Lars Wirzenius writes:
> Right. It seems I have a different opinion here than the project has
> in general, and because of that, I think it's as OK for snapd to be in
> main as those other packages. And becaus snapd now has, or is getting,
> support for other server sides, and there's a free on
On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 10:11:23PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> The point has been made that there are lots of other clients in Debian main
> that only talk to a single, proprietary server implementation; so if snapd
> did only talk to the Canonical store, I believe its placement in main would
>
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 06:02:35PM +0100, Iain Lane wrote:
> - File a bug on something (I suggest that you don't start with Snappy
> to head off reactions like mine) requesting such a move and see if
> ftpmaster does it, then MBF all of the rest if so.
You're asking liw to change his beh
Hi Lars,
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 05:27:43PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 03:44:54PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > snapd is available in Debian unstable for roughly the past two weeks.
> Disclaimer: I've never used snap packages, and I haven't even read
> their documen
On Jun 22, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> Given that snapd therefore seems to be, in practice, only usable by
> Canonical's server, shouldn't the package be in contrib instead of
> main?
No: this was discussed the first time ~15 years ago IIRC for ICQ
clients, and I do not think that anything has chang
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 19:51:47 +0300
Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 05:29:12PM +0100, Iain Lane wrote:
> > I don't understand this. What about Twitter clients[0], YouTube
> > clients[1], Flickr clients[2], and probably clients for many other
> > non-free web services?[3]
>
> If a
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 07:51:47PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> Possibly I am in a minority here?
I don't know. I haven't given your question much in the way of deep
thought. There's an argument that it might lead to the development of
more free web services, so I can at least see why it deserve
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 06:58:25PM +0200, Zlatan Todoric wrote:
> With mps-youtube going to contrib, all web browsers should also go
> to contrib as they can access Youtube and so on.
That's not my opinion. There is plenty of free software to run on the
server side to serve content to web browsers
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 05:29:12PM +0100, Iain Lane wrote:
> I don't understand this. What about Twitter clients[0], YouTube
> clients[1], Flickr clients[2], and probably clients for many other
> non-free web services?[3]
If a piece of free software requires, for its essential function, some
serve
On 06/22/2016 06:51 PM, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 05:29:12PM +0100, Iain Lane wrote:
>> I don't understand this. What about Twitter clients[0], YouTube
>> clients[1], Flickr clients[2], and probably clients for many other
>> non-free web services?[3]
>
> If a piece of free
(Disclosure: I work for Canonical, but not on Snappy.)
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 05:27:43PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> […]
> Given that snapd therefore seems to be, in practice, only usable by
> Canonical's server, shouldn't the package be in contrib instead of
> main? At least until such time a
Hi Lars,
I agree with both your points. Please file actual bugs.
--
cheers,
Holger
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 03:44:54PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> snapd is available in Debian unstable for roughly the past two weeks.
Disclaimer: I've never used snap packages, and I haven't even read
their documentation.
https://packages.debian.org/sid/snapd indicates the package is in the
Deb
On 06/21/2016 06:43 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Zlatan Todoric writes ("Re: opinions of snappy packages"):
>> I forget about Canonical's CLA from time to time - but this solely
>> should be a reason to not adopt it in Free software projects.
>
> I think th
Zlatan Todoric writes ("Re: opinions of snappy packages"):
> I forget about Canonical's CLA from time to time - but this solely
> should be a reason to not adopt it in Free software projects.
I think that's up to the individual maintainer.
If the maintainer is prep
On 06/21/2016 04:31 PM, Simon McVittie wrote:
>
> On a purely non-technical level, Snappy's asymmetric CLA makes
> me wary about contributing to it or encouraging its adoption.
>
I forget about Canonical's CLA from time to time - but this solely
should be a reason to not adopt it in Free softw
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 at 14:16:55 +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> I'd actually like to see a wider discussion as to the merits of snappy versus
> flatpak (and others) and the pros/cons of supporting (or otherwise) multiple
> such things or picking one (or waiting to see whether any get any kind of
>
On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 09:12:31PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Unfortunately, while they might have done some work to make it available
> on other distributions, they have not taken the time to upload the package
> to Debian.
I'd like to assume that whoever is planning to upload snappy (and I
Jonathan Carter writes:
> It's a pity about the Canonical CLA, because it seemed to have hurt
> other promising projects like bzr and upstart.
Definitely. Canonical's insistence on arrogating to themselves the power
to alter the license on any contribution – a power they refuse to grant
to anyon
On 19/06/2016 18:05, Bruce Byfield wrote:
> I am writing an article about the pros and cons of Ubuntu's snappy
> packages, which have recently been ported to a number of major
> distributions.
>
> If anyone has any experience with them, I would appreciate hearing their
> opinions, especially ab
❦ 19 juin 2016 20:11 CEST, Josh Triplett :
> While you could definitely make technical comparisons between the .deb
> format and the snappy format, a distribution like Debian provides a lot
> more than a packaging format. The .deb format in isolation just
> represents an archive of files; what
Hi Raphaël,
On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 09:12:31PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Jun 2016, Bruce Byfield wrote:
> > I am writing an article about the pros and cons of Ubuntu's snappy
> > packages, which have recently been ported to a number of major
> > distributions.
> > If anyone has
On Jun 19, Josh Triplett wrote:
> of that overhead relates to following distribution-specific policies. The
> prevalence of language-specific packaging ecosystems, such as npm and
> Cargo, suggests a need not fully addressed by distribution packaging
> formats.
At least for npm, this reason is t
2016-06-19 21:51 GMT+02:00 Zlatan Todoric :
>
> On 06/19/2016 09:12 PM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>> This is an annoying habit for many of their projects and it might be a
>> part of the reason why many of their interesting projects do not really
>> take off.
>>
>> $ apt search snapcraft
>
On 06/19/2016 09:12 PM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Hello Bruce,
On Sun, 19 Jun 2016, Bruce Byfield wrote:
I am writing an article about the pros and cons of Ubuntu's snappy
packages, which have recently been ported to a number of major
distributions.
If anyone has any experience with them, I wou
Hello Bruce,
On Sun, 19 Jun 2016, Bruce Byfield wrote:
> I am writing an article about the pros and cons of Ubuntu's snappy
> packages, which have recently been ported to a number of major
> distributions.
>
> If anyone has any experience with them, I would appreciate hearing their
> opinions,
Bruce Byfield wrote:
> I am writing an article about the pros and cons of Ubuntu's snappy
> packages, which have recently been ported to a number of major
> distributions.
>
> If anyone has any experience with them, I would appreciate hearing their
> opinions, especially about how they compare
Hi:
I am writing an article about the pros and cons of Ubuntu's snappy
packages, which have recently been ported to a number of major
distributions.
If anyone has any experience with them, I would appreciate hearing their
opinions, especially about how they compare to debs.
Thanks,
--
Bruce
28 matches
Mail list logo
