Re: Results of the porter roll call (Was: Roll call for porters of architectures in sid and testing)
Hi Niels, I don't know upto what point you are familiar with my history and its link to the powerpc port, but it pains me to see that the powerpc port is left with so few porters, and that it may mean the port being dropped. I also have not really followed the mailing lists since a long time, and don't know who is actually managing the powerpc port, but giving the (1) and 0.5 remark, i guess there is not a full porter. So given that, and provided debian may not see a problem again in me becoming active, i may be interested in becoming active again as powerpc maintainer. Not sure what category you can include me in though, and what the formalities would be should i become active (and welcome) in debian again. Also, i am not really sure of the amount of time i will be able to devote to debian, and i will have to take my powerpc hardware out of the storage area i put it in, but i guess it should be enough to do powerpc porting work, provided other folk help me out. That said, i am also interested in the powerpcspe port, as i am (slowly) working on a open-hardware Freescale P1010 based board. Anyway, please let me know if there is anything i can do. Friendly, Sven Luther On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 09:45:35AM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote: Hi, The final results are in: Summary table: Arch || DDs || NMs/DMs || Other || Total ---++-++-++---++-- armel || 3 || 0 || 1 ||4 armhf || 3 || 1 || 2 ||6 hurd-i386 || 5 || 0 || 3 ||8 ia64 || *0* || 0 || 3 ||3 kfreebsd-amd64 || 4 || 0 || 2 ||6 kfreebsd-i386 || 4 || 0 || 2 ||6 mips || 1 || 0 || 1 ||2 mipsel || 1 || 0 || 1 ||2 powerpc[1] || (1) || 0 || 2 || 2.5? s390x || *0* || 0 || 0 || *0* sparc[2] || 1 || 0 || 0 ||1 [1] The (1) and .5 is from a I am not primarily a porter [...]-remark, so I wasn't sure how to count it. [2] By the looks of it, if sparc was replaced by sparc64, we could be looking at 3 in the Other-column rather than 0. NMs/DMs include DMs and people currently in NM process. The Other column may include people who said they would like to become porters (but would need to be introduced to the job) and thus may imply some active recruiting from the current porters. This is at least true for hurd-i386. The current policy says that we require 5 developers (i.e. DDs) for release architectures[AP], so based on that only amd64, i386 and hurd-i386 would pass this requirement. It is quite possible we need to revise that requirement, but most of the architectures would (still) do well to attract a few more (DD) porters. I have attached a file with my notes of who are behind those numbers. If your name is missing or you believe I have miscounted something[CD] for an architecture listed in the table above, please reply to this email *promptly* (CC'ing me explicitly is fine) with your concerns or corrections. At this time, I have *not* updated the arch qualification table yet. I will do that in a couple of days. We will also follow up on this in the next bits from the release team. ~Niels [AP] http://release.debian.org/jessie/arch_policy.html [CD] I may (or may not) have been caffeine-deprived when I did the counting. You are free to make assumptions about whether that has affected my ability to do addic^Htion or parsing your email(s) properly. Summary table: Arch || DDs || NMs/DMs || Other || Total ---++-++-++---++-- armel || 3 || 0 || 1 ||4 armhf || 3 || 1 || 2 ||6 hurd-i386 || 5 || 0 || 3 ||8 ia64 || *0* || 0 || 3 ||3 kfreebsd-amd64 || 4 || 0 || 2 ||6 kfreebsd-i386 || 4 || 0 || 2 ||6 mips || 1 || 0 || 1 ||2 mipsel || 1 || 0 || 1 ||2 powerpc[1] || (1) || 0 || 2 || 2.5? s390x || *0* || 0 || 0 || *0* sparc || 1 || 0 || 0 ||1 [1] Roger Leigh: I am not primarily a porter [...]. armel: Wookey (DD), Gatis Visnevskis (!DD), Nobuhiro Iwamatsu (DD), Steve McInture (DD) armhf: Jeremiah Foster (!DD, but NM?), Wookey (DD), Justus Winter (!DD), Lennart Sorensen (!DD), Nobuhiro Iwamatsu (DD), Steve McInture (DD) hurd-i386: Samuel Thibault (DD), Barry deFreese (DD), Thomas Schwinge (!DD), Pino Toscano (DD), Svante Signell (!DD), Michael Banck (DD), Guillem Jover (DD), Zhang Cong (!DD) kfreebsd-amd64: Christoph Egger (DD), Axel Beckert (DD), Petr Salinger (!DD), Robert Millan (DD), Steven Chamberlain (!DD), Guillem Jover (DD) kfreebsd-i386: Christoph Egger (DD), Axel Beckert (DD), Petr Salinger (!DD
Please stop this hurting vendetta against me ...
