Re: Ask for removal of some packages from Extras Fremantle repository
ext Luarvique L. Luarvique luarvi...@gmail.com writes: This whole talk about any repository but Extras is unsafe and evil is mostly bullshit, and I think most users are smart enough to know it. It might be mostly bullshit, but not entirely. If we teach people that it is normal to go hunting for alternative repositories, we substantially increase the risk that they run into unsafe and evil ones. The difference is between one or maybe three well known sources, and uncounted mostly unknown sources. You can have a million security frameworks on your device, but as long as you go and install stuff 'randomly' from the Internet, you are running a high risk. One of the first things that you learn when you grow up is that it is not a good idea to put everything into your mouth that you find on the ground. While nobody should be forced to funnel his packages through the few well known repositories, our users should more or less demand to find all the good stuff in them, because they know that these repositories are well-maintained and backed by a community: packages are not abandoned, and they can expect them to be updated when necessary. Thus, we should market the advantages of a centralized repository to our users (down to making adding new repositories with .install files more scary, but still fair), and work to reduce repository fragmentation by seeking out the 'rogue' ones and copying their packages into ours, if legal, and subject to the same QA as other packages, of course. This might also be a good opportunity for some of us to eat our own dog food. If would be great if the people who drive the maemo.org QA process would back this up by maintaining a good number of packages themselves. (Maybe they do, I really don't know.) ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Re: Ask for removal of some packages from Extras Fremantle repository
On Mar 29, 2010 9:07am, Marius Vollmer marius.voll...@nokia.com wrote: It might be mostly bullshit, but not entirely. If we teach people that it is normal to go hunting for alternative repositories, we substantially increase the risk that they run into unsafe and evil ones. I do not think anyone is teaching people to go hunting for alternative repositories here. What I do see though is that the Extras admission/promotions processes have become so bothersome to developers that they border on hostile. In relation to that, I would like to remind everyone that the life does not stop at Extras: it is *ok* to create and maintain your own repositories. If Extras management would like as many developers as possible to use Extras, they have to make actual changes to the admission/promotion process rather than continue repeating the everything but Extras is evil mantra. These changes have been discussed multiple times over the last 6 months, so it is somewhat sad to see that none of them are implemented. One of the first things that you learn when you grow up is that it is not a good idea to put everything into your mouth that you find on the ground. Another thing that you learn when you grow up is that grownups generally prefer making their own decisions rather than allowing their parents to continue making decisions for them. Thus, we should market the advantages of a centralized repository to our users (down to making adding new repositories with .install files more scary, but still fair), and work to reduce repository fragmentation by seeking out the 'rogue' ones and copying their packages into ours, if legal, and subject to the same QA as other packages, of course. So, but I am afraid this is not exactly the first thing you should do. :) ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Ask for removal of some packages from Extras Fremantle repository
On Monday 29 March 2010 08:07:06 Marius Vollmer wrote: all the good stuff in them, because they know that these repositories are well-maintained and backed by a community: packages are not abandoned, and they can expect them to be updated when necessary. Yes, we have not talked about this much but if you take a look at the gronmayer list now, you'll see that a good chunk of repos there has shut down, taking into oblivion their packages, too, and to make things worse, they nearly all miss the source section (most likely an unintentional oversight). Also, consider that the QA/testing process we have is a 'light' (and occasionally buggy ;) version of what happens in large distros (i.e. if you have trouble complying with Maemo's requirements, Debian stable compliance is lightyears away). The historical distros have all been through this phase of 'zillion packages from all over the net' and evolved towards centralized repositories for a reason (while keeping the *ability* to install whatever you want). I still think (and will lobby for) maemo.org supported PPAs as a recommended (not forced !) solution for testing/devel/procedural problems, instead of general repository anarchy. Regards, Attila ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Ask for removal of some packages from Extras Fremantle repository
On Mar 29, 2010, at 11:00 AM, Attila Csipa wrote: On Monday 29 March 2010 08:07:06 Marius Vollmer wrote: all the good stuff in them, because they know that these repositories are well-maintained and backed by a community: packages are not abandoned, and they can expect them to be updated when necessary. Yes, we have not talked about this much but if you take a look at the gronmayer list now, you'll see that a good chunk of repos there has shut down, taking into oblivion their packages, too, and to make things worse, they nearly all miss the source section (most likely an unintentional oversight). Also a potential violation of the GPL. Also, consider that the QA/testing process we have is a 'light' (and occasionally buggy ;) version of what happens in large distros (i.e. if you have trouble complying with Maemo's requirements, Debian stable compliance is lightyears away). Indeed. The historical distros have all been through this phase of 'zillion packages from all over the net' and evolved towards centralized repositories for a reason (while keeping the *ability* to install whatever you want). I still think (and will lobby for) maemo.org supported PPAs as a recommended (not forced !) solution for testing/devel/procedural problems, instead of general repository anarchy. It might be the way to go. Jeremiah ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Ask for removal of some packages from Extras Fremantle repository
ext luarvi...@gmail.com luarvi...@gmail.com writes: [...] What I do see though is that the Extras admission/promotions processes have become so bothersome to developers that they border on hostile. I don't have an opinion on this, since I am not at all involved in any of the specifics. (I have no packages in extras, for example.) In relation to that, I would like to remind everyone that the life does not stop at Extras: it is *ok* to create and maintain your own repositories. If Extras management would like as many developers as possible to use Extras, they have to make actual changes to the admission/promotion process rather than continue repeating the everything but Extras is evil mantra. Yes, very true. I didn't want to argue against this; sorry if I came across as defending the current QA process. I don't know the details of it, but I fully expect myself to agree with you if I would look into the details. One of the first things that you learn when you grow up is that it is not a good idea to put everything into your mouth that you find on the ground. Another thing that you learn when you grow up is that grownups generally prefer making their own decisions rather than allowing their parents to continue making decisions for them. Yes, and as you grow up more, you start taking responsibilities for others and then you see that your parents weren't all that wrong back then. Thus, we should market the advantages of a centralized repository to our users (down to making adding new repositories with .install files more scary, but still fair), and work to reduce repository fragmentation by seeking out the 'rogue' ones and copying their packages into ours, if legal, and subject to the same QA as other packages, of course. So, but I am afraid this is not exactly the first thing you should do. :) Yes, I agree. I just don't feel comfortable talking about the QA process, since I know nothing about it. ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Ask for removal of some packages from Extras Fremantle repository
