Re: Trusted Organisation status for DebConf15's legal entity
* martin f krafft (madd...@debian.org) [140427 08:31]: also sprach Andreas Barth a...@ayous.org [2014-04-27 01:09 +0200]: If you get money where you provide some value for (and sponsorship might fall into that category, if e.g. logos are shown somewhere), then this money is VAT-taxable (unless one of the exceptions of the Umsatzsteuergesetz is applicable) if it is more than a certain limit, and the amount of money debconf is using is well above that limit. § 4 Abs. 22 röm. a) UStG is what I am aiming for: Von den unter § 1 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 fallenden Umsätzen sind steuerfrei: […] 22. a) die Vorträge, Kurse und anderen Veranstaltungen wissenschaftlicher oder belehrender Art, die […] von Einrichtungen, die gemeinnützigen Zwecken […] dienen, durchgeführt werden, wenn die Einnahmen überwiegend zur Deckung der Kosten verwendet werden, I know that one, I'm using it somewhere else. However, one need to check if all of Debconf falls into that, or if parts don't. Tax authorities don't necessarily consider one event treated all as one, see e.g. page 39, nr 206 of http://www.bestellen.bayern.de/shoplink/06003006.htm Sponsoring is sometimes considered to be Wirtschaftlicher Geschäftsbetrieb, see Sponsoringerlass, BMF-letter from 18.2.1998, IV B 2 - S 2144 - 40/98 - IV B 7 - S 0183 - 62/98 That is why I said some more complexity. There is the possibility to get a binding answer from tax authorities beforehand, and that could be VAT-free, but that still keeps the point more complex. Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140427085356.gv20...@mails.so.argh.org
Re: [Debconf-team] Trusted Organisation status for DebConf15's legal entity
* martin f krafft (madd...@debconf.org) [140427 11:00]: also sprach Andreas Barth a...@ayous.org [2014-04-27 10:53 +0200]: However, one need to check if all of Debconf falls into that, or if parts don't. Tax authorities don't necessarily consider one event treated all as one, see e.g. page 39, nr 206 of http://www.bestellen.bayern.de/shoplink/06003006.htm Yeah, I don't think it'll work as easily as I may have portrayed. Does anyone know a Steuerberater (tax advisor) who would be able to assist in this for free, or a low fee? According to regularation for tax advisors (Standesrecht) this won't be legal. However there are advisors who are specialized on pro-bono-organisations, so I would recommend checking with one of them (I know people who work with one of the most experienced one in Munich, so I could check if I could get a contact there, but that won't work on a weekend). However, that doesn't necessarily prevent the creation of the legal association now. As said before even though I disagree with some parts of the by-laws, as long as it's a throw-away for debconf and the debconf-organisers are happy, please go ahead. Clarifying taxes before money actually flows is important, but not necessarily prior to start of setup of the legal umbrella. (Also the international parts make that a bit more complex, one e.g. has to check whether §50a EStG is applicable - I would assume not argueing that we don't pay money but just replace travel costs, but also that should get into the picture.) Another important thing with tax authorities is simplicity: Keeping things simple prevents them from asking too many question, which in turn prevents them to give answers one doesn't like. So, if you want to setup things next weekend, I would strongly recommend to restrict it to Debconf, keep your by-laws (or better: reduce it to minimum length, i.e. remove anything not strictly necessary there), and setup a Debian Deutschland at a later occasion. I think the time-plan for setting it up is still possible. Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140427092300.gw20...@mails.so.argh.org
Re: Trusted Organisation status for DebConf15's legal entity
* Richard Hartmann (richih.mailingl...@gmail.com) [140426 23:42]: * Debian Deutschland e.V. * DebConf Deutschland e.V. * DebConf15 Deutschland e.V. From our understanding, German tax authorities don't like throw-away/single-use non-profit organisations, but we have no proof of that, so please speak up if you have experience. I'm running some throw-away non-profit organisations, and have not experienced problems. Debconf has a different tax situation than a normal TO setup (especially given the amount of money might bring us into VAT if we like it or not), so keeping those apart has some advantages to reduce long-term overhead. Also, having that seperated, reduces the risks from debconf on normal debian assets. For this reason, I would recommend to have a throw-away legal entity for debconf, and independendly form a debian-owned legal umbrella in Germany. Also, at least Ganneff and me would be willing to carry on the e.V. after DebConf15 if this is deemed useful to Debian. Given FFIS' performance (the above isn't a one-time event only, it's been this way for a long time), this seems likely. I think it would be a good idea to have a Debian Deutschland e.V., but as written above it might be better to instantiate that independend of Debconf15 e.V. Also, having Debian in the name can help with finding sponsors. You can use that name independend of how the legal umbrella is named. One of my legal umbrellas is named Trägerverein HST, but runs the brand Horber Schienen-Tage. This naming has not caused any issues. The relation between Debconf, the Debconf15 e.V. and Debian would be similar - related but not the same letters. Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140426222930.gt20...@mails.so.argh.org
Re: Trusted Organisation status for DebConf15's legal entity
* Richard Hartmann (richih.mailingl...@gmail.com) [140427 00:40]: On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 12:29 AM, Andreas Barth a...@ayous.org wrote: I'm running some throw-away non-profit organisations, and have not experienced problems. Have the tax authorities been made aware of this in advance? For how long are those organisations running? The most throw-away one is supposed to run 1-2 years, and is just in startup (could actually only start when someone else starts complying with law, but already accepted as non-profit; btw, it was founded by another already accepted non-profit organisation for risk reduction and to clean up the tax situation). Nobody put a big sticker on it this will dissolve itself soon, but the by-law indicates so. (For this reason, after some more thinking I wouldn't recommend to name it Debconf15 e.V, but rather Debconf Deutschland e.V..) Debconf has a different tax situation than a normal TO setup (especially given the amount of money might bring us into VAT if we like it or not), so keeping those apart has some advantages to reduce long-term overhead. I fail to see how, please expand. If you get money where you provide some value for (and sponsorship might fall into that category, if e.g. logos are shown somewhere), then this money is VAT-taxable (unless one of the exceptions of the Umsatzsteuergesetz is applicable) if it is more than a certain limit, and the amount of money debconf is using is well above that limit. Additionable it could save money to be VAT-taxable because it might be that you need to pay less VAT than you could substract from the goods you buy. All of that is a bit more complex (and legally binding for a couple of years) than a normal TO would need, and also needs binding answers from the tax authorities before. Also, having that seperated, reduces the risks from debconf on normal debian assets. For this reason, I would recommend to have a throw-away legal entity for debconf, and independendly form a debian-owned legal umbrella in Germany. As this organisation will not hold non-DebConf Debian money or other assets at first anyway, I do not see any risk. And even if it does, I am still not sure what the actual risks would be unless you assume we will run DebConf15 deep into red figures. Perhaps I'm just careful, but I have setup legal umbrellas in cases where I already had a tax-exempt one for risk reduction and tax simplification (even with the existing one as founding member of the new organisation, so with a clear bound and approval of the board of the existing one). It isn't expansive to do so, but makes sure you don't need to keep up any of the debconf-specialities you do, that's why I would just do that again. Also, it would buy us time to get the (rather complex) things about how to bind it to Debian done right, because that indeed isn't that easy in the German legal system, and sort out a few other things. Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140426230952.gs18...@mails.so.argh.org
Re: Trusted Organisation status for DebConf15's legal entity
* Andreas Barth (a...@ayous.org) [140427 01:10]: * Richard Hartmann (richih.mailingl...@gmail.com) [140427 00:40]: On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 12:29 AM, Andreas Barth a...@ayous.org wrote: Debconf has a different tax situation than a normal TO setup (especially given the amount of money might bring us into VAT if we like it or not), so keeping those apart has some advantages to reduce long-term overhead. I fail to see how, please expand. If you get money where you provide some value for (and sponsorship might fall into that category, if e.g. logos are shown somewhere), then this money is VAT-taxable (unless one of the exceptions of the Umsatzsteuergesetz is applicable) if it is more than a certain limit, and the amount of money debconf is using is well above that limit. Additionable it could save money to be VAT-taxable because it might be that you need to pay less VAT than you could substract from the goods you buy. All of that is a bit more complex (and legally binding for a couple of years) than a normal TO would need, and also needs binding answers from the tax authorities before. Please see http://www.bestellen.bayern.de/application/stmug_app28?SID=1886820523ACTIONxSESSxSHOWPIC%28BILDxKEY:06003006,BILDxCLASS:Artikel,BILDxTYPE:PDF%29 for a few more details about which taxes need to be payed. It also contains a short by-law template which is sufficient for being tax-exempt (page 112ff). Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140426232157.gu20...@mails.so.argh.org
Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems
* Kurt Roeckx (k...@roeckx.be) [140302 12:23]: On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 11:01:16AM +, Ian Jackson wrote: Kurt Roeckx writes (Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems): This is probably going to require a 2:1 majority requirement as written. Do you agree that the intent can be achieved by something requiring a 1:1 majority ? If so, can you please say how. If you're going to say we need to replace the TC resolution is amended with something like we wish that instead the TC had decided blah, then please reconsider. That would force the GR to avoid saying what its own effect is, which is unnecessarily confusing. Also, writing that text is very cumbersome. The text currently says it's using the TC's power to decide something, and so would fall under 4.1.4. I think the intent of this GR is not to override the TC's decision about the default, so I'm currently not sure what to suggest. I don't see why the text couldn't just say that the developers make a position statement. As per 4.1.5 this could be done with a 1:1-majority. Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140302112638.gq16...@mails.so.argh.org
Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems
* Andreas Barth (a...@ayous.org) [140302 13:07]: Thanks for the reference to the auto-nuke clause in the TC decision. How about adding something along the lines To avoid any doubt, this decision does not replace the TC resolution to avoid invoking that clause and keep the current decision (because that is also what this proposal wants to achive)? (and probably with this position statement, because that is what it is) Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140302120820.gs16...@mails.so.argh.org
Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems
* Matthew Vernon (matth...@chiark.greenend.org.uk) [140302 17:41]: Andreas Barth a...@ayous.org writes: Thanks for the reference to the auto-nuke clause in the TC decision. How about adding something along the lines To avoid any doubt, this decision does not replace the TC resolution to avoid invoking that clause and keep the current decision (because that is also what this proposal wants to achive)? I thought my original text was reasonably clear that it wasn't seeking to change the default init system for jessie...? It looks to me as the secretary doesn't fully agree with that, so perhaps some extra clarifiaction. But well, as long as we manage to have a common understanding what your text means it's ok for me. Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140302174357.gt16...@mails.so.argh.org
Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems
* Paul Tagliamonte (paul...@debian.org) [140302 19:02]: On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 05:55:14PM +, Colin Watson wrote: Huh? Ian explicitly says, as does the text itself, that this proposed GR *adopts* the TC decision on the default init system. It doesn't overturn it. The fact there's a backdoor that was inserted that allowed him to overturn the TC decision with a GR that mentions the word init is absurd. I don't know what you try to make about, but 1. the proposed GR doesn't overturn TCs decision about the default Linux init system, but holds that one up and adds something about loose coupling of init systems and packages[1] 2. the possibility to overturn TCs decision was inserted *by* *purpose* with our the common understanding of all TC members that if the developers together want to overturn our decision they should be able to do so with normal (1:1) majority. This was part of the proposals with systemd as Linux default and also with upstart as Linux default. [1] whether you think that's a good idea is something else, but this was not part by the TCs decision of the default Linux system, and the TC decided later on to not make a decision about that (yet). So I fear I need to summarize your mails on useless escalation which I don't consider helpful. Sorry. Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140302182134.gu16...@mails.so.argh.org
Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems
* Bdale Garbee (bd...@gag.com) [140302 19:17]: Colin Watson cjwat...@debian.org writes: On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:49:22PM -0500, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:35:15PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: As a consequence, the GR replaces the outcome of the TC vote. The GR text explicitly adopts the existing TC decision on the default, and adds to it. [...] 2) Dishonest (using an unrelated GR to turn over the default init decision made through a backdoor you put in) Huh? Ian explicitly says, as does the text itself, that this proposed GR *adopts* the TC decision on the default init system. It doesn't overturn it. The part I don't understand is why reference is made to any TC decision at all. Unless the objectives include overturning the decision on the default Linux init system for jessie, I see no reason to invoke the GR clause in that resolution at all. Why isn't this just a standalone GR asserting a position statement about issues of the day on the coupling question? I mostly agree on that (and would prefer to see it that way). With the small exception that it would be good to explicitly state that this position statement doesn't invoke the auto-nuke clause of our decision. Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140302182235.gv16...@mails.so.argh.org
Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems
* Iain Lane (la...@debian.org) [140302 19:28]: The rest of the discussion notwithstanding, where do you think that On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 02:50:00PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: […] That doesn't contradict the GR. If the GR passes we have two resolutions: 11th Feb as modified by GR: sysvinit as default, loose coupling sysvinit comes from? I think a qualified spelling error, and should read as systemd as default, loose coupling. Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140302184104.gw16...@mails.so.argh.org
Re: TC voting and governance process
* Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [140211 06:57]: Joey Hess jo...@debian.org writes: OTOH, if the ctte is still stuck in a procedural morass after the full 3-4 weeks it takes to pass a GR, it could be a lifeline that lets it decide on a better decision making procedure. Even if that ends up being we decide by consensus and we have none re systemd. So, well, the only thing that I do feel obligated to say about this is: http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/journal/2013-01/026.html I have had people subsequently point out to me that this post is not being entirely fair to Wikipedia, and I apologize for that part, but I stand by the general principles that I posted there. (And observe that the group size is not magic that leads to consensus *always* working. We failed at consensus in a group of eight.) Just a side note, I already failed to consensus in a group of two. (However, it was not nearly as important as this issue, so it was more easy to resolve - we ended up with delegating the topic to the tech ctte, where we didn't end up with consensus either but with a decision.) Also, I don't think we need to go for consensus. Consensus is good, but I think what we should looking hard for is that everyone could consider the winning option as acceptable, i.e. voting that above FD. It's ok if an option wins which is just a bit better than FD for all. Also, I don't think that in cases we have relevant different opinions we need to hide them - having options explicitly voted down might be healty because we are not hiding different positions but some just don't get majority. Sometimes it really is better to have a decision you don't agree with than no decision. That is a very true remark. One important (and useful) part of well working procedures is that even people who don't agree to the outcome can agree that the project has decided this outcome. And if you can agree to the second, this is good for future collaboration. Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140211082801.gc16...@mails.so.argh.org
Re: Updating the Policy Editors delegation
* Ian Jackson (ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk) [140106 17:22]: Lucas Nussbaum writes (Re: Updating the Policy Editors delegation): .oO ( funny that this comes up now, given the same delegation text was already used in https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2012/10/msg6.html and https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2013/06/msg4.html) Sorry I didn't spot it earlier :-). Historically I think delegating a policy team started with https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/06/msg00017.html Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140106173212.gj16...@mails.so.argh.org
Re: Please update the DSA delegation
Hi Lucas, * Martin Zobel-Helas (zo...@debian.org) [131202 22:11]: Hi Lucas, I am pleased to announce that DSA has promoted Héctor Orón Martínez to a full member of the team. Please update the delegation for the Debian System Administrators accordingly. Did I miss the conclusion on this? Is Héctor Orón Martínez now part of the delegated DSA team? Or do you have reasons to not make him a normal DSA member? Or do you think that the delegation is auto-updated? (Actually I think we should have our delegations so that if the current delegates add someone new, inform the DPL and -project and don't receive a veto within 6 weeks, the new person is automatically delegated as well - but I don't think our constitution nor the current delegations are explicitly allowing that, and so I would prefer an official update.) Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140104130426.gh16...@mails.so.argh.org
Re: Please update the DSA delegation
* Lucas Nussbaum (lea...@debian.org) [140104 16:30]: On 04/01/14 at 14:04 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: See https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2013/12/msg00049.html thanks. (Actually I think we should have our delegations so that if the current delegates add someone new, inform the DPL and -project and don't receive a veto within 6 weeks, the new person is automatically delegated as well - but I don't think our constitution nor the current delegations are explicitly allowing that, and so I would prefer an official update.) I disagree with that, as stated in e.g. https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2013/12/msg00032.html and https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2013/12/msg00036.html . But that does not mean that you should not try to change the constitution to add this process. Well, this doesn't convince me - but it's not important enough for me to start an GR here, or even to continue discussing about that. I could live with that. :) Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140104163506.gi16...@mails.so.argh.org
Re: DEP5: X-Autobuild
* Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt (h...@ftwca.de) [100915 17:39]: Andreas Barth a...@not.so.argh.org writes: * Charles Plessy (ple...@debian.org) [100913 16:25]: Is this a good way of doing that? The referred-to e-mail says that an XS-Autobuild header in the debian/control (not copyright) file is required. Is there a need for a particular header for this in debian/copyright? Would not the Disclaimer field be sufficient? I propose to remove the entire paragraph. If the consensus is against that, I propose we rename the field to Non-Free-Autobuild instead of using an X- prefix. - describe the fact that the package is autobuildable in debian/copyright, X-Autobuild was a poor choice. My current opinion is that, unless there is an interest to parse a specific field, it it better to use existing ones, in that case Comment or Disclaimer. We need both, the mail plus the field. This is only about the field in debian/copyright, not about the field in debian/control. We don't need the former, only the latter. Oh, sure. Technically, we even only need something in Sources (but that is derived from d/control). Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100915154927.gy2...@mails.so.argh.org
Re: DEP5: X-Autobuild
* Charles Plessy (ple...@debian.org) [100913 16:25]: Is this a good way of doing that? The referred-to e-mail says that an XS-Autobuild header in the debian/control (not copyright) file is required. Is there a need for a particular header for this in debian/copyright? Would not the Disclaimer field be sufficient? I propose to remove the entire paragraph. If the consensus is against that, I propose we rename the field to Non-Free-Autobuild instead of using an X- prefix. - describe the fact that the package is autobuildable in debian/copyright, X-Autobuild was a poor choice. My current opinion is that, unless there is an interest to parse a specific field, it it better to use existing ones, in that case Comment or Disclaimer. We need both, the mail plus the field. Reason for this is that we don't have an separate section in the archive, so we need to make sure it's signed with every upload. On the other hand, we want to manually approve each package - that's why we need the mail. Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100914183435.gv2...@mails.so.argh.org
non-free Packages as build-dependency of contrib / non-free ones autobuilding
