Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling
Hi, On 09.11.2014 13:36, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: With Choice 3, a package maintainer can decide to support only an init system that isn't the default if the maintainer considers it a prerequisite for its proper operation and no patches or other derived works exist in order to support other init systems in such a way to render software usable to the same extent. Yes. That being said, that's a hypothetical point you're making as we (hopefully) all agree to a) appeal on maintainer's responsibility. I cannot imagine anyone endorses a particular init system by deliberately excluding users of other systems unless that would be really necessary for proper operation and thus leaving no choice but doing so. Why do you think we need more regulation for best practices that are known to work in Debian already? We trust developers a lot for a reason. b) it appears that the current default init system(tm) is a superset of other available alternatives, with the lowest common multiple being sysvinit style scripts, which are supported by all packages that are providing such start-up scripts, and will continue to do so. In practice choice 3 allows developers to take advantage of special features available by the default init system(tm) as a last resort when this is required by the package for proper operation. Yes, choice 3 would also allow the use of non-default init system(tm) exclusive features when no alternative way to achieve the same exists with the default init system(tm), but really, what could that be, in practice? -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling
Hi, On 09.11.2014 15:08, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: We have had scenarios in Debian where maintainers, tired of receiving bug reports about problems on a specific architecture, decided to drop support for that architecture from their packages. True. Yet we didn't forbid them by GR to do so because that's a vast minority. Why would the init system need a special regulation here? Not really. Some init systems (at least systemd and upstart) provide advanced features that are not available in any other init systems. If this proposal passes, I think that it would be fairly reasonable for upstreams or maintainers to start making more advanced uses of systemd service files, and at the same time, remove init scripts when it's not possible to alter them to match systemd service files functionality. [..] I think that it's important to not just think about the current state of things, but also look further about what it would mean in the more distant future. In a more distant future, upstart will be dead and forgotten, as upstream abandoned support for it. At that point it's about discussing whether to use systemd service files or not and I have a hard time to come up with a scenario that couldn't be worked around to a large extent using traditional init scripts, or whatever magic openrc provides, if somebody is willing to take that work. Daemon's service files aren't our problem, really. The problem arises by upstreams that are requiring some other tightly related features provided by systemd exclusively. If upstream decides to go that road I think it's not up to us to cripple their software and provide our users software in a way it was intended to use instead. If that means to exclude a certain fraction of Debian users, that's bad but not our decision. Luckily Debian is universal enough to provide other software in our repositories which may fit into the same sport, and may not have such constraints. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Alternative proposal: reaffirm maintainers technical competence over the software they maintain
Hi Kurt, On 20.10.2014 21:33, Kurt Roeckx wrote: So the question is going to be if this options overrides #746715 or not. I didn't look into it yet, so I might be turning 1 or more of the options into overrding the TC and put them under 4.1.4. I do not follow you on this argumentation. The amendment text does not disagree with, or overrule, the resolution #746715 in any way. It does not endorse maintainers to drop support for a particular init system. Quite in contrary, it emphasizes to focus on the best user experience (Debian package maintainers [shall] provide the best free software to our users) which, of course, also includes users of non-default init systems. That being said, this amendment would also allow a stronger coupling to a particular init system, when the packaged software requires it in a fundamental way, at risk of delivering broken, buggy, or otherwise incomplete software packages otherwise. So in summary, this amendment let's people continue to use whatever init system they prefer, including, but not limited to the project-wide chosen default system, and it does in no way suggest to drop any alternative init system support unless absolutely necessary without shifting the burden of upstream's design decisions to the Debian package maintainers. That's - I think - a good default and affirms Debian's point of view that the respective maintainers can judge best what's a good requirement for their packages. Finally I encourage everyone to focus on the connotation in Luca's amendment. It allows maintainers to tie their software to a particular init system only as a last resort when absolutely necessary - not by pure choice, or by laziness. