Re: Fwd: Are users of Debian software members of the Debian community?
Am 16.09.2022 um 15:36 schrieb Andrey Rahmatullin: On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 08:56:12AM -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote: Russ does have point though in that if you don't like something in Debian, there are really only two things you can do to fix that situation for yourself: - Get involved as a contributor, and help out fixing the problems that exist - Stop using Debian, and use something else. Are those the only two possible ways to respond to the current situation at Debian? As quoted above, those are he only two possible ways to *fix* the current situation. https://www.debian.org/partners/ comes to mind. These are organisations that somehow help Debian to become a better place and that can be somewhat directed (typically with money) to solve problems or to change something. At least that is how I read it. Best, Steffen
Re: question with the Debian Project
Am 29.07.2022 um 12:09 schrieb Andrey Rahmatullin: On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 05:13:38PM +0800, 桑猛 wrote: Hello debian,I am a user of debian system and belong to the company Loongson Zhongke. We have our own loongarch architecture. Now we want to adapt our loongarch architecture based on debian12 or debian13. We would like to get the version of some packages on debian 12 and Debian 13 to help us choose which version to use as our next system version. I don't think anyone can say what versions will trixie contain, apart from a very small number of projects with fixed release schedules. On the other hand, I don't think you would care about versions that are not released yet and so you know nothing about them anyway. As for bookworm, some people responsible may be able to give estimations but the freeze is in 6 months so many versions are not known either. You can check the current versions in testing using tracker.debian.org, packages.debian.org, rmadison or apt. Hm. These packages are mostly core packages from how I interpret them. And https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loongson will turn into another flavor of MIPS as a separate architecture if I get this right. So, just guessing, but I sense that the challenge is to prepare all those core packages for a brand new architecture that yet nobody has access to. Concerning the question what distribution to target - I propose sid. And whenever the packages have seen all the updates/changes required to run on MIPS-Loongarch then these will soon also be in testing, which with a bit of luck is then Bookworm, still. With core packages being the first that are to be frozen for the release, this all needs to happen within the next 6 months. No idea about how realistic that is. Also, the Loongarch-motivated changes should go to upstream, not into debian/patches. I suggest to organize porter boxes and build demons, and maybe spread a few machines to key individuals, whoever that may be. Concerning the exact version of the core packages, because of your special hardware you likely need a respective collaboration with the Debian developers anyway. Just work with them to get the packages you need updated to the version that you need. Debian has this concept of Sprints, see https://wiki.debian.org/Sprints . It may be fruitful to prepare for an intense extended weekend together to get this going. Best wishes, Steffen
Re: dpkg feature implementation
Hello, dE . wrote: > The solution that I'm proposing is a super dep package. A single > 'sdebp' file which's suppose to install a singe software (mostly a > meta package for e.g kde) but contains all dependencies which might be > required by the package relative to a fresh OS install. A command to > make dpkg install this package will make it check all the dependencies > which are required to be installed from this super deb package in the > current system. Thus only the required will be installed to satisfy > the dependency of the meta package. > > Optionally, apt can be modified to make super deb packages from the > list of installed software in the system...this will be a powerful > tool in software sharing and IMO, capture the imagination of the > common public. I hope not to be redundant here, but please make sure you have seen "debfoster" with its "-u" option. Best, Steffen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Welche Debian Version?
Lieber Herr Schaudt, you chose the wrong mailing list, you probably wanted to post on http://lists.debian.org/debian-user-german/ Manfred Schaudt wrote: > seit längerer Zeit versuche ich auf Linux umzusteigen. Das jetzige > Betriebssystem auf meinem Targa PC läuft mit Microsoft Windows XP Home > Edition, Version 2002, Service Pack 3, AMD AthlonTM XP 2400+, 2.00 GHz,256MB > RAM, Grafikkarte ATI Allin Wonder 9000 (Microsoft Corporation). > Die einzigen Betriebssysteme die ich bis jetzt auf diesem System zum Laufen > brachte sind Debian 5.0 Lenny, Kernel Linux: 6.26-1-686, > Gnome 2.22.3 und Privatix 2.6.26-1-486, i686. this sounds rather good. > Leider lassen sich diese Live- Programme von der DVD der Zeitschrift > PC- Welt Linux nur auf USB- Stick Installieren. Hm. Strange. One would not expect that. > Haben Sie mir einen Vorschlag mit welchem Programm ich endlich auf Linux > umsteigen kann? > Die genaue Bezeichnung oder ein link zum richtigen Programmwäre super. What people often do it to install a minimal operating system via a CD and then retrieve the remainder of software from the net. There are CD images offered on http://www.debian.org/distrib/netinst.de.html which I would go for. But I'd need to know more about your local infrastructure, consider to consult your closest Linux users group. With modern applications, also with Linux, you won't have too much fun running with 256MB of RAM. There are some distributions aiming at exactly such setups, like DamnSmallLinux or Puppy Linux, both are live CDs but may also be installable to your hard disk, I don't recall for the moment. For a regular setup, I suggest to invest a bit into RAM. For a start it should be just fine, though. Kind regards, SM -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Sourceless but useless: how about ignoring some irrelevant files instead of repackaging?