Hi, currently our policy says that main packages must only (build-)depend on main packages, but contrib and non-free packages could use packages from contrib and non-free. In practice build-dependencies from non-free are not used by the buildds for two reasons: 1. (mostly historical) we need to make sure that the packages are not installed anymore while building packages from main - this can be ensured via the lvm-snapshot type chroots however 2. we don't know (on an automated basis) which packages in non-free can be used as build-dependency without violating copyright. For the source packages we use the marker Autobuild: yes, but that won't do for binary packages where we only want to have some packages considered by apt/aptitude. Some obvious solutions come to my mind: 1. Split non-free into non-free-but-useable, i.e. packages that can be autobuilt, and can be used as a build-dependency (and where main + contrib + non-free is self-contained, like main today already is), and silly-non-free (the remaining packages). 2. Make a sub-disttree from non-free of the acceptable packages, and put it somewhere only on ftp-master or a few hosts only (that's enough for installing build-dependencies on buildds already) Other ideas? Opinions? Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100402175855.ge19...@mails.so.argh.org
Re: I'm resigning as Release Manager
* Luk Claes (l...@debian.org) [100314 18:05]: It's time to stop thinking I would be able to keep working as Release Manager in this climate, I hereby resign as Release Manager. The release team is discussing how to continue (or rather: who should become release manager next). For the moment, expect that we continue the same way as we had while luk was on vacation. As soon as we have some more new ideas, we will try to keep everyone informed. But please give us some time for proper discussions. Thanks. Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100314172340.gg19...@mails.so.argh.org
Re: PTS subscription exposure
* Faidon Liambotis (parav...@debian.org) [100303 14:24]: Gerfried Fuchs wrote: For the same reason I don't play into facebook's hand with handing them all the linking informations they would like to know (even if some people seem to be personally offended when not being linked). People do contact random people that they find being attached to some package, even remotely. A clean example: I did the security upload for dokuwiki to backports because adn had some issues with his systems. Now random people come along and ask for this and that feature improvement and for sponsoring uploads of newer version, where I just were interested in closing the security issue for backports users in the first place. Νever happened to me but fair enough. Happened to me as well, like why is your upload to -volatile not present on security.d.o? (with the spamassassin 2010-issue). Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100303143954.gc19...@mails.so.argh.org
Re: PTS subscription exposure
* Gerfried Fuchs (rho...@deb.at) [100302 12:09]: Hi! * Mike Hommey m...@glandium.org [2010-03-02 11:47:04 CET]: On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 11:40:20AM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: Alright, let's also expose list subscriptions along the same reasoning. Again, this is not your job to judge which lists I would be interested in. Any subscriber of a mailing list on alioth can see who is subscribed to the mailing list. This is a default feature of mailman, and has been such for years. Apparently, noone cared about that privacy issue. Erm, since when did alioth lists come into play? You are losing me. The alioth lists have nothing in common with the ones run on lists.debian.org. And it's a vast difference between something that is exposed from the start to begin with or something that is later adjusted to get exposed like it wasn't intended to in the first place and thus isn't expected to be. and without proper prior public discussion. Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100302111022.ga19...@mails.so.argh.org
Re: Switching the default startup method
* Tollef Fog Heen (tfh...@err.no) [090827 21:05]: (I think I'm missing your point here, since you started quoting the RC policy at me essentially retelling me the same thing I said in my first message, and now you're doing it again.) Sorry. If I think you're wrong, I would have pointed it out. I was basically saying yes, what you said is (with a few minor restrictions) the same as the RC policy says, to make an end-of-discussion on what might packages change. Obviously I failed. Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Switching the default startup method
* Tollef Fog Heen (tfh...@err.no) [090826 08:59]: ]] Alexander Wirt | Luk Claes schrieb am Monday, den 24. August 2009: | | *snip* | Why would file-rc not work properly with dependency based booting? | | you know what file-rc is doing? You have a configfile where you list | your services and the bootlevels. So we have a configfile here. I | would have to reorder the whole file for dependency based booting, but | how can I do this reliable? And even if I would be able to do this, | this would mean to change a user configuration file which is against | policy. No, it's not. Changing configuration files is fine, as long as you keep any changes the admin has made. I don't see why this would be particularly hard, if insserv has a way to override particular bits? Our release policy tells in http://release.debian.org/squeeze/rc_policy.txt (please note the difference between conffiles and configuration files) 3. Configuration files Packages must not modify their own or other packages conffiles programmatically. (The only correct way to modify a conffile is the user running an editor specifically; if anything more automated is required or useful, configuration files must _NOT_ be handled as conffiles) Packages must not modify other packages' configuration files except by an agreed upon APIs (eg, a /usr/sbin/update-foo command). Packages' /etc/init.d scripts must be treated as configuration files. Packages' /etc/default scripts must be treated as configuration files. Packages must not include files in /etc/rcN.d, but must instead use update-rc.d to indicate when their init scripts should be run. [...] Changes to configuration files must be preserved during a package upgrade. Configurations must be preserved on package removal, and only deleted when the package is purged. Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Switching the default startup method
* Tollef Fog Heen (tfh...@err.no) [090826 16:12]: ]] Andreas Barth | Our release policy tells in | http://release.debian.org/squeeze/rc_policy.txt (please note the | difference between conffiles and configuration files) I don't see anything in section 3 that makes it a bug for file-rc to update its own configuration file, as long as the admin's changes are kept? As long as that file isn't marked as conffile, that is correct. (Of course, keeping the admin changes includes to me there must be no information loss during the handling, which leads to there needs to be a way to undo the change. And none of these sentences is specific to file-rc or any of the other tools and packages discussed in this thread.) Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Switching the default startup method
* Raphael Geissert (geiss...@debian.org) [090824 00:34]: Andreas Barth wrote: The local admin doesn't have any choice. I need to admit that I disagree with this change at this time. #475478 insserv: uninstallation fails horribly if an init script has been removed. [...] #538959 needs actually to be worked on. The current state is not how it should be. (which you later said it should be #511753) These two only seem to occur when insserv is removed, and since it is now pseudo-essential that should never happen, IOW: IMO they are not grave (I do agree that they should be addressed, though). Eh. This translates to: it is ok that the admin cannot switch back from insserv to oldstyle booting. And that is a statement that I heavily disagree with. I think neither our users nor our developers at large considers that a feature, but rather a very grave bug. We should definitly continue to support oldstyle booting, at least for the time being. #538959 is really quite serious. We have cluebatted maintainers for quite some time to use update-rc.d instead of other methods. Breaking this by insserv doesn't get you support. So please fix this ASAP, but without breaking the traditional methods even more. Also I do admit that I'm a great fan of enabling our users to make a choice. For lots of server based systems having the oldstyle sysvinit scripts works very well. It's easy to understand, it's obvious, it's standard since quite many years. I don't see any reason to enforce dependencies on these people, and as you can see in #538959 quite many people don't want it. I think the missing point here is that insserv is just one of the ways to fix the problem of having to guess a correct start number, among many others; and any system that doesn't implement that is actually a regression. There are other tools similar to insserv that also do dependency-based booting (but AFAIK none of them are in Debian). So you are telling us here that anyone who depends on the 20+ years working method of ordering boot with decimal numbers is using a regression? Sorry, but this is just plainly wrong. It is a regression if you change stuff in a way that it breaks a working scenario for many people. Please do not break something that works. Please be conservative with changes to essential stuff. Debian is not a sandbox nor your playground, but used on many production systems. The trust that we do mainly sane decisions is one of our most valuable possesions. And we should make sure we keep that trust. Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Switching the default startup method
* Raphael Hertzog (hert...@debian.org) [090824 08:54]: On Mon, 24 Aug 2009, Andreas Barth wrote: We should definitly continue to support oldstyle booting, at least for the time being. Until what? Until we know that the new method really works 100% correct, people enjoy the switch and we noticed that in fact the old packages are orphaned and not used anymore. This is not the case. I don't know when this will be the case, but don't expect it to be the case during the squeeze release cycle. (1-2 stable releases I'd expect if everything works well.) They are relying on an inferior system and the fact that they are used to it doesn't change anything on its inferior design. This is just your own personal opinion. Please do not try to enforce your personal opinion on all of us. Thanks. Please do not break something that works. Please be conservative with changes to essential stuff. Debian is not a sandbox nor your playground, but used on many production systems. The trust that we do mainly sane decisions is one of our most valuable possesions. And we should make sure we keep that trust. That's granted but it's easier to say from your place instead of petter's place... I for one appreciate the work that he has put in all this and I would highly prefer that you help him instead of complaining about his work. My proposal is to just undo the dependency for the moment. This would take the pressure away. Because you're giving away the message that you don't care very much of Petter's work and that you prefer staying with the old system instead of fixing the new system to suit your needs, and that's backwards. Can we please stay away from ad-hominem arguments. So, please re-read my mail. I said more than once that I do appreciate the work (and I really do, I think there are many scenarios where dependency based boot will help us). I however do not appreciate breaking working systems, that is correct. I just think that the new system has not reached the point where it should be the default, and definitly not the point where we should force people to use it. (In other words, not all Debian systems are alike. That Debian allows the variaty and we don't say uh, but all people use (gnome|kde|whatever), this is not supported is one of our (almost unique) selling points. For what reason should we do it different this time, especially without being forced?) Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: OT: why is this thread not on -devel?
