nse is swift: there was a debian developer wrongfully arrested
for running a TOR exit node. their key was revoked immediately.
How was this incident detected?
On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 12:07 PM lkcl wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 7:59 PM Adam McKenna wrote:
> > You are talking about a d
keys are compromised and an attacker uploads a
compromised package?
Do we have ways of detecting these breaches or do we rely solely on user
reports?
On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 11:22 AM lkcl wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 6:28 PM Adam McKenna wrote:
> >
> > > i believe the
> i believe the answer is in the question. debian is based on distributed
trust. i did the analysis (took 3 weeks): it is literally the only distro
in the world with an inviolate chain of trust from a large keyring dating
back 20 years that is itself GPG-signed as a package, with a package
distrib
On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 08:44:57PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I don't think picking a package and comparing bug reports like for
> like across two distributions is `anecdotal evidence'. Anecdotal
> evidence is statements like `well I tried to submit a bug report and
> was discouraged'.
Yes, I st
mely fashion
2. Bugs get fixed in a timely fashion
The amount of noise in the system is really a secondary concern if it leads
to bugs getting reported faster and fixed faster.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 11:30:33AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> The slight inaccessibility in the bug reporting facilies is an
> appropriate part of our approach to improving bug report quality.
I don't think this logically follows.. I don't see how "inaccessibility"
of the BTS would necessarily r
of the team members
are likely to quit, or have threatened to quit, if AJ (or a GR) restores
Sven's commit access?
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
s final or not.
If it's final, there shouldn't be any more discussion unless it is in the
form of a GR.
If it's still up for discussion, then Sven is right to continue advocating
for his position. If it's not, then apparently Sven doesn't understand
that, and he should
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 09:27:29AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 11:32:03PM -0500, Ean Schuessler wrote:
> > Was his access suspended because he simply was not liked?
>
> AFAICS, from the installer team's point of view, he resigned from the
> team, and the access was suspended
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 08:08:55AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> http://www.wolffelaar.nl/~jeroen/sven-revokes-js-svn-from-kernel
Is that the incident for which he apologized profusely & publicly?
--Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Cont
e may have not abused his d-i commit rights but
> did abuse his d-k svn admin rights.
How, specifically?
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
so my understanding of the situation, and I agree with the
conclusion.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
xtremely cynical viewpoint that essentially excuses lying to get
elected. If you can't go by the promises and statements made in someone's
platform, then how can you judge their suitability as a candidate?
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 01:14:55PM +, Thaddeus H. Black wrote:
> Yes, but was this Peter's point? There is already an inherent
> unfairness in Debian's voting system when the vote of a relatively
> modest contributor and less-than-one-year DD like me counts exactly as
> much as each of the vot
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?
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
m reading your mails and commments on IRC.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
known as 'feeding the troll'). This is what I see Mako's 'pledge' as
addressing, and that's why I signed it. It's unfortunate that someone had to
be singled out, but in this case I think it was well deserved.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 09:32:41AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> As Marc Haber wrote, the length of list can be interpreted as
> the strength of support, so I also have an interest in making
> that list as long as possible, in order to increase the overall
> market size, even if it makes debian seem bette
On Sun, Jul 17, 2005 at 10:57:13AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Why not? It made as much sense as claiming that merely being listed
> on that page creates a conflict of interest. Not all interests are
> in conflict or should disqualify one from a discussion.
As someone listed on the page you have a vest
On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 09:30:46AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The point is that we shouldn't impose stupid restrictions that we have no
> > chance in hell of enforcing anyway. [...]
>
> Even if consultants@ think they could
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 03:23:12PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 7/15/05, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It seems like there is already someone with this authority, but whenever he
> > tries to do his job, he gets harangued by people who don't approve
On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 02:07:34AM +0100, Rich Walker wrote:
> I get your point, but Debian is putting *commercial business* their
> way, and attaching to their business a notional imprint of Debian
> approval. If they cannot face acknowledging that people may come to them
> because of this, then p
On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 01:00:28AM +0100, Rich Walker wrote:
> Why should Debian *advertise* the services of someone who will not
> return the favour?
Why should a consultant be *forced* to advertise for Debian in order to
obtain listing in our directory? To me, this smacks of the kind of additio
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 02:53:35PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> Could the DPL please just delegate somebody with authority to weed
> this list based on whatever criteria they think wise, so that we don't
> have to debate endlessly about who's a
> domain-squatter-PageRank-manipulator and who's
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.
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
> >
*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 conte
On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 08:55:58PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As DPL he is the public face of the project and should make extra effort to
> > contact people when doing so would benefit the project.
>
> Sure, but many of these
On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 08:40:29PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Adam McKenna]
> > It is fine for individual developers to act like antisocial fuckwits.
>
> Sure. Just carry on the way you are. :)
>
> > It is not acceptable for our DPL to behave that way (not whe
On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 05:03:15AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> I don't see him trying to fix anything. Rather, I see him not wasting
> time on trying to fix brainlessly broken crap but instead just
> ignoring it and carrying on.
It is fine for individual developers to act like antisocial fuckw
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 03:33:03PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> So, while perhaps you do find PDF based documentation to be pretty
> useless, it can actually be used by people.
I do, actually, but that's not what I was saying. And if you'll notice,
some incarnations of PDF are still considered t
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 01:01:31PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> A work that only allows distribution of patches does not meet DFSG #4.
> It must also specifically allow the distribution of modified binaries
> made from those patches.
Maybe it's just me, but since I can't read binary, I would find
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 03:20:55PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > They promote the sharing of the information in the invariant section. In
> > fact, they require it. The question is, will less people share the document
> > if they are forced to share it with the invariant section attached? I th
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 08:03:48AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Proprietary licenses protect the authors' rights even more. Never
> publishing the work, and therefore never subjecting it to copyright
> law, also protects the authors' rights. Neither of those help freedom
> or the sharing of info
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 07:06:51PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> There are many jurisdictions without the US's concept of "fair use". Freedoms
> depending on fair use are not sufficient for Debian--a license with non-free
> restrictions is not typically considered free because those restrictions a
On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 12:39:13AM +0200, David Schmitt wrote:
> > > > So I'm not sure why you couldn't also do it with text licensed under
> > > > the GFDL.
> > >
> > > Indeed. But this obviously then is no "free" work. Why should Debian want
> > > to distribute that in main?
> >
> > I'm not sure
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 11:59:38PM +0200, David Schmitt wrote:
> On Thursday 14 April 2005 22:32, Adam McKenna wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 10:17:12PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > Now imagine someone who's doing a study on available algorithms for
> > &g
nd an Openoffice doc.
> > Why on earth would we want to exclude openoffice docs (provided that the
> > contents is licensed freely?)
>
> We don't, that's the whole point. The FDL definition of 'transparent' is
> so broken that it excludes OOo docs.
How does
t deals
exclusively with the relationship of the publishers or authors of the Document
to the Document's overall subject", and may contain "nothing that could fall
directly within that overall subject."
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED
39 matches
Mail list logo
