On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 12:52:38AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > > > I guess it's pretty clear what needs to be done in case Andrew's > > > proposal passes, no? We've got the nonfree.org domain and we've got ten > > > years of experience with hosting Debian packages. > > What's this "we" ? Please speak for yourself, > Fair enough, sorry.
There's no need to apologise, it's just that when you say "we", you kinda obscure the fact that there isn't anyone who's come forward who's actually willing to do this. > One idea was to modify katie just so slightly that she installs non-free > packages into /org/foo.org instead of /org/ftp.debian.org. That probably > would't go far enough for people in favor of dropping non-free I > suppose. Personally, I think it'd be silly. Likewise having non-free.debian.org or similar -- it doesn't save *any* time or effort or make maintaining main any easier (which outright dropping non-free would, as, to a greater extend, would dropping non-free and contrib), and it doesn't make the separation between Debian's free distribution (main) and the non-free work we do significantly clearer. It'd also make mirroring just that little bit more awkward. > > Personally, I'm finding it pretty hard to work out what I'd want to > > work on should this GR pass -- can I put up with crappy, contrib-style, > > third party non-free stuff well enough that I can avoid having to do > > a whole lot of boring make work to reimplement various bits of Debian > > infrastructure? > I don't think you need to reimplement Debian infrastructure in order to > duplicate it, just to adjust it. Of course, you're more expert than me > to comment on this. Re-roll-out? Whatever. You don't have to rewrite it, but you do have to get new machines, and set it all up, and maintain it, and patch the systems, and track upstream and all that other stuff. There's a lot of effort there, and it's pretty boring, and given it's just for non-free stuff, it's pretty low value -- certainly compared to doing the same work for the main archive. > > Would maintaining nonfree.org actually be significantly simpler than > > just forking Debian entirely? Probably, but how much? > What do you mean by 'forking Debian' anyway? Reimplementing all of Debian, and maintaining/distributing free packages as well; eg glibc, dpkg, etc. Again, while there's not that much you have to rewrite, there's a lot of work in setting up new infrastructure and so forth, but as well as being able to keep legacy apps working, you'd get to experiment with interesting new developments without having to worry about convincing other maintainer's they're worthwhile, or having an established userbase to support. How's that compare to just setting up nonfree.org? It's certainly more effort, but is it a lot more? I dunno. It'd certainly be more interesting than just maintaining stuff for non-free software for me, but enough more that it'd justify the extra effort? I don't know that either. Would either of them justify the effort? Dunno. > I wouldn't consider > outsourcing less than 200 packages (forgot the exact number) a 'fork'. > The requirements for infrastructure and maintenance are considerably > lower than for a full-blown fork of Debian, IMHO. I'm not really convinced. If you're going to have it work as well as Debian, you need to have an archive and a bug tracking system and probably some mailing lists. If you're going to have it be centralised, as opposed to lots of independent apt sources, you need to have signed uploads, and some way of verifying the people who send you keys are who they say they are, and, ideally, aren't grossly incompetent. I don't think any of the non-Debian apt repositories satisfy these requirements, which, I think, means you're expecting debbugs, katie, lists.d.o, and n-m to be duplicated. Once you've done that, you're most of the way to having all the infrastructure you need to maintain your own distribution. I mean, it's not everything Debian does by a long shot, but it's all the core stuff, afaics. > I don't imagine any of those options to actually happen, I'm just trying > to figure out a transition plan in case the GR passes. I don't understand. One of the options was "reimplement Debian's stuff for nonfree.org". I thought you were claiming that was likely. Maybe this is just a hangover from the "reimplement" confusion. > IIRC, the biggest > (factual) argument against Andrew's argument was exactly this: 'There's > no transition plan. What will our users do?'. > > But I see that we're running in circles. The 'don't drop non-free' > people just say 'd'oh, don't drop it and you don't need a plan', while > the 'drop non-free' people don't care about it anyway. Uh, dude, if you're arguing for a change, it's your responsibility to rebutt the arguments against the change. If your rebuttal is "You're right. There's no transition plan. Our users who rely on non-free packages can switch to free software, switch to a different distribution, find someone else to support them, or just live without it. Either way, we're not going to help them." then, well, fair enough. If you're going to say "Our users will be able to go to nonfree.org", then it's *your* responsibility to set that up and make sure it works -- not the people who are telling you that that's a stupid idea because it's way too much work. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we can. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