* Holger Levsen (hol...@layer-acht.org) [090824 14:41]: the subject basically says it: why is this thread not on -devel? AFAICS this is a technical discussion, while -project is for non-technical discussions? /me wonders if Andreas had a reason for this or if this is just what I described in http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2009/08/msg00306.html :-) Because I don't see it mainly as a technical issue - but might be influenced a bit by it. Please note I sent at nearly the same time http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/08/msg00783.html but I received not so many comments yet. Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Switching the default startup method
* Steve Langasek (vor...@debian.org) [090824 19:38]: On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 04:34:56PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: It's perfectly possible to make it the default *without* making it the only supported option. I'm sure the maintainers would welcome patches to fix the bugs in question. The most vital bug that needs to be fixed currently is the new dependency from sysv-rc on insserv. The patch to fix this is trivial. (I'm refraining to open a new bug report on this for obvious reasons.) If the current maintainers are not willing to continue the maintainership of sysv-rc in a good way anymore, they should consider orphaning the package. If people aren't willing to provide those patches, then that evidently means that supporting the downgrade path is non-trivial, in which case I think it's perfectly reasonable for the maintainers to focus their attention on other bugs that impact *adoption* of the new system. I'm sure that the try to enforce us all to switch to insserv even if we don't like is doing harm to the adoption of the new system. Getting that fixed would be quite good. Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Switching the default startup method
* Steve Langasek (vor...@debian.org) [090824 20:34]: On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 08:03:59PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: * Steve Langasek (vor...@debian.org) [090824 19:38]: On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 04:34:56PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: It's perfectly possible to make it the default *without* making it the only supported option. I'm sure the maintainers would welcome patches to fix the bugs in question. The most vital bug that needs to be fixed currently is the new dependency from sysv-rc on insserv. The patch to fix this is trivial. (I'm refraining to open a new bug report on this for obvious reasons.) I don't agree that this is a bug, and fixing this bug does nothing to help improve the default Debian system. That's what this discussion about. It's obvious that we don't agree. If the current maintainers are not willing to continue the maintainership of sysv-rc in a good way anymore, they should consider orphaning the package. It's not for you to say whether they're maintaining it properly, though. It didn't say they don't maintain it properly. Some of the reasonings brought up in this thread include reasonings that sound like the maintainers would actually like to get rid of sysv-rc, and if that's indeed the case, I was just saying an obvious possibility. Sorry if any of my words sounded like an accusation, that was not intended. Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Switching the default startup method
* Wouter Verhelst (wou...@debian.org) [090824 20:51]: On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 11:34:00AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 08:03:59PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: The most vital bug that needs to be fixed currently is the new dependency from sysv-rc on insserv. The patch to fix this is trivial. (I'm refraining to open a new bug report on this for obvious reasons.) I don't agree that this is a bug, and fixing this bug does nothing to help improve the default Debian system. There is no need to make sysv-rc depend on insserv if the goal is to make it be the default. I have nothing against making insserv be the default for current or future Debian installations, and in fact support that goal. However, I *do* have qualms with insserv being the *only* option (if you want to use sysv-rc), which is currently the case. That is not the same thing as it being 'the default', and that is what I have a problem with (and, I believe, most people in this thread who oppose the change, though I'll readily accept that I might be wrong there). I agree with that. For the default, for the time being it could be a low-prio question in d-i that decides whether to install it or not (and default to yes). That'd both be forward, allowing our users the choices, and give us enough usage that after some more time it really could be that we can drop support of other methods. Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Switching the default startup method
Hi Petter, I appreciate that you're working on improving the experience of our users during startup, e.g. by adding dependency information to the init scripts. I think that will in the long run be good for Debians users. However you recently added the dependency on insserv to sysvinit-utils. By this change any computer with Debian on it will pull in insserv on the system. The local admin doesn't have any choice. I need to admit that I disagree with this change at this time. Even your own debconf templates still tell that insserv is experimental and one should be carefull. Please let me point out a few issues: #475478 insserv: uninstallation fails horribly if an init script has been removed. I really think that this is not an acceptable behaviour for any package that is essential (or pulled in by an essential package). Debian has a strong record for totally rock solid packages and upgrades, and I think we want to keep that. #538959 needs actually to be worked on. The current state is not how it should be. #538959 is really quite serious. We have cluebatted maintainers for quite some time to use update-rc.d instead of other methods. Breaking this by insserv doesn't get you support. So please fix this ASAP, but without breaking the traditional methods even more. Also I do admit that I'm a great fan of enabling our users to make a choice. For lots of server based systems having the oldstyle sysvinit scripts works very well. It's easy to understand, it's obvious, it's standard since quite many years. I don't see any reason to enforce dependencies on these people, and as you can see in #538959 quite many people don't want it. Of course, for people who reboot often having something different is also quite useful. So having the possibility for a dependency based init system is a great addition to Debian, and getting the dependency information right in the packages is something I support. However, adding new packages to the minimum package space installed on any system should be done only very careful, and after discussion with and buy-in of enough people. For this reason I propose that you undo the dependency, and keep on maintaining and improving insserv, and convincing people by the good quality of the package and its usefulness to install it (instead of forcing it on the people by a hard depends). Thanks for your work. Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Switching the default startup method
* Andreas Barth (a...@not.so.argh.org) [090823 10:40]: #538959 needs actually to be worked on. The current state is not how That should read: #511753 Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: New Technical Committee Members
* Kurt Roeckx (k...@roeckx.be) [090112 18:39]: And Steve organised the vote to add Russ (which got approved), and propose Don to the DPL. Andreas said that with 3 of the 5 votes for proposing Don the vote is over. But I think it's only 3 of 6 at that point, and the DPL still needs to approve it. If you look at the timestamps of the 3rd votes, you might notice that Don reached 3 votes in favour before the vote for Russ was finished. So, according to the constitution, at that point the outcome was no longer in doubt, and the vote was finished. I do admit that 36 seconds later Russ was added to the tech ctte, but at that time the vote was already finished, and I fail to find a regulation in the constitution that declares that the vote reopens under such circumstances. Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Hiding email addresses from spammers on https://nm.debian.org/nmlist.php
* Ben Pfaff ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070803 18:26]: Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: However, I *strongly* object to any change that would munge, hide, put behind captcha, or otherwise make it difficult for people to see *my* e-mail address on the bugs that I report or on the packages that I maintain. Please do *not* protect my e-mail address in some well-meaning but misguided desire to help me with my spam. I already have tools that do that, and I do not want anyone to put any hurdles whatsoever in the way of people being able to contact me about any of my Debian work. I want to second this. I post to Usenet, a lot, using my real email address. I'd rather be accessible than spam-free. Fully agreed. (And, BTW, my mailadress is burned anyways - I'm using it for years in usenet now, and even posted to news.answers for a few years - nothing worse can happen to any address.) Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Did debian-release become a discussion list ?
* Charles Plessy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070721 06:50]: Dear developpers, I just realised that a lot of things happen on debian-release, however, its presentation page says This list should not be considered a discussion list. I am in the process of subscribing to lists of a high relevance to active developpers. Is debian-release one of them ? Debian-release is not and should not be used as a discussion list, but of course lots of vital information about the release process is passed on there. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: soc-ctte discussion at DebConf7 [was Re: Social committee proposal]
* Ian Jackson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070627 23:31]: Raphael Hertzog writes (Re: soc-ctte discussion at DebConf7 [was Re: Social committee proposal]): AFAIR, the consensus was that: - by default, every 2 years the project has to reapprove individually each member of the soc-ctte. This gives the project an opportunity to recall members who are judged as no more representative or whatever. Reapproving probably means having more ranking above NOTA than rankings below NOTA. Maybe we should make that ratio 66%. I remember 1 year rather than 2 but it doesn't make much difference. Actually, we had two different voting systems with different time ranges: Either normal voting with 2 years (though voting every year, but only on half of the people), or approval voting every year. Basically, voting every year is ok, but we want to avoid having too large changes happening to the people to keep the knowledgebase intact. (As with approval voting, that goal is reached different, so we can vote every year on everyone, and not only on half of the people.) Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: curl dependency problem in unstable
* Michael Banck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070625 18:35]: There's always tons of problems with packages in unstable not installing etc. Unless you mean something else with `the unstable archive' I don't see how asking here about every apt-get install foo failing will work out - We've got dozens of people in #debian asking that everyday. In *this* case however we will end up with a few uninstallable packages in testing for a few days - currently working on fixing that during the next days. (In case people ask about such issues in testing.) Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Social committee proposal
* Andreas Tille ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070608 13:08]: On Fri, 8 Jun 2007, Andreas Barth wrote: I don't get the problem. We have two sets of people there in: - people elected in even years - people elected in uneven years Well, I don't think it is the best idea to discuss those issues via mail. I just hope that many people will join https://penta.debconf.org/~joerg/events/93.en.html which I registered for an open discussion about this topic. Eh, why don't do it in the discussion about Debian governance? Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Social committee proposal
* Ian Jackson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070601 11:59]: 7. The initial Social Committee will consist of of five elected Developers. The Project Secretary is requested to organise and hold an election, in a manner similar to that for Project Leader. 8. The Committee shall be responsible for appointing new members, removing existing members, and varying its size, as and when it sees fit. I think it would be better if the committee is re-elected from the developers at large - perhaps half of their size every years for a two years time (and doing the elections at the same time as the DPL)? Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Public request that action be taken at whoever abused their technical power to remove me from the kernel team at alioth.
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070529 13:58]: On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 01:40:55PM +0200, Joey Schulze wrote: Sven Luther wrote: Ok, but this was only the 'goute qui a fait deborder le vase', the bigger problem remains as a raw wound, for me, and for debian as a The - what you call - bigger problem has been discussed enough. More mails won't change anything positively with regards to it and you. You should accept this. Then what will change it ? Just leave Debian. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Public request that action be taken at whoever abused their technical power to remove me from the kernel team at alioth.
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070529 22:05]: On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 08:26:20PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: Please limit the number of posts per day to this thread. Lively discussion Lively discussion and DoS is a different thing. You do DoS. Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Another level of agression ?
* Bastian Blank ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070528 11:18]: On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 08:38:24AM +0200, Joey Schulze wrote: I can understand the latter. However, maybe it was just a mistake and waldi didn't want to remove Sven but accidently removed one line too much or something? He'll probably speak up and explain things. I already said that I can't remember. I know there was something about dilinger and wli but not more. In that case, why isn't svenl added back by you if we know now that you removed him? It really seems to me you shouldn't have admin privileges on the kernel svn if you cannot properly handle them. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Another level of agression ?
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070528 12:14]: On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 11:17:39AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote: On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 08:38:24AM +0200, Joey Schulze wrote: I can understand the latter. However, maybe it was just a mistake and waldi didn't want to remove Sven but accidently removed one line too much or something? He'll probably speak up and explain things. I already said that I can't remember. I know there was something about dilinger and wli but not more. Fine, so can you reactivate my access ? It seems that waldi doesn't want to do it, and also not to give any statement that he wanted to kick you out. I consider this a very bad behaviour, at least. And not acceptable. We had just an IRC-discussion (in German): 12:15 Ganneff waldi: wie siehts aus mit svenl wieder zum alioth kernel zuzufügen nachdem er da wohl ungeplant flog? 12:15 waldi Ganneff: es hat eigentlich keiner lust sich mit ihm abzugeben. ein teil ignoriert ihn komplett 12:15 aba waldi: *du* hast ihn entfernt. Dann bist Du auch fürs aufräumen zuständig. 12:16 Ganneff waldi: dann schreib ihm entweder sowas als entscheidung vom kernel team wenns die gibt oder füg ihn wieder zu. aber ignorieren ist nix gut. 12:16 aba waldi: entweder sagst du offiziell, das du ihn draußen haben willst. Oder du fügst ihn wieder hinzu. 12:17 Ganneff waldi: und es heisst svn zufügen, das muss nit unbedingt wieder admin sein. solang er dran arbeiten kann - oder alternativ halt weiss dass es nix wird weil $grund. 12:21 Ganneff waldi: so? 12:27 Ganneff waldi: im moment siehts eher so aus dass du deinen access zu kernel (zumindest admin) verlieren solltest, nicht sven. (and no answer from waldi up to now) As you can see, there is no need for you to escalate it - other people will take care of that. :) Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Another level of agression ?
* Andreas Barth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070528 12:28]: It seems that waldi doesn't want to do it, and also not to give any statement that he wanted to kick you out. I consider this a very bad behaviour, at least. And not acceptable. After some more pressure on IRC, your commit access has been restored. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Another level of agression ?
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070528 13:23]: [...] Sven, this whole thread is about that your commit access to the kernel svn repro was revoked without anyone telling you. What then happened is that the alioth admins published that waldi revoked the access, waldi refused to comment to it, and was finally beaten by Ganneff and me to reenable your access. So, you see, two people jumped up to help you to get your access back, and were successful. I can understand that you are annoyed/angry at waldi now, but please consider that some people in Debian did efforts to help you to have your access restored. (And BTW, I still think that waldi needs to send a public apology for removing your access - as far as I can see it, it really seems to me waldi shouldn't have admin access because his behaviour is not how any admin should behave. But please stop muddling everything together. Debian as a project is definitly not responsible for waldis bad behaviour - and there is no correlation between waldis bad behaviour and anything else, waldi is behaving bad to almost all and not only to you.) Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Change of the debian code-name base?
