Re: A few observations about systemd
On Sun, Mar 04, 2012 at 09:12:32AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > There is a different between "I don't care about portability" and "I > won't accept any patches that are only useful on non-Linux platforms". > The former could be remedied by submitting documented and maintained > patches, which saves the world from early forks that ae bound to > diverge. The latter attitude is a showstopper. It's not a showstopper if the software is Linux-specific to begin with, like udev. Which, btw, systemd depends on. If udev were introduced today, would we block it because it doesn't work on kfreebsd and udev upstream does reject any portability[1] patches added? Pid 1 can been seen as a kernel-specific feature, like is already the case with Hurd port. Riku [1] Portability in this case being support for older Linux kernel versions -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120305081404.ga29...@afflict.kos.to
Re: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On Mon, March 5, 2012 08:40, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Sun, Mar 04, 2012 at 10:59:39PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote: >> Looking at the front page of http://www.debian-multimedia.org/ today, >> I don't see a clear statement that it is unofficial. > I also find disturbing that the website seeks for donations without > making clear that donated money do not go to the Debian Project. That is > not necessarily done out of malice, of course, but it seems to live in > the same uncertainty about the "unofficiality" of the website that you > mention. I do think that for the specific case there's more than enough hints for people to assume the "unofficiality"; and of course, debian-multimedia is well-known in the user community to be an unofficial resource. However, being explicit about this fact never hurts. I would be in favour to allow trademark use if an explicit notice was placed on the web page. > But before getting there, the question is whether the existence of the > website (and its popularity) poses problem to Debian reputation and/or > to the activity of official Debian multimedia packaging. I think this is > a question for the Debian Multimedia Maintainers (as in > ) to answer. If they > see a problem with debian-multimedia.org, we should get in touch with > the website maintainers and solve the issue. Of course, one of the reasons debian-multimedia exists is precisely because it's unofficial: it can package things that Debian out of policy doesn't want to package. This is not something that can necessarily be solved on a packaging level. > What we need, though, is probably to make it more clear to our users > what is the difference among *.debian.net and *.debian.org services. It > is something that developers know by folklore, but that I seriously > doubt most of our users know. For me, the most appropriate way to do is > to put a splash page at www.debian.net explaining that. If DSA agrees > with that approach, I'm sure we can easily come up with a suitable > splash text. That may help a bit, but I don't think many people will regularly consult the 'www.debian.net' if they ended up on 'something.debian.net' via Google or a link somewhere. A simple policy could be: "If you provide a service targeting end users, use an appropriate way inside the used protocol, if such a way exists, to indicate that this is not an official project service.". For HTTP this could simply be a sentence in the served HTML, FTP can use a message, etc. > The debian.net is a Debian project resource and we > should be ready to advertise all its entries, otherwise people should > not register them in the first place. Indeed. Perhaps we do want to give DD's who took other assumptions on appropriate use some grace period to relinquish their registrations before they are published, though. Thijs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1c4707f0092a4ba1a4bf0a4f5a46717c.squir...@wm.kinkhorst.nl
Re: NMU needed for TL2012
Hi Daniele and Norbert, On 03/05/2012 06:02 AM, Daniele Tricoli wrote: > Norbert Preining is working on TexLive 2012 for Debian. The following > packages need an NMU (already prepared) to proceed: > fonts-tlwg > musixtex > > So I'm asking to you if Norbert can go along and NMU your packages. Would you please first send a debdiff what changes are necessary, ideally attached to a Debian bug? It's hard to agree to sth. you don't know anything about. Thanks in advance, Roland -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f547d66.3060...@antcom.de
Re: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
2012/3/5 Stefano Zacchiroli :
> What we need, though, is probably to make it more clear to our users
> what is the difference among *.debian.net and *.debian.org services. It
> is something that developers know by folklore, but that I seriously
> doubt most of our users know. For me, the most appropriate way to do is
> to put a splash page at www.debian.net explaining that. If DSA agrees
> with that approach, I'm sure we can easily come up with a suitable
> splash text.
I'd like to put my 2 cents: being a long time Debian user, it's still
rather hard for me to separate debian.net and debian.org. Both domains
are used widely, e.g. unofficial mentors.debian.net is widely used in
d-m list, which is obviously official. These domains look visually
identical, one can't easily tell one from another in apt sources.list.
I suppose there should be used some completely unrelated domain name
(as does Ubuntu with its launchpad.net), or unofficial repositories
should be placed on the address, looking like
"*.unofficial.debian.net" or "unofficial.debian.net/*". Otherwise it
would always lead people to misunderstanding.
Best wishes and have a nice day,
Vsevolod Velichko
> On Sun, Mar 04, 2012 at 10:59:39PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>> Looking at the front page of http://www.debian-multimedia.org/ today,
>> I don't see a clear statement that it is unofficial.
>
> Agreed.
>
> I also find disturbing that the website seeks for donations without
> making clear that donated money do not go to the Debian Project. That is
> not necessarily done out of malice, of course, but it seems to live in
> the same uncertainty about the "unofficiality" of the website that you
> mention.
>
>> But for new users and potential users, this distinction probably isn't
>> obvious. There is a reason that Debian has pursued trademark
>> enforcement actions against various debian.xy domains.
>
> Agreed, and I've been thinking about debian-multimedia.org since quite a
> while. According to our trademark policy (present and draft), the
> website is in violation of Debian trademark. As the website is
> maintained by a Debian Developer, I'm sure we don't need that specific
> aspect to come into some sort of amicable solution.
>
> But before getting there, the question is whether the existence of the
> website (and its popularity) poses problem to Debian reputation and/or
> to the activity of official Debian multimedia packaging. I think this is
> a question for the Debian Multimedia Maintainers (as in
> ) to answer. If they
> see a problem with debian-multimedia.org, we should get in touch with
> the website maintainers and solve the issue.
>
>> And to avoid singling out debian-multimedia.org, I think this
>> confusion could just as well happen with repositories on
>> foo.debian.net domains.
>
> I think the situations with debian.net is quite different. *.debian.net
> is a namespace offered by Debian to developers that want to setup
> services which are not (yet) integrated in the Debian infrastructure
> and, as such, not yet blessed as official project services. I don't
> think we need to have any stricter procedure that the current one for
> people to setup *.debian.net entries.
>
>
> While we are at it, I also think we should provide an index of
> *.debian.net entries on that splash page.
> http://wiki.debian.org/DebianNetDomains is just too prone to outdateness
> and incompleteness. The index can be automatically generated from LDAP
> and. IIRC a past chat with DSA, DSA is fine with that but is aware of
> privacy concerns that some of the registrant of *.debian.net entries
> might have. Personally, I don't think we should be worried about privacy
> concerns there. The debian.net is a Debian project resource and we
> should be ready to advertise all its entries, otherwise people should
> not register them in the first place.
>
>
> Cheers.
> --
> Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
> Maître de conférences .. http://upsilon.cc/zack .. . . o
> Debian Project Leader ... @zack on identi.ca ... o o o
> « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/caatb-vs+pilhao+79vua++raxu6gswehmvfqpl38nytjm61...@mail.gmail.com
Re: A DM/DD should know how to watch his mouth (code of conduct).
