On Nov 08, Jonathan McDowell wrote:
> Back in August I sent notification[0] about the fact that we will be
> removing all keys less than 2048 from our keyrings at the end of the
> year (31st December 2014). Sadly the response to this has been slower
> than expected, and we still have about 439 ke
nood...@earth.li wrote:
>I am sorry you and those developers who have emailed me privately to
>complain feel like I am engaging in some form of punishment or naming
>and shaming.
No, I do not think that there is anything wrong with publishing their
names.
What I feel is that this new policy of re
I would appreciate some clarifications on this point, to better
understand where I stand.
I do not like transphobes (and various other kinds of bigots), I am
happy to recognize people's gender identity as male, female or
non-binary and to address them as they prefer using "he", "she" or
"them", if
hartm...@debian.org wrote:
>Marco> I also do not believe in a general right (instead
>Marco> of about specific issues) of people to not be offended by
>Marco> other's behaviour. Is this good enough for Debian?
>This offended word keeps coming up from people who are concerned about
>th
gw...@gwolf.org wrote:
>So, what do you suggest?
Persuade developers that they should sign the new key of people whose
old key they have already signed, with no need to meet them in person.
(Also, my keyring update request has been waiting for 3 weeks now to be
processed.)
--
ciao,
Marco
--
enr...@enricozini.org wrote:
>It also took me a long while to switch because I didn't understand that
>it was already this urgent,
Because unless you are paranoid, then it is not.
If anybody disagrees then please describe a credible threat model in
which:
- an entity would want to have access to t
On Feb 27, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> > Because unless you are paranoid, then it is not.
> > If anybody disagrees then please describe a credible threat model in
> > which:
> > - an entity would want to have access to the key of a DD, and
> > - would find brute forcing a 1024 bit key more practic
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>http://kerneltrap.org/node/view/4118
The latest two GRs made this is not really relevant, because what
OpenBSD is for is permission to redistribute the files which Debian
now considers non-free anyway.
--
ciao,
Marco
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Why should firmware go to non-free, it's not evaluated on the CPU
>that runs Debian.
Because the policy revisionists changed the DFSG to make it apply to
data as well.
I hope that post-sarge somebody will prove this point by hunting fonts
without source and similar evil t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Really, even though UOL does not respond, does inflicting this kind of
>thing on their users seem right?
Yes. Technically this is called a "fuck you block", and it is often the
only way to get the attention of an uncooperative ISP which is causing
you troubles.
>You are
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I've heard it suggested by a variety of people that we should move the
>official irc.debian.org alias away from freenode to oftc. I can see
Yes, the lilo-haters have been saying this for years.
So far nobody proposed better arguments than "we do not like freenode".
FWIW,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I agree with Steve. While I agree that freenode has many flaws (the
>biggest being NOIDPRIVMSG), I find that while I am in Debian channels on
Exactly, why is an optional feature such a big flaw?
I think it would also be useful to know about those other issues you are
thin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> I agree with Steve. While I agree that freenode has many flaws (the
>>> biggest being NOIDPRIVMSG), I find that while I am in Debian channels on
>> Exactly, why is an optional feature such a big flaw?
>Because it's the default and practically no one changes it. This is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >>> I agree with Steve. While I agree that freenode has many flaws (the
>> >>> biggest being NOIDPRIVMSG), I find that while I am in Debian channels on
>> >> Exactly, why is an optional feature such a big flaw?
>> >Because it's the default and practically no one changes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>After some discussion earlier in the day about music players,
> ipods, and free software one can flash on ipods, I decided to clean
> up my variant of the Green5 rockbox theme and presented screenshots
> on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>The images are still at
> h
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>One might think private messages are useful in user support, but
>#debian actually has a channel policy asking users not to send them
>without permission. As a result, I don't get many private messages
>from #debian users.
ACK.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, emai
[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?
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[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?
>no, not to those and not to those others that feel that they are made to
>jump through hoops and neither to those who left alr
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I'm thinking that what he's *really* saying is "there're so many people
>whom I can't talk to this way that it's almost impossible".
