libgeoip1: Debian turning into an advertising crap?
Hi, today I have been lingering in the realms of /etc examining the files breaking the tradition of using small letters in filenames (ConsoleKit, GeoIP.conf.default, NetworkManager, etc.). This advertisement is contained in the GeoIP.conf.default file (package libgeoip1): # If you purchase a subscription to the GeoIP database, # then you will obtain a license key which you can # use to automatically obtain updates. # for more details, please go to # http://www.maxmind.com/app/products [...] Do you think it is appropriate for package in main? Frank Bauer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Opera in your repos
]] Matthew Johnson | We would need a licence which allowed it to be redistributed by Debian | and used by all of our users. The reference for this is Debian Policy | 2.2.3 and 2.3: We need the redistribution bit, I don't think we need it to be allowed to be used by all users. Non-commercial is fine in non-free, or at least was, last time I checked. -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: libgeoip1: Debian turning into an advertising crap?
Frank Bauer frank.c.ba...@gmail.com writes: This advertisement is contained in the GeoIP.conf.default file (package libgeoip1): # If you purchase a subscription to the GeoIP database, # then you will obtain a license key which you can # use to automatically obtain updates. # for more details, please go to # http://www.maxmind.com/app/products [...] A complaint about “advertising” in comments appearing in a configuration file would be better done by filing a ‘wishlist’-priority bug report against that package. If you were reasonable and presented a persuasive argument, you might even convince the package maintainer to remove the advertisement from the file. Do you think it is appropriate for package in main? I think a package is appropriate for main if it is licensed to the recipient under free-software terms, actively and sanely maintained, and useful in a free operating system. The ‘geoip’ package (from which the binary ‘libgeoip1’ package is built) seems to me to meet all those criteria. -- \ “If we have to give up either religion or education, we should | `\ give up education.” —William Jennings Bryan, 1923-01 | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Referring to product's web site in description?
Hi all, I'm packaging yubikey-personalization, a tool used to set the crypto keys for Yubikeys, which are OTP hardware tokens. The tool is useless without a token, so I'm wondering if I should put a reference into the description for where people can read more about the tokens and possibly purchase one. http://www.yubico.com/products/yubikey/ is the link I'd put in. Does people think that would be too much? I'm divided on the issue -- on one hand, I don't want Debian to end up plastered with ads, on the other hand, the tool is not useful without a token, so pointing people to where they can get one sounds reasonable. Ideas, suggestions, thoughts? -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: libgeoip1: Debian turning into an advertising crap?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Frank Bauer schrieb: Hi, today I have been lingering in the realms of /etc examining the files breaking the tradition of using small letters in filenames (ConsoleKit, GeoIP.conf.default, NetworkManager, etc.). This advertisement is contained in the GeoIP.conf.default file (package libgeoip1): # If you purchase a subscription to the GeoIP database, # then you will obtain a license key which you can # use to automatically obtain updates. # for more details, please go to # http://www.maxmind.com/app/products [...] Do you think it is appropriate for package in main? I do not see any reason why it may be not a candidate for main, just because of this advertising. Open e.g. one_favourite_program_of_yours, you will find buttons and they will lead you to author X or sponsor Y. Have a look at virtualbox, they also have got a free and non-free version. - -- /* Mit freundlichem Gruß / With kind regards, Patrick Matthäi GNU/Linux Debian Developer E-Mail: pmatth...@debian.org patr...@linux-dev.org Comment: Always if we think we are right, we were maybe wrong. */ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkp9KNcACgkQ2XA5inpabMfpTgCbBcs8wgAyvx4v3lo54RJcpjEu 9KsAoIPGOFQNAdcap1MWGX6dknEZIFji =aiSx -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Referring to product's web site in description?