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Alternative proposal: reaffirm maintainers technical competence over the software they maintain
Hi Luca, On 18.10.2014 12:21, Luca Falavigna wrote: ** Begin Alternative Proposal ** 0. Rationale Debian has decided (via the Technical Committee) to change its default init system for the next release. The Technical Committee decided not to decide about the question of coupling i.e. whether other packages in Debian may depend on a particular init system. This GR reaffirms the Debian Social Contract #4, in such a way that Debian acknowledges the choices made by both the software developers (also known as upstream developers) and the Debian package maintainers to provide the best free software to our users. Upstream developers considering specific free software (including, but not limited to, a particular init system executed as PID 1) fundamental to deliver the best software releases, are fully entitled to require, link, or depend on that software, or portions of it. Debian maintainers' work is aiming to respect the Debian Social Contract, in such a way to provide our users the best free software available. Debian maintainers are fully entitled to provide modifications to the free software packages they maintain as per DFSG #3, if they judge this necessary to provide the best software releases. On the other hand, Debian maintainers are fully entitled to adhere to upstream's decisions to require, link, or depend on specific free software (including, but no limited to, particular init system executed as PID 1), if they consider it necessary to prevent delivering broken, buggy, or otherwise incomplete software packages. The Debian Project states that: 1. Exercise of the TC's power to set policy For jessie and later releases, the TC's power to set technical policy (Constitution 6.1.1) is exercised as follows: 2. Specific init systems as PID 1 Debian packages may require a specific init system to be executed as PID 1 if their maintainers consider this a requisite for its proper operation by clearly mark this in package descriptions and/or by adding dependencies in order to enforce this; and no patches or other derived works exist in order to support other init systems in such a way to render software usable to the same extent. 3. Evidence of defects (bugs) We strongly reaffirm Debian maintainers are not deliberately hiding problems (Social Contract #3). No technical decisions shall be overruled if no proper evidence of defects, issued in the Debian Bug Tracking system, is found. Fear, uncertainty, and doubt are not considered as evidence of defects. This resolution is a Position Statement about Issues of the Day (Constitution 4.1.5), triggering the General Resolution override clause in the TC's resolution of the 11th of February. The TC's decision on the default init system for Linux in jessie stands undisturbed. However, the TC resolution is altered to add the additional text above in sections #1, #2 and #3. ** End Proposal ** I do hereby second your proposal. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [all candidates] Advertising testing and security support
On 19.03.2013 23:52, Jérémy Bobbio wrote: Given that our security support for stable is already not as best as it could be, do you think we should encourage volunteers to be more active in security support for testing? With due to respect, I disagree. From a user's perspective who occasionally interacts with the security team, I beg to differ. The security team does a great job, and their work is reliable, trustworthy and mostly invisible (which is what it should be, nobody wants to deal with conflicting/problematic upgrades during a security update). Of course, everything could always be improved - for example I'd like to have longer stable support cycles - but given the limited and restricted manpower, the result is great. I find your remaining judgment of the security team rather insulting than an opening of a discussion which is by no means constructive. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Your opinion on Debian Maintainer status
