Re: Announcing a Debian Hamradio Blend
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 01:39:29PM +0100, Iain R. Learmonth wrote: > [Forwarding to d-d-a on behalf of Iain since he can not sign as DD] > In Debian GNU/linux they NEVER discussed to port other packages, infact in > different situations i discuss this on debian-hamradio and on #fsf where > they said that there was not any necessity to port the packages, and that > is left to the user the freedom, to take the packages in source code, from > third parties, to build it, and to use it. The content here seems inappropriate for debian-devel-announce, it looks like there is some disagreement about ham radio packaging which this is part of but it looks like a message in that discussion rather than an announcement which might be relevant or of interest to all developers. Please try to keep debian-devel-announce topical. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Cultural differences and how to handle them
On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 11:51:18AM -0300, Chris Lamb wrote: > I wish to posit the existence of a third group who are not partipating > in this discussion. > This group are simply too exhausted and bored of making the same > refutations in these debates and have long given up trying. Indeed, > they likely find themselves too physically and emotionally numb to > invest in -project or lists outside their niche interests. They may > have even made steps to distance themselves from Debian entirely due > to low-level feelings of fatigue that they cannot put words to, > compounded by having no desire to be associated with a certain > retrograde culture that they perceive the Project projects. This. So very much this. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: DEP-5 meta: New co-driver; current issues
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 05:10:11PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Craig Small wrote: > > What are these benefits? > The major important bits are that people who are basing distributions > on Debian or are using Debian in the enterprise or embedded > environments can more easily determine the set of licences that they > need to audit for compliance purposes and due dilligence. Debian will > also know better what licences we are distributing in main, and can > possibly track issues where we are unable to ship specific > derivative works. In order to truly deliver on this we'd need the entire distro to be converted to DEP5 format but elsewhere in the thread it was stated that this is not a goal. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100813131335.ga4...@sirena.org.uk
Re: DEP-5 meta: New co-driver; current issues
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 04:02:12PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 02:13:35PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: >> In order to truly deliver on this we'd need the entire distro to be >> converted to DEP5 format but elsewhere in the thread it was stated that >> this is not a goal. > By making it easier to handle parts of the distro we make it "more easy" > to resolve licensing issues across all of the distro, no? ...then in the spirit of continuing to improve things it gets rolled out over all the distribution. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100813151039.gb4...@sirena.org.uk
Re: Diversity statement for the Debian Project
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 04:40:58PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > On 12-03-27 at 03:45pm, Francesca Ciceri wrote: > > Yes, I agree on accuracy. But please, note that "neurotype" - even if > > it hasn't scientific recognition as concept - is the way some people > > define themselves. And we must respect it. > I favor what others have suggested: Completely avoid listing specific > kinds of diversities to avoid misinterpretation that we _favor_ being > non-diversive in certain ways. > I don't mind listing some - but I fear the bikeshedding of which that > should then be. You have "neurotype" as a favorite. I can imagine many > having various favorites ;-) I agree with Jonas here I'd also add that an enormous list of topics of discrimination doesn't make for inspiring prose either, making the whole thing seem like a bureaucratic exercise. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120328165348.gd23...@sirena.org.uk
Re: The Code of Conduct needs specifics
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 09:25:37AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > In addition, a list of "do not"s will make people assume that the > project is in a worse state than it actually is. To paraphrase one > participant of the CoC BoF during debconf, when the draft CoC was still > somewhat negative: "I get the feeling, if I read this code of conduct, > that Debian is a very problematic community with lots of problems." > I don't want our code of conduct to produce that feeling. There's been a very strong and quite successful push recently to convince organisations to adopt codes of conduct so at this point the usual suggestion for people worrying about it being a sign of problems is to point people at the list of other organisations doing the same thing. The usual reasoning for explicitly enumerating things is the thing Solveig mentioned about people being (or professing to be) too inept to realise what appropriate behaviour is. Personally I do tend to share some of the concerns about rules lawyering and evasion with that but it's a reasonable view and I suspect you don't win either way. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: The Code of Conduct needs specifics
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 08:43:06PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 02:31:54AM +, Solveig wrote: > > 2. "Complaints should be made (in private) to the administrators of the > > forum in question. To find contact information for these administrators, > > please see [the page on Debian's organizational > > structure](http://www.debian.org/intro/organization)" ... > > Also, why "(in private)"? People who are not confortable to report in > > public will do it in private, but shouldn't *have to* be discreet about > > other's misbehaviour. > The "in private" part is only about talking to administrators; it is my > experience that saying "I think you're out of line here", with an > explicit Cc to listmasters is often a fairly inflammatory way of doing > things. If I remember correctly there were also concerns about administrators being directly included on public reports causing the reports to for example get large mailing list flamewars sent directly to the listmaster contact address which would be disruptive to the process of acting on complaints. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: The Code of Conduct needs specifics
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 09:35:19PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 06:09:25PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > The usual reasoning for explicitly enumerating things is the thing > > Solveig mentioned about people being (or professing to be) too inept to > > realise what appropriate behaviour is. Personally I do tend to share > > some of the concerns about rules lawyering and evasion with that but > > it's a reasonable view and I suspect you don't win either way. > I could see how a separate document, with an explicit list of "do not"s, > could usefully be linked from the "further reading" section. > I think we should not make such a list authoritative. I definitely agree that the list should at the very least be written to have an "and anything else we find unacceptable" in it which is pretty much the same thing I think. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Why isn't queue/new world-readable?
