Re: Debian and Non-Free Services
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 10:37:58PM +, Dr. Bas Wijnen wrote: > > I would not like to make cooperation with upstream more complicated. > > I agree with that. However, I'm not sure if it would make it harder. How does > this cooperation work, where you need your packaging to be on the same host as > upstream? It's sometimes easier to send patches to upstream if you can just send them a pull request. In fact, one of my upstreams (ola) has told me repeatedly that they prefer that. It's easier to send them a pull request if your code is on the same platform as theirs. However, using their platform does not require that you *only* use their platform. My ola repository is on github[1], but also on salsa[2]. [1] https://github.com/yoe/ola [2] https://salsa.debian.org/wouter/ola -- To the thief who stole my anti-depressants: I hope you're happy -- seen somewhere on the Internet on a photo of a billboard
Re: Debian and Non-Free Services
Le 13 septembre 2019 00:54:47 GMT+02:00, Yao Wei a écrit : >On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 10:43:59PM +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: >> Living up to our own principles is a noble thing, but I'm not keen on >> supporting such a GR as I think the drawbacks outweight the benefits >for >> the project. > >Does this also imply we are reverting the GR on non-free sections? > >https://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_002 > >Yao Wei I have a clear doubt about your understanding of my email. Can you develop your point ? Thanks. -- PEB (from my phone)
Re: Debian and Non-Free Services
Sam Hartman writes ("Debian and Non-Free Services"):
> I'm trying to move a thread from -devel.
>
> Ian Jackson responded [1] to part of a consensus discussion on Git
> recommendations. I had said that I think we recommend against the use
> of non-free services like Github but do not forbid their use.
> Ian disagreed with this recommendation.
Sam, from this thread, it seems very likely[1] that you were right
about where Debian's consensus was, and that I was wrong.
> He proposed the following text for such a GR.
Also Enrico Zini sent a couple of messages where he strongly objected
to this escalation by me. IME Enrico Zini is usually right. I should
have listened to him more carefully the first time.
For my own part, I'm going to drop this suggestion now. I still don't
agree with the apparent project consensus but I want to spend my
energy on something more constructive.
Ian.
[1] Even allowing for the fact that mailing list threads are not a
very reliable way to judge the project's overall views.
--
Ian JacksonThese opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Re: Debian and Non-Free Services
On 19-09-12 20 h 35, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > > On September 12, 2019 5:30:24 PM UTC, Sam Hartman wrote: >> >> I'm trying to move a thread from -devel. >> >> Ian Jackson responded [1] to part of a consensus discussion on Git >> recommendations. I had said that I think we recommend against the use >> of non-free services like Github but do not forbid their use. >> Ian disagreed with this recommendation. >> >> I responded [2] noting that around 7% of the packages with a vcs-git in >> unstable are hosted on Github. >> >> Ian said [3] that he was confident if we had a GR to forbid use of >> services >> like Github it would pass. >> >> He proposed the following text for such a GR. >> >> I think such a discussion is better on -project. >> >> [1]: >> https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/23927.51367.848949.15...@chiark.greenend.org.uk >> [2]: >> https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/tslwoedy93e.fsf...@suchdamage.org >> [3]: >> https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/23930.17192.131171.455...@chiark.greenend.org.uk >> >> >> Subject: Free Software Needs Free Tools >> >> No Debian contributor should be expected or encouraged, when working >> to improve Debian, to use non-free tools. This includes proprietary >> web services. We will ensure this, insofar as it is within Debian's >> collective control. >> >> For example, Vcs-Git fields in source packages must not refer to >> proprietary git code management systems. Non-Debian services are >> acceptable here so long as they are principally Free Software. >> >> We encourage all our upstreams to use Free/Libre tools. >> >> We recognise that metadata in Debian which describes the behaviour >> of those outside our community, for example fields which refer to >> upstream source management systems, may (in order to be accurate) >> still need to refer to proprietary systems. > > It's based on a false premise. No one is forced to use any VCS to maintain > Debian packages. If you don't want to talk to GitHub, send a patch to the BTS While I do sympathise with the idea of not having Debian package on Github, I have to agree with Scott here. I think I would end up voting against such a GR because the use of Git isn't mandatory. If we already had a GR enforcing the use of Git, I think it would only make sense to make the use of salsa.debian.org mandatory. It seems we aren't there yet though. -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Louis-Philippe Véronneau ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ po...@debian.org / veronneau.org ⠈⠳⣄ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Debian and Non-Free Services
On September 14, 2019 12:29:19 AM GMT+09:00, Scott Kitterman wrote: >Is anyone actually doing that? I think this entire thread is nothing >more >than a stalking horse for Ian's crusade to get everyone to use dgit and >we >should just move on. +100 Best comment till now. "Crusade" is the word I should have used in other occasions. Norbert -- PREINING Norbert http://www.preining.info Accelia Inc. + JAIST + TeX Live + Debian Developer GPG: 0x860CDC13 fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0 ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13
