> On 8 Nov 2022, at 00:23, Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 6:16 PM Sam James <s...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> >>> On 7 Nov 2022, at 06:07, Oskari Pirhonen <xxc3ncore...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Sun, Nov 06, 2022 at 11:37:24 +0100, Piotr Karbowski wrote: >>>> I would be in favour of stepping up the social contract and actually >>>> prohibiting this kind of things, we had that before too, the nattka you >>>> mgorny wrote is replacement for old bugzilla bot that was ... >>>> closedsource and perished, though nattka now have way more features than >>>> the old thing ever had. >>> >>> As a user, I think it would be really cool if there was a requirement >>> that all infra and infra-adjacent stuff was free software. >>> >>> I feel like I've read that Debian already has something like this. While >>> doing some quick searches I didn't find a full-on requirement, but all >>> their infra bits I did find were powered by free software. The most >>> relevant ones being buildd [1] and debci [2]. Additionally, the debci >>> docs has inctructions on reproducing tests yourself [3] which is a nice >>> extra IMO. >> >> Gentoo has >> https://www.gentoo.org/get-started/philosophy/social-contract.html. > > I feel like something like a dev-run tinderbox is a bit out of the > scope of that.
I intentionally didn't comment on the scope for now, but I'm glad you did. > > Suppose I file a bug against a package, pointing out some issue in it. > How do you know I didn't use some proprietary static code analysis > tool to discover that error? Does it even really matter? The bug > speaks for itself. It is like worrying about whether somebody who > filed a bug was running Windows or another proprietary OS or browser > on their desktop. > It matters if someone can't then reproduce the bug which happens somewhat often here.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