* Torsten Trautwein ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070526 16:07]: I'm a long time Debian GNU/Linux user - both as a desktop and server OS. I've never been a big friend of the code-names of Debian, so I wanted to ask if it was possible to change the naming resource from Toy Story to The Simpsons? I doubt the current Release Managers would switch to the Simpsons. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian Installer funktioniert nicht
[I'll redirect to [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ Bitte bei Antworten auf [EMAIL PROTECTED] beschränken. ] * Alexander Mecklenbeck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061113 18:43]: Ich habe gestern Abend versucht, meinen Sun Enterprise 220r Rechner mit Debian Linux auszustatten, doch leider hat das nicht funktioniert ? Habe das Sparc Paket Netinstall heruntergeladen, auf CD gebrannt und dann eingelegt, stop+A gedrückt, dann boot cdrom eingegeben und er sagt mir das er auf die CD nicht zugreifen kann ??? Haben Sie eine Idee ??? Weiß auch garnicht, ob ich die richtige emailadresse erwischt habe ? Normalerweise sollten Fragen entweder auf Englisch erfolgen (und dann wäre debian-sparc, siehe http://lists.debian.org/debian-sparc die richtige Liste), oder auf der deutschsprachigen Mailingliste. Welche Version des Installers? Was für eine CD-Rom-Laufwerk ist das (physikalisch)? Grüße, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian Installer funktioniert nicht
Die Liste heißt debian-user-german, bitte bei den Antworten beachten. Grüße, Andi * Andreas Barth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061113 18:51]: [I'll redirect to [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ Bitte bei Antworten auf [EMAIL PROTECTED] beschränken. ] * Alexander Mecklenbeck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061113 18:43]: Ich habe gestern Abend versucht, meinen Sun Enterprise 220r Rechner mit Debian Linux auszustatten, doch leider hat das nicht funktioniert ? Habe das Sparc Paket Netinstall heruntergeladen, auf CD gebrannt und dann eingelegt, stop+A gedrückt, dann boot cdrom eingegeben und er sagt mir das er auf die CD nicht zugreifen kann ??? Haben Sie eine Idee ??? Weiß auch garnicht, ob ich die richtige emailadresse erwischt habe ? Normalerweise sollten Fragen entweder auf Englisch erfolgen (und dann wäre debian-sparc, siehe http://lists.debian.org/debian-sparc die richtige Liste), oder auf der deutschsprachigen Mailingliste. Welche Version des Installers? Was für eine CD-Rom-Laufwerk ist das (physikalisch)? Grüße, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LSB 3.1 status for etch
* Jeff Licquia ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061021 08:51]: The specific commit which touches msync.c (found in Linus's tree) is 204ec841fbea3e5138168edbc3a76d46747cc987. It depends on several of the other patches by Peter Zijlstra that precede it. The whole group is reflected in the patch in Fedora's 2.6.18 kernel called linux-2.6-mm-tracking-dirty-pages.patch. I have not specifically tested the patches, but as this is the only patch which touches the msync code in Fedora's package, it seems to be the likely culprit. So, it would seem, Debian has a few options: - Apply the Fedora patch to Debian's kernels. - Assume that etch will ship with 2.6.19 or later. - Write a small patch to undo the 2.6.17 change which caused the problem, and apply it to Debian's kernels. Thanks for that detailed report. I assume we need to either apply the Fedora patch, or create another patch by our own - shipping wit 2.6.19 sounds like a non-option to me. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How could we give away Debian CDs/DVDs for free?
* Jason Spiro ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061016 03:15]: What if we found some way to give away Debian CDs/DVDs to whoever wanted them for free through the mail, like Ubuntu does? I would be happy enough if we could have enough CDs/DVDs to give away at booth. Perhaps we could recoup the costs by somehow selling an IRC-, email-, or phone-based for-fee tech support service. Perhaps the service could be run partly or fully by volunteers. The service would be available in addition to our current free support offerings. This is already done from companies, and I don't think that Debian should turn into a company. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DWN
* Hubert Chan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061016 05:21]: On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:18:20 +0200, Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: There has been the idea to just publish all items on DebianTimes, and make a weekly summary of these items. If anyone has something interessted to be published, please just send a mail with the article to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I also appreciated the package summaries at the bottom of DWN. (e.g. these are new packages in the archive this week, these packages have been orphaned, etc). Is there some other easy way to find that information? It shouldn't be too hard to post that to DebianTimes automatically once per week. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DWN
* Andrew Donnellan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061015 23:49]: On 10/15/06, Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Andrew Donnellan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061015 12:15]: Since Joey has said he wants to spend less time on Debian has anyone else decided to take over/assist with DWN? There has been the idea to just publish all items on DebianTimes, and make a weekly summary of these items. If anyone has something interessted to be published, please just send a mail with the article to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Seems like a good idea. I guess that would involve posting news items about discussions on the MLs as well, as that is something DWN does and Debian Times doesn't (yet). Be welcome to write such news items. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How could we give away Debian CDs/DVDs for free?
* Steve McIntyre ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061016 11:09]: Maybe, maybe not. What I've seen at Linux expos is that people don't care about free things - a lot of free CDs etc. given away at shows go straight in the bin. If people have to pay something for them (even something really cheap), then they're more likely to take an interest. Depending on the event, we ask for money (unless someone is really interessted). But even then, you need to have CDs/DVDs. :) Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How could we give away Debian CDs/DVDs for free?
* gregor herrmann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061016 11:17]: On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 11:11:49 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: * Steve McIntyre ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061016 11:09]: If people have to pay something for them (even something really cheap), then they're more likely to take an interest. Depending on the event, we ask for money (unless someone is really Out of curiosity: How much would/do the both of you charge for a CD? Depends - we usually say: We require a donation for the DVD and leave the amount to the person taking the DVD. If we see someone is really interessted, we give it away for free as well - but most people don't mind 50 Cents or 1 Euro. It also depends a lot on the booth, where they're at the booth, how many people are coming, ... On some events, giving away DVDs for free is not a problem (or even recommended, in case we get lots of free DVDs from a sponsor to hand them out), in other cases it is different. So, final decision is always with the people at the booth. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DWN
* Andrew Donnellan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061016 12:49]: I guess that several things need to be done: 1) Publicise the Times a bit more; I would guess there are many more DWN subscribers than Times readers Suggestions welcome. 2) Make the procedure for submissions a bit more clear: DWN is simply dwn(at)debian(dot)org; is DebianTimes simply the publicity list? yes. 3) Possibly get some sort of team together (if there isn't one already) to work on reporting regularly. (If such team exists/is formed count me in :) You're welcome. Such a team exists in parts, as Martin (zobel) and I are currently responsible, but we definitly need more people. I'm happy to give (more) people direct write access as soon as they're working regularly on DebianTimes. If there is anything else you want, please feel free to prod me directly. Anyone who is interessted in becoming part of the team, please subscribe to debian-publicity and feel free to propose articles and work on provided articles. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DWN
* martin f krafft ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061016 14:30]: also sprach Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.10.16.1303 +0200]: 2) Make the procedure for submissions a bit more clear: DWN is simply dwn(at)debian(dot)org; is DebianTimes simply the publicity list? yes. ... and I thought debian-publicity was a general discussion/editing list for all kinds of publicity... it is. DebianTimes isn't using that exclusively. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DWN
* Andrew Donnellan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061015 12:15]: Since Joey has said he wants to spend less time on Debian has anyone else decided to take over/assist with DWN? There has been the idea to just publish all items on DebianTimes, and make a weekly summary of these items. If anyone has something interessted to be published, please just send a mail with the article to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LSB 3.1 status for etch
* Jeff Licquia ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061006 22:57]: On Thu, 2006-10-05 at 11:00 +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: Is etch now LSB compliant? Is it time to update policy to specify LSB 3.1 instead of 1.3? I won't comment on the policy decision except to say that I'd love to see that happen. As for LSB compliance, etch i386 and amd64, at least, have been tested to be LSB compliant. I'm currently in the process of re-running tests, which will include ia64 and powerpc. I'm fairly sure that, should the policy be amended in this way, any issues that come up should be fairly easy to resolve at this point. I'm quite sure as well, but I need a few hours to write some things up first. :) Jeff, please continue with your tests. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR
Hi, * Debian Project Secretaru ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060918 20:56]: I have gone through the last couple of months of mail archives, and came up with the current state of the proposals we have before us. As there has not been many new arguments lately, and the outcome of this GRs is essential for the release of etch, I would like to go on to vote soon. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR
* Debian Project Secretaru ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060918 20:56]: From: Frederik Schueler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 23:06:54 +0200 Good signature from EA7ED2A341954920 Frederik Schüler [EMAIL PROTECTED] , | 1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software | community (Social Contract #4); | 2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel | firmware issue; however, it is not yet finally sorted out; | 3. We give priority to the timely release of Etch over sorting every | bit out; for this reason, we will deliver firmware in udebs as | long as it is necessary for installation (like all udebs), and | firmware included in the kernel itself as part of Debian Etch, | without further conditions. ` Defer discussion about SC and firmware until after the Etch release , | The Debian Project resolves that: | | (a) The inclusion in main of sourceless firmware and support in Debian | Installer is not a release blocker for the release of Etch. | | (b) For the release of Etch, the Release Managers are given discretion | to waive RC issues in other cases where the letter of the Social | Contract is currently not being met, provided there is no regression | relative to the Sarge release and that waivers are done consistently | and with proper consideration of past resolutions (e.g. GDFL) and | work already done on other (comparable) packages. | | (c) Following the release of etch, the Debian Project Leader shall: | i. ensure that the Debian community has a good understanding |of the technical and legal issues that prevent the Debian |Free Software Guidelines from being applied to logos and |firmware in a manner that meets the needs of our users; | ii. ensure that project resources are made available to |people working on addressing those issues; | iii. keep the Debian community updated on progress achieved |in these areas. | | (d) Following the release of etch, the Debian Project as a whole shall | reopen the question of which commitments should be codified in the | project's Social Contract. This shall include both an online | consultation with Debian developers, users, Debian derivatives and | the free software community, and a public in-person discussion at | DebConf 7 in Edinburgh in honour of the 10th anniversary of the | original publication of the Social Contract on the 4th of July 1997. ` I'm seconding both of these proposals. Cheers, And5 -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Filibustering general resolutions
Hi, * Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060919 17:57]: Due to a loop hole in the constitution, any group of 6 Debian developers can delay any general resolution indefinitely by putting up their own amendment, and every 6 days, making substantiative changes in their amendment (they can just rotate between a small number of very different proposals). perhaps we should, independend of current GRs, consider how to change the GR procedure so that it doesn't happen to be as painful as it is now. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LSB 3.1 status for etch
* Jeff Licquia ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060807 15:12]: On Sat, 2006-08-05 at 22:07 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: How about the init-scripts? Does LSB say anything about them, or is that a rather optional component? Yes, I had forgotten those; there were conventions in 1.3, but they have changed slightly since then. So, anything we need are forced to change in our init scripts? Or, if I read the standard correct, is that only for conforming applications, i.e. for applications that are deployed on Debian? Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DebianTimes launched
Hi, today, we launched a new service DebianTimes, times.debian.net. Its intend is to deliver larger and smaller nice items to developers and interested users. DebianTimes is available as html-page and rss-feed. It has been added to PlanetDebian as well (except the syndicated weekly news). DebianTimes is currently only available in english, but the infrastructure has been set up with translation in mind (and we should add translation soon). If you have any story/report/... you think could be on DebianTimes, please feel free to contact the DebianTimes-team at [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you like to become a regular contributor, please subscribe to that list, and help us writing good articles. If there are any other questions or issues, please feel free to contact us. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LSB 3.1 status for etch
* Jeff Licquia ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060801 16:53]: On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 11:21 +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: [Jeff Licquia] Most of the current tests pass. Of those that don't, most are recognized deficiencies. In sum, there are two potential issues with Debian and the LSB: a possible bug in cpio, and an issue with the libX11 ABI that is common to X.org distributions. If I got this right, we could fix one issue with cpio and claim Debian is compliant with LSB 3.1? Sort of. We have to release etch first. I doubt people want to support July's etch for all time. :-) But assuming the cpio problem gets fixed, it would seem that we will be able to certify etch once it's released. That sounds really cool, thanks. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RE : Re: RE : Re: Linux Magazin Germany, affecting Debian's image?!
