Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 08:37:27AM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote: On Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 13:13:36 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: -vote dropped And readded apparently. Do we really have to have these conversations across multiple lists? i think someone running more than one autobuilder for more than _two_ years now (okay, not for the officical archive, but i see that as nonrelevant here) demonstrats very good that he mets your mentioned technical constraints. I didn't thought of Aurelien, but of a few other persons, who are acting as buildd maintainers for experimental and non-free packages. Experimental and non-free packages go to the official archive... I'm not seeing what you're asking for here. Beyond re-enabling access for those packages to be uploaded over the past couple of months (which has now happened) I haven't heard any requests related to any of that. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 08:37:27AM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote: On Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 13:13:36 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: -vote dropped And readded apparently. Do we really have to have these conversations across multiple lists? i think someone running more than one autobuilder for more than _two_ years now (okay, not for the officical archive, but i see that as nonrelevant here) demonstrats very good that he mets your mentioned technical constraints. I didn't thought of Aurelien, but of a few other persons, who are acting as buildd maintainers for experimental and non-free packages. Experimental and non-free packages go to the official archive... I'm not seeing what you're asking for here. Are you so overworked, or are you deliberately forgetting? It has been suggested multiple times in the past to use existing or new hardware and add it to the set of standard autobuilders. Many arches do not meet the redundancy requirement, and we don't have autobuilders for i386 at all AFAIK. Moreover, the current buildd admin's apparently don't have adequate time to communicate, which could be ameliorated by adding people. Even if nobody had asked so far, we should ask people who seem capable of doing it. Regards, Frank -- Dr. Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 11:16:56PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: There are additional problems with running a rogue autobuilder, such as unavailability of build logs, unreproducibility of builds, and unusability of the builds by the security team. Aurelian's buildds had the additional problem that they'd repeatedly rebuild packages they'd already uploaded, which isn't really useful. There's a potential issue wrt whether the build environment is secure as well, but I'm not familiar enough with that on any level to comment in any detail. All these could be solved by someone committed to making sure they do at least as good a job as the regular buildd network though. Aren't most of these problems (rebuilding packages unnecessarily and unavailability of logs) due to the difficulting getting new buildds added to the regular network? Are there technical reasons why we can't add new buildds more freely, or only political/social reasons? Technical reasons: there are various problems that arise on buildds, not because of poor maintenance practices but because of the fallibility of hardware and networks and all that jazz, that have an impact on the performance of the architecture as a whole wrt keeping up with the archive. As a result, the effort for managing autobuilders for an architecture scales on the order of O(n log n) for the number of buildds, i.e., there is a penalty for running buildds we don't need. Not that you'd know it by reading the Debian lists, but developer time is actually a scarce commodity, and we should be wary of squandering it, would you agree? Even if you find volunteers who think this is a good use of their time and want to help defray the maintenance costs by acting as co-admins, you then have increased coordination overhead as well. Obviously for buildds we /need/, these are costs we have to bear; why would we want to do that when we /don't/ need more buildds? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
Steve Langasek a écrit : On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 11:16:56PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: There are additional problems with running a rogue autobuilder, such as unavailability of build logs, unreproducibility of builds, and unusability of the builds by the security team. Aurelian's buildds had the additional problem that they'd repeatedly rebuild packages they'd already uploaded, which isn't really useful. There's a potential issue wrt whether the build environment is secure as well, but I'm not familiar enough with that on any level to comment in any detail. All these could be solved by someone committed to making sure they do at least as good a job as the regular buildd network though. Aren't most of these problems (rebuilding packages unnecessarily and unavailability of logs) due to the difficulting getting new buildds added to the regular network? Are there technical reasons why we can't add new buildds more freely, or only political/social reasons? Technical reasons: there are various problems that arise on buildds, not because of poor maintenance practices but because of the fallibility of hardware and networks and all that jazz, that have an impact on the performance of the architecture as a whole wrt keeping up with the archive. As a result, the effort for managing autobuilders for an architecture scales on the order of O(n log n) for the number of buildds, i.e., there Back in november, Bill Gatliff has offered a fast arm machine [1] to act as a build daemon. It should permit to reduce the number of arm build daemons, and thus reduce the problems you described above. But it seems DSA has ignored the mail from Bill. Cheers, Aurelien [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-arm/2006/11/msg8.html -- .''`. Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 : :' : Debian developer | Electrical Engineer `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] `-people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 10:00:25AM +0100, Frank K?ster wrote: i think someone running more than one autobuilder for more than _two_ years now (okay, not for the officical archive, but i see that as nonrelevant here) demonstrats very good that he mets your mentioned technical constraints. I didn't thought of Aurelien, but of a few other persons, who are acting as buildd maintainers for experimental and non-free packages. Experimental and non-free packages go to the official archive... I'm not seeing what you're asking for here. (If there's something more than the general comments Frank made, I'm still not seeing it. TTBOMK, the non-free and experimental builds aren't at all integrated with the buildd.d.o stuff, and there's been no particular interest in changing that. If that's not the case, it's probably worth talking about sometime) Are you so overworked, or are you deliberately forgetting? It has been suggested multiple times in the past to use existing or new hardware and add it to the set of standard autobuilders. Many arches do not meet the redundancy requirement, and we don't have autobuilders for i386 at all AFAIK. Moreover, the current buildd admin's apparently don't have adequate time to communicate, which could be ameliorated by adding people. Even if nobody had asked so far, we should ask people who seem capable of doing it. I've been thinking for a few days now that people in Debian disagree too much (hence the comments preceding my responses to Raphael in an earlier message), so starting now, I'm going to stop replying to mails by focussing on differences, and start with agreements. Let's see how long it takes until I can't stop myself from adding a but. [0] There are a number of serious problems in how the Debian infrastructure's managed. That may be too strong: I mean to say that they're important, without being critical to be solved immediately [1]. And often the impact of these problems is to block other people's attempts to contribute to Debian, and in so doing disrespect their contributions and discourage further contributions, though in some cases those contributions are merely thrown out as collateral damage along with something that should be blocked, whether that be a buggy upload or some changes that need further review. The right way of dealing with that is to work with the potential contributor to ensure they understand the issues that're involved so that their future contributions can be accepted and will be useful. IMO, that applies whether the contribution's a patch, or an emulated buildd. I guess I'd argue that it applies to existing contributors too, if you want to critique their performance. I've found it difficult to work up the energy to try working with potential contributors on this score because there seems to be so much rage about the way things work now that I can't really imagine reaching that level of mutual understanding. I can't say I like that state of affairs much. Anyway, I already have a related email that I've promised to send out that I hope will show something of a step towards fixing these problems. I think I'm going to bow out of the discussion for the minute until I can get that off my plate. Unfortunately, that'll take longer than YA inconsequential mail where I'm able to just write what I think... [2] Cheers, aj [0] Or if I can even work out how to start the next paragraph without a but... [1] They're mostly long-term problems, so if they were critical, frankly we'd not be having this conversation, and people wouldn't be asking if Debian was dying, they'd be getting us confused with AmigaOS... [2] Wow, I'm really in the habit of qualifying everything I write. That was much harder than I expected... signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: I've been thinking for a few days now that people in Debian disagree too much (hence the comments preceding my responses to Raphael in an earlier message), so starting now, I'm going to stop replying to mails by focussing on differences, and start with agreements. Let's see how long it takes until I can't stop myself from adding a but. Thank you for that mail. I'm not going to reply now, maybe later, for fear of not being able to be equally constructive. Or I'll just refer to it one day. Regards, Frank -- Dr. Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
Le vendredi 16 février 2007 à 01:27 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit : (If there's something more than the general comments Frank made, I'm still not seeing it. TTBOMK, the non-free and experimental builds aren't at all integrated with the buildd.d.o stuff, and there's been no particular interest in changing that. If that's not the case, it's probably worth talking about sometime) I'm sure people are eager to see this working alternate buildd network fall into the hands of those who run the official one with so much success. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 01:27:17AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: The right way of dealing with that is to work with the potential contributor to ensure they understand the issues that're involved so that their future contributions can be accepted and will be useful. This is a very important sentence. Working with these people is what is desired and necessary. If the Debian core teams all manage to live by this single sentence, we're all fine. Today, most Debian core teams do not communicate with mere mortals, which is the complete opposite of working with people. This needs to change, and if Debian manages to implement these changes, 80 % of our recurring problems will simply vanish in a haze. How do you plan to improve our core teams' communication skills? Greetings Marc -- - Marc Haber | I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | lose things.Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 621 72739835 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 11:33:19AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 11:11:55PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 06:00:12PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 06:35:07PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: Uh, what's this if not peer review? It's not peer review when we discuss it later and none of us (including you) have any power to do anything about it, except via long drawn-out political processes. Err, I could change it right now if I thought that was the best thing to do. I'm not, for the reasons I've already commented on. Right, you could change dak. You can't/won't/? fix the process by which the current restrictions were added though. I don't think that's broken in the first place. Then you don't see any conflict of interest between the arm buildd admin and the ftp-master? The way buildd requests are dealt with... might not be broken, but is certainly suboptimal. But there's improvements in the pipeline for that (which, yes, I do need to mail about), and afaics running a qemu based buildd does nothing to improve it. The fact that Aurelien's buildd was running on qemu seems to be beside the point (and wouldn't even be detectable if he hadn't blogged about it); it's the fact that he was running a rogue buildd. I mean, how dare he try to help the project in this way. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 07:12:31PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 11:33:19AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 11:11:55PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: Right, you could change dak. You can't/won't/? fix the process by which the current restrictions were added though. I don't think that's broken in the first place. Then you don't see any conflict of interest between the arm buildd admin and the ftp-master? You're talking to the guy who, while beeing the DPL, didn't saw the single problem in heading the board of dunc-tank (a `non-debian' project) at the same time. I mean, how dare he try to help the project in this way. He should be hanged up for that, short and tight. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpjhcWbLBHBz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 07:12:31PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 11:33:19AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 11:11:55PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 06:00:12PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 06:35:07PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: Uh, what's this if not peer review? It's not peer review when we discuss it later and none of us (including you) have any power to do anything about it, except via long drawn-out political processes. Err, I could change it right now if I thought that was the best thing to do. I'm not, for the reasons I've already commented on. Right, you could change dak. You can't/won't/? fix the process by which the current restrictions were added though. I don't think that's broken in the first place. Then you don't see any conflict of interest between the arm buildd admin and the ftp-master? No, I don't. I don't see any conflict of interest in being a package maintainer and an ftp-master, either. I suppose I could see a potential conflict of interest in being the buildd admin to introduce a major change, as well as the ftpmaster to allow it; but in being the ftpmaster to block someone else introducing a fairly questionable change, as well as a buildd admin? No, I don't see a problem. But there's improvements in the pipeline for that (which, yes, I do need to mail about), and afaics running a qemu based buildd does nothing to improve it. The fact that Aurelien's buildd was running on qemu seems to be beside the point (and wouldn't even be detectable if he hadn't blogged about it); it's the fact that he was running a rogue buildd. Uh, no. That it's run under qemu introduces a significant risk that the builds may be unreproducible or unusable on real systems (this risk deferred the use of an emulator for autobuilding m68k until it was decided it wouldn't make the etch release, eg). Personally, I think that risk can be proven to be largely hypothetical, but you don't mess with a release arch on a hunch like that, you find some way to demonstrate you're right first. There are additional problems with running a rogue autobuilder, such as unavailability of build logs, unreproducibility of builds, and unusability of the builds by the security team. Aurelian's buildds had the additional problem that they'd repeatedly rebuild packages they'd already uploaded, which isn't really useful. There's a potential issue wrt whether the build environment is secure as well, but I'm not familiar enough with that on any level to comment in any detail. All these could be solved by someone committed to making sure they do at least as good a job as the regular buildd network though. I mean, how dare he try to help the project in this way. There's nothing wrong with trying to help the project, the problem is when you don't give a damn about the problems your attempts cause. Having a debate on the lists or running a GR doesn't help show qemu builds are workable, and doesn't help your build system provide the features the existing build network does that other developers rely on. I find it pretty hard to see this as trying to help the project, rather than trying to win your rather pointless fight with the buildd admins. I've still not seen Aurelian or the folks so upset with this acknowledge any problems with what he's done, or any similar indication that they've learnt from it and won't just do the same thing again. And I've seen lots of flippant dismissals of concerns about Aurelian's actions. Both those leave me unable to trust that people will take those concerns into account before acting, which, again, is why the restrictions were put in, and why they remain. If folks want to start demonstrating they do see the potential problems, and take them seriously enough that they'll fix them to other people's satisfaction rather than just their own, then I'll personally be happy to say there's no longer a problem trusting people to do binary-only uploads. But until then, as far as I'm concerned, there is. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 09:15:17PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 07:12:31PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: Then you don't see any conflict of interest between the arm buildd admin and the ftp-master? No, I don't. I don't see any conflict of interest in being a package maintainer and an ftp-master, either. Do you think an ftp-master should admit his own packages through NEW processing, hypothetically? The fact that Aurelien's buildd was running on qemu seems to be beside the point (and wouldn't even be detectable if he hadn't blogged about it); it's the fact that he was running a rogue buildd. Uh, no. That it's run under qemu introduces a significant risk that the builds may be unreproducible or unusable on real systems (this risk deferred the use of an emulator for autobuilding m68k until it was decided it wouldn't make the etch release, eg). Personally, I think that Fine, I agree that this was not a decision that one maintainer should make unilaterally. I don't think that another project member unilaterally banning it without discussion is right either. How about a polite request to stop while the issue can be discussed and a consensus formed? There are additional problems with running a rogue autobuilder, such as unavailability of build logs, unreproducibility of builds, and unusability of the builds by the security team. Aurelian's buildds had the additional problem that they'd repeatedly rebuild packages they'd already uploaded, which isn't really useful. There's a potential issue wrt whether the build environment is secure as well, but I'm not familiar enough with that on any level to comment in any detail. All these could be solved by someone committed to making sure they do at least as good a job as the regular buildd network though. Aren't most of these problems (rebuilding packages unnecessarily and unavailability of logs) due to the difficulting getting new buildds added to the regular network? Are there technical reasons why we can't add new buildds more freely, or only political/social reasons? I mean, how dare he try to help the project in this way. There's nothing wrong with trying to help the project, the problem is when you don't give a damn about the problems your attempts cause. Having Yes, many parties involved in this issue are guilty of this. a debate on the lists or running a GR doesn't help show qemu builds are workable, and doesn't help your build system provide the features the existing build network does that other developers rely on. I find it pretty hard to see this as trying to help the project, rather than trying to win your rather pointless fight with the buildd admins. Indeed perhaps it was, so I'd very much like to get answers to my question above. Thanks in advance, Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 11:16:56PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 09:15:17PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 07:12:31PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: Then you don't see any conflict of interest between the arm buildd admin and the ftp-master? No, I don't. I don't see any conflict of interest in being a package maintainer and an ftp-master, either. Do you think an ftp-master should admit his own packages through NEW processing, hypothetically? That's not a hypothetical case, and when it comes up we routinely get someone else to process them. Fine, I agree that this was not a decision that one maintainer should make unilaterally. I don't think that another project member unilaterally banning it without discussion is right either. How about a polite request to stop while the issue can be discussed and a consensus formed? If something potentially dangerous is happening, you stop it first, then talk about it, IMO. Politeness is something you get to expect only when you give it. There are additional problems with running a rogue autobuilder, such as unavailability of build logs, unreproducibility of builds, and unusability of the builds by the security team. Aurelian's buildds had the additional problem that they'd repeatedly rebuild packages they'd already uploaded, which isn't really useful. There's a potential issue wrt whether the build environment is secure as well, but I'm not familiar enough with that on any level to comment in any detail. All these could be solved by someone committed to making sure they do at least as good a job as the regular buildd network though. Aren't most of these problems (rebuilding packages unnecessarily and unavailability of logs) due to the difficulting getting new buildds added to the regular network? Aurelian's autobuilders would build a package, upload it, then build it again and upload it again, repeatedly. That's something that's pretty easily fixed on the buildd side. Likewise, making the logs available just means sticking them up on a webserver somewhere -- it's good to have a central interface, but it's not crucial. Are there technical reasons why we can't add new buildds more freely, or only political/social reasons? Maintaining a buildd isn't trivial, there's: - making sure they don't get rooted, and their builds compromised - keeping the chroot up to date - keeping in sync with w-b / sbuild changes - keeping in sync with the infrastructure upstream (building from incoming, access to the buildd.d.o, etc) - keeping the hardware available and running - keeping the buildd building packages that will work It's not /that/ hard either (even if it's not something I could do without a chunk of learning), but basically, yeah there are technical constraints. The only policy constraint is that we're aiming to keep the number of buildds limited to two or three per architecture (where possible); the social constraints are mostly about convincingly demonstrating that the technical constraints will be met on an ongoing basis. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
Hi, Maintaining a buildd isn't trivial, there's: - making sure they don't get rooted, and their builds compromised - keeping the chroot up to date - keeping in sync with w-b / sbuild changes - keeping in sync with the infrastructure upstream (building from incoming, access to the buildd.d.o, etc) - keeping the hardware available and running - keeping the buildd building packages that will work It's not /that/ hard either (even if it's not something I could do without a chunk of learning), but basically, yeah there are technical constraints. The only policy constraint is that we're aiming to keep the number of buildds limited to two or three per architecture (where possible); the social constraints are mostly about convincingly demonstrating that the technical constraints will be met on an ongoing basis. i think someone running more than one autobuilder for more than _two_ years now (okay, not for the officical archive, but i see that as nonrelevant here) demonstrats very good that he mets your mentioned technical constraints. Greetings Martin -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] /root]# man real-life No manual entry for real-life -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 06:42:19PM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: So where can I send my application so that I can help out with this stuff? I think I know how to do all of the listed things. Judging from broad knowledge, you might send them to /dev/null for maximum effect. Greetings Marc -- - Marc Haber | I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | lose things.Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 621 72739835 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