On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 03:08:17PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > Ah, guess I missed that message, thanks. Well, though the source is more > credible, AFAICT this is still hearsay... does anyone know where this > assertion actually originated? I seem to recall one of the ftpmasters saying this during Debconf but I could just be making things up there. -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DCC (Debian Confusion Core) trademark negotiation status
On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 10:16:42PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > Unfortunately, It's still there. Maybe the lack of updates indicates > that the project is already dead, or something like that. Given their > business model (which does neither promote business nor free software), > this wouldn't be too surprising. On the contrary, activity on their development list indicates that they are preparing for their first release candidate, due very soon. -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever." signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian-based miniVDR violates GPL (FYI)
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 01:35:03PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > will be public) or the FSF's violation address (private AIUI) > for review, to let those who can act decide what to do about it? Your understanding is correct - the FSF doesn't publish information sent to their licensing issues address by default (this is helpful in resolving things amicably). -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: package ownership in Debian
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 09:40:12PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Simply change the NMUs to be always 0-day, for all bugs >=3Dnormal. Which > > means - upload and mail to BTS at the same time. > Would that mean we get BTS+NMU tennis instead of BTS tennis, > where differences of opinion over what is a serious bug result > in 0-day NMUs as well as BTS reopens? The delayed upload queues would help with that sort of problem, as would encouraging more rapid (rather than zero day) NMUs. > I'm not sure what the solution is, but 0-day always seems a big > step backwards for Quality Control. More co-maints seems a > better idea as a step forwards. On the other hand, forcing co-maintainers seems like a "this is something" approach to the problem. -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever." signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposal: The DFSG do not require source code for data, including firmware
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 09:15:12AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 22:23:29 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > aren't software. So if firmware was already supposed to be covered > > under the DFSG, how is this reconciled with the fact that no one > > ever worried about firmware in Debian until the past couple of > > years? > These are not just reasonable definitions -- they are the > overwhelming majority of definitions found for the terms. I searched > the digital libraries of the ACM and of the IEEE, and I have yet to > come across any mention of firmware that does not concede that it is > software programs -- perhaps software programs that are read off Within a Debian context people normally seem to use the term "firmware" to mean any binary blob that gets programmed into hardware. This could include things like register settings or FPGA images as well as programs to execute on embedded processors. I'm not sure if there are any instances of these other types in the upstream kernel, though. -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: The DFSG do not require source code for data, including firmware
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 03:07:11PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 11:00:44PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > To those who consider ROM-less hardware cheap and nasty I suggest the > > opposite is true. I design hardware (FPGAs) professionally for expensive > > communications equipment. We avoid ROMs as much as possible, because > > they are difficult to upgrade reliably and they are a waste of money. > Do you consider FPGA config files as programs, or would you say that the > normal DFSG requirement for source applies to those also in order to be > considered fit for debian/main ? > I am interested in your profesional opinion on this, since you clearly seem to > either be, or in close contact to someone who is, an upstream author of such > firmwares. Speaking as someone with experience of the software rather than hardware side of this I'd call FPGA images hardware. From the point of view of working with it it looks very much like hardware. That's just my opinion, though. I'd also observe that newer FPGA chips often feature encryption support: the hardware has a secret key blown into it during manufacturing which must be used when building FPGA images to be loaded onto the hardware. -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever." signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Recompilation of ALL Debian packages ...
On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 05:03:29PM +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote: > I have tried to RECOMPILE some packages in Sarge but failed. > The Binaries are working. It seems, thet the Maintainer had > used a machine where the Build was successfull, but no other > one can do it because it FTBFS Source uploads don't help that much with that: the buildds will notice for things that produce binary packages and all too often the break occurs when some other package changes some time after the package was uploaded. This is one of the reasons why people do test builds of the archive from time to time, particularly just before release. -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Use of tokens for access to Debian resources?
On Sat, Nov 11, 2006 at 03:05:33PM +0100, Mario Lang wrote: > In my opinion, RSA tokens are very evil, from an accessibility point of view. > Since you effectively state that only people with working eye-sight > are competent enough to use your system. There are also smartcard based tokens (like GnuPG cards) which don't require retyping of codes. -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever." signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Use of tokens for access to Debian resources?
On Sat, Nov 11, 2006 at 10:55:03AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > There are also smartcard based tokens (like GnuPG cards) which don't > > require retyping of codes. > Don't they then require specific hardware when used (a card reader or at > least a USB port)? Yes, they require a card reader on the client system. I don't really wish to comment either way on the idea of requiring them for accessing Debian machines, I was just pointing out that there are systems that don't exclude blind people. -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever." signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bits from the DPL: DSA and buildds and DAM, oh my!
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 10:06:47AM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote: > softwares) and anyone is free to open bugs with debsecan output and > stuff like that. Don't tell me that "hey, what's the alpha machine > status?" and keyring-maint requests will leak information. Off the top of my head "Please send the machine to my home address $ADDRESS - I'll drive out to the datacentre and put the machine on-line as soon as possible after I get it. Give the shipping company $NUMBER (my mobile phone number) as the contact number in case there are problems." -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gpg changesets (was Re: Bits from the DPL: DSA and buildds and DAM, oh my!)
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 12:54:41AM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: > Sure, I just wanted to show it can be used for anything you'd do via > --edit-keys. I'm not sure what classes of changes keyring-maint > typically makes so it seemed best to cover all of them. There's a fairly detailed changelog in the debian-keyring package. -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever." signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bits from the DPL: DSA and buildds and DAM, oh my!
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 12:16:52PM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote: > That's up to the person behind the *my* you wrote, disclose $ADDRESS > and $NUMBER. The same can't be said about our email address, so what's > the point really? I don't think the DSA members will want to disclose > this kind of information and if somebody does, they won't be forced to > do so. Let me rewrite what would happen IRL, IMHO: > "Please send the machine to my home address - I'll drive out to the DC > and put the machine on-line ASAP. Give the sipping company my phone > number. I'll send you *my personal details* privately." You are assuming that the person sending the e-mail is aware that the information they are sending is going to end up publically visible. With a lot of tracking systems this may not be the case. In the particular case of RT the work flow appears to involve generating e-mails to which anyone can reply, with replies causing information to be added to the ticket. This means that it's easy for someone to put information in there without ever realising that there's a public archive. > I still disagree with a private tracking system for DSA. Almost all > the information isn't sensible and can be there, the details can be > passed privately and it's up to the message submitter and nobody else. > It isn't like a person out of DSA can disclose sensible information > that will put DSA stuff at risk. I do agree that we should make an effort to make information available but we need to be aware of the problems that could arise and take steps to mitigate them. The case with keyring-maint is even worse for this since people might decide to do things like send scans of ID documents. -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever." signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bits from the DPL: DSA and buildds and DAM, oh my!
