Re: Proposed transition plan for non-free and call for help
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 06:50:05PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > No. You only proposed to start with the debian-keyring, and did not > promise not to diverge from it in the future. Debian has an NM > procedure and team which I've grown to trust, but an > NM-for-non-free.org process would have to gain its own trust. Well, first of all you'd have to note that all the people who participated in this non-free effort have been (to my knowledge) also involved in the Debian NM process. On the other hand, I believe it is important to let people contribute to non-free without requiring them to become official DDs, I am not sure Debian should accept people who'd just do non-free stuff (not talking about the past here). If the need will arise, I guess we can be pretty certain that there will be a thourough procedure to check whether people i) are who they claim to be ii) know how to package stuff up properly, so that it interacts nicely with the other packages and iii) don't step on other maintainers feet. Also note that non-free is about the size the whole of Debian had back in perhaps '94. A real NM-process was not necessary back then, so I believe we don't need to clone nm.debian.org verbatim. Still, having the current NM requirements (modulo the philosophical stuff) like having a sponsored package in (whatever) archive and an advocte is a big plus and will make it quite easy to conduct the NM process for experienced application managers. What would you propose to be reasonable policies for granting uploading access to non-free.org, and what should be the requirements? I'd honestly value your input here. Michael -- Michael Banck Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html
Re: Proposed transition plan for non-free and call for help
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 06:50:05PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > No. You only proposed to start with the debian-keyring, and did not > promise not to diverge from it in the future. Debian has an NM > procedure and team which I've grown to trust, but an > NM-for-non-free.org process would have to gain its own trust. Well, first of all you'd have to note that all the people who participated in this non-free effort have been (to my knowledge) also involved in the Debian NM process. On the other hand, I believe it is important to let people contribute to non-free without requiring them to become official DDs, I am not sure Debian should accept people who'd just do non-free stuff (not talking about the past here). If the need will arise, I guess we can be pretty certain that there will be a thourough procedure to check whether people i) are who they claim to be ii) know how to package stuff up properly, so that it interacts nicely with the other packages and iii) don't step on other maintainers feet. Also note that non-free is about the size the whole of Debian had back in perhaps '94. A real NM-process was not necessary back then, so I believe we don't need to clone nm.debian.org verbatim. Still, having the current NM requirements (modulo the philosophical stuff) like having a sponsored package in (whatever) archive and an advocte is a big plus and will make it quite easy to conduct the NM process for experienced application managers. What would you propose to be reasonable policies for granting uploading access to non-free.org, and what should be the requirements? I'd honestly value your input here. Michael -- Michael Banck Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed transition plan for non-free and call for help
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 03:43:47PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:38:47PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > I suspect some of our users might not want to use packages from a > > less trusted source. I would have concerns myself. > > Of course, and this was indeed one the prime design requirements. Do > you feel your concerns are adequately addressed? No. You only proposed to start with the debian-keyring, and did not promise not to diverge from it in the future. Debian has an NM procedure and team which I've grown to trust, but an NM-for-non-free.org process would have to gain its own trust. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: Proposed transition plan for non-free and call for help
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 03:43:47PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:38:47PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > I suspect some of our users might not want to use packages from a > > less trusted source. I would have concerns myself. > > Of course, and this was indeed one the prime design requirements. Do > you feel your concerns are adequately addressed? No. You only proposed to start with the debian-keyring, and did not promise not to diverge from it in the future. Debian has an NM procedure and team which I've grown to trust, but an NM-for-non-free.org process would have to gain its own trust. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed transition plan for non-free and call for help
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:38:47PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > I suspect some of our users might not want to use packages from a > less trusted source. I would have concerns myself. Of course, and this was indeed one the prime design requirements. Do you feel your concerns are adequately addressed? Michael -- Michael Banck Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html
Re: Proposed transition plan for non-free and call for help
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:38:47PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > I suspect some of our users might not want to use packages from a > less trusted source. I would have concerns myself. Of course, and this was indeed one the prime design requirements. Do you feel your concerns are adequately addressed? Michael -- Michael Banck Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed transition plan for non-free and call for help