* Radu-Cristian FOTESCU ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060717 23:28]: Companies like RHAT are defending vigurously their brand. It seems Debian has more lax approaches. Definitely, *their* lawyers are better than *yours*. Perhaps Debian just has a different approach how to deal with other people. Actually, I think you told us how you would deal with it, and your latest mails didn't had any further input, so I suggest that you leave it to us what we actually do. Repeating the same content over and over doesn't really help. Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RE : Re: Linux Magazin Germany, affecting Debian's image?!
* Radu-Cristian FOTESCU ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060718 09:38]: I'm the customer, being it a customer of a free product. If I'm a customer of Mercedes Benz, and I notice that a modified car is still labeled Mercedes (and *not* Ssang Yong, powered by Mercedes engines, but simply Mercedes), I'm affected that Mercedes doesn't care about that. And I'd stop using/buying from Mercedes, as long as they don't care to protect their mark. Do you think Mercedes would tell you anything except Thank you for your notice, we will follow up on it? We did way more, but you keep on heating up these lists. And, what do you actually want? Do you want that we all write you are our new god, and you are totally right?? Or what is your aim? As far as I can see, you are now only creating unproductive heat. So, 1. you delivered some informations, and, as some people might have noticed, we already spoke with the vendor to make the CD label better next time (i.e. we did some action to protect our policy); 2. all recent mails from your side are only a repetition of your previous mails; 3. your recommended behaviour is well known by now - sue everybody; Your first mails were definitly helpful. But now you insist in going on and press and press and make things just insane, which is not helpful at all anymore. For God's sake, it's labeled Debian Sarge, dammit! Cursing doesn't help, my son. And really now: Let's get back and do something productive. Like fixing RC-bugs for etch. Because there is one thing I definitly don't want to see: That this magazine creates another DVD based on sarge for next year's CeBiT - independend of how they title the DVD. They should base it on etch. Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RE : Re: RE : Re: Linux Magazin Germany, affecting Debian's image?!
* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060718 12:49]: Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] Does that sound like a wrong thing only to me? I'm quite happy if we identify what could work better next time. [...] As far as I can tell: 1. Label the outside of the DVD Unofficial; That has already been communicated to the Vendor (and is IMHO the by-far most important issue). 2. Make the changes available online in an easy-to-download form; 3. Announce it so we know where to pass feedback. I think that's just something the two DDs in question (Joerg and Alexander) should take care better next time. Please note that any such DVD production is a stressfull event, but - yes, one should try to do it better next time. That seems to be about it. Right. And so, the thread should be finished. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cool stuff at EDOS - collaboration ideas
Hi, we (Enrico, Martin (tbm) and Andi (aba)) visited the EDOS workshop at the Rencontres Mondiales du Logiciel Libre (RMLL) http://www.rmll.info/ on Thursday and Friday. Besides giving talks about how QA and release management work in Debian, and how easy it is to create Custom Debian Distributions, we heard a good many talks about what has happened in the EDOS project itself. Some funny things, some interesting and some not-so-interesting things we were told. One of the funny ones is the Debian weather, which represents the installability status of the packages in the form of the current weather (i.e. which percentage packages are uninstallable): http://brion.inria.fr/anla/health?bundle=Uarchitecture=i386 Some of the ideas we gathered about that was to combine that with RC bug status, and/or to put it up as applet in desktop environments (or perhaps also as something you can run at fortune time, or ...). Of course, the current weather could also be included at the web page or wherever. :) Another nice thing was that they converted our normal dependencies (which include conflicts, provides) to SAT, and put a normal SAT resolver on it. One nice side effect of that was that one can measure the SAT temperature, which means: how hard is it to resolve that formula. Most packages are pretty cool, but we have some hotspots. Actually, it might be interesting to use the sorted list as input to some other tasks (just one idea we had was co-installability testing on piuparts) - but there's definitly more to come. Or perhaps also sometimes later as hints for apt to use? It might be possible to add value from that to the testing scripts, status checkers etc - but that's not the first step of course. Also, they had some engine for package comparison and search (where the weather was one of the side spin-offs from it). This could help us to ask more question about package aspects, and they are waiting for inputs from us to have questions more in the way we like. The interface is at: http://brion.inria.fr/anla/ (and there is a more detailed CLI - but that currently generates a bit of load, and of course all of that is still alpha state). An extended package search is on http://ara.edos-project.org/ They also updated the debcheck package - now in the archive as edos-debcheck. Probably we should consider to use that on the qa.d.o-website. The dependency check people also provided some code to check which packages were co-installable in sarge and are no longer in etch. Please expect some mail from me about the details soon. (Well, I'm waiting on some mail from them, but they're apparently not in the office today. :) Some other idea was an apt with integrated rollback functionality. Though we were not so convinced how they did it (and, btw, they only did it for apt-rpm), it gave us an idea to integrate apt with some VCS for etc (eg. in order to role back configuration changes). Another idea we made up on our own was to create a second Packages file which could have minor information about packages - Bug status, temperature, popcon data, ... Might be nice for playing around, and we'll see how it's useful. There was also a group presenting about distro testing stuff. We're not as sure how far they are - but we'll try to give them some real life task to resolve (which would be useful for the release as well :). Ok, so much on what happened. The depedency people were very nice, helpful and open to suggestions from us, and invited me (aba) to come to Paris to continue discussion and integration. Perhaps someone else should come also - we need to sort that out. They also have already contact with Pierre (Madcoder). We definitly think there are good things to come and help us, so we're enthusiastic about working together with them. We encourage you to take a look at their web site and projects, and send useful ideas, suggestions and questions to the list. We will forward them to the EDOS people in order to start a discussion: weather: http://brion.inria.fr/anla/health?bundle=Uarchitecture=i386 package exploration: http://brion.inria.fr/anla/ package search: http://ara.edos-project.org/ distro testing: http://www.edos-project.org/qa/ main page: http://www.edos-project.org/xwiki/bin/Main/ Cheers, Andi, Enrico, Martin -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
release team additions
Hi, We are happy to announce the addition to the release team of Adeodato Simó, Bill Allombert, Luk Claes and Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt as Release Assistants. We'd like to thank them and all others who volunteered, especially for the excellent work done on the tasks we set during the selection process. Cheers, Andi Debian Release Team -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Call for a new DPL mediation ... This will be the only thread i will reply to in the next time about this issue.
* Chris Waters ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060621 04:22]: On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 05:55:42PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote: On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 05:09:10PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote: It doesn't matter! The DPL has no authority in the matter! He seems to think he does. At least, he has authority to stop abuse of the mailing lists if he thinks it's happening. I meant specifically the matter of SVN access. Obviously the DPL has authority over the Debian mailing lists. Do you know for a fact that a majority of the team members are likely to quit, or have threatened to quit, if AJ (or a GR) restores Sven's commit access? AJ (or a GR) cannot restore Sven's commit access. A GR can definitly override any decision, and restore Sven's commit access. I know nothing about the positions of the d-i team or Sven or AJ. I'm simply saying that if AJ or the project tried to tell *me* who could have access to a repository under *my* control, I would tell them, in very specific terms, where to shove it and how fast to spin. :) If the repository is hold on a debian.org-machine, it is definitly bound by the rules of our constitution. If you don't like it, don't use debian ressources. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Call for a new DPL mediation ... This will be the only thread i will reply to in the next time about this issue.
* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060621 07:56]: Benjamin Seidenberg wrote: AIUI (please, correct me if I am wrong) the D-I repository is hosted on svn.d.o, a machine belonging to the debian project. I don't see why the DPL would have authority over the mailing lists (hosted on a debian machine and maintained by the list admins) but not the svn repo (hosted on a debian machine, maintained by the svn admins (alioth team?) and access for that particular repo controlled by the project admins). Maybe because the team is using the resource on their own and needs to organise itself. If some external third party (e.g. the DPL) screws up and orders something, they are probably damaging the team. As a result this could end up in the team giving up or moving their work to a resource they have full control over so that such an incident does not happen again. Both would not be the results you had intended, I guess. There are two different things: - Is it helpful? - Is it allowed? I don't see why a GR cannot overrule the decisions of any team, or the tech ctte (as long as it's a technical issue), and also the DPL could redelegate the ongoing task to someone else. This is of course only the can it be done-part of it. Of course, in most cases, speaking with people is enough to resolve issues. But our constitution gives rules how teams can be changed (i.e. delegation for ongoing tasks), and how decisions can be overwritten (though of course I'm happy that these rules are not used too often). Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Call for a new DPL mediation ... This will be the only thread i will reply to in the next time about this issue.
