Re: question
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 01:49:07PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Debian, > >I am interested in installing debian on my Mac g4 pwerbook and having both > Mac OSx and Linux as operating systems. However, some of the software in OSX > won't work in Debian such Digidesign ProTools, and the hardware for it--MBox. > If > I am working with debian package, and I decide to use some program that > normally > runs in OSx, do I have to reboot my comp? or can I just go from program to > program, no matter what the platform, from some basic command-line? There is mol, which is packaged in debian, which should allow you to run your OS X install in a separate screen on the debian install apt-cache show mol for details (doesn't work with OS X 10.4 yet though) Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: consultant entries that will be removed unless they "pong"
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 01:08:06PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote: > On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 08:56:11PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > > > Debian has *no* business of telling people what to put on their websites. > > > > > > If someone doesn't like the fact that a consultant doesn't list Debian on > > > their website, then they don't have to use that consultant. Suggesting > > > that > > > we should be filtering out potential consultants based on the content of > > > their websites is beyond ridiculous. > > > > I think use of this argument is "beyond ridiculous". It cuts > > both ways: consultants have no business demanding debian lists > > them if they won't meet the list maintainers' criteria. > > Way to knock down that strawman. > > > The consultants maintainers haven't given "must list debian on > > webpage" as one of those criteria yet, though. I hope that the > > worst case effect of introducing that one would be given beforehand. > > And I hope that it won't be introduced at all. Debian is not some big > corporation that should be shoving marketing agreements down its consultants' > throats. Leave that to the corporate Linux distros. Maybe we could do it both way, and split the listing into two lists, those consultants that are ready to aknowledge debian, and those that prefer to hide they do debian work. That would be fair to everyone, and people may chose a consultant who is more supportive of debian over those who don't want to advertize debian. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: consultant entries that will be removed unless they "pong"
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 02:32:36PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote: > On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 10:27:06PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > Maybe we could do it both way, and split the listing into two lists, those > > consultants that are ready to aknowledge debian, and those that prefer to > > hide > > they do debian work. > > You're being quite presumptuous about people's motives. How do you know that > someone 'prefers to hide' that they do debian work, just because they do not > advertise it? Bah, whatever, should i have added a smiley :) But then, how do we not know they don't propose redhat solutions or whatever to people coming to them through us ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: "Debian" Core Consortium
On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 02:38:17AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > Daniel Ruoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Even if this organization is called "Debian Core Consortium", it *is* > > referring to Debian itself, isn't it? > > That's my understanding. It's not claiming to be debian or > trying to use the name for anything other than the produce of > debian. It's a consortium trying to help the core of debian. > Seems like basic, accurate, descriptive use so far. Maybe some > of the later uses for its output could get a bit tricky, though. > (There may be some fun areas for Ian Murdock personally, if US > law grants similar rights to one's own name as English law.) I think the problem here is with the word "Core", which has some connotation we cannot exclusively let to a random subgroup, independently of who they are. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#321701: bug handling is a maintainers job
On Sun, Aug 07, 2005 at 09:58:15PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: > * Wichert Akkerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > Package: mozilla-firefox > > > > Debian maintainers have always assumed full responsibility for their > > work within Debian: they make sure their packages are in excellent shape > > and they take care of all bugreports, either fixing them themselves > > or working with upstream. So I was somewhat surprised when I filed > > a bug on mozilla-firefox and got this message: > > > > *** Please submit non packaging issue (e.g. feature requests) bugs to > > the Debian BTS and the upstream bugzilla > > (http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?product=Firefox) and put a > > reference to the bugzilla bug in the Debian bug report, to ease bug > > triage for the maintainers. Thank you. *** > > > > This is silly: it makes filing a bugreport a lot harder for users, > > which can actively discourage them. Users should only have to deal > > with Debian, not with all upstreams and all their different ways > > of handling bugreports. As a maintainer it is your responsibility to > > take care of that. > > I don't think it's silly at all. First of all, I'm making a request, I think it is silly and possibly counter-productive even, but well. > I'm not demanding they do this. Firefox has 306 open bugs (well, 271 > if you don't count merged bugs), so it's a fairly buggy (and popular) > piece of software. Especially in the case of random feature requests, > it's merely taking time away from fixing other bugs, to having to > forward them upstream. So if the submitter really cares about the > feature, they can spend a little more time sending it upstream instead > of just creating busy work for the maintainer. I've provided a link to > the submission page, and bugzilla is a pretty standard and popular bug > tracking system (even though I don't particularly like it, and many > are of the same opinion). Do you really think people will be so > discouraged that they'll give up all together instead of just filing > the Debian bug. What about a mechanism for transparently forwarding a bug report to upstream instead, in such a way that the link between the debian bug report and upstream bug report doesn't go out of sync ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#321701: bug handling is a maintainers job
On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 09:59:58AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > Le Lun 8 Août 2005 09:33, Sven Luther a écrit : > > What about a mechanism for transparently forwarding a bug report to > > upstream instead, in such a way that the link between the debian bug > > report and upstream bug report doesn't go out of sync ? > > > we have the same kind of problem with KDE. bugzilla is all except easy > to interface with the rest of the world. I had tried to do some scripts > that interact between the BTS and bugs.kde.org'zilla ... and I've > renounced. And gnome probably suffers from a similar problem. bugzilla sucks bigtime and should die ... Maybe you just subscribe the upstream devel mailing lists to those bug reports or something :) > Just for the sake of the statistics [1] or [2] will show you that we > have to deal with 1200+ bugs. let's just say most of them just rot in > the BTS ... > > the maintainer-has-to-forward-the-bugs-to-the-upstream-for-the user is > valid for packages that are reasonnably small, and when the bug > tracking system of the upstream is reasonnably scriptable. Projects > like mozilla and all its childs projects, KDE, X11, ... the task is > just too big, and seeing the users forwarding bugs when they can would > be quite a relief. Yeah, you would benefit from more manpower then, even maybe some choice users would like to participate in bug triaging this way or something. But defaulting to either let the bug forgotten in the BTW, or force the user to use the upstream BTS, is not how we should do it. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#321701: bug handling is a maintainers job
On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 08:04:14AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 21:58:15 -0400, Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > I don't think it's silly at all. First of all, I'm making a request, > > I'm not demanding they do this. Firefox has 306 open bugs (well, 271 > > if you don't count merged bugs), so it's a fairly buggy (and > > popular) piece of software. Especially in the case of random feature > > requests, it's merely taking time away from fixing other bugs, to > > having to forward them upstream. So if the submitter really cares > > about the feature, they can spend a little more time sending it > > upstream instead of just creating busy work for the maintainer. I've > > provided a link to the submission page, and bugzilla is a pretty > > standard and popular bug tracking system (even though I don't > > particularly like it, and many are of the same opinion). Do you > > really think people will be so discouraged that they'll give up all > > together instead of just filing the Debian bug. > > When a Debian user starts using a debian, they should be > assured full service bug reporting.A user may not be aware of the > myriad upstream bug tracking systems for all the packages they use, > so it is natural to go to the common debian BTS. > > Given that, it is important that the feature requests also be > recorded in the VTS, for no other reason than to savbe you time as > other people look at the BTS, find nothing, and send in a duplicate > feature request. > > My personal choice is to forward the bug reports in the cases > it makes sense, after triaging the report (yes, I triage rteports to > save my upstreams time); and in cases it makes sense, I ask thre > reporter to _also_ send the bug upstream, perhaps with more data (as > reported by M-x gnus-bug, for example). Itell the reporter how to > send such a bug, where to send it, and I request a CC to the > #NNNN-forwarded address. Problem is for upstream BTS, which don't support email CCs though, but i believe even bugzilla can do that, altough in one of the ugliest way possible. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Delegation for trademark negotiatons with the DCCA
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 12:54:18PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote: > > ... > > anyone. As long as it is clear that they are an external (commercial or > > non-commercial) entity, I would expect no problem to implictely or > > explicitely granting many more groups derived rights to the trademark > > "Debian". Only the wording "core" used in combination with the trademark > > "Debian", implies to me a very specific relationship to the project. > > But the word "core" is not meant as in "core of Debian" but as in "core of > several distributions based on Debian". Well, the simple fact that it can and has been misinterpreted should make you consider something else. The core as in "core of debian" seems more natural and intuitive in any case. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian UK
On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 12:12:44PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > We would be most glad then if you would stop trying to harm it by > > involving all the members in a stupid flamewar on -project then. Trust > > me you are visibly doing harm. > > Attempting to work out the concerns of DDs and how the Debian trademark > should be used isn't exactly a 'stupid flamewar'. It almost certainly > will help Debian in the end as it's been shown that not having a clear > trademark policy certainly hurts Debian. No, you are wrong, this is a stupid flamewar over inter-personal dislikes or whatever of some UK guys, who have a misunderstanding about the debian-uk association, as happens in lot of associations i guess, and this is very very quickly gettting over anoying, so all UK-guys concerned, please stop being stuborn and prideful and whatever, and go speak with each other and stop making yourself ridicoulous in front of the wider debian community. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian UK
On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 06:30:46PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 12:12:44PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > > > We would be most glad then if you would stop trying to harm it by > > > > involving all the members in a stupid flamewar on -project then. Trust > > > > me you are visibly doing harm. > > > > > > Attempting to work out the concerns of DDs and how the Debian trademark > > > should be used isn't exactly a 'stupid flamewar'. It almost certainly > > > will help Debian in the end as it's been shown that not having a clear > > > trademark policy certainly hurts Debian. > > > > No, you are wrong, this is a stupid flamewar over inter-personal dislikes or > > whatever of some UK guys, who have a misunderstanding about the debian-uk > > association, as happens in lot of associations i guess, and this is very > > very > > quickly gettting over anoying, so all UK-guys concerned, please stop being > > stuborn and prideful and whatever, and go speak with each other and stop > > making yourself ridicoulous in front of the wider debian community. > > It's not quite as simple as that, unfortunately. I'd be happier if it > was. I feel there is an issue regarding if Debian should be a > commercial or a non-commercial entity, and how that affects its branches > in other countries and accordingly the Debian trademark policy. It > happens that the DUS/Debian-UK/whatever people have pushed this issue to > the forefront by attempting to set up what appears to be a commercial > Debian branch in the UK but I don't feel this issue is really isolated > to them. It seems to me they are selling t-shirts and whatever and the result of that money serves to buy more t-shirts and stuff, is donated to debian as UK-based money when asked by the DPL/SPI/whoever, and occasionally serves to pay beer for the anual barbeque or whatever. This doesn't strike me as much different than loads of other inon-profit associations (maybe thisis a frenchisism though ?) do in all legallity, and i see nothing there which really involves trademark or our attitude with regard commercial distributions. .From my overview of this discussion, it is just a petty person dispute between the "in" people and the "out" ones, and some critiziscm at the fact that debian-uk was setup slopily and in a way which may make random UK based DD liable (altough i guess any court would take the reasonable approach over the opt-out thingy, and not make those co-opted members liable, but IANAL). So, go solv your internal and interpersonal affairs between yourselves, or bring some more real problems here that warrant this long flamewar :) Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian UK
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 12:30:39AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > This doesn't strike me as much different than loads of other inon-profit > > associations > > (maybe thisis a frenchisism though ?) do in all legallity, and i see nothing > > there which really involves trademark or our attitude with regard commercial > > distributions. > > The debian trademark policy says no businesses get to use > the mark. Why should this selling association, which ignores > good practice, get a swift exception, while Ian Murdock's > development association gets referred for negotiations? Because, quite simply, they are not a business, at least in the sense that was meant at the above. I mean, take LinuxTag for example, there where guys there at the debian booth selling t-shirts and stuff, don't know the detail, but nobody bashed them for doing business in debian name, and i believe as long as the money is not given out to share-holders, but is for debian (either as plain donation, or expensed for debian related stuff, like stock renewal and the ocassional yearly party), then everything is fine and you are just silly in claiming the contrary. There is no relationship whatsoever in the "core" thingy, or the other debian derived distros. And BTW, anyway, does the debian trademark extend to textile and such ? Or is it only restricted to software products ? > > From my overview of this discussion, it is just a petty person dispute > > between the "in" people and the "out" ones, > > More like the "in" people and the "also-in" ones ;-) Well, a petty person dispute nontheless. > > [...] (altough i guess any court would take the reasonable approach over > > the opt-out thingy, and not make those co-opted members liable, but IANAL). > > First, I'd rather not take that risk in this climate. Any juridicial system, where you get assigned responsability like that without attending the AGM and signing in is probably worthless. I doubt the UK judicial system is in this case though. > Second, what would happen to Debian's money if "Debian UK"'s > constitution is found not to stand up in court? What'd happen > to debian's reputation? We'd look like a bunch of clowns who > can't run one of the simplest business structures! As opposed to a bunch of clowns who expose their petty disputes on the public plaza :) > > So, go solv your internal and interpersonal affairs between yourselves, or > > bring some more real problems here that warrant this long flamewar :) > > I'm willing to discuss and I've been plain about the walk-away > points, but there's no sign of DUS movement. This problem needs > more attention and it would've been better if it came from > debian supporters here, rather than the alternatives. Sorry. Well, you have hardly been resaonable in some of your points, so i believe there is some understanding in them not wanting to speak with you or whatever. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian UK
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 01:50:30AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Scripsit MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...] > > > As previously argued, DUS is an enterprise generating income from > > > commercial sale of goods - a business. > > > > More assertions. > > Assertions? > That DUS is an enterprise? What exactly is this DUS thingy you are all speaking about ? Is it the same as Debian-UK under another name, or something else ? If you insist on spamming the whole world with this, at least provide good context. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian UK
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 07:52:40AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > What makes it even worse is that on debian.org websites we claim to not > sell products yet at the *Debian* booth at whichever UK expos DUS goes > to we *are* selling products. It seems pretty likely that the sponsored > booth is in Debian's name, either explicitly or as Debian-UK with the > assumption that Debian-UK is the UK branch of Debian. I saw products being sold at LinuxTag's debian booth, and saw no major problem with that. > > .From my overview of this discussion, it is just a petty person dispute > > between the "in" people and the "out" ones, and some critiziscm at the fact > > that debian-uk was setup slopily and in a way which may make random UK based > > DD liable (altough i guess any court would take the reasonable approach over > > the opt-out thingy, and not make those co-opted members liable, but IANAL). > > I believe there is some animosity due to the opt-out issue but that's > not what I'm focused on since it's not terribly interesting. There are > some important issues here regarding Debian's non-commercial stance and > use of its name in other countries. Come on, be serious, selling a few tshirts and stuff during a couple yearly expos and having the benefit go to debian is hardly what anyone serious minded mentions as commercial when speaking about debian. The problem would appear if there was a large volume being made, if the profit didn't go exclusively to debian, and such. > > So, go solv your internal and interpersonal affairs between yourselves, or > > bring some more real problems here that warrant this long flamewar :) > > It might help to point out that I'm not in the UK.. He, thanks, i didn't know that. Anyway, if you are serious about getting this stuff cleared out, make a policy proposal, but please stop this name calling non-sense. If the proposal is good, it will either be adopted, or we can vote on this, but i guess this would further ridiculie us in the face of the world than this thread already does. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian UK
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 08:03:03AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 12:30:39AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > > > The debian trademark policy says no businesses get to use > > > the mark. Why should this selling association, which ignores > > > good practice, get a swift exception, while Ian Murdock's > > > development association gets referred for negotiations? > > > > Because, quite simply, they are not a business, at least in the sense that > > was > > meant at the above. > > I'm not so sure I agree with this interpretation... When we claim to > not sell products, and therefore claim to be non-commercial, I'd have to > say that I'd expect anything which does sell products or is commercial > would be considered a business to us. Oh come on, do you have an idea of the volume involved ? And as far as i know, debian is a software project, not a tshirt-and-mug-and-whatnot selling one. > > I mean, take LinuxTag for example, there where guys there at the debian > > booth > > selling t-shirts and stuff, don't know the detail, but nobody bashed them > > for > > doing business in debian name, and i believe as long as the money is not > > given > > out to share-holders, but is for debian (either as plain donation, or > > expensed > > for debian related stuff, like stock renewal and the ocassional yearly > > party), > > then everything is fine and you are just silly in claiming the contrary. > > Either Debian's going to be a commercial entity or it's not. I'd > brought this issue up before (on d-d I believe) and got shot down by a > number of people for proposing that we try to supplement our cash > reserves by selling things and perhaps some day be able to pay for our > own hosting, etc. So ? Jumping in it this whole mess instead of doing a proper proposal will hardly bring you a more serious hearing from most here (well, at least not from me). > > And BTW, anyway, does the debian trademark extend to textile and such ? Or > > is > > it only restricted to software products ? > > That's an interesting question and not really very well phrased and so > is kind of difficult to answer. That is bullshit, and you perfectly know it. Anyone with the less knowledge about trademark know that they are not all encompassing, but that you have to declare field of endeavour or whatever it is called. In france if you delclare a trademark you get to fill for 3-4 fields for the same price for example. I guess that the debian trademark covers software and other computer related product, but does it covers drinks, carpentry, toys for children, vestimentary stuff, kitchen equipements and so on ? (well, not quite sure about the categories, but software and tshirt definitvely don't fall in the same category). Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian UK
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 08:47:24AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Andreas Barth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > * Stephen Frost ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050907 14:02]:
> > > I'm not so sure I agree with this interpretation... When we claim to
> > > not sell products, and therefore claim to be non-commercial, I'd have to
> > > say that I'd expect anything which does sell products or is commercial
> > > would be considered a business to us.
