Re: Updating the info for Extras-devel non-free
Hi, ext Stephan Jaensch wrote: First of all, my viewpoint as a user: I want as many apps as possible. Choice is always good. I own an iPod Touch, and I can say with confidence that my criteria for selecting an app is always functionality, quality (hard to gauge since there is no try before you buy, so I'm judging by user ratings for that) and price. As a user, I don't care about source code availability. Without source code availability others cannot help in fixing the bugs in the application or start maintaining the package when the original package maintainer goes away (as they always eventually will). I.e. source code is some level of guarantee about the functionality and quality being there for the long term, even if the author gets other priorities. If the software is such that you need to invest time to learning it, then also long term matters. If it's e.g. a game that you'll play through once, then it's not so important. Source code availability matters then more for the possibility of being able to verify things that cannot be (easily) verified from the binary alone (e.g. security, actual changes between versions etc). - Eero ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Updating the info for Extras-devel non-free
On Nov 27, 2009, at 11:15, Quim Gil wrote: Hi, ext Jeremiah Foster wrote: I am hesitant here, some of the testing process may require source packages, either now or in the future. I am not certain that non-free packages deserve to get all the free quality assurance that the community provides. I think they should be grateful that they are included at all and if they want to go through testing, they need to at least provide a source package. I think this had been discussed before. At least I remember a reply from Henrik (Mauku developer) explaining in quite plain English why even if source code availability is the ultimate resource for good testing, in practice most apps go through the QA without anybody checking that source, and even many tools analyzing power consumption and performance will check the binaries and not the source packages. Yes that's true for the testing process. Maemian, a part of the QA process but not part of the testing / promotion process, works only on debs so it requires source code. So the questions is in fact non-technical: - Do you want non-free apps showing up in http://maemo.org/packages/repository/qa/fremantle_extras-testing/ ? My personal answer is no. - Do you want non-free apps showing up in http://maemo.org/downloads/Maemo5/ ? There I don't care so much. My personal opinion is that maemo.org has been always strong in open source but not exclusive, just like Maemo itself. In practice many users and developers got their first contact with free software thanks to this hybrid approach, and now some of them are in the first row of OSS evangelists. I agree with you, if the community wants non-free apps in the repos then that is good enough for me. Jeremiah ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Updating the info for Extras-devel non-free
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 12:15:57PM +0200, Quim Gil wrote: Hi, ext Jeremiah Foster wrote: I am hesitant here, some of the testing process may require source packages, either now or in the future. I am not certain that non-free packages deserve to get all the free quality assurance that the community provides. I think they should be grateful that they are included at all and if they want to go through testing, they need to at least provide a source package. So the questions is in fact non-technical: - Do you want non-free apps showing up in http://maemo.org/packages/repository/qa/fremantle_extras-testing/ ? Absolutely. If non-free apps can go to Extras by bypassing testing, that defeats the whole purpose of the QA process. The average end-user doesn't know or care about the difference between free and non-free, but if something he installed from maemo.org Extras did something bad or didn't work, that's extremely bad for maemo.org and extras as a whole. The other route you can take is to not accept non-free apps into extras at all. - Do you want non-free apps showing up in http://maemo.org/downloads/Maemo5/ ? Why not, if they have gone through the same quality gate as free apps. Testers with a strong opinion about open source might not be interested at all on this, but other users might be indeed interested in becoming betatesters of a non-free app in exchange of checking the lastest versions some days/weeks before regular users get them in Ovi or elsewhere. I perfectly understand this view but I hope this is also looked from the end user's p-o-v. Cheers, Jari ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Updating the info for Extras-devel non-free