On 03/05/2012 06:27 AM, Gergely Nagy wrote: > Perhaps a few strongers words were used than neccessary, but > honestly "crap" is not a word one should be afraid to see. > And IMO, it's Fabian's right to say that VLC package from d-m.o is "crappy", because introducing an epoc, which messes with his packaging. More over, I have experienced myself the kind of issues one may have with packages from d-m.o, then trying to upgrade Debian... It almost screw up my laptop, and I spent few hours upgrading from Lenny to Squeeze (this was more than a year ago, so I can't tell exactly what was the issue, but I am certain it was packages from d-m.o). And the issue that we are discussing today shows it's not getting any better. So I agree with Fabian, and I agree with the chosen tone. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f54891f.6060...@debian.org
Re: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On 03/05/2012 03:40 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > But before getting there, the question is whether the existence of the > website (and its popularity) poses problem to Debian reputation and/or > to the activity of official Debian multimedia packaging. I think this is > a question for the Debian Multimedia Maintainers (as in > ) to answer. If they > see a problem with debian-multimedia.org, we should get in touch with > the website maintainers and solve the issue. > I do think this website hurts Debian, and its user community. Let me explain, it's based on my past *user* experience. Years ago, I was fooled into thinking that d-m.o was there only to address licensing issues, and bring packages that couldn't go in Debian. But d-m.o does a lot more, like re-packaging things that are already in Debian, and working very well there. It's not clearly written in d-m.o that it can screw your Debian installation, particularly when upgrading from version N to version N+1 of Debian with d-m.o package installed. But I've seen multiple instances of this issue over the years, on both desktop and server side. It is *extremely* easy to get confused, and think that the issue is in Debian itself, when in fact, it's really d-m.o who fu**ed-up your system. Users will *not* get it, I'm sure of that. The issue with the donation thing is that d-m.o author could be seen as a savior, who brings things not in Debian, and thus would deserve money (as a user, I was fooled into thinking this way in the past). But the reality is completely different, and I now do think that the Debian multimedia team would deserve the money a 100 times more than d-m.o author. Yet, they don't get the respect from the community, and even less the support (this thread is a proof of it). Now, I'm really not sure what we can do about the above. Maybe absolutely nothing... Everyone has the rights to make alternative (bad) repositories and advertize (well) about them. Maybe politely asking to mention better that this is unofficial could be done, but I experienced the above fully understanding what I was doing, and the fact that it wasn't official repos. I don't think a bigger mention of the fact it was unofficial would have helped me in any ways. Just my 2 cents as a (past, and unhappy) d-m.o user, Thomas P.S: Thumbs up to the debian multimedia team for their work in Squeeze, it is a brilliant desktop thanks to them. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f548dda.8060...@debian.org
Re: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
Hi, Thomas Goirand wrote: On 03/05/2012 03:40 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: But before getting there, the question is whether the existence of the website (and its popularity) poses problem to Debian reputation and/or to the activity of official Debian multimedia packaging. I think this is a question for the Debian Multimedia Maintainers (as in I do think this website hurts Debian, and its user community. Let me explain, it's based on my past *user* experience. nobody is forcing you to install the packages of d-m-o, if you have problems with them, report bugs, send patches or simple _do_not_ install them. Years ago, I was fooled into thinking that d-m.o was there only to address licensing issues, and bring packages that couldn't go in Debian. But d-m.o does a lot more, like re-packaging things that are already in Debian, and working very well there. i use/used d-m-o alot, because many packages in debian are stripped of codecs, or crippled because of a upstream which doesn't care about patents/licenses. to expect that any third-party package archive is "stable" enough to survive an debian dist-upgrade is just brave. -- Florian Reitmeir E-Mail: flor...@reitmeir.org Tel: +43 650 2661660 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f5494ba.6060...@reitmeir.org
Re: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
Florian Reitmeir writes: > to expect that any third-party package archive is "stable" enough to > survive an debian dist-upgrade is just brave. It can be done, though, and it should be the norm. That it is not so, that's unfortunate, and something we (both the Debian maintainers and the third-party repo maintainers, together) should improve. This, however, needs effort from both sides. My experience so far when building a third-party repo (which includes and replaces a couple of packages already in Debian) is that the effort isn't all that much, and well worth it. -- |8] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87fwdns4y2.fsf@algernon.balabit
Re: A few observations about systemd
On Mon, 5 Mar 2012 10:14:04 +0200, Riku Voipio wrote: >On Sun, Mar 04, 2012 at 09:12:32AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: >> There is a different between "I don't care about portability" and "I >> won't accept any patches that are only useful on non-Linux platforms". > >> The former could be remedied by submitting documented and maintained >> patches, which saves the world from early forks that ae bound to >> diverge. The latter attitude is a showstopper. > >It's not a showstopper if the software is Linux-specific to begin with, >like udev. Which, btw, systemd depends on. If udev were introduced today, >would we block it because it doesn't work on kfreebsd and udev upstream >does reject any portability[1] patches added? The migration to udev didn't cause double work for daemon maintainers. Supporting systemd _and_ something portable is work for me, work for you, work for the maintainers of at least 105 other packages (samples from the system I am typing this on). Greetings Marc -- -- !! No courtesy copies, please !! - Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | http://www.zugschlus.de/ Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1s4vp8-95...@swivel.zugschlus.de
Re: upstart: please update to latest upstream version
On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 16:54:22 +0100, Matthias Klumpp wrote: >No, and that's why this is an issue very specific to Debian. But the >above examples show, that systemd (or upstart) can bring many useful >features and improvements to Linux platforms. Should Debian restrict itself to being a Linux platform just to have systemd? Debian being a platform which is frequently used for low-powered, embedded stuff: How will a systemd driven platform behave on a platform with small memory and low CPU power compared to sysvinit? Greetings Marc -- -- !! No courtesy copies, please !! - Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | http://www.zugschlus.de/ Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1s4vqj-9b...@swivel.zugschlus.de
Re: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On Mon, 2012-03-05 at 17:56, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 03/05/2012 03:40 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > > But before getting there, the question is whether the existence of the > > website (and its popularity) poses problem to Debian reputation and/or > > to the activity of official Debian multimedia packaging. I think this is > > a question for the Debian Multimedia Maintainers (as in > > ) to answer. If they > > see a problem with debian-multimedia.org, we should get in touch with > > the website maintainers and solve the issue. > I do think this website hurts Debian, and its user community. > Let me explain, it's based on my past *user* experience. I don't agree with you here. For me d-m.o was (and still is) valuable resource. Some codecs missing in Debian packages because of the policy (I don't blame Debian for that) and in that case d-m.o is best option for me because I don't want/have time to package it from the source. [...] -- Kind regards, Milan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120305105215.gb27...@arvanta.net
Re: Bug#662513: RM: emboss/6.3.1-6