Hello, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 09:01:04PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: >> in one of the packages I mainatain, upstream left some zlib and ncurses >> static >> libraries for Win32 in the source tarball. > > IMHO it is always a good idea to remove crap from an upstream tarball. > Static libraries are definitely crap and are just wasting our archive. > So in this case rebuilding the tarball sounds a prefectly reasonable > action if done properly in a get-orig-source target and documented in > README.source. I agree. But there is anther side of it. For instance I like to leave the source code for Windows in. This will not improve the Debian bits, but it renders the Debian source code more important to the (scientific) community at large. Cheers, Steffen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: CinePaint.
To quickly help with a translation, this was a friendly RFP (or better a RFreP) for CinePaint, which apparently was dropped since lenny. Wrong list, wrong language, but should someone know something about it, ... . This request, if valid, reminds me of http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/columns/debian_contempt_end_user_values_has_stop where someone misses his favourite font. Do we have an attitude problem? The answer of course is "no", but should someone of yours find something non-redundant to say on the FSM thread, then I would be rather glad about it. Cheers, Steffen Stefan Goetzenbrugger wrote: > Liebes Debian-Team... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Opera in your repos
Dear Ilya, Ilya Shpan'kov wrote: > Last 7 years I use GNU/Linux and know that, for example, in Russia the > Opera browser is very popular in GNU/Linux Community. Unfortunately, not > always I can see this browser in the non-free repos. Well, there is a > question: whether Opera is included to your distro and if not - how we can > fix this problem? We are ready for any discussions, technical help or > agreement, if necessary. have many thanks for your initiative. As an informal start, you might want improve http://wiki.debian.org/Opera to some degree. "We" had previous exchanges of thoughts in the past 2001 http://www.mail-archive.com/debian-...@lists.debian.org/msg08128.html 2007 http://www.mail-archive.com/debian-de...@lists.debian.org/msg251312.html the thread on -devel was rather excellent. Summarising from what I understood, the major advantage over a deeper integration of your binaries with Debian would be in a leaner product, i.e. an Opera binary that dynamically links to as many Debian packages already in the system (and possibly already in memory) as possible. Debian would then profit from an increased number of libraries that your product is likely to use and an increased scrutiny of its existing packages. And so would the upstream authors of those packages. For that approach to be successful, you would need to perceive Debian as a regular part of your production environment. A change of the soname of some library would require a renewed compilation of your binaries. This might work, but only with a very close coupling of the binary's uploader with your source code. Consequently, the uploader, a Debian developer, should be part of your team. Since you are apparently based in Oslo, I suggest you to talk back to Petter (https://nm.debian.org/gpg_offer.php) to help with some initial steps towards Debian packaging and guide you and your team towards DD status - and/or you might want to hire him (or another DD somewhere in the world). A plan B might be to contact Canonical and have that integration process outsourced, so you would end up in Ubuntu directly. As a good netizen I hope you to approach the first route, via Debian to Ubuntu, although it is slightly more painful as a start as it seems. But once that it becomes clear to the other DDs that Opera really cares about our distribution, they (or the vast majority of them) will also tolerate the Opera binaries in non-free. All the best, hoping for lots of contributions from the other side of the Baltic Sea Steffen signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: On cadence and collaboration
Hello, Mark Shuttleworth wrote: > Julien BLACHE wrote: >>> Debian stands out in many respects, yes. But being different for the >>> sake of it isn't a laudable goal: if there's a good idea, it deserves to >>> be considered, even if others are already considering it. >>> >> Being different and independent actually enables us to be better at >> what we're doing than anyone else. > I agree, that conscious, planned and considered differences are the best > way to beat the competition or stand for your brand. If you do the same > thing as everyone else it's very difficult to be better. the independence is not necessarily planned. To my perception it is more of a "I am using my current distro which I know well and quickly (or less quickly) and incrementally improving a package of my interest as good as I can" without looking much left, right or down to other dis(s)tros. We are all (mostly) volunteers and often the looking left or looking right takes much more time than the packaging itself. And in my view, this is mostly fine this way. In a perfect world, upstream collects packages from the distributions quickly, at least those that matter. And they would all read the bug reports that the distributions collect and react to them - many thanks for launchpad, btw. The thinking of releases I hope to disappear in some not so distant future. This would then render all this discussion rather irrelevant, right? Instead, we should have packages collected on our machine, whose cutting-edginess depends on the users' personal skills and interests. This would be similar to stable with backports on for selected packages only. Many greetings Steffen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian redesign