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 04:50:50PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Sat, 24 Feb 2007, Mark Brown wrote: > > You are assuming that the person sending the e-mail is aware that > > the information they are sending is going to end up publically > > visible. > So indicate that it'll be publicly archived, and that private > information should be encrypted and sent out of band in the footers of > the messages sent out. That's got rather a lot of obvious failure modes... > In any event, even that isn't really a reason to not allow Debian > Developers to have access to the request tracker, although it may be a > reason to restrict the general public. Right, that's one approach that might work well enough for people. My point is that we shouldn't swing so far to openness that we end up causing people nasty surprises or with something that needs to be circumvented too often in normal operation. -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever." signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Graphic Design Work
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 02:34:55PM +0100, James Herrington wrote: > Does anyone know of any graphic/web work available on the debian project? DebConf, the Debian conference, was looking for some logos for the upcoming conference in Edinburgh. See this mailing list thread for more information: http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20070416.215832.cb9eafb5.en.html -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever." signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian Maintainers
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 05:19:43PM +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote: > How about improving the NM application process so that people don't have > to spend 4 months waiting for an AM[1,2,3,4], or to have their accounts > created [5,6,7,8], or to be approved by FD[6,7]. Then there might not be > such a need for the DM concept. There have been various requests for more restricted versions of developer status for reasons unrelated to the length of time it takes to get through NM. These include things like a lack of desire to learn about the range of issues covered by NM and being more comfortable with limited permissions that reduce the possibility for harmful mistakes on their part. -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever." signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Social committee proposal
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 10:30:24PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: > Also, I can already see opposition to a committee which is only elected > once, and can then change its own membership at will, while retaining > all of its the powers that the originally elected members were given. > That simply sounds evil. It does mirror the arrangements for the TC. -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever." signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Planet policy?
On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 09:20:55PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Monday 06 August 2007 1:28:20 pm Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > But yes, I do think that we should at least try to keep planet without
> > much noise otherwise it'll get boring to read and lose its meaning.
> Actually, I don't read Planet Debian for the Debian posts. I find it
> exceptionally difficult to try to follow a discussion there, and besides,
> that's what we have debian-{devel,user,project,vote,devel-announce,*} for.
I strongly second this.
> It's good to get to know our fellow developers as whole people, where Debian
> is part -- but not all -- of their lives.
Given some of the comments that have been made in the past about Ian's
posts it feels to me that a lot of what people are objecting to is that
his posts can at times seem impersonal which isn't really the "house
style" for Planet Debian. That's something that I don't feel can be
covered by a viable policy.
--
"You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever."
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Developer Status
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 11:36:42AM +0200, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote: > But the more important part is IMO that the proposal *finally* respects > the non-packaging contributors (and there are many, I guess). For them > we can now have similar steps which in the end means DD rights without > the need of learning technical stuff they won't ever use. Non-packaging contributors were always supported in the current NM process - this issue was discussed at the time the process was created and the intention was that the T&S part of the process would reflect the specific contributions the person was making to Debian. I understand there are NMs who've made it through like this. That said, with the creation of the standardised question bank for T&S I understand that a lot of AMs aren't comfortable with variations in the process and would want to go through the question bank with all applicants. I'd also note that while it is true that all DDs have been able to upload a large portion of the process comes down to trying to check that we get people who won't do anything too daft. One would therefore hope that people wouldn't end up using that ability if they weren't able to. Of course, people may want to restrict things for themselves (for example, some DDs avoid having access to Debian machines for security reasons). -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Developer Status
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 07:36:02PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 01:20:32PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > Non-packaging contributors were always supported in the current NM > > process - this issue was discussed at the time the process was created > Sorry, but that's not support, or at least not *complete* support. I think what you mean to say is... > Still, I won't be at ease with upload rights to the archive given by > default to non-technical contributors. The status quo did not support > inhibiting upload rights to voting developers (OK, it could have been > enforced via dak, but that's not an answer). ...that you feel that such people would get too many rights, which isn't the same thing at all. -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Linux System Engineer (100%) in Zurich
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 03:29:11AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > My comments were solely intended to point out the possible cultural > difference and the fact that many people in the US will have a strong > reaction to this sort of thing. (I'm one of them. Age discrimination > makes me extremely angry.) They were not intended to imply that there's > some sort of risk here to Debian. I don't believe there is. FWIW similar issues apply in most of Europe too. -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Twittering on planet.d.o?
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 12:59:02AM +0200, Michael Banck wrote: > Maybe it makes sense to enhance planet to collapse microblogging feeds > into at most one item per day via some special-handling? That works rather poorly with a lot of microblogging use - if people start having conversations you get a daily dump of parts of a conversation you can't follow. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: DAM and NEW queues processing
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:34:12PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: > The NM process should neither be pain for the NM nor for the AM. If it is I'm > happy to hear the facts why it is pain, instead of useless babbling. I stopped being an AM largely as a result of the introduction of the templated questions. I felt that all I was doing was shooting enormous reams of paperwork at applicants which I didn't really felt helped with anything. Dumping these enormous reams of questions on the applicants didn't feel like it was giving any insight into their cluefulness, it felt like it was assessing their ability to pass exams and meaning that if someone struggled the whole thing turned into a mentoring process rather than an assessment process. If I was going to mentor someone I probably wouldn't be doing it with this sort of exam style process but with something a bit softer. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: DAM and NEW queues processing
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 03:46:50PM +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote: > On Thu Jun 25 13:23, Mark Brown wrote: > > I stopped being an AM largely as a result of the introduction of the > > templated questions. I felt that all I was doing was shooting enormous > I didn't think that using the templates was required for AMs, merely a > useful tool. I think AMs should be able to check to their satisfaction > in other ways as appropriate, as long as it produces a similar result In theory. In practice that wasn't the impression that was given; the impression that was given was that they really really should be used. Even if I had carried on it was uncomfortable knowing that there presence or absence of the templates varied. > (you are happy that the candidate _does_ know all those things and will > probably get them right in practice). Personally I think it's far more interesting to try to get an idea of how they'll handle things if they're working on something they've not looked at before and how they'll handle things when stuff doesn't go according to plan. The big lists of questions kind of work against this. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: DAM and NEW queues processing
