Dennis Zimmermann, at.linux
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 08:37:27AM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote: On Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 13:13:36 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: -vote dropped And readded apparently. Do we really have to have these conversations across multiple lists? i think someone running more than one autobuilder for more than _two_ years now (okay, not for the officical archive, but i see that as nonrelevant here) demonstrats very good that he mets your mentioned technical constraints. I didn't thought of Aurelien, but of a few other persons, who are acting as buildd maintainers for experimental and non-free packages. Experimental and non-free packages go to the official archive... I'm not seeing what you're asking for here. Beyond re-enabling access for those packages to be uploaded over the past couple of months (which has now happened) I haven't heard any requests related to any of that. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 08:37:27AM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote: On Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 13:13:36 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: -vote dropped And readded apparently. Do we really have to have these conversations across multiple lists? i think someone running more than one autobuilder for more than _two_ years now (okay, not for the officical archive, but i see that as nonrelevant here) demonstrats very good that he mets your mentioned technical constraints. I didn't thought of Aurelien, but of a few other persons, who are acting as buildd maintainers for experimental and non-free packages. Experimental and non-free packages go to the official archive... I'm not seeing what you're asking for here. Are you so overworked, or are you deliberately forgetting? It has been suggested multiple times in the past to use existing or new hardware and add it to the set of standard autobuilders. Many arches do not meet the redundancy requirement, and we don't have autobuilders for i386 at all AFAIK. Moreover, the current buildd admin's apparently don't have adequate time to communicate, which could be ameliorated by adding people. Even if nobody had asked so far, we should ask people who seem capable of doing it. Regards, Frank -- Dr. Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
Re: Social Committee proposal text (diff)
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 11:59:06PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote: Do you think it's likely for it to go on for more than one repetition? I've no real idea but it might lead to a dead end. And having infinite nominations/elections because there are e.g. only 10 and not 16 persons seems to defeat the whole idea. (Just a note - my S2 boundary isn't really arbitrary, it's basically a function of the quorum.) (Point taken but it's still a deliberate decision to say count($members_of_soc_ctte)=round(Q).) (I was just correcting the adjective used - arbitrary isn't the same as deliberate :) I have pondered this previously, but I decided to have a try like that still. If we allow the bar to be dropped arbitrarily down from the quorum-based quota, then how do we decide how many are sufficient and how many are not? I don't have an answer ready but IMO S2 (or Q) is not more magical then 5 or 13 or 42. I guess at the end the size of the committee should: * depend on its goals and tasks * allow the group to work as a _group_ (The other question is of course what happens if there are not enough candidates/winners. Maybe an (equally arbitrary) minimum size for a second round could be defined?) I've discussed in the previous thread why I thought 1000-16 or 2000-23 were decent; but that was more in light of an upper limit, rather than a lower limit. Only when I started writing the exact rule into the constitution text did I realize that there lower limit needs to be thought about :) If there is a serious doubt whether we would be able to elect that many people in less than two rounds of elections (a second round would be bearable; a third would be a real bother) then I would have to be leaning towards either: * Allowing a variable number of members, to a point. I was originally thinking that a fixed size needs to be set in order to have a clear understanding of what the membership in the ctte means; also adding variability adds more nuance into the constitution definition so it's harder to write. * Or cutting the fixed size further down, but that sounds like a workaround. -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
reciprical links to http://www.immigration2australia.com
Dear Webmaster, We are interested in the possibility of exchanging links with your site, http://dmoz.org/. We have already added the following details to the category Other Web Directories on our links page at http://www.immigration2australia.com/links.html : Name: Open Directory - Travel URL: http://dmoz.org/ It will be visible within 24 hours, when we update the site. We would appreciate if you could link back to us using the following information: Name: Immigration To Australia URL: http://www.immigration2australia.com Description: Your Essential Guide to Immigration Australia We will check for the reciprocal link. If we do not find our link on your site within the next 15 days, your link will be automatically deleted. Thank you for your understanding. Please let us know once our site is up. Best regards, Peter S webmaster http://www.immigration2australia.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
