Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>> Funny, I just did a Google search for > >>> site:www.debian.org cvs repository www.debian.org > >>> and there it was, plain as day. > >> That implies that you already know/suspect it is in cvs. > > Goswin, with all due respect, you really either have no idea what you're > talking about here or you're rather bad at using Google. A search on:
Point was that there is no "source repository" link on www.debian.org itself. >>> See, what you keep missing is that, regardless of the willingness of >>> the current buildd maintainers to work with you, you are using the >>> openness or not of your work as a bargaining point. I have serious >>> philosophical problems with that. > >> Where did I ever say "We must use this because it is free?" > > You didn't. If you were saying that, I'd actually have more respect for > your position. > > You are instead saying "our stuff is proprietary and we'll only release > the source if the buildd.debian.org maintainers agree to play ball." > That's deeply messed up, and as far as I'm concerned that stops the > conversation cold. I don't care how messed up the current stuff is -- I'm > very nervous about software written by someone with that attitude coming > anywhere near Debian core infrastructure. That is not at all what was said. When I first used buildd.net I wanted to have graphs and some other features for it so I just went on irc ans asked IJ for the scripts so I could patch them. 5 minutes later I was patching in gnuplot scriplets. You just try to make a point out of buildd.net not having a direct source link which is completly irelevant imho. >> Both buildd.d.o and buildd.net are in exactly the same state regarding >> openness: You have to ask the maintainer for the scripts personaly. > > And that's not sufficient for any replacement. I don't think it's great > for the existing scripts either, but they have a few huge advantages: > they're already in place and they're already working. If we're looking at > giving up those advantages and replacing them with something else, then > the *least* that the new stuff should do is be free software. If you (as in buildd.d.o) want to add a source link then do it. That is debians decision ultimately. So far Debian hasn't made that addition and Ingo didn't want to make it. That is your/his choice and changes nothing on the freeness of the software. It just changes the propagation medium. >> My argument is that is has better functionality not better idiology. > > If you want more people to support your argument, produce better ideology > too. Otherwise, you can keep whining about this on debian-devel until the > end of time and as far as I'm concerned the right thing for everyone > involved in Debian to do is ignore you. DFSG free is good enough for me. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]