Hi, On 17.03.2013 00:01, Gergely Nagy wrote: We have close to two hundred entries in the debian-maintainers-keyring, that's a respectable number, which reaffirms my recentish change of heart, that the DM status is a good thing, and while it does not solve all problems, it is, nevertheless, a useful thing to have. although I'm deliberately ignoring all the good reasons you provided, JFTR, many people feel obliged to become DM these days before applying as a DD and even many DDs understand the DM concept as a probation to test potential NM candidates. In fact, even the wiki says Becoming a Debian Developer: You should be a Debian Maintainer for six months before applying to the Debian New Member Process [1]. That's somewhat different to the original idea of the DM status and not really a direction we should endorse. Thus, the sheer number of DMs is not a really a resilient number per se, although I agree that the DM status itself is a good procedure. [1] http://wiki.debian.org/DebianDeveloper -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[all candidates] Work balance and traveling
Hi, while reading your platforms I noticed that you're rather vague on your future Debian commitment for that one of you ending as DPL for real. Moray mostly answered my question already, but if he wants to extend he's surely invited to elaborate. Hence, my question primarily addresses lucas and algernon: Sorry to tell, but you're all compared to zack leaving back some by-now established patterns as a DPL. So I wonder, will you step back from maintainer/team activities during your term? You are both well known for your work within Debian, lucas' archive rebuilds come me in mind immediately, and algernon likewise for his tireless work behind the curtains (reassigning lost bugs. Does anyone else besides him read debian-bugs-dist? Helping on the mentors edge and more). How do you intend to handle your existing Debian commitment, in case you're elected for DPL? Moreover, I wonder how much time you intend to spend for representative conference/summit work, where zack once again did an impressive job to represent Debian in talks, press and presentations. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: A Review Mentor team
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Thomas, On 15.03.2012 18:50, Thomas Goirand wrote: A sponsor would, on his side, select what type of tags he is interested in. For me for example, I'd be selecting server type of software, so I'd for example select system::server. Then I would receive on my mail all request for sponsoring server related RFS only, saving me the loss of time browsing -mentors which is flooded with X-Window / GUI software that I care less about. that's exactly what we're working on. Or rather: We'd like to work on. See [1] and [2][3]. Other than that I've been working on consolidating sponsoring guidelines [4] to allow DD's to give certain preferences of packages they care for. Of course we have many people to improve the Debexpo code base, but less manpower ... [1] http://wiki.debian.org/SummerOfCode2012/Projects#Semantic_Package_Review_Interface_for_mentors.debian.net [2] https://alioth.debian.org/tracker/index.php?func=detailaid=313252group_id=100127atid=413115 [3] https://alioth.debian.org/tracker/index.php?func=detailaid=313253group_id=100127atid=413115 [4] http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/7996/bootstrap40.png - -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJPYjIhAAoJEMcrUe6dgPNtiP0P/RvfDMZpvoqgyYin6FOBWpdl aVK1RB52Lqg4X9r/hqh4pIkRpU2/M6ruucTYlnEc28TvvOEUKvSStkcXVFc6Nqxi CLAnoYOFzb1H9OqPAkloe/OVo17jmktPjuXgn4QcbBcrEKvWZLNCDS7iOjMsFdAN AaBiLzseA5xii7fWE82WjcmDeZXNTxguHRzC76pAMDPQcrQYXIBiMzvgCax8RVyI uy+nI0SZ93pNSYNcVY9ljm7vdmuU2aubkfLW8Kj9indFJKW6yXw6r9cD4itVpzKG joYDW0nIagbk/3VcbEJKcM+HSy7sWh7p48ZaKws3O1gm5vBu2GthzI89Chss9alR 4+QGUnA1FZEO9UFJYFj2TER3iZ8bQIAopO5PL/vBAz9LqfUYyxUcGdblKJqEvwhg YsqtdeUBp5VczX1fNAXLoljQiKdDrLCv1QkT8PTSIAXLp5DXZOdAAedFRYg0liaZ XTVKCjf6gqLzyAH3C0yMIsIIKE9R9ThmbX15C15+DoVj1nO96jursI2iv3cis3hZ QYxrYXuz0MGNmPc3HZzZJog70DpjIfno9dfw/wUG4jvhev+gYeUH1DI5lq/5PEZV zkwR8MTFCc+3mGbFxhNC3rYMDxJzamZCRW0oqf/FV0euMFkcPS4dNl9lwDspxHHy ITHZQl1lCySX7aXzKlr0 =Cayq -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f623221.9090...@toell.net
Re: Finding sponsors for Debian