Le Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 11:51:35AM +, Tim Booth a écrit : > > I'll be up at the EBI in a couple of weeks. Is there anything I can do > to try and persuade them to grant an acceptable license or has this > already been tried? EMBOSS is a software package that I still consider > to be very important, even though development is currently stalled due > to lack of funding. Hi Tim, The non-free file is a Uniprot record in the test suite, so the EMBOSS developers can not re-license it. Actually, I am wondering if, in isolation from the whole UniProt database, a single record is copyrightable, since it is only the reproduction of facts. In that case, we could simply ignore its license. I have asked Debian's FTP team their opinion on that matter. http://lists.debian.org/debian-med/2012/03/msg00010.html Among the other options, there is the removal of the file from the package. This is something I dislike, as it is extra work for no extra freedom. The conceptual problem is that the purpose of that file is to test that EMBOSS properly parses UniProt records, so it is obviously impossible to replace. The other problem is that other packages, for instance BioPerl, also contain UniProt records in their test suite. This is a nightmare that I find very demotivating. Please give my best regards to the EMBOSS developers. I think that the best they can do is to lobby UniProt to release test data in the public domain, or to relicense their whole database under a free license. All illogical it may sound, we need the permission to modify the protein sequences against scientific evidence, even if we do not plan to ever do it. By the way: one of the reasons I have not updated emboss is also that I am stuck with other packaging works, in particular libsnappy-java where I have reached my level of incompetence (http://bugs.debian.org/636181). I have already wasted some time from Andreas and Java developers, but I think that the only way out would be that somebody takes the work over entirely. We need libsnappy-java to update the picard-tools. Lastly, the request I made was to remove emboss from Testing, but this is not a request for removal from Debian, and I really aim at shipping an up-to-date EMBOSS in Wheezy. Cheers, -- Charles -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120305122540.gd28...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: Bug#662513: RM: emboss/6.3.1-6
Sorry for the noise, sometimes Mutt is really too powerful. -- Charles -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120305122649.ga30...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
> I do think this website hurts Debian, and its user community. > Let me explain, it's based on my past *user* experience. > But I've seen multiple instances of this issue over the years, on both > desktop and server side. You added debian-multimedia in a server system? If i were you i would start by blaming myself for the problems. -- Salvo Tomaselli signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Bug#662513: RM: emboss/6.3.1-6
Le 3/5/12 1:25 PM, Charles Plessy a écrit : > Le Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 11:51:35AM +, Tim Booth a écrit : >> I'll be up at the EBI in a couple of weeks. Is there anything I can do >> to try and persuade them to grant an acceptable license or has this >> already been tried? EMBOSS is a software package that I still consider >> to be very important, even though development is currently stalled due >> to lack of funding. > Hi Tim, > > The non-free file is a Uniprot record in the test suite, so the EMBOSS > developers can not re-license it. Actually, I am wondering if, in isolation > from the whole UniProt database, a single record is copyrightable, since it is > only the reproduction of facts. In that case, we could simply ignore its > license. I have asked Debian's FTP team their opinion on that matter. > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-med/2012/03/msg00010.html > > Among the other options, there is the removal of the file from the package. > This is something I dislike, as it is extra work for no extra freedom. > > The conceptual problem is that the purpose of that file is to test that EMBOSS > properly parses UniProt records, so it is obviously impossible to replace. > > The other problem is that other packages, for instance BioPerl, also contain > UniProt records in their test suite. This is a nightmare that I find very > demotivating. > > Please give my best regards to the EMBOSS developers. I think that the best > they can do is to lobby UniProt to release test data in the public domain, > or to relicense their whole database under a free license. All illogical > it may sound, we need the permission to modify the protein sequences against > scientific evidence, even if we do not plan to ever do it. > > By the way: one of the reasons I have not updated emboss is also that I am > stuck with other packaging works, in particular libsnappy-java where I have > reached my level of incompetence (http://bugs.debian.org/636181). I have > already wasted some time from Andreas and Java developers, but I think that > the > only way out would be that somebody takes the work over entirely. We need > libsnappy-java to update the picard-tools. Regarding libsnappy, what is your problem ? When I have time I may have a look if you want to. Code is in SVN of Java team? Olivier > Lastly, the request I made was to remove emboss from Testing, but this is not > a > request for removal from Debian, and I really aim at shipping an up-to-date > EMBOSS in Wheezy. > > Cheers, > -- Olivier Sallou IRISA / University of Rennes 1 Campus de Beaulieu, 35000 RENNES - FRANCE Tel: 02.99.84.71.95 gpg key id: 4096R/326D8438 (keyring.debian.org) Key fingerprint = 5FB4 6F83 D3B9 5204 6335 D26D 78DC 68DB 326D 8438 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f54b583.8040...@irisa.fr
Re: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 4:40 AM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > What we need, though, is probably to make it more clear to our users > what is the difference among *.debian.net and *.debian.org services. It > is something that developers know by folklore, but that I seriously > doubt most of our users know. For me, the most appropriate way to do is > to put a splash page at www.debian.net explaining that. If DSA agrees > with that approach, I'm sure we can easily come up with a suitable > splash text. How about one of those banners at the top of the screen? Like when you visit Google and it asks you if you want to make your home page point to Google. Something like "This is an unofficial Debian resource. Read more...". Clicking "Read more" would take the user to a page that explains what debian.net is and things like that. The banner could be dismissed (perhaps with cookies to remember the setting). This should be simple to implement with Javascript and CSS, and it should be trivial to use in the *.debian.net pages. I believe people don't go to http://www.debian.net/ often, as it redirects to http://www.debian.org/. If we come up with a splash for debian.net, people that visit mentors.debian.net, for example, will not see it. Regards, -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CANVYNa_nbFV+fyrriua7iM8Dbwn7x=msw3x_tuhbxzbx+nz...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On 03/05/2012 06:26 PM, Florian Reitmeir wrote: > Hi, > > Thomas Goirand wrote: >> On 03/05/2012 03:40 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: >>> But before getting there, the question is whether the existence of the >>> website (and its popularity) poses problem to Debian reputation and/or >>> to the activity of official Debian multimedia packaging. I think >>> this is >>> a question for the Debian Multimedia Maintainers (as in > >> I do think this website hurts Debian, and its user community. >> Let me explain, it's based on my past *user* experience. > > nobody is forcing you to install the packages of d-m-o I never said this was the case. > if you have problems with them, report bugs, send patches or simple > _do_not_ install them. Well, I don't install them anymore, but I can easily understand that someone may install them because of a lack of knowledge and experience, which I currently have, but didn't when I was a user of d-m.o. By the way, the same applies to the PHP packages from dotdeb. I'd advise to *not* use them as well... >> Years ago, I was fooled into thinking that d-m.o was there only to >> address licensing issues, and bring packages that couldn't go in >> Debian. But d-m.o does a lot more, like re-packaging things that >> are already in Debian, and working very well there. > > i use/used d-m-o alot, because many packages in debian are stripped of > codecs, or crippled because of a upstream which doesn't care about > patents/licenses. Can you please care to give examples of these? > to expect that any third-party package archive is "stable" enough to > survive an debian dist-upgrade is just brave. Well, I don't expect that. But at the time (now I'm more careful), I didn't expect d-m.o to completely crash the upgrade process either. I did immediately understood what happened to me when it did, but I wouldn't expect an average user (let's say my wife or my mother...) to understand and remove the (should I say crappy again?) packages. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f54be57.3020...@debian.org