Hi, On Samstag, 8. August 2009, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: Does people think that would be too much? I'm divided on the issue -- on one hand, I don't want Debian to end up plastered with ads, on the other hand, the tool is not useful without a token, so pointing people to where they can get one sounds reasonable. Debian has software specific to IPods, IPaqs, S390s and Belgium national ID cards, to name a few from the top of my head, which are not useful without the hardware in question... there was also free software to access ebay or other non free services... And I dont think having 50 or so of such packages in main is turning Debian into advertizing crap ;-) That's just so out of proportion what Debian is :) Regarding the yubico URL, _maybe_ it would be a good idea to use a URL you control, so in case the site goes down... but then I guess you would remove the software too or update the URL.. regards, Holger signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Referring to product's web site in description?
Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no writes: I'm packaging yubikey-personalization, a tool used to set the crypto keys for Yubikeys, which are OTP hardware tokens. The tool is useless without a token, so I'm wondering if I should put a reference into the description for where people can read more about the tokens and possibly purchase one. http://www.yubico.com/products/yubikey/ is the link I'd put in. Does people think that would be too much? I'm divided on the issue -- on one hand, I don't want Debian to end up plastered with ads, on the other hand, the tool is not useful without a token, so pointing people to where they can get one sounds reasonable. I think that's a job, not for the Debian package information, but for the project's home page. The package description should give enough information for the reader to understand whether they want the package on their system. The job of the ‘Homepage’ field is to point to the WWW home page *of the software work*, specifically. Is there such a page for this work? -- \ “If you can do no good, at least do no harm.” —_Slapstick_, | `\ Kurt Vonnegut | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Referring to product's web site in description?
]] Ben Finney | I think that's a job, not for the Debian package information, but for | the project's home page. The package description should give enough | information for the reader to understand whether they want the package | on their system. Noted. (As I'm divided on whether to add the information or not, I'm so far not arguing much in either direction.) | The job of the ‘Homepage’ field is to point to the WWW home page *of the | software work*, specifically. Is there such a page for this work? There's http://code.google.com/p/yubikey-personalization/, which I guess could/should have a link to the yubikey page. (It doesn't today.) -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian on Atom 330 Question
On Sat, Aug 08, 2009 at 03:03:40AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Rein Tendonsie tendon...@tendonsie.be writes: Beste, Momenteel heb ik een dedicated server genomen ergens en men zegt er dat ze geen Debian willen instaleren omdat deze niet zou werken omwillen van de processor. Klopt het dat Debian niet werkt onder: Intel Atom Dual core 330 http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SLG9Y Graag bevestiging of het wel of niet werkt, gezien het bedrijf hiervan bewijs wil. Dank Rein Corselis I don't realy understand much more than the subject but: The question roughly was: I ordered a dedicated server but the company doesn't want to install Debian on it as they claim the processor is not supported. Could you confirm if Debian works with it as the company wants proof. So your answer is about spot on, maybe missing a `uname -a`. To the original poster: Maybe a better place to ask is debian-u...@lists.debian.org (I couldn't find a dutch version of the user list so you'd still have to try to speak engish). (nl: Deze vraag was beter naar debian-u...@lists.debian.org verstuurt en in het engels, er is blijkbaar geen nederlandstalige user lijst.) Regards Floris -- Debian GNU/Linux -- The Power of Freedom www.debian.org | www.gnu.org | www.kernel.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Opera in your repos
On Sat, 08 Aug 2009, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: ]] Matthew Johnson | We would need a licence which allowed it to be redistributed by Debian | and used by all of our users. The reference for this is Debian Policy | 2.2.3 and 2.3: We need the redistribution bit, I don't think we need it to be allowed to be used by all users. Non-commercial is fine in non-free, or at least was, last time I checked. I wouldn't be surprised if our requirements have increased even in that regard in recent years. At least nowadays I mostly expect stuff that has weird licenses about modification and following redistribution in non-free. I hardly expect stuff that one is not even allowed to use. But maybe that's just me. :) Cheers, -- | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** Peter Palfrader | : :' : The universal http://www.palfrader.org/ | `. `' Operating System | `-http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: On cadence and collaboration