Which is hard to believe since he is a registered user who configured
his account to receive messages from unregistered users and so is not
[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 o
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I'm in favour as well.
I wonder, do you and the other "me too" people also have a reason to
justify switching?
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I'm talking about well after the OFTC formation. If there are that many
>people dissatisfied with freenode, it seems likely that there are
How many? Let's add some data to the thread:
http://irc.netsplit.de/cgi-bin/ncompare.cgi?n1=freenode&n2=OFTC
The multi-year graphs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>i would be interested in the number of netsplits. do you have a diagram
>for that, too?
No, but empirically it appears to me that OFTC splits at least as often
(and is 10 times smaller than freenode).
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>The people who are on Freenode are there because it's irc.debian.org but
>they don't care if it's Freenode or not.
How do you know?
>I can also understand that some people prefer Freenode for historical
>reasons but if you try to get the best for Debian, you can only und
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>You can't wait for an hotplug/udev event to be done processing. That
>is always done asynchron without any feedback of completion.
This is not correct. Look at the while loop in the init script and and
the udevsettle source.
>will randomly fail or succeed depending on cu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Debian and which do not. So: if there's a public statement by Debian or
>debian-legal on a license (like http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary
debian-legal@ is just a mailing list, so it cannot make any statement.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>it is legitimate and legal and all what you want. but it also makes the
>cooperation between the two distribution a lot harder:
>
> * take the not so recent example of Xorg6.9. Ubuntu decided to switch
> to Xorg way sooner than debian. good for'em. as a result, you
>
On Aug 23, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Indeed, but would it not make more sense, to aknowledge that the firmware is
> non-free, and then argue that we should include it nonetheless, instead of
> making obviously false claims like "firmware are not programs" ?
"Firmwares are not progra
In linux.debian.vote Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 09:24:16PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 12:32:46PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>> > Well, the only one who could claim that his views have some
>> > representativity
>> > of the project as
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>to, I thought I'd share my personal view on the reasons why would bother to
>ask for free firmware in the first place, and what message I think we would
>send if we cease demanding it.
I can't see how you can claim this, considering this part of the
proposed GR saying the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Serendipitously, under Steve's proposed GR, the following might not ever have
>been necessary:
>
>Package: freedoom
It would still have been useful, since the doom-wad-shareware package is
in non-free and is going to stay there no matter the outcome of the GR.
It would he
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I am mainly interested in #1. I think we need to take a more expansive
>view of what constitutes a functionality problem, perhaps replacing
>"truly critical" with "serious".
I fully agree. I do not consider "volatile" a solution.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, em
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>night. Did I get demotivated because certain lucky folks earned
>bazillions and were able to buy mansions in Lake Tahoe and Chicago?
>No, because I know that life isn't fair, and that money wasn't why I
>got involved in Linux and Debian in the first place.
>
>Folks who a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Actually, what you describe is a successful experiment. In fact, the
>Nazis did such things with humans. Now, such things are not ethical.
Thank you for your contribute, now we can consider the thread finished.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I'm inclined to agree with Russell Coker[1], in that Debian should use
>something like RSA tokens to control access to Debian resources.
I'd love to, but I do not know any which is even close to be really
free-as-in-freedom.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Don't shoot the messenger. Tell the vendor of your wireless card to
>take the stick out of their behind and cooperate with the Free
>software world. While they do not do so and instead release crap,
>security-hole-ridden, and often incompatible firmware which is
>closed a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Did we ever agree a policy about what's acceptable/reasonable for
>blog feeds linked from planet.d.o? I'm very tempted to disable Ian
>Murdock's Solaris propaganda, for example...
>
>Thoughts?
His blog is way more interesting than some other people's blogs which
apparent
On Aug 05, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I disagree. The Release file in the archive is a configuration file that
> is part of the software interface to the archive. The terminology that it
> uses refers to capabilities within the archive maintenance software and
> within the softwar
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Is it really worth it? Are we really losing developers or users by not
>being endorsed by the FSF?
I am happy to not have as users and especially as fellow developers
the kind of people who use gNewSense.