Anthony Towns a écrit : On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 06:34:16PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 01:13:36PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: -vote dropped On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 03:06:01PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote: i think someone running more than one autobuilder for more than _two_ years now (okay, not for the officical archive, but i see that as nonrelevant here) demonstrats very good that he mets your mentioned technical constraints. AIUI, Aurelian doesn't have the capability to run a non-emulated arm buildd. While http://blog.aurel32.net/?p=25 is a good demonstration of some things, I don't think it's the level of buildd we want for our release architectures. Wow, was there a point to your post or was pure insult? What's insulting in that (apart from the misspelling of Aurelien)? From http://blog.aurel32.net/?p=33: Yes I agree that real machines would be better, but I dont have a stack of fast ARM machines at home. First of all I haven't asked to become arm build daemon maintainer. What I asked for a responsive arm buildd maintainer who handle mails sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] The goal of the emulated arm buildd farm was to be able to handle the requests by myself, in fully automated way (building and uploading package by hand takes a lot of time). I also asked some news about the arm machine offered by Bill Gatliff. This machine is really fast compared to the current build daemons and replace a few of the current one. As described by Steve Langasek on -vote, this can reduce some problems and the load of the build daemon maintainer. so, afaict, he doesn't have the capability to run a non-emulated arm buildd. And hacking together a buildd quickly and easily is impressive and useful for new ports, but it's more important for buildds for release architectures to be well-connected and reliable over a long period. We probably could change that expectation and have buildds be put together by DDs from whatever they have lying around and hosting them at home; I don't think it'd be a good idea, but others mileage may vary. I fully agree that knowing how to install wanna-build + buildd + sbuild don't make you a buildd maintainer. FYI, I am running a wanna-build database for hurd-i386, kfreebsd-i386 and kfreebsd-amd64 on my home server, and running three build daemons, two for kfreebsd-i386 (yes, contrary to some official architectures we have buildd redundancy), and one for kfreebsd-amd64. And that for almost 2 years. I have learned a lot from that, experienced hardware problems, chroot breakages due too buggy maintainer scripts, and even toolchain problems. The kfreebsd-amd64 build daemon has been added very early in the development of this architecture (ie two or three weeks after the toolchain has been ported), and I think I have learned more from that than if it has been an official and fully mature architecture. -- .''`. Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 : :' : Debian developer | Electrical Engineer `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] `-people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 03:17:58PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote: FYI, I am running a wanna-build database for hurd-i386, kfreebsd-i386 and kfreebsd-amd64 on my home server, and running three build daemons, two for kfreebsd-i386 (yes, contrary to some official architectures we have buildd redundancy), and one for kfreebsd-amd64. And that for almost 2 years. Aren't you running emulated buildds for m68k too? Or was that someone else? _That_, imo, is awesome both for demonstrating emulated buildds work, and reviving m68k... Assuming I'm not confused. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: help
On Wed, 2007-02-14 at 21:14 -0700, RJ Gillis wrote: Hey guys... Thanks for all the responses and I got it figured out; my buddy went there and thought it was a Quick-time like player needed to view the page. Nothing happened and so he never told me about it. Well it is good to know that Debian wasn't installed on your computer with malicious intent. But I would think a program install would show you something...? (The developer is in the CC list. They'll be able to respond to this better than I can, as I have never even used that installer.) Anyway, from reading your emails, I got kinda interested, my main question is; will all my programs run on Debian? If so, I might try it out. Thanks again for the replies- RJ Windows programs, (.exe files), do not run naively in a Linux/Unix environment. There are work-arounds to make them run, using a program called WINE. But instead of using WINE, I typically recommend people find open-source software to replace the proprietary software they were using. For example, instead of Microsoft Office, use Open Office. Here's a quick-list of popular desktop software and their Debian superiors: MS Office = OpenOffice.org 2.0 Outlook / Outlook Express = Evolution / IceDove Windows Media Player = Rythmbox and Totem/mplayer Photoshop = GIMP Internet Explorer = IceWeasle Many users feel that the Open-Source replacements are superior to their proprietary counterparts, but it may require a bit of getting-used-to. Debian is a great system. It is functional, stable, secure, and free. There are disadvantages, though. I wrote a lot about these in a blog post, The Disadvantages of Linux and Open Source Software(1), where I describe substantial negative issues that many users face when switching from Microsoft Windows to a Linux-Based Operating System, and how to deal with them. Please give it a quick reading, and if you think you can face these issues, run that installer next time you boot, and let us know how you do. 1: http://matthewpoer.freehostia.com/wordpress/index.php/computers-technology/the-disadvantages-of-linux-and-open-source-software -- Matthew K Poer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 10:00:25AM +0100, Frank K?ster wrote: i think someone running more than one autobuilder for more than _two_ years now (okay, not for the officical archive, but i see that as nonrelevant here) demonstrats very good that he mets your mentioned technical constraints. I didn't thought of