Re: upstart: please update to latest upstream version
On Mar 05, Marc Haber wrote: > Should Debian restrict itself to being a Linux platform just to have > systemd? If it is worth it, yes. Should Debian reject using just to support toy ports which are used by a dozen of people? > Debian being a platform which is frequently used for low-powered, > embedded stuff: How will a systemd driven platform behave on a > platform with small memory and low CPU power compared to sysvinit? I am not a systemd fan and have no experience with it, but the upstream maintainers say that it works fine on small systems as well. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On 03/05/2012 06:52 PM, Milan P. Stanic wrote: > I don't agree with you here. > For me d-m.o was (and still is) valuable resource. > Some codecs missing in Debian packages because of the policy (I don't > blame Debian for that) and in that case d-m.o is best option for me > because I don't want/have time to package it from the source. > That's the problem. Normally, that is what it should be for, but it does a lot more. Just tried right now, to add d-m.o repo for Squeeze on my laptop, and here's what it does: The following packages will be REMOVED: libavfilter0 The following NEW packages will be installed: libartsc0 libavfilter1 libavutil50 libbs2b0 libdirac-decoder0 libfaac0 libggi-target-x libggi2 libggiwmh0 libggiwmh0-target-x libgii1 libgii1-target-x libmp3lame0 librtmp0 libva-x11-1 libva1 libvdpau1 libx264-112 libx264-118 libxvidcore4 mplayer-skin-blue The following packages will be upgraded: audacity audacity-data ffmpeg libavcodec52 libavdevice52 libavformat52 libdrm-intel1 libdrm-radeon1 libdrm2 libplib1 libpostproc51 libquicktime1 libswscale0 libvpx0 mplayer It should be working like backports, and force me to use something like -t debian-multimedia when I do apt-get install, it shouldn't just overwrite what I've installed and take the control of my laptop. Or at least, it should *clearly* be explained on the d-m.o website what will happen after the repository is added. Fact is: d-m.o doesn't do any of these to educate the user or explaining what will happen. So yes, d-m.o has few codecs which sometimes I need, but I will NEVER EVER AGAIN trust it enough to add it as a repository in my sources.list. That's unless it acts better, stop setting-up epocs, and understand pinning the way backport.d.o does. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f54c3f8@debian.org
Re: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On 03/05/2012 08:51 PM, Salvo Tomaselli wrote: >> But I've seen multiple instances of this issue over the years, on both >> desktop and server side. >> > You added debian-multimedia in a server system? If i were you i would start > by > blaming myself for the problems. > Not me, my customer, and because they needed codecs to encode, which wasn't available in Debian. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f54c45e.70...@debian.org
Re: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, On 05.03.2012 14:31, Fernando Lemos wrote: > I believe people don't go to http://www.debian.net/ often, as it > redirects to http://www.debian.org/. If we come up with a splash > for debian.net, people that visit mentors.debian.net, for example, > will not see it. with all due to respect, but I'd prefer if mentors.debian.net weren't repeatedly compared with completely unrelated external archives like Dotdeb or Debian Multimedia. If we feel like debian.net domains should emphasize their non-affiliation with the Debian project as a whole, be it. But I'd ask you not to mix-up and confuse debian.net projects with other stuff discussed in here. Thanks. - -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJPVMkTAAoJEMcrUe6dgPNtDU4P/jJfqJ8rNXkUe1KDoZndsE8e aIL7f+NnL8Q9KnmYVQ+TpZJ45ZT8UuuLRa9xWygd2Arkyfoa35kyrI73y+o0zkY3 eehzTTuRbJW+HN6izU1r8z74u51a76XGWPv2bh9dTY/OuDDVcIVJ9D0Zb3o0ZiFA Zhp8uHWfLpz7bMgKN8GSpWVfssGxxpNAY08PD0Zi0Nt1JA24+hGTOfgfxyt3MpOU Y7WYP22ow6dpNohqCs9vU0BUuYh6JtWBSalSKVwnpgcNsAPQul9JNhcWYOuchxbK X3zF3KM2XUqXjFEtPV1tkkU52SSRNvWHVBaAJB8LiVZpkI7eKSHhl0VjBCaIJGO5 d7YklHJRE2hJ+Paw2k+YfS6oWidHhN5fHg9oDkZVbvqXSqMrPGBLxsD3OhLxl3pI y3B1TWEGDCYTw1Zs3g/x9jisDHSJ5sHnFFvsC7rJWm9HPsnooR8m38XwF4lm6cCH L0gHtUCNMpXomJf480hFHuVIIKzhkOs2dN1+jEzqUIjT4ec4j2mmE3Y+ko08qSO/ zvqWGkA5pUsfa6zWFv6Uyrhq9O33Y0vpnzaNEZVEMAiWIfuOBsOl5JxETMQiwQbW qQvNX4xtIzpASX1HSgTsQ6fD91px2eNkspPW6yJhu+HFSzaNjgKSHcqa+xeZ3r9l 3K8HBGuEJWsU/09abOtI =eDuX -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f54c914.3030...@toell.net
Re: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Arno Töll wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi, > > On 05.03.2012 14:31, Fernando Lemos wrote: >> I believe people don't go to http://www.debian.net/ often, as it >> redirects to http://www.debian.org/. If we come up with a splash >> for debian.net, people that visit mentors.debian.net, for example, >> will not see it. > > with all due to respect, but I'd prefer if mentors.debian.net weren't > repeatedly compared with completely unrelated external archives like > Dotdeb or Debian Multimedia. > > If we feel like debian.net domains should emphasize their > non-affiliation with the Debian project as a whole, be it. But I'd ask > you not to mix-up and confuse debian.net projects with other stuff > discussed in here. Thanks. I didn't mean to compare m.d.n to any other debian.net subdomain, it was just the first subdomain I could think of. That said, I don't see why mentors.debian.net should be treated differently from any other *.debian.net domain. It is very useful and very important to Debian, but it's still an unofficial subdomain. Please note nobody is comparing m.d.n to d.m.o. There are two discussions going on in this thread. Regards, -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/canvyna9utygha8b-cqh_fei3udp8oxpa4fjosj5vsmwmpsv...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, On 05.03.2012 15:17, Fernando Lemos wrote: > Please note nobody is comparing m.d.n to d.m.o. There are two > discussions going on in this thread. I noted. That said, people still take debian.net domains in general and mentors.d.n in particular as an example how people (ab-)use Debian trademarks among different non-affiliated projects despite of being entirely orthogonal target audiences between, say, mentors.debian.net on one edge and debian-multimedia on the other. The sole use case of mentors.debian.net domains is to extend and provide services TO Debian. That's quite different to the purpose of debian-multimedia for instance, which overrides Debian services to a certain degree. You know, it's not like we were going to start debian-mentors.org as soon as someone decided debian.mentors.org would turn reality and claim to be the better Mentors service. - -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJPVM53AAoJEMcrUe6dgPNtUVsQALN7ZvUspOCrPgYnV0Rb3T4y 5FeX8Swu2jnY4JbdMPWv0Fs6KPh1fogNohPKtMyhikrrUyq6Y/shUQDmCyT0m+mt SE45bRysHv3qH0SJcOirQxG36/Jz6kn93H2DhEIRWFarVPx3t7bv5i8iJIk2KGHA oEB/eWs+U+fpgW43FV9q7uv6z1/HFAWobR1SoUiz5SL6CsodbTzquHDdXehEPBjq IeXPyhFWLIBDUurR/TJF2S2YWTRySmBlVsBGjFtb26Z1RONwQiEesjGnN/aOB/OQ 7W57OUFforLXYPciu8wSfagWnNXmqIvU0pVGx5RuRwYRY2ymy+hMvCHn++8UYw1X DcGqkCRfs3XiLOiiTfp54gfkMFcNzsCE4myvBkrsNgxCIi8Bl4gtOW0HLPFlLRb1 iZ3094wUtYP/lGqScGEZXZLOTeTYS/n07biY90vOPD11wq2HLLzEosVNcI1+kYPG fK6Vokc3gp60bECIfzZRZWOZF2ViEtV1fLCbYponjgUbUT3A/7/f7upAnoUtjlRX RfOMaEQm1Di9aowirA7veBo7swNh8ZA78tJ/rTLnjLIC0POpkDdA6f0F2C2H/QV7 kVE88wDCuqA+ufBoZN7ylAjY1taSrk8Vh/VW9xzkhF+8uA6GY8FVnzeyAB+WH7xz wSpA5/rBAafKUi1ABTKk =w+Qs -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f54ce77.5010...@toell.net
Bug#539792: marked as done ((snappea_3.0d3-20/avr32): FTBFS: Outdated config.{sub,guess})
Your message dated Wed, 21 Sep 2011 19:47:54 +
with message-id
and subject line Accepted snappea 3.0d3-21 (source amd64)
has caused the Debian Bug report #539792,
regarding (snappea_3.0d3-20/avr32): FTBFS: Outdated config.{sub,guess}
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
539792: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=539792
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: snappea
Version: 3.0d3-20
Severity: wishlist
User: bradsm...@debian.org
Usertags: avr32
Hi,
Whilst building your package on AVR32, the build failed due to outdated
config.{sub,guess} files.
Full build logs available:
http://buildd.debian-ports.org/build.php?pkg=snappea&arch=avr32&ver=3.0d3-20
Regards,
Bradley Smith
--
Bradley Smith b...@brad-smith.co.uk
Debian GNU/Linux Developer bradsm...@debian.org
GPG: 0xC718D347 D201 7274 2FE1 A92A C45C EFAB 8F70 629A C718 D347
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.8
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 20:20:14 +0100
Source: snappea
Binary: snappea snappea-dev
Architecture: source amd64
Version: 3.0d3-21
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Debian QA Group
Changed-By: Regis Boudin
Description:
snappea- program for creating and studying hyperbolic 3-manifolds
snappea-dev - development files for SnapPea hyperbolic 3-manifold tool
Closes: 539972
Changes:
snappea (3.0d3-21) unstable; urgency=low
.