> >
> > Well, I don't know how the british rules are, but at least here
> > (Germany) a non-commercial institution can do "business", as long as the
> > "business" helps in reaching the institution's goals. And selling Debian
> > T-Shirts falls into that aspect IMHO. ("Business" because it doesn't
> > really always fall within the business laws.)
>
> Perhaps there's a language misunderstanding here. Commercial *means*
> selling things, at least where I'm from. What you're referring to seems
> to be what I'd understand as a non-profit. These are two distinct
> things. IANAL but I do believe that in the US a non-profit is similar
> to what you call a 'non-commercial institution' in that it can sell
> things provided it helps in reaching the goals and therefore is in the
> public interest.
Nope, restricting your world view in warped US-interpretation.
Let's say your paroquial association or housewife get-together association,
start to sell house-made cakes in order to finance the repainting or fixing of
the roof of their church or school or whatever. Or school children raising
money for an excursion or whatever.
This, independent of the law involved, is by any common sense applied to it no
business or commerce, and is quite similar to what is going on at shows and
events, when there are t-shirts being sold at the debian booth.
That the money is used to pay the fee for the booth, have a nice big
after-event party, or whatnot, or sponsors travel of debian developpers to
events, that is all fine, and nothing to be ashamed about, and in no case is
this a business or commercial venture.
> Either way, however, we do claim to not sell products. I hope there's
> no misunderstanding on what that means. To me, selling t-shirts would
> fall under selling products, and therefore would be commercial activity,
> though not necessairly for-profit.
Nope, if you are really from the US, then your view on this is limited by the
way you think there, and if not, no idea if you ever participated in
associative life.
> > > Either Debian's going to be a commercial entity or it's not.
> >
> > Debian is not a commercial entity just because it _also_ sells T-Shirts
> > and other stuff.
>
> Selling things is exactly what being a commercial entity means. :(
Bullshit. Please educate yourself.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian UK
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 08:58:59AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 07:52:40AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > > What makes it even worse is that on debian.org websites we claim to not > > > sell products yet at the *Debian* booth at whichever UK expos DUS goes > > > to we *are* selling products. It seems pretty likely that the sponsored > > > booth is in Debian's name, either explicitly or as Debian-UK with the > > > assumption that Debian-UK is the UK branch of Debian. > > > > I saw products being sold at LinuxTag's debian booth, and saw no major > > problem > > with that. > > Great, then perhaps you'd support a move for Debian to become a > commercial entity. I suspect you're in the minority but I'd be happy to > be wrong. I guess that simply means that you have no clue what a comercial entity is :) See my other mail. > > If the proposal is good, it will either be adopted, or we can vote on this, > > but i guess this would further ridiculie us in the face of the world than > > this > > thread already does. > > I think we'd have to vote on it, personally.. Perhaps not though. > I do think we should do some research into what our current donars would > think of such a change in policy though. Either way I think it's certainly > a fair question to ask of ourselves and don't feel asking it would > somehow be of detriment to Debian. Sure, but not over an internal disput of those UK guys :) Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian UK
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 09:11:25AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > Nope, if you are really from the US, then your view on this is limited by > > the > > way you think there, and if not, no idea if you ever participated in > > associative life. > > Uhh... > http://www.debian.org/CD/vendors/info > > "Debian does not sell any products." > > I don't *think* that my being in the US is somehow making me read that > differently than the rest of the world, but hey, if you see something > different on that page, please let me know! Notice that the link is on the CD selling page, right ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian UK
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 08:53:54AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > > > And BTW, anyway, does the debian trademark extend to textile and such ? > > > > Or is > > > > it only restricted to software products ? > > > > > > That's an interesting question and not really very well phrased and so > > > is kind of difficult to answer. > > > > That is bullshit, and you perfectly know it. Anyone with the less knowledge > > about trademark know that they are not all encompassing, but that you have > > to > > declare field of endeavour or whatever it is called. In france if you > > delclare > > a trademark you get to fill for 3-4 fields for the same price for example. > > No, trademarks aren't all encompassing. There's also copyright law > which governs the logo. There's also the issue that you're not selling > a type of t-shirt which you've decided to trademark and call 'Debian'. > There's also the issue that it's being sold at the Debian booth, etc. > It's not so simple as you're trying to make it out to be, unfortunately. My question was plain simple, does the debian trademark extend to textiles and other t-shirt or is it only covering software ? This has a simple answer, and does not include the stuff you are speaking about, which are a separate matter. > > I guess that the debian trademark covers software and other computer related > > product, but does it covers drinks, carpentry, toys for children, > > vestimentary > > stuff, kitchen equipements and so on ? (well, not quite sure about the > > categories, but software and tshirt definitvely don't fall in the same > > category). > > No, they don't, but that's not what's at issue here and claiming it is > shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue... I have seen the word Trademark mentioned in a subject of a subthread here, so ... Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian UK
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 09:11:25AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > Let's say your paroquial association or housewife get-together association, > > start to sell house-made cakes in order to finance the repainting or fixing > > of > > the roof of their church or school or whatever. Or school children raising > > money for an excursion or whatever. You didn't reply to this above example. Plain simple, is this commercial and business for you, or is it not ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Should debian formalize t-shirt sales at events (Was Re: Debian-UK).
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 09:33:55AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 09:11:25AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > > * Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > > Let's say your paroquial association or housewife get-together > > > > association, > > > > start to sell house-made cakes in order to finance the repainting or > > > > fixing of > > > > the roof of their church or school or whatever. Or school children > > > > raising > > > > money for an excursion or whatever. > > > > You didn't reply to this above example. Plain simple, is this commercial and > > business for you, or is it not ? > > I'd say it's commercial but non-profit and small enough to not have to > deal with taxes. I'm not sure that a large international organization > such as Debian could really just say "well, so long as you don't have to > pay taxes in your jurisdiction it's ok"... If that's the policy then > alright then. Well, at least in germany and france, we have associations which are non-profit, and have the right to do such things, without being businesses or commercial stuff. And naturally, you have the guys who do this informally too, which is what used to happen in the UK previously. But i guess if you compare what happens in the debian-present show events, and the commercial subdistributions, and the above example, and apply common sense, you will fall easily enough on the distinction we are making. The real question is not if there should be debian t-shirts sold on debian booth on events, or not, but : 1) do we want a formal commercial entity in charge of merchandizing the debian frenchize with t-shirts, mugs, whatever. 2) What happens to the money of the above if there is a gain made (and who pays if there is a loss). I guess the reply to debian becoming a commercial entity and doing 1) is clear, at least in the current context, and well, the way 2) currently works is that gains are put in a fund serving for next time stock buying, thus ensuring nobody needs to put money from their own pocket, or donated to debian for use as the DPL decides (or whoever delegate is in charge of that). Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian UK
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 10:15:17AM +0100, Brett Parker wrote: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 01:50:30AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > > > Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Scripsit MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...] > > > > > As previously argued, DUS is an enterprise generating income from > > > > > commercial sale of goods - a business. > > > > > > > > More assertions. > > > > > > Assertions? > > > That DUS is an enterprise? > > > > What exactly is this DUS thingy you are all speaking about ? Is it the same > > as > > Debian-UK under another name, or something else ? > > DUS -> Debian UK Society. I'm sure this was obvious from a previous > post. Got confunded by both DUS and Debian-Uk appaearing in the same mails, apparently as two separate entities. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Popularity contest
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 02:21:28PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit David Moreno Garza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 00:04 +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > > >> >> No. > > >> > Why not? > > >> What would be the point? > > > Promote the use of popcon and therefor, have some useful statistics on > > the usage of packages? > > Again, why would that be relevant precisely on the package search > page? There seems to be no logical connection to popcon from that page > at all - except insofar that the package search page and popcon both > have somthing to do with Debian, but by that reasoning all Debian > pages ought to link to each other. > > I really don't see what the specific connection beteen package search > and popcon should be. Simply add the popularity context data for each package into the page of the package, with an "how this info was obtained" kind of link to popcon ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DPL team
On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 07:39:37PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 03:30:51AM -0500, Branden Robinson / Debian Project > Leader wrote: > > (CC:ed to -project - please reply there) > > > The DPL Team has been itchy to organize a miniconf-style meeting of various > > security personnel since DebConf ended > > Has it? That was over 2 months ago. The DPL team started off with > minutes of meetings where stuff like this was discussed, but this seems > to have vanished. The desire to have a meeting doesn't seem like > something where privacy is an issue, so it'd be nice to get back to a > situation where the wishes of the leadership team are made known to the > project as a whole. It'd potentially make it easier to ensure that they > happen. And that everyone who should be attending, is informed about it in a timely way. This sounds a bit like a vancouver-kind meeting organisation, or gods forbid, a Debian-Uk GM reunion :) Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Software Packages in "stable" - [security]
On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 05:38:31PM +0100, Leslie Ianson wrote: > To Whom This May Concern > > Firstly, I would like to thank your for taking the time to read my > e-mail. This should just be a quick question, I hope. > > In regards to the Software Packages under the "stable" directory what > does the [security] label mean? These are probably packages that have had a security update since sarge was released (june 06 2005), and thus available from the security repository and not the stable repository. A default install should have both normal stable and stable/security in your apt sources so it should be transparent for you. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: music in debian
On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 09:46:06AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > Michael Chagnon, Escape Velocity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I was interested in having one song of ours, from our new album, distributed > > with the Debian package. So that when users install Debian, they have a > > piece of music to test their new OS's audio with. Similar to when Windows 95 > > and 98 discs came with several videos and/or pieces of music. Please let me > > know who I must contact or what I should do to make this happen. If you need > > any information, please let me know. Thanks. --Michael > > First, I think you should contact the debian-installer developers > to ask whether any music is suitable for during the install. I'm > not sure whether the installer will set up sound systems. Their > web pages are at http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/ Notice that as i understood this, the sound would be usefull post-install to test the sound system, not during install, so the second posibility is more to the point. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Approaching VMware (and others) to get Debian listed as supported ?
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 11:06:47AM -0500, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: > On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Ben Pfaff wrote: > > > "Yann Dirson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > Debian is not listed in the list of supported OS on the VMware website[1]. > > > We all know here there is no reason for it not to work, especially given > > > the huge number of other distros listed there, but in the corporate > > > environment, yada, yada. > > [...] > > > It would probably be more difficult to get added to the list of > > supported host operating systems. > > > > VMware talked to us about this at linuxworld once. The problem is that most > distros have one official blessed kernel for their releases. Debian > is more chaotic^Wdiverse so it is hard for them to do the QA to guarantee This may have used to be the case, but should not be a problem anymore, we have only one kernel per released architecture, and make it easy enough for them to build modules for the official kernels, the debian kernel team needs to provide a document on how to build modules probably, but even if it is not yet fully documented, everything is there to make it happen. And they only support x86 anyway, and maybe amd64/ia64, so there will not be an overwehlming number of flavours for them to worry about. Maybe we should make some PR statement about the new way of debian kernels for the etch timeframe, since many of the third party module builders seem to have some trouble with this, and the old chaotic situation in mind. > it will work for all Debian users. Perhaps with all the work the kernel team > is doing, they will change their minds for etch. In the meantime, they > are responsive to ideas that will make it easier for Debian users to use > VMware. That's what they told me anyway. Cool, Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Approaching VMware (and others) to get Debian listed as supported ?
