On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 6:18 AM Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> On Saturday, 8 February 2020 1:49:20 PM AEDT Paul Wise wrote:
> > There is one attribute of how Debian does things that clashes with
> > being able to do this; service maintainers need to be able to update
> > code on a different schedule to
On 2/10/20 7:17 AM, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> It appears to me that Salsa admins don't use packaged Gitlab-Runner simply
> because they don't want to, and I don't understand why.
Seriously, stop that.
Instead of complaining, you could send tested patches:
On Saturday, 8 February 2020 1:49:20 PM AEDT Paul Wise wrote:
> There is one attribute of how Debian does things that clashes with
> being able to do this; service maintainers need to be able to update
> code on a different schedule to Debian stable and even backports
> time-frames.
When service
On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 12:34 AM Steffen Möller wrote:
> I think your dispute goes down to the question if Debian's community
> infrastructure should preferably using software packaged for Debian
> (which salsa is doing) with the binaries Debian offers (which salsa is
> not doing).
I personally
On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 4:33 PM Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> Second, it that binary build, the way it is compiled upstream, would never be
> accepted by ftp-masters due to lack of some sources in Debian "main".
> That's what I called problem with DFSG compliance.
It's worth remembering that Debian
I think I need to add that personally I am very thankful for the work the Salsa
and Salsa CI teams are doing. And the only reason I participated in this
discussion is that I believe that we need to stand up for each other as fellow
peers and colleagues.
Ondrej
--
Ondřej Surý
> On 6 Feb 2020,
From where I stand it seems to me that you actually don’t care about free
software or DFSG or Debian and you only care about enforcing your worldview
upon others. You need to stop, go read DFSG and come back only if you and come
back with valid arguments how the DFSG is being violated. Or just
And yet you *demand* in a very aggressive way that others dedicate their
capacity on your misinterpretation of DFSG. Just stop.
Thanks,
--
Ondřej Surý
> On 6 Feb 2020, at 00:27, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
>
> I would have done so if I had enough capacity.
I think you should stop here and now. You are misinterpreting DFSG to make a
point. And instead of asking how you can help you just throw accusations. In
both you recent threads. We are all in this together and your style is not
helpful just hurtful.
Ondrej
--
Ondřej Surý
> On 6 Feb 2020, at
Dmitry Smirnov writes:
> On Thursday, 6 February 2020 10:22:24 AM AEDT Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I can't speak for Bernd, but I haven't seen any evidence in this thread
>> that the built binary is not DFSG-compliant.
> So now you are going to nitpick on my language with all your eloquence? :(
Hello,
I think your dispute goes down to the question if Debian's community
infrastructure should preferably using software packaged for Debian
(which salsa is doing) with the binaries Debian offers (which salsa is
not doing). I find this interesting. The two positions are
A) No idea why this
On Thursday, 6 February 2020 10:22:24 AM AEDT Russ Allbery wrote:
> I can't speak for Bernd, but I haven't seen any evidence in this thread
> that the built binary is not DFSG-compliant.
So now you are going to nitpick on my language with all your eloquence? :(
The first problem is that packaged
El 5/2/20 a las 21:25, Dmitry Smirnov escribió:
> On Tuesday, 26 February 2019 1:19:35 AM AEDT Inaki Malerba wrote:
>> [0] https://salsa.debian.org/salsa-ci-team/pipeline/blob/master/README.md
>
> Thank you for providing this useful service.
>
> My big concern though is that primary
On 2/6/20 12:13 AM, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> On Thursday, 6 February 2020 9:52:47 AM AEDT Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>
>> Really don't care.
>
> I see that... :(
See, I prefer to spend my time on doing open source software. I use
tools I can use and that are provided by others, even if the build
Dmitry Smirnov writes:
> Sources are somewhere, true. But build (binary) is not DFSG-compliant.
> I feel like you are making your point by pretending not to understand...
> Why all this denial?
I can't speak for Bernd, but I haven't seen any evidence in this thread
that the built binary is not
On 2/5/20 5:05 PM, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> It should be on abuser
Saying "abuser" is inflammatory, especially as no abuse has been proven.
Please stop.
> to explain that it was not possible to build a
> service in a fully DFSG compliant manner
Why is the current solution not DFSG compliant?
>
On Thursday, 6 February 2020 9:52:47 AM AEDT Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> Really don't care.
I see that... :(
> You are free to setup and run your own runner.
Just because you did not setup yours properly?
I do maintain my own runner but it is not for everybody due to capacity
constrains.
But
On Thursday, 6 February 2020 9:53:09 AM AEDT Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> On Thursday, 6 February 2020 9:25:29 AM AEDT intrigeri wrote:
> > I'd love if you would use wording less morally/emotionally loaded than
> > "excuse" here: for me at least, "excuse" is bound to the thought
> > framework of guilt,
On 2/5/20 11:52 PM, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> You are free to setup and run your own runner.
