Re: Distributing software written by hostile upstream developers
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 01:16:38PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 00:12:18 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: Thoughts? I'm very much in favour of something like this. Debian is better off without schilyware imo. it's sadly not only about shilly. Some tuomoware is not really any better. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··Omadco...@debian.org OOOhttp://www.madism.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian money
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 05:49:18PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: Hello Steve and everybody, I forsee that it is very difficult because of the hundreds of borders in our world, but Debian could support companies started by its developers to make a living of their Debian-related activities, by contributing to their capital. This way, Debian would invest in its own development, but in the do-o-cratic manner we all appreciate since the financial support would not create a direct subordination or custommer-consumer relationship. oO Such a rule would be the worst thing ever. I mean, investing money is not charity. It's about helping someone who _will_ give the money back once his company is wealthy enough. Which means that you cannot just lend money to any DD just because he's starting sth about Debian, but to someone who has enough leadership and business sense so that it's mostly obvious he'll success. IOW we could only lend money to people who will already be able to find money by themselves easily enough. It's not Debian job at all, not to mention the legal complexity to do that worldwide. Sorry, but this idea is nonsensical. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··Omadco...@debian.org OOOhttp://www.madism.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian money
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 10:25:52AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes: I forsee that it is very difficult because of the hundreds of borders in our world, but Debian could support companies started by its developers to make a living of their Debian-related activities, by contributing to their capital. This way, Debian would invest in its own development, but in the do-o-cratic manner we all appreciate since the financial support would not create a direct subordination or custommer-consumer relationship. We can't do that with moneys collected in the United States under the aegis of Software in the Public Interest. It would jeopardize the non-profit status of SPI. Non-profit charities are not permitted to make investments in for-profit businesses. Damn, you're right, I totally missed that, given how obvious it was. This would be totally illegal in France too. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··Omadco...@debian.org OOOhttp://www.madism.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Opera in your repos
On Sun, Aug 09, 2009 at 05:39:43PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: On Sat, Aug 08, 2009 at 01:59:55PM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote: We need the redistribution bit, I don't think we need it to be allowed to be used by all users. Non-commercial is fine in non-free, or at least was, last time I checked. I wouldn't be surprised if our requirements have increased even in that regard in recent years. At least nowadays I mostly expect stuff that has weird licenses about modification and following redistribution in non-free. I hardly expect stuff that one is not even allowed to use. But maybe that's just me. :) I think that's just you. There has been no decision by the project to change the license requirements for non-free, and if the ftp masters have decided this, they haven't disclosed it anywhere appropriate. Indeed, last time I checked, the requirement was that Debian is allowed to redistribute the stuff, which kind of makes sense ;) -- Intersec http://www.intersec.com Pierre Habouzit pierre.habou...@intersec.com Tél : +33 (0)1 5570 3346 Mob : +33 (0)6 1636 8131 Fax : +33 (0)1 5570 3332 37 Rue Pierre Lhomme 92400 Courbevoie signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: On cadence and collaboration
On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 10:51:08PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote: [Pierre Habouzit] It yields a really costly entry point to target Linux as a platform, and it's exactly why most Software Vendors target RHEL and not Linux. And that's part of the reason[1] why most of our customers are using RHELs: software vendors only certify their stuff for RHEL, because it's the established reference in the field, and that it costs too much to certify you stuff for yet-another-distro. Ahhh, so you're trying to reinvent the LSB. You could have said so earlier, it would've saved some time. Actually not, I'm just explaining why I don't think that the Linux distributions diversity is an asset. -- Intersec http://www.intersec.com Pierre Habouzit pierre.habou...@intersec.com Tél : +33 (0)1 5570 3346 Mob : +33 (0)6 1636 8131 Fax : +33 (0)1 5570 3332 37 Rue Pierre Lhomme 92400 Courbevoie signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: the role of the LSB (was: On cadence and collaboration)
On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 08:52:10AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: also sprach Pierre Habouzit madco...@madism.org [2009.08.05.2333 +0200]: But speaking from my experience as an employee of a software editor, I can tell that the distribution diversity is a huge problem when it comes to distributing our work. If your client use a Ubuntu LTS, a RHEL, a SuSE or worst for some, some kind of home-brewed monster taken half from a RHEL and custom packages (*sigh*) then you have as many builds to do, regress-test and so on. When you target Windows or Solaris or MacosX, you usually officially support the last two releases, and that's it (and please, it's the same for Linux distributions, for RH you have to support RH4.x and RH5.x if you want to be relevant). I think it's the job of something like the LSB to ensure a necessary baseline across distros on which vendors can build. Anyone gearing software at distro-specifics is committing the same fallacy as people writing HTML for Internet Exploder. And distros who are actively ignoring or superseeding the LSB are counter-productive. You're comparing apples and oranges here, for HTML is a standard, and theoretically, following the standard is enough (and even that is probably -- and sadly -- a fallacy). When it comes to the LSB, it doesn't say what happens when you're using very specific bits of the Linux kernel or the GNU libc, and when you're doing networking stuff for example, well, that matters a lot. That's why LSB doesn't work for many vendors because of the very different toolchains. You have to do regression tests for every single distro out there, which many corporations cannot do, hence certify only for a couple of distributions (and often only one: RHEL). Anyways we're drifting away from the original point, so just let cut that here. I just don't think it'll solve the vendors problem, nor eliminate all other problems relating to distro diversity. Heck, it might even create new problems, e.g. security issues as Julien suggested. That's beside the point, if anyone thought I was saying that aiming to synchronized freeze would solve the vendor problem, then I've probably been ambiguous. I've never meant it. I was merely explaining why the Distribution diversity is, in my opinion, not something that one can call an _asset_. It's a variable that you have to live with in the free software world. It has its upside and its downsides, but it's neither an asset nor a defect. I'm really sorry if I let people think that I'm advocating synced freezes so that LSB can be done right. It had never even crossed my mind. -- Intersec http://www.intersec.com Pierre Habouzit pierre.habou...@intersec.com Tél : +33 (0)1 5570 3346 Mob : +33 (0)6 1636 8131 Fax : +33 (0)1 5570 3332 37 Rue Pierre Lhomme 92400 Courbevoie -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: the role of the LSB (was: On cadence and collaboration)
On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 02:02:59PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: also sprach Pierre Habouzit madco...@madism.org [2009.08.06.1104 +0200]: You're comparing apples and oranges here, for HTML is a standard, and theoretically, following the standard is enough (and even that is probably -- and sadly -- a fallacy). LSB is growing to be just that, but it won't stand a chance if people/distros don't work with it. When it comes to the LSB, it doesn't say what happens when you're using very specific bits of the Linux kernel or the GNU libc, and when you're doing networking stuff for example, well, that matters a lot. That's why LSB doesn't work for many vendors because of the very different toolchains. I am failing to accept that vendors need to use those very specific things in their software. just like I doubt that people need IE-HTML to make their sites render properly. I think laziness^W business thinking is more likely an option. Probably because you don't write this kind of software then. I'm working for telco stuff, we have very specific needs towards the high availability interfaces (epoll and similar) linux provides, and its SCTP stack. This only has caused us major issues in the past. Then you add the fact that binary compatibility is a joke (openssl has not the same soname on RH and Debian e.g.). And on top of that you add binutils so crappy that our software misbuilds on those platforms. Sorry but no, you cannot make abstraction of that, on this, _you_ are not living in the reality. FWIW I would dream for my work that I could count on decently similar kernels, toolchains and libcs on all distros. Only that would be cause for joy and happiness here. -- Intersec http://www.intersec.com Pierre Habouzit pierre.habou...@intersec.com Tél : +33 (0)1 5570 3346 Mob : +33 (0)6 1636 8131 Fax : +33 (0)1 5570 3332 37 Rue Pierre Lhomme 92400 Courbevoie signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: On cadence and collaboration
On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 03:18:08PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 02:08:26AM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Or is some incremental freeze still supposed to happen? During the talk/discussion at DebConf, IIRC Luk stated that incremental freezes had a negative effect because for many developers it was not clear what/when was going to be frozen. The logical consequence drawn there (again, IIRC) has been that the release team would prefer freezing all at once. Note, however, that we have always used to have unblocks during freezes; the policy on how unblocks are handled is completely orthogonal to how sharply you freeze. (Putting -release in Cc to catch their attention.) Keeping that to ensure I'm not on crack with my memories :-) You're not, it's IMHO a faithful wording of our position (with the s/releasing/freezing/ fix ;p) -- Intersec http://www.intersec.com Pierre Habouzit pierre.habou...@intersec.com Tél : +33 (0)1 5570 3346 Mob : +33 (0)6 1636 8131 Fax : +33 (0)1 5570 3332 37 Rue Pierre Lhomme 92400 Courbevoie -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: On cadence and collaboration
On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 04:25:47PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote: [Please Cc: replies back to me, I'm not on debian-proj...@] FWIW, this is an excellent mail, and I share many of your opinions and hindsights here. Note that by your count Debian isn't always a good player with upstreams, I'm pretty sure you will find rotting bugs in the Debian BTS on your packages too ;) -- Intersec http://www.intersec.com Pierre Habouzit pierre.habou...@intersec.com Tél : +33 (0)1 5570 3346 Mob : +33 (0)6 1636 8131 Fax : +33 (0)1 5570 3332 37 Rue Pierre Lhomme 92400 Courbevoie signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: On Torvalds' POV towards freedom (Re: On cadence and collaboration)
On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 02:12:24PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: Hi Mark, Sorry that I don't comment on your proposal, as I'm not really the most indicate, except to say I appreciate it, and I hope it's succesful. But there's something I'd really like to comment on. On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 10:21:38AM +0100, Mark Shuttleworth wrote: I enjoyed Linus Torvalds' recent interview where he talked about prejudice against Microsoft in the Linux community, and how poisonous it is. The same is true of prejudice against Ubuntu here in Debian. I think you're misscharacterizing Torvalds' statement. [...] which basically amounts to: If you speak about freedom, you're an extremist full of hate. Nice. -- Intersec http://www.intersec.com Pierre Habouzit pierre.habou...@intersec.com Tél : +33 (0)1 5570 3346 Mob : +33 (0)6 1636 8131 Fax : +33 (0)1 5570 3332 37 Rue Pierre Lhomme 92400 Courbevoie -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: On cadence and collaboration
On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 09:30:33PM +0200, Julien BLACHE wrote: In the free software world, the diversity we have today, which is partly due to unaligned releases from the major vendors, is an asset. Security-wise ? Let's admit that, I don't want to fight on that point, even if I think it's not as simple. But speaking from my experience as an employee of a software editor, I can tell that the distribution diversity is a huge problem when it comes to distributing our work. If your client use a Ubuntu LTS, a RHEL, a SuSE or worst for some, some kind of home-brewed monster taken half from a RHEL and custom packages (*sigh*) then you have as many builds to do, regress-test and so on. When you target Windows or Solaris or MacosX, you usually officially support the last two releases, and that's it (and please, it's the same for Linux distributions, for RH you have to support RH4.x and RH5.x if you want to be relevant). It yields a really costly entry point to target Linux as a platform, and it's exactly why most Software Vendors target RHEL and not Linux. And that's part of the reason[1] why most of our customers are using RHELs: software vendors only certify their stuff for RHEL, because it's the established reference in the field, and that it costs too much to certify you stuff for yet-another-distro. OTOH, the diversity is also good for us, and there isn't two developers with the same distribution: many Debian sid's, but also lennies, even a gentoo IIRC, and it has proven a good thing to find awkward bugs in our software. But if this diversity is good for the development phase (and can easily achieved using unstable-like distributions), it sucks a lot when it comes to distribution. Bottom line, I think your vision of the problem is too blackwhite. Of course, arguably we shouldn't care about proprietary software. But let's face it, in the end, people will want to make their Oracle cluster work, make their funky Telco hardware work with a proprietary stack and so on. [1] quality of the support is clearly the other biggest part -- Intersec http://www.intersec.com Pierre Habouzit pierre.habou...@intersec.com Tél : +33 (0)1 5570 3346 Mob : +33 (0)6 1636 8131 Fax : +33 (0)1 5570 3332 37 Rue Pierre Lhomme 92400 Courbevoie signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: On syncing freeze dates with other distributions
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 02:54:26PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Tue, Aug 04 2009, Anthony Towns wrote: On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 11:55:04AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Mon, Aug 03 2009, Russ Allbery wrote: Amen. I think two years is a little too long and 18 months would be much better. We never actually have managed the 18 month release, have we? We freeze approximatly 18 months after the last release, and then release about 2 years or so after the last release. By my count: Etch froze after 18 months, and released after 22 months. Lenny froze after 15 months, and released after 22 months. So we have done the last two releases in roughly two year intervals, and the freezes roughly two years apart, which is some indication that we can sustain the 24 month cycle, more or less. Yes. -- Intersec http://www.intersec.com Pierre Habouzit pierre.habou...@intersec.com Tél : +33 (0)1 5570 3346 Mob : +33 (0)6 1636 8131 Fax : +33 (0)1 5570 3332 37 Rue Pierre Lhomme 92400 Courbevoie signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: On syncing freeze dates with other distributions
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 08:09:54PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: Manoj Srivastava wrote: I also think that we should be looking at when we freeze not merely at when a derived distro freezes, but when major system components release, and when top level sister distributions freeze (we'll get far more benefit for Debian users were we to sync up with fedora/rhel; and have more clout with upstream, especially if Ubuntu sync's up with Debian/red hat as well). Ack. It makes *mucH* more sense for use to keep in sync with fedora/rhel than with Ubuntu. Especially Fedora tries out the very latest funky stuff, it is often really worth the work to have a look what they're doing. At the end this will help Ubuntu, too - if they manage to change their freeze time to an appropriate date similar to the one of Debian. It depends, and I'm expressing my own opinion, not any kind of release team one. If we target big milestones of server stuff, then yeah, we probably want to follow RHEL. For the desktop, I'm less sure. When I look around me, I see lots of Ubuntus, some Fedoras and Debians, and some Arch's[1]. I'm not saying that Ubuntu is better than Fedora or anything similar, but when it comes to desktop (KDE, GNOME, Firefox, OOo, ...), Ubuntu isn't less prominent than Feodra/RH is (if you count the user base). Unlike Fedora/RH though, we have some kinds of (sometimes awkward, but still existing) ties, that makes such a sync possible. OTOH I see no-one having started any kind of discussion with red-hat or the fedora community to even _think_ of such a sync with them. In France we say better is the ennemy of good[2]. Try to loosely sync our freeze dates with Ubuntu is something we can rather easily do, and that basically cost us nothing. Even supposing that syncing with RH/Fedora is better, but I don't see any kind of concrete opportunity right now, which makes the discussion moot for now. [1] As I'm french, openSuse isn't very relevant here, I bet it's different on the other side of the Rhine. [2] le mieux est l'ennemi du bien -- Intersec http://www.intersec.com Pierre Habouzit pierre.habou...@intersec.com Tél : +33 (0)1 5570 3346 Mob : +33 (0)6 1636 8131 Fax : +33 (0)1 5570 3332 37 Rue Pierre Lhomme 92400 Courbevoie signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 10:29:11AM +0100, Steve Langasek wrote: I'm sorry that you have a negative impression of Ubuntu's relationship with Debian, but there's plenty of data available that contradicts your conclusion (including BTS reports that have been posted to this very thread). The problem is there is also plenty of data, like for example the recent #539950 (on a package never uploaded to Debian) which is looking a _lot_ like LP#408901. In this bug, the Ubuntu developer is (IMHO) trying to make the Debian one find, fix and patch the bug for him. The problem is (as a DD) that I would expect Ubuntu to collaborate the most on the harder core packages, meaning the toolchain, the kernel, X... Alas, it happens more coincidentally than on a regular basis, and that saddens me. I'm not saying there aren't any working cases of cooperation, and I welcome them. But there are way too many example of bad (or rather inexistant) cooperation, or even dirty tricks like #539950, which undermines the former tries a lot. -- Intersec http://www.intersec.com Pierre Habouzit pierre.habou...@intersec.com Tél : +33 (0)1 5570 3346 Mob : +33 (0)6 1636 8131 Fax : +33 (0)1 5570 3332 37 Rue Pierre Lhomme 92400 Courbevoie signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: ia32-libs{-tools}, multiarch, squeeze