Hello, Werner Baumann wrote: > I'm using Debian for about ten years now and I use it because "Debian > is different". > While I appreciate the intention to "position Debian better" I am > concerned about the general direction, I am missing what I think the > most important values of Debian. +1 our web pages need an overhaul. We have an interest to explain ourselves to the non-Debian world and guide ourselves through the ongoing Debian-associated activities. That communication is happening via the web and such genuine interest should be driving development of the pages. We can certainly learn from the success that Ubuntu has, but we should not try to mimic or chase them. In the contrary, we should be happy about every Debian package that is brought to a wider audience with it (2.5:1 ratio in in favour of Ubuntu on popcon for my packages). And I think we are happy. I liked some of the redesign posters, and they should possibly be sold as geekware. But they could substitute Debian with everything else, even with the Redmond OS. However, when attracting some teenagers or so, of which some will only learn about computing, it may be lovely to have some more spiritual messages for them that go beyond "free". For instance I suggest to mention education, world-wide contacts, fun and doing something good for the world. Steffen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Freeze! Some lateral thinking here. ( was: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes )
Hello, should we possibly think of alternatives to the current way to present releases? I was thinking about the possibility to adopt some principles from version management that we got accustomed to in programming ... My hunch is that everyone has a few tools that he/she wants to work on in daily routine. Those need to work no matter what - like the window manager and what is underneath. The user will be reluctant to change anything there unless there is a vulnerability of some sort, for instance. But that should be a smallish update only, no major release, and a user may have a default setting to allow smallish important updates, but object larger or non-important updates. Then there may be some other kind of software that shall be always at their latest version. Say, the boinc-client, which does not matter much if it temporarily fails or one goes back to the previous version. What today is a release, would then be a tagged set of packages, possibly implemented as a set of symbolic links to some large package archive. A new user would get that as a seed of packages. From then onwards, the apt tools would suggest only packages that are smallish updates and important to substitute the currently installed version. Upon manual initiative, the user could select newer versions for selected packages when feeling ready to evaluate something new and risk a temporal failure of some sort. Does that make any sense to you? The maintenance of a release would then mean to continue providing smallish important updates. We would still need a release team, obviously. But we would possibly concentrate more on the core functionality for defining a release, like the libc etc. When talking about a particular installation, then we would then describe it like "lenny + KDE 4". This would develop the "we release when it is ready" more towards "the users accept releases when they are ready". And, I can imagine that many more users, who are often power users of some sort, would use that opportunity to be very close to the package maintainers and to upstream while using the packages from testing or unstable, since they just do not risk that much while upgrading selected packages to the cutting edge. This would help our communication a lot. Best, Steffen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
Holger Levsen wrote: > On Mittwoch, 29. Juli 2009, Frans Pop wrote: >>> The Debian project has decided to adopt a new policy of time-based >>> development freezes for future releases, on a two-year cycle. >> Disappointing to see such an announcement without any prior discussion on >> d-project, d-devel or d-vote. > > I was and am also surprised. I do like the change but I'm not sure I like the > way the Debian project has decided this... Same here. The release team, or the individual that pressed the button for the announcement, I suggest to apologize for disturbing our community. I don't think that there should be any formal rules on what kind of announcements can be made with or without prior public discussion. Those would weaken us. We should trust our delegates and allow them to react quickly and appropriately when required. The release team has certainly discussed it all a lot and it may have felt like a public discussion to them, but it was not. It is all a matter of taste IMHO, and here I sense some less self-reflective maybe problematic judgement. Steffen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