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 02:36:49PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > [-devel and -vote CCed. Please respect the Mail-Followup-To -project. > You should really subscribe to -project, it's not that big. In any case, > I will try read and reply to any comment] I think this is relevant to debian-vote too, because it affects the current GR. [...] > 3. The Transition to non-free.org > > This part should be independent from the choice of implementation. > Please point out bugs here, if you find some. > > Setup of the non-free.org box should happen ASAP. Initially, all packages > from the non-free component of the Debian archive will be transitioned > to non-free.org and the Debian keyring will be used to authenticate > uploads. The Debian Policy will be applied to the packages, as will the > Developer's Reference (where applicable). [...] > Another outstanding issue is the handling of the non-free.org keyring. > We believe it should be kept synced with the debian keyring and other > people should be added only after good consideration. Whether this > amounts to a full-blown NM process will have to be seen. Thanks for addressing two of the issues I raised earlier in the week. Specifically I think it's important to note that you have proposed the possibility of adding non-free.org maintainers who are not debian.org maintainers. I suspect some of our users might not want to use packages from a less trusted source. I would have concerns myself. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposed transition plan for non-free and call for help
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:22:28AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 09:25:32AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 08:15:42PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:48:20PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > > > What about recomends and suggests of contrib or non-free packages from > > > > debian/main ? > > > > > > How should it handle it? > > > > Well, i would say that recomends and suggests from packages in the > > debian distribution to packages in non-free are allowed, but not > > depends, as it currently the case. > > I was under the impression that we only allow Suggests: on non-free > packages. Yeah, probably. i always confund these two, probably because my french background would make me intuit the inverse meaning for those two. > > This is a problem though, since some see this as debian advertizing > > non-free, or thighly tying this new non-free.org to debian, which some > > find a hatefull thing. > > This might be true. However, it has nothing to do with either this GR or > non-free.org. If Debian at large or the maintainers of main packages do > not want to Suggest: non-free packages anymore, so be it. I believe this > is a social issue, not a technical one. Well, unless someone would force me not to do that anymore, and thus we will have another year long flamewar on the issue. After all some would say the place were non-free is held is a technical issue also, and very much of importance, but see how wrong that was. > Giving the user the choice whether they want to see suggestions of > non-free packages seems like a good idea in general to me, though. Yeah :) And notice how the proposal i made is generic, not non-free.org specific. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: Proposed transition plan for non-free and call for help
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 02:36:49PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > [-devel and -vote CCed. Please respect the Mail-Followup-To -project. > You should really subscribe to -project, it's not that big. In any case, > I will try read and reply to any comment] I think this is relevant to debian-vote too, because it affects the current GR. [...] > 3. The Transition to non-free.org > > This part should be independent from the choice of implementation. > Please point out bugs here, if you find some. > > Setup of the non-free.org box should happen ASAP. Initially, all packages > from the non-free component of the Debian archive will be transitioned > to non-free.org and the Debian keyring will be used to authenticate > uploads. The Debian Policy will be applied to the packages, as will the > Developer's Reference (where applicable). [...] > Another outstanding issue is the handling of the non-free.org keyring. > We believe it should be kept synced with the debian keyring and other > people should be added only after good consideration. Whether this > amounts to a full-blown NM process will have to be seen. Thanks for addressing two of the issues I raised earlier in the week. Specifically I think it's important to note that you have proposed the possibility of adding non-free.org maintainers who are not debian.org maintainers. I suspect some of our users might not want to use packages from a less trusted source. I would have concerns myself. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposed transition plan for non-free and call for help
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:22:28AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 09:25:32AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 08:15:42PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:48:20PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > > > What about recomends and suggests of contrib or non-free packages from > > > > debian/main ? > > > > > > How should it handle it? > > > > Well, i would say that recomends and suggests from packages in the > > debian distribution to packages in non-free are allowed, but not > > depends, as it currently the case. > > I was under the impression that we only allow Suggests: on non-free > packages. It's got more or less nothing to do with non-free. We only allow Suggests on packages not in main. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposed transition plan for non-free and call for help
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 09:25:32AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 08:15:42PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:48:20PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > > What about recomends and suggests of contrib or non-free packages from > > > debian/main ? > > > > How should it handle it? > > Well, i would say that recomends and suggests from packages in the > debian distribution to packages in non-free are allowed, but not > depends, as it currently the case. I was under the impression that we only allow Suggests: on non-free packages. > This is a problem though, since some see this as debian advertizing > non-free, or thighly tying this new non-free.org to debian, which some > find a hatefull thing. This might be true. However, it has nothing to do with either this GR or non-free.org. If Debian at large or the maintainers of main packages do not want to Suggest: non-free packages anymore, so be it. I believe this is a social issue, not a technical one. Giving the user the choice whether they want to see suggestions of non-free packages seems like a good idea in general to me, though. Michael -- Michael Banck Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html