Michael Banck wrote: On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 10:55:36AM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:38:56 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: How does Ubuntu want to do a proper (commercial) support for their packages if they don't even have the time/manpower to take care of their bugs? Taking care of bugs is something that should be done properly in every distribution. You can look at bugs filed by paying customers, and ignore the rest. Really, I don't think discussing Canonical's business model and/or Ubuntu/Canonical's approach to QA/bug triaging/bug fixing has to be discussed here. As long as it is (partly?) based on the fact that bugs will be fixed by Debian for free so Ubuntu can just reuse the bugfixes and get the money for them, I think it should be discussed. There is nothing bad in general with that as long as Ubuntu gives their bugfixes back to Debian and we don't have to retrieve them out of a mess of Ubuntu patches... -- Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux Developer GPG Fingerprints: 06C8 C9A2 EAAD E37E 5B2C BE93 067A AD04 C93B FF79 ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: On cadence and collaboration
Sandro Tosi wrote: what can happen is that he prepare a rough solution, sent to debian in a sense hey, take it, I've done my work, it's an ugly hack but I have no time to prepare an elegant solution; Now I got to go, I have another 1000 things to do. I'm not sure it will happen, but I fear it would. That happens already. See the Python 2.6 migration for a lot of bad examples... -- Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux Developer GPG Fingerprints: 06C8 C9A2 EAAD E37E 5B2C BE93 067A AD04 C93B FF79 ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: On cadence and collaboration
Bernd Zeimetz wrote: Sandro Tosi wrote: what can happen is that he prepare a rough solution, sent to debian in a sense hey, take it, I've done my work, it's an ugly hack but I have no time to prepare an elegant solution; Now I got to go, I have another 1000 things to do. I'm not sure it will happen, but I fear it would. That happens already. See the Python 2.6 migration for a lot of bad examples... Hmm, AFAICT python2.6 did not really happen in Debian yet because Mathias is trying to not continue with the existing hacks that have major issues when upgrading and wants to have a clean solution. AFAICS that was already communicated in February [0] and was only really acted on around DebConf [1]. You can blame everyone involved, but I think it might be better to cooperate on fixing it instead. Cheers Luk [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/02/msg00431.html [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2009/08/msg3.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 09:34:39PM +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote: On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 20:07, Patrick Schoenfeldschoenf...@debian.org wrote: Hi, On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 06:40:06PM +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote: THEY STEAL our packages Uarg. That sentence let me discard everything sensible/intelligent you might have said in your mail. I often read sentences like that in the discussion. the mail was (intentionally) quite extremist, but it's not that far away from: taking everything giving back very *very* few. If you really feel that way about Ubuntu, why don't you start yelling and screaming murder about any of the other derivatives? Of all the Debian derivatives out there, Ubuntu is the one that is the *most* collaborative with Debian. Yet they are also the ones that get the hardest time from Debian developers. Taking our Free Software is *NOT* stealing. Saying that it is, is dishonest. If you really and truly feel that Ubuntu is 'stealing' from Debian, then please confirm this in a signed mail so that I can use that to ask the DAM to revoke your account. [...] It's not about licenses, legal or what, it's about honesty. If you promise to give back, you should do it. Colin Watson, one of the more active developers on debian-installer within Debian, is a Canonical employee who does most of their installer development too. Matthias Klose, the main Debian gcc maintainer, is also the Ubuntu gcc maintainer (I'm not sure whether he works for Canonical at this point in time, but at the very least he used to have an @canonical.com email address, so it is reasonable to assume that he is a current or past employee of Canonical). Someone posted links to the BTS in this thread that shows bugs and patches which the Ubuntu people have filed against Debian packages, thereby contributing back to us. For a very long time, Scott James Remnant used to be the main dpkg developer while he was working for Canonical (he stopped contributing to Debian, mainly because he lost interest; this happens to many people, not just Canonical employees). James Troup, while not very active in Debian anymore these days, used to be an archive maintainer and active DSA member while doing similar