* QA upload.
* Package has been orphaned, set maintainer to Debian QA.
* Remove duplicate section field from debian/control.
* Update gonfig.{sub,guess}. Closes: 539972.
* Stop shipping la file.
Checksums-Sha1:
a8153ac219444a611c25b5d9d034e6b6a92d99b8 1050 snappea_3.0d3-21.dsc
e3283a289cf98204dc2b449e2b14fbc556f8b6b9 636350 snappea_3.0d3-21.diff.gz
18f4b0371244643fc6c157c1587f4b7347baebcc 634074 snappea_3.0d3-21_amd64.deb
d54fdacbfaa08d4090da878bfebb39abc63b501b 286818 snappea-dev_3.0d3-21_amd64.deb
Checksums-Sha256:
3cf31e915f308e8d64ebe43324d39c8478a5706ca1c8aacccaccd7e0769caa68 1050
snappea_3.0d3-21.dsc
5131296068f9ab1ada3d6f0a761b1cd06affe39e3560f1f03ad87cb6659d4c36 636350
snappea_3.0d3-21.diff.gz
202ab9b56a9e51659841dea0fb6b51070126da6acf799ba8d9bfb473997af78f 634074
snappea_3.0d3-21_amd64.deb
389f37df89cc4750d10ea9ffdfdb53ff000b98a8b42c78774923e3c277999a4e 286818
snappea-dev_3.0d3-21_amd64.deb
Files:
2013d7f01f57968b1776990f28a30a90 1050 math extra snappea_3.0d3-21.dsc
c0753053fa121ecdba888c90661d54ee 636350 math extra snappea_3.0d3-21.diff.gz
66b605d44b105bc58c0898c7bfad3d86 634074 math extra snappea_3.0d3-21_amd64.deb
96d71b2b6b44a2e3e2e7d58b6ff5a0c6 286818 libdevel extra
snappea-dev_3.0d3-21_amd64.deb
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAk56O2QACgkQVE17sLEtWVqnMACggNNrFaBqsLSU+qDuM9kcK8ac
LzoAoJFioFg7OrmZAAfsh/Hvs8eT6Wxb
=QcBL
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
Accepted:
snappea-dev_3.0d3-21_amd64.deb
to main/s/snappea/snappea-dev_3.0d3-21_amd64.deb
snappea_3.0d3-21.diff.gz
to main/s/snappea/snappea_3.0d3-21.diff.gz
snappea_3.0d3-21.dsc
to main/s/snappea/snappea_3.0d3-21.dsc
snappea_3.0d3-21_amd64.deb
to main/s/snappea/snappea_3.0d3-21_amd64.deb
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-changes-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1r6slu-000365...@franck.debian.org
--- End Message ---
Re: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 03:32:23PM +0100, Arno Töll wrote:
> I noted. That said, people still take debian.net domains in general
> and mentors.d.n in particular as an example how people (ab-)use Debian
> trademarks among different non-affiliated projects despite of being
> entirely orthogonal target audiences between, say, mentors.debian.net
> on one edge and debian-multimedia on the other.
I think it is mainly me who mentioned trademarks in connection with
debian-foo services, following up Ben's lead. I believe I made a clear
distinction among the *.debian.net and the debian-* case, mentioning
potential trademark (ab)use only in connection with the second case. In
case the distinction was not clear enough, my apologies, it was meant to
be *very* clear.
I believe trademark (ab)use, and possibly enforcement, should have
nothing to do with usage of the debian.net namespace, ever. I see
nothing wrong with cases like mentors.debian.net and I'm sure we will
all agree on that. Even more: mentors.debian.net it's a perfect example
of how to offer an important service to the Debian community, even
during the interim between its creation and its migration to the
official debian.org infrastructure.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences .. http://upsilon.cc/zack .. . . o
Debian Project Leader... @zack on identi.ca ...o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Bug#662657: ITP: node-marked -- Full-featured markdown parser and compiler for NodeJS
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: "Jérémy Lal" * Package name: node-marked Version : 0.2.1 Upstream Author : Christopher Jeffrey (https://github.com/chjj/) * URL : https://github.com/chjj/marked * License : Expat Programming Lang: Javascript Description : Full-featured markdown parser and compiler for NodeJS Built for speed. Marked is very concise and still implements all markdown features. It is also now fully compatible with client-side javascript. Marked more or less passes the official markdown test suite in its entirety. This is important because a surprising number of markdown compilers cannot pass more than a few tests. It was very difficult to get marked as compliant as it is. It could have cut corners in several areas for the sake of performance, but did not in order to be exactly what you expect in terms of a markdown rendering. Along with implementing every markdown feature, marked also implements [GFM features](http://github.github.com/github-flavored-markdown/). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120305144717.13403.92745.reportbug@imac.chaumes
Re: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 09:49:18PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 03/05/2012 08:51 PM, Salvo Tomaselli wrote: > >> But I've seen multiple instances of this issue over the years, on both > >> desktop and server side. > >> > > You added debian-multimedia in a server system? If i were you i would start > > by > > blaming myself for the problems. > > > Not me, my customer, and because they needed codecs to encode, > which wasn't available in Debian. In other words, if not for Christian Marillat's work, your customer would either be unable to do this on Debian, or, assuming enough technical knowledge, have to beat upstream packages into working. Which shows that this service is valuable after all, even if it has some kinks. Which kinks mostly boil down to s/lenny/squeeze/ on d-m.o sources when you're doing s/lenny/squeeze/ on the rest -- a reasonable thing to do during upgrade. -- // If you believe in so-called "intellectual property", please immediately // cease using counterfeit alphabets. Instead, contact the nearest temple // of Amon, whose priests will provide you with scribal services for all // your writing needs, for Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory prices. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
debian-multimedia.org considered harmful, Was: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: >> But before getting there, the question is whether the existence of the >> website (and its popularity) poses problem to Debian reputation and/or >> to the activity of official Debian multimedia packaging. I think this is >> a question for the Debian Multimedia Maintainers (as in >> ) to answer. If they >> see a problem with debian-multimedia.org, we should get in touch with >> the website maintainers and solve the issue. > > Of course, one of the reasons debian-multimedia exists is precisely > because it's unofficial: it can package things that Debian out of policy > doesn't want to package. This is not something that can necessarily be > solved on a packaging level. A recurring problem we have in pkg-multimedia is that debian-multimedia.org provides packages that replace both applications and libraries that we already ship with Debian. Especially for libraries, this can (and in fact, this does happen regularly) lead to crashes which are very hard to diagnose. Therefore, we have a policy to just close a bug with a very short explanation if we notice that the crash involves a package from debian-multimedia.org; everything else is absolutely not worth the trouble. Cf. also [1]. Friendly discussion with the maintainer of debian-multimedia.org to not replace libraries such as libavcodec and friends have failed ultimatively (BTW, that is part of the reason why we've ended up with an epoch of '4', dmo uses epoch '5'); he has repeatedly shown that is not interested in collaborating with pkg-multimedia at all. He also does not seem interested in installing libraries in a way that they do not interfere with 'official' Debian packages (e.g., by changing SONAMES, or installing in private directories, etc.). While debian-multimedia.org has gained a reputation of providing packages, which were desperately lacking in Debian, IMO this repository has turned into a major source of trouble and pissed users provoking flamewars in the recent past. There is still a number of remaining multimedia-related packages that we still lack in Debian, and pkg-multimedia is working on getting at least the most popular ones packaged and uploaded - help, as always, is of course very appreciated. [2] In summary, I can only advise everyone against enabling that repository on any machine. [1] http://wiki.debian.org/DebianMultimedia/FAQ [2] There are also a few additional, non-multimedia related packages, such as acroread and similar non-free stuff. If you really need those, I'd suggest to install them without enabling the repository via apt. -- regards, Reinhard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAJ0cceYKTr9Fgpf9mCCUVpMTQwpZZOtGVKzrA7DroS73!h...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Milan P. Stanic wrote: > For me d-m.o was (and still is) valuable resource. > Some codecs missing in Debian packages because of the policy (I don't > blame Debian for that) and in that case d-m.o is best option for me > because I don't want/have time to package it from the source. Out of curiousity, what codecs do you miss in the official debian packages? -- regards, Reinhard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caj0ccezbs_b9mg3oflbbjsndcu+grjl8qeancjxpwyzqged...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#662670: ITP: trash-cli -- command line trashcan utility
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Stefano Karapetsas * Package name: trash-cli Version : 0.11.3 Upstream Author : Andrea Francia * URL : https://github.com/andreafrancia/trash-cli * License : GPL, LGPL Programming Lang: Python Description : command line trashcan utility This package provides a command line interface trashcan utility compliant with the FreeDesktop.org Trash Specification. It remembers the name, original path, deletion date, and permissions of each trashed file -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120305153138.17582.42538.reportbug@aspire5738