Re: Proposed transition plan for non-free and call for help
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:22:28AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 09:25:32AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 08:15:42PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:48:20PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > > > What about recomends and suggests of contrib or non-free packages from > > > > debian/main ? > > > > > > How should it handle it? > > > > Well, i would say that recomends and suggests from packages in the > > debian distribution to packages in non-free are allowed, but not > > depends, as it currently the case. > > I was under the impression that we only allow Suggests: on non-free > packages. Yeah, probably. i always confund these two, probably because my french background would make me intuit the inverse meaning for those two. > > This is a problem though, since some see this as debian advertizing > > non-free, or thighly tying this new non-free.org to debian, which some > > find a hatefull thing. > > This might be true. However, it has nothing to do with either this GR or > non-free.org. If Debian at large or the maintainers of main packages do > not want to Suggest: non-free packages anymore, so be it. I believe this > is a social issue, not a technical one. Well, unless someone would force me not to do that anymore, and thus we will have another year long flamewar on the issue. After all some would say the place were non-free is held is a technical issue also, and very much of importance, but see how wrong that was. > Giving the user the choice whether they want to see suggestions of > non-free packages seems like a good idea in general to me, though. Yeah :) And notice how the proposal i made is generic, not non-free.org specific. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed transition plan for non-free and call for help
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 08:15:42PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:48:20PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > What about recomends and suggests of contrib or non-free packages from > > debian/main ? > > How should it handle it? Well, i would say that recomends and suggests from packages in the debian distribution to packages in non-free are allowed, but not depends, as it currently the case. This is a problem though, since some see this as debian advertizing non-free, or thighly tying this new non-free.org to debian, which some find a hatefull thing. I believe that apt could be patched to only show recomends and suggest that are fullfillable with the current apt sources entry, but i don't feel up to providing such a patch. Like i explained to markus, i would find the forbiding of suggests and recomends from main to non-free not a good thing, as illustrated in the case of non-free documentation, and also in the case of the temporal moving of a part of main which was found to be badly licenced to non-free, while a free alternative is being worked on. > > How will this separate setup handle this ? > > What about conflicts ? > > What do you propose? Only a problem if the above is going to be forbidden. I still think this is a great loss of time, but hey, if you feel like it, all the more power to you :) Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: Proposed transition plan for non-free and call for help
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:22:28AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 09:25:32AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 08:15:42PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:48:20PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > > > What about recomends and suggests of contrib or non-free packages from > > > > debian/main ? > > > > > > How should it handle it? > > > > Well, i would say that recomends and suggests from packages in the > > debian distribution to packages in non-free are allowed, but not > > depends, as it currently the case. > > I was under the impression that we only allow Suggests: on non-free > packages. It's got more or less nothing to do with non-free. We only allow Suggests on packages not in main. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposed transition plan for non-free and call for help
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 09:25:32AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 08:15:42PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:48:20PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > > What about recomends and suggests of contrib or non-free packages from > > > debian/main ? > > > > How should it handle it? > > Well, i would say that recomends and suggests from packages in the > debian distribution to packages in non-free are allowed, but not > depends, as it currently the case. I was under the impression that we only allow Suggests: on non-free packages. > This is a problem though, since some see this as debian advertizing > non-free, or thighly tying this new non-free.org to debian, which some > find a hatefull thing. This might be true. However, it has nothing to do with either this GR or non-free.org. If Debian at large or the maintainers of main packages do not want to Suggest: non-free packages anymore, so be it. I believe this is a social issue, not a technical one. Giving the user the choice whether they want to see suggestions of non-free packages seems like a good idea in general to me, though. Michael -- Michael Banck Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed transition plan for non-free and call for help