> Its even possible to share them for everybody.
> If you do, I'd suggest you add some appropriate tags so people can force
> their builds to run on a runner built from Debian source.
> (there is not
On Thursday, 6 February 2020 9:25:29 AM AEDT intrigeri wrote:
> I'd love if you would use wording less morally/emotionally loaded than
> "excuse" here: for me at least, "excuse" is bound to the thought
> framework of guilt, accusation, and absolute right vs. absolute wrong.
> Framing the
On 2/5/20 11:42 PM, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> Sources are somewhere, true. But build (binary) is not DFSG-compliant.
Why? Because it was not built in Debian?
> Don't you think it would be _better_ to use (only) components from "main"?
> Certainly there will be more integrity if you can do
On Thursday, 6 February 2020 9:11:07 AM AEDT Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> They are not shipped in Debian, but they are free software,
> binaries with sources being available, as far as I can see all under a
> dfsg free license.
Sources are somewhere, true. But build (binary) is not DFSG-compliant.
I
Hi,
Dmitry Smirnov (2020-02-06):
> Now when we have a proper package for a while what excuse do you
> have to continue to use vendor binaries that could not be accepted
> to Debian?
I'd love if you would use wording less morally/emotionally loaded than
"excuse" here: for me at least, "excuse" is
On 2/5/20 10:33 PM, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> Upstream binaries are not DFSG compliant.
Why?
> Not only they use shitload of
> vendored libraries
That is how go works. The exact version is available, the source code also.
The way how the docker image is being built is actually in the sources,
On Thursday, 6 February 2020 8:10:17 AM AEDT Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> You are free not to use salsa or not to use the gitlab runners.
> You are also free to rewrite the gitlab runner in a free version, if I
> remember right the api is published, so this should not be hard.
What warrants such a
On 2/5/20 9:25 PM, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> On Tuesday, 26 February 2019 1:19:35 AM AEDT Inaki Malerba wrote:
>> [0] https://salsa.debian.org/salsa-ci-team/pipeline/blob/master/README.md
>
> Thank you for providing this useful service.
>
> My big concern though is that primary gitlab-runner
On Tuesday, 26 February 2019 1:19:35 AM AEDT Inaki Malerba wrote:
> [0] https://salsa.debian.org/salsa-ci-team/pipeline/blob/master/README.md
Thank you for providing this useful service.
My big concern though is that primary gitlab-runner 12.7.0 (HEAD)
on salsa-runner.debian.net f0fdd533 is not
On 26/2/19 14:42, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> If I got it right, according to Gitlab docs [0], it's possible to set an
> arbitrary name for the App you want to configure.
My bad ! Now it should be ok :)
Thanks!
--
- ina
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On February 26, 2019 5:32:57 PM UTC, Inaki Malerba wrote:
>Hi Domenico!
>
>On 26/2/19 14:17, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
>>> We also introduced a way to monitor the pipeline's usage.
>>> prittiau.debian.net is a simple influxdb + grafana which shows some
>>> stats about the projects using the
Hi Domenico!
On 26/2/19 14:17, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
>> We also introduced a way to monitor the pipeline's usage.
>> prittiau.debian.net is a simple influxdb + grafana which shows some
>> stats about the projects using the Salsa CI pipeline. You're welcome to
>> log in with your salsa account.
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 11:19:35AM -0300, Inaki Malerba wrote:
> Hi everyone !
Hi Inaki,
[...]
> We also introduced a way to monitor the pipeline's usage.
> prittiau.debian.net is a simple influxdb + grafana which shows some
> stats about the projects using the Salsa CI pipeline. You're welcome
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 11:22 PM Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 02:44:22PM +, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 11:19:35AM -0300, Inaki Malerba wrote:
> > > On behalf of the Salsa CI Team I'm pleased to announce some of the
> > > changes we've been
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 02:44:22PM +, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 11:19:35AM -0300, Inaki Malerba wrote:
> > On behalf of the Salsa CI Team I'm pleased to announce some of the
> > changes we've been working on this weekend. We don't have an official
> > mailing list, so
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 11:19:35AM -0300, Inaki Malerba wrote:
On behalf of the Salsa CI Team I'm pleased to announce some of the
changes we've been working on this weekend. We don't have an official
mailing list, so please excuse us if this is not the place for this
kind of announcements.
Hi everyone !
On behalf of the Salsa CI Team I'm pleased to announce some of the
changes we've been working on this weekend. We don't have an official
mailing list, so please excuse us if this is not the place for this kind
of announcements.
Making the most of the fact that some of us are on the
35 matches
Mail list logo
