Re: Bug#684396: ITP: openrc -- alternative boot mechanism that manages the services, startup and shutdown of a host
Serge, I'm in the favor of having a try with OpenRC, and see what we can do, but here, your post is a bit naive at least in some cases. Let me explain why. On 09/05/2012 11:47 AM, Serge wrote: >> I don't see how these people help Debian if they start pushing their >> own solution instead of helping to improve what is already there. >> > I thought it's obvious: > * someone packages a new tool (+1 package, +1 maintainer) > In this case, it's 1 package, many maintainers. > * more packages in debian means more users > No. Not for sure. > * more users means more developers > No. Not for sure. > * more developers and maintainers means better debian > It all depends on what these maintainers do. > Anyway, I *guess* I understand your point. You afraid that *if* this new > `openrc` is accepted There's no "if" here. I don't think anyone has the power to forbid such an upload. The problem is to decide if we should support OpenRC archive wide, and that's the debate, it's not just about uploading or not (eg: OpenRC isn't a leaf package). > *and* widely used in debian That's another story. We aren't there yet, we don't even have a working package yet. > *and* other package start > depending on it badly *and* its maintainer will abandon it, then we may > have a problem. I don't see why this would happen more than with any other stuff. So why are we even considering it? It doesn't make sense. > So between two options: > 1. Someone packages `openrc` and starts maintaining it. Being a maintainer > he may (or may not) help other packages as well. > Again, more than one person is interested in such work. > But the problem is — we don't have that choice. What we really have is: > 1. Someone packages `openrc` in debian and starts maintaining it. Being > a maintainer he may (or may not) help other packages as well. > 2. Someone goes to launchpad/github/some-private-repo and maintains > `openrc` there for himself and some friends. > Having such a choice I would prefer #1. And you? > "Help" isn't enough. If we decide that OpenRC should be supported archive wide (which decision, IMO, shouldn't be discuss now), then there's thousands of packages affected. Of course, if we decide to support OpenRC, help and documentation will be mandatory. But not enough. > I was trying to use some common sense (i.e. explaining that it's rude to > say to people what they should do, it scares them away which means less > maintainers which is bad for debian), but if you want to stick to rules, > then `openrc` should be, no, it MUST be in debian repository, since at > least some users asked for it and "Our priorities are our users and free > software", right? Also those rules don't allow anybody to decide what > package I must work on, right? > That's correct, anyone can work on what he wants. Though some decided to skip one step and talk about what should be the default when we are far from there. Also, the problem that has been highlighted was that if OpenRC comes to Debian, this might give a lot of work for all maintainers with packages that have init script. In fact, this is the same situation as for systemd. And we don't want to duplicate this work. I do agree with this, but I don't think we are there yet. What I asked, is to let us try, and see where it leads... >> I'm not saying I wouldn't trust your words, but you cannot seriously >> promise you will always be there to take care of OpenRC if you're the >> only maintainer. >> > Sure, I can't. Anything may happen. And noone can. That's why "being about > choice" is a good thing. If for some reason debian supported only `systemd` > and tomorrow upstream announces "forget systemd it won't be supported any > more, we've just developed a new kernel-based init system with GNOME4 > integrated into it, and being kernel-based it is lightning fast", then we'll > have a problem. That's exactly the problem. We have no way to predict whatever will be upstream's decision for systemd. That's in fact, one of the reasons I'd be interested in contributing to the OpenRC packaging (I still hope to find more time with Patrick on that...). 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/504729f9.3070...@debian.org
Re: Discussion of uscan enhancement 1 (Was: uscan enhancement take 3: script hook)
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 09:04:19AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > the machine-readable format does not mention trailing slashes at the end > of directory names, and refers to the -path test of the GNU find command, Good. Having a trailing-slash be meaningful is very confusing. I especially hate this with rsync, where I now use trailing-slash on dirs exclusively, since I've memorized the behaviour when you do this and not when you don't. It frustrates me because foo and foo/ might differ but they are both names for the same thing - and the behaviour should not differ if the name for the same thing differs IMHO. > which will fail with trailing slashes. I can understand why it would fail, since the argument to path is a pattern rather than a filename, and it is compared against find's list of paths which just so happen not to have trailing slashes. Having said that I wonder if this behaviour could be considered buggy. -- 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/20120905105227.GA31962@debian
greater popularity of Debian on AMD64?