On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 01:57:48PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote: > Sven Luther wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 11:06:47AM -0500, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: > > > This may have used to be the case, but should not be a problem anymore, we > > have only one kernel per released architecture, and make it easy enough for > > them to build modules for the official kernels, the debian kernel team needs > > to provide a document on how to build modules probably, but even if it is > > not > > yet fully documented, everything is there to make it happen. > > They seem to be comparing Debian unstable, with other distros' official > releases, which is a bit strange -- presumably they're not claiming to > support beta versions of those other distros. Well, probably because of the debian/woody being too old for them to care about, the sarge release made this much nicer though. But even following unsatble/testing kernels should be much much easier these days. > Anyway, I seem to remember that they provide the source for the bits that > need to go into the guest operating system (I could be wrong, it's been a > while since I last played with it). Given that, assuming we can have > permission to redistribute binaries, and someone is willing to package > them, the bits required to make everything work in the guest could be > packaged and distributed (probably in non-free, but distributed > nonetheless) by Debian, making it trivially easy for people to install > under VMWare. Indeed, in non-free if nothing else, but do we have the right to do so, and do we have people interested in it ? > A vmware-guest package could even depend on particular kernel versions if > they're that stressed about it (savy admins could always get round that, at > their own risk). Alternatively, the postinst could check the environment > it's sitting in and put up a warning about it being unsupported, and how to > fix that. Either of these would provide more assurance to them than they > currently get from an RHEL system with a locally patched kernel. Yep, there is really nothing outworlddly about it at all, maybe we simply need someone to guide them to the right path, and/or they need to find the will to have someone do it. > Perhaps this should be pointed out to them, since if that were to happen, > we'd be doing their testing for them during the Debian release cycle, and > they would just need to confirm the facts at release time. :) Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian Pure Project
On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 06:55:12AM -0700, Robert Tolu wrote: > Dear Debian Developers: > > My name is Robert Tolu and I currently lead a project > known as Debian Pure (www.debianpure.com). I am > writing because it has come to my attention that the > Debian name is a trademark and I may be infringing on > this trademark. Let me tell you about Debian Pure. > Basically, its the official Sarge installer slightly > modified to install sets of packages and preseeds to > get a Debian desktop running. The packages that are > included all come from the official Sarge repositories > with the exceptions of the common plugins (Java, > Flash, w32codecs, libdvdcss2, mplayer). Well, the problem with a name like yours, as has been seen in the antecedent of secure debian or whatever it was, is the connotation that debian is not pure or pure enough or whatever. I don't think, but other will comment better, that you can continue using this name with the current policies and the secure-debian antecedent because of it. (Also, on a side note, but i guess the name is counter-intuitive, since your sub-distrib is not 'purer' than debian, since it hads some packages of dubious legal standing, but this is only my interpretation). Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 100's of mails
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 11:49:35AM +0200, Rafi Gabzu wrote: > Hi , > Yesterday I subsribed to subscribe to > *debian-user*<http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/>, since then I'm > getting 100's of mails asking for help , is that normal ? > I understand that each mail I will compose will be public but I didn't think > I'll get all mails to my adress . Well, you subscribed to the list, so you will get each mail to the list, as all other subscribed folk will get the mail you send to the list. A good mail triaging software like procmail will help you a lot to handle this, and you should also know that you are don't necessarily need to be subscribed to post to the debian-user list, altough it is more convenient to do so. The below procmail rule (to be added to your .procmailrc) should do : :0: * List-Id: .*debian-user debian-user Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Automated testing - design and interfaces
On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 06:43:32PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > Note: that this is one of two messages on roughly the same topic. > > This message will deal solely with TECHNICAL issues. If you have some > technical followup then please go ahead and reply here. If you have a > complaint or comment about my or Ubuntu's approach, please reply in > debian-*project* to my other message, titled `Automated testing - > politics, information, and Ubuntu's plans'. How will this interact with stuff like the powerpc32/powerpc64 biarch situation, where there is a series of tests which can only be handled on powerpc64, but no powerpc32 ? I know ubuntu has only powerpc64 machines, so it is not as important to you, but debian is using 32bit autobuilders, and i geuss in both case people would like to test and build the packages on powerpc32 machines too. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian mentioned on Ethiscore
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 06:52:13PM -0500, Hubert Chan wrote: > On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 15:17:21 -, "Lindsay Whalen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > Dear Debian, I am pleased to inform you that the Debian website was > > recently included as a link in a report on Computers on our new > > Ethiscore website, which can be found at www.ethiscore.org We would be > > keen for you to tell your supporters about Ethical Consumer, and > > include a reciprocal link on your site to www.ethiscore.org > > For those interested, a direct link to the article is: > http://www.ethiscore.org/info.aspx?info=reports/full/computers > (surely a publication that is dedicated to ethics, and talks about Free > software, isn't going to mind deep linking...) and Debian is mentioned > in the sidebar "Co-operation versus capitalism - an introduction to Free > software." Nice to see that they use Free instead of Open Source (and > define it as "pertain[ing] to freedom, not price"). > > The downside, though, is that their site uses ASP.NET, and requires > cookies to work properly. And as MJ points out, isn't very accessible. Funny, from their email, i thought they where just the standard link exchange spammers or something. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian mentioned on Ethiscore
On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 10:25:55AM +, MJ Ray wrote: > On accessibility, it seems that Corporate Critic and Ethiscore are > run by different members of that cooperative (although the tech looks > similar to me). I'm continuing to discuss it with Lindsay Whalen, > but I think it'll be next week now before any more development. > I'll pass on the comments about looking like link spam. I couldn't > find any similar examples of the email on the web, so maybe it's > not intentional. (I'd be almost happy to be spammed with news > of free software advancing among cooperatives. Almost.) Well, maybe the fact that the link was not deep linked to the real story caused this, but there where in the past mails asking for links and such , or asking to link us, and a hasty reading made it look somewhat like those, which was conforted when i went to the linked site and found nothing obviously debian related. I didn't search long though, and deleted the email. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: General Resolution: Declassification of debian-private list archives
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 12:36:26AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Thu, 01 Dec 2005, Horms wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 07:09:25AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > > > if there *really* are some DDs who volunteer to spend their time > > > on old postings it is fine for me but because I think there are > > > much more valuable tasks to do for the benefit of Debian I just > > > will not vote intentionally. > > > > I am also concerned that it creates uneccessary administrative > > overhead for very little gain. > > Presumably the people who are delegated to undertake this task will do > so only because they actually want to do so and feel it's more > important than whatever else they would be doing with their time. > > As far as administrative overhead goes, I don't really see there being > much burden on anyone outside of the group of people who are > interested in implementing it or interested in making sure that their > posts to -private stay private. [The only thing I can see is a bit of > time spent by the listmasters if placing the sanctified archives on > lists.debian.org is the right way to go... but a couple of .gz'ed > mailboxes is probably more than good enough if listmasters don't want > to bother.] Mmm, maybe best would to publish them on a web page somewhere, not in mbox format, and probably with email addresses scrambled for good measure. I am not sure i want stuff i posted in confidence made public, not sure though, as i don't remember all i have posted there 3 years ago. I doubt any is of public interest anyway, so the point should be moot. > Anyway, from my perspective, all we're doing is putting in place a > mechanism whereby useful parts of -private can be made publicly > available. Whether developers actually end up doing the work to make > it publicly available comes later. Yep. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ubuntu/Debian cooperation [was: Complaint about #debian operator]
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 01:06:51PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: > On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 01:57:12PM +, Roger Leigh wrote: > > I don't disagree. I would much rather every ubuntu change had a > > corresponding patch filed in the BTS, > > Every "relevant" change put into the BTS would be nice, yes. Filing Notice that it is official ubuntu directive to *NOT* do that, that is to not send patches directly to the BTS, altough links (which may and have in the past rot once you get to fixing the bug) are ok. I supose that is so they can monitor what patches are being accessed or some other such big-brotherian thingy :) Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ubuntu/Debian cooperation [was: Complaint about #debian operator]
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 11:57:37AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > On 12/15/05, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 01:06:51PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 01:57:12PM +, Roger Leigh wrote: > > > > I don't disagree. I would much rather every ubuntu change had a > > > > corresponding patch filed in the BTS, > > > > > > Every "relevant" change put into the BTS would be nice, yes. Filing > > > > Notice that it is official ubuntu directive to *NOT* do that, that is to not > > send patches directly to the BTS, > > Please give a reference to this directive. I am part of the MOTU team, > and have never heared about such a directive. Personal mail or irc reference from Colin Watson when i complained about him having filled a bug against parted with a link to a patch, and the link then dissapeared. I have had confirmation from this fact by others later on, and even said something about this in the bug report in question or here in the past, and was not chalenged. This was almost a year ago now though, and things may have changed. > > Friendly, > sorry, this is unfriendly distribution of FUD. Well, given my sources, i suppose you would reconsider this classification as FUD :) It may be outdated info, which would be very very welcome indeed, but in no case FUD. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ubuntu/Debian cooperation [was: Complaint about #debian operator]
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 11:28:39AM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 04:17:32 +0100 > Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 01:06:51PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: > > > There's "I screwed up because I made a mistake", and there's "I > > > screwed up because I don't actually know what I'm doing", but "I > > > screwed up because I didn't care about doing a quality job" is on a > > > whole other level. > > > > I have much sympathies for the two-dozen-odd MOTUs which are supposed > > to maintain the 1-odd packages in universe without much help in > > order to make the whole distribution shine - we should cut them some > > slack, IMHO. > > Why? > > It is their choice to fork with (possibly) too small manpower to keep > up. They could just as well do their changes directly in the debian archive, and have the ubuntu guys only recompile, or maintain the ubuntu-specific patches which should *not* go into debian. That is provided the debian maintainer is not an and refuses the patches out of sheer stuborness and package-tirany, but this is a debian problem which needs his solution independently of the above. The real problem is that many of those ubuntu-not-officially-supported packages ahve never even heard of debian, and contributing back doesn't come naturally to them, the issue is less with those maintainers ubuntu subverted from debian, altough they may be hit by lack of time, which is an issue better handled by doing the modification in debian and not ubuntu though, but may be counter-productive to maintaining a separate ubuntu facade or whatever :) Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ubuntu/Debian cooperation [was: Complaint about #debian operator]
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 12:46:41PM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > On 12/15/05, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Every "relevant" change put into the BTS would be nice, yes. Filing > > > > > > > > Notice that it is official ubuntu directive to *NOT* do that, that is > > > > to not > > > > send patches directly to the BTS, > > > > > > Please give a reference to this directive. I am part of the MOTU team, > > > and have never heared about such a directive. > > > > Personal mail or irc reference from Colin Watson when i complained about him > > having filled a bug against parted with a link to a patch, and the link then > > dissapeared. I have had confirmation from this fact by others later on, and > > even said something about this in the bug report in question or here in the > > past, and was not chalenged. This was almost a year ago now though, and > > things > > may have changed. > > Be assured that there is no directive in any way that prohibits MOTUs > to use the BTS. Since you are mentioning IRC, you may be confused by > other statements. It is true that some MOTUs don't consider submitting Yeah, and i am an idiot which don't remember my own name. Ask the ubuntu guys about this, it was a clear "big boss doesn't want to allow it, and i do what management says" kind of info. That said, it may be different for ubuntu employees and random maintainers. > to debian bts as priority because of bad experiences they had because > of unresponsive and unhelpful Debian Maintainers. Yeah, but this is not always the case, and those unhelpful maintainers in debian suck. > Besides, most of the patches I've done so far are rather patches > applied from debian bts, or fixes caused of transitions we do before > debian. For other fixes (like improvements to .desktop files and such) > we are actually encouraged to submit do debian bts, because that way > we can simply sync the package from debian again and have less work > when merging the package on the next debian upload. > > An other big load of patches are because we take new upstream versions > of the package. Do you really want that we submit a patch updating to > new upstream version? please not. nope, but in general more shared work is a welcome thing, even having the same group of people co-maintain packages for debian and ubuntu and such. > Summarizing: We are indeed interested in getting our changes into > debian, because this reduces our work when merging. Sure. > > > > Friendly, > > > sorry, this is unfriendly distribution of FUD. > > > > Well, given my sources, i suppose you would reconsider this classification > > as > > FUD :) It may be outdated info, which would be very very welcome indeed, but > > in no case FUD. > > You did imply that MOTU were adviced to NOT collaborate with debian. I I was implying that ubuntu employees where supposed to not file patches as attachement to debian BTS, and instead send links to the ubuntu patch database, links which may or may not stay alive for the time needed until the patch is handled, or until someone in some random future want to look at it. That this was a voluntary decision of ubuntu's management, and something which i believe is not in the best interest of debian, be it only for the perenity of said patches in some unforseeable future. > consider this as a implicit insult to the MOTU Team. We DO want to Yeah, eyeah, whatever. I may not have been clear enough, maybe, and if so i apologize, but i believe that your tone also is somewhat over-agressive. > cooperate, but have to face with accusations like this one or with > unresponsive or unhelpful maintainers, which can be really > frustrating. Yeah, whatever. Let's take two examples : parted: i have been forced to take over parted because the previous maintainer left debian after some MIA period, i had a call for help open since over a year, and instead of the ubuntu folk fixing stuff directly in the parted svn, they submitted links to patches, and once i found time to apply them, the link had rotten. gparted: not present in debian/sarge, but present in ubuntu at that time. Why was it not uploaded to both debian and ubuntu in the first place, from some common code base ? I would have gladly sponsored such uploads, but no, it did not happen. There is cooperation and helpfulness involved beyond the just "file random amount of patches", and even as i see the ubuntu guys helpful on this, i feel that in some cases, the bare minimum and nothing more is done in this direction. > Nevertheless, be assured that I do actively suggest on IRC that > patches, which have chance to get
Re: Ubuntu/Debian cooperation [was: Complaint about #debian operator]
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 12:55:45PM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > On 12/15/05, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > It is their choice to fork with (possibly) too small manpower to keep > > > up. > > > > They could just as well do their changes directly in the debian archive, and > > have the ubuntu guys only recompile, or maintain the ubuntu-specific patches > > which should *not* go into debian. That is provided the debian maintainer is > > not an and refuses the patches out of sheer stuborness and > > package-tirany, but this is a debian problem which needs his solution > > independently of the above. > I really didn't get this proposal, please elaborate on that (perhaps > in private mail, if it gets too off-topic for -project). Without > really understanding what you suggest, I doubt that it will be > practicable, because it takes significantly more time to submit to > debbugs, wait for the DD to prepare an upload and get it synced back > than just uploading it to the ubuntu archive and have it on the Yeah, sure, but it is the right thing to do. We have the following cases : 1) debian maintainer is unhelpful, or problematic, do as you always did, and maybe bring this to the attention of debian in general who need to deal with this problem. 2) debian maintainer is a good guy, and the patch is of generic benefit, then the package should be fixed in debian first, and synced to ubuntu, cooperation with the debian maintainer is easy done there, and team maintainership of both debian and ubuntu packages is good. 3) debian maintainer is a good guy, but the patch involves some ubuntu specific hack, or ubuntu branding. After concertation with the debian counterpart or whoever, the patch is kept as a ubuntu-specific hack. naturally this works best when both debian and ubuntu are in the development phase, and not near freezes or such, but i guess it is a good, if somewhat rough, plan. > mirrors a few hours later. For the moment, I rather consider doing > both (submitting to bts and uploading to ubuntu) be the most practical > approach. If the debian package accepts all our patches, we can > eventually sync again. Yeah. But this supposes doubling the work, and then you have the fact that ubuntu is somehow stealing developper time and effort which would have gone to debian otherwise. > > The real problem is that many of those ubuntu-not-officially-supported > > packages ahve never even heard of debian, and contributing back doesn't come > > naturally to them, the issue is less with those maintainers ubuntu subverted > > from debian, altough they may be hit by lack of time, which is an issue > > better > > handled by doing the modification in debian and not ubuntu though, but may > > be > > counter-productive to maintaining a separate ubuntu facade or whatever :) > > Sorry, I could not parse this sentence. I assume this is another > accusation to either universe packages or MOTU in general. Bah, if you feel like being accused, or fail to see anything but the good sides of ubuntu, too bad for you. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ubuntu/Debian cooperation [was: Complaint about #debian operator]
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 02:40:37PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 02:12:35PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > That said, it may be different for ubuntu employees and random > > maintainers. > > Ubuntu does not have any employees. Those guys that get money for ubuntu work. No need to hassle on details of how ubuntu is setup internally to circumvent social charges and handle its international structure without having loads of offices all over. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ubuntu/Debian cooperation [was: Complaint about #debian operator]
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 03:00:29PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 02:54:11PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > > If the ubuntu patch database is public, and the patches therein > > DFSG-free licensed, why don#t we establish an automatism which moves > > patches from the Ubuntu patch database to the Debian BTS? > > The Utnubu[1] project was started at Debconf to do exactly this. The process was to be manually though, the idea is to scan incoming mails to the BTS, which would notice an URL to an ubuntu patch, and auto-attach it (and complain loudly to the submitter if the URL is bogus :). Sounds like a nice idea in need of someone implementing it. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ubuntu/Debian cooperation [was: Complaint about #debian operator]
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 03:00:26PM +, Andrew Saunders wrote: > On 12/15/05, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > ubuntu is setup internally to circumvent social charges > > I don't understand this statement. Could you please explain what you mean? I have no idea how ubuntu works internally, but my believe, since they (canonical) pay people all around the world, and they don't have structures locally to do the official hiring, they are forced to hire independent worker, who pay their social charges and stuff themselves. Any other way of doing would be a nightmare with all the different countries involved, but there could be some different status on a per country base. This is only a guess of me, and getting wildly off-topic, i think. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Utnubu-discuss] Re: Ubuntu/Debian cooperation [was: Complaint about #debian operator]
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 10:00:22PM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote: > Hi, > > (I just got the mails to utnubu-discuss, so bear with me) > > Am Donnerstag, den 15.12.2005, 15:39 +0100 schrieb Sven Luther: > > The process was to be manually though, the idea is to scan incoming mails to > > the BTS, which would notice an URL to an ubuntu patch, and auto-attach it > > (and > > complain loudly to the submitter if the URL is bogus :). Sounds like a nice > > idea in need of someone implementing it. > > I don't think there is much gain - an attached patch is not much better > than a link, and might annoy people with limited bandwidth. wrong, first, an attached patch is perene within our BTS, while a link to an external entity is without guarantee. Also consider the benefit for maintainers to do offline work, having only their local email archive related to the bug report. Second, we are speaking about attachement to bug reports, not sending everything to a mailing list and tons of subscribed folk, so i doubt bandwidth is an issue here. > But maybe this derived idea is some good: How about looking through the > repository of ubuntu pachtes (aka people.u.c/~scott/patches) and make > sure a link to it is sent to the approriate [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yeah. But then you need to manually triage after the fact, having the one coining the bug report being in communication (and better yet working as a team) with the debian maintainer, and marking in some way bugs as ubuntu only, quick hacks or things that should be merged is the better idea. The thing is it needs some active cooperation from the ubuntu people, and not something just we can do. > Sounds like a very good idea, and fully in the scope of Utnubu. Some > questions: > > * Is it common to refer to debian bug numbers in ubuntu patches I think not, they have their own (ugly bugzilla with no email interface), and their own bug numbers. Not sure if this is something where the ubuntu guys can and will be willing to do the extra work of listing the debian bug number also, or if they have been doing this already. > * Is this done in a unambigous way (like in debian/changelogs) Probably yes. > * How big are the chances that an automatic script with get the bug >number wrong or mistake another number for a bug number The question is the mapping from ubuntu bug number to debian bug numbers. > If the answers are not too bad, this could be implemented by Utnubu (we > pull the complete patches tree every day anyways) Hehe. but i think the triaging is the problem in this approach. Maybe an extension to our BTS web pages, which lists easily the ubuntu bugs for a given package would be nice, but i think active cooperation is the better solution. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Utnubu-discuss] Re: Ubuntu/Debian cooperation [was: Complaint about #debian operator]
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 10:19:58PM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote: > Hi, > > Am Donnerstag, den 15.12.2005, 16:13 -0500 schrieb Joey Hess: > > Joachim Breitner wrote: > > > I don't think there is much gain - an attached patch is not much better > > > than a link, and might annoy people with limited bandwidth. > > > > It's SOP in Debian to attach patches to bug reports. I might consider > > doing otherwise if the patch exceeded 1 megabyte. > > > > (And yes, I'm on limited bandwidth and yes, I've also lost hours and > > hometimes days of time because people didn't attach files to emails and > > I had to wait to get back online to get to them.) > > Point taken. If we'll implement such a thing, it will use common sense > (patches < 200Kb maybe attached, larger patches just linked). It will > quickly become evident what limit is preferable. You may also copy them to a debian server and then link to this known good and under our control url. Friendly, Sven Lther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ubuntu/Debian cooperation [was: Complaint about #debian operator]
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 03:26:09PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: > Sven Luther wrote: > > I have no idea how ubuntu works internally, but my believe, since they > > (canonical) pay people all around the world, and they don't have structures > > locally to do the official hiring, they are forced to hire independent > > worker, > > who pay their social charges and stuff themselves. > > That is not the case in my limited experience as someone who nearly went > to work for Canonical back before it was called "no-name-yet". Ok, but i believe it may be different depending on the country involved, not sure though and as said, wildly off-topic here. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Your posting: Debian on one dvd?