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 11:46:31AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > If 'not using the templates' is just an excuse for "I think there's just > way too much stuff in the templates, and I want to get this over with, > with as little effort as possible", then I will not accept it. However, > if the mailbox convinces me that the AM did indeed thorougly check the > skills and knowledge of the NM, in about as thorough a manner as would > be done through use of the templates (or better, which is hardly > difficult), then I personally do not object to people ignoring the > templates; on the contrary. To be honest some of my response at this point is due to the fact that I think that there is far too much of the wrong sort of thing in the templates but there's also a part of it that's down to not seeing any way to deliver the same thing that doesn't involve using the templates. There's just too many things that need to be covered. However, this was less true at the time the templates started and even then the impression was being created that untemplated reports were being frowned on. It wasn't that there was an announcement at some point that > On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 09:20:00PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > Personally I think it's far more interesting to try to get an idea of > > how they'll handle things if they're working on something they've not > > looked at before and how they'll handle things when stuff doesn't go > > according to plan. The big lists of questions kind of work against > > this. > That is most certainly true; the big list of questions is mostly an > attempt at trying to cover as much as possible, so anyone (even those > who clearly know their stuff) are tested thoroughly. Personalizing the Right, it appears to be trying to make sure that someone might possibly run into in Debian has been covered. Like I say, this is a large part of my problem with it at this point - I don't think that is an achievable or useful goal and it does lock out people like translators (though that's more of a theoretical concern than a practical one). > process by asking little questions about things the applicant is clearly > an expert on, but asking more and doing more mentoring on areas the > applicant is not an expert on, is certainly welcome. I definitely would > like to see more people doing so. It's not 100% clear to me that it's a good idea for the AM to be doing mentoring as well. It certainly doesn't help the queue statistics :) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: DAM and NEW queues processing
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 03:02:52PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > On Friday 17 July 2009, Mark Brown wrote: > > achievable or useful goal and it does lock out people like translators > > (though that's more of a theoretical concern than a practical one). > That last is simply not true. If someone wants to enter the project as > translator or documentation writer or whatever, the AM has the option of > simply skipping any parts of the NM process that are not relevant for > that task and adding other T&S tasks that test skills relevant to that > role. I know that was the original theory. However, if we're asking packagers a big list of questions which attempt to cover every possible aspect of development it seems at best uneven to skip that for non-packagers. Clearly the T&S questions aren't going to be terribly appropriate for someone working on non-packaging tasks but one could equally make the argument that if someone's working on packaging particular kinds of package then those T&S questions that cover other areas of packaging aren't relevant to them. That said... > For example, during my NM process I was never asked to do any of the T&S > parts dealing with e.g. library packaging because it was understood that > I was just not interested in doing that. > My AM, FD and DAM had faith that I would not attempt things outside my > area of interest and skills, so I was accepted into the project without > being able to package a library. ...it seems that an approach which does skip some of the templates is being accepted, which is good. I'm guessing that some of the AMs might not have realised this, at least in the past - I know when I saw people saying to use the templates I didn't get the impression that this was the idea, especially given the coverage goal. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: DAM and NEW queues processing
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 09:34:26AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: > Mark Brown wrote: > > Right, it appears to be trying to make sure that someone might possibly > > run into in Debian has been covered. Like I say, this is a large part > > of my problem with it at this point - I don't think that is an > > achievable or useful goal and it does lock out people like translators > > (though that's more of a theoretical concern than a practical one). > There are templates for doc writers, and it should not be too hard to work out > something for translators. I can't see a problem here. Like I say, the problem is/was partly the one size fits all aspect of the packaging templates - the packaging templates are so wide ranging that you start to get into the same sort of issue asking people packaging questions about things that are vastly outside their area. >From what Frans said it sounds like the templates are actually being thinned down for individual applicants by at least some AMs which does deal with this part of the issue. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 11:21:09AM +0200, Luk Claes wrote: > Frans Pop wrote: >> Disappointing to see such an announcement without any prior discussion >> on d-project, d-devel or d-vote. Some explanation of how and by who >> this decision was reached would be appreciated. > The Release Team proposed a plan in the keynote at DebConf. There were > some important considerations, but in general the audience welcomed the > plan. > The announcement was made to avoid confusion and unclear press coverage. Was the possibility of doing the announcement without a specific freeze date considered? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian redesign
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 09:19:51AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > The new simplified swirl looks cleaner, and it would be nice to move > to a free-er font. The example changes to the website made it look Might it be worth considering using the new font & so on even if we end up keeping the current swirl? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian redesign
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 06:40:41AM -0300, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw) wrote: > On 30-07-2009 07:52, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 09:19:51AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > >> The new simplified swirl looks cleaner, and it would be nice to move > >> to a free-er font. The example changes to the website made it look > > Might it be worth considering using the new font & so on even if we end > > up keeping the current swirl? > The proposal during DebConf used a non-free font with a free > alternative and some people raised the idea of "creating" a > new one, well, the same idea applies to our current logo's > font, it's just a matter of implement it (and yes, Font > Copyright is different from Software/Trademark). Oh, right. From what Steve said I'd understood that the font in the new logo was already freer than the existing one. > There is no basis to say that the logo/font change would have > a positive impact in our "brand". I broadly agree, though for the font having a free font would be a win anyway. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 04:13:03PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: > I rarely hear anything positive from Ubuntu, except that more and more people > who are active in Ubuntu realized that it is much better to do things in > Debian > directly. IME the quality of interaction from Ubuntu is very variable and depends strongly on who in Ubuntu looks at the package. For packages which are just getting janatorial cleanup work as a result of having been pulled into universe things tend to be pretty poor, both in terms of the code and in terms of pushing things back into Debian. This often creates a very bad impression. For other things, usually things that are more important within Ubuntu, things tend to be a lot better. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 11:49:09AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Tue, Aug 04 2009, Steve Langasek wrote: > > If you prefer to be automatically notified about all changes in Ubuntu, I > > believe the PTS gives you an option to do this by subscribing to the > > 'derivatives' keyword. For my part, as a Debian maintainer I greatly prefer ... > Perhaps Ubuntu should correct it's web page, then, in light of > the apparent fact that automatic feeding of patches upstream is > not in fact reality? They do have the automated sending of patches in place (that's the PTS thing above), though it does require enabling by the recipient too. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: the role of the LSB (was: On cadence and collaboration)
On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 02:49:37PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 02:02:59PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > > I am failing to accept that vendors need to use those very specific > > things in their software. just like I doubt that people need IE-HTML > > to make their sites render properly. I think laziness^W business > > thinking is more likely an option. > Probably because you don't write this kind of software then. I'm working > for telco stuff, we have very specific needs towards the high > availability interfaces (epoll and similar) linux provides, and its SCTP > stack. This only has caused us major issues in the past. For that sort of stuff you normally end up needing to validate the binary image of the system anyway - especially if the telco thinks it can get away with charging you for compliance testing on any change. What coding to standards buys you is a greater degree of protection against things breaking underneath you which does get you 90% of the way there. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: What to do about negligent maintainers?