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 17:19, Jari Tenhunen jari.tenhu...@iki.fi wrote: On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 12:15:57PM +0200, Quim Gil wrote: - Do you want non-free apps showing up in http://maemo.org/packages/repository/qa/fremantle_extras-testing/ ? Absolutely. If non-free apps can go to Extras by bypassing testing, that defeats the whole purpose of the QA process. The average end-user doesn't know or care about the difference between free and non-free, but if something he installed from maemo.org Extras did something bad or didn't work, that's extremely bad for maemo.org and extras as a whole. The other route you can take is to not accept non-free apps into extras at all. There is another route (which I don't support): non-free packages go into a separate QA queue. I think this'd be just more work than highlighting the section in the packages page. My point is that it's not so black white. No one is suggesting that non-free apps can bypass QA and, indeed, they can't at the moment. That was a misunderstanding caused by the Uploading_to_Extras wiki page. - Do you want non-free apps showing up in http://maemo.org/downloads/Maemo5/ ? Why not, if they have gone through the same quality gate as free apps. The problem Jeremiah's highlighting is that most of the QA is currently done manually; however there is a plan to do more QA by inspecting the source on its way into Extras-testing. When those checks are implemented, I'd suggest we increase the QA for non-free apps in another way (more thumbs up, perhaps or longer delay), if there is a material difference in the amount of automated QA we can do. 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: Updating the info for Extras-devel non-free
Hi, Quim Gil wrote: Hi, the information to upload binary-only packages to extras-devel is out of date: http://wiki.maemo.org/Uploading_to_Extras-devel#.22non-free.22_packages Yet there are several non-free packages in extras-devel extras-testing / Extras. Can someone please update the wiki information reflecting the current practice for Maemo 5? We are seeing more questions about this and actually the current information is misleading since it suggests that non-free packages can bypass the Extras-testing QA process, which is not true. Just to clarify current practice, then: Publishing non-free packages is done by dput (still correct, right?) But they're published to extras-testing, not extras-devel? Is the dput.cf file in the wiki still OK? If not, what modifications are needed? I have made some superficial changes to the text reflecting my best-guess as to what should be done, but I'd need someone who knows packaging well (maybe Jeremiah) to look and check that the change to the .cf file is correct (s/devel/testing/g) and verify if the diablo-extras-non-free section should still be there. 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: Updating the info for Extras-devel non-free
-Original Message- From: maemo-developers-boun...@maemo.org [mailto:maemo-developers- boun...@maemo.org] On Behalf Of Gil Quim (Nokia-D/Helsinki) Sent: 25 November, 2009 11:48 To: maemo developers Cc: marc...@maemo.org Subject: Updating the info for Extras-devel non-free Hi, the information to upload binary-only packages to extras-devel is out of date: http://wiki.maemo.org/Uploading_to_Extras-devel#.22non-free.22_packages The page states that the process applies is for Diablo. As far as I know, for Fremantle you follow the normal rules. Upload to extras-devel and promote. But Niels is the authority on that. Tero Yet there are several non-free packages in extras-devel extras- testing / Extras. Can someone please update the wiki information reflecting the current practice for Maemo 5? We are seeing more questions about this and actually the current information is misleading since it suggests that non-free packages can bypass the Extras-testing QA process, which is not true. Thank you! -- Quim Gil open source advocate Maemo Devices @ Nokia ___ 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: Updating the info for Extras-devel non-free
On Nov 25, 2009, at 11:49, tero.k...@nokia.com tero.k...@nokia.com wrote: -Original Message- From: maemo-developers-boun...@maemo.org [mailto:maemo-developers- boun...@maemo.org] On Behalf Of Gil Quim (Nokia-D/Helsinki) Sent: 25 November, 2009 11:48 To: maemo developers Cc: marc...@maemo.org Subject: Updating the info for Extras-devel non-free Hi, the information to upload binary-only packages to extras-devel is out of date: http://wiki.maemo.org/Uploading_to_Extras-devel#.22non-free.22_packages As far as I know, for Fremantle you follow the normal rules. Upload to extras-devel and promote. But Niels is the authority on that. We have had an ad-hoc solution which basically is that Niels takes care of non-free. Yet there are several non-free packages in extras-devel extras- testing / Extras. Can someone please update the wiki information reflecting the current practice for Maemo 5? This may require long discussions on what is non-free and why it should be there. Perhaps the current ad-hoc situation is preferable. We are seeing more questions about this and actually the current information is misleading since it suggests that non-free packages can bypass the Extras-testing QA process, which is not true. I am hesitant here, some of the testing process may require source packages, either now or in the future. I am not certain that non-free packages deserve to get all the free quality assurance that the community provides. I think they should be grateful that they are included at all and if they want to go through testing, they need to at least provide a source package. Jeremiah ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Updating the info for Extras-devel non-free
