Re: Squeeze, firmware and installation
On 2010-05-05, Bernd Zeimetz be...@bzed.de wrote: This is still an annoying thing to handle. If you install machines at different locations regulary, this firmware crap is nothing but a pita. I can't see a reason why we should not be able to ship cd-images in non-free. I fully concur. Cheers, Moritz -- 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/slrnhu3pj9.4rf@inutil.org
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
On 2009-07-30, Teemu Likonen tliko...@iki.fi wrote: On 2009-07-30 13:12 (+0200), Sven Joachim wrote: On 2009-07-30 11:36 +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote: Oh, and Debian got hundreds of active developers, and I doubt they'll be running to Shuttleworth anytime soon. Probably not, but the release synchronization with Ubuntu may make them feel that they are working for him, which can be a great demotivation. That's why it would be interesting to hear some concrete ideas how useful this would be for the parties. How pros and cons balance? I'll start: Aligning our releases with RHEL rather than with Ubuntu seems more worthwhile to me. They have similar stabilisation lengths as we did for previous releases and they're investing a lot of work into the kernel, from which we could profit immensely. Cheers, Moritz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
On 2009-07-30, Marc Haber mh+debian-proj...@zugschlus.de wrote: I don't see the advantage for Debian short of probable ease of work for the security team (which doesn't seem to have commented yet). The synergy is negligable, since the most time-consuming elements (testing, handling the buildds and the release) need to be done individually anyway. Also, Ubuntu supports only a subset of Debian with security updates. Cheers, Moritz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian Membership
[Followup-To: header set to gmane.linux.debian.devel.new-maintainer.] On 2009-03-14, Thomas Viehmann t...@beamnet.de wrote: Hi, if you allow me to share a thought here even though I am not a developer and as such do not have any say in this. Matthew Johnson wrote: My goals with changing the membership procedures are: [... snip ...] While the aims you list themself may be laudable to achieve improvements, your *goal* with changing the membership procedures should look something like What fix/changes do you propose or did you leave this sentence intentionally unfinished? Cheers, Moritz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Draft for lenny release announcement
On 2009-02-09, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl alexan...@schmehl.info wrote: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --040603030801070601030404 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit [ Sorry for the cross post; just trying to make sure everyone is aware of the current state ] Hi! Attached you'll find the current draft of the announcement for the lenny release. Based upon the announcement for the last release it's far from ready :( Maybe add a new about all the fancy games that are included in Lenny? Nexuiz, OpenArena, Battle for Wesnoth, FreeCiv, FreeCol, SuperTux, Torcs? And you should mention GoPlay, which allows comfortable browsing of games. Cheers, Moritz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Will Debian ever seperate blobs?
Frederique W. Piccart wrote: I've just read about blobs and that Debian is not completely free, even if with the fact I refused non-free and contrib software during expert install. What gives? Is Debian ever going to be completely free from blobs for users who prefer this? Go ahead, the bugs are tagged help: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=493925 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=494007 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=494009 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=494308 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=494010 Cheers, Moritz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: No buildd redundancy for alpha/mips/mipsel
On 2007-11-30, Michael Banck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 12:23:34AM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: On 29/11/2007, Michael Banck wrote: I believe buildd redundancy does not mean having 2+ active buildds, but having at least one active buildd who can keep up, plus a possibly inactive backup buildd who could quickly be made active in case the primary buildd fails. I'd add ???having a responsive buildd maintainer???, uploading packages in a timely fashion. Awww, just when we were able to keep it constructive for a couple of messages... This is constructive. I can only speak for the security buildd network, but redundancy in the buildd admins increases the responsiveness in which problems are fixed by a great deal and is highly important. Cheers, Moritz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: infrastructure team rules (second edit)
Clint Adams wrote: On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 10:50:29PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: * Infrastructure teams have to decide to accept or reject candidates who nominated themselves. The basic requirements are: Why should teams decide on their own membership? I don't think this should be allowed. What's the alternative? Letting anyone in who wants, even if the rest of the team distrusts them? Don't break the whole system, just because you're unhappy with a specific symptom (DSA), that's not going to work. Cheers, Moritz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Need of non-germany-tree in Debian?