On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 09:59:24PM +0100, Leo costela Antunes wrote: > What about adding some informal rule like this to dev-ref (or wherever): > after n unacknowledged NMUs the package may be taken over without it > being considered a "hostile takeover", more like "updating to reflect > the de-facto maintainer". The trouble with an approach like that is that it doesn't provide a clear route to dealing with situations where the maintainer is occasionally active but not managing to keep up with things well enough to do a good job. It's also trying to come up with a quantative rule to deal with what is essentially a social problem which is generally problematic. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: What to do about negligent maintainers?
On Sat, Jan 09, 2010 at 12:26:18AM +, Marco d'Itri wrote: > broo...@sirena.org.uk wrote: > >The trouble with an approach like that is that it doesn't provide a > >clear route to dealing with situations where the maintainer is > >occasionally active but not managing to keep up with things well enough > >to do a good job. > So help him: start by sending patches to the BTS. > If he is not replying to your enquires it is reasonable to believe that > currently he is not working on the package either. That works in cases where the maintainer is just having trouble keeping up, but there are other cases where the package is frequently buggy after maintainer uploads, or where responsiveness is very much intermittent. Often this seems to be another symptom of overwork but it needs to be dealt with a little differently. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: The proposed GR: catch-22
On Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 01:05:36AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > But this is wrong too. People can still run non-free software with > Debian if they like; as amended, the social contract would still > explicitly state that, and that we will support people who so choose. We would support them, but we would be removing pretty much all of the support we currently provide them with (assuming the BTS goes along with the archives, which seems likely). -- Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness) http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/ EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/ PGP signature
Re: A rebuttal (was: Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 02:06:31PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: > [please CC: any replies to me] Notice this? People should need to ask to get CCs. (Not directed at you, Joy.) > directory hierarchy? new server/CNAME?), and making the package acquisition > tools verbosely advise the user about the non-freeness of the software he > tries to get/install. And, perhaps more to the point, let them read the license of a non-free package before rather than after they install it. -- Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness) http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/ EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/ PGP signature
Re: Clarifications
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 02:42:53PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > Martin Keegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [Crosspost & followup to -project] > > Debian's apt-get is complicit in making software a LOT easier to discover > > and install. That is also makes non-free software a lot easier to install > > seems to have caused quite a few ructions. > The fact that apt makes it easy is one reason that the proposal can go > forth. All people need to do is update their sources.list files and > things will still work. Debian does more than provide FTP archive space for software. If all we did was sling some stuff in the archive and call it a release every so often then you'd be right - simply twiddling your apt configuration would be enough. We do more than that. We keep everything together, we provide a common bug tracking system and we have a set of standards for our packages. Creating a repository is the trivial bit. > You say it "injures" users but you don't say how. You say it injures > the Free Software community because of an "impoverished" Debian > system, and yet the Debian system would not change. You also fail to Debian is more than just a FTP archive. > recognize that users of the Debian system do not necessarily use > non-free, as it is not a part of the Debian system. And you fail to > recognize that getting non-free software elsewhere is trivially. It's not the avalibility that's the problem. It's all the stuff that goes into creating and maintaining the packages. Not everyone wants or needs to use non-free, but the people who do may well end up noticing a drop in quality. Like it or not this will reflect upon Debian. -- Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness) http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/ EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/ PGP signature
Re: The proposed GR: catch-22
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 06:39:50PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > The BTS is a commodity and can be run anywhere. The mailing lists are > still there. The BTS and the bug submission tools currently don't have a very good concept of multiple bug tracking systems. -- Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness) http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/ EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/ PGP signature
Re: An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 05:22:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > I wish to propose an ammendment to the proposed resolution as follows. Seconded. > The text of the resolution should be replaced with a call for the > developers to resolve that: > > --- > > 1) the Debian project continues to acknowledge the utility of providing > non-free software for it users. > > 2) the Debian project also acknowledges that some developers may be > unwilling or unable to explicitly work on non-free software, and > holds that this is not and should not be detrimental to their work > on the Debian GNU/Linux distribution, or their contribution to the > Debian project. > > 3) the Debian project considers equating the importance of the "contrib" > and "non-free" areas described in the Social Contract with the > official Debian GNU/Linux distribution inappropriate. > > 4) noting that the Debian project already distributes various other > collections of unofficial packages, the project endorses a move to > specifically collect the various other add-on components such as > "experimental", "orphaned", "non-free" and "contrib" and to clearly > separate these from the "main" collection. > > --- -- Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness) http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/ EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/ PGP signature
Re: Fear the new maintainer process
On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 12:57:40PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 01:31:22PM +0900, Taketoshi Sano wrote: > > (There are several applicants who > > does not respond at all, or holding the process for months and > > finally decide not to join the project, as I read from the list). > So what? It's not as if the entry in the queue costs any > money. Just wait until you get a response. You don't need to > run after your applicants like a mum after her children :) It's not about the entry in the queue - it's about the time it takes the application manager to work this out when they try to process that applicant. It's frustrating and it's time that could be better spent getting another applicant through the process. -- Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness) http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/ EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Fear the new maintainer process
On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 03:23:06PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > Am Mit, 26 Jul 2000 15:11:08 Mark Brown Sie: > > It's not about the entry in the queue - it's about the time it takes the > > application manager to work this out when they try to process that > > applicant. It's frustrating and it's time that could be better spent > > getting another applicant through the process. > So fix the process. Don't put the blame on the applicant, if you can > avoid it. We need their help, not they our shiny @debian.org address. Right - but in general, you seem to be against process, particularly process that makes getting in more difficult. In this case, the suggestion has been to put a few hoops before the initial entry to the queue like providing a GPG key or an indication of what they intend to do for Debian. Nothing extra - just moving some parts of the process earlier on. The problem is with applicants who basically don't respond when NM tries to get in touch with them, and it seems fair to put some of the effort for avoiding that onto the applicant. -- Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness) http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/ EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Fear the new maintainer process
On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 05:48:26PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 11:13:26AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote: > > Agreed, and their lack of interest might be holding up others in the NM > > process that ARE willing to contribute. NM team needs to set a hard limit > > on how long they will persue a potential developer, after that they get > > dequeued. > How can this "holding up" happen? And if it indeed can happen, this > is an inherent problem of the process, and the process should be > changed to allow for such delays without holding other people up. > They don't need to "persue" something, they just need to wait. Application managers have limited time, too. If they say "I have time to handle x applicants" and then some of those applicants never get back to the AM the AM ends up twiddling their fingers waiting to decide that the applicant isn't going to get back to them. > I am getting the feeling that some (many?) people around here are > trying to effectively close up Debian by trying to find ways to > effectively accept less maintainers without saying so. This continues > the "the boat is full" attitude that was omnipresent in the last long > discussion about this issue in autumn last year. Being a developer gets you the equivalent of CVS write access. It's reasonable to require some demonstration of clue before doing that. I'd suggest taking a look at what actually happens in the NM process - it isn't nearly so fearful and difficult as you seem to think. -- Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness) http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/ EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Fear the new maintainer process