Hi Marc, On Wednesday 14 February 2007 20:21, Marc Haber wrote: Judging from broad knowledge, you might send them to /dev/null for maximum effect. Do you really think constant senseless contentless ranting has _any_ (good) effect? regards, Holger pgpgXAsXBPwUQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 10:12:19PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote: On Wednesday 14 February 2007 20:21, Marc Haber wrote: Judging from broad knowledge, you might send them to /dev/null for maximum effect. Do you really think constant senseless contentless ranting has _any_ (good) effect? At least it aids in lessening my frustration about Debian being unable to solve its most threatening problems. Which are always the same ones. It is incredibly painful to see Debian suffer from the same people for years. We're losing our last bits of credibility these days. Greetings Marc -- - Marc Haber | I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | lose things.Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 621 72739835 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
Holger Levsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Marc, On Wednesday 14 February 2007 20:21, Marc Haber wrote: Judging from broad knowledge, you might send them to /dev/null for maximum effect. Do you really think constant senseless contentless ranting has _any_ (good) effect? It reminds us all that we still have something to do when etch is released: Start making some changes in the project. Regards, Frank -- Dr. Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 10:34:38PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: Holger Levsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wednesday 14 February 2007 20:21, Marc Haber wrote: Judging from broad knowledge, you might send them to /dev/null for maximum effect. Do you really think constant senseless contentless ranting has _any_ (good) effect? It reminds us all that we still have something to do when etch is released: Start making some changes in the project. Now now, is it really necessary to try to expel Marc for his comments? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 10:34:38PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: Holger Levsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wednesday 14 February 2007 20:21, Marc Haber wrote: Judging from broad knowledge, you might send them to /dev/null for maximum effect. Do you really think constant senseless contentless ranting has _any_ (good) effect? It reminds us all that we still have something to do when etch is released: Start making some changes in the project. Now now, is it really necessary to try to expel Marc for his comments? No, it isn't. My mail was meant serious. And the changes I have in mind are not to expel Marc ;-) Regards, Frank -- Dr. Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
Hi, On Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 13:13:36 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: -vote dropped On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 03:06:01PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote: Maintaining a buildd isn't trivial, there's: - making sure they don't get rooted, and their builds compromised - keeping the chroot up to date - keeping in sync with w-b / sbuild changes - keeping in sync with the infrastructure upstream (building from incoming, access to the buildd.d.o, etc) - keeping the hardware available and running - keeping the buildd building packages that will work It's not /that/ hard either (even if it's not something I could do without a chunk of learning), but basically, yeah there are technical constraints. The only policy constraint is that we're aiming to keep the number of buildds limited to two or three per architecture (where possible); the social constraints are mostly about convincingly demonstrating that the technical constraints will be met on an ongoing basis. i think someone running more than one autobuilder for more than _two_ years now (okay, not for the officical archive, but i see that as nonrelevant here) demonstrats very good that he mets your mentioned technical constraints. AIUI, Aurelian doesn't have the capability to run a non-emulated arm buildd. While http://blog.aurel32.net/?p=25 is a good demonstration of some things, I don't think it's the level of buildd we want for our release architectures. In general, I could pretty easily imagine a buildd that fails every one of those points still being suitable for a non-release arch for two years. I didn't thought of Aurelien, but of a few other persons, who are acting as buildd maintainers for experimental and non-free packages. Martin -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] /root]# man real-life No manual entry for real-life -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 06:35:07PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: Uh, what's this if not peer review? It's not peer review when we discuss it later and none of us (including you) have any power to do anything about it, except via long drawn-out political processes. Err, I could change it right now if I thought that was the best thing to do. I'm not, for the reasons I've already commented on. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