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010, Attila Csipa wrote: On Monday 29 March 2010 08:07:06 Marius Vollmer wrote: all the good stuff in them, because they know that these repositories are well-maintained and backed by a community: packages are not abandoned, and they can expect them to be updated when necessary. Yes, we have not talked about this much but if you take a look at the gronmayer list now, you'll see that a good chunk of repos there has shut down, taking into oblivion their packages, too, and to make things worse, they nearly all miss the source section (most likely an unintentional oversight). With the current state of extras-devel, long term availability is hardly a point that should be raised against other repositories. At least the source is available. Also, consider that the QA/testing process we have is a 'light' (and occasionally buggy ;) version of what happens in large distros (i.e. if you have trouble complying with Maemo's requirements, Debian stable compliance is lightyears away). The historical distros have all been through this phase of 'zillion packages from all over the net' and evolved towards centralized repositories for a reason (while keeping the *ability* to install whatever you want). I still think (and will lobby for) maemo.org supported PPAs as a recommended (not forced !) solution for testing/devel/procedural problems, instead of general repository anarchy. The distros you compare have a lot of packagers who go through the QA process, not the developers. Maemo, on the other hand, has very few people who take other people's program and package them. Thus, you expect the developers to go through the QA process themselves, so this comparison is not really valid. -- Matan Ziv-Av. ma...@svgalib.org ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Ask for removal of some packages from Extras Fremantle repository
On Monday 29 March 2010 13:13:14 you wrote: With the current state of extras-devel, long term availability is hardly a point that should be raised against other repositories. At least the source is available. I feel this is more to the fact that very few people use 3rd party repositories and they don't have real any place to voice their problems or repo breakage (except for the gronmeyer site itself, but that's not problem solving, just repo list sanitizing). Remember how we lost Ruby on Maemo ? The distros you compare have a lot of packagers who go through the QA process, not the developers. Maemo, on the other hand, has very few people who take other people's program and package them. Thus, you expect the developers to go through the QA process themselves, so this comparison is not really valid. So instead of finding people to help with maintainership, packaging and/or the QA process, we just ditch the whole thing and go packaging guerilla ? That's a move of convenience at best, hardly a solution (especially for end-users). Regards, Attila ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Ask for removal of some packages from Extras Fremantle repository
Seconded. Whilst I have no intention on setting up my own repository, I can't help but think Extras-devel is not perfect (looking at the events of this week), either. 1. Packages not being imported: While this isn't common and X-Fade does solve them rather promptly, this is not the first time this has happened. 2. Why was the PR 1.2 SDK set up before the majority of us got the update? All it's done is ensure that our programs cannot be installed, due to the dependency on a newer libhildon. I've had to resort to sed -i s/libhildon1 (= 2.2.10)/libhildon1/ debian/substvars which I shouldn't have had to, just so I can install the thing! (Yes, I am aware that I am now under risk of getting bitch-slapped by real Debian Packagers but so be it. I should never have had to resort to that in the first place). Best Regards, Faheem On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Luarvique L. Luarvique luarvi...@gmail.com wrote: I have to say that I am with Khertan on this. He has a right to distribute his stuff any way he feels fit. I also doubt that it will affect the size of his userbase in any way. Most people will just add his repository and forget about it. This whole talk about any repository but Extras is unsafe and evil is mostly bullshit, and I think most users are smart enough to know it. 2010/3/23 Benoît HERVIER kher...@khertan.net I made apps for Maemo as a hobby ... today you are pissing me of ... You didn't want alternate repository in your little world ... great ... do not count me in your little world anymore !!! Bye ! -- Benoît HERVIER, Khertan Softwares - http://khertan.net/ ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Ask for removal of some packages from Extras Fremantle repository
On Mar 26, 2010, at 8:19 AM, Matti Airas wrote: On 25.03.2010 18:10, ext Dave Neary wrote: There is an alternative - if Benoît does not want to deal with Extras, and others feel that the packages he was packaging are vital, someone else can take over as official packager and deal with all the stuff he doesn't want to. It's possible to separate packaging development. Yes, I actually attempted to make this my first proposal (Benoît acting as the upstream) but probably didn't express myself clearly enough. :-) I think you were very clear and very polite. Well done Matti, and I hope Benoit considers your offer. Jeremiah___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Ask for removal of some packages from Extras Fremantle repository
On 22.03.2010 11:12, ext Benoît HERVIER wrote: Please, can you remove all version of the following packages from the extras fremantle, extras-testing fremantle, and extras-devel fremantle repository : [...] - pypackager - py2deb [...] Hi Benoit et al, Having been preoccupied with other stuff the last few weeks, I only today came to notice the devastating incident about your packages and participation. Benoit, I respect your decisions no matter what the reasons are but am really sorry to see you go (if that's the final decision). However, as a member of the PyMaemo project I'm really worried about the fate of the pypackager and py2deb packages which allow for creating deb packages of Python programs without resorting to the use of Scratchbox. The functionality provided by these packages is quite essential to the developer story of the PyMaemo project since we don't want to force prospective PyMaemo developers to install Scratchbox and the full SDK just to have packages created. Also, from the PyMaemo project point of view, it's important to have any relevant packages within the maemo.org infrastructure (although you obviously are free not to do that yourself, this is a volunteer effort). Hence, I'd be very interested in hearing your opinions regarding these packages. Would you think it's OK if we maintained the packages on the extras.* repos? If you are still interested in developing the packages further (at least pypackager, I understood you consider py2deb as deprecated in any case), you could act as upstream to the PyMaemo-maintained packages (and still maintain your own repo if you wish). On the other hand, if you don't feel like working on them any longer, I hope it's all right for you if we just catch the ball and adopt the packages to PyMaemo proper. If that would be the case, would you rather see us do a clean fork (renaming the packages and all) or would it be OK if we just took the ownership of the current projects and carried on from there? In any case, I sincerely appreciate the contributions you've done to maemo.org and PyMaemo. Cheers, ma. ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Ask for removal of some packages from Extras Fremantle repository
Hi, Matti Airas wrote: However, as a member of the PyMaemo project I'm really worried about the fate of the pypackager and py2deb packages which allow for creating deb packages of Python programs without resorting to the use of Scratchbox. The functionality provided by these packages is quite essential to the developer story of the PyMaemo project since we don't want to force prospective PyMaemo developers to install Scratchbox and the full SDK just to have packages created. There is an alternative - if Benoît does not want to deal with Extras, and others feel that the packages he was packaging are vital, someone else can take over as official packager and deal with all the stuff he doesn't want to. It's possible to separate packaging development. It is free software after all. Cheers, Dave. -- maemo.org docsmaster Email: dne...@maemo.org Jabber: bo...@jabber.org ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Ask for removal of some packages from Extras Fremantle repository