On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 03:06:21PM -0400, Clint Adams wrote: > This entire thread seems to presume diligence on the part of the AM > and lackadaisy on the part of the applicant, not mentioning cases > where the reverse is true. Both could be problems and both need to be addressed. At present people only seem to be trying to address one of them, but that's better than neither being addressed. > FWIW, if I would have had to have experienced the current bureaucracy > to become a maintainer, I'm not certain I would have joined. It's really not that bad. The only thing that didn't feature at all in the previous NM process is the tasks and skills bit, and that's something that would have to be faced anyway. -- Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness) http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/ EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/ PGP signature
Re: Fear the new maintainer process
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 06:14:56AM +1000, Anand Kumria wrote: > On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 02:56:10PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > The problem is with applicants who basically don't respond when NM tries > > to get in touch with them, and it seems fair to put some of the effort > > for avoiding that onto the applicant. > They aren't a problem at all. They are a blessing. AMs can do what I did > when faced with a non-responsive applicant - ask for others to handle. Eventually. After you've sat there for a while, poked around to make sure you're not having problems sending mail, checked to see if there's any sign of life from them elsewhere or an alternative address... It seems a lot of the concern is created by the large backlog we have at the minute - I expect that once things settle down it'll be less of a worry. -- Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness) http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/ EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/ PGP signature
Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)
On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 03:06:36PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote: > Having the assurance that the keyholder is the applicant (this comes from > the signature on their key) coupled with the signed image provided by the > applicant closes the eye/hand loop. Neither is sufficient without the > other. But it just has to be a picture, not photo ID, and it doesn't need to be verified by anyone other than the applicant? -- Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness) http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/ EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 02:32:01PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote: > On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 03:06:36PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote: [Reply-To: set to drop the old nm-admin list] > about the difficulties of providing "adequate" identification. I find the > technical argument (the applicant does not have access to scanners, > etc...) to be as weak, because it declares a lack of "connectedness" with > the "technological" society they wish to enter. This may sound harsh, but > then again, Debian isn't a life-raft where every living, breathing, It depends on what sort of stuff you do. Unless you actually want to scan in images there's no reason to have a scanner. Computers, net connections - these things we can expect people to have access to. Scanners just aren't so generally useful and it's entirely reasonable to expect that someone doesn't own one and doesn't know anyone that does. -- Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness) http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/ EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 10:55:50AM -0500, An Thi-Nguyen Le wrote: > Wouldn't libraries and other such places usually have scanners for public > access (or maybe, if they're clueless or harassed libraries, free access Not round here. Printers probably would, though they might not be enthused about having random people walking in and asking to use them if it wasn't in connection with something they were printing (not to mention the prohibitavely expensive charges last time I had cause to get a printer to do some scanning, though it was exceptionally high quality). -- Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness) http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/ EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 04:05:06PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote: > On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Mark Brown wrote: > > [Reply-To: set to drop the old nm-admin list] I've just dropped it this time. > I don't own a scanner. I know several friends who do, and under extreeme That depends on who you know and what they do, of course. > circumstances I could go into town and pay a copy service for the use of > their scanner. I don't have to own one to be able to use one. The last time I got something scanned by a printer it was prohibatively expensive - it would have been cheaper for this purpose to just buy a scanner. At the minute I wouldn't actually have a problem getting something scanned, but if I lived where my parents do it would be rather more challenging (or at least expensive). I'm not dead set against the idea, but it does seem to be a rather more of a burden for some people than you think. -- Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness) http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/ EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 01:07:24PM -0400, Gopal Narayanan wrote: > If you absolutely can't get hold of a scanner, take a (analog) photo > of your ID, have it developed in any number of online places or your > next-door photo shop, that would give you a CDROM with all your > photos.. Sheesh. Sure, it's just that we shouldn't blithely be saying "and now you need to do ..." without realising the difficulties that are involved. It's not only reasonable but important that we require new maintainers to jump through some hoops but we do need to make sure that these hoops achieve a useful purpose. As far as this one goes, I'm not sure either way. -- Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness) http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/ EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)
On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 03:33:47AM +1000, Anand Kumria wrote: > Perhaps, once again, that is not the issue here. The issue is whether to > trust existing Debian developers to authenticate (sign) the key of > aspiring Debian developers. Trusting developers doesn't seem to be an issue at all. No effort being made to verify that the photo corresponds to the person, all that is being required is that the applicant can provide a photo (not photo ID unless I misremember what Dale said when I asked him). -- Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness) http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/ EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)
On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 07:35:40PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote: > This just doesn't seem to be the onerous task that several have made it > out to be. It's just another requirement for becoming a member. Why not > just obliterate all the requirements, and make signing up sufficient to > membership? We did that at one time, why not now? > We wish to restrict membership to those people who are open and capable of > cooperating in a joint project like Debian. Try looking at this from > Debian's point of view instead of the poor abused applicant. Looking at it from Debian's point of view I don't really see what it achieves. Seeing someone's face just doesn't seem at all important, particularly since most of Debian isn't going to see this picture. I understand where your club analogy comes from, but this part of it just doesn't seem to win us anything. One of the things with working on Linux and free software is that you're constantly dealing with people who's faces you've never seen, and I think people can handle it. It's not that it's impossible to get photos, but it could be a lot more hassle for some people than you seem to realise (perhaps this is a USA thing?) and doesn't do anything useful. The applicant has already physically met another developer, which is far more like the sort of contact you're trying to reproduce than having a couple of developers look at a photo and drop it in a file somewhere. -- Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness) http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/ EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 03:29:35AM +, MJ Ray wrote: > I stopped making the periodic summaries and no-one has complained yet. > I don't think that communicating what -legal is discussing is very > interesting to most debian people. I am keeping notes for my own sake at For what it's worth I'd noticed that the summaries had vanished - things like the Eclipse thread had been making me want to use them. -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 02:12:58AM +, MJ Ray wrote: > Thanks for that and the comments off-list. What would the period > summaries have done to help you with the Eclipse thread? Or did you They'd have helped me either keep up with what's going on without actually looking at the list or at least avoid missing things due to overenthusiastic deletion. > I've been ignoring that thread because it's very large, I dislike Java > and it didn't seem to be heading towards consensus yet. That's kind of where I'm coming from - even without reading the thread and its offshoots simply seeing something tends to encourage a negative reaction to any other thread that has signs of going the same way, even though that may just be an over-sensitive response. -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Take APT 0.6 discussion public!