Alexander Wirt wrote: Huh? Distributing computer games without the necessary permission under applicable youth protection laws is already forbidden. [..] planetpenguin-racer is affected as well. It doesn't matter whether the game is violent or not. There's only an exception for mostly educational games. Wasn't there another exception if the game(s) is(/are) part of some bigger software bundle, i.e. a linux distribution? Of course, as long as not the game itself is the main reason of the compilation, for example if its an operating system its legal. This, of course, does not count for games that are really forbidden (on the index), like doom, rise of the triad or quake. Otherwise I wouldn't be able to provide Debian DVDs for events like Linuxtag. But neither of the games on the index (rott, doom, quake2) provide the game media, so I don't believe they're affected. Plus, last time I checked setting a game on the index was strictly bound to specific versions of the game. E.g, Mortal Kombat was on the index for all game versions except the one for the Game Boy, whose graphics apparently weren't troubling enough. I doubt that a Linux port is explicitly listed. Cheers, Moritz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Need of non-germany-tree in Debian?
Malte Hahlbeck wrote: Today the upper House of the German Parliament (Bundesrat) decided to declare Security Software like nmap, nessus etc. illegal in a way that the software itself and not it's criminal use is indictable. That is no Joke. This Law will be active when it is published. That should last a few weeks. What would be the consequence? Will there be the need of a non-germany-tree in the Debian Repositories? This question is no joke. Modifying the archive structure for every broken law is not a viable option. This is mostly a mirror problem, but we need easy ways to provide mirror operators the means to opt-out content potentially harmful to a given jurisdiction. PS: Funny/scary side aspect: The German minister of justice, who's behind this law was asked by kid reporters about the internet; she doesn't even know what a web browser is... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM1xs1jDcis (German language) (Use youtube-dl and mplayer to watch this with free software) Cheers, Moritz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Some thoughts on the ARM build daemons
Aurelien Jarno wrote: - tofee: up, building packages, sometimes stable-security. I think it is time to changes things. Our faster build daemons have a 233MHz CPU with 256MB of RAM, while there are way faster ARM CPU today. How much faster is the fastest available ARM CPU compared to toffee? Cheers, Moritz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Some thoughts on the ARM build daemons
Lennert Buytenhek wrote: - tofee: up, building packages, sometimes stable-security. I think it is time to changes things. Our faster build daemons have a 233MHz CPU with 256MB of RAM, while there are way faster ARM CPU today. How much faster is the fastest available ARM CPU compared to toffee? As in, the fastest ARM CPU that exists in the world? As far as I know, that would be the 1.2 GHz Intel IOP342 (dual core.) Are these publicly available and affordable? If so, let's replace the existing seven buildds with two IOP342; it'll reduce the administrative overhead for DSA/buildd admins and lower the peak time for arm security builds. Right now toffee is six times slower than the second-slowest Etch archs (mipsel/powerpc) and about 32 times slower than the fastest one (s390). (All accounted for a recent xfree86 oldstable-security build). Cheers, Moritz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian 4.0 finally arrives... does anyone care?
Alexander Schmehl wrote: * Adrian von Bidder [EMAIL PROTECTED] [070410 08:19]: (There are many news items more or less just quoting the release=20 announcement, But also note, that lazy journalists might falsify your positive statistics ;) (Please take this as enhancement bug, not a flame) Debian press releases need a more positive PR spin, as most journalists are too lazy/busy/uninformed to research facts for themselves. As an example: Plenty of people complain that our Etch kernel is outdated, but we don't tell them that a quality enterprise-grade kernel _requires_ long stabilisation and testing. (One of our direct competitor distributions, RHEL 5, released two weeks before us and also bases their kernel on 2.6.18.) Cheers, Moritz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Rethinking stable updates policy
David Nusinow wrote: The rough plan is to provide an alternative set of updated kernel packages and potentially also xservers (depending on how modular the new X.org modulization really is) nine months after Etch release. ian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] This may be problematic. The server's ABI version will change, requiring the old drivers to be rebuilt or new drivers. This may or may not happen every upstream X.org release, I can't really say without more experience, but the ABI did break between 7.0 and 7.1. The server should work fine without too many additional backports of the libs or protocol headers though. The 7.1 server only requires an update of one lib and two protocol headers from 7.0. I'd imagine that this will be more or less the average. I hope you or someone else from the XSF joins this effort in 2007, but let's rest it until Etch is released. Cheers, Moritz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Concerns with Open/OS Corporate Linux ads?