On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 05:12:18PM -0500, Daniel Tasch wrote: > "One of the problems Linux users in countries like India have is low > bandwidth. They prefer to get their distributions on CD or DVD as far as > possible. Debian is very badly affected by this as we usually stress > updating over the net." > > This is not just a problem in contries like India. I am in the US and am > still on dialup, and can only get 26k at that. I have to update my redhat > by mirroring the updates at work where I have a good connection, burning a > CD, and brining it home via "sneakernet". > > I would love to be able to use Debian, but dealing with a new packaging > system along with it's extreem network-centeredness is making that > impossible. What Debian really needs is to give some consideration to > people who have to do this manually. Not everybody has a high-speed > internet connection. Please be more inclusive. See the /usr/share/doc/apt-doc/offline.text.gz file in the apt-doc package : Abstract This document describes how to use APT in a non-networked environment, specifically a 'sneaker-net' approach for performing upgrades. ... I was using this for a couple of years before i got internet connection at home back in the late 90s. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Stable security support
On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 01:32:46PM -0700, dann frazier wrote: > On Wed, 2005-12-21 at 04:33 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > and the kernel team not getting back to Joey about security updates for two > > months. > > what? when was this? /me also wondered about this, guess the kernel team was seeing this the other way around, so maybe just bad communication ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: non-free firmware
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 12:34:30PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Sven Luther wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 11:52:20AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: > >> * Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060108 11:12]: > >> > There where two fully independent issues here : > >> > > >> > 1) some (many) of those firmware using modules had a sloppy licencing > >> > situation, which meant the compiled kernels where indeed > >> > non-distributable. > >> > > >> > 2) those firmware blurbs come without source, and are thus non-free. > >> > > >> > We where working to solve 1), since without that, it was not even > >> > possible to distribute these non-free firmwares from even non-free. I > >> > think once this is solved the plan was to : > >> > > >> > 1) either make those drivers be able to load the firmware from an > >> > external file, which we could then include in the initramfs from a > >> > non-free source. > > For instance, now that the tg3 firmware is under a distributable license, > with my tg3 patch reinstituted the firmware for specialized tg3 cards would > simply be three files which go in a specific place in the directory tree > and are picked up by hotplug/udev. If we are going to do this, we obviously need to find out a strong framework how this is supposed to work, and all need to follow the same schema. I heard rumors about your patch being too disruptive, and was thus rejected by davem, we don't want that to happen. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: non-free firmware
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 06:46:39PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Sven Luther wrote: > > If we are going to do this, we obviously need to find out a strong framework > > how this is supposed to work, and all need to follow the same schema. > Upstream hasn't done this. I realized this need and started asking people > about an appropriate naming scheme for the files in /lib/firmware > (or /usr/lib/hotplug/firmware as it was then) and attempted to keep it. No, i don't think this was the kind of framework i was refering to, more of a set of rules on how we would patch the drivers to make them request_firmware aware. > > > I heard rumors about your patch being too disruptive, and was thus rejected > by > > davem, we don't want that to happen. > > I'll be blunt: those rumors are false, and whoever started them is slandering > my work. I wanted to say that davem found your patch to disruptive, but this is only second hear knowledge. > For the original patch, the reasons given for rejection were the following: > (1) Either Jeff Garzik or Dave Miller (I don't remember which) wanted a > transition period when the firmware loader would fall back to a built-in > firmware copy. I was willing to write a patch which did that, but I thought > it was a bit silly. I later asked if a patch would be accepted if it did > that, but received no reply. Ok. > (2) Reasonable concerns were raised about needing firmware to be available in > order to mount /usr, creating a nasty chicken-and-egg problem. This has > mostly been addressed by the creation of /lib/firmware. Similar problems may > arise with the mounting of root, I suppose, but with the switch to > initramfs-all-the-time, these can be addressed trivially by modification of > the initramfs. Indeed, this needs support from the ramdisk tools, either initramfs-tools and yaird, or debian-installer. Once debian-installer switches to initramfs (if it has not already), simply appending the non-free bits to the ramdisk should be trivial to do. Still sucks for cds or floppies. > (3) Jeff Garzik and Dave Miller didn't think that firmware loading was a good > idea at all, ever. Well, if they still think that, then they'll naturally > reject the patch, and there's nothing we can do about it. Indeed. > None of these concerns has any relevance to Debian today. > > Dave Miller didn't feel that the (former) non-distributable licensing of the > tg3 firmware, or indeed his own failure to put correct copyright notices on > it, mattered. I felt very strongly that it did, and perhaps he took a > dislike to me because of my stridency on that matter. Probably. > The last time I proposed a patch -- which simply separated the firmware into > a > separate file, so as to make life slightly easier for Debian, and on general > tidiness grounds -- he accused me of trying to disguise my intentions, which > I certainly was not. (Come on! I'm the poster child for strident and > outspoken!) He then dropped my patch on the floor with no technical > commentary at all. He did say that he didn't see the point unless it was > combined with a full firmware loading patch; so I asked what technical > requirements would be required of a full firmware loading patch (keeping in > mind the responses earlier), and got absolute dead silence. I think i remember that post. > The only technical criticism which I have ever heard of my patch was the > claim > that firmware loading should not be done, and that firmware blobs should be > compiled into the kernel. I don't consider this to be relevant commentary. > > During the original period of use of the patch in Debian, I discovered that > the firmware was not only non-free but also not actually legal to distribute. > > This led to some unfortunate problems because people were unable to get > copies of the loadable firmware, and I certainly don't want to repeat the > situation where the driver tries to load firmware which people can't find. I > made several efforts to contact the copyright holders without sucess (no > replies at all). I also asked Dave Miller, who claimed to know the authors, > if he could put me in contact with someone who might be able to do something > about the licensing problems, but he refused. Thankfully this has been > resolved now. Yes, we contacted broadcom, and they solved the distributability issue. I know people on LKML where saying that this would never happen, but it did. Took time, but happened. > The patch is not very invasive at all; I actually bent over backwards to > avoid > interfering with the call sequence (since request_firmware can't be called in > a spinlock, and nearly the whol
Re: non-free firmware
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 02:59:00AM -0800, Chris Waters wrote: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 12:00:06PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > > > Source code is clearly mandatory under the DFSG for programs. > > Actually, that's a bit of a tricky one. I've written small programs > entirely in binary, for which there was no source code. Are you > claiming that such programs could not possibly be DFSG-free? Because, > if so, I strongly disagree. The GPL only refers to the "preferred > form of the work for making modifications to it." In the case of a > program written by hand in binary, binary would seem to qualify. Since this is by far the less common case, i think it is reasonable to ask for an official disclaimer of the author that the binary is indeed the preferred form of work, one that would be legally binding even if the author was found out to lie about it. > But in general, yes, if a program HAS source code, then that source > code should be properly available under a DFSG license for the program > to be considered DFSG-compliant. Most binary blobs I've seen in > drivers are large enough that I would refuse to believe they were > coded by hand in binary. Indeed. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:20:33AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:08:38PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: > > I keep hearing this, but I really don't believe it. In Debian, "Maintainer" > > means "An individual or group of people primarily responsible for the > > on-going well being of a package". As I understand it, in Ubuntu, the MOTUs > > have responsibility for all of the packages in Universe. > > In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same thing, however. Most of > the packages in universe are maintained only by the Debian maintainer, and The thing is not exactly like that though, what really happens is that you simply rebuild those packages and upload them to universe, without even asking the debian maintainers, which is exactly the reason for this long thread, since some object to getting bug reports for the ubuntu builds of their packages. I believe that altough in most case there is not much difference there may be subtle differences between the ubuntu environment and the debian one, which makes the handlign of bug reports non-evident. Also a pure debian maintainer will have some trouble checking and testing any possible fix, not having a ubuntu install done. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:24:57PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:20:33AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:08:38PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: > > > I keep hearing this, but I really don't believe it. In Debian, > > > "Maintainer" > > > means "An individual or group of people primarily responsible for the > > > on-going well being of a package". As I understand it, in Ubuntu, the > > > MOTUs > > > have responsibility for all of the packages in Universe. > > > > In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same thing, however. Most of > > the packages in universe are maintained only by the Debian maintainer, and > > The thing is not exactly like that though, what really happens is that you > simply rebuild those packages and upload them to universe, without even asking > the debian maintainers, which is exactly the reason for this long thread, > since some object to getting bug reports for the ubuntu builds of their > packages. Arg, and to make matters worse, this discussion is CCed to a closed-moderated-list, Matt, this is really not a friendly way to have a conversation. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 10:54:40AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:35:55PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > Arg, and to make matters worse, this discussion is CCed to a > > closed-moderated-list, Matt, this is really not a friendly way to have a > > conversation. > > I didn't add the CC to ubuntu-motu, nor the one to debian-project. I've > merely participated in the discussion and respected Mail-Followup-To. Oh well, i wonder who added it then. I guess it is a closed list, but they could at least disable the automatic reply or something. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 10:46:51AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:24:57PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:20:33AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > > In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same thing, however. Most of > > > the packages in universe are maintained only by the Debian maintainer, and > > > > The thing is not exactly like that though, what really happens is that you > > simply rebuild those packages and upload them to universe, without even > > asking > > the debian maintainers, which is exactly the reason for this long thread, > > since some object to getting bug reports for the ubuntu builds of their > > packages. > > I've already addressed all of your points repeatedly in this thread. Huh, what points ? First, sorry but i got lost in the thread somewhere at about a quarter of its current size, so i may have missed some. That said, you claim that "Most of the packages in universe are maintained only by the Debian maintainer", and that is simply a mis-representation, if not an outhright lie. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 01:53:26AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same thing, however. Most of > > the packages in universe are maintained only by the Debian maintainer, and > > propagated unmodified into Ubuntu. It is only when there is a specific > > motive to change the package in Ubuntu that anyone on that team will touch > > it. > > They are *not* maintained by the Debian maintainer, for the simple > reason that the Debian maintainer does not have control over the > contents of the package! Ok, now can you explain this inconsitency, you say in another mail that most ubuntu packages are maintained by the debian maintainers. Does this mean that those 'most' packages are maintained by the debian maintainers, who do uploads to ubuntu also ? How many is most in this case ? Do they also know about it ? I mean i was never proposed to make ubuntu maintenance of my packages for example, so i wonder how this works. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 03:44:12AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 01:53:26AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > >> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > >> > In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same thing, however. Most > >> > of > >> > the packages in universe are maintained only by the Debian maintainer, > >> > and > >> > propagated unmodified into Ubuntu. It is only when there is a specific > >> > motive to change the package in Ubuntu that anyone on that team will > >> > touch > >> > it. > >> > >> They are *not* maintained by the Debian maintainer, for the simple > >> reason that the Debian maintainer does not have control over the > >> contents of the package! > > > > Ok, now can you explain this inconsitency, you say in another mail that most > > ubuntu packages are maintained by the debian maintainers. > > Um, no, I don't recally saying in another email that ubuntu packages > are maintained by the Debian maintainers. In fact, I've said the opposite. > > Are you confusing me with Matt? Oh, yes, sorry. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mac project?