We have had an ad-hoc solution which basically is that Niels takes care of non-free. Yet there are several non-free packages in extras-devel extras- testing / Extras. Can someone please update the wiki information reflecting the current practice for Maemo 5? I will try and make it clear: there is no actual information or policy on the procedure of non-free packages and testing. Certainly not as communicated to me. Generally what happens is people are told to get in touch with Niels and he uploads the binaries to non-free. Here is the relevant line that I believe X-fade added regarding this: There is no promotion available for non-free. You need to upload yourpackage to the right repository yourself. When he states 'promotion' he is referring to extras-testing. This may require long discussions on what is non-free and why it should be there. Perhaps the current ad-hoc situation is preferable. We are seeing more questions about this and actually the current information is misleading since it suggests that non-free packages can bypass the Extras-testing QA process, which is not true. I am hesitant here, some of the testing process may require source packages, either now or in the future. I am not certain that non-free packages deserve to get all the free quality assurance that the community provides. I think they should be grateful that they are included at all and if they want to go through testing, they need to at least provide a source package. It is preferable that we make sure the wiki reflects reality rather than just changing things on the fly. This page; http://wiki.maemo.org/Uploading_to_Extras-devel#.22non-free.22_packages stated that non-free packages go through the same testing procedure as free packages. This is not the case. Let's wait until Niels comes back so that he can explain exactly what his code does, then we can decide if we want to change the policy. Jeremiah ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Updating the info for Extras-devel non-free
Hi, I know I'm not the only one confused here... Quim says: We are seeing more questions about this and actually the current information is misleading since it suggests that non-free packages can bypass the Extras-testing QA process, which is not true. And Jeremiah says: Here is the relevant line that I believe X-fade added regarding this: There is no promotion available for non-free. You need to upload yourpackage to the right repository yourself. When he states 'promotion' he is referring to extras-testing. This directly contradicts what Quim said - either non-free packages bypass the extras-testing QA process, or they don't. Which is it? It is preferable that we make sure the wiki reflects reality rather than just changing things on the fly. This page; http://wiki.maemo.org/Uploading_to_Extras-devel#.22non-free.22_packages stated that non-free packages go through the same testing procedure as free packages. This is not the case. I put this in place today, following Quim's mail. Previously it said It's your responsibility to upload to the right place or something like that. Let's wait until Niels comes back so that he can explain exactly what his code does, then we can decide if we want to change the policy. Perhaps part of Niels' tasks when he comes back should be to ensure that we don't need him to come back to explain what policy is? It seems like an awful lot of things depend on him being around. 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: Updating the info for Extras-devel non-free
Hi, On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Dave Neary dne...@maemo.org wrote: Hi, I know I'm not the only one confused here... Quim says: We are seeing more questions about this and actually the current information is misleading since it suggests that non-free packages can bypass the Extras-testing QA process, which is not true. And Jeremiah says: Here is the relevant line that I believe X-fade added regarding this: There is no promotion available for non-free. You need to upload yourpackage to the right repository yourself. When he states 'promotion' he is referring to extras-testing. This directly contradicts what Quim said - either non-free packages bypass the extras-testing QA process, or they don't. Which is it? It is preferable that we make sure the wiki reflects reality rather than just changing things on the fly. This page; http://wiki.maemo.org/Uploading_to_Extras-devel#.22non-free.22_packages stated that non-free packages go through the same testing procedure as free packages. This is not the case. I put this in place today, following Quim's mail. Previously it said It's your responsibility to upload to the right place or something like that. Let's wait until Niels comes back so that he can explain exactly what his code does, then we can decide if we want to change the policy. Perhaps part of Niels' tasks when he comes back should be to ensure that we don't need him to come back to explain what policy is? It seems like an awful lot of things depend on him being around. Totally agree. Here's a example of a non-free package: http://maemo.org/packages/package_instance/view/fremantle_extras-devel_non-free_armel/fring/1.2.1.64-1 It seems to have a similar page structure to the other free apps on package interface, don't know if there's a promotion button there(I'm not the maintainer), but if no is because Neils disable it. On a related topic is STILL possible to create a page at maemo.org and insert a .install file pointing to a external repository, bypassing all the QA Criteria (someone already did that :( ). Best regards, -- Valério Valério http://www.valeriovalerio.org 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 ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Updating the info for Extras-devel non-free