On Sat, Jul 04, 2009 at 11:30:12PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Yannick yannick.roeh...@free.fr writes: Goswin von Brederlow wrote: And hey, the good reason was diverting the package management tools is unacceptable. But, no, we have to do insults instead of arguing. Alas, despite the diversion of the package management tools, I find ia32- apt-get pretty useful. For instance, I wanted to test Firefox 3.5 in 32bits on my amd64 Debian (64bit Firefox 3.5 does not have the new tracemonkey javascript engine). With ia32-apt-get, I could install the 32bit version of my GTK theme engine so that Firefox can look good. Is there a design problem in converting 32bits libraries to ia32-* packages or the sole problem is the diversion of apt-get and co? There where 3 minor bug reports about an ia32-* package not working right. Out of an estimate of 160-200 packages people use. I think that is pretty good. All 3 bugs where fix in a subsequent upload and currently there are no reported missconversions. On the other hand ~45 bugs about missconversion or missing packages in the old ia32-libs where closed (and will have to be reopened now). So I don't believe there is a design problem there. That part works just fine. But the diversions had people totaly in outrage. So much so that I believe they didn't even look past that at all. You absolutely don't get it do you ? Your conversion system is an ugly hack, something completely horrible, that is meant to break in horrible ways, has no forward upgrate path to a multiarch work, and so on. If you really mean to provide something like ia32-apt-get, what you ought to do is to: - help the user create and maintain a proper 32bits chroot; - let ia32-apt-get or whatever it's called be a forward to running apt-get inside that chroot; - find a way to let the user run commands from that chroot seamlessly. That would be totally acceptable, and probably an improvement over the current situation. -- Intersec http://www.intersec.com Pierre Habouzit pierre.habou...@intersec.com Tél : +33 (0)1 5570 3346 Mob : +33 (0)6 1636 8131 Fax : +33 (0)1 5570 3332 37 Rue Pierre Lhomme 92400 Courbevoie signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: so ... let's merge DAM and FD?
On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 09:53:16AM -0700, Richard Hecker wrote: Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: In the midst of the huge discussion started at [1], a specific proposal [2] did not appear to have received much counter arguments, namely: merging DAM with FD (both CC-ed). snip... Lack of people vociferously objecting does not imply consent. I believe that there is agreement among the teams there is no other need to decide anything else. I felt the need to re-raise this topic because I believe it's an easy way to get rid of some bureaucracy and because I have the impression there might be consensus on that. Is that so? Cheers. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2009/06/msg00024.html [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2009/06/msg00056.html While consensus might exist that eliminating bureaucracy is good, division of labor can be a good thing too. I do not think you have established the need to combine the FD and DAM tasks. Are you claiming the DAMs are too bureaucratic? TTBOMK the split was done because it helped take some pressure of elmo's shoulder. It never worked that well in the end as it rather added more buffer effects to processing, so in the end, yes, it rather adds bureaucracy to the whole thing. OTOH, I'm not sure merging DAM and FD is something that will change the frace from NM, but for sure, it's a step in the good direction. -- Intersec http://www.intersec.com Pierre Habouzit pierre.habou...@intersec.com Tél : +33 (0)1 5570 3346 Mob : +33 (0)6 1636 8131 Fax : +33 (0)1 5570 3332 37 Rue Pierre Lhomme 92400 Courbevoie signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 09:26:20PM +, Robert Millan wrote: On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 05:17:33PM +, Stephen Gran wrote: This one time, at band camp, Steve McIntyre said: If things go much further we'll end up with enough seconds to force a vote to hand Robert Millan a nice cup of STFU. I'm hoping that's not what anybody actually wants, but I can also understand why some people might be feeling that way. Dato didn't sign his proposal mail, so this can't be a valid GR proposal, AIUI. All I meant was that I second the feeling, rather than a formal proposal. We're having a serious discussion, and you guys are adding noise. Priceless. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··Omadco...@debian.org OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpqd6oJvCkzw.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 02:22:44PM +, Ben Finney wrote: Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes: Though there seem to be a number of people vocally wishing Robert would go away or the like, I have yet to see any substantive response to the questions he's raised in this thread. Number of people would like him to reconsider asking the questions just after a release, rather than just before. My apologies: the current acting Secretary has, indeed, been engaging substantively with the questions Robert has raised. However, as that discussion continues, the questions don't seem much closer to resolution. If you can't understand the Please postpone the bikeshedding after the lenny release so that you'll have proper answers-bit then I can nothing for you. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··Omadco...@debian.org OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgplbWzGCXvO9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: remove my post from 2001
On Sat, Nov 01, 2008 at 03:10:29PM +, Ondro wrote: can you please remove my post from 2001? Thank you, Ondrej Krehel http://lists.debian.org/debian-laptop/2001/02/msg00149.html Try to make it be removed from there first: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg26375.html -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgp979g65egmX.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Re-thinking Debian membership
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 06:12:48AM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Hi, One of the issues I have with this proposal is that there seems to be, by design, absolutely no consideration about skill levels or quality of developers. I'll concede that the current process might not do a great job of assessing quality of contribution, but it tries. The new process does not seem to have any such effort. My experience shows that we have been successfully driving away people from DM, where it's mostly on a trust-link/peer review bases, than in NM. There is a couple of people that do not deserve to be DD because they are technically not good enough for the tasks they do in Debian. Note that the whole point is to know that the person in question shall know his/her limits, and know who to ask when in trouble. Not everybody should be a top class programmer if what he/she'll ever do is packaging pure perl extensions. OTOH the first time suck a package will be native, I expect him/here to document him/herself and if unsure to go to the right people. That's only an example of course, there are dozens of examples of such people nowadays that I trust with their judgements to not do anything foolish, beyond what they understand. What we should test is that and only that (okay good understanding of the project, and of the people, and so on is vital too, but I suppose we're only discussing skil-wise). -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpPJLts4ro0L.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Re-thinking Debian membership
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 10:46:13PM +, Helen Faulkner wrote: Aurelien Jarno wrote: Ana Guerrero a écrit : [...] * Membership ends 24 months after they're given, or after the latest participation in a vote arranged by the project's Secretary. Members may retire themselves earlier, of course. No, please, voting should be voluntary. On one side I understand that you don't want make voting mandatory, but I really like the idea of: - activity = you keep your membership - inactivity = you lose your membership Maybe we could find another way to define activity, like (upload || vote || svn commit || ...), which retrigger some time of memberships. Voting is both a right and a responsibility of members in any kind of democracy. How can it be a responsibility if people can simply not bother to vote, with no penalty? FWIW it's a debate that trolls a lot in many EU countries (there are countries like .be where you are forced to, and many other where you're not). I do not expect Debian to be able to solve that problem that has absolutely no trivial solution, and I'd rather see us be on the reasonnable side here. FWIW you talk to a guy who never missed a single election in his country, and I think voting (even white) is very important. Though, I respect people who think that voting is a bad thing, whatever their reasons are. We should not deny Debian citizenship to someone who doesn't care to vote. Really. And yes I know that voting [] (with as many dashes as there are DPL candidates + 1) each year isn't really that of a burden. But there are really simple other way to count activity like uploads, lastlog on some debian machines, or even a reminder mail every year people would have to reply to with a signed mail (and a hash so that people cannot do that with a cron job, that would defeat the feature). -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpgELAgx7H5s.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Re-thinking Debian membership
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 07:59:58AM +, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 03:53:46PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote: pe, 2008-10-24 kello 12:18 +0200, Peter Palfrader kirjoitti: On Fri, 24 Oct 2008, Lars Wirzenius wrote: * The keyrings shall be maintained in a way that allows any member to change them, The rationale is simple: to avoid concentration of power into the hands of the few, and keep it in the hands of everyone. Since I believe the decision on someone's membership should be collectively in the hands of all the members, I don't think the task of editing a keyring should be restricted to one or a couple of people. That sounds a bit too extreme to me. [1] Depends how you restrict editing the keyring. I'd say that adding a key shall go through keyring-maint (a bit like DM works nowadays). It's not a complicated job, you mostly have to count points, and ask people to motivate their choices and to keep that record. E.G. it would be this person task to be sure A veto against B is on technical or trust reasons rather than a dislike of B. Updating one's own key on the other hand, or replacing signatures, or... should be a task than one's should be able to do on his own. Only if the old key is invalid for some reason (key was revoked, expired, whatever) then yeah, we should not let that people do it either. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpHx6s4pFZcl.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Re-thinking Debian membership
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 08:44:03AM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote: I do not like the way Joerg wants to change the way people become and are members of the Debian project. It's not all bad, but on the whole it makes some of the worst parts of Debian become worse. It concentrates power into fewer hands, removes some of the benefits of the Debian Maintainer process, adds more hoops to jump through, and makes the whole question of what it means to be a member of Debian massively complicated. I think we should go in the opposite direction: massively simplify the whole membership thing. I tremendously agree with this, and reckon this proposal is way more in the direction of what I'd like to see. I have a couple of minor nitpicks about the proposal, that needs a bit tweaking IMHO, but that can be done through a DEP. I'll try to formulate them, but I've a trip to the US to plan, so I don't really have the time to write about them just now. Mind to start a DEP with this proposal as a basis ? -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpAjEUAzWHFc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Developer Status
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 07:47:10AM +, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le jeudi 23 octobre 2008 à 08:59 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit : Debian Contributor -- Debian Maintainer - Debian Member - Debian Developer I really liked the fact that it was possible to explain Debian's different developers status in 30 seconds. Couldn't we find a way to adapt the current architecture to fit in the additional statuses? This is the thing that makes me the most uneasy with the decision (apart from the way it was done). We need less complexity and bureaucracy, not more. I'd put it even more bluntly. The current problem is that NM is too slow, too sluggish, too boring. Being a DD requires a motivation that I wouldn't even dare to ask from the best employees in my company, and god knows I'm an elitist when it comes to code quality and technical interest. No, instead of attacking the big fat problem that being a DD is not a single phone call with Elmo anymore, we tackle the issue by adding even more sub-roles, so that people that get lost en route, have cookies along the path. “ - Come to the dark side - No - We have cookies ! - \o/ ” If I recall right, Jörg was really against DM at the time. I thought it was because of that, I see now that it's because the project wasn't his. Debian has always had a flat hierarchy, with a few delegates for key roles, infrastructure handling and stuff like that, where it's not really practical to have every DD have the position (1000 DSA isn't really a good thing, I speak from experience). So when the *constitution* gives him the right to do what he just did (yeah, sadly he can and we have to be 2:1 to overrule that yeah), it's completely against the nature of Debian, and the spirit of the constitution. I'm blatantly disappointed in both the form and the ground of this edict. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpig0dPSZ53e.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Developer Status
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 08:48:51AM +, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le jeudi 23 octobre 2008 à 10:37 +0200, Pierre Habouzit a écrit : So when the *constitution* gives him the right to do what he just did (yeah, sadly he can and we have to be 2:1 to overrule that yeah), it's completely against the nature of Debian, and the spirit of the constitution. Only overriding the TC needs a 2:1 majority. For delegate decisions, that’s only a standard majority. Yeah, I've been corrected already, I don't know why I thought it was so. But still, technically we have to override it, since he's a delegate, and that was my point :) -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgp2hPrxr67CB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Developer Status
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:10:29PM +, Joerg Jaspert wrote: Developer Status And I should probably have written this inside the mail itself, but the most obvious things are those you forget. This was initially written by me, then discussed within DAM (so take us two for we) and then discussed with DSA, FTPMaster, Keyring-Maint, Secretary, FrontDesk and the DPL. Could those poeple please comment on their motivations and why they think this proposal is a good idea please ? All of them CC-ed. Also, why hasn't the nm-committee involved, and the DEP process completely ignored ? -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgptpXGfmouzr.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Developer Status
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 12:18:01PM +, cobaco wrote: IIRC the last time this came up people could name 1 or 2 non-packagers who had ever bothered with NM - while it is theoretically possible for non-packagers to go through NM, quite obviously it's currently not worth the pain in the opinion of the vast majority of non-packagers. That's because NM is inherently broken, and we should not make people being able to circumvent NM to the price of being lesser folks. Being a DD is harder every day, whereas we should make it more accessible. Creating casts is going to solve nothing. Except give titles to some people who right now have none, whereas they should be DD. Not that long ago (given how many current DD have passed through that process), being a DD required a phone call with James Troup, and a google search about the guy. I don't say it was ideal, probably not (And I'm not thinking phone bills when I say that ;p), but nowadays, being a DD is hard. Not _that_ hard technically, it's hard on the nerves of the AM, the NM, it's slow as hell, it's horrid. And each time one speaks about fixing it, it adds a new layer of questions, templates, silly stuff. The more steps you add, the sooner people will stop. IOW less and less people will become full DDs, and instead of bringing new blood to the project, you bring new blood to the lesser contributors and deplete the core contributors (sorry to make such distinctions between full DDs, lesser or core contributors, it's what people try to make it about, not what I think of it). Instead, we should just have a world split in three: Users, Contributors (User that reports bugs and does occasionnal patches or similar stuff), Developers. Translators, people helping with the website and so on, any people that does _regular_ help to the project just deserves to be the latter. The fact that it requires NM for all of them is pure nonsense. As of the sacred upload rights, FWIW, I think we shouldn't give DD status to any people that is going to abuse his uploads rights when he should not. It's 10x less likely that a translator will NMU a package out from the blue, than a clueless DD will NMU a package and screws it badly. I've never heard of the former[0], I've seen the latter a couple of times. [0] Yes there are no pure translators atm in Debian, though there are quite a few DDs that work in l10n efforts, I've seen *none* of them do NMUs because they felt like it. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpjZnmTyWXqo.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Developer Status
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 01:28:44PM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Thu, Oct 23 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote: On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:10:29PM +, Joerg Jaspert wrote: This was initially written by me, then discussed within DAM (so take us two for we) and then discussed with DSA, FTPMaster, Keyring-Maint, Secretary, FrontDesk and the DPL. Could those poeple please comment on their motivations and why they think this proposal is a good idea please ? Can you comment on your motivations, please? Huh, I'd like to understand why all these people in Cc: have thought such a policy was so important it couldn't go through the usual Debian way of consensus, and was it looks like it's imposed to us without prior discussion. I assume it's because there is a very good reason to that, and I'm seeking it, so that I can judge the proposal on its (hidden to me right now) merits. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpozxxgdwuDa.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: NEW queue
