Re: shapado.debian.net now available [Was: user support]
Hi, On Sat, Oct 02, 2010 at 07:01:37PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 01:59:18PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: Comments? Volunteers? Thanks to Shapado developers (and in particular Patrick Aljord) and to Fernando C. Estrada and Luis Uribe (current admins), we now have: http://shapado.debian.net hmm. Nothing against promotion of the shapado software, but wouldn't it make sense to use a domain that has some more expressiveness? Regards, Patrick -- 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/20101003160114.ga12...@debian
Re: Debian accepting Social Micropayment?
Hi Steffen, I assume nothing in your mail is adressing me privately so I'm quoting it in my reply to the mailing list. On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 06:18:39PM +0200, Steffen Möller wrote: On 08/17/2010 05:24 PM, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote: On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 05:02:43PM +0200, Steffen Möller wrote: we should only help collecting when we are certain to know what we are doing. Agreed. 2) Not every *developer* in our project might agree that this money should then go to upstream. After all we have packages which are *quite* a lot of work for the Debian developers maintaining them. They might find it unfair to see users spending money (possibly on their work) which then ends in the hands of other people. well, that is correct, but this means that that maintainer should then be considered a part of upstream, then. and hopefully upstream recognizes that effort and gives some money to its package maintainer and then co-developer. Ehm, yeah, and my father is the emperor of china, then. As you know, in Debian we have to deal at least with: - uncorporative upstreams - dead upstreams - corporative upstreams But even for the last group no one can expect our upstreams to share donations with their downstreams. Consider the amount of work this would mean for them. How should this work after all? So clearly if we'd want to do this and if we'd want to share what comes in with our own developers we need to do the allocation (or give it into the hands of SPI for obvious reasons) ourselves. Best Regards, Patrick -- 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/20100818093334.ga7...@debian
Re: Debian accepting Social Micropayment?
Hi Steffen, On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:10:57PM +0200, Steffen Möller wrote: Ehm, yeah, and my father is the emperor of china, then. As you know, in Debian we have to deal at least with: - uncorporative upstreams - dead upstreams - corporative upstreams which would then fall under the we don't know what we are doing, no, we can know what we are doing, if we come to a decision how to handle those cases. and if upstream is not cooperative then one does not loose anything either. It is just your pride that hurts. First of all: Its not *my* pride. I have not even decided whats my POV in this thing. What I am doing here is telling you (and the others) that there is a potential problem, because people might have this POV. Second: I don't think that this has something to with hurt pride. In fact I think that your use of this wording is very unfair to those people who might have this POV. Contrary I think that this has something to with Honour for those who deserve it. Yes, I agree that its a good thing if upstreams get something for what they do (although nobody hinders them from collecting donations as well). But they are not the only ones doing work. So if you collect something for the work done by several different people you have to make sure there is equality. But even for the last group no one can expect our upstreams to share donations with their downstreams. Consider the amount of work this would mean for them. How should this work after all? We are not talking about real money. It is only an opportunity for our users to feel a bit better in that they can give something back when they don't have the technical skills or time to do so. I don't care. Don't we? As far as I understood flattr its possible to get a payout from the collected flattrs (unless they are done by people who did not put money into flattr on their own). So it might be 2 Euros in a year but thats still money. So clearly if we'd want to do this and if we'd want to share what comes in with our own developers we need to do the allocation (or give it into the hands of SPI for obvious reasons) ourselves. It is not on me to decide anything. To sum up: I never said it is. But if you make a proposal like this you should take into count all possibilities. When asking the spontaneous end user to donate, we shall not expect them to distinguish between the upstream work and our packaging work. I hence find it problematic to collect only for us. A Debian money drop point should exist, and we should also use our presence to help upstream to get some help, just to be fair, and let the user decide what route to go. Ehm aren't your two statements conflicting with each other? You want to give the choice to the user but you don't expect him to be able to choice? Regards, Patrick -- 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/20100818104618.gb7...@debian
Re: Debian accepting Social Micropayment?