On Mar 23, 2010, at 10:35 PM, Klaus Rotter wrote: Am 22.03.2010 16:22, schrieb Graham Cobb: On Monday 22 March 2010 14:30:00 Matan Ziv-Av wrote: - You can't easily remove a package from extras-devel. (Or maybe at all? I asked for a package to be removed two weeks ago. It is still there). Contact the debmaster (Jeremiah) by direct email. It would be better if the maintainer could at least remove _old_ packages via http://maemo.org/packages/view/packagename directly. This would be the right place to add a Remove Button. I agree. Perhaps we can add this request from the community to a sprint? Jeremiah ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Ask for removal of some packages from Extras Fremantle repository
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 00:20, Attila Csipa ma...@csipa.in.rs wrote: On Tuesday 23 March 2010 00:39:09 Darren Long wrote: However, in the general case where the source and the executable are not the same, I believe that maemo.org would be obliged to continue to make the source available, for at least 3 years. Now, I might just be grossly misinformed or misinterpreting the legalese, but to me it sounds like the GPL (at least v2) brings into play the 3 year requirement IF and ONLY IF you choose to provide the sources through a written offer (instead of accompanying the binaries through neighbouring links, which is actually what maemo.org does). However, I think that link is the written offer; let's consider 3a again: ACCOMPANY it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, I've added the emphasis. The source code does *not* accompany every download from maemo.org (consider the HAM case as it perfectly demonstrates it). If the source code doesn't accompany every download, then 3a doesn't apply so one of 3b or 3c must. If 3b applies, maemo.org has to continue to host the source. If 3c applies, Benoît has to continue to offer the source, but maemo.org must provide a way of exposing that point of contact to users. Perhaps http://maemo.org/packages/view/pygtkeditor/ would display please contact the maintainer for source. Cheers, Andrew -- Andrew Flegg -- mailto:and...@bleb.org | http://www.bleb.org/ ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Ask for removal of some packages from Extras Fremantle repository
ext Attila Csipa ma...@csipa.in.rs writes: On Tuesday 23 March 2010 01:00:19 Gary Birkett wrote: why doesn't HAM allow somebody to use a later provided version from Beniots own repository? there would be nothing wrong with leaving everything existing and Beniot can get what he wants by still offering users the opportunity to add his own repository and gain later updates and we retain the polished solid versions available for regular users. There was some mention of this previously. Basically, the issue is authenticity (package hijacking avoidance, whether intentional or not), and/or generic cross-repository FUBAR avoidance. Imagine what would happen during the Qt4.5 to Qt4.6 transition if we had external repositories containing apps referencing Qt. Yes, exactly. I originally put the package domain system into HAM as an attempt to reduce the 'repository mess'. Of course, this prevents packages to legitimally move from one domain to another, which is sometimes wanted. The domain system is not secure: any package can modify it, you just have to convince users to install that package. But that modification at least does not happen by accident. Now, we might end up with a domain mess when people really start creating their own domains. I hope that that does not happen, but if it does, we should probably improve how HAM determines which domain dominates which other domains, and maybe even involve the user in this. This is my neutral view as a provider of some of the technology. Of course, the maemo.org Extras repository is The One, and I think it is really really bad when people move their packages out of it. As has been said, a good reaction of the maemo.org community would be to just take over maintainership of those packages, and essentially copy them back into maemo.org Extras whenever a new version appears out there. This should not be a lot of work if the package doesn't need significant improvement to pass the QA criteria, and if it does, it can just be left out if nobody wants to do that work. That would be a win for everybody: Benoit can publish his versions in his own repository/domain and doesn't have to bother with the maemo.org processes. Still, his packages end up in maemo.org Extras, and might even be improved in the process. ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Ask for removal of some packages from Extras Fremantle repository
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 7:55 AM, Andrew Flegg and...@bleb.org wrote: requirement IF and ONLY IF you choose to provide the sources through a written offer (instead of accompanying the binaries through neighbouring links, which is actually what maemo.org does). However, I think that link is the written offer; let's consider 3a again: ACCOMPANY it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, I've added the emphasis. The source code does *not* accompany every download from maemo.org (consider the HAM case as it perfectly demonstrates it). If the source code doesn't accompany every download, then 3a doesn't apply so one of 3b or 3c must. Accompanying source can get to be a tricky term and the GPL FAQhttp://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.htmldoes not quite interpret it the way you did (it goes as far as to say even different sites and distributions mechanisms can be acceptable). Considering HAM is just a front-end, I would say it does not really matter in this question (the system is still fundamentally apt based and youre perfectly capable to apt-get source). Here are a few related snippets from the FAQ: *I want to distribute binaries via physical media without accompanying sources. Can I provide source code by FTP?* Version 3 of the GPL allows this; see option 6(b) for the full details. Under version 2, you're certainly free to offer source via FTP, and most users will get it from there. However, if any of them would rather get the source on physical media by mail, you are required to provide that. If you distribute binaries via FTP, you should distribute source via FTP.#AnonFTPAndSendSources *Can I put the binaries on my Internet server and put the source on a different Internet site?* Yes. Section 6(d) allows this. However, you must provide clear instructions people can follow to obtain the source, and you must take care to make sure that the source remains available for as long as you distribute the object code. *Am I complying with GPLv3 if I offer binaries on an FTP server and sources by way of a link to a source code repository in a version control system, like CVS or Subversion?* This is acceptable as long as the source checkout process does not become burdensome or otherwise restrictive. Anybody who can download your object code should also be able to check out source from your version control system, using a publicly available free software client. Users should be provided with clear and convenient instructions for how to get the source for the exact object code they downloaded—they may not necessarily want the latest development code, after all. ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Ask for removal of some packages from Extras Fremantle repository
2010/3/23 Andrew Flegg and...@bleb.org: On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 00:20, Attila Csipa ma...@csipa.in.rs wrote: On Tuesday 23 March 2010 00:39:09 Darren Long wrote: However, in the general case where the source and the executable are not the same, I believe that maemo.org would be obliged to continue to make the source available, for at least 3 years. [...] If the source code doesn't accompany every download, then 3a doesn't apply so one of 3b or 3c must. If 3b applies, maemo.org has to continue to host the source. Why not pull the binaries and source packages from the *repositories* at the author's request and put them up in a archival directory that is not exposed via a Debian repository (and therefore not interfering with the HAM policy, etc..)? Think of snapshot.debian.net - keeping sources and binaries of packages that have since been removed from the official archives does not mean that one has to keep the sources and binaries in the repositories. What about a new subdirectory on the maemo.org server that contains source and binary packages for removed-from-Extras packages? Maybe http://repository.maemo.org/archive/ can be a good place for this. Either manage this manually (by moving stuff to archive when pulling packages from the repos) or use pdumpfs, as snapshot.debian.net does. This would make the GPL discussion irrelevant (because maemo.org can keep providing the source code, accessible via plain HTTP) and would make Khertan happy (because he can provide his packages from his own repository without HAM complaining) and everyone could get back to being productive :) Thomas ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Re: Ask for removal of some packages from Extras Fremantle repository