On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 04:28:05PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: > I described the situation as perceived by numerous (if not most) > developers. If it is an insult to you, maybe you are doing something > wrong? You know, it would probably have been possible to talk about openness in apt development without making disparaging remarks about other things. Regardless of their validity such remarks are likely to lead to confrontational discussions which can be offputting. It'd probably be better to try to avoid associating the two topics. -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bits from the ftpmasters
On Sun, Feb 20, 2005 at 12:33:17AM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote: > I'd prefer not to imagine, of course; either he, or anyone in the ftpmaster > role, could say " gave him the details", and, voila, I wouldn't > need to imagine at all. Even, however, if he asked nicely and got what he > wanted, I have seen quite a few people who asked and got what was either > /dev/null, or an excellent imitation thereof. There's a bit of a bind here, of course: since the environment on the mailing lists is so frequently negative it's often hard to see examples of positive interactions on the lists for people to learn from. With things like others jumping on the thread and previous experience of the lists this is perhaps unsurprising. When things are done off list these problems apply less but others are much less likely to hear about anything except the problems. -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: non-free but distributable packages and kernel firmware
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 09:08:21AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > As thus i was wondering if, together with the volatile effort, it would not be > time for us to split the non-free archive into two parts, namely : > 1) non-free-but-freely-distributable > 2) rest of non-free While that does look like a useful distinction, especially for (as you say) people building CDs and the like, there also seems to be a reasonable community of people who are willing to accept non-free downloads to hardware but still don't want non-free software running on the host system. That would suggest that it would also be worth having a separate section specifically for data to be downloaded to hardware, or perhaps for non-free data in general since there seems to be some crossover with people who wouldn't mind things like non-free standards documents either. -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: non-free but distributable packages and kernel firmware
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 01:55:21PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > Le Mercredi 6 Avril 2005 13:44, Mark Brown a ?crit?: > > on the host system. That would suggest that it would also be worth > > having a separate section specifically for data to be downloaded to > > hardware, or perhaps for non-free data in general since there seems > well, those people could use appropriate pinning in apt/preferences to > avoid installation of things they don't want. > i don't say it's possible atm, but I don't think such possibility > would be hard to implement in apt : pinning on sections. maybe I'm > wrong ? I don't think there's anything at the minute that excludes from searches... -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: non-free but distributable packages and kernel firmware
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 01:55:34PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 12:44:36PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > the host system. That would suggest that it would also be worth having > > a separate section specifically for data to be downloaded to hardware, > Well, there you enter in the discussion of additional classification of > non-free, which has been rejected upto now as too much trouble. To my mind we enter into that discussion as soon as we start talking about this proposal. Hrm. Thinking about it, a section like that would be more of a parallel to the proposed data distribution. > This behavior could be trigered by a debconf variable, which could suitably be > pre-seeded to produce the non-free-but-distributable and the free version of > it. The free just informing the user that the hardware is not supported with > free drivers, and not proposing the download. I would assume that as part of this things like CD images would actually have the redistributable data in there already so I guess the prompt would only happen if the packages weren't on an already avaliable media. > All other kind of classification would probably be something usefull, but > nobody seems to be willing to invest the time to do it, so ... The main constraint with any new archive sections seems like the willingness of ftp-master to review things for inclusion in them - individual packages can be handled piecemeal much like the move out of non-US was. -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: non-free but distributable packages and kernel firmware
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 06:22:11PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Mark Brown wrote: > >about this proposal. Hrm. Thinking about it, a section like that would > >be more of a parallel to the proposed data distribution. > Uh, distributing data has a whole range of different problems to > managing non-free better... Clearly. I was just thinking that the criteria for a data section would not be a million miles away from those for some kind of no programs section (though there may be differences like package sizes). -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GFDL freedoms
") Fcc: +sent-mail Mail-Followup-To: debian-project@lists.debian.org On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 03:11:10PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: [Note Mail-Followup-To:] > [I'm a little disappointed I've had only one response so far. I guess > that means the rest of you who are contributing to this thread are more > interested in flaming than trying to fix the problem.] The interesting bit is the bit that is explictly omitted: the rationale. It should be relatively straightforward to come up with a set of guidelines that allows in the GFDL and similar licenses but agreeing on those guidelines requires a decision that any changes (additions as well as removals!) from the set of freedoms we require for software are good changes. That really needs more of a postive argument for any new guidlines to be made. -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Advertising on Planet Debian
On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 04:00:01PM -0500, Ean Schuessler wrote: > In the end, isn't this a blog aggregator? It isn't a mailing list and I don't > think the same rules apply. Effectively, Planet is trying to impose editorial > conditions on peoples *diaries*. There are already limited restrictions - for example, people are asked to avoid feeding non-English stuff onto it. -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Discussion of bug #311683, default kde install shows porn
On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 11:22:53AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > Is R Armiento trolling and trying to block release? > I can only wonder at the motives. It doesn't seem like an unreasonable concern for them to be raising. The timing is (to say the least) unfortunate but that needn't be malicious. -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Discussion of bug #311683, default kde install shows porn
On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 03:48:22PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > Mark Brown wrote: > > It doesn't seem like an unreasonable concern for them to be raising. > As a bug. It's not reasonable to bring it here the next day. No, but not quite so obviously malicious as you seem to feel either. -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Discussion of bug #311683, default kde install shows porn
On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 08:20:07PM +0200, R. Armiento wrote: > Since the main issue on my mind was "do people feel that it is ok that > this goes into the sarge release?", exactly what would have been proper > procedure? How long should I have waited before bringing it to the list? I'd only have brought it up if it looked like the maintainers weren't paying proper attention to the report. From the bug log it didn't look like there were any unreasonable delays - it took a little while before the bug made it to the package where a fix was needed. -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AM report for Marek Habersack
On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 11:19:24PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote: > Dale: maybe the -admin -> -discuss gateway does need moderating after > all, unfortunately. Speaking of which, would it be possible to arrange for messages sent to -admin not to be re-sent to people on both lists (ie, if you got the mail from admin could -discuss arrange not to send you another copy). -- Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness) http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/ EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/
Re: Incoming
On Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 11:37:39PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote: > Yeah...that's it, I'm for getting rid of incoming mirrors to save cpu and > bandwidth on one of our resources...that's so selfish of me. God forbid I Would it be possible for Incoming to be made avalible via FTP as well as HTTP? Both can have problems with firewalls and forced proxying, but between the two one of them usually works. I would check that only HTTP was mentioned in the original announcement, but I'm behind a broken web proxy right now :-) . -- Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness) http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/ EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/ pgpqz8M5KBCwT.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Incoming
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 03:30:01AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> I don't think so, ftp is going to remain turned off on that machine. If
> you can't fetch things from the web, but can via ftp I think you have some
> serious 'issues' ;>
HTTP tends to be one of the first things that gets forced through a
proxy when people try to conserve bandwidth, while FTP generally gets
left alone. In some cases I've even seen HTTP proxies that won't fetch
things except from other proxies ("we're not paying for downloads for
you, but if there's a copy hanging around...").