Re: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:45 PM, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > Out of curiousity, what codecs do you miss in the official debian packages? The Voxware decoder is the one codec I've encountered that doesn't work in Debian. AFAICT there is no free decoder for it and the Windows DLL from w32-codecs is needed, I don't consider this codec or these files important enough to use d-m.o though. I also have some "DigiTrakker MDL Module" files that don't appear to be supported by libav/gstreamer, but are supported by xmp. I guess some sort of plugin needs to be invented there. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAKTje6F1U4oqJ=7=nPO=gtgoafxxnrvhxzn6yzcdopntfo2...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On 12-03-05 at 04:32pm, Adam Borowski wrote: > On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 09:49:18PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > > On 03/05/2012 08:51 PM, Salvo Tomaselli wrote: > > >> But I've seen multiple instances of this issue over the years, on > > >> both desktop and server side. > > >> > > > You added debian-multimedia in a server system? If i were you i > > > would start by blaming myself for the problems. > > > > > Not me, my customer, and because they needed codecs to encode, which > > wasn't available in Debian. > > In other words, if not for Christian Marillat's work, your customer > would either be unable to do this on Debian, or, assuming enough > technical knowledge, have to beat upstream packages into working. ...or use another source which plays nicer with Debian, e.g. backports.debian.org. > Which shows that this service is valuable after all, even if it has > some kinks. Which kinks mostly boil down to s/lenny/squeeze/ on d-m.o > sources when you're doing s/lenny/squeeze/ on the rest -- a reasonable > thing to do during upgrade. No, that would only be the case if d-m.o played nice with Debian, which in fact it does not. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On Mon, 2012-03-05 at 16:45, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Milan P. Stanic wrote: > > For me d-m.o was (and still is) valuable resource. > > Some codecs missing in Debian packages because of the policy (I don't > > blame Debian for that) and in that case d-m.o is best option for me > > because I don't want/have time to package it from the source. > Out of curiousity, what codecs do you miss in the official debian packages? It was a long ago when I installed packages from d-m.o so I can't remember right now. I just put (in apt.sources): deb http://www.debian-multimedia.org testing main contrib deb http://www.debian-multimedia.org unstable main contrib and forgot about it. When I encounter conflict in apt/itude I know how to resolve it or just don't care if it isn't important. So, I appreciate Christian Marrilat effort with d-m.o when Debian was not unable to package all codecs and apps due to patent and licencing 'issues'. Again, I don't blame Debian for that. I just want to tell that the d-m.o was and I think it would be useful just because Debian cannot ship all software/codecs which have patent/licence problem. -- Kind regards, Milan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120305170115.ga29...@arvanta.net
Re: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On Mar 5, 2012 11:00 AM, "Paul Wise" wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:45 PM, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > > > Out of curiousity, what codecs do you miss in the official debian packages? > > The Voxware decoder is the one codec I've encountered that doesn't > work in Debian. AFAICT there is no free decoder for it and the Windows > DLL from w32-codecs is needed, I don't consider this codec or these > files important enough to use d-m.o though. > > I also have some "DigiTrakker MDL Module" files that don't appear to > be supported by libav/gstreamer, but are supported by xmp. I guess > some sort of plugin needs to be invented there. > > -- > bye, > pabs > > http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise MDL should be supported by libmodplug, which gstreamer uses.
Re: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Milan P. Stanic wrote: >> For me d-m.o was (and still is) valuable resource. >> Some codecs missing in Debian packages because of the policy (I don't >> blame Debian for that) and in that case d-m.o is best option for me >> because I don't want/have time to package it from the source. > > Out of curiousity, what codecs do you miss in the official debian packages? libdvdcss2 This may have been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, but a wiki page under wiki.debian.org instructs users to use d-m.o as a repository to get various codecs. http://wiki.debian.org/MultimediaCodecs Obviously wikis need to be taken with a grain of salt, but anything (including wiki.d.o) under the debian.org domain feels somewhat official and can lead users without the requisite knowledge to heed said advice. If there are users out there who can distill their knowledge regarding codecs and improve the wiki page, then that would be much appreciated. Thanks! -matt zagrabelny -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caolfk3xqxeg-zjzcekbmo3mbto-9cqyscpmuevzfkq-rwza...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Matt Zagrabelny wrote: > On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Reinhard Tartler wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Milan P. Stanic wrote: >>> For me d-m.o was (and still is) valuable resource. >>> Some codecs missing in Debian packages because of the policy (I don't >>> blame Debian for that) and in that case d-m.o is best option for me >>> because I don't want/have time to package it from the source. >> >> Out of curiousity, what codecs do you miss in the official debian packages? > > libdvdcss2 This is not a codec but a software package that cracks an encryption algorithm. It has been packaged for debian proper, uploaded and got rejected by ftp-master. BTW, the reason did not involve patents, AFAIUI. As an alternative source, the libdvdread3 package used to ship a /usr/share/doc/libdvdread3/install-css.sh script, which fetched a libdvdcss2 packages from debian-unofficial.org. From a packaging and maintenance POV, that package is in a much better state. Too bad that the libdvdread maintainer removed that really handy script. > > This may have been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, but a wiki page > under wiki.debian.org instructs users to use d-m.o as a repository to > get various codecs. > > http://wiki.debian.org/MultimediaCodecs That package desperately needs updating. -- regards, Reinhard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caj0cceb6+atcxww-i-goqmfngaaksmu2dc-7-im_y4j_nux...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
Reinhard Tartler writes: > the libdvdread maintainer removed that really handy script. Not really related but it did have a security issue: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=554772 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/844nu37wsw@sauna.l.org
Bug#662691: ITP: freetuxtv -- Internet television and radio player
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Eric Beuque * Package name: freetuxtv Version : 0.6.2 Upstream Author : Eric Beuque * URL : http://code.google.com/p/freetuxtv/ * License : GPL Programming Lang: C Description : Internet television and radio player FreetuxTV is a video player based on LibVLC allowing to watch and record TV on your PC. A large database (growing every days) of free WebTV/WebRadio/WebCam in more than 20 languages is accessible. You can also play streams from your ISP television service if it provides this feature. It is also possible to easily program your recording on each channel with differents transcoding formats. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120305194757.4562.29631.reportbug@riku
Re: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On 2012-03-05, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > This is not a codec but a software package that cracks an encryption > algorithm. It has been packaged for debian proper, uploaded and got > rejected by ftp-master. BTW, the reason did not involve patents, > AFAIUI. The reason being what? We have ZIP password crackers in the archive, too. And if it's for the silly number, we can't possibly be serious, right? Kind regards Philipp Kern -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/slrnjla7cb.sp9.tr...@kelgar.0x539.de
Re: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Matt Zagrabelny wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Reinhard Tartler wrote: >>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Milan P. Stanic wrote: For me d-m.o was (and still is) valuable resource. Some codecs missing in Debian packages because of the policy (I don't blame Debian for that) and in that case d-m.o is best option for me because I don't want/have time to package it from the source. >>> >>> Out of curiousity, what codecs do you miss in the official debian packages? >> >> libdvdcss2 > > This is not a codec but a software package that cracks an encryption > algorithm. It has been packaged for debian proper, uploaded and got > rejected by ftp-master. BTW, the reason did not involve patents, > AFAIUI. I understand that it is not a codec. ;) Nevertheless, it is a package that I find myself installing on just about any workstation with a DVD drive. > As an alternative source, the libdvdread3 package used to ship a > /usr/share/doc/libdvdread3/install-css.sh script, which fetched a > libdvdcss2 packages from debian-unofficial.org. From a packaging and > maintenance POV, that package is in a much better state. Too bad that > the libdvdread maintainer removed that really handy script. What then is the "recommended" way of installing a the decryption library for DVD/CSS? I mean, from what I've read in this thread, d-m.o is not cooperative with d.o regarding packages, what is the recommended way of installing that libdvdcss2? Cheers, -mz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caolfk3wwy8k2agk-y307zbncroydamxitmpe_576s_nd8me...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 08:09:47PM +, Philipp Kern wrote:
> The reason being what? We have ZIP password crackers in the archive,
> too.