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 02:09:23PM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Thu, Oct 23 2008, Clint Adams wrote: In my opinion, however, you have this backwards. The release team members (and this goes for any other core team as well) have privileges which are withheld from the other developers for whatever reason, and they have been granted such privileges presumably to serve the project, not as some kind of reward or recognition for merit or industrious service or brownnosing. I imagine that these people have either explicitly pursued this power or that it has been offered to them and they have explicitly accepted. Such conscious and willful acts should have been coupled with conscious and willful acceptance that with this power comes great responsibility. This responsibility is not as a parent or caretaker for misbehaving ingrates, but to serve every single DD who lacks those powers. The This is where you got this wrong. The responsibility is to serve the project, and the foundations on which the project is built, to the best of our ability. Me undertaking to do more work (mostly thankless) is not to become the servant of people who opt to do less, but to ensure that the project benefits. I disagree. You imply that people outside of teams are doing nothing, and beside that it's quite interesting that you think so in itself, it's wrong. There are many people doing a lot for Debian, that have no access to the powers that the release team have, and we do have to make sure we don't impede those people's work. Unlike Clint, I do think that you cannot reasonably release without a release team and the power it has right now[0] (or not without a complete revamp of the full process, and I've not really a lot of ideas on how to do that). But yes, the fact that I'm in such a team means that I *have* to work more for it, because else I'm blocking people and leave them in the mud all by themselves. My access to hintfiles, to the possibility to forbid uploads, ... implies great responsibility, and I have to cope with the sometimes angry developer that has been impeded in his work. And it's my duty to let it be. Though it doesn't quite excuse the regular offenders either. [0] sadly, each day of the release, we have examples of completely clueless people who still insist on breaking stuff. Just look at the unblock requests, some are totally WTF. Just a random example. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpEOZcMEbN1V.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Developer Status
On jeu, oct 23, 2008 at 02:55:46 +, cobaco wrote: The more steps you add, the sooner people will stop. IOW less and less people will become full DDs, and instead of bringing new blood to the project, you bring new blood to the lesser contributors and deplete the core contributors (sorry to make such distinctions between full DDs, lesser or core contributors, it's what people try to make it about, not what I think of it). Instead, we should just have a world split in three: Users, Contributors (User that reports bugs and does occasionnal patches or similar stuff), Developers. Translators, people helping with the website and so on, any people that does _regular_ help to the project just deserves to be the latter. The fact that it requires NM for all of them is pure nonsense. I think we agree :) Actually no, because what I wrote deceive what I meant. The fact that it requires the current for of NM for any of them, the ones who will upload packages included, is awful. I hate in Ganneff proposal the fact that it just standardize the 6 months delay to be a DD. It's acknowledging that we suck, and trying nothing to fix the problem. It's unacceptable to me. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgptqtjWZXeTy.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Developer Status
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 09:12:04PM +, gregor herrmann wrote: On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 20:16:01 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: Debian Contributor -- Debian Maintainer - Debian Member - Debian Developer Now, regarding your proposal itself, I agree with others that it sounds too bureaucratic, even for Debian. Is it? I agree, I fail to see what's bureaucratic about the proposal. After all it's a simple 2x2 matrix with requirements for the 4 boxes. unbelievable -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgp9gTocubDLH.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Probleme sur le site
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 06:28:39AM +, Charles Plessy wrote: Le Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 02:40:27AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : Bonjour, Je viens de constater qu'un lien ne fonctionnait pas. De la page http://www.debian.fr/releases/stable/ je suis passé à la page Bonjour Michel, le site www.debian.fr n'est pas géré par Debian. To be complete, www.debian.fr is cybersquatted, and the content shown is a very old mirror from www.fr.debian.org, far from complete, and served by an IIS. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpINdggey8hB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bits from the DPL: FTP assistants, marketing team, init scripts, elections
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 10:16:06AM +, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: * martin f krafft | also sprach Sam Hocevar [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008.02.24.1316 +0100]: | I also would like to spend some Debian money on a contest, similar to | the FreeBSD logo contest [2], to create a friendly mascot for the Debian | project (in a similar way to the Linux penguin or the GNU gnu) | | In the free software zoo, the Debian Swirl stands out like no other. | Do we need to have a mascot? Maybe not, but plushy toys is something I feel this project is seriously lacking in. seconded \o/ -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpitq7Hnp2Ht.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: linhdd concerns
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 06:49:37AM +, Mike Hommey wrote: On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 02:19:21PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: or we could disallow the override of = E: errors in lintian, and make lintian reboot your computer, fill your gpg with /dev/random bits, and install windows over your Debian if you override such errors. I'd love it if lintian were at a point where it would make sense to do that, but as a lintian maintainer, I'm afraid that it's not. Not all errors are created equal, and some of them should legitimately be overridable. We've talked for quite a while about having finer-grained control over lintian messages than the current three-tier system, in part to allow something like this (automatic dak rejection on certain lintian errors, for instance), but I'm way short on time. :/ For example, to take the lintian error that started this thread, there are some arch: all packages in the archive with architecture-specific objects that at least on a cursory glance I couldn't declare wrong. They're development packages for cross-compilation and the arch-specific objects are libraries for the target. That seems like a legitimate case for a lintian override to me. Also, BIOSes for emulators are candidates for such an override. I know, but maybe (but that's sad if we need to do that) we should have overrides validated by the QA people … *sigh*. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpLqejl3yhBB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: linhdd concerns
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 11:08:33AM +, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote: On Thursday 29 November 2007, Kalle Kivimaa wrote: Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I know, but maybe (but that's sad if we need to do that) we should have overrides validated by the QA people … *sigh*. Should the override file have a justification field for each (error) override? That would help generic DD's going through all override files. override files allow comments which means giving a justification is already possible. So it seems this just needs to be documented as best practice? We definitely should have a lintian check for that !!! *cough* -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgprYKWIyuaGs.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Updated Debian Maintainers Keyring
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 03:57:49PM +, Raphael Hertzog wrote: On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Anthony Towns wrote: On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 02:57:22AM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: dm:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Full name: Aur?lien G?R?ME (rewritten w/o half-broken encoding, maybe it would be nice to send mails using something different from us-ascii?) Patches welcome. A suggested Content-Type: header might be enough? AFAIK you need this: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 MIME-Version: 1.0 If at the same time, you could also do it for mails sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] that would be great as accented names are always unreadable (and some people like me like to follow this list). I wrote a patch during debconf: http://people.debian.org/~madcoder/use-utf-8-for-mails.patch I'm not 100% sure it's enough, but it shoudln't hurt. It applied to dak at the time. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpqXAAdogwp1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: linhdd concerns (was: Re: Updated Debian Maintainers Keyring)
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 12:23:30PM +, Michael Banck wrote: On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 06:55:10PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: aj, who'd just like to see some failure analysis / air crash investigation type conclusions out of this, rather than just foo sucks and shouldn't upload One thing we could do is have a seperate report on http://lintian.debian.org which lists all the lintian overrides (maybe only those for errors, not for warnings), so they can be peer reviewed by interested people. Another thing we could do is alert sponsors about checking for lintian overrides when they review a package. or we could disallow the override of = E: errors in lintian, and make lintian reboot your computer, fill your gpg with /dev/random bits, and install windows over your Debian if you override such errors. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgptwTatMy2Tb.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: linhdd concerns (was: Re: Updated Debian Maintainers Keyring)
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 02:54:39PM +, Michael Banck wrote: On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 02:49:38PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote: or we could disallow the override of = E: errors in lintian, and make lintian reboot your computer, fill your gpg with /dev/random bits, and install windows over your Debian if you override such errors. Are you routinely overriding valid lintian errors or why are you apparently so deeply horrified by peer review of lintian overrides? Pierre, bugs are nothing to be ashamed of. You must have misunderstood me. I believe that allowing anyone to override some kinds of lintian warnings should just be disallowed, because there's no way such a thing is correct. Or so seldomly that packagers for whom it's the case can live with a warning. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpvfWXmvbzWN.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Please help me remove this
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 06:29:03PM +, Masood wrote: Can you please delete this page from your data base: http://lists.debian.org/debian-68k/2003/08/msg00030.html It is very embarrassing and very old. It is the first thing that comes up when searching for my name. Yeah, good idea, whereas you could have argued that the former was a spam, now you will have a hard time thanks to this one, that I'm sure will rank as the second hit for your name. way to do :D -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgphPD6qftkMb.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Updated Debian Maintainers Keyring
On Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 10:37:39AM +, Charles Plessy wrote: In the end, what is the punishment? removing the upload rights, or public bashing? Public bahsing is so easy, because everybody can punish each other, and do not even need to be right… I think that Debian desserves better procedures to deal with mistakes. I've seen no bashing yet, only statement for facts: the packaging is way under Debian's standards, and should be fixed, and the uploader hence isn't ready for being a DD nor a DM. If it was bashing, we would have read: * packaging is crap ; * maintainer is a moron ; * sponsor is so careless and stupid that he let this through. Fortunately I saw none of the previous yet, only you overreacting. Could you please step off your big horses ? My point on the issue: when you ask for being a DD or a DM you ask for a public review of your work. There is a probability or a risk for it not to meet Debian quality standards, and that someone will state it. And if you _really_ want to blame someone, then blame people that advocate or sponsor others without really checking anything thoroughly and sent this application in the open. Note to every DD out there: if you advocate anyone, other developers _will_ check the work of the guy you just advocated. It's not a choice to be done lightly, because if you advocate people that aren't ready, they will meet way more difficulties than the slight frustration of you explaining to them they aren't ready. It's your role as a sponsor to be sure the guy you sponsor is ready and gets things right. Cheers, -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpYeKGh7qhaK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Updated Debian Maintainers Keyring
On Thu, Nov 22, 2007 at 08:10:42AM +, Anthony Towns wrote: On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 12:10:41PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote: I note that the 4th package made an interesting choice indeed. The Dm-Upload-Allowed: field is only relevant for DM when there're non-DD uploaders listed. It's relevant for dak in that only packages with that field set get their uploaders put into the database where they can be referred to later. Makes sense. I was asking myself: is a DM able to add other Uploaders to a package ? I mean, once a DM has been validated with an upload having its name in it, is he able to add new DM names ? or does any change in the Maintainer/Uploaders line has to be signed with a DD key ? -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpUuXhSMMKqt.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Updated Debian Maintainers Keyring
On Thu, Nov 22, 2007 at 09:50:57AM +, Anthony Towns wrote: On Thu, Nov 22, 2007 at 06:10:42PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 12:10:41PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote: Here is the current list. When psql on merkel gets updated to a version that can load the dumps from ftp-master, you can get a more accurate view of who can upload what by ssh'ing to merkel and running: ...or I could script it and you could just look at an automatically updated web page like: http://ftp-master.debian.org/dm-uploaders.txt Thanks. Now that'd be great if DDPO could have those informations as well :) -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgp2Ub06XKHde.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Updated Debian Maintainers Keyring
On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 10:35:18AM +, Josselin Mouette wrote: Hi, Le mercredi 21 novembre 2007 à 01:02 +, Joey Hess a écrit : With the upload of debian-maintainers version 1.2, the following changes to the keyring have been made: In the future, it would be nice if these mails could also specify which packages the DMs are allowed to upload. OTOH this is a moving target, as the DM-keyring maintainers are not the ones dealing with that, but the sponsors. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpfS3RSnRp2n.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Updated Debian Maintainers Keyring
On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 10:35:18AM +, Josselin Mouette wrote: Hi, Le mercredi 21 novembre 2007 à 01:02 +, Joey Hess a écrit : With the upload of debian-maintainers version 1.2, the following changes to the keyring have been made: In the future, it would be nice if these mails could also specify which packages the DMs are allowed to upload. Here is the current list. I note that the 4th package made an interesting choice indeed. $ zcat Sources.gz | grep-dctrl -FDM-Upload-Allowed yes -sPackage,Maintainer,Uploaders Package: a7xpg Maintainer: Debian Games Team [EMAIL PROTECTED] Uploaders: Miriam Ruiz [EMAIL PROTECTED], Peter De Wachter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Package: apt-transport-debtorrent Maintainer: Cameron Dale [EMAIL PROTECTED] Package: bittornado Maintainer: Cameron Dale [EMAIL PROTECTED] Uploaders: Micah Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Package: debian-maintainers Maintainer: Debian Maintainer Keyring Team [EMAIL PROTECTED] Uploaders: Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED], Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED], Anibal Monsalve Salazar [EMAIL PROTECTED], Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED], Christoph Berg [EMAIL PROTECTED], James Troup [EMAIL PROTECTED], Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED], Marc Brockschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED], Michael Beattie [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ryan Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] Package: debtorrent Maintainer: Cameron Dale [EMAIL PROTECTED] Package: gunroar Maintainer: Debian Games Team [EMAIL PROTECTED] Uploaders: Miriam Ruiz [EMAIL PROTECTED], Peter De Wachter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Package: gzip Maintainer: Bdale Garbee [EMAIL PROTECTED] Package: libphp-adodb Maintainer: Cameron Dale [EMAIL PROTECTED] Package: torrentflux Maintainer: Cameron Dale [EMAIL PROTECTED] Package: tumiki-fighters Maintainer: Debian Games Team [EMAIL PROTECTED] Uploaders: Miriam Ruiz [EMAIL PROTECTED], Peter De Wachter [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpLPKROHH8Ak.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: New Debian Maintainer Jose Parella
On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 02:46:12AM +, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote: Recommended-By: David Moreno Garza [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Anibal Monsalve Salazar [EMAIL PROTECTED] Huh ? So now even new DM team members are unannounced ? Or did I missed the list where the new DM keyring admin was discussed ? -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpVJBppsHnGx.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: do all of MJRs subjects sound like they were ripped from the Daily Mail? [was: Re: Is debian profiting from forced child labour?]