It is somewhat surprising and a little disappointing that Debian, or any other GNU/Linux distribution would be making statements that, in effect, give great public support to AMD in regard Linux, when the company has for many years been decidedly ambivalent and generally uncooperative towards the Linux community, particularly in cooperation with Microsoft in their negative attitudes and /_actions _/toward Free/Open Source Software communities. Wendell Anderson wander...@kimalcorp.org
Re: greater popularity of Debian on AMD64?
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 12:36:36PM -0400, W. Anderson wrote: > It is somewhat surprising and a little disappointing that Debian, or any > other GNU/Linux distribution would be making statements that, in effect, > give great public support to AMD in regard Linux, when the company has > for many years been decidedly ambivalent and generally uncooperative > towards the Linux community, particularly in cooperation with Microsoft > in their negative attitudes and /_actions _/toward Free/Open Source > Software communities. > Hi Wendell, Please see http://www.debian.org/ports/amd64/ - amd64 refers to the architecture which includes both AMD and Intel. Neil signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: greater popularity of Debian on AMD64?
also sprach W. Anderson [2012.09.05.1836 +0200]: > It is somewhat surprising and a little disappointing that Debian, or any > other GNU/Linux distribution would be making statements that, in effect, > give great public support to AMD in regard Linux, The statement was not about AMD but about the architecture amd64, which is also used by other processor manufacturers, namely Intel. For years, Intel had their 'i' in i386. They missed the wagon on consumer 64-bit architectures and only jumped on after amd64 had been well established. But I agree, to the uwashed masses, the statement might sound a little too much in favour of AMD. Nothing we can do about it now. -- .''`. martin f. krafft Related projects: : :' : proud Debian developer http://debiansystem.info `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduckhttp://vcs-pkg.org `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems "lessing was a heretics' heretic" -- walter kaufmann digital_signature_gpg.asc Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/sig-policy/999bbcc4/current)
Re: greater popularity of Debian on AMD64?
Am 05.09.2012 18:36, schrieb W. Anderson: > It is somewhat surprising and a little disappointing that Debian, or any > other GNU/Linux distribution would be making statements that, in effect, > give great public support to AMD in regard Linux, when the company has > for many years been decidedly ambivalent and generally uncooperative > towards the Linux community, particularly in cooperation with Microsoft > in their negative attitudes and /_actions _/toward Free/Open Source > Software communities. amd64 is the name of the x64 CPU architecture and also with my fglrx hat on I think you do not know about what you are speaking (just have got a look at radeon).. -- /* Mit freundlichem Gruß / With kind regards, Patrick Matthäi GNU/Linux Debian Developer Blog: http://www.linux-dev.org/ E-Mail: pmatth...@debian.org patr...@linux-dev.org */ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: greater popularity of Debian on AMD64?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/05/2012 02:10 PM, martin f krafft wrote: > Nothing we can do about it now. The news posting at http://www.debian.org/News/weekly/2012/17/#amd64 could be edited to change the first reference to amd64 in the text to link to http://www.debian.org/ports/amd64/ and the first reference to i386 to link to http://www.debian.org/ports/i386/ which at least somewhat increases the chance of someone not knowing the difference discovering it on their own by clicking through the links. Just a thought ... Ben -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAlBHi6gACgkQWpTzygsnE8jBRwCffzvj5aP1CoHq/BEg+y+ePN2X oKcAoKdKNFNYQetvig++iPbINWW4Gw9Y =qa1Y -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/50478bab.2000...@sanctuary.nslug.ns.ca
Re: greater popularity of Debian on AMD64?
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 9:36 AM, W. Anderson wrote: > It is somewhat surprising and a little disappointing that Debian, or any > other GNU/Linux distribution would be making statements that, in effect, > give great public support to AMD in regard Linux, when the company has for > many years been decidedly ambivalent and generally uncooperative towards the > Linux community, particularly in cooperation with Microsoft in their > negative attitudes and actions toward Free/Open Source Software communities. I fail to see how the DPN is making a statement that gives "great public support to AMD"; it is merely a statement of fact. A high popcon rating for an architecture or a set of packages does not mean that Debian endorses the use of said architecture/packages. Regards, Vincent -- 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/caczd_tc66vbhoqcsota1st643eik1gy0aovkylt-x758rio...@mail.gmail.com
Re: greater popularity of Debian on AMD64?