* Matthew Garrett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060621 12:08]: Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A GR can definitly override any decision, and restore Sven's commit access. No. A GR can override any decision made by the DPL, a delegate or the technical committee. A GR can not override a decision made by an individual developer or a team of developers. I guess you could argue that svn.debian.org is adminned by a delegate of the DPL, and a GR could force them to restore Sven's commit access. But the d-i team could then move their svn archive somewhere else and refuse to provide Sven with commit access. They might move, yes. However, for some teams it might be less easy, especially if they use d.o-resources elsewhere. Also, a GR could influence what appears on the web pages. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Donations
* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060526 15:21]: Steve is an officer of a trader called the Debian-UK Society. It is not a charity. Please make donations to SPI directly. What's that? Can you *please* stop throwing shit on Debian UK? Debian UK was etablished following the Debian procedures. If you dislike it, you're open to start an GR. Otherwise, please just shut up - especially when it comes speaking to external people who want to donate money to us. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian-based miniVDR violates GPL (FYI)
* Mike Hommey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060523 12:23]: Do they distribute the binary version freely or is it that the binary binary is free for download. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: summer of code: what's next?
* Petter Reinholdtsen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060502 13:30]: [Baruch Even] Mentors should comment and grade proposals on http://code.google.com/soc/debian/open.html Right. I guess I should have a look then. Just got 'Invalid user' when I had a peek now. You need to be approved by Baruch (as well as I need that :). Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: About terminology for stable/testing/unstable
* Christian Perrier ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060501 10:10]: However, when looking at various original documentation we have in the project about this, it appears that some more consistency could be achieved. distribution is sometimes used (as in http://www.debian.org/releases/) but so is suite (for instance in most code) and sometimes version I mostly read the stable distribution as an abbreviation of the stable suite of the Debian GNU/Linux distribution. So, it depends a bit where you are: If you're only having one suite of the distribution in your hands (perhaps even phyiscally, like a DVD), wording sounds more correct if you speak about the stable distribution. If you however have all suites together (like in katie), the term suite seems to suite better. Your summary seems to be consistent with these ideas in my mind. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Reforming the NM process
* Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060416 23:08]: Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060411 18:40]: 2.1 Multiple advocates -- Ask for more than one advocate (at the moment, I'm thinking about two). This should get the number of people advocated with a Errr, I met him, he seemed nice down. At the same time, encourage prospective advocates no to advocate too fast. Basically, if there is an advocate who advoates people like this, he needs some serious cluebatting - or even refusing to accept him as advocate anymore. It sounds like a good idea, but has many drawbacks: * We have no clear guidelines for advocates. This should be improved, I'll probably work on that in the next few weeks. * We have no process that allows us to take the right to advocate people from DDs. Should I alone decide that? The nm-committee? Someone else? Do we need to document it in public? Wouldn't that lead to endless flamewars like we've seen with the expulsion process? Both of this are not hard reasons why not, but just tell why not now. I agree on them, but - as you said, this should be worked on. * Should there be a process to give the advocation rights back? Well, basically like always - if there is a *very* good reason to believe it will work better in future, yes. But mostly, if one is out, he is quite out (unless the ban is for a certain time, like no more advocations in the next half year). * After some time people will ask why only some people are allowed to advocate, while others can't. All people involved are DDs, who are supposed to be trustworthy. Why should I trust someone to sponsor properly if I don't trust his advocation messages? The second is of course a good question. Basically, if we notice someone fails the guidelines (which don't exist right now, see above) in a serious way more than once, one should really consider whether to trust that someone enough for giving him basically root access on all machines running Debian. Also, two advocates are not a problem for someone who should apply in the NM queue - if there is only one project member who's willing to advocate you, something is foul anyway. Oh, I shouldn't be here then. :) I know that the same two people who wanted to sponsor me would have sponsored you, so I don't see the problem, Andi :) That was after I started IRC. As long as one doesn't IRC, it's hard to get advocates. Afterwards, it's easy. But I think that even people who don't IRC should get the chance to become DD. 2.3 Separate upload permissions, system accounts and voting rights -- For the first stage, applicants need to identify themselves and speak about the Social Contract, the DFSG and a bit about Debian's structure. For package maintainers, an intensive package check follows. If everything went fine, these people get upload permissions for *these* packages (and nothing else). If they want to adopt new packages, their AM does a package-check once and fitting upload permissions are added. We may need to create tools to automate this, as it could become quite much work for the DAM. The question is: At which stage to add voting rights? I personally consider any active, permanent contributor to be eligble for voting - but well, one might disagree with that. I think only full DDs should get voting rights (yes, this contradicts what aj proposed in his blog). This is already settled by the constitution: voting rights are by definition exactly with the DDs. The question is just: When do we consider people to be DDs? This is not really defined, and we could make the gates more open (which I would prefer), but also close them even more. In the end, there is no correct answer, but just different preferences. Both directions are not wrong in a strictly technical sense. ... and for flames. Sorry, like I was writing in another mail in this thread: The appeal of clear rules is that people can't argue with them. That lower reduce the frustration level quite a bit. I disagree with that. Exceptions are something that are no rules. And I think we really need to be able to say we make exceptions as we see fit. This was always my approach in Debian and it has worked well. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Reforming the NM process
* Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060411 18:40]: 2.1 Multiple advocates -- Ask for more than one advocate (at the moment, I'm thinking about two). This should get the number of people advocated with a Errr, I met him, he seemed nice down. At the same time, encourage prospective advocates no to advocate too fast. Basically, if there is an advocate who advoates people like this, he needs some serious cluebatting - or even refusing to accept him as advocate anymore. Also, two advocates are not a problem for someone who should apply in the NM queue - if there is only one project member who's willing to advocate you, something is foul anyway. Oh, I shouldn't be here then. :) 2.3 Separate upload permissions, system accounts and voting rights -- For the first stage, applicants need to identify themselves and speak about the Social Contract, the DFSG and a bit about Debian's structure. For package maintainers, an intensive package check follows. If everything went fine, these people get upload permissions for *these* packages (and nothing else). If they want to adopt new packages, their AM does a package-check once and fitting upload permissions are added. We may need to create tools to automate this, as it could become quite much work for the DAM. The question is: At which stage to add voting rights? I personally consider any active, permanent contributor to be eligble for voting - but well, one might disagree with that. Work done since finishing the first stage should be thoroughly checked. To get actually useful data for this, we could make it mandatory to wait 3 or 6 months between the first and the second stage. Actually, there are (few) people right now who just go through NM in almost no time at all - like for example Thiemo Seufert needed 6 days for all the questions from his AM. I don't think that such people should be forced to wait 3 months for the full account. (One might say normally, you need to wait for at least 3 months - that leave space for the exceptions.) Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Reforming the NM process
* Michael Banck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060412 12:11]: On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 01:25:28AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Could you report such sponsors, so we may take their sponsorship privileges away? There's no technical way to do this (yet), as far as I can see. There is - if they don't check, you could revoke their upload privileges. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Reforming the NM process
* Michael Banck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060412 14:41]: On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 12:43:22PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: * Michael Banck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060412 12:11]: On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 01:25:28AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Could you report such sponsors, so we may take their sponsorship privileges away? There's no technical way to do this (yet), as far as I can see. There is - if they don't check, you could revoke their upload privileges. That would not be specific to sponsorship. Yes. But why would you trust someone to do it better regarding upstream packages? Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2006
* JC Helary ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060406 16:14]: However true that technically is, it clearly does not contribute to the well-being of non-maintainer contributors in the Project. I agree to that statement - but that shouldn't make us replace the nice term Debian Developer with a not-so-nice term. And, actually, it is not a real show stopper. So, if someone has a good term, I'm all for using that term - but until that, DD just works well (and of course, we should keep the term DD anyways for the package maintainers, it's just a nice term). Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Setting up i18n.debian.org?
* Pierre Habouzit ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060328 17:09]: Le Mar 28 Mars 2006 17:05, Margarita Manterola a écrit : I think it would be great if Debian had this service, since it would allow a _LOT_ of people who want to help Debian but lack the skills to participate and actually _help_. seconded. Someone who is willing to do the work? I probably could offer some initial space on a server for i18n.d.n until it is ready to move to i18n.d.o. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LWN subscription
* Isaac Clerencia ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060310 12:41]: On Friday 10 March 2006 08:17, Florian Weimer wrote: Has Debian still got that blanket LWN subscription for all developers? Yes, although I don't remember how to get it :) It's documented in the developers reference. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Reducing my involvement in Debian
* Matthew Garrett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060116 12:38]: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [0] Including assuming dictatorial power: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/12/the_security_th_1.html The definition of 'dictatorial' given here is worth noting, even if you don't read the rest of it. quis custodiet ipsos custodes?=20 The very definition of a dictatorship is a system that puts a ruler above the law. Just to clear up any conflusion, as is documented in the Debian constitution any decision made by the DPL or any delegates (including the mailing list admins) may be overruled by a simple majority in a GR. I'm not quite sure how that could be considered above the law. Though of course some delegates of the DPL could influence who could vote in that GR (not that I assume that the current ones would do that, but this seems to be a flaw that the constitution doesn't regulate at all how people can become and loose developer status). Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is volatile dead?