On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 11:19:07AM +, MJ Ray wrote: Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] If MjR has issues with the company Debian-UK (or any other alike organization) he buys his t-shirts from, then he should mention it to this organization's board, and the ethics of the company should be questioned. Optionally we could set-up a Debian wiki page to remind to Debian related non profits that some companies they may buy goods for may be quite eager to look away when it comes to how their goods are created. I believe it's most efficient to apply this bugfix at the highest level possible. So, I try Debian (the licensor) before trying individual licensees one at a time. I'd try to fix a memory leak in a library by fixing the library in preference to trying to work around it in every program. Except that Debian is not responsible of what Debian-related Orgs do (Unless I'm mistaken, Debian UK and friends aren't affiliated to `Debian`). Though you may want to port that to SPI, to whom associations may want to be affiliated to. Debian is _not_ the highest level, it's not in the same hierarchy. You're trying to fix memory leaks in a library by making the compiler issue statements about malloc() being a bad thing. I say the compiler has little knowledge about the real issue in the library and it'd better keep its mouth shut. There was also some information-gathering in my request and it seems this question is being lost: Do we have any knowledge about whether current debian clothes are products of forced child labour? There is no such thing as Debian clothes and products. There are Debian-branded products, but those are not issued by Debian. The Open Logo is errr... Open I don't see what Debian can/should do about it. Again, it's not a *Debian* issue, just possibly a Debian-community-at-large one, which again points to SPI. But yes I believe that Debian is making software and has no point in taking such positions. [...] The project has already taken a position by licensing its trademark to some traders and not others. Anyone who believes it has no point in taking such positions should be working to either revoke or public-license it. Do we know anything more than http://www.debian.org/trademark about our licensees? Are there other licensees not listed there? This trademark policy has nothing to do with ethics. And I would be opposed to one based on the grounds that it's not the Project's role to measure our licensees ethical level. Of course some real court have said so. But if a court said some entity is unethical, it will probably be terminated or put on hold some way or the other, and would not be in a position to even ask a trademark license. IOW I still believe this subject is off-topic for Debian. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpI0Lki14DiZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: do all of MJRs subjects sound like they were ripped from the Daily Mail? [was: Re: Is debian profiting from forced child labour?]
On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 04:52:32PM +, Steve Langasek wrote: I find it distasteful that some people seem to use this very fact as an argument against taking ethical stances as a project on matters unrelated to software licensing, as if it's not even worth asking whether there are other points that we can agree on as a community. If people missed it in the first place, I was being sarcastic. Of course I'm against Child labour, AIDS, Poverty or Hunger. Though I don't really understand why Debian would have to issue any kind of statement. If people use Debian to enslave others, it's a crime against the Humanity and there is La Hague for them. If people use Debian to kill other people, there are courts for them. People selling bread knives aren't prosecuted if someone used a bread knife to kill their SigO, because it's not the primary use of such a tool. And nobody expects bread knives manufacturers to issue statements against domestic violence. Of course, if you sell weapons, whose usual use is indeed to harm people, then you expect the reseller to check who they are selling their weapons to, and to have some kind of ethical official position. But unless there are people to believe Debian is usually used to do Harm, then this whole conversation is just moot. Or maybe we should discuss if Debian should issue a statement against people frustrated by a buggy Debian software, and use their Debian-powered laptop to club their neighbor ? If MjR has issues with the company Debian-UK (or any other alike organization) he buys his t-shirts from, then he should mention it to this organization's board, and the ethics of the company should be questioned. Optionally we could set-up a Debian wiki page to remind to Debian related non profits that some companies they may buy goods for may be quite eager to look away when it comes to how their goods are created. But yes I believe that Debian is making software and has no point in taking such positions. Though every member is free to do so through any appropriated channels, and that restricting our license to People who do not do Harm or Bad Things is just idealistic nonsense. And as I'm sure people will eventually read me wrong, here is a small disclaimer: I'm not ethics-less, I came to Debian not only for its technical excellency but also because it meets ethics requirements that I feel are important. Though I tend to dislike proselytism and sanctimonious attitudes. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpadPtYThmcn.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Latest Stable Debian Release 4.0r1 Etch
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 01:58:42PM +, Wayne Cam wrote: Hi, I searched the whole website, and googled for the Kernel version of Etch, but couldn't find it. Could you tell me what linux kernel it is? www.debian.org: The latest stable release of Debian is 4.0. ... click the link - http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/ then click on release notes - http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/releasenotes then chose your poison (e.g. amd64) - http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/release-notes/ then search for kernel and go read the section: http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/release-notes/ch-whats-new.en.html#s-kernel-changes Here is your answer. As a general rule, release notes are worth reading. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpJKcKf8oHIL.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Planet policy?
On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 05:54:12PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: Did we ever agree a policy about what's acceptable/reasonable for blog feeds linked from planet.d.o? I'm very tempted to disable Ian Murdock's Solaris propaganda, for example... Well, maybe in 2 or 3 years he'll be on-topic, no so long time ago, it was about Windows, at least Solaris is an Unix. *cough* -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgp7LcCyFyzkY.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Social Contract ten years on July 5 -- celebration?
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 05:12:51PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 08:54:51PM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote: The Debian Social Contract 1.0 was ratified on July 5, 1997. That's ten years ago, about ten days from now. Anybody else interested in celebrating this a bit? What would be an appropriate way? By spending the day arguing about whether users or free software are the more important priority? ;) revisionist ! SCNR -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpeYcAPCk3Gt.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#292330: use UTF-8 by default
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 05:48:00PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: also sprach Thorsten Glaser [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007.06.16.1528 +0100]: That's what I did, but the idea is not to have to do that. (Besides, C is installed by default, so we need some kind of C.UTF-8, whose role is – for LC_CTYPE – usually fulfilled by en_US.UTF-8.) Please stop CCing debian-project. Does a C.UTF-8 exist? If yes, then this is a sound proposal, I think. it's not. We could create a neutral.utf-8 locale for sure, but a C.utf-8 is really bad, because some programs check the locale for 'C' and when they foind that use hand optimized functions to replace the localized libc ones. And thanks to POSIX, even if it looks gross, it's totally OK to do that. C charset is and should be ascii, that's an assumption you should not break. In fact, using an 8bit locale would often not harm, but a multi-byte one would be really really bad (as you would end up with e.g. strings split in the middle of a point code, *brrr* you definitely don't want that). in d-i it's ok to use C.utf-8 as the amount of programs running with that locale is definitely small and manageable. In a debian system ? no, it's definitely a _bad_ idea. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpxBsWl2uKOq.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#292330: use UTF-8 by default
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 10:48:04AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote: multi-byte one would be really really bad (as you would end up with e.g. strings split in the middle of a point code, *brrr* you definitely don't want that). I wasn't clear it seems, but what I mean is if a programs assumes he's dealing with ascii, it may end up splitting strings in the middle of a codepoint if it's in fact an utf-8 string. That's why a C.utf-8 is a very bad idea. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgp7UlExJABev.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#292330: use UTF-8 by default
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 06:46:40PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote: On ma, 2007-06-18 at 13:37 +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote: On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 10:48:04AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote: multi-byte one would be really really bad (as you would end up with e..g. strings split in the middle of a point code, *brrr* you definitely don't want that). I wasn't clear it seems, but what I mean is if a programs assumes he's dealing with ascii, This buggy assumption seems to happen in every locale, not just C.UTF-8, and in every other case we treat it as a bug. Is there a standard that says every C.* locale must have the same single byte character set as the plain C locale? (Incidentally, the standard for the C language does not require the character set in the C locale to be ASCII; EBCDIC, for example, works as well. See 5.2.1, Character sets, for the full description. You might be able to find a copy of the standard by searching for ISO/IEC 9899.) I stand corrected, I read POSIX base, chapter 7: indeed, it specifies how the collation is done, but not how the characters are encoded, so a C.utf-8 does not seems like a so bad idea. Though I'm quite sure we can find software that assume that the character set in the C locale are always ASCII. But okay, maybe it's worth fixing those few. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpBYgGchlyPC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Kommerzielle Lizensierung von Debian-Linux -Anfrage-
On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 10:17:43AM +0200, Thomas Frese wrote: Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren, ich befinde mich z.Zt. in der Ausbildung zum IT-Systemelektroniker. Zum Umfang dieser Ausbildung gehörte die Realisierung eines Prüfungsprojektes. Da ich auch privat Debian nutze habe ich für dieses Projekt ebenfalls Debian als Betriebssystem verwendet. Da dieses System allerdings kommerziell genutzt werden soll, würde ich gerne erfahren, ob dies auch unter die kostenlose Lizensierung fällt. Folgende Dienste sind in Benutzung: KDE DHCP3 TFTPD IceWeasel Für Ihre Bemühungen bedanke ich mich im Voraus. Sehr geehrte Herr Frese, Sie haben zu eine englisch schprachende Liste geschrieben. Nächste Mal, konnten Sie zum [EMAIL PROTECTED] schreiben ? Danke schön. Über Ihre Frage, ja, alle Software, daß in den main Abschnitt verteilt sind, fallen unter die kostenlose Lizensierung. Tatsächlich, diese Software sind Frei, Sie können an [1] Erklärungen finden, um zu lernen, waß es im einzelnen bedeutet. http://www.debian.org/social_contract.de.html#guidelines Hochachtungsvoll, -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpx08G5lTfUE.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Another level of agression ?