work for Ubuntu. These are just examples. I'm sure that anyone who cares can find more. Noone have forced them to promise that, and noone will force them to stick to their promises, but when I give my word I do my best to maintain it. Maybe it's only me... They are sticking to that promise. Of all the derivative distributions out there, Ubuntu is the only one that actively, as a matter of policy, does contribute back bugreports and patches. Sure, they're not feeding back 100% of their changes. Sure, sometimes they miss out a patch that really should be forwarded to Debian. But what do you really want? They can't automatically forward all their patches -- some of them just don't make sense from a Debian POV -- so they need to do this manually. When a manual process is involved, sometimes that just means it doesn't happen, because of lack of time, lack of experience with Debian's processes (as opposed to Ubuntu's), and similar. I usually find that if you yourself are interested enough in getting more contributions from Ubuntu on one or more of your packages, all you need to do is ask. A good and recent example was the 1:2.9.11-2ubuntu1 upload for nbd. When I looked at it, I couldn't understand parts of it, so I asked the person who'd done the upload for more information (you know, their name and email address are *right there*, below the changelog entry). That took all of a two-mail conversation, and I directly knew which hunks made sense to the Debian package, and which hunks didn't. Other things that can help to fetch patches from Ubuntu include #ubuntu-devel on freenode (they're usually very friendly and helpful towards Debian Developers asking about the state of their packages inside Ubuntu), patches.ubuntu.com (which indeed isn't useful for every patch, but it is when the packages don't diverge too much), and heck, our own PTS. Bottom line is, if you want it, collaboration exists, and questions will be answered; and there is no need for any Debian Developer to understand anything about Ubuntu's processes. If you yawn about how bad they are at collaborating, however, people will be less motivated to do so, and with good reason. I won't say that it wouldn't be nice if Ubuntu were to contribute more. Every contribution is good, and the more the merrier. However, if you say that there are other Debian derivatives that contribute more than Ubuntu, you're dishonest; and if you say that they do /not/ contribute, then you're outright lying. -- The biometric identification system at the gates of the CIA headquarters works because there's a guard with a large gun making sure no one is trying to fool the system. http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/01/biometrics.html signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: On cadence and collaboration
Luk Claes wrote: Bernd Zeimetz wrote: Sandro Tosi wrote: what can happen is that he prepare a rough solution, sent to debian in a sense hey, take it, I've done my work, it's an ugly hack but I have no time to prepare an elegant solution; Now I got to go, I have another 1000 things to do. I'm not sure it will happen, but I fear it would. That happens already. See the Python 2.6 migration for a lot of bad examples... Hmm, AFAICT python2.6 did not really happen in Debian yet because I'm not talking about Debian, but about the Python 2.6 transition in Ubuntu. -- Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux Developer GPG Fingerprints: 06C8 C9A2 EAAD E37E 5B2C BE93 067A AD04 C93B FF79 ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
The Python mess in Debian (was: Re: On cadence and collaboration)
To come back to Debian Luk Claes wrote: Hmm, AFAICT python2.6 did not really happen in Debian yet because Mathias is trying to not continue with the existing hacks that have major issues when upgrading and wants to have a clean solution. The only hack is the broken piece of python-central and Matthias not being able to accept that somebody else is able to provide a well working solution without a ton of hacks which makes it a pain in the ass to migrate away from it. We now have a *lot* of packages with extra maintainer scripts which take care of cleaning up behind python-central. That's not the way ho things should work. AFAICS that was already communicated in February [0] and was only really acted on around DebConf [1]. Wrong. Several people tried to contact Matthias on various ways and never got a reply. He also completely failed to communicate with those people who maintain most Python related packages on Debian, except during Debconf. This is *NOT* the way how Python should be maintained. Actually several people already thought abut hijacking Python due to the complete lack of communication with the Python Maintainer, who prefers to force his changes on people instead of finding an acceptable resolution. While I think that large parts of this are the result of him being overworked due to Ubuntu stuff, this is not the way how things should go. During Debconf [1] came up, but I can't see it happen soon as there are *way* too many problems with the proposal, and it would bring us back to pre-Etch areas.. There were rumours that Python 2.6 was not uploaded to unstable due to bugs or missing things in python-support, but as usual there was no bug filed, and nobody talked to the python-support maintainer. You can blame everyone involved, but I think it might be better to cooperate on fixing it instead. Don't even think about blaming me for not trying to cooperate on Python related things if you have no damn clue. [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/02/msg00431.html [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2009/08/msg3.html Cheers, Bernd -- Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux Developer GPG Fingerprints: 06C8 C9A2 EAAD E37E 5B2C BE93 067A AD04 C93B FF79 ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: The Python mess in Debian