On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 03:42:54PM -0700, Jason Schaller wrote: > Greetings! > Any chance that you guys will be porting Debian to the new Mac Intel-built > Core Duo processors (assuming the current PowerPC version won't run on them)? Well, they are no powerpc macs, so i guess having debian running on them is probably similar to running debian on any random x86 box, with the added hurdle that you will find some closed hardware and maybe hostility from apple. There is also little interest in it, and you will find little sympathy from the debian-powerpc folk. Just buy some random x86 box, you will probably get more from your money and better debian support. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Honesty in Debian (was Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 07:53:39PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 01:46:14PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > > The reason I would do this is the same reason I often get so vocal and > > sometimes angry about these matters: the issue of honesty. I feel that the > > current situation is one in which Debian is using its Social Contract to > > lie to its users, and that that has been going on for a long time. > > Nobody is lying. A "lie" is an untruth made with the intent to deceive. > Debian doesn't try to hide these unmodifiable licenses; it's been discussed > openly on public lists many times. Nope, but i think those who try to hide the issue of non-free material in main, by insisting that it is not software, or similar claims, are being deceitful and a little dishonest. I want to remind you all, that previous to the two GRs which clarified the meaning of what we must consider free, we had a widely disputed GR on the fate of our non-free section, and we all voted to keep it, especially because there was non-free software (including firmware, documentation and whatever), which was non-free but useful to our users, and we decided to keep it accordying to our social contract which put our users and free software on equal level. If we now decide to put all this non-free software into main, as some are starting to think doing about kernel firmware, documentation, fonts, whatever, then i believe not only is the vote on keeping free meaningless, but we are also not being honest with ourselves and our users, as this is in contradiction with the spirit of the social contract, even if some like to play with words. So, yes, i believe there is some kind of dishonesty going on in this discussion, and all of you advocating putting non-free software into main, please ask deep in yourslef if you really believe that what we all signed up with the social contract allows us to keep non-free software-not-program parts in main. As for the licence, well, this is a known exceptions which is well recognized in the community and i think it is not really a good idea to lose time on handling it. For the rest of the stuff, just put it in non-free, and maybe modify how we handle non-free, classifying it in non-free-but-distributable and non-free-with-distributions-constraints, and making its use easy, especially at the installer level for kernel firmware, easy altough optional, would be the most honest way of handling this issue, given the history of past GRs concerning this (the non-free one, followed by the editorial-changes-trying-to-squeeze-in-major changes, and most importantly the let-s-delay-this-for-sarge-only confirmation GR). Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Honesty in Debian (was Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 09:37:31AM +0100, Xavier Roche wrote: > On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Sven Luther wrote: > > Nope, but i think those who try to hide the issue of non-free material in > > main, by insisting that it is not software > > Fonts or documentations are not softwares, for god's sake! everything that is not hardware is software, all the rest is excuses and play with words. > > > I want to remind you all, that previous to the two GRs which clarified the > > meaning of what we must consider free > > .. what we must consider free *software* Indeed, once we go past free software, we can start dwelling in the domain of free hardware, which is a topic of much interest nobody has yet tackled well. Naturally, dabbling in hardware is something that goes beyong a few hours of donated time, and involves at the very least a couple of hundred thousand euros, so it is a more difficult topic to handle, as the barrier of entry is so much higher. > > For the rest of the stuff, just put it in non-free, and maybe modify how we > > handle non-free, classifying it in non-free-but-distributable and > > non-free-with-distributions-constraints, and making its use easy, especially > > at the installer level for kernel firmware > > Good idea. I wish all users could install Debian on their > exotic-firmware-enabled-network card and wifi-aware laptop (which is not > the case currently) instead of saying "shit, this crap is just not working > well. let's switch to gentoo or mandriva" Indeed, but they should know (and we should tell them), that the hardware they are buying is not free-software friendly, so that they have a chance to vote with their wallet and chose those companies who are friendly to free software when buying hardware, so hiddenly putting non-free software in main, is counterproductive, while putting it in non-free, and making its use easy if the user wants to, is the right way out of this, and the more (if not only) honest way of dealing with this issue. > But I still consider documentation different than softwares, and don't see > any major problem regarding the FDL. So, you believe that documentation is hardware, well, this is a sensible argument, at least for those part of the documentation whose purpose is to be printed as book, which is undoublty something you can consider hardware, but less valable if you consider the majority of documentation debian distribute, which not only comes in electronic, and thus non-tangible, format, but also is aimed at non-printed distribution. And even if it is destined at being printed, i don't think we should accept it being hardware, as i don't think we would accept for example geda example files with a non-free licence in main, and those are aimed at producing unmistakably hardware (geda is a PCB and thus electronic circuit design software, distributed in main). As thus, it is clear that the documentation in debian is more akin to software, as opposed to hardware, and your point is moot. I know that there are folk trying to coin some kind of third *ware word to clasify things they really don't like to be free or whatever, but i think those are being dishonest, and trying to find some hacky excuse for not clearly saying what they want, namely that they want to allow some form of non-free software in main. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Honesty in Debian (was Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 10:55:57AM +0100, Xavier Roche wrote: > On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Sven Luther wrote: > > > Fonts or documentations are not softwares, for god's sake! > > everything that is not hardware is software > > So a cat is a software, or a hardware ? Do I have to provide the sources > (the DNA full sequence) if I want to give a kitten to someone, following > the "free" spirit ? :p see you are playing with words, you and me both know exactly what we mean by hardware and what we mean by software. And yes, the cat would be hardware, as it is something tangible you can touch. Imagine you are giving not a cat but a robot that is cat-like in behavior if you prefer. > > all the rest is excuses and play with words. > > My opinion is that my holiday pictures aren't neither hardware nor > software. you opinion on this is moot, unless you plan to distribute them inside debian :) > > Indeed, but they should know (and we should tell them), that the hardware > > they > > are buying is not free-software friendly > > Err, I think the problem is that most users *do not care*. They just want > their card to *work*. Indeed. So, moving the non-free stuff into non-free, we educate them about what hardware is free or not, this is a fine balance between our pledge to support free software and our users. They have the material in non-free, easily usable (needs some work for installer and kernel right now though), and we educate them about the non-freeness of their hardware, which satisfies the free software side of that SC clause. > I think this more productive to make their card work, AND then tell them > "this card is working with a non-free piece of thing, meaning that you may > have problems in the future in case of bugs or after upgrading your > system. please ask the manufacturer to do something about it" Indeed, and asking them to get the firmware or driver for them out of non-free is the most sensible way of doing this. > > so that they have a chance to vote > > with their wallet and chose those companies who are friendly to free > > software > > You mean Mandriva ? No, like chosing ati over nvidia for graphic cards, or silicon image over others for SATA cards. > > when buying hardware, so hiddenly putting non-free software in main, is > > I was talking about firmwares, that is, opaque piece of bits aimed to be > run on an external, exmbedded system, part of the hartdware. Like the mips binary which is part of the tg3 (or some other of those) driver and uploaded to to the mips core on the card in question ? Does that mean that we will also distribute binary only drivers for broadcom wifi chips in main ? > > counterproductive, while putting it in non-free, and making its use easy if > > the user wants to, is the right way out of this, and the more (if not only) > > honest way of dealing with this issue. > > In this case, yes, the solution might be to create a "non-free-data" > *distributed* and available in standard. non-free-distributable section, which CD creators can easy add to the CDs, and people wanting pure-free can include. The rest of your sentence is somewhat difficult to parse though, maybe you would rephrase it ? > > So, you believe that documentation is hardware, well, this is a sensible > > No more software or hardware than a cat. The world is not binary. The difference between hardware and software is that hardware is things which are tangible (which you can count and touch and whatnot), while software is intangible, available only as data on some kind of media. So, the cat clearly falls in the hardware category, bad example, try again. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Honesty in Debian (was Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:35:02AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 09:22:07AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > I want to remind you all, that previous to the two GRs which clarified the > > meaning of what we must consider free, we had a widely disputed GR on the > > fate > > of our non-free section, and we all voted to keep it, especially because > > there > > was non-free software (including firmware, documentation and whatever), > > which > > was non-free but useful to our users, and we decided to keep it accordying > > to > > our social contract which put our users and free software on equal level. > > That's not correct. The project simply voted not to removed it at that > time, by defeating the GR. There was no affirmative vote to keep > non-free as far as I can remember. The amendment that passed was > a no-op that basically said that the status quo remains. So, you simply discount the 100 or 1000s of email that preceded that vote, and all the argumentation against removing non-free, how convenient. The status quo in our voting system would have been none-of-the-above, so there was clearly a choice to keep non-free, if i remember well. > Not only that, but there were people that voted to abolish non-free, so > to state that "we all voted to keep it" is erroneous. We did all vote, and the result of that vote was to keep non-free, and the result of the vote are thus binding on the debian project as a whole (until the next GR about this topic that is). Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Honesty in Debian (was Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 09:23:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 03:57:01PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:35:02AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > > > That's not correct. The project simply voted not to removed it at that > > > time, by defeating the GR. There was no affirmative vote to keep > > > non-free as far as I can remember. The amendment that passed was > > > a no-op that basically said that the status quo remains. > > > > So, you simply discount the 100 or 1000s of email that preceded that vote, > > and > > all the argumentation against removing non-free, how convenient. > > I don't see what that has to do with the simple fact of what the vote > was about and how it turned out. So, you think that the vote in itself is the important one, and that all the discussion that leads upto it can simply be ignored ? So, you dismiss the arguments which where made in favour of non-free in the campaign about that vote, simply because they where not written textually in the GR itself ? How easy. > > The status quo in our voting system would have been none-of-the-above, so > > there > > was clearly a choice to keep non-free, if i remember well. > > That choice didn't express a prohibition on removing it, it was just an > effort to keep the question to arising again in the short term. It was > pretty successful at that. So, you claim that we didn't vote to keep non-free ? Kind of revisionism. > > > Not only that, but there were people that voted to abolish non-free, so > > > to state that "we all voted to keep it" is erroneous. > > > > We did all vote, and the result of that vote was to keep non-free, and the > > Well, that's not correct either. A minority of developers voted, if I > remember correctly. Some 350 or so. Those that did vote did vote, and the result of that vote was to keep non-free. Those who did chose not to vote, did indeed chose so, but the result of the vote is not less binding on them because of that. > But when you said "we all voted to keep it", that is incorrect. The > vote was not unanimous. I believe that about a third of those voting > wanted to remove it. So, what ? We did vote, the majority of the voters did vote to keep non-free, so the this means that we, the debian-project, did chos to keep non-free. Please stop playing with words, will you ? > > result of the vote are thus binding on the debian project as a whole (until > > the next GR about this topic that is). > > I'm not saying that the vote was invalid or anything. All I'm saying is > that it wasn't unanimous as you had said. There was disagreement at the > time. Sure, there is always disagreement, all i said is that the debian project voted in a GR, and that the result of that vote was that we should keep non-free. It is i believe quite valid to translate this above fact into the much shorter "we voted to keep non-free" sentence, and i really don't see what you aim to achieve by this arguing ? Playing with words to distract from the content of my post ? nit-picking just for the fun of it ? Friendly, Sven Luther > > -- John > > --- > Wanadoo vous informe que cet e-mail a ete controle par l'anti-virus mail. > Aucun virus connu a ce jour par nos services n'a ete detecte. > > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Honesty in Debian (was Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 10:09:26AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > You said "we *ALL* voted to keep it", which means that every vote cast > was to keep non-free. In other words, the vote was unanimous. Oh, whatever, i take back the word 'all' then in that sentence, i guess that almost everyone understood what i was trying to say though. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Honesty in Debian (was Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 11:43:27PM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote: > On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 03:54:23PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > No, like chosing ati over nvidia for graphic cards, or silicon image over > > others for SATA cards. > > Wait a minute, did I miss a memo? ATI isn't the devil anymore? There is 3D support for their newer cards in Xorg 6.9, and they have always been more friendly to free software than nvidia was. They where on the edge i believe and don't provide specs for newer cards, but they are not militantly against free software like nvidia is. Hey nvidia is even not giving specs to people wanting to write closed-source drivers, and won't even talk with you if you have not a 100K chip per month volume. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: More polls and social pressure
On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 11:05:48AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, Alberto Gonzalez Iniesta wrote: > > > Those polls are not fully crafted GR so they are not as binding as a GR > > > could be but they should give up a pretty good overview of the current > > > opinion inside the project (if each poll has been well prepared by its > > > proponent). > > > > So you propose bombing DDs with polls every week. > > One mail per week is not bombing. Every Debian developer handles many more > mails than that. Please do not misrepresent what others propose just for > the sake of it. At the very least, it should be an opt-in solution. Like a debian-poll mailing list where you can subscribe and get polls and results, should not be necessarily weekly. Also, some system to allow also non-DDs to participate (they would need to register their GPG public key somewhere, or something such), would allow to give poll information globally, and separated by DD and not-DD. > > > [] XXX behaviour in thread YY is inacceptable I hadn't read upto this, and sorry, but this is an unexcusable use for those ressources. Let's keep the poll for technical decisions, instead of using it for kinder-garten-like finger-pointing. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: More polls and social pressure
On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 09:43:23AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > [ Reply-to debian-project ] > > Hi everybody, > > given the size of the project, it's very difficult for any of us to > evaluate the popularity of random ideas/opinions in a short time frame. > Jeroen (jvw) recently conducted two informal polls (vi-tiny vs elvis, and > maintainer field for ubuntu) and I liked those. One limitation of Jeroen's polls where that they where not anonymous. This may be a choice we can make, but i still think they have more value if they are anonymous, as any kind of pressure and strategic choices can be made if they are open, not that this would be the case for us, us being all nice folk and everyone, but everyone can read those public poll information, and some of those may be less nice :) I strongly vote for this idea in any case. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: More polls and social pressure
On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 04:03:09PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 09:43:23AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > [ Reply-to debian-project ] > > > > Hi everybody, > > > > given the size of the project, it's very difficult for any of us to > > evaluate the popularity of random ideas/opinions in a short time frame. > > Jeroen (jvw) recently conducted two informal polls (vi-tiny vs elvis, and > > maintainer field for ubuntu) and I liked those. > > One limitation of Jeroen's polls where that they where not anonymous. This may > be a choice we can make, but i still think they have more value if they are > anonymous, as any kind of pressure and strategic choices can be made if they > are open, not that this would be the case for us, us being all nice folk and > everyone, but everyone can read those public poll information, and some of > those may be less nice :) > > I strongly vote for this idea in any case. (for technical polls, use of such ressources for finger-pointing is unacceptable). Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Honesty in Debian (was Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 05:25:52PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Stephen Gran wrote: > >Do you really think that > >there is a magical difference depending on where you ship a file? > > It's not a "magical" difference. It's a documentation difference. And a > very important > one. > > There's a big difference between "We'll have random non-free stuff mixed > loosely into > the free stuff", and "Free stuff will be over here; non-free stuff will be > over there." There is an easy solution to this : All files of questionable licencing should either be removed from main packages, or explicitly listed in /usr/share/doc//copyright, in an easily parsable way even that an automated tool can use to give you a list of such files, remove them, or whatever else. Preferably they would be listed together with a one line reason why they are non-free, and possibly a tag or something. How does that sound ? The filesystem in see is only one rather crude way we organise the files in a debian system, so as long as there is an easy way to find out about those files, you should be satisfied. Furthermore, the copyright file is the canonical place where licencing and copyright information are held, so it is the natural place to hold this, and not some random subdir like you propose. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: removal of svenl from the project
On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 01:30:51PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote: > Unfortunately, based upon some of Sven's responses[0] to my request, I > feel he still does not understand the reason why I'm taking such extreme > measures against him. This is sad, but I've given up trying to explain Well, it would have been nice if the first mention of this being a problem with you had not been you posting to debian-vote, and if when you spoke with me afterward, you had also tried to be a bit understanding, and not in lection-giving mode. > it to him. I hope he continues to work with the OCAML team, but avoids > getting into "discussions" with other developers until he can learn to > control himself. I guess others have to learn to control themselves too, and maybe refrain from finger pointing, or starting expulsion procedures on a whim. What particularly hurt me is that you started the expulsion procedure while i just had written on debian-kernel that i was going to retire myself from debian for some time to cool down, but also to take care of my sick mother, and your complete lack of understanding that i can also have feeling, and that in all cases like this, personal situation may also have some influence. Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: About expulsion requests
On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 03:51:19PM +0100, Christoph Berg wrote: > Dear developers, > > I know that having codified expulsion procedures is tempting to use > them, and I do think that they are a good thing to have. But please > consider one thing when you think about invoking them: [1] As someone who wasd recently the target of one of those expulsion processes, i believe that what you propose is not enough. The only real way to handle this, is to modify the expulsion process, and to start the process not with a public or private lynching process, but with a first step consisting of asking the DPL, or someone delegated by him, to do a private mediation process, and only if this step fails, should more advanced steps be taken. An expulsion process is the most hateful thing that can be done to a debian developer, and the current process let it open to any trigger happy developer who happens to dislike another one or whatever. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: About expulsion requests
On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 08:15:29PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > The only real way to handle this, is to modify the expulsion process, > > and to start the process not with a public or private lynching process, > > but with a first step consisting of asking the DPL, or someone delegated > > by him, to do a private mediation process, and only if this step fails, > > should more advanced steps be taken. > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression was that the *current* process > started with a *private* message to the DAM asking to start this process > (and at that point, mediation could certainly be done if appropriate). Well, you may be right, but my expulsion process started with Andres posting on debian-devel, debian-kernel and debian-boot, quoting the rules for expulsion, and searching for seconds, so ... > So far as I can tell, the decision to make the first message public or > semi-public has been a decision taken by the people who chose to start it, > not by the process, and changing the process isn't going to address that > problem (unless, I suppose, there's some ban in the process for starting > that way, but that gets rather tricky). Since Debian's mailing lists are Simple, any request for expulsion which doesn't pass through the DPL or whoever is in charge first before going public, is dismissed out of hand, (and maybe the expulser being publicly reprimanded or something). > not moderated, I doubt we're going to be able to prevent people from > publicly calling for the expulsion of developers if that's what they > decide they want to do. By making it clear that such mails are not the start of an expulsion process but just random public ranting, such mail will probably only embarass the posters in the long run and ... > Maybe we can convince more people to ignore such public statements unless > the expulsion process *actually* starts (which so far as I can tell has > yet to ever happen). ... make ignoring it much easier. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: irc.debian.org
On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 02:24:52PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >I get and send a lot of /msg in my debian releated work. for me this is > To users who have not been long enough on the network to register? The problem is that the high amount of disconnection one gets from freenode makes this a pain, especially as it is not clear for clients like irssi when you are allowed to post or not, as the error message does not appear in the /query channel, but in the log one, and it doesn't even specify who you tried to /query and was blocked. You mentioned some auto-identify scripts, care to give an example of how that would work and respond to both above problems ? Also, i guess that if you allow none-reg /querying, this leaves you open to wide amount of irc-spam that has been circulating in freenode, and supposedly oftc is (still) less vulnerable to this. I personally am on both networks, and probably won't notice much, but the private /query problem sure has been a pain. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: irc.debian.org
On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 01:38:37AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >The problem is that the high amount of disconnection one gets from freenode > >makes this a pain, especially as it is not clear for clients like irssi when > Do you? This is unusual, I have clients connected to freenode for many > weeks at a time. Maybe we should discuss this offline to better debug > which kind of issues you are having. Ok, but i have thought about this yesterday, and i believe the problem is that both on oftc and on freenode, not everyone is affected the same by a split. Those who stay on the good side of the split don't see a problem, while those on the bad side, ... It may also be related on the number of channels you are on and stuff like that. > >you are allowed to post or not, as the error message does not appear in the > >/query channel, but in the log one, and it doesn't even specify who you tried > >to /query and was blocked. > I have always considered this an irssi misfeature. :-) > (Anyway, it can be easily corrected.) Sure. Let's file a bug report against this :) > >You mentioned some auto-identify scripts, care to give an example of how that > >would work and respond to both above problems ? > The purpose of such a script is to automatically identify you to > nickserv at connection time. Actually, you do not even need a script for > freenode: just configure your client to use the nickserv password as the > server password (if you use irssi: /help server). > This is documented in the network FAQs, in the section "What's the > easiest way to identify to nickserv when I connect to freenode?": > http://freenode.net/faq.shtml#identify . Yeah, the thing is, i use (like probably most DDs) the irc channels without really being an expert, and without wanting to loose long hours reading badly accessible documentation (and freenode is as bad as oftc on this account, despite some claiming it is better). This is i believe normal, and whatever network is chosen, it should be easily usable out of the box, without initiatic knowledge :) > >Also, i guess that if you allow none-reg /querying, this leaves you open to > >wide amount of irc-spam that has been circulating in freenode, and supposedly > >oftc is (still) less vulnerable to this. > Currently spam is not a major issue. OFTC AFAIK is currently not a > target of turkish kiddies, but this could change any day like it > happened to freenode. Indeed. The sheer size of freenode makes it a tempting target though. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...