Hi, On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 05:02:43PM +0200, Steffen Möller wrote: flattr or otherwise support that package. The amount collected should then go to upstream. Maybe we should not do this for all packages but only when upstream asks for it. I guess we as a project will already run into disagreement at this point. There are two things to think about: 1) The user might think that the money goes to the Debian Developer who takes care of the package and eventually wants this as well. Eventually he might think the other way round. Can we make sure that we know at whom his money is directed? 2) Not every *developer* in our project might agree that this money should then go to upstream. After all we have packages which are *quiet* a lot of work for the Debian developers maintaining them. They might find it unfair to see users spending money (possibly on their work) which then ends in the hands of other people. Sure, they are doing open source and shouldn't expect money from it. But as soon as money is collected on a per-package-basis this topic might arise. Best Regards, Patrick -- 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/20100817152404.ga5...@debian
Re: Problems with NM Front Desk
Hi, On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 03:13:34PM +0200, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: I, as an outsider, don't want to investigate and report on people, in general; I'm just concerned with packages being in a good shape (especially the ones that I know of, and if I can help in any way). well, if you don't want to do it as an outsider you don't have to, but its the right way to go under normal circumstances and anyway if you were a DD. You do not need to be a DD to address this, and if you're interested in maintaining this package, you *should not* wait to be a DD to address this. You can start working on this now. As I said multiple times I already did, I created 3 versions of that packages already, which were sponsored and uploaded: http://packages.qa.debian.org/a/aqsis.html http://packages.qa.debian.org/k/k3d.html with a few fixes in the works (RPATH lintian warning, licensng problems and others). Yes, you did three uploads on two packages for which you are not the maintainer in a time range of one (!) month. In other words: No one can see from this as much commitment as we require from people who want to be a Debian Developer. We can't even tell from this if you'd be active in a month from now. And one could even say that the answer to one of the questions in the Apply for NM checklist is no, depending on how you look at it, because you are not the maintainer of any package in the archive. Don't take that as we'd not appreciate or honour what you've did so far. But you don't have to be a DD for this. It does not require you the right to vote or unsupervised upload access for every package in the archive. You possibly don't need access to our porter systems. I don't want to comment the communication between you and FD/DAM but it seems to me that you have not yet understood some of the basic concepts of how Debian works. Therefore I can understand if you are not passed through to start the process of becoming a DD. If you mean that I was rejected because I required more time from Front Desk, I don't think that's true. Instead of looking to Maintainer or Uploaders field, all I was asking is to just look at a few entries in a changelog, approved by the maintainer of the package himself who is a Debian Developer since very long ago, and who was the person who uploaded the package. And that is already wrong and (for now!) IMHO disqualifying you from beeing a DD. The point is, we want our DDs to take some responsibility for the ideals and goals of the project and to be trustworthy. That is because they have unlimited upload access, are able to access the porter machines and decide on the future of Debian by voting. If you are not even taking responsibility for _one_ package by becoming the maintainer of it and this way stating I feel responsible for this package how do you expect us to see weither you feel responsible for a certain package? Just because of two uploads in one month? If you don't want to follow the common procedures in the project (e.g. for taking over packages) how are we supposed to know that you will, once you are a DD? I wouldn't think that Front Desk job checks are OK just by checking those fields, because they're clearly misleading in many packages. That maybe Well, they must not be misleading on weither the person in question feels responsible at all for what he is applying to do. Thats a _first_ indication of your work in Debian. If its not enough we can't handle your application over to an AM who has to spend a lot of time for your application (the NM-process takes quiet some time for you and your AM!). The package check itself is handled by the Application Managers. We have to do some more checks than just checking those fields. Best Regards, Patrick -- 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/20100706140914.ga7...@debian
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
Hi, On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 08:04:12AM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote: Yes, but OTOH we strongly support copyleft softwares versus the BSD- like softwares, because we expect to have back the works and because we expect to behave as a big community. I agree with you, it is not thiefs, but anyway the feeling are not so good, especially because we are talking about a big player with enough resources to behave as we do with upstreams. I don't neccessarily want to say, that the bad feeling is not justified. After all I never received a patch for one of my packages from Ubuntu. But I want to make sure, that we stay objective. Of course it would be nicer if patches were reported automatically to us. Yes, that would strengthen the community. But we cannot require it and so we cannot tell that Ubuntu violates anything. Best Regards, Patrick -- 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 Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 11:17:01AM +0100, Steve Langasek wrote: On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 08:57:50AM +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote: Of course it would be nicer if patches were reported automatically to us. This is by no means a universally held view within Debian. The current approach of only pushing patches to Debian maintainers as manual bug reports is a result of public discussion several years ago on debian-devel (or debian-project), in which a number of developers objected to the idea of receiving automatic mails every time Ubuntu made a change on the grounds that this would generate lots of unwelcome noise. If you prefer to be automatically notified about all changes in Ubuntu, I believe the PTS gives you an option to do this by subscribing to the 'derivatives' keyword. For my part, as a Debian maintainer I greatly prefer receiving bug reports with Ubuntu patches because I find the signal-to-noise is much better when you have a person to talk to instead of trying to extract meaning from a changelog alone. I think I misexpressed myself here. What I meant is contrary to us pulling patches manually out of Launchpad or the Ubuntu archive our other Ubuntu sources. It should be called semi-automatically or something like that. Regards, Patrick -- 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