Bernd Zeimetz wrote: To come back to Debian Luk Claes wrote: Hmm, AFAICT python2.6 did not really happen in Debian yet because Mathias is trying to not continue with the existing hacks that have major issues when upgrading and wants to have a clean solution. The only hack is the broken piece of python-central and Matthias not being able to accept that somebody else is able to provide a well working solution without a ton of hacks which makes it a pain in the ass to migrate away from it. We now have a *lot* of packages with extra maintainer scripts which take care of cleaning up behind python-central. That's not the way ho things should work. AFAIK python-central does have the necessary tools to clean up. You might notice that in the proposal nor python-central nor python-support would remain... AFAICS that was already communicated in February [0] and was only really acted on around DebConf [1]. Wrong. Several people tried to contact Matthias on various ways and never got a reply. He also completely failed to communicate with those people who maintain most Python related packages on Debian, except during Debconf. This is *NOT* the way how Python should be maintained. Actually several people already thought abut hijacking Python due to the complete lack of communication with the Python Maintainer, who prefers to force his changes on people instead of finding an acceptable resolution. While I think that large parts of this are the result of him being overworked due to Ubuntu stuff, this is not the way how things should go. During Debconf [1] came up, but I can't see it happen soon as there are *way* too many problems with the proposal, and it would bring us back to pre-Etch areas.. You seem to misunderstand what the problems to be solved are and what the proposed solution would bring. There were rumours that Python 2.6 was not uploaded to unstable due to bugs or missing things in python-support, but as usual there was no bug filed, and nobody talked to the python-support maintainer. You can blame everyone involved, but I think it might be better to cooperate on fixing it instead. Don't even think about blaming me for not trying to cooperate on Python related things if you have no damn clue. I did not intend to blame you at all, sorry if it seemed I did. AFAICT, the real problem is that after unpack many python modules do not work as they use symlink hackery in the postinst. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: The Python mess in Debian
Le samedi 08 août 2009 à 16:14 +0200, Luk Claes a écrit : AFAICT, the real problem is that after unpack many python modules do not work as they use symlink hackery in the postinst. This hasn’t been an issue in real-world cases for quite some time (python-support 0.8, and an even older version for python-central). Cheers, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in `- future understand things” -- Jörg Schilling signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: The Python mess in Debian (was: Re: On cadence and collaboration)
On 2009-08-08, Bernd Zeimetz be...@bzed.de wrote: Wrong. Several people tried to contact Matthias on various ways and never got a reply. He also completely failed to communicate with those people who maintain most Python related packages on Debian, except during Debconf. This is *NOT* the way how Python should be maintained. Actually several people already thought abut hijacking Python due to the complete lack of communication with the Python Maintainer, who prefers to force his changes on people instead of finding an acceptable resolution. While I think that large parts of this are the result of him being overworked due to Ubuntu stuff, this is not the way how things should go. During Debconf [1] came up, but I can't see it happen soon as there are *way* too many problems with the proposal, and it would bring us back to pre-Etch areas.. There were rumours that Python 2.6 was not uploaded to unstable due to bugs or missing things in python-support, but as usual there was no bug filed, and nobody talked to the python-support maintainer. I think there were at least two things (I think not check them, but from memory what Matthias told me): * python-support breaks upstream assumptions about relative imports. * python-support does not always have stable symlink handling, i.e. they should maybe be shipped by the package instead. (I'm relatively unsure about this though, as I don't recall the program; but I think it also has to do with the fact that you sometimes