Hi, And why should you insist Because the GPL says we can. The GPL also says that i can take your GPL app, modify it, even break it, reduce its functionality etc etc and replace the original version with my broken one. Still you wouldn't want me to do this even though it's perfectly legal. Till ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Re: Ask for removal of some packages from Extras Fremantle repository
OK. Looks like you may have got me there. I guess this is why GPLv3 clarifies this aspect a bit. It hadn't dawned on me that maemo.org actually complied with 3a and that there was actually no written offer. And you are satisfied that your contributions to this dicussion finally made the developer in question to refuse to continue his work? The important part is that you were able to mouth your demands and emphasise your understanding of your legal rights? Congratulations, mission accomplished! Till ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Ask for removal of some packages from Extras Fremantle repository
On Mar 23, 2010, at 11:24 AM, Thomas Perl wrote: 2010/3/23 Andrew Flegg and...@bleb.org: On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 00:20, Attila Csipa ma...@csipa.in.rs wrote: On Tuesday 23 March 2010 00:39:09 Darren Long wrote: However, in the general case where the source and the executable are not the same, I believe that maemo.org would be obliged to continue to make the source available, for at least 3 years. [...] If the source code doesn't accompany every download, then 3a doesn't apply so one of 3b or 3c must. If 3b applies, maemo.org has to continue to host the source. Why not pull the binaries and source packages from the *repositories* at the author's request and put them up in a archival directory that is not exposed via a Debian repository (and therefore not interfering with the HAM policy, etc..)? This of course can be done. I also think it the most sensible solution since it takes the packages out of the repos but preserves them physically for any eventual legal issue. Niels - do we have a repository expressly for this type of package? And if you could tell me it's location on disk I can move forward with the developer's request if we have consensus. Jeremiah ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Ask for removal of some packages from Extras Fremantle repository
Am 22.03.2010 16:22, schrieb Graham Cobb: On Monday 22 March 2010 14:30:00 Matan Ziv-Av wrote: - You can't easily remove a package from extras-devel. (Or maybe at all? I asked for a package to be removed two weeks ago. It is still there). Contact the debmaster (Jeremiah) by direct email. It would be better if the maintainer could at least remove _old_ packages via http://maemo.org/packages/view/packagename directly. This would be the right place to add a Remove Button. -Klaus -- Klaus Rotter * klaus at rotters dot de * www.rotters.de ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Ask for removal of some packages from Extras Fremantle repository
Hi, Please, can you remove all version of the following packages from the extras fremantle, extras-testing fremantle, and extras-devel fremantle repository : - pygtkeditor - pypackager - py2deb - pylint - vectormine - mcalendar - mtodos - mnotes - python-logilab-astng - python-logilab-common - pychecker Thanks. -- Benoît HERVIER, Khertan Softwares -- http://khertan.net/ ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Ask for removal of some packages from Extras Fremantle repository
Hello And please remove qypy too. David. Benoît HERVIER wrote: Hi, Please, can you remove all version of the following packages from the extras fremantle, extras-testing fremantle, and extras-devel fremantle repository : - pygtkeditor - pypackager - py2deb - pylint - vectormine - mcalendar - mtodos - mnotes - python-logilab-astng - python-logilab-common - pychecker Thanks. ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Ask for removal of some packages from Extras Fremantle repository
Do these packages have other packages that depend on them? Why are you guys interested in removing so many packages? Jeremiah On Mar 22, 2010, at 11:16 AM, David Hautbois wrote: Hello And please remove qypy too. David. Benoît HERVIER wrote: Hi, Please, can you remove all version of the following packages from the extras fremantle, extras-testing fremantle, and extras-devel fremantle repository : - pygtkeditor - pypackager - py2deb - pylint - vectormine - mcalendar - mtodos - mnotes - python-logilab-astng - python-logilab-common - pychecker Thanks. ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Ask for removal of some packages from Extras Fremantle repository
I'm not allowed to use this name (based on qype name) The application will come back soon with another name and some improvements Jeremiah Foster wrote: Do these packages have other packages that depend on them? Why are you guys interested in removing so many packages? Jeremiah On Mar 22, 2010, at 11:16 AM, David Hautbois wrote: Hello And please remove qypy too. David. Benoît HERVIER wrote: Hi, Please, can you remove all version of the following packages from the extras fremantle, extras-testing fremantle, and extras-devel fremantle repository : - pygtkeditor - pypackager - py2deb - pylint - vectormine - mcalendar - mtodos - mnotes - python-logilab-astng - python-logilab-common - pychecker Thanks. ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Ask for removal of some packages from Extras Fremantle repository
Why are you guys interested in removing so many packages? Because it ll be not be maintained anymore, and new versions will be publish only on my own repository. But as HAM, ignore packet as my repository isn't in the ham trusted list, there is here a conflict. But here i didn't start a debate, just ask for packages to be removed. Thanks. Regards, -- Benoît HERVIER, Khertan Softwares - http://khertan.net/ 2010/3/22 David Hautbois david.hautb...@free.fr: I'm not allowed to use this name (based on qype name) The application will come back soon with another name and some improvements Jeremiah Foster wrote: Do these packages have other packages that depend on them? Why are you guys interested in removing so many packages? Jeremiah On Mar 22, 2010, at 11:16 AM, David Hautbois wrote: Hello And please remove qypy too. David. Benoît HERVIER wrote: Hi, Please, can you remove all version of the following packages from the extras fremantle, extras-testing fremantle, and extras-devel fremantle repository : - pygtkeditor - pypackager - py2deb - pylint - vectormine - mcalendar - mtodos - mnotes - python-logilab-astng - python-logilab-common - pychecker Thanks. ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Ask for removal of some packages from Extras Fremantle repository
Sorry forgot to answer to the main question : Do these packages have others packages that depend on them? None i know on maemo extras repository. Regards, Le 22 mars 2010 12:20, Benoît HERVIER kher...@khertan.net a écrit : Why are you guys interested in removing so many packages? Because it ll be not be maintained anymore, and new versions will be publish only on my own repository. But as HAM, ignore packet as my repository isn't in the ham trusted list, there is here a conflict. But here i didn't start a debate, just ask for packages to be removed. Thanks. Regards, -- Benoît HERVIER, Khertan Softwares - http://khertan.net/ 2010/3/22 David Hautbois david.hautb...@free.fr: I'm not allowed to use this name (based on qype name) The application will come back soon with another name and some improvements Jeremiah Foster wrote: Do these packages have other packages that depend on them? Why are you guys interested in removing so many packages? Jeremiah On Mar 22, 2010, at 11:16 AM, David Hautbois wrote: Hello And please remove qypy too. David. Benoît HERVIER wrote: Hi, Please, can you remove all version of the following packages from the extras fremantle, extras-testing fremantle, and extras-devel fremantle repository : - pygtkeditor - pypackager - py2deb - pylint - vectormine - mcalendar - mtodos - mnotes - python-logilab-astng - python-logilab-common - pychecker Thanks. ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers -- Benoît HERVIER - http://khertan.net/ ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Ask for removal of some packages from Extras Fremantle repository