Re: Debian and Non-Free Services
On Friday, September 13, 2019 10:52:37 AM EDT Sam Hartman wrote: > > "MJ" == MJ Ray writes: > MJ> I have some sympathy with the "send a patch to bugs.debian.org" > MJ> view. Do any developers ignore those and tell people to join > MJ> github to use its private version of pull requests? I know I > MJ> have patches ignored in there but I don't remember being told to > MJ> go sign a github contract. > > I believe we have a strong consensus in the Git Packaging Round 1 thread > on debian-devel that maintainers are expected to process patches > submitted through the BTS. Telling someone they needed to use Github > would be unacceptable in my mind. Is anyone actually doing that? I think this entire thread is nothing more than a stalking horse for Ian's crusade to get everyone to use dgit and we should just move on. Scott K
Re: Debian and Non-Free Services
> "MJ" == MJ Ray writes: MJ> I have some sympathy with the "send a patch to bugs.debian.org" MJ> view. Do any developers ignore those and tell people to join MJ> github to use its private version of pull requests? I know I MJ> have patches ignored in there but I don't remember being told to MJ> go sign a github contract. I believe we have a strong consensus in the Git Packaging Round 1 thread on debian-devel that maintainers are expected to process patches submitted through the BTS. Telling someone they needed to use Github would be unacceptable in my mind. --Sam
Re: Debian and Non-Free Services
Fri Sep 13 12:06:35 GMT+01:00 2019 Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov : > чт, 12 сент. 2019 г. в 20:30, Sam Hartman : > > For example, Vcs-Git fields in source packages must not refer to > > proprietary git code management systems. Non-Debian services are > > acceptable here so long as they are principally Free Software. > > I'd say strict NO to this proposal. While our goal is to enhance free software > and to encourage its usage, we should not limit our developers' freedom > to use any tool they would like. Both answers limit developers' freedom of choice. NO allows maintainers to host package sources on github or whatever, but that arguably requires future maintainers, co-maintainers and so on to use it too. I have some sympathy with the "send a patch to bugs.debian.org" view. Do any developers ignore those and tell people to join github to use its private version of pull requests? I know I have patches ignored in there but I don't remember being told to go sign a github contract. -- MJR - please excuse brevity because this was sent while mobile
Re: Debian and Non-Free Services
Bas Wijnen wrote: > note that the proposal is not to say "our users must not be allowed to use > github". It's "our developers must not be allowed to force contributors to > use github". Scott Kitterman wrote: > No one is forced to use any VCS to maintain Debian packages. If you don't > want to talk to GitHub, send a patch to the BTS. I believe it may be useful to think along the "preferred form for modifications" clause of the GPL. Which is the "preferred form for modifications" of Debian packaging? As I understand policy, currently it's the source package. If that doesn't reflect actual practice, that might be good reason to change policy. In any case, I'd always expect the "preferred form" of all packages to be available on the Debian infrastructure: one must not depend on any external services, free or not, in order to be able to obtain it. So, if Git-based packaging becomes the norm, it is my understanding that the master Git repo of all packages must be hosted on Debian servers. Clearly, maintainers can still host their own working copy wherever they would like to, and there's no requirement to make it publicly accessible through a free service, or at all. Gerardo
Re: Debian and Non-Free Services
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 01:30:24PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > Subject: Free Software Needs Free Tools ZOMG. IMO one of the less good ideas brought to this list. I will refrain from further comments for everyones benefit, Ansgar brought up the most relevant objections already. -- cheers, Holger --- holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian and Non-Free Services
чт, 12 сент. 2019 г. в 20:30, Sam Hartman : > Subject: Free Software Needs Free Tools > > No Debian contributor should be expected or encouraged, when working > to improve Debian, to use non-free tools. This includes proprietary > web services. We will ensure this, insofar as it is within Debian's > collective control. > > For example, Vcs-Git fields in source packages must not refer to > proprietary git code management systems. Non-Debian services are > acceptable here so long as they are principally Free Software. I'd say strict NO to this proposal. While our goal is to enhance free software and to encourage its usage, we should not limit our developers' freedom to use any tool they would like. > We encourage all our upstreams to use Free/Libre tools. > > We recognise that metadata in Debian which describes the behaviour > of those outside our community, for example fields which refer to > upstream source management systems, may (in order to be accurate) > still need to refer to proprietary systems. > -- With best wishes Dmitry
Re: Debian and Non-Free Services