Aurelien, but of a few other persons, who are acting as buildd maintainers for experimental and non-free packages. Experimental and non-free packages go to the official archive... I'm not seeing what you're asking for here. (If there's something more than the general comments Frank made, I'm still not seeing it. TTBOMK, the non-free and experimental builds aren't at all integrated with the buildd.d.o stuff, and there's been no particular interest in changing that. If that's not the case, it's probably worth talking about sometime) Are you so overworked, or are you deliberately forgetting? It has been suggested multiple times in the past to use existing or new hardware and add it to the set of standard autobuilders. Many arches do not meet the redundancy requirement, and we don't have autobuilders for i386 at all AFAIK. Moreover, the current buildd admin's apparently don't have adequate time to communicate, which could be ameliorated by adding people. Even if nobody had asked so far, we should ask people who seem capable of doing it. I've been thinking for a few days now that people in Debian disagree too much (hence the comments preceding my responses to Raphael in an earlier message), so starting now, I'm going to stop replying to mails by focussing on differences, and start with agreements. Let's see how long it takes until I can't stop myself from adding a but. [0] There are a number of serious problems in how the Debian infrastructure's managed. That may be too strong: I mean to say that they're important, without being critical to be solved immediately [1]. And often the impact of these problems is to block other people's attempts to contribute to Debian, and in so doing disrespect their contributions and discourage further contributions, though in some cases those contributions are merely thrown out as collateral damage along with something that should be blocked, whether that be a buggy upload or some changes that need further review. The right way of dealing with that is to work with the potential contributor to ensure they understand the issues that're involved so that their future contributions can be accepted and will be useful. IMO, that applies whether the contribution's a patch, or an emulated buildd. I guess I'd argue that it applies to existing contributors too, if you want to critique their performance. I've found it difficult to work up the energy to try working with potential contributors on this score because there seems to be so much rage about the way things work now that I can't really imagine reaching that level of mutual understanding. I can't say I like that state of affairs much. Anyway, I already have a related email that I've promised to send out that I hope will show something of a step towards fixing these problems. I think I'm going to bow out of the discussion for the minute until I can get that off my plate. Unfortunately, that'll take longer than YA inconsequential mail where I'm able to just write what I think... [2] Cheers, aj [0] Or if I can even work out how to start the next paragraph without a but... [1] They're mostly long-term problems, so if they were critical, frankly we'd not be having this conversation, and people wouldn't be asking if Debian was dying, they'd be getting us confused with AmigaOS... [2] Wow, I'm really in the habit of qualifying everything I write. That was much harder than I expected... signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 01:27:17AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: The right way of dealing with that is to work with the potential contributor to ensure they understand the issues that're involved so that their future contributions can be accepted and will be useful. This is a very important sentence. Working with these people is what is desired and necessary. If the Debian core teams all manage to live by this single sentence, we're all fine. Today, most Debian core teams do not communicate with mere mortals, which is the complete opposite of working with people. This needs to change, and if Debian manages to implement these changes, 80 % of our recurring problems will simply vanish in a haze. How do you plan to improve our core teams' communication skills? Greetings Marc -- - Marc Haber | I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | lose things.Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 621 72739835 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
Le vendredi 16 février 2007 à 01:27 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit : (If there's something more than the general comments Frank made, I'm still not seeing it. TTBOMK, the non-free and experimental builds aren't at all integrated with the buildd.d.o stuff, and there's been no particular interest in changing that. If that's not the case, it's probably worth talking about sometime) I'm sure people are eager to see this working alternate buildd network fall into the hands of those who run the official one with so much success. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Google Summer of Code
Hey all, The Google's running a Summer of Code again in 2007, mentoring organisations need to submit applications between the 5th and 12th of March. Announcement: http://google-code-updates.blogspot.com/2007/02/speaking-of-summer.html Deadlines: http://code.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=60325topic=10729 Deadlines paraphrased: March 5th -- decide whether we want to be a mentoring organisation, and if so, have a list of suggested projects up, along with recommendation on what students should expect if they get accepted by Debian March 14th -- be ready to start working with potential applicants March 24th - April 9th -- review applications April 9th - May 28th -- introduce accepted students to Debian May 28th - August 20 -- Summer of Code work Anyone want to volunteer to take the lead on the first couple of steps? Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