On Mon, March 22, 2010 11:56, Robin Burchell wrote: On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Jeremiah Foster jerem...@jeremiahfoster.com wrote: Why are you guys interested in removing so many packages? Did you miss the thread asking for bugs wrt packaging to be fixed, which was met with crickets? Where was this? Same with the bugs themselves, it seems. [1] [2] While I wish there was another way to fix this, I don't think Khertan has mismanaged this in any way - he reported the bugs, he followed up on it, and has been met with silence on issues that annoy and frustrate the extras packaging process. [1]: https://bugs.maemo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9494 [2]: https://bugs.maemo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9608 To be fair these bugs are two weeks[1] and 4 days[2] old. You can't expect instant fixes to these things. Work is being done, sometimes takes a while because of the amount of work there is to do. Another fact is that this is a non-free app, we don't have many of those. This means that the codepaths in the interface and import scripts are being tested less than for free apps. -- Niels Breet maemo.org webmaster ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Ask for removal of some packages from Extras Fremantle repository
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Niels Breet ni...@maemo.org wrote: Did you miss the thread asking for bugs wrt packaging to be fixed, which was met with crickets? Where was this? Two references: http://lists.maemo.org/pipermail/maemo-developers/2010-March/025100.html http://lists.maemo.org/pipermail/maemo-developers/2010-March/025344.html There were other discussions on IRC, I believe. I can't dig those up as easily. [1]: https://bugs.maemo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9494 [2]: https://bugs.maemo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9608 To be fair these bugs are two weeks[1] and 4 days[2] old. You can't expect instant fixes to these things. Work is being done, sometimes takes a while because of the amount of work there is to do. I'm not pointing fingers or blame for things not getting resolved the moment the pin drops, I appreciate that these things take time. The central point to me, here, is that it seems like the communication involved here has been sub-par, as a result, the frustrations involved have boiled over and extras seems to have lost a contributor. This, to me, is senseless, as better communication about the status of this should have been able to help prevent it - yet none seems to have been forthcoming. ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Ask for removal of some packages from Extras Fremantle repository
On Monday 22 March 2010 11:56:43 Robin Burchell wrote: While I wish there was another way to fix this, I don't think Khertan has mismanaged this in any way - he reported the bugs, he followed up on it, and has been met with silence on issues that annoy and frustrate the extras packaging process. I think everyone has the right to distribute his stuff any way he wants (some obviously being better than others from a developer/community/user perspective), but I would urge everyone involved to avoid burning bridges, nobody ever benefits from that. Regards, Attila ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Ask for removal of some packages from Extras Fremantle repository
On Monday 22 March 2010 11:20:53 Benoît HERVIER wrote: Because it ll be not be maintained anymore, and new versions will be publish only on my own repository. But as HAM, ignore packet as my repository isn't in the ham trusted list, there is here a conflict. You are well aware of my views so I won't repeat them here. But I still don't understand what you achieve by not using extras-devel? I understand the frustration with the Extras process but what do you achieve by having your own repository except limit your distribution even further by making it even less likely anyone can find your apps? Why not put them in extras-devel and not bother to promote them if you don't like the promotion process? I just don't see how using your own repository is actually any **better** than just using extras-devel? Graham ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Ask for removal of some packages from Extras Fremantle repository
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, Graham Cobb wrote: On Monday 22 March 2010 11:20:53 Benoît HERVIER wrote: Because it ll be not be maintained anymore, and new versions will be publish only on my own repository. But as HAM, ignore packet as my repository isn't in the ham trusted list, there is here a conflict. You are well aware of my views so I won't repeat them here. But I still don't understand what you achieve by not using extras-devel? I understand the frustration with the Extras process but what do you achieve by having your own repository except limit your distribution even further by making it even less likely anyone can find your apps? Why not put them in extras-devel and not bother to promote them if you don't like the promotion process? I just don't see how using your own repository is actually any **better** than just using extras-devel? There are a few problems with extras-devel: - There are way too many warnings all over the place (mailing list, wiki, talk), so some users might be be reluctant to use this repository. - Some of the warnings are true, so asking people to use this repositort might expose them to unwanted updates. - autobuilder is too limited - currently you can't compile packages that depend on versions in PR1.1. - You can't easily remove a package from extras-devel. (Or maybe at all? I asked for a package to be removed two weeks ago. It is still there). - Using extras-devel might lock packages, preventing users that install packages from this repository to later update them from another repository. That said, I prefer to have my packages available both in my repository and in extras-devel, when it is possible. -- Matan.___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Ask for removal of some packages from Extras Fremantle repository
On Monday 22 March 2010 14:30:00 Matan Ziv-Av wrote: On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, Graham Cobb wrote: I just don't see how using your own repository is actually any **better** than just using extras-devel? There are a few problems with extras-devel: - There are way too many warnings all over the place (mailing list, wiki, talk), so some users might be be reluctant to use this repository. This will be true even more so for private repositories. If/when they become at all common, there will be warnings all over the place about not downloading things from private repositories. The biggest problem with private repositories is that there are no guarantees that the binary being installed bears any relationship to the sources offered (if any), or how securely the maintainer manages the repository, so people will start to worry about security/viruses/trojans. Plus a concern that if this was legitimate, why wouldn't the developer use the community channels?. Please note that I am certainly **not** suggesting that you, or Benoit, are at all unreliable or incapable of managing a secure repository, but that people will worry about the risks at least as much as they do about extras-devel. - Some of the warnings are true, so asking people to use this repositort might expose them to unwanted updates. Yes. But using a private repository might expose them to updates where no one can even work out what happened when it breaks. - autobuilder is too limited - currently you can't compile packages that depend on versions in PR1.1. That is a short term problem which only affects a tiny number of packages. It is not a reason for removing something from extras-devel. If a similar problem occurs in the future and affects many packages, a solution will be implemented, just as it is being for PR1.2. - You can't easily remove a package from extras-devel. (Or maybe at all? I asked for a package to be removed two weeks ago. It is still there). Contact the debmaster (Jeremiah) by direct email. - Using extras-devel might lock packages, preventing users that install packages from this repository to later update them from another repository. That is true. Although the user just has to remove the package and re-install it, instead. That said, I prefer to have my packages available both in my repository and in extras-devel, when it is possible. I also have private repositories, for my own testing and for other members of upstream projects (such as GPE) to do testing before I even push something into extras-devel. But that is not the same as publishing that location for end-users. Graham ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Ask for removal of some packages from Extras Fremantle repository