On Nov 25, 2009, at 15:11, Valerio Valerio wrote: Hi, On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Dave Neary dne...@maemo.org wrote: Hi, I know I'm not the only one confused here... Quim says: We are seeing more questions about this and actually the current information is misleading since it suggests that non-free packages can bypass the Extras-testing QA process, which is not true. And Jeremiah says: Here is the relevant line that I believe X-fade added regarding this: There is no promotion available for non-free. You need to upload yourpackage to the right repository yourself. When he states 'promotion' he is referring to extras-testing. This directly contradicts what Quim said - either non-free packages bypass the extras-testing QA process, or they don't. Which is it? It is what the code allows it to be. In other words, if Niels says it does not go through promotion, and he wrote the code, then I think it doesn't go through promotion. It is preferable that we make sure the wiki reflects reality rather than just changing things on the fly. This page; http://wiki.maemo.org/Uploading_to_Extras-devel#.22non-free.22_packages stated that non-free packages go through the same testing procedure as free packages. This is not the case. I put this in place today, following Quim's mail. Previously it said It's your responsibility to upload to the right place or something like that. Let's wait until Niels comes back so that he can explain exactly what his code does, then we can decide if we want to change the policy. Perhaps part of Niels' tasks when he comes back should be to ensure that we don't need him to come back to explain what policy is? It seems like an awful lot of things depend on him being around. Totally agree. We all should be easily replaced. The code we write, what we do, how we administer the servers, should all be documented. This fortunately is pretty much the case with what you do Dave, but I think the rest of us, myself included, have been less effective at documentation. I wrote an email about this to the internal team list, but it got little response. I think the maemo council should really take this up, if the council wants an overview of what the staff they have hired are working on, they should make sure documentation is available. Only then can they know if they need more staff, different staff, or what the staff actually does. It would also help me explaining what I do to the council. I will start working on a Log Book where I describe the code I write to do BAU and what pieces of garage I am personally responsible for. Here's a example of a non-free package: http://maemo.org/packages/package_instance/view/fremantle_extras-devel_non-free_armel/fring/1.2.1.64-1 It seems to have a similar page structure to the other free apps on package interface, don't know if there's a promotion button there(I'm not the maintainer), but if no is because Neils disable it. On a related topic is STILL possible to create a page at maemo.org and insert a .install file pointing to a external repository, bypassing all the QA Criteria (someone already did that :( ). We should discuss this in relation to QA at the next sprint and see if we can come up with a way to deal with it. Jeremiah ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Updating the info for Extras-devel non-free
On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 12:04 +0100, Jeremiah Foster wrote: We are seeing more questions about this and actually the current information is misleading since it suggests that non-free packages can bypass the Extras-testing QA process, which is not true. I am hesitant here, some of the testing process may require source packages, either now or in the future. I am not certain that non-free packages deserve to get all the free quality assurance that the community provides. I think they should be grateful that they are included at all and if they want to go through testing, they need to at least provide a source package. Does the community really have so much spare resource that we can QA non-free (and presumably non-community) apps? I suppose one way to look at it is that these are no-cost apps that the community can't have unless it QA's them; from that PoV I think providing a place for the app's userbase to QA the apps is fine but I feel that they should be separate to a community queue. David ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Updating the info for Extras-devel non-free
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 14:55, David Greaves da...@dgreaves.com wrote: Does the community really have so much spare resource that we can QA non-free (and presumably non-community) apps? fms/RST38h's emulators are non-free. However much I'd prefer to have the source and not special case them, they are useful packages and the author's intention should be respected. Do I want him to go off and create a new repo? No. Is Ovi an alternative? We don't know yet. However, having tested earlier versions of VGBA, iNES and others, I think I can say they went through the normal testing procedure, despite being non-free. The reason pre -testing they went directly to Extras was that there was no point going through the auto-builder. Now, however, I think they should be going directly into -devel and promoted into -testing and Extras proper as per free packages. Whether they get highlighted in a different queue is an interesting question; but will probably push non-Ovi, non-free apps away into their own repositories. The point of community QA is to make sure only good apps get to users: we're doing it because we're selfish. It's not free bug finding for commercial software teams; and so saying we're only go to QA it for you if you give us the source would seem to be a change in the purpose and intent of the QA process. 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: Updating the info for Extras-devel non-free