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 08:15:42PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:48:20PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > What about recomends and suggests of contrib or non-free packages from > > debian/main ? > > How should it handle it? Well, i would say that recomends and suggests from packages in the debian distribution to packages in non-free are allowed, but not depends, as it currently the case. This is a problem though, since some see this as debian advertizing non-free, or thighly tying this new non-free.org to debian, which some find a hatefull thing. I believe that apt could be patched to only show recomends and suggest that are fullfillable with the current apt sources entry, but i don't feel up to providing such a patch. Like i explained to markus, i would find the forbiding of suggests and recomends from main to non-free not a good thing, as illustrated in the case of non-free documentation, and also in the case of the temporal moving of a part of main which was found to be badly licenced to non-free, while a free alternative is being worked on. > > How will this separate setup handle this ? > > What about conflicts ? > > What do you propose? Only a problem if the above is going to be forbidden. I still think this is a great loss of time, but hey, if you feel like it, all the more power to you :) Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed transition plan for non-free and call for help
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:48:20PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > What about recomends and suggests of contrib or non-free packages from > debian/main ? How should it handle it? > How will this separate setup handle this ? > What about conflicts ? What do you propose? Michael -- Michael Banck Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html
Re: Proposed transition plan for non-free and call for help
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 03:03:36PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 02:36:49PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > > [-devel and -vote CCed. Please respect the Mail-Followup-To -project. > > You should really subscribe to -project, it's not that big. In any case, > > I will try read and reply to any comment] > > Thanks Michael for taking the time to do this. One more point that Markus brought to my attention. What about recomends and suggests of contrib or non-free packages from debian/main ? How will this separate setup handle this ? What about conflicts ? Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: Proposed transition plan for non-free and call for help
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:48:20PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > What about recomends and suggests of contrib or non-free packages from > debian/main ? How should it handle it? > How will this separate setup handle this ? > What about conflicts ? What do you propose? Michael -- Michael Banck Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed transition plan for non-free and call for help
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 03:03:36PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 02:36:49PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > > [-devel and -vote CCed. Please respect the Mail-Followup-To -project. > > You should really subscribe to -project, it's not that big. In any case, > > I will try read and reply to any comment] > > Thanks Michael for taking the time to do this. One more point that Markus brought to my attention. What about recomends and suggests of contrib or non-free packages from debian/main ? How will this separate setup handle this ? What about conflicts ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed transition plan for non-free and call for help
Michael Banck wrote: > once non-free is removed from debian.org. In fact, we might try to get > non-free.org running even no matter what the outcome of the general > resolution will be, provided maintainers are interested in moving their > packages there. One of the advantages of keeping non-free on the Debian servers is to avoid such a duplication of effort. If results of the current vote reaffirms support for non-free, why would maintainers want to work on such duplication and move packages to the parallel system? -- Kevin Rosenberg| .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** http://b9.com/debian.html | : :' : The universal GPG signed and encrypted| `. `' Operating System messages accepted. | `-http://www.debian.org/
Re: Proposed transition plan for non-free and call for help
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 02:36:49PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > [-devel and -vote CCed. Please respect the Mail-Followup-To -project. > You should really subscribe to -project, it's not that big. In any case, > I will try read and reply to any comment] Thanks Michael for taking the time to do this. As you know, i am not really convinced that this is really a good thing in the long run, but let's see what will happen. > 2. The proposed implementation for non-free.org. > > Basically, there are two possibilities, a) using a GForge service and b) > reproducing the debian.org services, but in a less complex way, where > possible. I would vote for b), since it would cause the less difference of use over the current system. > B. Reproducing the debian.org services. What is mostly needed are the > Debian archive itself, the BTS, mailing-lists and the PTS. > > a) The archive. This has been taken care of already, as Daniel Stone's > box already features a katie installation. No mirror though, what about backups ? Not everyone has personal backups, and i at least somewhat was relying on the archive to store the packages, especially at times of limited disk space (like when trying to build X :). > b) The Bug Tracking System. Other projects (e.g. mutt) are using it, > there is a package for it around, it should be rather easy to setup. > The hard part would be to import the current bugs from non-free > packages to the non-free.org BTS. One solution would be to copy the > entire BTS and then removing archived bugs and the bugs for packages > in main. Like said, migration of bugs between non-free and debian would be problematic, we can make do for now though, but i believe that this will also be problematic for DD receiving eroned bug reports. I fear these bug reports, or at least a proportion thereof may simply get lost if the transition method is too involved. I don't know if this would be significant though. > c) The Package Tracking System. I talked to Raphael Hertzog about this > a while ago. The code for the PTS is available and he told me that > it should be possible to adopt it for something like non-free.org > within an acceptable time frame. I'm not quite sure how hard it will > be to transfer the current subscribers to non-free packages. Still, no more single per maintainer page where both non-free, contrib and main packages are visible, i guess :( BTW, what about contrib ? Will it move to non-free or stay in debian ? > One problem with the transition that has been identified is the > reassignment of bugs from non-free packages back to main packages. The > easy solution here would be to just open a new bug on the main package, > with the full bug log from non-free.org attached. Maybe a better > solution can be hashed out in the future, if this case proves to be > quite common. Ok. I don't think this is only a transition problem though, but will also be felt later on. > Another outstanding issue is the handling of the non-free.org keyring. > We believe it should be kept synced with the debian keyring and other > people should be added only after good consideration. Whether this > amounts to a full-blown NM process will have to be seen. Ok, but given this and other remark, i have some serious doubts how this separate project could be seen as somthing other than related to the debian project, and officially approved by it. I also again wonder if the effort going into this would not be better spent in a more useful way, but hey, if you can bring this trough, more power to you. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: Proposed transition plan for non-free and call for help
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 02:36:49PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > [-devel and -vote CCed. Please respect the Mail-Followup-To -project. > You should really subscribe to -project, it's not that big. In any case, > I will try read and reply to any comment] Sorry about the M-F-T. Mutt seems to have reset it after postponing and re-editing the mail. Please follow-up to -project only, if possible. Michael
Re: Proposed transition plan for non-free and call for help
Michael Banck wrote: > once non-free is removed from debian.org. In fact, we might try to get > non-free.org running even no matter what the outcome of the general > resolution will be, provided maintainers are interested in moving their > packages there. One of the advantages of keeping non-free on the Debian servers is to avoid such a duplication of effort. If results of the current vote reaffirms support for non-free, why would maintainers want to work on such duplication and move packages to the parallel system? -- Kevin Rosenberg| .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** http://b9.com/debian.html | : :' : The universal GPG signed and encrypted| `. `' Operating System messages accepted. | `-http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed transition plan for non-free and call for help
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 02:36:49PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > [-devel and -vote CCed. Please respect the Mail-Followup-To -project. > You should really subscribe to -project, it's not that big. In any case, > I will try read and reply to any comment] Thanks Michael for taking the time to do this. As you know, i am not really convinced that this is really a good thing in the long run, but let's see what will happen. > 2. The proposed implementation for non-free.org. > > Basically, there are two possibilities, a) using a GForge service and b) > reproducing the debian.org services, but in a less complex way, where > possible. I would vote for b), since it would cause the less difference of use over the current system. > B. Reproducing the debian.org services. What is mostly needed are the > Debian archive itself, the BTS, mailing-lists and the PTS. > > a) The archive. This has been taken care of already, as Daniel Stone's > box already features a katie installation. No mirror though, what about backups ? Not everyone has personal backups, and i at least somewhat was relying on the archive to store the packages, especially at times of limited disk space (like when trying to build X :). > b) The Bug Tracking System. Other projects (e.g. mutt) are using it, > there is a package for it around, it should be rather easy to setup. > The hard part would be to import the current bugs from non-free > packages to the non-free.org BTS. One solution would be to copy the > entire BTS and then removing archived bugs and the bugs for packages > in main. Like said, migration of bugs between non-free and debian would be problematic, we can make do for now though, but i believe that this will also be problematic for DD receiving eroned bug reports. I fear these bug reports, or at least a proportion thereof may simply get lost if the transition method is too involved. I don't know if this would be significant though. > c) The Package Tracking System. I talked to Raphael Hertzog about this > a while ago. The code for the PTS is available and he told me that > it should be possible to adopt it for something like non-free.org > within an acceptable time frame. I'm not quite sure how hard it will > be to transfer the current subscribers to non-free packages. Still, no more single per maintainer page where both non-free, contrib and main packages are visible, i guess :( BTW, what about contrib ? Will it move to non-free or stay in debian ? > One problem with the transition that has been identified is the > reassignment of bugs from non-free packages back to main packages. The > easy solution here would be to just open a new bug on the main package, > with the full bug log from non-free.org attached. Maybe a better > solution can be hashed out in the future, if this case proves to be > quite common. Ok. I don't think this is only a transition problem though, but will also be felt later on. > Another outstanding issue is the handling of the non-free.org keyring. > We believe it should be kept synced with the debian keyring and other > people should be added only after good consideration. Whether this > amounts to a full-blown NM process will have to be seen. Ok, but given this and other remark, i have some serious doubts how this separate project could be seen as somthing other than related to the debian project, and officially approved by it. I also again wonder if the effort going into this would not be better spent in a more useful way, but hey, if you can bring this trough, more power to you. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed transition plan for non-free and call for help
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 02:36:49PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > [-devel and -vote CCed. Please respect the Mail-Followup-To -project. > You should really subscribe to -project, it's not that big. In any case, > I will try read and reply to any comment] Sorry about the M-F-T. Mutt seems to have reset it after postponing and re-editing the mail. Please follow-up to -project only, if possible. Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