On Sun, May 27, 2007 at 11:03:50AM -0600, Wesley J. Landaker wrote: On Sunday 27 May 2007 10:52:49 Mohammed Adnène Trojette wrote: Hi Sven, are you part of an organisation called GNAA? Regardless of how you[1] feel about Sven, can you please stop trolling him? Damn, how fool was I. I was completely under the impression that *he* was the one trolling our lists for months. Makes me think, he can't be alone to generate all that flood, or he uses scripting. Maybe the latter given the very high redundancy of the content, wording and annoyance. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgptqmAQmLlNZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Google SoC - Bug Triaging and Forwarding Tool
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 03:14:06PM +0100, Loïc Minier wrote: On Mon, Mar 19, 2007, Gustavo R. Montesino wrote: Based on a suggestion by Loïc Minier and some of the recent discussions on the lists, I'm thinking on submiting a Google SoC proposal to create and tool to aid maintainers and contributors in triaging and forwarding bug reports. Great! I don't know whether I can act as a mentor for the project; if anyone is interested to mentor this, please speak up; anyway, I think it would be nice to have the project written in Python as it is more and more a langage of choice in Debian, and you mentionned Gtk, which is fine in Python. Pierre Habouzit wrote bts-link which is Python based and interfaces with our BTS and Bugzilla, and he mentionned the idea of a bug forwarding tool as well; perhaps he has some code to share (especially the BZ part I expect). No I don't. btw bts-link code is on git.debian.org and 100% public :) -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpyeg3VfvI7K.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Developers vs Uploaders
On Sat, Mar 17, 2007 at 12:58:40AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 02:47:22PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote: Well at first it is. One of my main sponsoree is Fathi[0]. I sponsor him for quite a long time now, I'd say a year at least. The beginning of our relationship was indeed really a teacher/student one. [...] But for now something like 6 months, I've nothing to say wrt his packages. I merely do cosmetics remarks, he knows his stuff. [...] At least, with the DM proposal, he would not depend upon me anymore, except for the introduction of NEW packages. That would allow me to take new sponsoree, that would need the teaching part I quite like to do, and that Fathi no longer needs for months. That sounds like a recommendation... It is. ---cut-- Changed-By: Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] Comment: adding holger as debian-maintainer Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 18:25:59 +1000 Advocates: ajt - http://lists.debian.org/debian-newmaint/2007/01/msg00037.html kaol - http://lists.debian.org/debian-newmaint/2007/01/msg00038.html zobel - http://lists.debian.org/debian-newmaint/2007/01/msg00043.html tolimar - http://lists.debian.org/debian-newmaint/2007/01/msg00044.html sgran - http://lists.debian.org/debian-newmaint/2007/01/msg00044.html 93sam - http://lists.debian.org/debian-newmaint/2007/01/msg00047.html neilm - http://lists.debian.org/debian-newmaint/2007/01/msg00048.html damog - http://lists.debian.org/debian-newmaint/2007/01/msg00050.html KeyCheck: [output of keycheck.sh] NM-Page: https://nm.debian.org/nmstatus.php?email=debian%40layer-acht.org Action: import Data: [ascii armoured key to be imported] ---cut--- [...] Anyway, what do you think about having a go at creating a jetring stanza something like the above for Fathi? Well, I'm still not sure wether DM is a good thing or not in fact. But I'd say it has te be experimented yes. If we are going that road, Then I've two people to recommend for this: Fathi and Yves-Alexis Perez that is our one-man xfce-team (at least judging the XFCE Team recent activity I think he is doing 99% of the job), and that is truck in NM because is AM has still not sent his AM report (for almost 4 monthes). For Corsac (Yves-Alexis) it's not the best solution, but at least he would not depend upon a sponsor anymore for the XFCE uploads, and I'm sure it will be a spine out of his foot. In fact I think that at some point of the NM process, if the AM is sure that his NM is doing a good job with his package, inclusion in the DM should be very easy. I believe that allow a quite smoother integration of the NMs in Debian, and goes in the right direction. Let me know what I have to do for this to happen. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpiCjR9vOdpD.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Developers vs Uploaders
Attached is my ${keyid}.changes for fathi boudra, proposed for
inclusion in the DM jetring.
It is debsigned with my own gpg.key, just tell me if it needs any kind
of tweaks in the fields syntax.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Changed-By: Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Comment: adding Fathi Boudra as debian-maintainer
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 16:40:40 +0100
Advocates:
madcoder - http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2007/03/msg00103.html
KeyCheck:
gpg: requesting key 6AA572F7 from hkp server subkeys.pgp.net
pub 1024R/6AA572F7 2005-04-13
Key fingerprint = CEE0 6509 A9D4 2D28 D257 3EA8 8CF5 35F6 6AA5 72F7
uid Fathi Boudra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
sig! F1BCDB73 2006-03-18 Aurelien Jarno [EMAIL PROTECTED]
sig! AEBCE71F 2006-07-02 Christian Bayle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
sig!36AA572F7 2005-04-13 Fathi Boudra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
18 signatures not checked due to missing keys
Let's test if its a version 4 or greater key
Key is ok
Check for key expire stuff
Key has no expiration date set, nothing to check.
NM-Page: https://nm.debian.org/nmstatus.php?email=fboudra%40free.fr
Action: import
Data:
-BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
.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=K9JW
-END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFF+r49vGr7W6HudhwRAsAWAJwP7ycn+F0/7y96Zq/Mw5IbAvwx2wCfR14o
yRdz8CvTgu6Sf1J41QydkhY=
=VSk3
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
pgpexmxXFchUx.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Developers vs Uploaders
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 01:02:15PM +, MJ Ray wrote: The sponsors who have enough time to make such silly claims should be spending more time checking their sponsorees packages! I wonder if some of them are sponsoring because they think NM is needlessly slow, rather than because they want to do a proper education/mentoring task. Well at first it is. One of my main sponsoree is Fathi[0]. I sponsor him for quite a long time now, I'd say a year at least. The beginning of our relationship was indeed really a teacher/student one. I reviewed his first packages with a lot of care, discussed with him many details, helped him to understand some debian packaging tricks, and so on. But for now something like 6 months, I've nothing to say wrt his packages. I merely do cosmetics remarks, he knows his stuff. He _is_ a goddamn very valuable Debian Contributor: very good packages, excellent senses of his responsibilities. Sadly, he is stuck in NM[1] because the process is a tad tedious, that he finds the whole process repulsive, and that I'm reliable enough to upload his packages in a timely fashion (those are guesses, he can correct me if I'm wrong). So for the last 6 month, my sponsoring work is mostly beeing a build and upload machine. That's quite a waste of my time (since my reviews have never triggered any valuable flaw), and of his (because he has to ask me for the reviews, wait for my answers, and cannot work as fast as he could because of that). Here, there is no way of fast-tracking him, because you know, fast-tracking is kept allot for prominent people, and ... well, I guess you never heard of him before. So he's stuck in NM, has no right to upload his packages alone, and NM is clearly inadequate for him, whereas he is skilled, knows how to limit himself, and only work on things he know he will able to cope with later, and knows when there is a thing he does not understand/controls correctly, and go ask questions to people that know, to avoid mistakes. His understanding of debian's philosophy is what we expect from NM's too. He's just ready. but no, he continues beeing my sponsoree, for the time being, and IMHO for still a long time, because he cares way much more about the quality of his packages, rather than having his @debian.org address. This kind of people is the kind of developers I would be glad to meet more often in our project, and we are completely unable to make them full DD in a decent amount of time. That's a shame. At least, with the DM proposal, he would not depend upon me anymore, except for the introduction of NEW packages. That would allow me to take new sponsoree, that would need the teaching part I quite like to do, and that Fathi no longer needs for months. Sponsoring is probably something that needs more guidance. Each sponsor has their own habits and there's little to say what's the best. Personally, I think the sponsor should appear in Uploaders @debian.org to be obvious if it goes wrong, but I think others disagreed last time I wrote that. Well the sponsor already appears on DDPO, so it's not hidden. I'd rather create a Sponsor: field than an Uploader, or we need to rework Maintainer field. I mean, the current semantics is: Mantainer: -- the person in charge (often an ML when it's a team) Uploaders: -- the detailed list of co-maintainers or subset of the team really in charge of the package. I dont really see why a sponsor shall be in Uploaders, I sponsor a lot of package I never use, and I don't want to be in either of the fields. Though a Sponsor: field could be of use, yes. [0] http://qa.debian.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED] [1] https://nm.debian.org/nmstatus.php?email=fboudra%40free.fr -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgp4M1XRNBmB5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Poll on the wiki (was About terminology for stable/testing/unstable)
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 01:08:59PM -0500, Philippe Cloutier wrote: Since there were no or few preferences expressed, I created a simple poll on the wiki at http://wiki.debian.org/Terminology/StableTestingUnstable At least a few votes would be welcome. From Jargon File (4.4.4, 14 Aug 2003) [jargon]: bikeshedding [originally BSD, now common] Technical disputes over minor, marginal issues conducted while more serious ones are being overlooked. The implied image is of people arguing over what color to paint the bicycle shed while the house is not finished. TTBOMK Christian already chosed suite IIRC, which is a good term, the discussion is from May 2006 for god's sake ! IOW: We just don't need to bring this up _again_. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpvWzstP90iP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Why is there only self-nomination?
On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 09:48:26PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote: On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 04:45:30PM -0500, Clint Adams wrote: Personally, I think the idea of a DD having to ack his nomination, though only after being nominated by some (Q?) fellow DDs would be better than a plain self-nomination. What do others think? Sounds better to me. Ditto. ditto -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpveMU3rApwR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bits from the DPL: DSA and buildds and DAM, oh my!
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 11:41:11PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 04:09:46PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote: I'm not sure what you're asking to be communicated. The following of the mail looks perfect to me, I would really have liked to have a place where I could have read that in the first place. db.d.o/machines.cgi does not lists that. But, the only part of this that was actually information was the first paragraph, which only moderately elaborates on what's already present on db.debian.org, and doesn't really change the prognosis for the near future, i.e., porting machine down, no ETA. Well, that is information, I don't necessarily want an ETA RSN, I just want to know if there is one yet, and if not, to be sure I'll know when there will be one. That's exactly what people are expecting: be sure than when _there will be_ some ETA, or more informations, those will come as soon as available. You know, communication thing ;) -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpupXtQwDWKl.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bits from the DPL: DSA and buildds and DAM, oh my!
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 05:14:17AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 10:44:55AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote: Do you want a Simple example ? For almost 4 or 5 months (if not more) there is no Alpha machine available to developers, one being restricted, the other in lock down, waiting for a setup I guess (-- did you remark the I guess ? I mean I don't know what's going on, and nobody knows afaict). The problem is, I'm now helping packaging the glibc, and we have a couple of alpha-only bugs. Things really stupid like headers problems, that would almost take a full minute to be fixed. BUt that bug fix is pending james, Ryan or a local admin work (again I've to guess), and nothing is coming, neither explanation on why no alpha machine is accessible, nor why it takes so long, nor an ETA. [...] I understand they cannot communicate about _everything_. But a downtime like that _is_ worth communicating. I'm not sure what you're asking to be communicated. The following of the mail looks perfect to me, I would really have liked to have a place where I could have read that in the first place. db.d.o/machines.cgi does not lists that. https://db.debian.org/machines.cgi correctly documents the status of escher as 'lock down', and yes, this status is unchanged for many months because of the lack of a kernel image for alpha that includes the fix for the last security hole. It's been suggested that the local admin might find the time to work on this subsequent to the relocation (the same relocation that caused the alpha buildd outage -- goedel and escher are hosted together). But it would be premature to plan around that, currently escher is not just locked down, it doesn't respond to pings at all. I plan to see what I can do to help on this if it remains unresolved, but not until post-etch... thanks for this information. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpUhwY28bGfs.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bits from the DPL: DSA and buildds and DAM, oh my!
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 12:13:03PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On a personal note, in my experience the most effective way of working with James and Ryan is to trust that they generally know what they're doing and more or less leave them to get on with making things better on their own rather than hassling them for status reports or similar. Well, that leave one obvious question then, are they the best people for the job ? because I'd really prefer people that work 10% less, to communicate what they do in the other 90% of their task, so that everyone knows what's going on, and can plan their own job decently. My point is, many tasks in debian depend on what DSA/DAM/... do and especially when. Event if (for the sake of the argument) I admit that things get eventually done, the unknown time part _is_ generating a _lot_ of frustration. Just leave them to their own devices isn't something you'll see recommended in management books, but when people are doing stuff that they care about for fun, it's worth considering. This is just handwaving: letting them in their dark corner because they work faster like that, is not related to the issue that is debated: no one says james or ryan are lazy, the problem is almost nobody know what and when they are doing it. A downside is that it makes it hard to know how to help, We're far beyond trying to help them, at least for me, I just want to have ETA's and communication because this is how people work together. Their work (or absence of, or delays of, or ...) are impacting the work of every single DD out there, and that sucks. Do you want a Simple example ? For almost 4 or 5 months (if not more) there is no Alpha machine available to developers, one being restricted, the other in lock down, waiting for a setup I guess (-- did you remark the I guess ? I mean I don't know what's going on, and nobody knows afaict). The problem is, I'm now helping packaging the glibc, and we have a couple of alpha-only bugs. Things really stupid like headers problems, that would almost take a full minute to be fixed. BUt that bug fix is pending james, Ryan or a local admin work (again I've to guess), and nothing is coming, neither explanation on why no alpha machine is accessible, nor why it takes so long, nor an ETA. So what is _my_ reaction ? that I just don't give a damn about alpha, that bug will rot because: (1) there is nothing that I can do, and (2) and _THAT'S_ the real source of the frustration: I've no fucking clue of when it'll be fixed, and I'm tired polling db.debian.org to know when the fuck this machin will be up again. I've stopped doing so a couple of weeks ago, and I just erased alpha from my head. I understand they cannot communicate about _everything_. But a downtime like that _is_ worth communicating. If they don't understand it, then I for my part don't understand how they are in those critical positions in the first place. There is plenty of people out there that I'm sure have the same set of skills, maybe work 10% slower, but communicate and reduce the project frustration to 0 wrt core teams. So sorry, but I don't buy a single word of your argumentation here. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpSVH4WobJcv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bits from the DPL: DSA and buildds and DAM, oh my!