need to call update-python- modules from maintainer script.) It might be true however that most of the issues he has left did not manifest themselves in bug reports, probably because the personal relationship of the two maintainers misses some trust and needs a neutral party to communicate it. Matthias also stated during UDS that he wouldn't mind python-central to be dropped when some remaining issues in python-support are fixed (at the very least the first point above). I don't know if Debconf changed something in this regard. Anyway I don't know how responsive he is wrt emails. I can understand that the hostility on d-python didn't help in that regard, but maybe To'ing or Cc'ing him on some mails might help. Kind regards, Philipp Kern -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: The Python mess in Debian
Luk Claes wrote: AFAIK python-central does have the necessary tools to clean up. As soon as you use the 'nomove' option it fails to do so properly. Unfortunately a lot of packages were introduced with this option. AFAICS that was already communicated in February [0] and was only really acted on around DebConf [1]. Wrong. Several people tried to contact Matthias on various ways and never got a reply. He also completely failed to communicate with those people who maintain most Python related packages on Debian, except during Debconf. This is *NOT* the way how Python should be maintained. Actually several people already thought abut hijacking Python due to the complete lack of communication with the Python Maintainer, who prefers to force his changes on people instead of finding an acceptable resolution. While I think that large parts of this are the result of him being overworked due to Ubuntu stuff, this is not the way how things should go. During Debconf [1] came up, but I can't see it happen soon as there are *way* too many problems with the proposal, and it would bring us back to pre-Etch areas.. You seem to misunderstand what the problems to be solved are and what the proposed solution would bring. I understand it pretty well. Yes, it solves several problems, unfortunately it brings many more, which are much more pain than the problems it solves. Shipping pre-compiled files in the .deb packages instead of using helper tools is what we had before Etch, with the difference that we had a package for each Python version. The main problem with the proposed solution is that we'd need binNMUs for arch:all packages. Another annoying thing would be that we won't have the namespace handling of python-support any more - which means that we'd have a package with an empty __init__.py file in the worst case, so you can depend on it - or you'd have to do other ugly things... AFAICT, the real problem is that after unpack many python modules do not work as they use symlink hackery in the postinst. What do you mean exactly? Could you point me to an example? The only problem I see is that it starts to become complicated as soon as you want to run a daemon, as the .pyc files are not compiled yet when the daemon is started. Cheers, Bernd -- Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux Developer GPG Fingerprints: 06C8 C9A2 EAAD E37E 5B2C BE93 067A AD04 C93B FF79 ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: The Python mess in Debian
On 2009-08-08, Bernd Zeimetz be...@bzed.de wrote: AFAICT, the real problem is that after unpack many python modules do not work as they use symlink hackery in the postinst. What do you mean exactly? Could you point me to an example? The only problem I see is that it starts to become complicated as soon as you want to run a daemon, as the .pyc files are not compiled yet when the daemon is started. Well, the documentation of python-support states how to deal with it (with a command invocation in the postinst) but the same problem arises when you use a Python script of another package in your postinst maintainer script. Been there, don't that. And no, it's not the missing byte-compilation that triggers the failure but the missing symlink farm that's usually processed by a trigger at the end of the installation run. Kind regards, Philipp Kern -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: libgeoip1: Debian turning into an advertising crap?
Frank Bauer dijo [Sat, Aug 08, 2009 at 07:49:14AM +0200]: Hi, today I have been lingering in the realms of /etc examining the files breaking the tradition of using small letters in filenames (ConsoleKit, GeoIP.conf.default, NetworkManager, etc.). This advertisement is contained in the GeoIP.conf.default file (package libgeoip1): (...) Do you think it is appropriate for package in main? I think it is adequate. I often use GeoIP, and is more than precise for my needs, but I do value knowing I could use a more precise DB with the same *free* software I am currently using, if need were to arise. Similarly, we include lastfm (which is a free client for a service which was recently freeish but not anymore). We include several clients for services owned by different companies which might have a premium version of their services. -- Gunnar Wolf • gw...@gwolf.org • (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Referring to product's web site in description?