martin f krafft wrote: and that they add support and maintenance, which adds the features - reliable release cycle - newest packages - security team - security administration Their latest security update is from February... Cheers, Moritz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Rethinking stable updates policy
Martin Schulze wrote: It would be good, though, especially in order to have some support for hardware that has entered the market after the last Debian release, if there would be an outside repository for updated kernel and installer packages. However, nobody considered this important enough yet. (Hint! Hint!) Not quite: Some people met at Debconf (including Frans, aba, Dann and me) to discuss a potential solution to the hardware problem. Dann sent a report around, didn't you get it? The rough plan is to provide an alternative set of updated kernel packages and potentially also xservers (depending on how modular the new X.org modulization really is) nine months after Etch release. Everyone who has installed regular Etch would stay with it and those requiring it could choose it instead (possibly through an etch-update apt source). However all fine details need to be sorted out and for now the priority should be to release Etch on the 4th of December. Cheers, Moritz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PR work
Martin Schulze wrote: Couldn't we just put something nice there? Like news that actually show how alive Debian is, reporting about new, shiny software packages in testing, with xxxtra-bling! Seriously, good press work isn't when you send out a hrm, still not dead notice every three of four months. Yes. Real news should be announced. However, what you wrote as examples doesn't even sound suitable for debian-news to me. I just did a quick review of this year's DWN issues and these are subjects of hypothetical press releases interesting to users: Next Debian release will integrate the Kolab groupware Next Debian release will have a graphical installer New Debian Live Initiative will provide official Debian Live CDs Debian Developer's Room at FOSDEM conference Debian Booth at CeBIT Debian has reorganized it's Technical Committee Debian considers GNU FDL with invariant sections non-free Next Debian release will have full Xen integration Cheers, Moritz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Stable security support
Anthony Towns wrote: Since the above, Moritz Muehlenhoff has been added as a security secretary and given priveleges to do security updates for testing via the security.debian.org infrastructure, but there's been no other activity to my knowledge. I'm busy with the sarge2 kernel update, I'll come back to you for the testing queue once this is finished. Wrt stable; quite a bunch of DSAs are pending. The testing-security team haven't issued any advisories since about this time in December. There were some cases, where a DTSA would've been desirable, but noone had time/didn't care, yes. But generally, the propagation chains have been rather easy in the past weeks and most updates made it through regular sid-testing propagation, which is the preferred procedure in general. There'll be some proposed improvements from my side as well, which I'll send to secure-testing-team@, once I have a bit more free time. There's discussion on the secure-testing-team list on this topic [0], and also some discussion led by Moritz about using the secure-testing infrastructure to track DSAs. This is already publicly available, the current state of open security issues in stable and oldstable is available at http://idssi.enyo.de/tracker/status/release/stable and http://idssi.enyo.de/tracker/status/release/oldstable We still need to sort out some false positives, i.e. packages that have a lower version number than the recorded sid fix, but which are not vulnerable for some reason (e.g. the affected code isn't present), but in general the data quality is quite solid. I expect that we'll have checked the backlog by the end of next week. There's also an experimental local frontend in sid since a few weeks. It's called debsecan and operates on the same data basis. Cheers, Moritz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The source of FSF policy
In gmane.linux.debian.devel.project, you wrote: Several of you work closely with GNU people. A question for you. Is the FSF a body like the IETF, W3C or Debian in which stakeholders make reasonably collaborative policy decisions together? Or is FSF policy more or less another name for the views of Richard M. Stallman? (Or does the reality lie somewhere in between, or elsewhere entirely?) The FSF is a non-profit organization lead by a board of six directors (RMS being the most prominent one). Neither Associate Members nor Corporate Patron have direct voting privileges, though one may raise concerns at the member meeting or through digital means. Cheers, Moritz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