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 08:45:27PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 10:44:55AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote: So sorry, but I don't buy a single word of your argumentation here. It wasn't an argument; it was just a statement of things are, as I see them. In so far as how things are isn't well communicated in those areas, I don't see any other way of addressing that other than the above. We're far beyond trying to help them, at least for me, [...] Your opinions are only ever going to be considered in so far as you're willing to help make them a reality. If you're not willing to help, find something else to worry about. Given how gently help offers are treated, yes I'm beyond that. Blame yourself for that. That's also a very nice attempt to make me look bad and divert the discussion from its real matter. Sadly for you, I don't refuse to help, _you_ implied that I was part of a clever cabal to take over [EMAIL PROTECTED] So yes, awkwardly enough I don't consider helping DSA anymore, given what publicity I had in return. And like Marc said, when things in a project make people not care anymore, maybe the inherent problem is to be fixed, and not the people to be blamed. You don't fix a problem by hiding/blaming the symptoms. Thanks for caring. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpTEryiuo0IU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Criteria for a successful DPL board
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 11:00:36AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: Hello, I've been talking about having a DPL board and I might want to go further and try the principles out by proposing a DPL board in the upcoming elections. So I'm explaining here how I expect such a board to work. Feel free to comment, ask questions and give suggestions on how to enhance it. Composition: * Around 10 members representing if possible the various tendencies that exist within Debian. 10 people is the best way to ensure nothing ever gets done. That sole number shows that you don't really understand how hard it is to have a leadership with more than one person in it. If you want to imagine such a thing as a DPL team, then, the number of members of the board shall be odd, for obvious voting reasons, and that number shall be less than 5 (and 5 is already big imho). if a DPL Team needs more than 3 people, then there is two possibilities: * most of the DPL team is useless and should not have been here in the first place ; or * the DPL team should have named delegates (a power that the DPL can use, and that he rather use seldomly as a general rule ttbomk) for some local and determinated tasks. Another problem I have with your proposal is about the puting people from different horizons. You don't have a working team doing that. You can ask people that do not think the same to behave decently in a meeting, or discuss calmly and efficiently on a list or so (yeah yeah, in the real world outside from debian that's possible, I've seen it). But you can't ask such persons to share a chair. That just can't work. If you want to get things done, you must put together a team that is coherent and that share the same goals. Else your proposal is the best way to achieve a wonderfully auto-deadlocked DPL. That could be quite a bit of fun, but well, I think debian has already way enough administration-like inefficiencies not to add yet another one. So _as you describe it_ I think such a DPL Board is a quite bad idea. I've no real position about a DPL Team in general, but this instance is clearly not a thing I'd like to see, for at least the two previous reasons. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpIUK3ze4zBN.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Criteria for a successful DPL board
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 11:37:53AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: - more momentum to the leadership: clearly a single leader is swamped with administrivia and even the addition of a 2IC didn't let Anthony finish his first proposal (about giving single-package upload rights to some people which don't want to become full DD but want to maintain just one or two packages) Ack, that could be good, and in that respect, one or two more people is good. It's quite hard to estimate from a non-DPL point of view how loud the pressure is. Mabye past DPL's could give some insight about this ? - better decision taking: when you have a big discussion, it's difficult to take a decison alone, you take the sole responsibility of it... whereas when you're 10 which are deciding, it's easier to assume the outcome. hrm, if you really need help to take a decision, 3, or 10 is not better than 1. the DPL does not needs a DPL team to discuss a decision, he has the secretary, the tech-ctte when it's technical, the rm's when it's related to the release, etc… And if it's _that_ controversal, then a discussion among all the developers has to take place anyway, and 3 5 10 or 40 people in the DPL Team can't change that (at least in the current wording of the constitution, that says that the DPL should follow a consensual leadership). - better respect of the leadership: if you don't like the leader, it's easy to dismiss any of its decision, I think recent history showed that's not true. but if you have 6 people in the board that you respect and 4 that you don't trust too much, you're more likely to accept the outcome of a given decision. I don't see how that's true, or you have a really biased way to accept decisions. I accept decisions based on their inherent qualities, not based on whom decided them. So to me this argument is scurvy. It's also a form of leadership that fits better our own internal workings.. If a board member goes MIA, we still have 9 others who are there. If a DPL knows he's unreliable he should be the first one to find succession, or even not nominate himself in the first place. MIA developers are enough of a shame to not even dare to suppose a DPL can go MIA. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpq5v89HidTu.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Criteria for a successful DPL board
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 02:08:51PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Pierre Habouzit wrote: 10 people is the best way to ensure nothing ever gets done. That sole number shows that you don't really understand how hard it is to have a leadership with more than one person in it. Please don't make assumption about what I understand and what I don't. This number is big to always have some people active at a given time. Then please explain it better. What I understood from your first post is that you want to replace the DPL by a Team, but: * You don't really explain why it's needed ; * You don't really explain its goals. Here is what I assumed or understood from other posts from you and your initial one: * the DPL has too much stupid administrative tasks to perform, and needs help. I say fine, you don't need 10 people to do that, a small team where you work tight with a very few collaborators is the fine model for that. * the DPL has sensitive questions to answer to, I say that then this has to be discussed with the related people (I already gave examples) and then take the decision, or leave it to broad discussion among the project. There is no way a mini-debian would be a good idea IMHO. So to me your idea seems irrelevant. * You say it's better to fight against people lacking time, then well, that sucks pal, but if you don't have time, you should not try to be in that team already. When I choose to nominate myself in a board election, it beeing Debian or not (and I've been in the board of two associations already, one having 15k+ members, so I quite know what I'm talking about), I assert that I will have enough time to fulfill my role. About the last point: it bothers me that you take as a viable premise that the DPL may very likely gonna MIA. Moreover, I don't think that Debian can't work with an MIA DPL either, there is enough delegates in the key roles to work correctly enough, I think there has been some DPL's going AWOL in the past, that has not made Debian run into the wall. It's not good when a DPL is going missing, bad for the PR et al., but it's not as bad as inexistant RM's or ghost DSA or absent Buildd Admins. I'm just trying to understand here what motivates your proposal, that's all. And in the sole perspective that _I_ find viable and debateable, well, _I_ find your proposal suck for the reasons I exposed in the mail you answer to. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpiptgz6JBjo.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Criteria for a successful DPL board
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 04:04:34PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote: it's not as bad as inexistant RM's or ghost DSA or absent Buildd Admins. After a second read that sentence does not looks that good. I don't mean that our RM's are inexistant, that would not be fair to them. Please really read that as genuine examples. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpQZ2Bg4VcRc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Explications needed...
On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 04:45:32PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 11:39:13AM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote: All started with this email: http://lists.debian.org/debian-arm/2006/08/msg00151.html ARM was *in danger*, a lot of stuff (java, xulrunner, mono, ...) were not working correctly. People worked hard to fix that, but it was very difficult to get packages depending on fixed stuff to get requeued. Also a lot of arch-specific compile errors were actually due to build daemon problems. Yes, let's be clear here: ARM was in danger because of a large number of packages that were *not buildable*, not just because they weren't built. The call for help was in identifying the reasons for the build failures so that the underlying problems could be fixed, *not* for hand-building packages and ignoring the implications for security support. I feel it's deeper than that: now that aurélien completely stopped to upload non built packages at all (a thing he did on a regular basis before, and just automated with his rogue autobuilder) just look at [1], whereas every single arch is keeping up quietly, arm and sparc seem to go to the deepness of hell. I don't know who are the sparc buildd admins, but for sure, the arm port do not seem to be that well. [1] http://buildd.debian.org/stats/graph2-week-big.png -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpHKqw7fEGny.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian Weekly News - November 28th, 2006
On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 10:30:57AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 05:36:23PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: I suppose it's possible this is how they were reading the Dunc-Bank QA effort to find RC bugs, but if so, I think they were misreading the spirit of that effort I think that the first two sentences on http://dunc-bank.zoy.org/ have any potential of being mis-read. Dunc-Bank looks like a desperate effort to make the current dunc-tank experiment fail masquerading behind a generally good idea. Thankfully, the web page makes it pretty clear what dunc-bank's real objective is. You're definitely of the humorless kind. I do think that http://dunc-bank.zoy.org has no potential to be misunderstood to the point where it can be taken for anything else than satire and irony[0]. There is nothing like a Dunk-Bank initiative, merely people that do care about QA a lot, and did not want to see etch being released with a diminished quality or in a hurry. [0] Or maybe your browser totally lack image support. I can point to you many very lightweight browsers that can do that, you can mail me privately if you need some pointers. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpyYkE6gGmk6.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Please change the Maintainer: header when forking Debian
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 12:40:02PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: Isn't this request contrary to the consensus identified in the poll on this subject earlier this year? err, poll ? I've never voted in such a poll, and I've had problems with packages of mine living in ubuntu universe two times already, and that's tiredsome. Especially because one of those users didn't want to believe that I was not the Ubuntu Maintainer of that package, since my name was in it. Would I have had seen that poll, I would have been in favor of renaming the Debian Maintainer: field into Debian-Maintainer: or whatever else too. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgp9ZlhOCb8K6.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc experiment
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 08:37:43PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote: This is going to be a personal reply, containing my personal opinion only. On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 07:46:00PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote: Especially since it is clear now that we currently can not keep the scheduled release date, even with DT paying our RMs. Is that clear? based on [1] I'd say that yes it is. Even if we consider that the people we are now work twice as fast (because twice as many) as for sarge, we have right noe 260 RC bugs, sarge was at 125 6 months before it was released. and at 250+ 1 year before its release. - During the discussion before the experiment it was said that the living costs of the release managers are to be paid. Additionally it was said that it is providing a reasonable amount of money to cover living expenses and later on, that this is below the average they could get elsewhere. However, the official donation site[1] mentions US$ 6000.00 for each release manager. We do consider this to be neither just living costs nor below average, not even by applying common taxes and insurances one has to pay. On what grounds has this amount been calculated? US$ 6000 is like 4.800 EUR. That's like a dayly rate of 220 EUR. Like a fourth of what a contractor of Andi's and Steve's expertise would cash in on the free market. but that's was not a salary, at least, it was what has been promised to us. That's supposed to pay their living expenses, and please, do me a favor, I earn *really* less than that, and I'm able to pay a mortgage and live well. So, to summarize DTs effects on Debian: It has demotivated a lot of people who now either resigned, simply stopped doing (parts of their) Debian work or are doing a lot less than they did before DT was started. At this place, one of our worst problems surfaces again: People stop working _silently_ so that nobody can step in for them. And, even worse, people in key positions (that need special privileges do work) reduce their committment without stepping down, actively _prevent_ other people from doing their work. _THIS_ is doing _BIG_ harm to the project. I'm not aware of any key role beeing held hostage because of people that are fed up with DT. But I may be mistaken. Please enlight me. What happens though, is that key people that have unvaluable knowledges and skills have left. We lost a valuable libpng maintainer, we lost a guy that understood how timezones worked, how xkb worked, and a valuable l10n team member, a weekly DWN, etc… Some of those places are vacant because there is simply nobody else to fill the gaps. [1] http://bugs.debian.org/release-critical/ -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpO2nNaWo7W5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Using money to fund real Debian work
Le dim 8 octobre 2006 12:34, Raphael Hertzog a écrit : In the worst scenario, the sponsor will be disappointed and will not give money any more. But if the rules are clear from the beginning, it's only fair. it's not true. If the sponsoree well-beeing (because he tries to live from that) depends upon that, he may take bad decisions to have the money after all. Moreover, I don't want to see the money flow be influenced by DDs: that's unethical, and deviant. You don't want donors to decide directly what to fund and you don't want us to tell them what to fund? did i said that ? you misread me. I want the donor to decide what they want to fund, and choose who they will fund directly, because asking Debian would either be done: (1) through GRs (hahahahahaha) (2) through a small comitee that would be biased, or that would suffer from *BIG* conflicts of interests. It looks like you're against using money to let us do real work. :-) it looks like you don't know how to read ? I'm against money beeing able to influence the choices people take in Debian. full stop. I'm also not OK with money (or lack of it) blocking Debian because some DD decided he needed fund to do do something he has to do. I'm (almost) fine with a Bounty structure, but the sponsors and sponsoree should define the terms of the bounty directly, with or without contract, that's their call. But I DON'T WANT to see a DD structure in the middle, *ESPECIALLY* for counselling purposes: that would only benefit to the known developers, not the technically good ones. So you would be okay with the structure that I described, provided that there's no voting mechanism and that donors are left to themselves to select the projects to fund? I'm not sure to fully understand /what/ you proposed, so I reserve my judgement for now, until I see a proper, clean, detailed, open proposal. Good technical solutions are still what Debian is about right ? This is not related: - known developers are not necessarily bad developers - technically good developers are not necessarily unknown so that would only benefit the good *and* known one ? what's the fairness in that ? And even if technicall bad but known developers are paid to do some work, nothing prevents technically good developers to make sure the project is sane from the beginning by reviewing the project proposals on the infrastructure. And nothing prevents further improvements later in the process. Being paid doesn't mean that we stop doing free software. did I said so ? are you trying to divert my thoughts into some lame FUD ? or did you truly not understood me to that level ? -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpEyzJu0iw7I.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Using money to fund real Debian work
Le dim 8 octobre 2006 14:18, Raphael Hertzog a écrit : And if the comments associated to the project proposal indicate that there's some controversy in the idea behind the project, then the donor would be aware that there's a risk that the stuff doesn't get integrated into Debian proper. hahah, and you expect to find donors with that ? Moreover, I don't want to see the money flow be influenced by DDs: that's unethical, and deviant. You don't want donors to decide directly what to fund and you don't want us to tell them what to fund? did i said that ? you misread me. I want the donor to decide what they want to fund, and choose who they will fund directly, because asking Debian would either be done: (1) through GRs (hahahahahaha) (2) through a small comitee that would be biased, or that would suffer from *BIG* conflicts of interests. You don't list the solution that I explained: with an always-running vote among developers. The DD who have been mentors for Google's summer of code have used a web application to evaluate the proposals of students. While it was far from perfect, it worked quite well to identify the projects which were the most desired/popular. I don't like any form of censorship/moderation/vote/whatever. full stop. because that gives to much power to the censor/moderator/voters/... or is completely unrealistic (because needs a full GR or such heavy procedure). Giving some hints now, while I'm trying to design that proposal would be helpful... I discussed my proposal with you at several occasions on IRC, it was also relatively detailed in my french blog post on the subject. you discussed many subparts of it, I've seen no aggregated document of a full proposal yet, and I'm not sure to remember all the parts, nor if you accepted to remove some bits I didn't like or not, etc… you're asking for an answer I won't give without concrete material. And even if technicall bad but known developers are paid to do some work, nothing prevents technically good developers to make sure the project is sane from the beginning by reviewing the project proposals on the infrastructure. And nothing prevents further improvements later in the process. Being paid doesn't mean that we stop doing free software. did I said so ? are you trying to divert my thoughts into some lame FUD ? or did you truly not understood me to that level ? I only explained why paying known developers doesn't result in technically bad decisions for Debian... My concern is about money driving how decisions are taken or not. It always ends in bad technical solutions, so my fear is legitimate. My other concern is about how people that do the bounties are chosen, I say that chosing the known ones is unfair, and should not be done. don't mix the two in an incoherent tossed salad. Wasn't that the point of your rethoric question (Good technical solutions are still what Debian is about right ?) ? that question was just a mild provocation, aka a rhetorical effect. please don't offend me in trying to answer to that. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpZasYYmfv5T.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Using money to fund real Debian work
Le dim 8 octobre 2006 15:36, Stephen Gran a écrit : This one time, at band camp, Pierre Habouzit said: Le dim 8 octobre 2006 14:18, Raphael Hertzog a écrit : And if the comments associated to the project proposal indicate that there's some controversy in the idea behind the project, then the donor would be aware that there's a risk that the stuff doesn't get integrated into Debian proper. hahah, and you expect to find donors with that ? Actually, I would expect that this is quite possible. I wouldn't expect them to find enough donor's to provide full time work for several people on an ongoing basis, but that's not what this is about, AIUI. well, I've read raphael saying many times on IRC that he'd be glad to see such a thing happen. So maybe it's not it *yet* but at least he is thinking about it, and he is (and I'll let him correct that statement if not 100% correct) preparing the road to a way for DDs to live from beeing a DD. That cannot be made with only small or fairly small donations (by small I think donations under a few k€/kUSD). So yes, I'm worrying about the future. My concern is about money driving how decisions are taken or not. It always ends in bad technical solutions, so my fear is legitimate. Sorry, assertion failure detected. I think it's entirely likely that enough small scale donations could be gathered to allow some projects to be minimally funded for short periods without any of the sort of corporate silliness you describe entering in to the equation. If you're talking about orders of magnitude more money, then you're probably right, but I don't think anyone's talking about getting rich here. I agree with you about small scale donations. they go in the cat (1) of the donations from my mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]. Though please re-think that keeping in mind that the current discussion goes beyond that. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpcwpdgozdht.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Is it time for non-us again?
