Debian and Ubuntu were made aware of what was going on in the github
tickets.
I do not want to name any names, but someone from a leader role read
some discussions and said it was a clear violation of their CoC and that
it made a real problem for packaging.
Hope that clears it.
On 04/01/21 00:37, J. Liles wrote:
Regarding Debian: I don't recall ever having dealt with a Debian
packager. I believe Non is already in the distros of every packager
who ever contacted me. Debian is not among them. So anyone who says
that I somehow personally pissed off the Debian packagers is either
lying or talking about some behind the scenes deal I wasn't party to.
I don't know the first thing about what it really takes to get
packaged in Debian, so if someone wants to offer some help and advice
there, that would be great. I know a lot of users would prefer to just
apt-get install than to have to build something from source.
Grammoboy did contact the Debian packagers, I believe and asked me
some questions to relay the answers to them, but I never dealt with
them directly. This was around the time of the fork when Grammoboy was
trying very hard to advocate for NSM support everywhere (which I
appreciate).
I don't really know what the problem is with Debian, but since there's
so much misinformation going around, I have to assume it has something
to do with that. The last thing Grammoboy relayed to me was that my
use of WAF was the problem, but all of Drobilla's stuff is in Debian
and it uses WAF so that seems like a pretext to me. Maybe someone
who's an expert in Debian policy knows.
On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 4:05 PM Filipe Coelho <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 03/01/21 23:23, rosea.grammostola wrote:
> One can think, encouraging that someone who forked the project,
sents
> a kind message to this list and I always want to be a proponent of
> restored relations, but still your message feels a bit misplaced
here
> Filipe. There is no denying.
I am sorry, that was not my intention.
I had no plans to reply unless to correct false information or
personal
attacks.
That was the case though.
(I typically dislike mailing lists.)
> The fact that NSM didn't hit Debian (still not in Debian afaik),
had
> nothing to do with the developer, it was because of NTK and waf. If
> you guys wanted, it was possible to maintain a version of NSM
without
> NTK (Fltk only). I was helping Nils with it, at that moment, but
> behind my and I guess our backs you guys where working on a fork. I
> just became aware of it, when there arrived a message on the LAA
> mailinglist, while having e-mail contact regularly the same week
with
> Nils.
Why would we contact you in specific?
You always been a protector of Jonathan in every level, even
defending
his verbal abuse, so we thought it would be useless to involve you.
And it is not that correct that the only issue for Debian/Ubuntu
is NTK.
Jonhathan's past behaviour violates Debian and Ubuntu CoC, so
there is a
whole lot of friction from there too.
> You guys didn't just forked, after telling that you would be
forking
> and discussing it. You did choose for a huge and hidden coup.
>
> Also the fact that you guys call it the community version, still
gives
> me a very bad taste. It's plain newspeak to present a well
thought out
> 'coup', behind the core community, as social.
It is a community version by the real definition of the word,
since now
there is a community behind it rather than a single person.
It was ugly, but as I said in the other thread-chain, it was a
last resort.
> That developer who didn't want to implement NSM was Hermann from
> Guitarix. I discussed NSM support for Guitarix for more then 7(!)
> years with him. His argumentation was that NSM should be in Debian
> first. Fair enough, but to name that as a reason for a fork...
That is the developer *you* know.
Was that all of them?
> With having Argodejo as alternative GUI and a nsmd version which
could
> be used in Debian, you guys had plenty space to hack around. But
you
> did choose to fork also the FLTK original GUI.
The FLTK "legacy" GUI is my "fault".
I tried Argodejo, but personally do not like it that much. I am
not its
target user, I feel.
So I plead to the group to keep the old GUI, that I would do the work
needed to make it run without NTK.
There were a few side-effects from going from NTK to FLTK, most of
which
I submitted a patch for.
It is actually a nice thing in my view, because now we can use NSM
without depending on NTK, making compilation and packaging easier.
Thus, hopefully getting more users to go into NSM.
> I can't conclude otherwise that your plan was to totally replace
> Non-Session-Manager with New-Session-Manager. Given the meaning of
> Non-Session-Manager for Linuxaudio and the contribution by it's
> developer, this still feels completely wrong. Especially the way
you
> did it. So your message feels misplaced, sorry.
>
> And indeed, this is huge downside of the LAU community lately.
These
> actions are cheered up by a small crowd who know each other well
and
> is backing up each other, even while they don't use NSM themselves.
> Where the LAU community was a community of people with a scientific
> background and/ or creative non-mainstream thinking, it's now a
group
> of witchhunters who call everyone with a different opinion a troll.
LAU and LAD are dying off, but not related to the topic at hand, I
think.
We in these communities still hang out in IRC rooms and mailing
lists.
This is arcane tech by new generations, who are used to stuff like
Slack
and Discord.
So the people that remain, I expect to be closer to one another,
because
we are now smaller than we used to be.
Even during 2020 LAC live-stream, IRC was an afterthought
> Hail the community!
>
> But sorry, as we use to say in this part of the world: weeds do not
> die... Go male! :)
>
> Future? I don't see how these two projects can come together
really.
> What the people of the fork could do, is to sent patches as much as
> possible to the original project maybe. And / or maybe get rid
of the
> FLTK fork and focus on Argodejo only. Anyway, that's not my
> expertise, nor did I create this situation, nor do I want to
waste my
> time on it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