I believe that gNewSense is a great idea, since it tends to keep f
On May 22, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> @packages.d.o is known to be "the easiest way to get in touch with a
> maintainer," and is often used when CC'ing maintainers of multiple packages.
Then it needs to be fixed, soon, because it the last few weeks I started
receiving a huge quantity of trivially
On May 23, "Steve M. Robbins" wrote:
> I'm open to other options, of course. What is the recommended
> practice for this scenario?
Implement spam filtering?
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
frederiqu...@gmail.com wrote:
>I'd love to see Debian comply to real GNU/FSF freedom. When I visit the
This will never happen, since Debian and the FSF have different ideas
about what is free.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of
tfh...@err.no wrote:
>I am not sure what we should do with problems like this. Not doing
If you care about the package or even just need it to be fixed, do
what I did with linux-atm:
* ask the maintainer if he needs help
* ask again
* warn that you will NMU
* NMU to DELAYED fixing the most urgent
broo...@sirena.org.uk wrote:
>The trouble with an approach like that is that it doesn't provide a
>clear route to dealing with situations where the maintainer is
>occasionally active but not managing to keep up with things well enough
>to do a good job.
So help him: start by sending patches to the
p...@debian.org wrote:
>> I'm also wondering what people think about adding some firmware
>> to our official installation media.
>I don't think it is needed.
I do.
>I recently had to install Debian lenny on a HP ProLiant machine, which
>required bnx2 firmware for the network controller. Just down
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 03:22:45PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
>> The larger problem is to identify non-free blobs in the main kernel,
>> extract them into non-free and modify the driver so that it is able
>> to load the blob from a user provided location; and include th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Being in contrib doesn't mean that a work is evil, nor is contrib a
>second cousin to non-free.
It means that something is not part of debian and is not acceptable for
install media, which looks like a big enough problem to me.
It would be silly to be able to move a driv
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>True enough. I have a harder time justifying to myself keeping such drivers
>in main, but I also think that the infrastructure needed in order to support
>grabbing firmware out of non-free (for things like the installer) could
>easily work for the case of contrib driver
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I bet that, with some of these firmware blobs, we could
>reverse-engineer and "clean room" clone them in a country with
>permissive reverse engineering laws. At that point, we'd have
>something that was definitely free.
I bet you could not, for interesting devices (DVB r
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> No, because in many situations the users would only need to copy the
>> firmware binary from media they already have, and installing a package
>> from a different archive (and even more a new udeb) requires more work
>> for them and for us.
>I imagine this firmware blob
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Uh, no. Whoever is creating an installer for main can just as easily
*WE* are creating an installer for main!
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I think the locales package is the place to start this. For etch, I
>would like the UTF-8 locales to be the default for all languages (with
This would be stupid, pointless and would piss off a lot of people.
But since your native language is english I suppose that it may
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>This was voted in by an overwhelming majority of those voting, to make
Who were a tiny fraction of the total number of developers, probably
as a result of the changes being defined "editoral" (which for most
people means "has no practical effect").
--
ciao,
Marco
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Hence, I think Ian's logbook should not have been removed in the first
>place, but he should have been asked not to use Planet Debian as a
>platform for company advertising.
I fully agree.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>If there was a perfect solution to spam, we'd all be using it already.
It's just that some of us prefer notification of false positives
rejected because of objective criteria to silently discarding mail
which appears to be spam.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, emai
For more than a month now I have been asking debian-admins for an update
to the ftp2.it.debian.org CNAME. The change is not controversial in
itself (the host has been down for a few months due to hardware
failures, so I had the alias switched to a different mirror) and is
approved by Joy.
The prob
For more than a month now I have been asking debian-admins for an update
of the ftp2.it.debian.org CNAME. The change is not controversial in
itself (the host has been down for a few months due to hardware
failures, so I had the alias switched to a different mirror) and is
approved by Joy.
The prob
I have not received any suggestions about this, the debian-admins
have not answered my (or Joy's) mails and the CNAME is still wrong.
My original request is dated April 12.
I do not know what else I could do to work out a solution for this...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc'ed to make him aware of this comm
I have not received any suggestions about this, the debian-admins
have not answered my (or Joy's) mails and the CNAME is still wrong.