On 12/09/2019 18:30, Sam Hartman wrote: Subject: Free Software Needs Free Tools No Debian contributor should be expected or encouraged, when working to improve Debian, to use non-free tools. I don't believe that anyone within Debian will have a problem with this statement. This includes proprietary web services. Clearly no issue here either - web services are an instance of a software application/tool so the above statement holds. We will ensure this, insofar as it is within Debian's collective control."Ensure" is perhaps the wrong word here. I submit that "Encourage" may be a better choice. Just because you, and I, believe that "No Debian contributor should be expected or encouraged... ...to use any non-free tools" does not mean that we should *prevent* them from doing so. The decision to do so should vest solely with the contributor. *providing* that their doing so does not force other contributors to use non-free tools. It would however, IMO, be acceptable to enforce this for Debian's own tools, and infrastructure. Just not for packages where Debian is not the 'root upstream'. For example, Vcs-Git fields in source packages must not refer to proprietary git code management systems. Non-Debian services are acceptable here so long as they are principally Free Software. Your example strikes of forcing people to use an entirely free system for their development process. If we are to encourage and support freedom that means that we must also accept that other people have the freedom to use proprietary git code management systems. Again if this example is bound within the relm of Debian services, tools and root packages then IMO this would be acceptable. We encourage all our upstreams to use Free/Libre tools. Again I can't see anyone within Debian having a problem with this statement. We recognise that metadata in Debian which describes the behaviour of those outside our community, for example fields which refer to upstream source management systems, may (in order to be accurate) still need to refer to proprietary systems. That is what I am trying to say, and this statement would appear to be at odds with your example above. I guess what I am trying to say is for upstream packages distributed within Debian (the vast majority) we should ensure that contributors to these packages are able to contribute using exclusively free tools and software. This does not prohibit the upstream from using proprietary services, only that their must be a method to contribute without being forced to use those services. Where the Debian project *is* the upstream then of cause we should eat our own dog food and use entirely FLOSS tools. /Andy
Re: Debian and Non-Free Services
On 15523 March 1977, Sam Hartman wrote: Subject: Free Software Needs Free Tools I think the subject does not fit the content. Its more like "Forbid DDs to use certain services". No Debian contributor should be expected or encouraged, when working to improve Debian, to use non-free tools. This includes proprietary web services. We will ensure this, insofar as it is within Debian's collective control. For example, Vcs-Git fields in source packages must not refer to proprietary git code management systems. Non-Debian services are acceptable here so long as they are principally Free Software. We encourage all our upstreams to use Free/Libre tools. We recognise that metadata in Debian which describes the behaviour of those outside our community, for example fields which refer to upstream source management systems, may (in order to be accurate) still need to refer to proprietary systems. I think that, should this pass, it has negative effects for Debian, not positive ones. While we should clearly NOT encourage the use of things like github, the only thing we IMO should forbid is where it actually hurts us as a project. Say, it really doesnt matter if i git clone github.com/something to get what the maintainer is working on right now - the one "official" source for the Debian package is whats in the archive - but if the maintainer wants to use GitHub issues as their mainplace for bug tracking and not the BTS, thats bad. So if anything, we should forbid such things (as we discourage anyways already). Difference IMO is where the main, authorative, place for something is. source in git is just some source in git, the authorative one for Debian is the upload. You can easily put an NMU on top (or take over package) While for bugs its the BTS, not some whatever system somewhere. -- bye, Joerg
Re: Debian and Non-Free Services
"Dr. Bas Wijnen" writes: > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 07:49:26PM +0200, Ansgar wrote: >> > Subject: Free Software Needs Free Tools >> > >> > No Debian contributor should be expected or encouraged, when working >> > to improve Debian, to use non-free tools. >> >> Does this include: >> >> - non-free firmware on Debian hardware, >> - non-free software for interacting with hardware, >> - non-free backup systems? > > You may be correct. In that case, this GR, if passed, declares that we want to > change that. Is that controversial? The GR forbids using any of these. That is not helpful. As far as I know there is no mainstream hardware that doesn't require non-free firmware; using non-mainstream hardware is possible, but has other problems. >> > This includes proprietary >> > web services. We will ensure this, insofar as it is within Debian's >> > collective control. >> >> Does this include use of proprietary CDN networks, DNS services, cloud >> services (such as VMs or storage) or social network services (Twitter)? >> Again, you probably cannot avoid them when contributing to relevant >> parts of the project. > > Yes, it should mean that. Again, it doesn't mean people are not allowed to use > them. It means that people who don't want to use them can still contribute to > Debian. So for example, it would not be allowed to ignore the bts and only > accept bug reports through Twitter. So assume I want to avoid using non-free DNS and CDN services, but still contribute to Debian. How should that work as long as Debian uses these services? How should one contact people using non-free mail services? (mailto:non-free is probably not better than https://non-free...) Of course Debian can stop using CDN services and provide a worse experience for users, but why? Debian's goal is not to build and operate a free CDN service... Ansgar