On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 10:45:46PM +0200, Sven Mueller wrote: > Sven Luther wrote on 01/05/2006 08:21: > > On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 02:20:09AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > > > >>The reason that I did not inform you was because things were already very > >>heated at the moment and because you were at that time still very > >>concerned about the welfare of your mother. I thought it was better not > >>to add to that. > > > > And what have you gained ? What did you expect would happen once i noticed ? > > He thought he would gain not adding more pressure to you. He was wrong > and he apologized for that. Stop picking on him, please. My believe is that their intentions was to get ride of me, and by doing so in one of the worst possible moment of my live, ... So, no, i will not let this laps as long as the full problem is not solved. > > Apologizes accepted, but this is not enough. > > Either you accept the apology or you don't. There is no "but". Well, the real problem is that they don't admit that they had no valid reason to remove the commit access, and that it was an abuse of their power. As such, the apology in itself may well be seen as an additional insult, in order to appear rightful without actually doing anything. > > So, this is a first step, but i need more. I need : > > > > - the commit access being restored. > > I would second that request, if it was more humble. You don't "need" > commit access restored, you just want it. So please be so kind to > actually state the true thing. Well. I am not sure. The removal of the commit access means that it is acceptable in debian to hinder the work of someone just because he has annoyed you or you personally dislikes him. Would you think that someone from the DAM/DSA disliking a fellow DD is enough to remove his upload rights ? Or anoying an ftp-master is enough to get his package upload capacity removed ? Or annoying a list master is enough to get you banned from debian lists ? See the controversial decision about debian-devel-announce and assufield as a precedent of how such actions should be taken. This would mean that it would be perfectly acceptable for me to ban Frans from the #debian-kernel irc channel, just because i cannot freely speak there, without him picking on me each time i mention d-i ? Also, one could argue that the d-i svn repo is the preffered form of modification for d-i work, since this is clearly where and how the d-i work is done, and since i contributed GPLed code to it, banning me from the repo has obvious legalese implication debian should be ashamed of. > > - an apology for the lack of decency this action shows. > > You already got that. The apology might have been weaker than you hoped, > but nevertheless, you accepted it (you said: "Apologizes accepted"). No. He just said he apologized for not telling me, not for chosing the moment i was the most fragile, and when i personally asked him to be lenient, a few hours after my mother which i had gone to help, almost died of a respiratory crisis. This is the one i want an apology for, because sorry, but this is in the same class as Andrew Suffield asking us not to send condoleances for Jens's death last year, and it is for behaviour like this that Andrew Suffield was almost expulsed from debian. > > - apologies for continual bashing would be nice, but more important you > > refraining from doing so in the future. When i post, avoid saying things > > like 'its the kernels fault' or otherwise indirectly pointing the finger > > back to me. > > Stop being too sensitive. If someone says "its the kernels fault", why > do you think they are pointing at you? Did you write the whole kernel? So, you believe that something like : There is no problem with initramfs-tools, just a problem with the maintainer of the ppc port who is too quick to jump to conclusions again. is not explicit pointing at me ? I have been getting this kind of thing from Frans since a couple of month now, and yes, it is evident that in this context, Frans was clearly aiming at me, altough in an indirect form. > And it would also be nice if _you_ stopped pointing at various people > (and Frans in particular). Why ? It would be nice, probably, but would it be right ? They have personally caused this problem, so who do you want me to point at ? Or do you want me to say things in a vague or indirect way ? > > On my side, i will follow my one-post-per-thread policy, which i have mostly > > been doing since the last two month, with only two backslides, and those two > > backslides where always triggered by you being bashful, so i have good faith > > that if you change a bit your behaviour, and my personal distress situation
Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 08:52:15AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 08:06:32AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 10:45:46PM +0200, Sven Mueller wrote: > > > Sven Luther wrote on 01/05/2006 08:21: > > > > On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 02:20:09AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > > > > > > > >>The reason that I did not inform you was because things were already > > > >>very > > > >>heated at the moment and because you were at that time still very > > > >>concerned about the welfare of your mother. I thought it was better not > > > >>to add to that. > > > > > > > > And what have you gained ? What did you expect would happen once i > > > > noticed ? > > > > > > He thought he would gain not adding more pressure to you. He was wrong > > > and he apologized for that. Stop picking on him, please. > > > > My believe is that their intentions was to get ride of me, and by > > doing so in one of the worst possible moment of my live, ... > > Please, Sven. > > The first step in getting along with people is 'assume they have the > best intentions, until proven otherwise.' In this case, actions speak louder than words. So, i await the restoration of the svn commit rights, but until then, it is clear that they want to get ride of me. The excuses they have put (that i would abuse the svn commit rights) are bordering on the insulting, and the fact they did it while i was at the sickbed of my dying mother show a complete lack of human decency. So, they may say many things, but it is actions that count. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 10:38:11PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote: > On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 03:42:31PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 08:52:15AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 08:06:32AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > btw, it seems you violated your `one mail per thread' policy, at least > as far as this thread being on -project is concerned. Indeed. My one-email-per-day-per-thread ipolicy is suspended until this issue is solved, at least for question concerning this issue :) Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Should this be how i am supposed to act in mailing list discussions ?
Ok, i will try to play nice, and do as everyone asks from me, We will see if it works : 1) I have asked the DPL to mediate this issue, with as far as i can see very little effect, except it seems to me they have chosen to let the issue rot. 2) on april 28, a week ago, i made the following proposal to Steve McIntyre, who the DPL delegated to speak with me : If they refrained from bashing on me regularly again, and restored my commit rights, and i would continue my one-post-per-day-per-thread policy, i think this might be an acceptable compromise. I also asked if there was any communication with Frans and the d-i team, there has been some, but the only thing that came of it, was Frans apology for not telling me that they where going to kick me. 3) An apology for not telling me i was being kicked is not enough, what good does it do ? There is still no recognition of the gravity of the action, nor of the lack of decency involved in the timing of when it was done. 4) As you see from my compromise, i don't really care that they apologize or something, i am just asking that they don't stop me from doing useful work for debian. If they dislike working with me, fine, they can ignore my mails, and i hardly go to #debian-boot anymore, so there should be no problem apart from their hurt pride. What else can i say, i just want to point out one thing from your own post : On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 03:49:06PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote: > Sven wrote : > >Indeed. My one-email-per-day-per-thread ipolicy is suspended until this > >issue is solved, at least for question concerning this issue :) > > So in summary, 4 people warned you about your inadequate attitude, and > the only replies these people got were yours, violating your > one-email-per-day-per-thread policy. So, it is clear that you didn't read what i wrote, which in the past prompted me to repeat myself. You say this behavior is not acceptable, so, what do you propose instead ? So, is this like i am supposed to behave in email exchanges ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Should this be how i am supposed to act in mailing list discussions ?
On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 11:19:18PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 10:49:51PM +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > 2) on april 28, a week ago, i made the following proposal to Steve > > McIntyre, > > who the DPL delegated to speak with me : > > > > If they refrained from bashing on me regularly again, and restored my > > commit > > rights, and i would continue my one-post-per-day-per-thread policy, i > > think > > this might be an acceptable compromise. > > > A compromise is when everyone make some steps forward to agree on > something. From my point of view, you're asking for others to make these > steps forward, provided that you don't have to move. That's not a > compromise. A compromise is when both sides give way a bit, so that we reach a point that everyone can accept. I made a proposal, and there was no reply. There was no proposal at all from the other side. Also, i am not asking anything outwordly, not even anything that would cause any disagrement. The only reason they are having for rejecting or ignoring this is pride, or because they decided they wanted nothing to do with me, which both i believe are not reasons to be proud of (well, at least in the world i live). I also forgot to mention another thing in the original mail i was going to say : 5) The reason invoked for revoking my SVN rights was that i would hurt d-i in spite or anything of the sort. I find this reason insulting and defamatory, and without any even remote hint of me having acted such in the past 8 years of involvement in debian. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Should this be how i am supposed to act in mailing list discussions ?