Hi, On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 06:40:06PM +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote: THEY STEAL our packages Uarg. That sentence let me discard everything sensible/intelligent you might have said in your mail. I often read sentences like that in the discussion. It makes me sick and wonder if I do invest my time in the right project. Lets face it: If you do make things open source you /must/ and really /should/ accept that others do re-use it according to the license under which you license it. Ubuntu does exactly that. If we start telling that Ubuntu people are thiefs because they re-use our work to make derivative works from it, then we should be consequent and call ourselves thiefs too, because we steal the work of our upstreams. But OTOH it would be just better and easier to not forget what Debian stands for. Free Software. Everytime you might feel its appropriate to tell Ubuntu (or other downstreams) thiefs, it might be worth to hold in a moment and have a look at our Social Contract which you accepted, when you became part of Debian. Sad and sick, Patrick signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 09:34:39PM +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote: On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 06:40:06PM +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote: THEY STEAL our packages Uarg. That sentence let me discard everything sensible/intelligent you might have said in your mail. I often read sentences like that in the discussion. the mail was (intentionally) quite extremist, but it's not that far away from: taking everything giving back very *very* few. Your mails in this thread tend to be extremist. Maybe it would help the discussions to calm down a bit and try to stay objective? It makes me sick and wonder if I do invest my time in the right project. Lets face it: If you do make things open source you /must/ and really /should/ accept that others do re-use it according to the license under which you license it. Ubuntu does exactly that. Sure, sadly they spread all over the world, from the very beginning, We give back. Well, it's not happening. Either they should stop saying lies, or (the preferred solution) they need to start respecting their promises. That is simply not true. It might be that Ubuntu doesn't give back as much as Debian would like. It might also be that Debian doesn't like what it gives back. Still, this does not give you the right to call the people working on Ubuntu liers or thiefs. You don't seem to have a proper fundament to base that criminations on, so you should not do them in the first place. Apart from this: Giving back in the form Debian would like to have it, is not an obligatory part of open source. You have to publish what you do, yeah, but what you are trying to say is that you'd like Ubuntu to send their patches in an easy consumable form, e.g. requiring Ubuntu to send their patches to our BTS. But this is like upstreams requiring to send you a postcard: non-free. If we start telling that Ubuntu people are thiefs because they re-use our work to make derivative works from it, then we should be consequent and call ourselves thiefs too, because we steal the work of our upstreams. Hey, but we give back (patches, improvements, bug reports) to upstreams :) Well, in every cosm there are good sheep and bad sheep. Some of us forward their patches upstream, some don't. Some produce patches that are ready for inclusion for upstream, some don't. What I am trying to say: After all we as the people that make up Debian are sitting in the glasshouse. We also have maintainers who do not properly send there patches upstream. We also have patches that are Debian-specific like Ubuntu has patches that are Ubuntu-specific. There are also reports from Ubuntu developers and contributors in our bugtracker. But OTOH it would be just better and easier to not forget what Debian stands for. Free Software. Everytime you might feel its appropriate to tell Ubuntu (or other downstreams) thiefs, it might be worth to hold in a moment and have a look at our Social Contract which you accepted, when you became part of Debian. It's not about licenses, legal or what, it's about honesty. If you promise to give back, you should do it. Noone have forced them to promise that, and noone will force them to stick to their promises, but when I give my word I do my best to maintain it. Maybe it's only me... Well, discrimating other people is not really about honesty. Best Regards, Patrick signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
Hi, On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 01:07:39PM +, Anthony Towns wrote: I'm not aware of any apples-to-apples comparisons of Debian's and Ubuntu's quality; but personally I haven't seen much evidence that Debian's is significantly superior (NB: I haven't used Ubuntu LTS personally, though). The tradeoffs to me seem to be: Debian stable Ubuntu LTS 2 year rel cycle 2 year rel cycle 3 years security 3 years desktop security, 5 years server guaranteed freeze dateguaranteed release date support for all pkgs support for main, best-effort for universe stabilise from testingupgrade support from previous Ubuntu 6mo release upgrade from oldstableupgrade support from previous Ubuntu LTS (?) support for 6-12 archssupport for 2-3 architectures availability of pre-installed systems full-time security support staff commercial quality support larger userbase some additional packages What do you intend to visualize with this comparison? After all its not really fair, to list a clear pro on the one side as a pro on the other side. To make distinction clear, you need a list which compares pros on the one side to cons on the other side. Your comparison fails this at least in architectures (2-3 is worse than 6-12). For otherwise unsupported packages in Ubuntu universe, any security problem that Debian notices can be copied straight into Ubuntu due to synced package