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 06:04:00PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote: > On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 12:36:36PM -0400, W. Anderson wrote: > > It is somewhat surprising and a little disappointing that Debian, or any > > other GNU/Linux distribution would be making statements that, in effect, > > give great public support to AMD in regard Linux, when the company has > > for many years been decidedly ambivalent and generally uncooperative > > towards the Linux community, particularly in cooperation with Microsoft > > in their negative attitudes and /_actions _/toward Free/Open Source > > Software communities. > > > > Hi Wendell, > > Please see http://www.debian.org/ports/amd64/ - amd64 refers to the > architecture which includes both AMD and Intel. I've previously requested that various user-facing references to 'i386' and 'amd64' should be changed to the hopefully more understandable '32-bit PC' and '64-bit PC', with some success. Please could the publicity team try to follow this convention in future press/publicity material? (amd64 can run on current Macs, which are marketed as not-a-PC, but I don't think there's much point mentioning that until we make it easier to install on them.) Ben. -- Ben Hutchings We get into the habit of living before acquiring the habit of thinking. - Albert Camus -- 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/20120905181752.gu29...@decadent.org.uk
Re: greater popularity of Debian on AMD64?
also sprach Patrick Matthäi [2012.09.05.1902 +0200]: > amd64 is the name of the x64 CPU architecture and also with my fglrx hat > on I think you do not know about what you are speaking (just have got a > look at radeon).. Radeon being owned by AMD and fglrx not having the best reputation, I don't quite understand your point. -- .''`. martin f. krafft Related projects: : :' : proud Debian developer http://debiansystem.info `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduckhttp://vcs-pkg.org `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems "i always choose my friends for their good looks and my enemies for their good intellects. man cannot be too careful in his choice of enemies." -- oscar wilde digital_signature_gpg.asc Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/sig-policy/999bbcc4/current)
Re: greater popularity of Debian on AMD64?
On Wed, 2012-09-05 at 20:57 +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Patrick Matthäi [2012.09.05.1902 +0200]: > > amd64 is the name of the x64 CPU architecture and also with my fglrx hat > > on I think you do not know about what you are speaking (just have got a > > look at radeon).. > > Radeon being owned by AMD and fglrx not having the best reputation, > I don't quite understand your point. AMD helped the development of (free software) radeon drivers for their graphics cards by people supporting the work and by publishing documents: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=17071788 Intel did too: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=18469079 However for the development of coreboot AMD has been very supportive, http://www.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/2008-December/042783.html and Intel not at all, http://www.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/2011-January/062775.html So YMWV ;-) -- 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/1346875820.5479.34.ca...@hp.my.own.domain
Re: Enabling uupdate to simply remove files from upstream source (Was: Minified javascript files)
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 08:19:29PM +0200, Stéphane Glondu wrote: > Le 17/08/2012 13:08, Andreas Tille a écrit : > > So we finally have three independently developed solutions (we also have > > several instances of a debian/get-orig-source script in Debian Med > > team) and my suggestion was just to settle with a common and simple > > solution. This should be pretty simple to implement (I'd volunteer to > > do this but wanted to seek for comments before filing a bug report + > > patch). > > There is also the --filter-pristine-tar option to git-import-orig, which > can be specified in debian/gbp.conf. We routinely use it in the OCaml > team (see e.g. why). I'm not sure whether I understand what you want to tell here. Do you think git-import-orig should filter out / remove files mentioned in debian/copyright field Files-Excluded? 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/20120905201134.ga1...@an3as.eu
Re: greater popularity of Debian on AMD64?
Am 05.09.2012 20:57, schrieb martin f krafft: > also sprach Patrick Matthäi [2012.09.05.1902 +0200]: >> amd64 is the name of the x64 CPU architecture and also with my fglrx hat >> on I think you do not know about what you are speaking (just have got a >> look at radeon).. > > Radeon being owned by AMD and fglrx not having the best reputation, > I don't quite understand your point. > Forget the past where GPUs were owned by ATI, they s When AMD took over ATI they first began to work with the OSS community, seriously checked if they could open fglrx-driver, hire full time people to work on the radeon driver, released 2D/3D/board/Video specifications of their cards and so on.. AMD also supports Debian (just now with an special point release for Wheezy). I do not think that AMD (not the past ATI) is evil and such foo should stop here. And why hasn't got radeon a good reputation? It is the fastest and most supported OSS Xorg driver and also quite stable.. Yeah intel has got a good OSS driver, but they are to lame for complex 2D/3D scenarious.. -- /* Mit freundlichem Gruß / With kind regards, Patrick Matthäi GNU/Linux Debian Developer Blog: http://www.linux-dev.org/ E-Mail: pmatth...@debian.org patr...@linux-dev.org */ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: greater popularity of Debian on AMD64?