Presumably the source must continue to be available from the extras repositories, even after the package binaries have been removed, assuming its under the GPL, which e.g. Pygtkeditor is. I'd suggest not removing the binary packages from extras, on the grounds that they don't have to be removed, and that maemo.org is free to distribute them if we/they so wish. Furthermore, there is no reason why someone from maemo.org shouldn't push source packages from other repositories into extras* to keep them up to date and readily available in the maemo context. This is true for any upstream free package in general, and equally true for any desirable package that just so happens to have been pulled from extras on a whim. No disrespect to Benoit intended. Darren On 22 Mar 2010, at 15:22, Graham Cobb wrote: On Monday 22 March 2010 14:30:00 Matan Ziv-Av wrote: On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, Graham Cobb wrote: I just don't see how using your own repository is actually any **better** than just using extras-devel? There are a few problems with extras-devel: - There are way too many warnings all over the place (mailing list, wiki, talk), so some users might be be reluctant to use this repository. This will be true even more so for private repositories. If/when they become at all common, there will be warnings all over the place about not downloading things from private repositories. The biggest problem with private repositories is that there are no guarantees that the binary being installed bears any relationship to the sources offered (if any), or how securely the maintainer manages the repository, so people will start to worry about security/viruses/trojans. Plus a concern that if this was legitimate, why wouldn't the developer use the community channels?. Please note that I am certainly **not** suggesting that you, or Benoit, are at all unreliable or incapable of managing a secure repository, but that people will worry about the risks at least as much as they do about extras-devel. - Some of the warnings are true, so asking people to use this repositort might expose them to unwanted updates. Yes. But using a private repository might expose them to updates where no one can even work out what happened when it breaks. - autobuilder is too limited - currently you can't compile packages that depend on versions in PR1.1. That is a short term problem which only affects a tiny number of packages. It is not a reason for removing something from extras-devel. If a similar problem occurs in the future and affects many packages, a solution will be implemented, just as it is being for PR1.2. - You can't easily remove a package from extras-devel. (Or maybe at all? I asked for a package to be removed two weeks ago. It is still there). Contact the debmaster (Jeremiah) by direct email. - Using extras-devel might lock packages, preventing users that install packages from this repository to later update them from another repository. That is true. Although the user just has to remove the package and re-install it, instead. That said, I prefer to have my packages available both in my repository and in extras-devel, when it is possible. I also have private repositories, for my own testing and for other members of upstream projects (such as GPE) to do testing before I even push something into extras-devel. But that is not the same as publishing that location for end-users. Graham ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Ask for removal of some packages from Extras Fremantle repository
Hi, why should you have to continue to provide the sources once you removed the binaries? And why should you insist on uploading old versions to maemo respositories which a) just ignores the authors wishes and worse b) interferes with his work on establishing his own repository. Let him his freedom. Let him start his own repository and just see if he fails and ends up on those warning, this repository is dangerous lists or if he perhaps succeeds and ends as the famous community driven repository that is more reliable and causes less anger and has cooler apps than the maemo repositories? Who knows? Why not just letting him do this? Don't take all this so serious! Heck, it's only a cell phone we are talking about. It's not the end of the world if someone actually has fun messing with its possibilities. Till Am Montag 22 März 2010 schrieb Darren Long: Presumably the source must continue to be available from the extras repositories, even after the package binaries have been removed, assuming its under the GPL, which e.g. Pygtkeditor is. I'd suggest not removing the binary packages from extras, on the grounds that they don't have to be removed, and that maemo.org is free to distribute them if we/they so wish. Furthermore, there is no reason why someone from maemo.org shouldn't push source packages from other repositories into extras* to keep them up to date and readily available in the maemo context. This is true for any upstream free package in general, and equally true for any desirable package that just so happens to have been pulled from extras on a whim. No disrespect to Benoit intended. Darren On 22 Mar 2010, at 15:22, Graham Cobb wrote: On Monday 22 March 2010 14:30:00 Matan Ziv-Av wrote: On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, Graham Cobb wrote: I just don't see how using your own repository is actually any **better** than just using extras-devel? There are a few problems with extras-devel: - There are way too many warnings all over the place (mailing list, wiki, talk), so some users might be be reluctant to use this repository. This will be true even more so for private repositories. If/when they become at all common, there will be warnings all over the place about not downloading things from private repositories. The biggest problem with private repositories is that there are no guarantees that the binary being installed bears any relationship to the sources offered (if any), or how securely the maintainer manages the repository, so people will start to worry about security/viruses/trojans. Plus a concern that if this was legitimate, why wouldn't the developer use the community channels?. Please note that I am certainly **not** suggesting that you, or Benoit, are at all unreliable or incapable of managing a secure repository, but that people will worry about the risks at least as much as they do about extras-devel. - Some of the warnings are true, so asking people to use this repositort might expose them to unwanted updates. Yes. But using a private repository might expose them to updates where no one can even work out what happened when it breaks. - autobuilder is too limited - currently you can't compile packages that depend on versions in PR1.1. That is a short term problem which only affects a tiny number of packages. It is not a reason for removing something from extras-devel. If a similar problem occurs in the future and affects many packages, a solution will be implemented, just as it is being for PR1.2. - You can't easily remove a package from extras-devel. (Or maybe at all? I asked for a package to be removed two weeks ago. It is still there). Contact the debmaster (Jeremiah) by direct email. - Using extras-devel might lock packages, preventing users that install packages from this repository to later update them from another repository. That is true. Although the user just has to remove the package and re-install it, instead. That said, I prefer to have my packages available both in my repository and in extras-devel, when it is possible. I also have private repositories, for my own testing and for other members of upstream projects (such as GPE) to do testing before I even push something into extras-devel. But that is not the same as publishing that location for end-users. Graham ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org
Re: Ask for removal of some packages from Extras Fremantle repository