* Adrian von Bidder ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [051121 08:32]: * I've not received an answer to my announcement on the d-v mailing list in a week, and investigation of the last three messages in the list archive (re: spamassassin and f-prot-installer) indicate that receiving no comments is nothing unusual. So, is the Debian volatile archive officially dead? Now I don't care much about random .debian.net (== unofficial) services, but OTOH volatile is mentioned in the release notes, so peolpe would expect it to work. You mean, if there is a week where people are only available for emergency services, an service is officially dead? Sorry, I disagree. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian UK
* Stephen Frost ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050907 14:02]: * Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 12:30:39AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: The debian trademark policy says no businesses get to use the mark. Why should this selling association, which ignores good practice, get a swift exception, while Ian Murdock's development association gets referred for negotiations? Because, quite simply, they are not a business, at least in the sense that was meant at the above. I'm not so sure I agree with this interpretation... When we claim to not sell products, and therefore claim to be non-commercial, I'd have to say that I'd expect anything which does sell products or is commercial would be considered a business to us. Well, I don't know how the british rules are, but at least here (Germany) a non-commercial institution can do business, as long as the business helps in reaching the institution's goals. And selling Debian T-Shirts falls into that aspect IMHO. (Business because it doesn't really always fall within the business laws.) I mean, take LinuxTag for example, there where guys there at the debian booth selling t-shirts and stuff, don't know the detail, but nobody bashed them for doing business in debian name, and i believe as long as the money is not given out to share-holders, but is for debian (either as plain donation, or expensed for debian related stuff, like stock renewal and the ocassional yearly party), then everything is fine and you are just silly in claiming the contrary. Either Debian's going to be a commercial entity or it's not. Debian is not a commercial entity just because it _also_ sells T-Shirts and other stuff. Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian UK
* Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) [050907 15:02]: AIUI, that's been frowned upon in the US because actually selling things makes you liable for collecting/paying sales tax which is a huge nuisance. Giving stuff away and asking for a donation, meanwhile, doesn't. Different countries handle that differently. For example in Germany, sales taxes don't need to be payed if you make less than ~16000 Euro revenues per year with selling stuff (it's a bit more complex, but - well, that's basically why this is not an issue). For reference, Australia allows certain companies to call themselves charities for tax purposes; but they're restricted to very specific purposes, none of which cover developing a free operating system to benefit humanity as a whole. Within German law, Debian is even a chartiy, which goes nice for tax purposes (however, being a charity doesn't help you with the sales tax stuff at all here, but that doesn't matter because we're small enough in financial terms). :) Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian UK
* Stephen Frost ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050907 16:15]: In general I believe the practice *has* been that we don't sell things. Actually, I have never seen any Debian booth where we didn't sell things. With exception of fairs where the fair didn't allow it. It's long been the case that Debian sells CDs at European events. To the best of my knowledge, until now there has never been any real complaints over this sort of behaviour. It's hardly as if we've been hiding this - see http://www.debian.org/events/2003/1008-linuxexpo-report for instance. I'd argue that this isn't something that Debian as a whole has an objection to, and that (as a result) the website should be changed. Alright, then let's change the website and let's put up a better explanation of our policies regarding selling things. I'd rather that policy not be location-specific but it sounds like it'd have to be for what's currently happening to be accurately reflected. To something like Debian doesn't sell CDs via the Internet. However, at some events Debian sells CDs (and other stuff), depending if the local applicable laws make that possible without too much ado. ? Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian UK
* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050907 16:32]: Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, I don't know how the british rules are, but at least here (Germany) a non-commercial institution can do business, as long as the business helps in reaching the institution's goals. [...] What is translating as non-commercial institution here? I'd regard a German e.V. or French association a buts non lucratifs as capable of being commercial, like a UK charity can be commercial. usually a non-commercial instituation is a tax-chariatable e.V., which means the amount of commercial things they can do is quite limited. Cheers, Andi - founding-member of 4 such organisations - -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian UK
Hi, * Philip Hands ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050907 12:09]: On reflection, I think we should ensure that the wording makes it clear that one has to express an interest in membership in order to be considered a member. I'll start a thread to that effect back on the debian-uk list. I know a local organisation here where all people that are default members can become member with expressing that interest or taking part in the organisation (like voting), and the quorums are made so that it doesn't matter how many members there are - i.e. you can just start a vote at the right place, and everyone who votes is member. (And same for leaving the organization - their membership expires by itself.) Of course, there are much more ways to do it right, and it's not my task to decide which to take :) Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What the DFSG really says about trademarks
* Steve McIntyre ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050830 13:08]: Bully for them. Conference trips that have been paid for from Debian UK funds: * Debconf 3 travel (Scott James Remnant, as he already mentioned) * Dpkg conference (Scott again) * GNOME foundation meeting, representing Debian (Matthew Garrett) * Several DPL trips (Martin Michlmayr) All of these reimbursements were explicitly authorised by the DPL (tbm for the first 3, Branden for the latter). In each case, the money would have come from SPI funds but it's easier / cheaper to use money already in the UK. And the same has happened with other Debian money hold by other organisations for Debian. And that's IMHO a feature. Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Delegation for trademark negotiatons with the DCCA
* Michael Meskes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050824 12:54]: ... anyone. As long as it is clear that they are an external (commercial or non-commercial) entity, I would expect no problem to implictely or explicitely granting many more groups derived rights to the trademark Debian. Only the wording core used in combination with the trademark Debian, implies to me a very specific relationship to the project. But the word core is not meant as in core of Debian but as in core of several distributions based on Debian. I know that you didn't mean it as core of Debian. But it's easy to understand it that way for people not too involved in DCC. Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why isn't queue/new world-readable?
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050803 00:10]: On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 12:55:01PM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote: Hello Steve, On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 05:38:39PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 12:43:48PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote: Also, Based on another message I read (on this very list IIRC) Debian is used by the government as an example of the propper way to export open source cryptographic software. [...] Er, please provide a reference; I've never heard anything of the sort, and google is no help. A similar claim was on this list two weeks ago: in http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2005/07/msg00195.html Philip Hands writes This is because the current export regulations from the USA require all crypto software to be notified to the authorities. It seems that when a new package is uploaded, regardless of what it might be, we inform them of the package name, and that it may now, or in the future, contain crypto. This (admittedly silly) procedure has apparently been adopted by them as the shining example of how to do it right. Ah, guess I missed that message, thanks. Well, though the source is more credible, AFAICT this is still hearsay... does anyone know where this assertion actually originated? Bdale told that on the boat trip during Debconf to Phil and me (and other peoples sitting around). Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian Core Consortium
* Alexander Wirt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050724 12:58]: Florian Weimer schrieb am Sonntag, den 24. Juli 2005: How is Debian related to the Debian Core Consortium? Why are they using the name Debian? Maybe you sould wait until its been more than a plan to do something before crying about names. There isn't anything official yet about the Consortium. If the quote | A spokesperson for Xandros said, Xandros is actively working with | Progeny on the Debian Core Consortium. http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1836184,00.asp is correct, than there is something official, as Xandors has confirmed it. Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian Core Consortium
* Thomas Viehmann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050725 22:32]: Stephen Frost wrote: * Thomas Viehmann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Maybe it would be great to come up with something that can be used by everyone interested. I'm thinking along the lines granting a license to use Debian derived as part of the name for products / efforts to create products derived from Debian, so that Debian derived trusted Gnu/Linux or Consortium for a Debian derived core would be covered. OK, now it's time to admit that I'm not a marketing expert and the examples offered do suck, but maybe it's a good idea. After all, we do like derived distros to reference Debian... This sounds like something reasonable to do in terms of a trademark policy but there's a couple problems with it. If 'Debian derived' actually falls under trademark requirements at all (I'm not sure it does) and, if it does, then people still need to ask Debian/SPI for an official submark before using it. Basically, that kind of a policy is fine, but doesn't remove the need for Debian/SPI to protect its trademarks. Well, my idea was that it might be nice to have some general license (similar in spirit but likely not as liberal as free software license) for a submark to offer something to people deriving Debian and not create too much burden. Just that trademark law is even more braindamaged and would make it at least quite difficult to make such a general license. Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Discussion of bug #311683, default kde install shows porn
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050605 15:20]: On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 01:49:54PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: Sven Luther wrote: Not if we don't annulate the woody release and fix it in woody as well. It's rediculous that a bug that is present in woody already which was released nearly three years ago, suddenly is considered a valid release blocker for sarge less than one week before it's release. Come on, we needed almost 3 years to be ready for the release, and now one week more or less is going to be such a change ? What happened to the we release when we are ready we were so proud of in the past ? Maybe you didn't notice, but I wasn't talking about postponing the release but about how ridiculous this thread and the behaviour of several people is. Notice that nobody was taking this seriously, people where only saying, how it is not so important, there is an easy workaround, let's just forget about this. I can assure you, that is not true. We had some discussion within the release team about this bug, we took it very seriously. However, there were only two options: Release this weekend or delay it a further week. We decided that in total releasing now was the better option. Please note that this didn't say it is not a problem. But just that this issue won't hold up the release. Actually, I personally consider some bugs worse than this one, like the doc-debian package didn't make it to sarge, samba has a bad bug, #311357 (problem with via-rhine in the kernel). But, one has just to say at some point now, we release. Because there will be always a known issue. And, I'm proud about Sarge, and that I had the possibility to be part of the team working on Sarge. And I'm happy about the great support and help by the Debian community for sarge and getting (almost) all parts in shape. Thanks for that. Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Discussion of bug #311683, default kde install shows porn
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050605 10:54]: So, we will ship a sarge release which will show porn to our kids by default ? That is not true. By default, KDE is not used. And even with using KDE, by default the random screen saver is not selected. Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: snapshot.debian.net
* Jeroen van Wolffelaar ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050425 11:40]: On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 11:15:57AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: The snapshot service is very valuable when it comes to checking older versions of packages. For example, it is a very, very good help for doing security work when older package versions need to be reviewed. Does that include the binary packages? I'd guess that binary packages are of lesser use because of library and other environmental changes, and it is mainly/exclusively the source packages that are of assistance in this matter. I consider binary packages as extrem useful to check for dependency changes etc, or for fixing issues in some core packages where you need to take an older version for building a newer one. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Poll results: User views on the FDL issue
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050422 09:15]: [...] I usually ignore anonymous comments. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: I'll be a son of a bitch.
* Ean Schuessler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050412 18:40]: I don't understand it and I'm not happy about it but I accept it. A market almost always makes better decisions than an individual. If the majority of the Debian project doesn't carry a grudge about the SPI accounting mishap then I guess I can't either. Actually, there are things I'm much more worried about. E.g. lully being down for ages, and http://db.debian.org/machines.cgi?host=lully reads: Status: down - root fs drive died, no response from local admin Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