Hamish Moffatt wrote: ] I am really upset by the way the ARM build daemons are managed. The ] packages are not uploaded regularly, with sometimes three days between ] two uploads. [...] ] ] All of that resulted in ARM being the slowest architecture to build ] packages. [...] -- http://blog.aurel32.net/?p=33 I don't imagine Aurelien's any less upset, but as far as I can see, there aren't actual problems with the way arm's keeping up at present: Another problem is that the buildd email mailbox is apparently piped to /dev/null. FWIW, buildd mail is processed by a daemon, you are probably referring to something else. Regards, Joey -- A mathematician is a machine for converting coffee into theorems. Paul Erdös -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hamish Moffatt wrote: ] I am really upset by the way the ARM build daemons are managed. The ] packages are not uploaded regularly, with sometimes three days between ] two uploads. [...] ] ] All of that resulted in ARM being the slowest architecture to build ] packages. [...] -- http://blog.aurel32.net/?p=33 I don't imagine Aurelien's any less upset, but as far as I can see, there aren't actual problems with the way arm's keeping up at present: Another problem is that the buildd email mailbox is apparently piped to /dev/null. FWIW, buildd mail is processed by a daemon, you are probably referring to something else. I guess he's referring to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] addresses. If these are only read by a daemon, that would explain a lot. And if you know this to be true, please write this to #342548 where I requested these contact addresses to be added to http://www.debian.org/intro/organization. Regards, Frank -- Dr. Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
Frank Küster wrote: I don't imagine Aurelien's any less upset, but as far as I can see, there aren't actual problems with the way arm's keeping up at present: Another problem is that the buildd email mailbox is apparently piped to /dev/null. FWIW, buildd mail is processed by a daemon, you are probably referring to something else. I guess he's referring to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] addresses. If They're (usually) not sent to the build daemon itself, so no. Regards, Joey -- A mathematician is a machine for converting coffee into theorems. Paul Erdös -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 02:18:12PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 07:56:36AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: This is a two-way street though. Aurelien was trying to solve a problem he perceived to exist with the arm port. His solution has been rejected, but is the original problem being addressed? ] I am really upset by the way the ARM build daemons are managed. The ] packages are not uploaded regularly, with sometimes three days between ] two uploads. [...] ] ] All of that resulted in ARM being the slowest architecture to build ] packages. [...] -- http://blog.aurel32.net/?p=33 I don't imagine Aurelien's any less upset, but as far as I can see, there aren't actual problems with the way arm's keeping up at present: http://buildd.debian.org/stats/graph2-quarter-big.png Strangely the things has improved recently, this is even visible on the graph (around 2007.03). Also most of the packages are now requeued automagically after a few days. It wasn't the case before, and request took very long time before being proceeded [1] [2] [3]. Bye, Aurelien [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-arm/2007/01/msg00085.html [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2007/01/msg01363.html [3] http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?pkg=xulrunnerarch=armver=1.8.0.9-1 -- .''`. Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 : :' : Debian developer | Electrical Engineer `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] `-people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 10:45:06AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote: Frank Küster wrote: I don't imagine Aurelien's any less upset, but as far as I can see, there aren't actual problems with the way arm's keeping up at present: Another problem is that the buildd email mailbox is apparently piped to /dev/null. FWIW, buildd mail is processed by a daemon, you are probably referring to something else. I guess he's referring to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] addresses. If They're (usually) not sent to the build daemon itself, so no. That was what I meant. (Although I was not accurate I thought my intended meaning was fairly clear.) Thanks Frank. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 06:00:12PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 06:35:07PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: Uh, what's this if not peer review? It's not peer review when we discuss it later and none of us (including you) have any power to do anything about it, except via long drawn-out political processes. Err, I could change it right now if I thought that was the best thing to do. I'm not, for the reasons I've already commented on. Right, you could change dak. You can't/won't/? fix the process by which the current restrictions were added though. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 11:11:55PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 06:00:12PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 06:35:07PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: Uh, what's this if not peer review? It's not peer review when we discuss it later and none of us (including you) have any power to do anything about it, except via long drawn-out political processes. Err, I could change it right now if I thought that was the best thing to do. I'm not, for the reasons I've already commented on. Right, you could change dak. You can't/won't/? fix the process by which the current restrictions were added though. I don't think that's broken in the first place. The way buildd requests are dealt with... might not be broken, but is certainly suboptimal. But there's improvements in the pipeline for that (which, yes, I do need to mail about), and afaics running a qemu based buildd does nothing to improve it. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 10:38:42PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote: On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 10:59:41PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The context doesn't make the above quote any more pleasant. Well, in an ideal world everybody trusts everybody, but unfortunately the world we live in is not ideal. And I'm not sure what's so newsworthy in the fact that one developer doesn't trust another, unless you think that a DPL should trust every DD. Considering any DD has the ability to introduce any kind of malware and/or kill (almost) any debian.org server, yes, a little bit of trust would be a minimum. There are different levels of trusting. One can think that no DD would introduce malware in the archive and anyway could think also that some developers are not good for certain tasks because of attitude/lack of skills/lack of time/whatever. -- Francesco P. Lovergine -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 10:15:51AM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: Considering any DD has the ability to introduce any kind of malware and/or kill (almost) any debian.org server, yes, a little bit of trust would be a minimum. There are different levels of trusting. One can think that no DD would introduce malware in the archive and anyway could think also that some developers are not good for certain tasks because of attitude/lack of skills/lack of time/whatever. Or simply because they don't accept/respect/understand the goals other people are trying to achieve. There's no need for everyone to do that for all goals Debian developers have, but if you're going to do things that interfere with others' goals for the distro, you do have to take some care. If you're not willing to take that degree of care, or find some way of achieving your goals that doesn't affect other folks work, you'll find you won't be trusted. That shouldn't be surprising. And yes, sometimes it might be better to accept that what you want to do interfers with other people's directions and do it anyway. But it's not fair or reasonable to expect other people to like it, or not to rethink how they work with you. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
Le lundi 12 février 2007 à 19:35 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit : There are different levels of trusting. One can think that no DD would introduce malware in the archive and anyway could think also that some developers are not good for certain tasks because of attitude/lack of skills/lack of time/whatever. Or simply because they don't accept/respect/understand the goals other people are trying to achieve. Could you explain which goals the buildd administrators are trying to achieve that Aurélien doesn't accept/respect/understand, and for which he shouldn't be trusted? There's no need for everyone to do that for all goals Debian developers have, but if you're going to do things that interfere with others' goals for the distro, you do have to take some care. If you're not willing to take that degree of care, or find some way of achieving your goals that doesn't affect other folks work, you'll find you won't be trusted. That shouldn't be surprising. And yes, sometimes it might be better to accept that what you want to do interfers with other people's directions and do it anyway. But it's not fair or reasonable to expect other people to like it, or not to rethink how they work with you. Intellectual masturbation. Again, what are you talking about? -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile.
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 07:35:49PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 10:15:51AM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: Considering any DD has the ability to introduce any kind of malware and/or kill (almost) any debian.org server, yes, a little bit of trust would be a minimum. There are different levels of trusting. One can think that no DD would introduce malware in the archive and anyway could think also that some developers are not good for certain tasks because of attitude/lack of skills/lack of time/whatever. Or simply because they don't accept/respect/understand the goals other people are trying to achieve. There's no need for everyone to do that for all goals Debian developers have, but if you're going to do things that interfere with others' goals for the distro, you do have to take some care. If you're not willing to take that degree of care, or find some way of achieving your goals that doesn't affect other folks work, you'll find you won't be trusted. That shouldn't be surprising. This is a two-way street though. Aurelien was trying to solve a problem he perceived to exist with the arm port. His solution has been rejected, but is the original problem being addressed? Frankly I think ftp-master abused his dual roles (ftp-master and arm buildd admin) in this incident; any one else's actions would have been subject to peer review. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 07:56:36AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: This is a two-way street though. Aurelien was trying to solve a problem he perceived to exist with the arm port. His solution has been rejected, but is the original problem being addressed? ] I am really upset by the way the ARM build daemons are managed. The ] packages are not uploaded regularly, with sometimes three days between ] two uploads. [...] ] ] All of that resulted in ARM being the slowest architecture to build ] packages. [...] -- http://blog.aurel32.net/?p=33 I don't imagine Aurelien's any less upset, but as far as I can see, there aren't actual problems with the way arm's keeping up at present: http://buildd.debian.org/stats/graph2-quarter-big.png The current out of dates according to britney are: 4 i386 13 amd64 25 sparc 32 arm 38 alpha 45 powerpc 47 mipsel 49 mips 55 s390 56 m68k 82 hppa 86 ia64 Which likewise seems to indicate arm isn't an issue. As far as demonstrating the plausibility of setting up emulated buildds is concerned, I don't think it makes any sense to do that by working on the live archive for a release architecture. Personally, I've been trying to promote emulated buildds since at least 2005, but you do that by diving in yourself and producing a demo, not taking a release architecture with you and having its users have to tread water with you if you turn out to be wrong and have to find some way to undo it. Frankly I think ftp-master abused his dual roles (ftp-master and arm buildd admin) in this incident; any one else's actions would have been subject to peer review. Uh, what's this if not peer review? In addition, I reviewed both changes, and am not a buildd admin, though I do share Steve's ability to do give-backs. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 02:18:12PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 07:56:36AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: This is a two-way street though. Aurelien was trying to solve a problem he perceived to exist with the arm port. His solution has been rejected, but is the original problem being addressed? ] I am really upset by the way the ARM build daemons are managed. The ] packages are not uploaded regularly, with sometimes three days between ] two uploads. [...] ] ] All of that resulted in ARM being the slowest architecture to build ] packages. [...] -- http://blog.aurel32.net/?p=33 I don't imagine Aurelien's any less upset, but as far as I can see, there aren't actual problems with the way arm's keeping up at present: Another problem is that the buildd email mailbox is apparently piped to /dev/null. Frankly I think ftp-master abused his dual roles (ftp-master and arm buildd admin) in this incident; any one else's actions would have been subject to peer review. Uh, what's this if not peer review? A proper process would be that the buildd admin / porter (person 1) would observe a problem and ask ftp-master (person 2) to reject those uploads; if both people agree it would happen. It's not peer review when we discuss it later and none of us (including you) have any power to do anything about it, except via long drawn-out political processes. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 04:24:45AM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote: Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Personally, I don't like either of the checks, but I've seen zero effort from Aurelian and friends to demonstrate they can be trusted, Quoting partial sentences without disclosing the original source is what usually only the yellow press does. I don't trust the news they report. I would add that quoting without proper context rendering is also a known habits of too many people in MLs and generally used to enforce their own opionions and mantaining very high the level of unuseful flaming. -- Francesco P. Lovergine -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 04:24:45AM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote: Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Personally, I don't like either of the checks, but I've seen zero effort from Aurelian and friends to demonstrate they can be trusted, Quoting partial sentences without disclosing the original source is what usually only the yellow press does. I don't trust the news they report. I would add that quoting without proper context rendering is also a known habits of too many people in MLs and generally used to enforce their own opionions and mantaining very high the level of unuseful flaming. How does this help the underlying problem that the Debian project leader considers developer colleague Aurelien and his friends (probably many other Debian developers) not to be trusted? Regards, Joey -- Life is a lot easier when you have someone to share it with. -- Sean Perry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 11:47:28AM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 04:24:45AM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote: Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Personally, I don't like either of the checks, but I've seen zero effort from Aurelian and friends to demonstrate they can be trusted, Quoting partial sentences without disclosing the original source is what usually only the yellow press does. I don't trust the news they report. I would add that quoting without proper context rendering is also a known habits of too many people in MLs and generally used to enforce their own opionions and mantaining very high the level of unuseful flaming. The context doesn't make the above quote any more pleasant. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The context doesn't make the above quote any more pleasant. Well, in an ideal world everybody trusts everybody, but unfortunately the world we live in is not ideal. And I'm not sure what's so newsworthy in the fact that one developer doesn't trust another, unless you think that a DPL should trust every DD. -- * Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P) * * PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer * -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 10:59:41PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The context doesn't make the above quote any more pleasant. Well, in an ideal world everybody trusts everybody, but unfortunately the world we live in is not ideal. And I'm not sure what's so newsworthy in the fact that one developer doesn't trust another, unless you think that a DPL should trust every DD. Considering any DD has the ability to introduce any kind of malware and/or kill (almost) any debian.org server, yes, a little bit of trust would be a minimum. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
Le dimanche 11 février 2007 à 04:24 +0200, Kalle Kivimaa a écrit : Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Personally, I don't like either of the checks, but I've seen zero effort from Aurelian and friends to demonstrate they can be trusted, Quoting partial sentences without disclosing the original source is what usually only the yellow press does. I don't trust the news they report. May I suggest you start using a MUA with threading support? It should provide access to the original source easily. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: May I suggest you start using a MUA with threading support? It should provide access to the original source easily. If you had checked the mail headers you would have noticed that I do use such a MUA. What I don't do is store the Debian mailing list mails (as they are well archived by Debian), which does prevent me from accessing the old Debian list mails via the threading capability. Should really fix my MUA to use the lists.debian.org archives. If somebody has already done this to Gnus, plese email me. -- * Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P) * * PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer * -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Personally, I don't like either of the checks, but I've seen zero effort from Aurelian and friends to demonstrate they can be trusted, Quoting partial sentences without disclosing the original source is what usually only the yellow press does. I don't trust the news they report. -- * Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P) * * PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer * -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