On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 11:40:59PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 11:33:15PM +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 11:19:18PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 10:49:51PM +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > 2) on april 28, a week ago, i made the following proposal to Steve > > > > McIntyre, > > > > who the DPL delegated to speak with me : > > > > > > > > If they refrained from bashing on me regularly again, and restored > > > > my commit > > > > rights, and i would continue my one-post-per-day-per-thread policy, > > > > i think > > > > this might be an acceptable compromise. > > > > > > > A compromise is when everyone make some steps forward to agree on > > > something. From my point of view, you're asking for others to make these > > > steps forward, provided that you don't have to move. That's not a > > > compromise. > > > > A compromise is when both sides give way a bit, so that we reach a point > > that > > everyone can accept. I made a proposal, and there was no reply. There was no > > proposal at all from the other side. > > Your proposal sounds like they have to take back everything and you... > have nothing to do. How can that reach to a compromise ? First, it costs them nothing but their pride, and will benefit debian, and also benefit them, since they have trouble finding a replacement powerpc porter with enough time and interest in the most obscure subarches. I am happy to let Colin Watson handle the main stuff, and wear the powerpc porter hat and all, but i hardly see what the benefit can be for me to bug Colin or others each time there is some breakage. It will only agravate this problem, since it will have more chance of me making posts that they will consider annoying, and bash me for. Second, Frans has personally hurt me in the way he did this. He chose the moment to kick me out, while i was at my mother's sick bed, while i asked him in personal email to not bash on me because i really didn't need it (it was just after my mother almost died), and he goes on and remove the svn commit within hours of this. He and others of the d-i team, have also had very bashing and un-nice, or even aggresive, behaviour against me, since over a year now. I don't mention this in the above, and will let this be, provided they don't repeat such behaviour in the future. This is what my part of the compromise, and i believe again that it hardly seems something that can be refused ethically. Third, i say i will make every effort to take care of the problem with the way i communicate on mailing lists, though without falling in a sub-DD without right to critic bad technical choices position. Some thoughts about email conversation ... Here i am having a public discussion with Mike. He says something, and i reply, we are having a discussion. It is normal that this brings longer threads, and even if more than just we two participate. Still, this is exactly what some people seems to find anoying and are even offended by. So, where is the limit, is the analogy of a mailing list to a public discussion valid ? Or are there some other rules to follow ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Issues regarding powerpc and Sven
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 04:38:31PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Hey all, > > As I suspect you're all already aware, on 27th April, Sven Luther asked > me to review the situation with d-i and powerpc as a result of finding > his commit access to the d-i repository had been removed. Having spent > some time since then seeing what's been going on, I've concluded that > removing Sven's commit access was a reasonable course of action, and > won't be asking that you accept Sven's request to have it reinstated. Anthony, d-i team. I would very much like to get the detail of the reasoning behind how you concluded that it was a reasonable course of action, also in the light of the additional detail i gave you concerning the private email exchange between me and Frans which preceded by a few days at most that decision. Further, i want to point out that i am the original author of both the nobootloader and prep-installler .udeb packages, and was also early involved in partman-prep (which is currently broken) package from Cajus Pollmeyer. These tree packages are in the debian-installer svn repo, and removing my commit access means additional hurdle to me working on them, and i think it would be more logical if this confirms itself, that those packages be removed from the d-i svn repo and hosted somewhere else more neutral. I don't believe this would be best for debian and d-i though, but it seems that you failed to take those issues into account when you reached this conclusion. I believe that there was a failure in transparency in how this issue was solved and how you came to the above conclusion, nor do i believe that there is *ANY* justifiable argument which allow you to say that the removal of the commit access was a reasonable course of action, and in any case, i have seen no evidence that this removal of my svn commit access was expected to have any technical effect, only a social one, to get ride of me and make sure i would not be able to interact with d-i in the future. If this is a reasonable course of action, i would like confirmation from you on this, because this has some very profound signification to what debian has become in the 8 years since i joined it, and i don't recognize me in it anymore (and i believe i am not the only person in this case, from private comments made by other long-time DDs). I believe that the mediation attempts has thus failed, and that the proposal you make has not evolved a bit since we started this, and that you gave all the reason to the d-i team. I expected more from this mediation attempts, and am severly disapointed. It is clear it is not worth the time lost in email exchange with either you or Steve. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Issues regarding powerpc and Sven
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 09:42:04PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 12:25:32PM +0200, Xavier Oswald wrote: > > In any case working with less tension should be done. > > But do you think, it's interesting for Sven to work in this way. > > What's "interesting for Sven" isn't really a consideration, what's > reasonable and efficient is. Once this has been tried for some time, > I'll be happy to reconsider whether it's effective; if it's going to be > dismissed out of hand, though, that indicates a lack of good faith. About good faith, i just had a personal email that said : "... but the mail above [aj's mail] does not look like a mediation attempt, rather a sentence." So, three weeks of lost time, and the lack of a neutral and transparent meditation attempt means this was doomed in the first place, and the tone of your above mail only confirms this. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Issues regarding powerpc and Sven
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 02:31:09PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote: > On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 01:56:42PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > So, three weeks of lost time, and the lack of a neutral and transparent > > meditation attempt means this was doomed in the first place, > > Maybe it was doomed in the first place, but personally I doubt this > would be the fault of the mediators. > > And if anything, we now have an official decision on this matter (even > though you might not like it), so we can all move along. All except me, naturally, right ? Altough you are wrong, aj didn't really give a official position, he defaulted to follow the d-i team's position without giving any valable explanation, and clearly pointed that he considered the Technical Comitte and/or a GR the right way to continue this. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Issues regarding powerpc and Sven
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 02:57:13PM +0200, Martin Wuertele wrote: > * Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-10 14:43]: > > he defaulted to follow the d-i team's position without giving any > > valable explanation, and clearly pointed that he considered the > > Technical Comitte and/or a GR the right way to continue this. > > Where do you read that? He stated "I've concluded that removing Sven's > commit access was a reasonable course of action and won't be asking that > you accept Sven's request to have it reinstated." > > Work is possible without cvs access, if you don't want to do so then > don't but please stop complaining. Ah, it was not in his public mail, let me quote from the private one : If you don't feel this is an acceptable way forward, you can ask the technical committee for advice, or to overrule the d-i team's decision to not give you commit access, or you can propose a general resolution for either of these issues. > > Friendly, > > Nothing friendly in the last ton of your mails, maby you want to change > either your wording or your closing. Indeed, Hurt, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Issues regarding powerpc and Sven
On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 11:18:11PM -0500, Anthony Towns wrote: > Frans and Colin dropped from Cc's, -boot and -powerpc Bcc'ed only; > please avoid crossposting. Indeed, debian-project may be more adapted for this. > On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 11:14:39AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 04:38:31PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > As I suspect you're all already aware, on 27th April, Sven Luther asked > > > me to review the situation with d-i and powerpc as a result of finding > > > his commit access to the d-i repository had been removed. Having spent > > > some time since then seeing what's been going on, I've concluded that > > > removing Sven's commit access was a reasonable course of action, and > > > won't be asking that you accept Sven's request to have it reinstated. > > Anthony, d-i team. > > I would very much like to get the detail of the reasoning behind how you > > concluded that it was a reasonable course of action, > > The d-i team were acting under the belief that you no longer wished to > work on d-i after a number of conflicts in the past [0]; they then sought This may be true, but you have still not commented about the special circunstances involving this particular mail. I was under probably one of the worse personal stresses possible (my mother almost died a few hours before that thread), and you cannot say that Frans reply to my nice-and-helpful-but-maybe-uninformed mail to Shaymal was of the most exemplar. I privately informed Frans about my situation, you know, you have a copy of that mail, but i have never seen you even aknowledge that, but despite this, he went on with it. In a case of real-life situtation, i believe this could be similar to harcelement in order to have someone resign, and would probably not stand in court. Harcelement is illegal, even in the US, and the personal circunstances are an agravating situation. Why is everyone so silent about this part of it ? > to find someone else to work on powerpc issues for d-i on the -powerpc > list [1], indicating they need people at all levels to work on it (from > testing builds to arch-specific development), and you not only saw that > call for help, but participated in the thread [2]. Yeah, but there is one thing you failed to mention. First, my participation in that thread was as helpful as i could, and i wished those would-be successors lcuk and success. Second, the promise of the replacement failed, as the isos broke within days, and nobody noticed the powerpc users complaining about it for weeks. If the d-i team had not such failed in their implicit promise of finding a powerpc porter replacement team, we would probably not even have this discussion, altough the removal of the svn commit access would not be excusable even in this case. > About a month after > that got around to removing your commit access. Ah, i was lead to believe (from an email from frans i believe), that the svn commit removal was removed in early april or even earlier. I may be mistaken though, still, there has been a huge amount of svn commit access who where left open for months (or even years) after they became inactive, so .. > That you now indicate that your intention had been to resign as *lead* > powerpc porter for d-i doesn't really change matters; you weren't clear Why doesn't it change matters ? > that that was your intention originally, you didn't clarify your intention > when Frans stated the d-i team's understanding, and for various reasons Well. There is the little matter of me writing Frans some hours before this resignation email, about my personal situation, and asking him to not take in account any stuff i would write in the next couple of weeks. Let me quote some of it here : Frans, Please, can i ask you something personal ? Please, whatever crap i say or not on the list this next week, please, don't jump on me. Just this week, ok. I am in very very dire personal situation, in one i hope you never see, and i don't need some additional crap. So, really, this is a call of distress, be patient with me and curb your anger for some time, i don't need this crap, so please, a week or two ignore me or something ? Friendly, Sven Luter Given this, how could you justify that this 'resignation' mail i wrote in response of another of those frans bashing was taken seriously ? Frans clearly knew what was behind this, and i have told to many others since, but it is clear this was of no consequence to the d-i team, and there i am humanly very very disapointed in them, or in frans at least, since the others didn't know unless he told them. This is a point i repeteadly asked you to clarify, and that was totally ignored by all i have spoken about. Can you tell me why ?
Re: Issues regarding powerpc and Sven
On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 11:24:47PM -0500, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 02:40:08PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > Altough you are wrong, aj didn't really give a official position, > > To be clear: I gave my position, as DPL. That isn't the final position > of the project, since it can also be appealed to the technical committee > (which it subsequently has been), or considered by the developer body at > large by general resolution. That does not make it any less "official" > though. Yeah. It didn't really solve anything though, proof of which is we are still all loosing time following this discussion. > > to follow the d-i team's position without giving any valable explanation, > > and > > clearly pointed that he considered the Technical Comitte and/or a GR the > > right > > way to continue this. > > I don't think focussing on the reasons for the disagreement is useful, Ah, well, the idea of a mediation is to solve the disagreements, if you don't focus on the reasons of these disagreements, chances are good that your proposed solution will fail to address the real issues. Mediation attempts over social issues are very different from issues ported to the TC for example, where a technical judgement is enough. Mediation over social issues cannot be successfull without understanding the human beings behind the DDs. Not sure if the DPL is best placed to solve those issues, we don't really elected him (well you this time, but the same for those before) on those criterias alone. Maybe a social-issue-delegate or team would be a better solution. We have had enough sociologists who did studies of the debian community and such, there is probably some experts of that field who could comment on those needs. > and I don't think going back to where we were two months ago will result > in any useful improvement compared to how things actually progressed > from two months ago. No, but it may improve on how things will be in two months, and beyond. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Issues regarding powerpc and Sven
On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 06:59:40PM -0500, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Mon, 15 May 2006, Sven Luther wrote: > > In a case of real-life situtation, i believe this could be similar to > > harcelement in order to have someone resign, and would probably not stand in > > court. Harcelement is illegal, even in the US, and the personal > > circunstances > > are an agravating situation. > > > > Why is everyone so silent about this part of it ? > > Because anyone in that situation would disappear from the mailing list for > a few weeks/months, mourn the death of his family member and come back when > he's > fine. Indeed, i did this, and when i came back, and started to do work, i discovered > You choosed to mix your private life with your Debian one. It's your > call, but that doesn't make it more appropriate IMO. Ok. But frans did know about this, and i asked him explicitly, even pleaded him, to be lenient. > Please stop referring to that to justify any of your action and please > assume your mistakes and try to learn of them. Yeah, i just wish people would also see the mistakes of others in this issue, and not do, as you did, that all mistakes where mine. > (I didn't read the rest of your mail) I guess almost nobody will, and make hasty judgement against me on their partial understanding. I wish that those people not willing to understand the whole of the problem would also refrain from taking position and commenting. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Issues regarding powerpc and Sven
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 07:28:17AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > On Monday 15 May 2006 06:18, Anthony Towns wrote: > > It means that if you wish to continue maintaining them, you need to do > > so independently of the Debian Install System Team, which is listed as > > the current maintainer, and of which you are no longer a member. If you > > wish to consult with your co-maintainers for those packages (Matt Kraai > > and Stephen R Marenka for nobootloader, and Cajus Pollmeier for > > partman-prep) and setup a new source control repository, that's > > entirely appropriate. > > [...] > > > You're no longer a member of the d-i team; if they wish to keep those > > packages' source in their subversion repository, it doesn't matter to > > you at all. If they wish to maintain a fork compared to your packages, > > that's fine too. If other members of the d-i team wish to maintain it > > in your stead, they probably will be expected to justify that change as > > a package hijack, depending on what your co-maintainers think of the > > situation. > > I actually do not agree with these statements for the reasons outlined in: > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=366938;msg=50 /me is awaiting with impatience the fix to partman-prep on PReP and IBM CHRP machines. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Issues regarding powerpc and Sven
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 05:07:38AM -0500, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 11:26:09PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > > The d-i team were acting under the belief that you no longer wished to > > > work on d-i after a number of conflicts in the past [0]; they then sought > > This may be true, but you have still not commented about the special > > circunstances involving this particular mail. > > I don't think it's relevant -- Debian developers should act in a way that > benefits our users and the free software community. It would be great if > that meant that Debian was 100% fun all the time, but sometimes that's > just more than we can actually manage. > > > Why is everyone so silent about this part of it ? > > Because we don't want to dishonour your mother, or diminish your loss by > reconciling it with Debian's priorities. You've been dealing with more > than what anyone could reaosonably expect you to recently -- and normal > people would respond to that by just not doing Debian stuff. That you > keep trying to contribute is only to your credit; but in so far as your > contributions are harmful to Debian -- such as posting that the powerpc > port is unreleasable -- we can't put our users' interests aside because > of your personal issues, severe as they are. Well, the RMs have made a prerequisite for a port being releasable to have a well maintained and working d-i. This was not the case at the time i wrote this mail, despite frans's promise. I don't see this as being harmful to debian, but i believe, and i think the SC supports me in that, that our users deserve to know the real situation. Now, my main problem with this, is that there are things you simply don't do to other persons under these circunstances, and frans stepped over this line. You would not accept such behavior in real life, so why is it acceptable in debian ? This is i believe an important question to answer, which will have impact much later then this one event too. > I was told this evening that you've also been privileged to have had a > second child recently; if I may, I'd like to wish you congratulations, > and express my continuing amazement that you have any time to spend on > Debian at all. Thanks. > > Ah, i was lead to believe (from an email from frans i believe), that the svn > > commit removal was removed in early april or even earlier. I may be mistaken > > though, still, > > It's more likely that I'm mistaken; or that I'd intended to say "you > didn't notice for a month; but maybe it had already been removed earlier, > I don't know". Ok. > > > That you now indicate that your intention had been to resign as *lead* > > > powerpc porter for d-i doesn't really change matters; you weren't clear > > Why doesn't it change matters ? > > You can't determine your actions based on what other people /think/, only > what they say and do. You said you were resigning, and didn't contradict > Frans' statement that you weren't working on d-i at all anymore. How can > it possibly be unreasonable in those circumstances to remove your access? I didn't contradict frans statement that i was no more going to be the powerpc porters. I never said anything about "not working on d-i at all anymore". Also, i said that when i believed whoever was going to replace me would do the job. This resulted to not be the case, as the isos broke within days of me being replaced, and nobody noticed neither the brokeness, nor the users complaining, or at least nobody deamed it important enough to inform the users or fix the issues. > > Given this, how could you justify that this 'resignation' mail i wrote in > > response of another of those frans bashing was taken seriously ? > > Personally, I would have taken your mail as "please try to understand > what I'm saying underneath the hystrionics or swearing", and assumed that > your resignation was serious, but any negative comments or predictions you > made were just in the heat of the moment, and done much the same as Frans. Notice that the chronology is the following : 1) i helepd shaymal and made some misinformed guess which frans made an aggresive reply too. 2) i told frans in private of my problems, and asked him to cut the agressiveness. 3) frans replied with more bashing. 4) i wrote that letter, where i intented to write i resigned as lead powerpc folk, which may have come bad differently, me not being native english speaker and under stress and all. In these conditions, would your interpretation still stand ? > > Frans clearly knew what was behind this, > > That's not t
Re: Issues regarding powerpc and Sven
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 07:38:55PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Anthony Towns > > >> Because we don't want to dishonour your mother, or diminish your loss by > >> reconciling it with Debian's priorities. You've been dealing with more > >> than what anyone could reaosonably expect you to recently -- and normal > >> people would respond to that by just not doing Debian stuff. [...] > > > I think that was a disgraceful insult. > > You ought to quit whatever you're smoking that makes you think that. > > I was extremely sceptical about Anthony's ability to function socially > as DPL, but I have to say that what we have seen of his handling of > this case is nothing short of admirable. You must have a really strange definition of admirable then. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian-based miniVDR violates GPL (FYI)
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 11:33:15AM +0100, Floris Bruynooghe wrote: > Hi Josephine > > On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 10:43:40AM +0200, Ciuca, Josephine wrote: > > Hello > > > > I just wanted to let you know about a GPL violation in the distribution > > miniVDR, a distribution based on Depian with so-called GPL licensed > > patches (www.minivdr.de). They refuse to share the sources and are > > willing to give them only for 15euros, which is way abusive and does not > > reflect the price of media and cd-burner usage. They constantly refused > > to share the sources on Sourceforge or any other OSS promoting service > > and even mailed me "the harddisk is broken, so no sources anymore". I > > have mails from the maintainer of the distribution where he stated I > > only get the sources for 15eur and if I think it's expensive, I should > > use other distribution. This is abusive usage of the GPL code. Please > > let me know if I should forward these mails too or if you need anything. > > Personally I have no idea if they can get away with this or not, I'd > hope not but that's just my opinion. > > Debian has no formal way of fighting abuses as far as I know, but > there is a Debian lawyer so maybe I'm wrong. However I'm sure if you > raise the issue with the Free Software Foundation's [1]GPL Compliance > Lab they will know exactly what to do an how to handle this. > > So unless someone else here knows better what to do this is probably > the best thing to do. Altho maybe it should be raised with > debian-legal@lists.debian.org first? I believe SPI may be more appropriate in this case, not sure though, as they seem to be germany-based. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BSP Marathon (or: helping releasing etch in-time)
On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 11:36:14PM +0200, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote: > Hi, > > [ Please send follow-ups to -project, headers set accordingly ] > > As you should all know, we had some bug squashing parties before > the release of Debian 3.1 "sarge". These were quite effective, > especially when they were centered around a meeting in real life. This > led me to the proposal of a row of BSP this fall, helping to prepare > the release of Etch. > > Naturally, fixing RC bugs is needed all the time. The BSPs we are > planning will be focused on some sub-systems, so to help to release > etch, *you* need to fix RC bugs all the time, so finish reading this > mail, choose an RC bug and try to fix it! BTW, altough it is not noted RC, there is one point which would be good to handle in this BSP. I discussed with MArco d'itri the way to best handle udev/kernel upgrades lately, as i got a very failed upgrade which left my system a full mess, the other day. The udev package now has a textual interaction in this case, and the right thing to do (as Md admitted, but has not time for), is to use a debconf question to tell the user that he has a kernel not supported by the new udev, and to propose to either abort the install (default, as it does now), or continue the upgrade, with the thought that udev may well be a mess until the next upgrade. This is a rather easy task for someone with the time for it, and thus perfect for a BSP party. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Shouldn't we have more ftp masters ?