Le mer 4 octobre 2006 13:25, Daniel Ruoso a écrit :
Isn't it the time to recreate the non-us section?
no, at least not for patent issues. we would need a debian-${COUNTRY}
rather than a non-US if we begin to take that into consideration.
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OOOhttp://www.madism.org
pgpdYGS4FPVG3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Is it time for non-epatents (Was: Re: Is it time for non-us again?)
Le mer 4 octobre 2006 19:47, Daniel Ruoso a écrit :
Qua, 2006-10-04 às 14:04 +0200, Pierre Habouzit escreveu:
Le mer 4 octobre 2006 13:25, Daniel Ruoso a écrit :
Isn't it the time to recreate the non-us section?
no, at least not for patent issues. we would need a
debian-${COUNTRY} rather than a non-US if we begin to take that
into consideration.
Ok, but this doesn't get to the point... So...
Isn't it the time to create a non-epatents repository hosted at some
place where software patents doesn't apply?
all right, so that means that you will have an archive without patents.
That should not be tainted with depends upon packages in the patented
works. I suppose we agree on that.
That would rule out mp3 players, gif viewers (think browsers, …), or a
decent kernel (no fat32, …) ? I'm quite interested to see where that
could lead us into.
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OOOhttp://www.madism.org
pgp7TcNScrHj9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR
Le lun 18 septembre 2006 20:42, Debian Project Secretaru a écrit : GR Amendment 3: Special exception to DFSG #2 for firmware From: Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 11:37:20 +0200 I second that proposal made by josselin mouette again, and affirm that Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] was mine. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpAHSvU0eKFo.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposal: Source code is important for all works in Debian, and required for programmatic ones
Le ven 25 août 2006 08:51, Don Armstrong a écrit : I second that proposition = The Free Software movement is about enabling users to modify the works that they use on their computer; about giving users the same information that copyright holders and upstream developers have. As such, a critical part of the Free Software movement is the availability of source (that is, the form of the work that a copyright holder or developer would use to actually modify the work) to users. This makes sure that users are not held hostage by the whims (or lack of interest or financial incentive) of upstreams and copyright holders. Different types of works have different forms of source. For some works, the preferred form for modification may not actually be digitally transferable.[1] For others, the form that originally was preferred may have been destroyed at some point in time, and is no longer available to anyone. However, to the greatest extent possible,[2] the availability of source code to users is a critical aspect of having the freedom to modify the software that is running upon ones computer. Recognizing this, the Debian Project: A. Reaffirms that programmatic works distributed in the Debian system (IE, in main) must be 100% Free Software, regardless of whether the work is designed to run on the CPU, a subsidiary processing unit, or by some other form of execution. That is, works must include the form that the copyright holder or upstream developer would actually use for modification. B. Strongly recommends that all non-programmatic works distribute the form that the copyright holder or upstream developer would actually use for modification. Such forms need not be distributed in the orig.tar.gz (unless required by license) but should be made available on upstream websites and/or using Debian project resources. C. Reaffirms its continued support of users whose hardware (or software) requires works which are not freely licensed or whose source is not available by making such works available in non-free and providing project resources to the extent that Debian is capable of doing so. D. Requests that vendors of hardware, even those whose firmware is not loaded by the operating system, provide the prefered form for modification so that purchasers of their hardware are can exercise their freedom to modify the functioning of their hardware. 1: Consider film negatives, or magnetic tape in the case of audio recordings. 2: Here it must be emphasized that we refer to technically possible or possible for some party as opposed to legally possible for Debian. We also assume digital distribution, and do not attempt to require the distribution of physical objects. = Obvious points for discussion: […] 3. If there is substantial objection to D, I will probably remove it; however firmware, whether we happen to distribute it or not, is a hazard to user's freedom to modify the functioning of their computers. I've none, but would second a proposal without it as well if that's needed. 4. Finally, if in the context of the release of etch, we need to compromise our ideals and accept programmatic works without source, we should do so by specifically exempting them from DFSG 2 for the purpose of releasing etch by a GR which needs to meet the 3:1 requirement instead of attempting to define ourselves into such a position, especially when source code is clearly a desirable thing to have from our users and our perspective. and I also feel that's needed. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpTnPTeJeByX.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposal: The DFSG do not require source code for data, including firmware
Le mer 23 août 2006 12:16, Christian Perrier a écrit : Why would I do that, when you are taking the opposite way? When you believe a commend on a list has no merit, you explicitly ask other people to ignore it, based on a stupid DD/non-DD segregation instead of the merits of the comment. This is not my understanding of aj's comment, Josselin. He did not ask to *ignore* Peter's comment, but only to remind that, Peter not being a DD, the comment can't be told to reflect the DD community opinion. This is still how many people (me included) do perceive it. Moreover, the fact that the opinion that Peter expressed is widespread or not among the DDs is also irrelevant to the discussion. The discussion is about what options we have, and the the GR will be responsible to see which opinion is the most shared among the DD comunity. Until the vote, anybody can express his views opinions, even if it is a minority position ... that is what a public debate really is about. With that in mind, beeing a DD or not is a completely irrelevant information, and reminding is, whichever the original intention of that reminder was, is rude and inappropriate. That's not the first tham that aj does such reminders[1], and especiall beeing the DPL[2], I find that disturbing. Regards, [1] remember the ugly java thread ... [2] that does not mean that it's ok to do such remarks not beeing the DPL, it means that having such words as the DPL makes it worse. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgp4FQdINokut.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: package ownership in Debian
Le sam 29 juillet 2006 18:13, Gustavo Franco a écrit : On 7/29/06, Julien Danjou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 11:03:47PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Why is a 0 day NMU not OK policy when a team is not maintaining a package well? If there is a bug in the package, it should be fixed asap, regardless of how many people are mismaintaining the package. Where apache is a good example. Do you have a bug number and severity? http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?src=apache2 speaks for itself. RC bugs, with patches, for more than a year (oh yeah). not to mention that apache2.2 (fixing many problems I'm told) has been released in january (so it's not really cutting edge anymore, and I've not seen the experimental packages either). apache[12] maintenance in debian is quite a shame in its current state IMHO. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpCOhn9oErHz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: package ownership in Debian (was: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?)
Le ven 28 juillet 2006 19:15, Fabio Tranchitella a écrit : 2. There isn't an easy way to check if the maintainer of a package is actually working on the feature/patch which I would like to upload, or just to work togheter. Yes, I know that several packages are maintained in CVS/SVN/bzr/what-ever-else, but the repositories are not centralized and a lot of maintainers don't use revision control systems at all. and that won't happen because I'm not very keen on leraning yet another VCS, and that other's think the same, and that you will find poeple that never used svn or just can't use it, and poeple that never used bzr or don't like it , or ... what makes Ubuntu able to do this, is that there is a big someone that can tell: every package is maintained in bzr, and those who don't agree get fired. (exagerated of course, it's just the general idea). Moreover, not having strong maintainership in Ubuntu lead to some obscure package to be completely neglected, and some are in a not satisfying shape. I attribute that to the fact that nobody is really responsible for the package if eventually nobody cares about it. I don't say debian does not have problems with some packages, I just say that in that case, there is an obvious person to blame. Even teams are OK in that regard, because teams are generally small (wrt the number of DD's). So IMHO, something has to be done so that integration can be easier, e.g. making so called NMU be more easily accepted, so that nobody/noone/nothing can prevent an actual enhancement of the distro to go on. But one should /still/ be responsible for that or that package, this is what makes debian special, and I will defend it. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpshT1FJYUcc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: package ownership in Debian
Le ven 28 juillet 2006 22:40, MJ Ray a écrit : Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Simply change the NMUs to be always 0-day, for all bugs =3Dnormal. Which means - upload and mail to BTS at the same time. Would that mean we get BTS+NMU tennis instead of BTS tennis, where differences of opinion over what is a serious bug result in 0-day NMUs as well as BTS reopens? […] I'm not sure what the solution is, but 0-day always seems a big step backwards for Quality Control. More co-maints seems a better idea as a step forwards. I've seen more problems of bad maintainers with bad packages, than of irrevertible broken NMUs. Yes shit happen, but well, if you don't move, things rot, which is not much better. do you know a thing that could benefit from that ? - unofficial ports (kfreebsd e.g.) for whom it's a real PITA to have their patches (often of *excellent* quality) to get it. - theming squad (yeah, debian is the sole distro in which the desktops don't have some kind of homgenous look, making it utterly horrible for the newbie) that would just have to integrate their themes, icons, in the right desktop packages. - transitions: I'm the menu packager, I want to change how some option of menu files are handled, no problem, I go to the lintian lab, lists all the packages that will have to be fixed, and DO AN UPLOAD FIXING THEM AT THE SAME TIME instead of waiting for some 2 or 3 lazy maintainers that will apply that only 4 monthes later (did you noticed the /usr/doc transition is still NOT over ?) and I'm sure you can make an arm long list just thinking for a couple of minutes. Just think how smooth the g++4.1 transition was. Why was it ? because tbm took all the buggy packages, waited 4 or 5 days for the maintainers to fix them, or show they were active about that, and NMUed the rest. I've never ever seen a more clean and quick transition in debian. TTBOMK nobody even tried to complain. But I also think that nobody dared to because it was tbm. Would a random DD have tried the same thing, that wouldn't have been *that* easy. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpZbEQFpDtvP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: package ownership in Debian
Le ven 28 juillet 2006 23:01, Gustavo Franco a écrit : On 7/28/06, Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: do you know a thing that could benefit from that ? - unofficial ports (kfreebsd e.g.) for whom it's a real PITA to have their patches (often of *excellent* quality) to get it. - theming squad (yeah, debian is the sole distro in which the desktops don't have some kind of homgenous look, making it utterly horrible for the newbie) that would just have to integrate their themes, icons, in the right desktop packages. - transitions: I'm the menu packager, I want to change how some option of menu files are handled, no problem, I go to the lintian lab, lists all the packages that will have to be fixed, and DO AN UPLOAD FIXING THEM AT THE SAME TIME instead of waiting for some 2 or 3 lazy maintainers that will apply that only 4 monthes later (did you noticed the /usr/doc transition is still NOT over ?) and I'm sure you can make an arm long list just thinking for a couple of minutes. Great use cases for this proposal! Btw, while we're at this theme stuff. There's desktop-base that i would like to push forward with some consensus between pkg-gnome, pkg-kde and xfce maintainers at least. I started some work on the package but need to try organize a online meeting about this with the parties involved. If you're interested in this, contact me off list first please. I'm not interested to do the work, because I lack the interest, I know how to theme my own desktop. But I know it's a most wanted feature from users, and as a KDE co-maintainer, you can expect my full cooperation on that. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgptXr7nmTYBL.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian Powered Logo
On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 02:20:12PM +0300, Yavor Doganov wrote: On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 10:04:51 +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: I'm sure RMS would love to be associated with Ubuntu as a contributor. No, he would not. Ubuntu, as well as Debian, unfortunately, contain non-free software, and RMS has dedicated his life fighting against it. debian does not contains non-free software. non-free is not part of debian, it's only supported using the same tools. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian Powered Logo
On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 03:06:26PM +0200, Loïc Minier wrote: On Mon, Jul 03, 2006, Pierre HABOUZIT wrote: debian does not contains non-free software. non-free is not part of debian, it's only supported using the same tools. The differences between main, contrib, and non-free are only in the conditions required for the software sources to be therein. Please don't put Debian on the slippery slope where non-free is not part of debian, we already repeated our support for non-free in a GR. http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_002 There is no line to draw here, let each Debian user decide what he needs and what he wants. well, reread the GR more carefully. It does not says non-free is part of debian, but: debian will not drop non-free support. but non-free is NOT part of the Debian OS. this is what I've learned when I was in NM, also what is stated in many Fouding Documents. So basically Debian /OS/ does not contains non-free software at-all. The Debian /community/ provides some kind of support (BTS, mirrors/archive, packaging) to some non free softwares which are released at the same time as the Stable suite of Debian /OS/ but not /in/ Debian OS. I think you misread my mail that was only reminding that fact. I don't want to drop non-free support at all ! -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Why Ubuntu is different, was: Minutes of an Ubuntu-Debian discussion that happened at Debconf
Le jeu 29 juin 2006 10:42, Marco d'Itri a écrit : [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: it is legitimate and legal and all what you want. but it also makes the cooperation between the two distribution a lot harder: * take the not so recent example of Xorg6.9. Ubuntu decided to switch to Xorg way sooner than debian. good for'em. as a result, you couldn't even build an ubuntu package on debian, because it lacked the necessary build-depends. * ubuntu having python2.4 by default since 1year+ also causes problems in that sense (even if one could argue that nothing really prevented debian to switch earlier)... and I guess there will still be numerous examples of that kind in the future. Two great examples showing how Debian development has been lagging. You cannot blame Ubuntu because Debian sucks. did I ? One should note though that for the second case, the person in charge for python in debian is also a cannonical employee. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgph1Yrhn6C8Y.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Minutes of an Ubuntu-Debian discussion that happened at Debconf