Cracking ZIP passwords doesn't fall under the auspices of DMCA or your
equivalent $county_specific_law (and there are quite a few around the
world, unfortunately).
To distribute something like libdvdcss2, unfortunately, we will need to
resurrect something like "non-us", rename it to
"non-dmca-like-embargoed-country" + pick "wisely" the country where to
host it.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences .. http://upsilon.cc/zack .. . . o
Debian Project Leader... @zack on identi.ca ...o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120305211909.ga2...@upsilon.cc
Re: debian-multimedia.org considered harmful, Was: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 04:42:50PM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > In summary, I can only advise everyone against enabling that > repository on any machine. If I would have time to become a pkg-multimedia member I would try to establish installing multimedia applications via metapackages build be the Blends framework. I would most probably drop some file /etc/apt/preferences.d/01-disable-dmo.pref in multimedia-config metapackage (where all other metapackages usually depend from). This would enable those users who really know what they are doing picking singular packages via well defined preferences from d.m.o if needed and prevent users who blindly inject "random sources" inside their sources.list from killing their system. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120305220409.gg...@an3as.eu
Re: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
* Stefano Zacchiroli [2012-03-05 08:40 +0100]:
> On Sun, Mar 04, 2012 at 10:59:39PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> While we are at it, I also think we should provide an index of
> *.debian.net entries on that splash page.
> http://wiki.debian.org/DebianNetDomains is just too prone to outdateness
> and incompleteness. The index can be automatically generated from LDAP
> and. IIRC a past chat with DSA, DSA is fine with that but is aware of
> privacy concerns that some of the registrant of *.debian.net entries
> might have. Personally, I don't think we should be worried about privacy
> concerns there. The debian.net is a Debian project resource and we
> should be ready to advertise all its entries, otherwise people should
> not register them in the first place.
In a non-public mail, Rhonda explained an argument against publishing
such automatically generated lists. A short summary is:
DSA uses ACLs for access control of information available via LDAP.
Circumventing this access control by publishing these lists would be
a violation of DMUP.
Considering the above argument, an explicit permission from DSA
(possibly alternatively from the DPL) might be needed to be able to
publish the generated list.
An other argument against publishing the list is that this information
used to be non-public. Publishing information that used to be
non-public without noticing people priorly to give them the chance to
remove the part they do not want to be published is not that nice. The
canonical way to reach all DDs is to send a mail to debian-devel-announce.
I think if we decide to publish a list of all .debian.net domains, such
a mail should be sent.
A related problem is that there is no general way to find out how to
reach someone being responsible for a specific .debian.net service. The
DD that originally registered the domain is not necessarily still
involved in providing the service and possibly might registered the
domain on behalf of someone who is not yet a DD. A way to solve the
first is to update the account linked to the domain if the original
registrant is not involved anymore; the second could be solved by
requiring the DD that registered it to act as proxy to the responsible
person (mentioning the real contact address on the services web site
would avoid the need to act as proxy in most cases).
A different approach to try to solve this reachability problem is to set
up an email forward from ${service}@dotnet.debian.org to the appropriate
email address.
Carsten
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120305233002.ga28...@furrball.stateful.de
Re: debian-multimedia.org considered harmful, Was: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On 12-03-05 at 11:04pm, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 04:42:50PM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > > In summary, I can only advise everyone against enabling that > > repository on any machine. > > If I would have time to become a pkg-multimedia member I would try to > establish installing multimedia applications via metapackages build be > the Blends framework. I would most probably drop some file > >/etc/apt/preferences.d/01-disable-dmo.pref > > in multimedia-config metapackage (where all other metapackages usually > depend from). This would enable those users who really know what they > are doing picking singular packages via well defined preferences from > d.m.o if needed and prevent users who blindly inject "random sources" > inside their sources.list from killing their system. Please let us stop this deroute. Yes, d-m.o is problematic, but so is potentially *any* package cocktail involving unofficial packages. Heck, even involving only official packages but across well-tested-together repositories. Let's not turn this into a witch hunt. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On Tue, 6 Mar 2012, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > In other words, if not for Christian Marillat's work, your customer > > would either be unable to do this on Debian, or, assuming enough > > technical knowledge, have to beat upstream packages into working. > > ...or use another source which plays nicer with Debian, e.g. > backports.debian.org. I don't believe that backports.debian.org attempts to solve any of the problems that debian-multimedia solves. In the past I've used Christian's packages for playing video files produced by a mobile phone with file extension .3gp and for writing mp4 files. At the time the official Debian packages didn't support such things. I haven't recently tried either of those operations on systems without Christian's packages installed so I don't know if things have changed. I have not experienced any serious problems with Christian's repository in terms of upgrading systems either. I'm glad that Christian does this, I know some people who would be buying Windows systems if I didn't make their Linux systems do things that Christian's packages support but which aren't supported by official packages. I'm also glad that the people responsible for such decisions in Debian have decided to take a hard line against patent infringing software - last time I checked the Fedora people weren't as stringent which is a bad thing IMHO. I think it's good to encourage people to use the more free software even if they are in a jurisdiction that doesn't support software patents and then give them an option if they really want to do otherwise. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Bloghttp://doc.coker.com.au/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201203061133.27469.russ...@coker.com.au
Re: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On 12-03-06 at 11:33am, Russell Coker wrote: > On Tue, 6 Mar 2012, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > > In other words, if not for Christian Marillat's work, your > > > customer would either be unable to do this on Debian, or, assuming > > > enough technical knowledge, have to beat upstream packages into > > > working. > > > > ...or use another source which plays nicer with Debian, e.g. > > backports.debian.org. > > I don't believe that backports.debian.org attempts to solve any of the > problems that debian-multimedia solves. In the past I've used > Christian's packages for playing video files produced by a mobile > phone with file extension .3gp and for writing mp4 files. At the time > the official Debian packages didn't support such things. I haven't > recently tried either of those operations on systems without > Christian's packages installed so I don't know if things have changed. That's exactly my point: Things have changed - believe it or not. :-) > I have not experienced any serious problems with Christian's > repository in terms of upgrading systems either. > > I'm glad that Christian does this, I know some people who would be > buying Windows systems if I didn't make their Linux systems do things > that Christian's packages support but which aren't supported by > official packages. I am also glad for what Christian have done. I have have good use of some of his packages. But they do cause real problems, and I believe they are (with libdvdcss2 as a possible exception) no longer the best option as a) unstable has improved radically, and b) I guess the improved packages are available at backports.debian.org. I don't actually know for sure if they are available: Personally I only use unofficial packages that I compile myself - be it backported from Debian testing or unstable or sideports from d-m.o or other sources. > I'm also glad that the people responsible for such decisions in Debian > have decided to take a hard line against patent infringing software - > last time I checked the Fedora people weren't as stringent which is a > bad thing IMHO. I think it's good to encourage people to use the more > free software even if they are in a jurisdiction that doesn't support > software patents and then give them an option if they really want to > do otherwise. Debian now has a *changed* hard line against patent infringing software - resulting in more codecs supported in official Debian packages. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: debian-multimedia.org considered harmful, Was: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On Di, 06 Mär 2012, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > the Blends framework. I would most probably drop some file
> >
> >/etc/apt/preferences.d/01-disable-dmo.pref
> >
> > in multimedia-config metapackage (where all other metapackages usually
And I would file a serious bug against that. There is no reasoning
behind that is in any way reasonable.