versions, making best-effort mean at least as good as Debian, so there's no drawback to using packages in universe. Its not at least as good as Debian as appearently merges does not happen automatically. I track my packages in Ubuntu and noticed that security bugs (which I happened to have reported in Launchpad myself) where fixed by a maintainer-upload almost half a year, before Ubuntu *started* to fix it on their site. And then they decided to not fix some suites, because of EOL. There seems to be an assumption here that Ubuntu would benefit from bugfixes from Debian developers, but that the reverse would not be true. Is this what you believe? Does that mean you don't think Ubuntu developers contribute fixes back to Debian today? Ubuntu has a well-defined and efficient process for accepting changes from Debian (pull from unstable regularly), Debian doesn't have a similarly efficient process for getting contributions from Ubuntu (Ubuntu folks file a bug, maintainer eventually incorporates it), and that'll presumably be made worse if there's a Debian freeze for most of the LTS development cycle. So yeah, I think it's reasonable to expect Debian won't get that many benefits from work on Ubuntu LTS into the corresponding stable release. Which is a fault on our side, obviously. Best Regards, Patrick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian redesign
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 04:51:22PM +0200, Ana Guerrero wrote: Agnieszka Czajkowska has presented this morning at DebConf a very nice redesign proposal off the Debian logo and the Debian website. She has been working on this all the last year as part of her master thesis in Design. You can take a look at her presentation at: https://penta.debconf.org/dc9_schedule/attachments/112_debian_redesign.tar.gz Watch first the deb_redesign-talk*.jpg images then debian_illustration*.jpg What do you think? :D Nice. Now we have two approaches on redesigning parts of Debian. I do like the design as proposed by Kalle somewhat better. Best Regards, Patrick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Re-thinking Debian membership - take #1: inactivity
Hi, On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 12:56:00PM +0200, Steve Langasek wrote: On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 10:52:20AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: My opinion in two short comments: - reduce the time to 1 year This introduces the possibility that, even if the DD votes in every election and uploads their packages once per release cycle, they'll be MIAed out of Debian - if one year the DPL vote is a little early, and the next year it's a little late, and there are no GRs during the intervening year, then a year passes in between votes. I'm not sure, how much efforts this would take, but it should be possible to couple the expire-check with a check if a vote took place during the year of inactivity and if yes, go on with removing, otherwise send a warning (to whoever we consider responsible for this) and do nothing. I think if we're going to expire DDs out in the described fashion, 2 years is the minimum threshold we should use. Why? I think there are not _really_ technical reasons speaking against 1y and its also a reasonable long time frame. If people actually are doing nothing for 2 years (!) it hurts the project quiet hard (in fact its already hard if certain pieces in the project are un-maintained for a year.. so..) - uploads won't work for all DDs (some are active in teams only, some do documentation/... stuff only), a better way to measure activity is necessary here probably. But voting is a good thing to look at, definitely. Should activity in teams be enough reason to be regarded as an active DD? (Are you referring here to package teams, or infrastructure teams?) Yes. Beeing a DD does not require beeing a Packager, nor does it require to be an Uploader. If the person in question contributes to Debian, for example by committing to the python modules team and this in a regular manner it should be okay for him to stay a DD. However with a (n package uploads||n votes)/year logic there is a problem remaining: What to do with people who are not contributing to Debian, but exercising their voting rights? Best Regards, Patrick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Should this be sent to your bug center?
Hi, On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 11:11:39PM -0800, Evan Larson wrote: I am not using your OS but I am encountering a strange bug on my computer that says I am. When I try to navigate to en.wikipedia.org this page is shown when people install lighttpd and don't configure it. Its on the webserver you directed your browser to, not on your system, so you don't need to worry about this. Wikipedia is using Ubuntu, which is a derivative of Debian. So their fault. Its just that you hit a broken wikipedia mirror as it seems. Best Regards, Patrick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Re-thinking Debian membership
Hi, Lars Wirzenius wrote: * Membership is controlled via GnuPG keyrings, primarily maintained by the Debian Account Manager. The keyrings shall be maintained in a way that allows any member to change them, and that is fully transparent to the members in general, and that further makes it easy to undo mistakes. hu? why? Don't you think that this has security implications? And don't you think, there is an interest to protect the security of the Debian project machines? Well, we think that every DD is trustworthy, because we rely on GPG signatures between already trusted people. But after all power you give to people is an appeal to exploit it. So its IMHO not really a good idea to give power to people, who _do not need_ the power. Best Regards, Patrick signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Re-thinking Debian membership
Hi, On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 01:35:43PM +0200, cobaco wrote: AIUI he's just advocating having the equivalent of a (publicly scrutinized) NMU for the keyring, that is: - have trusted gatekeeper(s) who normally does all changes - have all changes be public (many eyes make all bugs shallow) - also have the possibility for the equivalent of an NMU, for those cases where the gatekeeper is on vacation/to busy/otherwise unavailable/goes rogue. and where is the difference? Still, every DD would be able to kick out every other DD of the keyring. Obvious the only protection against abuse is that it should be public. But that does not help much. If someone removes the key of somebody this causes damage, even if the most obvious damage (the removal itself) can be fixed easy and quick. Regards, Patrick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