Hi, See below ... On 22 Mar 2010, at 19:55, Till Harbaum / Lists wrote: Hi, why should you have to continue to provide the sources once you removed the binaries? Doesn't the GPL say so? I believe that if the source isn't provided with the binaries, then it has to be available for 3 years, from those who distributed the binaries, which in this case is maemo.org. My example of pygtkeditor isn't such a great one. As it is written in python, the source ships to all recipients anyway, so perhaps I should have stayed in my hole and kept quiet :) And why should you insist Because the GPL says we can. on uploading old versions to maemo respositories I'm just not inclined to support the removal of open source packages from the maemo.org repos, when we/they don't have to. We/they could just push new builds through extras as and when new packages appear on any other repo, as with any other free package, so there's no reason why they would be (too) old. which a) just ignores the authors wishes and worse b) interferes with his work on establishing his own repository. If those wishes aren't aligned with the GPL, then I'm not sure I'm all that bothered (again I'm not being specific to this case - no offence Benoit, but in general) by them. Issues with a repository clash are a problem, though. Its not as if anyone can just switch distros from maemo so there are obviously ramifications if the wishes don't come true. Maybe there is a more appropriate solution that could be reached than the one being advocated. Let him his freedom. Let him start his own repository and just see if he fails and ends up on those warning, this repository is dangerous lists or if he perhaps succeeds and ends as the famous community driven repository that is more reliable and causes less anger and has cooler apps than the maemo repositories? Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? I seem to remember that Spock and Kirk had different views and my ears are a little bit pointy :) Who knows? Why not just letting him do this? Don't take all this so serious! Heck, it's only a cell phone we are talking about. It's not the end of the world if someone actually has fun messing with its possibilities. Its not this specific case I have issues with, its the principle, in general, of withdrawing GPL code from the maemo.org repos. No-one has the right to require its removal. Darren Till Am Montag 22 März 2010 schrieb Darren Long: Presumably the source must continue to be available from the extras repositories, even after the package binaries have been removed, assuming its under the GPL, which e.g. Pygtkeditor is. I'd suggest not removing the binary packages from extras, on the grounds that they don't have to be removed, and that maemo.org is free to distribute them if we/they so wish. Furthermore, there is no reason why someone from maemo.org shouldn't push source packages from other repositories into extras* to keep them up to date and readily available in the maemo context. This is true for any upstream free package in general, and equally true for any desirable package that just so happens to have been pulled from extras on a whim. No disrespect to Benoit intended. Darren ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Ask for removal of some packages from Extras Fremantle repository
GPL issues below On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Darren Long darren.l...@mac.com wrote: Hi, See below ... On 22 Mar 2010, at 19:55, Till Harbaum / Lists wrote: Hi, why should you have to continue to provide the sources once you removed the binaries? Doesn't the GPL say so? I believe that if the source isn't provided with the binaries, then it has to be available for 3 years, from those who distributed the binaries, which in this case is maemo.org. My example of pygtkeditor isn't such a great one. As it is written in python, the source ships to all recipients anyway, so perhaps I should have stayed in my hole and kept quiet :) And why should you insist Because the GPL says we can. The GPL says he has to make the source code available. It doesn't say that is has to be in a particular place. So I don't think you can tell him where that place is. on uploading old versions to maemo respositories I'm just not inclined to support the removal of open source packages from the maemo.org repos, when we/they don't have to. We/they could just push new builds through extras as and when new packages appear on any other repo, as with any other free package, so there's no reason why they would be (too) old. which a) just ignores the authors wishes and worse b) interferes with his work on establishing his own repository. If those wishes aren't aligned with the GPL, then I'm not sure I'm all that bothered (again I'm not being specific to this case - no offence Benoit, but in general) by them. Issues with a repository clash are a problem, though. Its not as if anyone can just switch distros from maemo so there are obviously ramifications if the wishes don't come true. Maybe there is a more appropriate solution that could be reached than the one being advocated. Let him his freedom. Let him start his own repository and just see if he fails and ends up on those warning, this repository is dangerous lists or if he perhaps succeeds and ends as the famous community driven repository that is more reliable and causes less anger and has cooler apps than the maemo repositories? Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? I seem to remember that Spock and Kirk had different views and my ears are a little bit pointy :) Who knows? Why not just letting him do this? Don't take all this so serious! Heck, it's only a cell phone we are talking about. It's not the end of the world if someone actually has fun messing with its possibilities. Its not this specific case I have issues with, its the principle, in general, of withdrawing GPL code from the maemo.org repos. No-one has the right to require its removal. Darren Till Am Montag 22 März 2010 schrieb Darren Long: Presumably the source must continue to be available from the extras repositories, even after the package binaries have been removed, assuming its under the GPL, which e.g. Pygtkeditor is. I'd suggest not removing the binary packages from extras, on the grounds that they don't have to be removed, and that maemo.org is free to distribute them if we/they so wish. Furthermore, there is no reason why someone from maemo.org shouldn't push source packages from other repositories into extras* to keep them up to date and readily available in the maemo context. This is true for any upstream free package in general, and equally true for any desirable package that just so happens to have been pulled from extras on a whim. No disrespect to Benoit intended. Darren ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Ask for removal of some packages from Extras Fremantle repository
I made apps for Maemo as a hobby ... today you are pissing me of ... You didn't want alternate repository in your little world ... great ... do not count me in your little world anymore !!! Bye ! -- Benoît HERVIER, Khertan Softwares - http://khertan.net/ ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Ask for removal of some packages from Extras Fremantle repository
On Monday 22 March 2010 20:41:33 Darren Long wrote: Doesn't the GPL say so? I believe that if the source isn't provided with the binaries, then it has to be available for 3 years, from those who distributed the binaries, which in this case is maemo.org. Of course, if Benoit personally owns the copyright to some of those then he can do what he likes with them -- he is not bound by his own licence and does not have to continue to make source available if he does not wish to! Its not this specific case I have issues with, its the principle, in general, of withdrawing GPL code from the maemo.org repos. No-one has the right to require its removal. The maintainer who submitted it can require its removal. We really do not want code in the Maemo repositories where the maintainer has explicitly withdrawn it. Of course, if it has been made available under the GPL, and you have a copy of the source, then you are welcome to volunteer as the new maintainer and re-submit it. On the other hand, if the upstream developer does not wish that then you should at least consider their views. You are within your rights to fork it but should consider whether that is best, particularly if there is a risk the developer will choose not to release further updates if their wishes are disregarded. Graham ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Ask for removal of some packages from Extras Fremantle repository