On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 15:07 +, Andrew Flegg wrote: On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 14:55, David Greaves da...@dgreaves.com wrote: Does the community really have so much spare resource that we can QA non-free (and presumably non-community) apps? fms/RST38h's emulators are non-free. However much I'd prefer to have the source and not special case them, they are useful packages and the author's intention should be respected. Yep - my 2nd para was about the balance. Whether they get highlighted in a different queue is an interesting question; but will probably push non-Ovi, non-free apps away into their own repositories. Why? It's a different queue, not a different community. The point of community QA is to make sure only good apps get to users: we're doing it because we're selfish. Yes. It's not free bug finding for commercial software teams; Agreed, the non-free apps you identified are non-commercial. Do you see non-free apps which are commercial (eg crippleware needing an email supplied EIN-keyed password or adware) going through the same process? Would that fail the Extras QA? Why? Would it fail a non-free queue's QA? How do testers QA such (IMHO perfectly reasonable) applications? Should the test process require a password for testers? and so saying we're only go to QA it for you if you give us the source would seem to be a change in the purpose and intent of the QA process. Fair, but some of us (and note that I've spent time testing RST38h's Master Gear emulator) do and will continue to care about free rather than no-cost. Are you as a community member happy to QA a binary app from a polite and well spoken community noobie without even having the *option* of reviewing the source? What if I'm not? Will it be obvious that there's no source for that app (ie marked non-free) in the testing queue? /me sees quite a bit of grey. David ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Updating the info for Extras-devel non-free
On 11/25/09 4:07 PM, Andrew Flegg wrote: On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 14:55, David Greavesda...@dgreaves.com wrote: Does the community really have so much spare resource that we can QA non-free (and presumably non-community) apps? fms/RST38h's emulators are non-free. However much I'd prefer to have the source and not special case them, they are useful packages and the author's intention should be respected. I don't think the author's rights trump the community's rights. Do I want him to go off and create a new repo? No. This is not necessarily what will happen if we ask for source. Is Ovi an alternative? We don't know yet. That seems to be a one way street - they can take maemo.org packages, but we have no access to their repos. However, having tested earlier versions of VGBA, iNES and others, I think I can say they went through the normal testing procedure, despite being non-free. The reason pre -testing they went directly to Extras was that there was no point going through the auto-builder. Now, however, I think they should be going directly into -devel and promoted into -testing and Extras proper as per free packages. Maemian is designed to peer into debs, to find 'bugs' in packages, not in software, it is designed to be part of the QA process after the build on garage. It will not run on debs that haven't gone through the build system. So at least part of the QA process will not work on non-free apps. Whether they get highlighted in a different queue is an interesting question; but will probably push non-Ovi, non-free apps away into their own repositories. One of the things that the maemo version of debian's popularity contest is hopefully going to do is to check the repos being used on the device. This might show us how widespread the use of outlying repos is. It might also be an effective way of piercing this argument, I don't think it is as widespread a practice as it used to be. The point of community QA is to make sure only good apps get to users: we're doing it because we're selfish. It's not free bug finding for commercial software teams; and so saying we're only go to QA it for you if you give us the source would seem to be a change in the purpose and intent of the QA process. I think you make a powerful argument that the QA process is for users to get good software. However, software developers target distributions like debian because of its quality assurance, and if Maemo gets a reputation for quality, then one can expect that sort of targeting to occur there as well. It is perfectly reasonable to expect that those who participate in the QA process adhere to the same principles of openness that have made maemo.org so successful. Jeremiah ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