My original request is dated April 12.
I do not know what else I could do to work out a solution for this...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc'ed to make him aware of this comm
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I'm no DNS wizzard, but do run a few small split view setups - I'd be
>happy to do whatever I can to assist whomever has responsibility for
>the Debian DNS setup.
I have some experience in dealing with complex DNS setups, so I doubt
that lack of manpower is so severe that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I'm not sure how debian should react to this. I'll send this to
>debian-project, as it's not really a technical problem. Should
>we react to the complaint in bug 296807, or encourage this
>"public good" offered by WIX by keeping citylink as ftp.nz?
This kind of peering wa
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I have not received any suggestions about this, the debian-admins
>have not answered my (or Joy's) mails and the CNAME is still wrong.
>My original request is dated April 12.
Update: no updates.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a su
On Nov 20, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Don't forget about competition for archive space resources.
Agreed. ILS (linux.it) just bought a new disk for ftp.it.debian.org and
I see the distribution has grown nearly half GB in the last month.
I really would be upset if all linux/i386 will
On Jan 11, Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Programs which use patented algorithms that have a restrictied
> license must also be stored on "non-us", since that is located in a
> country where it is not allowed to patent algorithms.
But is it non-US/main or non-US/non-free?
What some of the most vocal partecipants of this thread do not say is
that they have been former OPN staff members or servers sponsors.
I see a lot of politics playing here, and this is annoying.
(Full disclosure: I am a OPN staff member and server sponsor and this is
why I do not think it's appr
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>> The IRCNet can run on a free basis because it get's sponsored by ISPs (like
>> Netsurf, Tisacali, NGNet, Edisontel, Stealth and so on) and universities
>> which
>> can produce traffic mostly for free.
>Do you think OPN is paying for its bandwidth at th
What's wrong with our mail system? Why can't the debian admins blacklist
a well known spammer, or even better use a reputable DNSBL like SBL?
I asked the same questions to the debian admins but nobody ever replied,
I'm sick of receiving every few days the same spam from the same
professional spamme
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>A lot of legitimate mail can be trivially blocked this way, as well, which
>is why it doesn't make sense to drop it on the server side.
No. Using SBL definitely does not block "a lot" of legitimate mail.
--
ciao,
Marco
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >A lot of legitimate mail can be trivially blocked this way, as well, which
>> >is why it doesn't make sense to drop it on the server side.
>> No. Using SBL definitely does not block "a lot" of legitimate mail.
>in some cases it does. using SPEWS for example would lead
My position on this, as the linux.* administrator:
- addresses munging will make the gateway harder to use and will break
by-author search with google (I believe that the archiving by google
groups is one of the most important benefits of the gateway).
I believe this to be important enough t
Please let me know if you run a debian mirror and see errors like this
one in the kernel log:
Jan 18 21:03:23 vlad-tepes kernel: UDP: bad checksum. From 62.254.117.4:33346
to 213.92.8.5:33612 ulen 20
I have been getting this kind of messages for a long time and all other
operators of mirrors run
to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
>I'd be careful in that: Debian's user (and contributor) base has
>expanded a lot since Day Zero (or well, I've been looking at it
>since Day One or so). Nowadays there are probably believing Muslims
>or national Chinese around, who may be hurt by things "we",
>steeped in w
g.branden.robin...@gmail.com wrote:
>I'd like to quote a friend of mine who fights a lot of these battles.
Great insight.
>Thank you! I remember getting into a lot of arguments with you back in
>the day. I can't remember what any of them was about. 🤣
Mostly you and a few other people adding ne
On Aug 14, Stephen Frost wrote:
>If someone has some idea how to get them to care about ARC, I'd love to
>hear about it, as I have folks on the one hand who view DKIM/DMARC as
>too painful to set up but then they end up with bounces from gmail due
>to my forwarding of messages through my server (
robe...@debian.org wrote:
>Since we as a project have left Twitter/X (as recently announced by our
>Publicity Team) on the basis of "We do not want to be present in a place
>where we cannot ensure that users will be respected and where abuse
>happens without consequences" [0] [1], I would like sta
75 matches
Mail list logo