Tollef Fog Heen dijo [Sat, Aug 08, 2009 at 08:37:38AM +0200]: I'm packaging yubikey-personalization, a tool used to set the crypto keys for Yubikeys, which are OTP hardware tokens. The tool is useless without a token, so I'm wondering if I should put a reference into the description for where people can read more about the tokens and possibly purchase one. http://www.yubico.com/products/yubikey/ is the link I'd put in. Does people think that would be too much? I'm divided on the issue -- on one hand, I don't want Debian to end up plastered with ads, on the other hand, the tool is not useful without a token, so pointing people to where they can get one sounds reasonable. Ideas, suggestions, thoughts? Umh, pointing debian/control's Homepage: field to the Yubikeys homepage and stating in the description that /usr/share/doc/yubikeys/README.Debian has further information, and including the full information there, would be adequate and less in-your-face IMO. -- Gunnar Wolf • gw...@gwolf.org • (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
Mark Shuttleworth dijo [Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 07:37:04AM +0100]: (...) It would be substantially easier to collaborate on RC (and non-RC) bug fixes where the base versions of major components were the same. Umm... Real, hard RC bugs will be present on more than one release of the same upstream code. Or are sometimes triggered by combinations of installed programs. So, while what you say is mostly true (it would be easier to share patches if they all applied at the precise same spot), I think the argument is a wee bit pulled too hard. Greetings, -- Gunnar Wolf • gw...@gwolf.org • (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: The Python mess in Debian
Philipp Kern wrote: I think there were at least two things (I think not check them, but from memory what Matthias told me): * python-support breaks upstream assumptions about relative imports. * python-support does not always have stable symlink handling, i.e. they should maybe be shipped by the package instead. (I'm relatively unsure about this though, as I don't recall the program; but I think it also has to do with the fact that you sometimes need to call update-python- modules from maintainer script.) It might be true however that most of the issues he has left did not manifest themselves in bug reports, probably because the personal relationship of the two maintainers misses some trust and needs a neutral party to communicate it. I'm more than happy to be the neutral party and will file and handle bug reports in the name of both of them if that will bring things forward. -- Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux Developer GPG Fingerprints: 06C8 C9A2 EAAD E37E 5B2C BE93 067A AD04 C93B FF79 ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: The Python mess in Debian
Le samedi 08 août 2009 à 15:45 +, Philipp Kern a écrit : And no, it's not the missing byte-compilation that triggers the failure but the missing symlink farm that's usually processed by a trigger at the end of the installation run. The symlink farm is created in the postinst of each package, not by the trigger. Only missing namespace packages can trigger errors at this stage. Cheers, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in `- future understand things” -- Jörg Schilling signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: On cadence and collaboration
Bernd Zeimetz be...@bzed.de writes: As long as it is (partly?) based on the fact that bugs will be fixed by Debian for free so Ubuntu can just reuse the bugfixes and get the money for them, I think it should be discussed. People keep saying things like this, but no one I know who's running Ubuntu is paying for it. Clearly Canonical does have a business model and is charging for some things, but are they making money off of *our bug fixes*? That's not clear to me at all. Personally, I view Ubuntu users as just a larger audience for the same packages I'm making for Debian. If something specific to Ubuntu breaks a package, well, Ubuntu gets to keep both pieces unless it's fairly obvious to me what's wrong. But insofar as those users find problems that affect the package in general, it's just more input to make it better for everyone. (Also, separately, I came to terms with people making money off of my work without necessarily giving anything back a long time ago. I think that's just part of free software.) There is nothing bad in general with that as long as Ubuntu gives their bugfixes back to Debian and we don't have to retrieve them out of a mess of Ubuntu patches... This can be a major problem for some packages, but I have to say, I think that's way overstated for most things. For example, I've never had much trouble extracting relevant fixes from Ubuntu patches for my packages. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