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 03:10:58PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 03:47:57PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote: > > Personally, I don't think this issue is enough to revoke ftp-master's > > right to choose their staff among themselves, but rather push more > > people onto their team without their consent. > > Maybe I've missed it, but I haven't seen any volunteers. The ideal way > to volunteer is by doing other scut work in the meantime; Jeroen worked > on categorising outstanding removal requests, eg, Joerg wrote the scripts > for the new.html page iirc. If you can't think of anything useful to do, > you might like to look at http://ftp-master.debian.org/unmet-deps/ for a > bunch of ftp-masterish problems that no one else is looking at much these > days. Anthony, ... I would like to hear your comment on the possibility to override the need for NEW for the creation of some new binary package out of existing source packages, where there is a clear team of people aware of the implications of creating new binary packages. A perfect example of those is the kernel team, and the linux-2.6 package, which has hit NEW a considerable number of times in the past year or so, especially due to ABI changes and new upstream version numbers. Currently there are packages waiting in NEW and blocked by the mexico-touring or whtaever busy-ness of the ftp-assistant handling the NEW queue, and caused remarks by Steve Lanagasek wearing his RM hat concerning the timeliness of fixes and upgrades for the testing migration. Given that i am aware of no case where these packages caused any more work than simple approval, and that i doubt that any ftp-master or ftp-assistant is more knowledgeable and in touch of what needs happening, i don't see any reason that could justify the current situation appart from inertia and conventionalism, which is opposite to what you wanted to push in your DPL plateform. So, the current handling of NEW for those packages is a problem, and furthermore represent uneeded work by the ftp-assistant in charge of NEW, work he could have better spent elsewhere. This would be akin of making those teams in charge of those well delimited packages ftp-assistants for the express purpose of handling NEW for these packages, i think. In this case, it could include the linux-2.6 kernel source, but also in the future, the whole host of out-of-tree modules that are being worked on, and which also have the ABI and version number embedded in the package name, so trigger NEW each time. If the experience proves succesfull, it can be extended to other responsible teams, and well, it if is abused or whatever, you can take it back anytime you want. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Shouldn't we have more ftp masters ?
On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 10:59:36AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 07:50:23AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > Anthony, ... > > I would like to hear your comment on the possibility to override the need > > for > > NEW for the creation of some new binary package [...] > > Sven, you bring this up every chance you get, please stop it. You're not > interested in comments, you're just hoping that you'll get a different > answer to the last dozen times you've brought it up. Wrong, i bring it up each time there is evidence that there is some needs in this area. Three events brought it up here : 1) Hans wrote some things about there not being enough ftp-masters, to which you responded. 2) Steve as RM complained to the kernel team that he can't get timely updates to the packages into testing, because some sub-packages are waiting in NEW 3) NEW seems to be stalled since some weeks or such. My proposal is a perfect response to this state, made a sane proposal, and asked a question on why you would reject it. You replied to none, and only dismissed the proposal because it already had come up in the past. > For those playing along at home, routing around NEW processing isn't going > to happen; if you're introducing new packages regularly enough that NEW > processing delays are a concern for you, you should reconsider whether > whether different package names for different versions of your software > are actually a good idea, or work with the ftpmaster and release teams > to ensure that your uploads are done in a way which minimises NEW-related > delays -- such as not making RC bug fixes dependent on NEW processing. Yeah, fine, i would like that you rethink this, but applied to the RMs and the kernel team, as is the case here. There seems to be a problem in your argumentation if it is Steve Langasek doing the complaining to the kernel team, and then you ask the kernel team to speak more with the Release Managers, but maybe my poor understanding of english made me miss something in your explanation. Now, the remaining question that has me baffled is how you reconcile the factof waiting for NEW, with the 'vitality' part of your DPL plateform. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Shouldn't we have more ftp masters ?
On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 10:21:13AM +0200, Michael Banck wrote: > On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 08:15:42AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > Now, the remaining question that has me baffled is how you reconcile the > > factof waiting for NEW, with the 'vitality' part of your DPL plateform. > > Wait, we sent off the ftp-assistant on a two-week vacation in *Mexico* > to relax and gain `vitality', and now you're still complaining? First, with the DPLs (non-)answer, what is left else than complain, and second : Second, please reread the DPL's plateform, and what he understands about vitality, a quick quote about this : "And sometimes doing it fast *helps* you to do it right, by letting you try out solutions and act on the feedback -- that is, the "release early, release often" philosophy" You see how i can see a serious contradiction between this and the waiting-for-NEW game ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Shouldn't we have more ftp masters ?
On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 01:27:40AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 08:15:42AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 10:59:36AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 07:50:23AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > > > Anthony, ... > > > > I would like to hear your comment on the possibility to override the > > > > need for > > > > NEW for the creation of some new binary package [...] > > > > Sven, you bring this up every chance you get, please stop it. You're not > > > interested in comments, you're just hoping that you'll get a different > > > answer to the last dozen times you've brought it up. > > > Wrong, i bring it up each time there is evidence that there is some needs in > > this area. Three events brought it up here : > > > 1) Hans wrote some things about there not being enough ftp-masters, to > > which > > you responded. > > > 2) Steve as RM complained to the kernel team that he can't get timely > > updates to the packages into testing, because some sub-packages are > > waiting > > in NEW > > No, I complained about the kernel team's practice of *coupling* critical > fixes with irrelevant changes that require NEW processing, just as I would Bastian said : -15 will again hit NEW. And you asked : And if there are failures again with -15, can we expect a -16 soon that fixes them *without* needing to add new packages? > complain about any maintainer of a base package making a habit of coupling > critical security fixes with irrelevant changes with the potential to > introduce release-critical regressions and/or delays on testing propagation. Like, fixing the missing PReP support requiring the addition of a new -prep flavour since upstream prep didn't migrate to ARCH=ppc ? > Remember that one of Joey's initial complaints was that the kernel team Yeah, and have you noticed at which speed the kernel upstream has been issuing security-updated 2.6.16.x releases ? > hasn't left any time between uploads to make propagation to testing > possible. This, and Bastian's reply that the kernel team does not intend to > let concerns about testing propagation delay kernel work (apparently > regardless of importance) shows that the kernel team effectively gives a Indeed, this is in accordance of the DPLs electoral moto under the header 'vitality'. Let's do the work fast and early, and not bother about artificial hurdle and delays. > very low priority to the needs of users of testing. I do have a *big* > problem with that, because it should easily be doable to create a short > branch in svn used only for RC bugfixes for long enough to get a fixed > kernel into testing; instead, this policy puts the much greater burden on And it should be easily doable for you to ask the ftp-master to accelerate NEW processing, or for the NEW processing of the kernel package to be automated. See how easy it is to put work on someone else ? :) Alternatively, since the DPL has closed the door to any discussion abotu the NEW queue, the ftp-masters could chose someone of the kernel team as ftp-assistant with the express power to only handle kernel packages. I am sure we can find someone, i would volunteer myself if i would be acceptable to the ftp-masters. > any developers who *do* care about testing's users to figure out how to get > these security fixes into testing without the benefit of the preferred path > (i.e., via unstable). Yeah, and the DPL and you ping-ponging the responsability of NEW handling helps how ? > And no, I don't want to be using my position as release manager to ask the > ftp team for out-of-order processing of completely release-irrelevant new > packages. I resent being put in that position by maintainers who choose > to tie release-critical fixes to release-irrelevant changes. I have better > things to do with my time than being used as a pawn in your squabble with > the ftp team over NEW processing. Yeah, except that in this case the new packages was the release-critical fix, and in the preceding one, it was the refusal of the ftp-master to admit not-ready-for-prime-consumption kernel packages into testing, namely the xen flavours. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Shouldn't we have more ftp masters ?
On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 01:57:23PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > Nobody asked me. I have no idea why you're presenting this in the context > of my objection to the coupling of release-critical fixes to > release-irrelevant changes, since that's clearly not the case here, so > clearly isn't what I'm complaining about at all. Maybe, or maybe not, but you cannot deny that the actual NEW situation is satisfactory. And actually, what i intented to say was that there where three points which made me consider this a good time to post, not a proposal, but a request for comment from our DPL and ftp-master about the subject. Whatever you say you meant or not, the fact alone that we had that discussion proves there is something un-neat about the NEW handling, and i wanted our DPLs opinion on this, in light of his electoral plateform. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Shouldn't we have more ftp masters ?
On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 11:06:29AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 11:15:35PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > Maybe, or maybe not, but you cannot deny that the actual NEW situation is > > satisfactory. > > Heh. > > > And actually, what i intented to say was that there where three points which > > made me consider this a good time to post, not a proposal, but a request for > > comment from our DPL and ftp-master about the subject. > > As DPL, all I've got to say is NEW policy is a matter for ftpmasters Sure, but i guess i will ask you the same question in next years campaign :) > to decide. As both DPL and ftpmaster, I think we could use some new > assistants -- Mike and Randall are pretty much doing other things these > days, and Jeroen and Ganneff have accrued more things to do over the > past year. Ok, but that doesn't reply to the actual question, which was how do you reconcile your DPL plateform and the part where you advocate a more quick and active behaviour with the inherent immobility found in the waiting-for-NEW case. The second question, which i guess i asked you as ftp-master and not as DPL, was that given that : 1) as report from, i think it was, Ganneff, NEW handling of new kernel packages was always automatic and took almost no time. I know of no case that a decision by the kernel team was rejected by the ftp-masters, except the experimental-in-unstable package from Bastian, but that was a new source package. 2) i hear rumors that setting up an override for source packages is relatively easy to do. Naturally, i cannto confirm this by myself, altough you could. Given that, the real question is one of confiance. Which do you believe of the kernel team or the ftp-masters, are more competent to know what sub-package and abi change revision are adequate ? I understand this reticence to thrust any random maintainer, but the kernel team is handled by competent and reasonable, and decisions are taken as a team, so i think that such reticence in doing automated NEW for binary splits, which in the case of the kernel packages are happenein repeatedly. And i would like a real answer to this question, not an authoritative non-reply like you did last time. And even if you agree with my points, you still have the possibility to say 'but we won't implement it because ...', so please don't feel agressed by simple discussion on the subject. Note to other readers of this thread. I get complaints that i post too much, and indeed it can be argued that i represent 50% of this thread, and that i already made many replies, but what should i have done ? The original replies did not really reply anything, so i should either let the issue fall, or insist until i get a reply ? /me is really baffled on what the correct behaviour is on this ... I guess with my past, i will always get the blame whatever i do anyway though :/ Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Shouldn't we have more ftp masters ?
On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 11:06:29AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > As DPL, all I've got to say is NEW policy is a matter for ftpmasters > to decide. As both DPL and ftpmaster, I think we could use some new > assistants -- Mike and Randall are pretty much doing other things these > days, and Jeroen and Ganneff have accrued more things to do over the > past year. And what do you think of the idea proposed in a reply to steve, namely name a ftp-assistant solely responsible of handling a given subset of packages, the kernel and outè-of-tree modules in this case. This would give you the chance to test the persons competence and stuff like that. I personally volunteer for this for doing kernel related NEW work, but i guess someone else can be found if you don't judge me dign of confiance. I still believe that automation is preferable in this case, and haven't heard any real argument against it. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Shouldn't we have more ftp masters ?
On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 01:58:45AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 11:10:00PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > > >> Don't _all_ new kernel packages require NEW processing because kernel > >> packages have the entire version string embedded in the package name > >> (for good and sound reasons)? > > > Kernel package names are only changed on ABI changes, of which new upstream > > versions are the majority. There is no reason why the 16th revision of > > 2.6.16 packages should necessarily require NEW processing. > > Hm, I see on further checking that the -2- in my currently installed > linux-image-2.6.16-2-k7 package is not actually the Debian revision. > > I (foolishly?) thought that the package name changed by default and > intentionally, such that on updates one could always keep the old > kernel installed until having verified that the new one could boot > correctly. This is indeed a nice side-effect, but the primary goal is to ensure that after an ABI change, all out-of-tree modules are rebuilt, since they won't work anymore with the new kernel. In this aspect, it is similar of libraries embedding their sonames. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Shouldn't we have more ftp masters ?
On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 11:00:23AM +0200, Martin Wuertele wrote: > * Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-06-02 08:27]: > > > I personally volunteer for this for doing kernel related NEW work, but i > > guess > > someone else can be found if you don't judge me dign of confiance. > > Right, let's have everyone volunteer to process NEW for his pet > package... So, you believe the kernel package, as well as all the out-of-tree modules which need to be intimely related, and will probably all need NEW together, are just 'pet packages' ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Shouldn't we have more ftp masters ?
On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 08:43:27PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 08:20:19AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > > > And actually, what i intented to say was that there where three points > > > > which > > > > made me consider this a good time to post, not a proposal, but a > > > > request for > > > > comment from our DPL and ftp-master about the subject. > > > As DPL, all I've got to say is NEW policy is a matter for ftpmasters > > Sure, but i guess i will ask you the same question in next years campaign :) > > Sven, the reason people get annoyed at you and dislike working with you > is that you keep asking the same question in hopes that the answer will > somehow change. You've got your answer, you don't need to ask again. No, i got _NO_ANSWER_, and i keep asking in hopes that you actually give an answer, whatever it is. And again, here, you are not responding to the actual questions. Especially as your current reasoning fully contradict with what you said in your DPL plateform. I guess this means that Mike wass right after all, and i sure think this is something that will need to surface again if ever you re-present yourself as DPL. > > Given that, the real question is one of confiance. Which do you believe of > > the > > kernel team or the ftp-masters, are more competent to know what sub-package > > and abi change revision are adequate ? > > I don't believe it's appropriate to give either group authority to do > so on their own. Adding packages to the archive is an appropriate point > to have a second person review what's going on; that applies to packages > maintained by ftpmasters too. I agree with you on source packages, but change in the kernel abi-names or introduction of new binary packages for the same source package having to wait like it does is nonsense. > > any random maintainer, but the kernel team is handled by competent and > > reasonable, > > Which random maintainers are you saying are neither competent nor reasonable? I don't know, those the ftp-masters invoke in order to justify the strict control over the admittance of new binary packages and name changes in debian ? > Furthermore, I know I've spoken with a number of developers who don't > think you can be relied upon to handle things "reasonably", so even if Yeah, and i would much like that you back such diffamation with actual proof of me mishandling my responsabilities. And no, behaviour on debian mailing list has no relationship whatsoever with responsabilities in package upload. I have never done any harm in package upload (except once in early 99 when i NMUed X because it didn't build on powerpc, and got the immediate backlash you can imagine), as i never did any harm with my debian-installer commit right. I now expect you to step down from this diffamatory accusation, and apologize for it, if you have any self-honesty, or at least back your words with actual facts. > that were a sufficient condition to automatically approve NEW packages -- > which it isn't -- I'm not convinced it even applies here. So, because people are angry with me because of my email communication methods, any of my arguments should be dismissed without thought as you did ? You do notice that this leaves me only one recourse, so this is hardly the smartest thing to do on your part. > > And i would like a real answer to this question, not an authoritative > > non-reply like you did last time. > > Sven, the only thing that will satisfy you is complete compliance with > your demands -- you've made that clear in the way you've treated disputes > with the d-i team recently, and in other cases in the past. That isn't > going to happen, so there's really not much point worrying about what > other things you want -- you're going to be upset and complaining no > matter what happens. Well, you could try it and give a reply. Also, i have to say that from past flamewar with you, that you are also prone to the exact same problem, go read your own emails. So, i ask you now a direct question. You said something in your DPL plateform, which you clearly reject now, or refuse to answer any question concerning how this applies to a real world case ? So, the question is : Anthony, did you deliberately lie in your DPL elections like any good politician in order to be elected, or where you not aware that your own actions and position would contradict this point of your plateform ? Or, you could give a true answer to what i am asking. > Every single NEW package gets a manual check to see if it's reasonable. Indeed, which means that only the ftp-masters can thrusted to judge what 'reasonable' means, not withstanding that