Le mer 28 juin 2006 11:30, Raphael Hertzog a écrit : 4. Debian should provide patches of changes between two revisions of a package to make it easier for derivatives to track Debian. This is just like point 2, but reversed. 7. Many DDs know about Scott's patch repository but they have no idea of what stuff they will find in there. that's a false statement, a lot of DD know what they will find in there: a lot of huge unusable patches (due to relibtoolization or such) that are useless. Or a lot of diffs that are not relevant for debian, because ubuntu does not care a lot about binary compatibility and that their xorg transition a lot ahead from debian just put a lot of cruft in the diffs that are useless, and hide completely the other things that are useful to debian. I've tried to use those diffs a couple of time. I just don't bother to look at them since. 8. Improve Scott's page. The look (and usefulness) of that page I don't care about the look. or the presentation, it's irrelevant for work efficiency. the problem here, is that neither Debian (because it's the ancestor here, and it's really fair) wants to work in ubuntu structures, nor Ubuntu (because they have agendas or whatever reason) in debian ones. Meaning that the work is done twice: * Xorg transition ; * python 2.4 transition ; * ... resulting into completely *NOT* binary-compatible distribution (when something as basic as xorg/python/.. deviates, you can't pretend to be compatible). What I'd prefer is that big transition would be as much as possible prepared collectively. Else, we are bound to have useless crufty diffs, that I even won't bother to read, because it's only lost time. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpyNAlp38DRY.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Why Ubuntu is different, was: Minutes of an Ubuntu-Debian discussion that happened at Debconf
Le mer 28 juin 2006 13:14, Ian Jackson a écrit : Ottavio Caruso writes (Why Ubuntu is different, was: Minutes of an Ubuntu-Debian discussion that happened at Debconf): --- Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We all have to acknowledge that Ubuntu is different from other derivatives by the success and by the fact it's not binary compatible! This is an important technical distinction but surely you don't mean to say that it's not a legitimate choice for Canonical and Ubuntu to make ? it is legitimate and legal and all what you want. but it also makes the cooperation between the two distribution a lot harder: * take the not so recent example of Xorg6.9. Ubuntu decided to switch to Xorg way sooner than debian. good for'em. as a result, you couldn't even build an ubuntu package on debian, because it lacked the necessary build-depends. * ubuntu having python2.4 by default since 1year+ also causes problems in that sense (even if one could argue that nothing really prevented debian to switch earlier)... and I guess there will still be numerous examples of that kind in the future. As a result, there will always be a lot of differences between the debian version of the package, and the ubuntu one (e.g. if ubuntu had switched to g++4.1 and not debian or the reverse, all the g++-4.1 compatibility patches would be present only in one of the distros). and as ubuntu (to my perfect despair) is always 6 to 10 month ahead debian, this backlog never reduces and makes any automated diff report useless and unusable in practice. The sole way to make ubuntu and debian really cooperate, without letting a bitter feeling to the pure-debian developpers, would be that Ubuntu coordinates its transitions with debian. but: (1) I'm perfectly aware and conscious that it's not feasible because it would mean randomness in Ubuntu schedules which is not an option for them ; (2) I even think some DD's are openly hostile to such a solution. that said, I truly believe (with a little sadness I must say) that ubuntu and debian are going to achieve some parts of their work twice, again and again: transition will be done in Ubuntu, and then in Debian, but not taking a lot of advantages or the other distro experience, because there will always be differences in how the transitions are dealt with (see the python2.4 example...). Cooperating (like in tight cooperation) with Ubuntu is IMHO possible iff on each packages, there is a period during when no distro has any backlog wrt the other. Meaning that excepting some customization patches (like an ubuntu/debian logo or theme) the packages should be in sync. For a lot of packages, it's clearly not the case, and I hardly see why it would be any time soon, it's not in Canonnical interest to do so. I'm not really bitter about that. Though, I'm saddened[1] by the fact that some people really think that scott's patches or any other automatic send of big uncommented patches can be called cooperation, because it's not as soon as the package is big enough, because those interdiffs, debdiffs and other big trunk of patches won't be usable for them. And guess what, I'm part of the KDE team, where the packages are huge (a relibtoolization of the package is often 1 to 2Mo-big patch, I defy anyone to look into such diffs the 10 or 20 lines that could be a useful backport)[2]. Cheers, [1] yes saddened, and not pissed like some may think. My previous mail in that thread was not me beeing angry at all. That one is not either. I'm just thinking the whole ubuntu-debian cooperation thing in the current state cannot become something really efficient, and I really can live with that, believe me. [2] Fortunately, J.Ridell (from kubuntu) sometimes send us useful patches, which is nice from him, and means we are way luckier than some of other debian packagers in that area. But he can sometimes forgot to do so, or think we have caught that already, or, or, ... and since we work on different versions, different svn repositories, it's just not possible to coordinate in a better way. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpr6KEoY6Svp.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: question sur les paquets debian
Rough Translation: hi, Since quite a time I look for an answer on your site, but I can't find it. In the list of packages of the stable suite, some packages are followed by a [security] mention. What does that mention means, that the apckages has security flaws, or that they have been on the contrary fixed and no flaws at all ? Sorry if the question seems to be stupid, or that the answer has been given somewhere, but I'm new to debian and do not know the web site very well. --- First Aurélien, debian lists are (except other mention) english only. Not to mention that you should (for such requests) contact a user lists rather than a developper one. You may want to use debian-user-french@lists.debian.org instead. On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 07:10:05PM +0200, Aurelien PAGES wrote: Bonjour, Voila un petit moment que je cherche la reponse sur votre site, mais je ne lai pas trouvé Dans la liste des paquets de la version stable, certain packet sont suivi de [security] Que veut dire cette annotation, est-ce que se paquet a des failles de securité, des failles qui ont été corrigé ou au contraire, pas de faille du tout Désolé si la question semble idiote et que la réponse a deja été donné dans une partie du site, mais je suis nouveau et ne connaît pas encore tout les recoin du site web and to answer you: the security flag means that the package has been uploaded to the security updates suite, meaning that flaws have been *fixed*. Cheers, -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Suite vs branch (Re: [SUMMARY] About terminology [...])
Le Lun 8 Mai 2006 23:21, Filipus Klutiero a écrit : * stable is not a branch. Pierre Habouzit answered to this, and I agree with him. However, he raised at the same time new concerns about considering testing and unstable branches, and said that referring to experimental as a branch was in his opinion completely absurd. I agree that experimental is hardly a Debian branch. I think experimental's role is a... repository?(no idea which term goes here) to replace several unrelated experimental Debian branches, I'd use 'sandbox' here, which is quite appropriate IMHO. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpGzN7yXIhcj.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: About terminology for stable/testing/unstable
Le Lun 1 Mai 2006 12:18, Frans Pop a écrit : One problem with branches is that you should also have a trunk (that which you branched away from), or at least a root. Talking about the stable branch does not seem quite right to me; using branch for testing and unstable is quite natural, but then it fails as a general term. well, technically, stable is at some point branched from testing, that is a cherry-pick of unstable. So this terminology is not that far fetched either. « The stable branch » of debian is a good name. Though, I'm not sure it's true for testing and unstable. and is IMHO completely absurd for experimental. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpAcGCpbYVPZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Reforming the NM process
Le Mer 12 Avril 2006 14:36, Vincent Danjean a écrit : Pierre Habouzit wrote: So to my eyes, the so called problem you raise is irrelevant. Not to mention that I would feel concerned and surprised (in a bad sense) if an applicant would have such issues. e.g.: if you have an issue with your company knowing that you want to become a DD, then, *don't ask for beeing one*, because that's a public matter. Debian is about transparency. transparency does not mean for me that all my personal life must be made public. I think that the evaluators (mostly the AM) needs to know some part of it (it makes its job easier), but this should be restricted to him. honnestly, what I don't get, is why you need to tell things private to your AM during the NM process. What is asked of your life are things that are relevant to debian, like your studies (beeing in a computer science PhD/MSC helps), why you use debian, ... and honnestly, there is little chance that part has some private things. But I can understand that here some things may be private, and that's why in *that* only mail, the AM ask you to specify what is public and what's not. But you example of your position on the GFDL is IMHO not relevant. When debian developpers have discussed it, it was on the public mailing lists, and it was pretty clear who thought what. Moreover, even those who didn't talked about it and only read the debates, have voted (hopefully), and their vote is public ! So the position of every single DD that has voted is public. I don't see why oh why the position of an applicant that want to become a DD would be protected in any mean. The only thing in your NM application that could *eventually* be private, is when you speak of your personnal private life, but again, I fail to see why you would do so in more than 1 mail. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpOdCAGWmIqd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Reforming the NM process
Le Mer 12 Avril 2006 08:34, Benjamin Mesing a écrit : I would strongly suggest, allowing to restrict access to such a site to DDs. This is because not everyone feels comfortable having personal information (like your specific view on free software) world-accessable. Debian developers need to know, since you are about to become part of their community, but no one else needs to know more than is exposed by your membership in the Debian community anyways. then you shouldn't apply for becoming a DD because your so called personnal views on free software are a requirement for beeing a DD. Oh and btw, the application is public anyway. So to my eyes, the so called problem you raise is irrelevant. Not to mention that I would feel concerned and surprised (in a bad sense) if an applicant would have such issues. e.g.: if you have an issue with your company knowing that you want to become a DD, then, *don't ask for beeing one*, because that's a public matter. Debian is about transparency. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpRdiVML0lwU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Reforming the NM process
Le Mar 11 Avril 2006 18:40, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt a écrit : I'd like to implement the proposals I made in (2.1) and (2.2) as fast as possible, especially applying the rules in (2.2) to people already in the queue waiting for an AM. I agree both points are a good thing, and should be implemented. Those two ideas (asking for more advocates, asking the applicants to show their work) have been proposed many times in the past, and will be efficient, since it will reduce incoming appliances. For 2.2, I'd recommend that NM's maintain a page about them on wiki.d.org (my current applicant did that, and I found that rather useful). In a glance you can see applicants that are not comited enough. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpYF1RjV14kd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: About expulsion requests
Le Lun 10 Avril 2006 21:30, Sven Luther a écrit : On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 03:51:19PM +0100, Christoph Berg wrote: Dear developers, I know that having codified expulsion procedures is tempting to use them, and I do think that they are a good thing to have. But please consider one thing when you think about invoking them: [1] As someone who wasd recently the target of one of those expulsion processes, i believe that what you propose is not enough. The only real way to handle this, is to modify the expulsion process, and to start the process not with a public or private lynching process, but with a first step consisting of asking the DPL, or someone delegated by him, to do a private mediation process, and only if this step fails, should more advanced steps be taken. An expulsion process is the most hateful thing that can be done to a debian developer, and the current process let it open to any trigger happy developer who happens to dislike another one or whatever. seconded. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpD19Kmm7pv9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Setting up i18n.debian.org?
Le Mar 28 Mars 2006 17:05, Margarita Manterola a écrit : On 3/28/06, Jaldhar H. Vyas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ubuntus' Rosetta is non-free but perhaps this might be a promising replacement. If we set up something like this as a central place for translations, it might be very useful for people who wish to contribute to the i18n of Debian. What do you think? I was also informed of pootle (http://translate.sourceforge.net/) which is another free option. I've been looking at pootle, and I think it's really promising. It needs a bit of adapting in order to fulfill Debian's particular need, but I think it is a very good candidate to start working from. 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_. still, looking at pootle shows that it quite looks like a monster, needing a completely insane quantity of memory for what it supposed to do. And every live install I've tested is slow as hell (I just don't know if the machines are undersized, or if it's just too big). so it's not as miraculous as I first tought :/ -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpfqDZHKMtk8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#321701: bug handling is a maintainers job
Le Lun 8 Août 2005 09:33, Sven Luther a écrit : What about a mechanism for transparently forwarding a bug report to upstream instead, in such a way that the link between the debian bug report and upstream bug report doesn't go out of sync ? we have the same kind of problem with KDE. bugzilla is all except easy to interface with the rest of the world. I had tried to do some scripts that interact between the BTS and bugs.kde.org'zilla ... and I've renounced. Just for the sake of the statistics [1] or [2] will show you that we have to deal with 1200+ bugs. let's just say most of them just rot in the BTS ... the maintainer-has-to-forward-the-bugs-to-the-upstream-for-the user is valid for packages that are reasonnably small, and when the bug tracking system of the upstream is reasonnably scriptable. Projects like mozilla and all its childs projects, KDE, X11, ... the task is just too big, and seeing the users forwarding bugs when they can would be quite a relief. [1] http://bugs.debian.org/debian-qt-kde@lists.debian.org [2] http://qa.debian.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpkBSLvqs4an.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Discussion of bug #311683, default kde install shows porn
please don't start the hot-babe thread again ... -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpAcvJxLFDHm.pgp Description: PGP signature