Anyway, it's not a major issue - access to Incoming is normally not
essential.
--
Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness)
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/
EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/
pgp5P1ICROacU.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Discussing the DMUP
On Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 12:06:03AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote: > Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > Why is using a newreader on Debian machines strictly > > forbidden? (Incidentally, on IRC, Jason and AJ insist that the > to a misconfiguration[2]. Thus, you are limited to using news servers > provided by your ISP. News server access is typically limited by only letting > people in a given IP block or in a given domain access the news server. > If you want to read news and your ISP has a rotten news server or no news > server, your alternative is to get a login on a computer that has access to > some other news server (or arrange for someone to feed you news, which That's not the case so much anymore - various companies now offer password controlled access commercially for those that want or need it. Using those from Debian boxes would (AFAICT) be OK. > I guess this must not be clear to people who don't administer news > servers but it seemed very intuitivly obvious to me when I first read > the DMUP (and I was glad to have that point clarified, as I was at the > time looking for a good news feed). I guess the point is that our sponsors may not always be willing to accept responsibilty for random Debian people using their servers or (more likely) might not always wish to handle the extra load that could occur. There could also be some concerns about local groups which are intended to be private. > [1] I have no idea why, and I think usenet would be a better place if > this were not so. Except it would probably generate even more spam > and even more abuse of binary newsgroups. RFC 977 dates from the mid 80s. I don't know what bandwidths were like at that point, but I would expect that reading from a server not on the local network would give terrible interactive performance so people didn't consider it a sensible idea and didn't include any authentication mechanism. Remote bandwidth and latency are still an issue for a lot of sites today. There's also the inertia factor. -- Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness) http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/ EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/ pgpf4ZFtW6m3t.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The proposed GR: catch-22
On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 09:06:41PM -0400, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > non-free is not part of Debian, so why are we distributing it? For > the convenience of the users. If it were not for that, we would never > consider it. Since we can meet the convenience of the users in a way > which does not require weakening the principles upon which Debian was > founded. we should do it. It's not just the location of the archive that provides convenience to users. It's also the integration with the actual Debian distribution - things like the BTS and the quality control that goes with it matter too. Basically, I don't see what this proposal gives us. As far as political statements go, it's not as though Debian is not already widely known for its commitment to principles. I don't think doing this will make much additional impact there. Beyond that, what do we gain? If a non-free archive is created then it is still going reflect on Debian. If none is created then (at least for the time being) its absence will be noticed. -- Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness) http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/ EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/
Re: The proposed GR: catch-22
On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 02:38:22PM -0400, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > I could go over the posts on debian-project and debian-devel with a > fine toothed comb and post a list of all the messages there which > evince the confusion, including several from users who were very > worried about "removing non-free from Debian". Perhaps you would prefer it if everyone wrote "removing all the support provided for using non-free software with Debian"? I'm not sure how much of it is careless wording and how much of it is real misunderstanding. -- Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness) http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/ EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/ pgp7v61cNzF3F.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFC: Changing the NM system
On Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 03:42:36PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > I've seen these not yet used guidelines for taking over packages and I Those guidelines have been used at least once. -- Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness) http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/ EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/ pgpmZSn0rofFP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: admins: please clarify /etc/motd on auric
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 09:13:34AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: > Branden Robinson wrote: > > I assume this means local time for auric, but it might be nice to add > > the timezone identifier. > Oh come on! If you ask somebody on the street for the current time, > do you expect him to answer with a note that it's Hong Kong time instead > of local time? What other time than local would make sense when not > stated differently? On a system like auric that's used by people from many different timezones as part of a wordwide project it could just as well be UTC. In any case, it would be more helpful to specify which timezone is being talked about - off hand I've no idea what timezone auric is in. -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever."
Re: admins: please clarify /etc/motd on auric
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 05:49:07PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > It is far harder to remember all the timezone names, probably. Do you know > from the top of your head what is BST (or BRST as we often use it here?) Surely everyone knows that that's British Summer Time? -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever."
Re: Why are these packages in Debian?
On Sun, Apr 06, 2003 at 03:36:24PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote: > point of view, bible-kjv-text is in there because it's useful > reference material. I would support packaging, e.g., the It's also data for the bible-kjv package. -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever." pgpcCM2lUvLn3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Why "free" shouldn't have to mean "complicated"
On Mon, May 05, 2003 at 08:37:39AM +0200, Benoit Peccatte wrote: > Do you expect users who don't know anything about linux to product a > useful bug report ? Sure. A useful bug report is one that gives enough information to allow developers to understand and reproduce a problem so they can work on fixing it. In a large number of cases simply explaining what steps are taken to get the bug to show up gives enough information and there's nothing Linux-specific about that. -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever."
Re: Proposed transition plan for non-free and call for help
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 04:02:50PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > You'd have to ask people actually maintaing non-free packages here. From > the discussions on -vote, I was under this impression. I could well be > wrong though. I'd have thought anyone keeping up with these threads on -vote is displaying an unusual enthusiasm for the subject and is perhaps not typical of the developer population as a whole. -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever."