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello, On 12.03.2012 19:25, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 03:16:42AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: Over the years, I've always been very surprised to see that there's very little money that Debian is able to get. I'm convinced that this situation could change with a bit of involvement from the DPL, and that such money could help a lot the project. For example, sending open letters to big companies, and letting them know that we do accept monetary contributions could help. Let me start by observing the obvious: attracting money is not a goal per se; Putting them into good use for Debian is. According to my DPL experience, we have two main chapters in Debian budget: travel sponsoring and hardware replacement. (cc:-ing -project as that's a more general discussion not directly directed to DPL candidates but related. Maybe follow-ups should be sent there) as somebody who pushed $work to donate money to Debian (i.e. via FFIS), I always wondered about the financial merits of these donations. As much as I am involved to work within Debian, I have no clue what you used our money for. I am probably not literally interested what for you spent the money we donated, but I think sponsors would appreciate or be more interested to donate if they could see in a more popular advertisement what Debian spends money for (i.e. something more handsome than SPI board minutes) and possibly getting little thank you post cards or some merchandise (e.g. a coffee mug or a T-Shirt) as a symbolic acknowledgement of gratidude. Actually, $boss asked me the other day how to support Debian better as he wasn't very convinced about usefulness of money donations to Debian as he didn't get much feedback about that, other than a tax deductable receipt. - -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJPXmK9AAoJEMcrUe6dgPNtby8P/0rYaGjV7p1yaCplMS3z3LCV +0/k8DtEb+UZO2aJ9glw54Rn9JO0NVnyHZGiKPG6oPJ0IR4G6ZXscPxk3aqk9zh+ plXQjtdtMbZ/XrFKMaLNH3d2KnIxv1gIwAj6GLtG3Op28XF7YDZLxi5viBJlY8F/ EnPL5wWQ9Bdytj5BIK9uZkLswCT9EvYGUmJ9Tfc0ONfj77/DvMh3/t/fZvXEPqDI n1UuXUwnE7h+wj9JCJ1Pc3qoZrzAqVZfzbzJdXZVjeaVDXqmTqE+Z5Sz5mo1W6Tl olhohuQRMUTnbAfj9if5rFqg98QlsW9GT9mrnnPJIsp7NAfuAE58bSnE/DNU+JAd XO06dqKGXWgdULIeRoKOWlti/dqfBREb0WP8zloNACxy1ksyJ8Da3hegV7X26Sb/ 4ZvNEHOmSDOgrOp/PoPW7H59O9QE3f8jDIVZ3VgzYIdu65VpN0II+G7szHtKqsl6 02C/0J0Pj+DuEz9Lo/voscm/CuM8/gXTkAXuG4Kd0wCWvDYYytz++jXqyq0PZabl ArWctC2N9JSwnpSnInuxiZw2MJarFOd06PXDsAqPimaSPRUz9PDRhVhrpD6xD8Ht KzsEFbOTCyUWBTeFMNFwH4vYoEJlZexC8B6fis+lSMjGMvhz5a1y2Dox3MX2SXPF e2Iwf3EJKcTkIJrzXL9r =sflz -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f5e62bd.9060...@toell.net
Re: Finding sponsors for Debian
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, On 12.03.2012 23:19, Gunnar Wolf wrote: Actually, $boss asked me the other day how to support Debian better as he wasn't very convinced about usefulness of money donations to Debian as he didn't get much feedback about that, other than a tax deductable receipt. We have talked (and I mean in DebConf, that's the area of Debian I spent most of my orga-work in) about allowing this year for a better way of identifying precisely _what_ is a donor giving — As we did many years ago, we will allow sponsors to target their money to a specific target. So, i.e. we will be able to say the conference dinner was kindly sponsored by Toell.net. Does it sound interesting? :-} heh, except that that's my private address (and you can find us in the DC11 sponsor list with already (Holger can give you details :)), but I'm not here to advertise ourselves). We sponsored both, Debian and DebConf in the past but my boss does not feel very comfortable to sponsor DebConfs because he's more interested to support actual Debian work as a distribution, as Debian is the system we rely upon for our business. I find that understandable from an outsider's point of view as he'd like to show his appreciation for a rock stable distribution with great tools in the first place. However, let me repeat my point is not to mention our individual situation, with my $work hat on. I'm more keen to make Debian a more interesting target to donations and I think Debian lacks some transparency and public-relation work to make us attractive to sponsors. I'm sure there are plenty of links, mailing list posts and asset reports - but is a bunch of links really all we want to throw to a donator? We may like it or not, but it matters much how we present ourselves if we want to collect money from people. - -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJPXny1AAoJEMcrUe6dgPNtjlcP/Ainp1TtgPoVD5lN9D5POuiy EQs8+tkGGtFMxXBjjedBdpnC/LJsXJ2E1a4kLABGVmacUu1P5Dcxkf1v+OlNY+L2 g1/MxcLJvZANSoG8IeZKtK/kTPfzyX2t641D57Pba8V3/C/66E2h9u2hTMo/SdME /0ssxhZ89oU771/lAzaLXpPnXtm11VCR8MVfo1XnBOjHHCpgRId1hYeHAk7Ouhev BjxTrN9JUirl9LTFFI0QLbeeh8zP/ZQImQGW269IJDxKASiaCoksM1DDbb90rR1f UhdnJwHgVgOPwhbdrRUReEUfEExaei8Yx19Ptxnr8MleB+Lb039JkHUI0ONzSX6T bbhqgvwsq5H5cipiDPw0qCVCln7FyMOwRHQnvhbRKlTXecu7v3hs3hQg2LduqQ0r TtbiS/xs8tfTUdNRe5aCniRVD+08X8FKPa7X/vyXFmBY4xDhVKK9UkeYgPtigjQ5 jMwBNgmwEdm54a52zeP/NHcI9/n2bnN1x0j6WENQVJac+/1mQmtlm1ccf66Zy+MW ahohdLpaOI6n6Y49Y1dP5rLnTNG2dlB/xF96PoZw/maCAMFOLzbJvBEYYFa5j8ZE O3+f7twMU2Rs1EXn65qm7IW3oEjcadyrwJSSPboMmGgZLCe+aHuEOXE7dhbvG/mb h/ucOizor8nBd08BUaEf =T+IK -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f5e7cb5.30...@toell.net