also sprach Patrick Matthäi [2012.09.05.2231 +0200]: > AMD also supports Debian (just now with an special point release > for Wheezy). I do not think that AMD (not the past ATI) is evil > and such foo should stop here. Good thing I asked… > And why hasn't got radeon a good reputation? I said fglrx — because its binary-only version caused regular crashes and headaches for Linux users. -- .''`. martin f. krafft Related projects: : :' : proud Debian developer http://debiansystem.info `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduckhttp://vcs-pkg.org `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems "love is a grave mental disease." -- platon digital_signature_gpg.asc Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/sig-policy/999bbcc4/current)
Re: greater popularity of Debian on AMD64?
Am 05.09.2012 23:24, schrieb martin f krafft: > I said fglrx — because its binary-only version caused regular > crashes and headaches for Linux users. > Which is ATM more useful as nvidia prop. ones. And AMD (not the ATI in the past) is in general interested (and already legaly checked) in opening fglrx, but it fails with third party foo... Anyway AMD in general is doing quite much for the OSS community, why it is IMO fud. -- /* Mit freundlichem Gruß / With kind regards, Patrick Matthäi GNU/Linux Debian Developer Blog: http://www.linux-dev.org/ E-Mail: pmatth...@debian.org patr...@linux-dev.org */ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: greater popularity of Debian on AMD64?
On 05/09/12 18:10, W. Anderson wrote: > It is somewhat surprising and a little disappointing that Debian, or any > other GNU/Linux distribution would be making statements that, in effect, > give great public support to AMD in regard Linux, when the company has > for many years been decidedly ambivalent and generally uncooperative > towards the Linux community, particularly in cooperation with Microsoft > in their negative attitudes and /_actions _/toward Free/Open Source > Software communities. As the only significant competition to Intel in the PC market, AMD need all the help they can get. The more people that run free software on AMD equipment, the more likely they are to look favourably upon free software developers. But, as has already been pointed out, the statement doesn't give support to AMD anyway. Roger -- 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/vhskh9-0u3@silverstone.rilynn.me.uk
Bug#686800: ITP: inxi -- system information script for console, IRC or forum posts
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Gordon Spencer * Package name: inxi Version : 1.8.14 Upstream Author : Gordon Spencer * URL : http://techpatterns.com/forums/forum-33.html * License : GPL Programming Lang: bash script Description : system information script for console, IRC or forum posts inxi is a command line system information script built for for console and IRC. It is also used for forum technical support, as a debugging tool, to quickly ascertain user system configuration and hardware. inxi shows system hardware, CPU, drivers, Xorg, Desktop, Kernel, GCC version(s), Processes, RAM usage, and a wide variety of other useful information. inxi can be integrated with various IRC clients. See the man page for examples. inxi defaults to remove certain information about network card mac address, WAN and LAN IP, your /home username directory in partitions, and a few other things. man inxi or inxi -h reveals more. -- 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/20120906000138.4976.93388.reportbug@localhost
Re: Enabling uupdate to simply remove files from upstream source (Was: Minified javascript files)
Le 05/09/2012 22:11, Andreas Tille a écrit : >>> So we finally have three independently developed solutions (we also have >>> several instances of a debian/get-orig-source script in Debian Med >>> team) and my suggestion was just to settle with a common and simple >>> solution. This should be pretty simple to implement (I'd volunteer to >>> do this but wanted to seek for comments before filing a bug report + >>> patch). >> >> There is also the --filter-pristine-tar option to git-import-orig, which >> can be specified in debian/gbp.conf. We routinely use it in the OCaml >> team (see e.g. why). > > I'm not sure whether I understand what you want to tell here. Do you > think git-import-orig should filter out / remove files mentioned in > debian/copyright field Files-Excluded? No, I was just mentioning a fourth independently developed solution. If an agreement is reached on Files-Excluded, I guess git-import-orig could also take it into account (probably via a new option, though). Cheers, -- Stéphane -- 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/50483404.6050...@debian.org