On 22 Mar 2010, at 23:15, Graham Cobb wrote: On Monday 22 March 2010 20:41:33 Darren Long wrote: Doesn't the GPL say so? I believe that if the source isn't provided with the binaries, then it has to be available for 3 years, from those who distributed the binaries, which in this case is maemo.org. Of course, if Benoit personally owns the copyright to some of those then he can do what he likes with them -- he is not bound by his own licence and does not have to continue to make source available if he does not wish to! I think you misunderstand me. This particular issue is exceptional, as a python app comes as source so the GPL is, as i understand it, inherently satisfied. However, in the general case where the source and the executable are not the same, I believe that maemo.org would be obliged to continue to make the source available, for at least 3 years. I'm not complaining about Benoit or his wishes, I'm pre-emptively complaining about maemo.org, which I presume will remove the packages, as requested. I don't think that action would be in the spirit of the GPL, the aim of which is to confer rights on the users of software, not the authors. If my interpretation of this is correct, then maemo.org should have a procedure for handling scenarios such as this one, so that we/they don't misguidedly violate the GPL, and perhaps also a policy which considers the rights of users and other rights holders fairly. Its not this specific case I have issues with, its the principle, in general, of withdrawing GPL code from the maemo.org repos. No-one has the right to require its removal. The maintainer who submitted it can require its removal. We really do not want code in the Maemo repositories where the maintainer has explicitly withdrawn it. AFAICT, you may have no choice, for similar scenarios. How else will maemo.org provide access to the source, once it is removed from the repos? Of course, if it has been made available under the GPL, and you have a copy of the source, then you are welcome to volunteer as the new maintainer and re-submit it. Obviously. On the other hand, if the upstream developer does not wish that then you should at least consider their views. You are within your rights to fork it but should consider whether that is best, particularly if there is a risk the developer will choose not to release further updates if their wishes are disregarded. This is not my point. My point is about maemo.org's obligation to provide source. My point is not specific to this case, which serves merely as a bad example (due to the python factor). Cheers, Darren ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Ask for removal of some packages from Extras Fremantle repository
why don't we ask a different question. why doesn't HAM allow somebody to use a later provided version from Beniots own repository? there would be nothing wrong with leaving everything existing and Beniot can get what he wants by still offering users the opportunity to add his own repository and gain later updates and we retain the polished solid versions available for regular users. i believe that would satisfy both Beniot and everyone else without upheaval as then he can feed back as he is comfortable and continue to be an upstanding member of the maemo community? gary On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Darren Long darren.l...@mac.com wrote: On 22 Mar 2010, at 23:15, Graham Cobb wrote: On Monday 22 March 2010 20:41:33 Darren Long wrote: Doesn't the GPL say so? I believe that if the source isn't provided with the binaries, then it has to be available for 3 years, from those who distributed the binaries, which in this case is maemo.org. Of course, if Benoit personally owns the copyright to some of those then he can do what he likes with them -- he is not bound by his own licence and does not have to continue to make source available if he does not wish to! I think you misunderstand me. This particular issue is exceptional, as a python app comes as source so the GPL is, as i understand it, inherently satisfied. However, in the general case where the source and the executable are not the same, I believe that maemo.org would be obliged to continue to make the source available, for at least 3 years. I'm not complaining about Benoit or his wishes, I'm pre-emptively complaining about maemo.org, which I presume will remove the packages, as requested. I don't think that action would be in the spirit of the GPL, the aim of which is to confer rights on the users of software, not the authors. If my interpretation of this is correct, then maemo.org should have a procedure for handling scenarios such as this one, so that we/they don't misguidedly violate the GPL, and perhaps also a policy which considers the rights of users and other rights holders fairly. Its not this specific case I have issues with, its the principle, in general, of withdrawing GPL code from the maemo.org repos. No-one has the right to require its removal. The maintainer who submitted it can require its removal. We really do not want code in the Maemo repositories where the maintainer has explicitly withdrawn it. AFAICT, you may have no choice, for similar scenarios. How else will maemo.org provide access to the source, once it is removed from the repos? Of course, if it has been made available under the GPL, and you have a copy of the source, then you are welcome to volunteer as the new maintainer and re-submit it. Obviously. On the other hand, if the upstream developer does not wish that then you should at least consider their views. You are within your rights to fork it but should consider whether that is best, particularly if there is a risk the developer will choose not to release further updates if their wishes are disregarded. This is not my point. My point is about maemo.org's obligation to provide source. My point is not specific to this case, which serves merely as a bad example (due to the python factor). Cheers, Darren ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Ask for removal of some packages from Extras Fremantle repository
On Tuesday 23 March 2010 00:39:09 Darren Long wrote: However, in the general case where the source and the executable are not the same, I believe that maemo.org would be obliged to continue to make the source available, for at least 3 years. Now, I might just be grossly misinformed or misinterpreting the legalese, but to me it sounds like the GPL (at least v2) brings into play the 3 year requirement IF and ONLY IF you choose to provide the sources through a written offer (instead of accompanying the binaries through neighbouring links, which is actually what maemo.org does). --- 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.) - ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Ask for removal of some packages from Extras Fremantle repository
On Tuesday 23 March 2010 01:00:19 Gary Birkett wrote: why doesn't HAM allow somebody to use a later provided version from Beniots own repository? there would be nothing wrong with leaving everything existing and Beniot can get what he wants by still offering users the opportunity to add his own repository and gain later updates and we retain the polished solid versions available for regular users. There was some mention of this previously. Basically, the issue is authenticity (package hijacking avoidance, whether intentional or not), and/or generic cross-repository FUBAR avoidance. Imagine what would happen during the Qt4.5 to Qt4.6 transition if we had external repositories containing apps referencing Qt. Regards, Attila ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Ask for removal of some packages from Extras Fremantle repository
OK. Looks like you may have got me there. I guess this is why GPLv3 clarifies this aspect a bit. It hadn't dawned on me that maemo.org actually complied with 3a and that there was actually no written offer. Darren On 23 Mar 2010, at 00:20, Attila Csipa wrote: On Tuesday 23 March 2010 00:39:09 Darren Long wrote: However, in the general case where the source and the executable are not the same, I believe that maemo.org would be obliged to continue to make the source available, for at least 3 years. Now, I might just be grossly misinformed or misinterpreting the legalese, but to me it sounds like the GPL (at least v2) brings into play the 3 year requirement IF and ONLY IF you choose to provide the sources through a written offer (instead of accompanying the binaries through neighbouring links, which is actually whatmaemo.org does). --- 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.) - ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