Only because these are providing similar packages starting
a "hunting down the enemies" race is irrational, or even worse,
simply stupid.
Best wishes
Norbert
Norbert Preiningpreining@{jaist.ac.jp, logic.at, debian.org}
JAIST, Japan TeX Live & Debian Developer
DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
BRADFORD
A school teacher's old hairy jacket, now severely discoloured by chalk
dust, ink, egg and the precipitations of unedifying chemical
reactions.
--- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120306012333.gc27...@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at
Re: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
Reinhard Tartler writes: > On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Milan P. Stanic wrote: >> For me d-m.o was (and still is) valuable resource. >> Some codecs missing in Debian packages because of the policy (I don't >> blame Debian for that) and in that case d-m.o is best option for me >> because I don't want/have time to package it from the source. > > Out of curiousity, what codecs do you miss in the official debian packages? Er ... MP3 encoding ? [Is that available in debian-official now?] -miles -- Circus, n. A place where horses, ponies and elephants are permitted to see men, women and children acting the fool. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/buopqcqtk14@dhlpc061.dev.necel.com
Re: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 1:13 AM, Andres Mejia wrote: > MDL should be supported by libmodplug, which gstreamer uses. The symptoms I am seeing are that Rhythmbox says "The MIME type of the file could not be identified". I guess I need to file a bug against file since file --mime-type returns application/octet-stream for them. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caktje6e7xy6ispf4nkq5scz_njygqa_rapab4quwpykpf_t...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Miles Bader wrote: > Er ... MP3 encoding ? > > [Is that available in debian-official now?] lame is in squeeze-backports and later: http://packages.debian.org/lame -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caktje6efaugevmj6tfvod74plafyfnubqnp1r6u_-t1y89a...@mail.gmail.com
Re: upstart: please update to latest upstream version
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 02:44:45PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Mar 05, Marc Haber wrote: > > > Should Debian restrict itself to being a Linux platform just to have > > systemd? > If it is worth it, yes. > > Should Debian reject using component> just to support toy ports which are used by a dozen of people? Except that kFreeBSD is not a toy port. FreeBSD is a serious operating system that is used by many people in system-critical applications, which runs on modern hardware and outperforms the hell of Linux in some regards. The kFreeBSD port has some features over Linux that makes it an interesting option for some use cases, such as ZFS, jails, and more. So far, I haven't seen any features in systemd that outweigh those. And the fact that upstream is lazy and doesn't want to do this portability thing shouldn't mean we should throw out our other ports. -- The volume of a pizza of thickness a and radius z can be described by the following formula: pi zz a -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120306070737.gw2...@grep.be
Re: upstart: please update to latest upstream version
On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 08:07:37 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: ... > So far, I haven't seen any features in systemd that outweigh those. And > the fact that upstream is lazy and doesn't want to do this portability > thing shouldn't mean we should throw out our other ports. I know it's already been mentioned in this thread, but perhaps it bears repeating, that we use openssh, where the upstream effectively has the same attitude when it comes to portability code in their own source tree. Despite that they happily work with the porting team to generate the version that everyone uses on Linux. Is a similar approach not possible for systemd? Cheers, Phil. -- |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]http://www.hands.com/ |-| HANDS.COM Ltd.http://www.uk.debian.org/ |(| 10 Onslow Gardens, South Woodford, London E18 1NE ENGLAND pgpmsa4prPOI4.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 12:30:02AM +0100, Carsten Hey wrote:
> In a non-public mail, Rhonda explained an argument against publishing
> such automatically generated lists. A short summary is:
> An other argument against publishing the list is that this information
> used to be non-public. Publishing information that used to be
> non-public without noticing people priorly to give them the chance to
> remove the part they do not want to be published is not that nice. The
> canonical way to reach all DDs is to send a mail to debian-devel-announce.
> I think if we decide to publish a list of all .debian.net domains, such
> a mail should be sent.
Agreed. For the two reasons above, we should not have someone just
automatically publish the result of an LDAP query they can run a DDs. It
should be done properly, after we've decided the existence of debian.net
should be published, and giving a reasonable grace period in the
(hopefully unlikely) case someone want to back off.
Now, is anyone against publishing the list of debian.net entries and the
entry <-> registrant association (provided the above conditions are
met)?
> A related problem is that there is no general way to find out how to
> reach someone being responsible for a specific .debian.net service.
> The DD that originally registered the domain is not necessarily still
> involved in providing the service and possibly might registered the
> domain on behalf of someone who is not yet a DD. A way to solve the
> first is to update the account linked to the domain if the original
> registrant is not involved anymore; the second could be solved by
> requiring the DD that registered it to act as proxy to the responsible
> person (mentioning the real contact address on the services web site
> would avoid the need to act as proxy in most cases).
To me, the most reasonable solution seems to consider that the
registrant is the responsible contact point for the service. Publishing
the entry <-> registrant association we will de facto document who to
contact. I agree with you that publishing the real contact address on
the service web site would make the problem moot. So, proxies who do not
want to be bothered as contact points should simply encourage the
actual services admins to document the 'real' contact point. (This
leaves out the case of debian.net services that are not 'web' services,
but they should be documented anyhow, so...)
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences .. http://upsilon.cc/zack .. . . o
Debian Project Leader... @zack on identi.ca ...o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: upstart: please update to latest upstream version
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 08:07:37AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > So far, I haven't seen any features in systemd that outweigh those. And > the fact that upstream is lazy and doesn't want to do this portability > thing shouldn't mean we should throw out our other ports. Er, let's not call upstream lazy just because they don't want to do work that has no interest for themselves. We don't require Debian developers to do work for Debian (Constitution, 2.1.1), after all. -- All my predictions will turn out to be false signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > Now, is anyone against publishing the list of debian.net entries and the > entry <-> registrant association (provided the above conditions are > met)? That is already published in DNS: pabs@chianamo ~ $ dig -t txt mentors.debian.net | grep TXT ;mentors.debian.net.IN TXT mentors.debian.net. 3593IN TXT "Christoph Haas " mentors.debian.net. 3593IN TXT "PGP 9B26 F48E 6F2B 0A3F 7E33 E6B7 095E 77C5 79CC 6586" > To me, the most reasonable solution seems to consider that the > registrant is the responsible contact point for the service. Publishing > the entry <-> registrant association we will de facto document who to > contact. I agree with you that publishing the real contact address on > the service web site would make the problem moot. So, proxies who do not > want to be bothered as contact points should simply encourage the > actual services admins to document the 'real' contact point. (This > leaves out the case of debian.net services that are not 'web' services, > but they should be documented anyhow, so...) Agreed. Also, for domains that are not CNAMEs, there is the possibility for the registrant to document real contact points in DNS TXT records: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2010/05/msg6.html -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caktje6gyel6x-g88zeo49_fihejqfwklu1fnczkaeu2048m...@mail.gmail.com