Hello, ... This is the first time in the over-a-year that i have been banned from the debian mailing lists that i try to go around the ban to post an appeal to the whole debian community. And i am sorry to come again with this. I write this, because even despite what debian has done to me, i still follow the debian lists, i still counsel people to use debian, i still try to help as i can, and i still believe that the debian project, and the majority of DDs and associated are nice and friendly people believing in a noble cause. I write this, because even after a year and more after having been expulsed and reduced to silence like i was, my heart is still bleeding and my soul hurting each time i am again and again repeatedly hurt and humiliated, and i don't understand how it is possible that some people in debia still have the need to come after me like they do over a year after the facts. I don't understand how people which i once considered friends and respected could be so devoid of compasion and hearthless, to continue doing this, nor how all of you can accept to be part of it, by accepting this situation. I guess this is because deep into myself i believe that humans are good persons, and more particularly that the portion of humanity who chose to participate in debian, to give selflessly their time and work, are even better persons. There are two recent events which made me decide to write this mail, and circumvent the ban, which is something which i have not done in over a year. Two things, which together with others having happened over the time make my hearth bleed, and my soul hurt to the point of beeing unbearable, make me feel an oppression in my breast, and give me the sensation that my hearth is shaking, i don't know it is a strange sensation to describe, but i thought that after over a year, i would have been over this. Well, the two recent events are the following : - in a thread about some guy who chose to hide is name probably to circumvent a similar ban than i am under, and accuse the debian governance of all kind of evil acts, in maybe a clumsy way, Martin Shulze chose to use my name in a contempting way, and nobody thought it worth to critic him. - more recently, while i was inscribed to be part of the emdebian meeting in extremadura which will hold place next week, i received today a mail saying that i would not be able to come, and it seems the reason i am not allowed to go is because of the opinion of the DPL about me.
Please, stop this hurting vendetta, don't you think enough time has passed ?
mistake was to believe that DDs where reasonable people with whom one can speak, but never in all this time did they try even to speak to me, but instead used insults, patronizing tone, lies and commands. So, i ask you now, all of the DDs, and other associated people who read this, to please but a stop to this vendetta, you have won, i am hurt and bleeding, and i hardly contribute anymore and only skim over the lists, do you guys really need to continue this, or do you think now, after all this time, don't you think you can let this issue rest, and forget about past grudges ? I am again sorry for this, like said, i have been hurt like no other DD has ever been hurt before me, and each time another stab is taken against me it is as if the wound is fresh again, and the hurt comes all over again. Do you really think i deserved this ? Really ? Please, don't do this anymore, and leave me in peace, Sadly, Sven Luther
Re: Debian's Linux kernel continues to regress on freedom
On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 12:39:05AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: I'm not sure I can take the Debian kernel team seriously any more. http://wiki.debian.org/KernelFirmwareLicensing states, in part: Debian kernel team identifies the following three types of firmware, currently found in the Linux kernel: 1. Sourceless binary blobs with no license, no explicit permission to redistribute, or an explicit prohibition to redistribute. This category currently includes the dabusb, dgrs, emi62, keyspan, smctr, cops, emi26, and 3c359 drivers. Removal of these drivers will have minimal impact on the users, as they are believed to be unpopular and not likely to be required during the installation. It has been agreed within Debian kernel team, that the firmware in category 1 is not acceptable in Debian. It is the intention of the kernel team to prune the affected drivers from the upstream tarball. The most recent linux-source-2.6.22 contains the following files: drivers/media/video/dabfirmware.h drivers/net/drgs_firmware.c drivers/usb/misc/emi26_fw.h drivers/usb/misc/emi62_fw_m.h drivers/usb/misc/emi62_fw_s.h drivers/usb/serial/keyspan_mpr_fw.h drivers/usb/serial/keyspan_usa*_fw.h (11 files) drivers/net/tokenring/smctr_firmware.h drivers/net/appletalk/cops_ltdrv.h drivers/net/appletalk/cops_ffdrv.h drivers/net/tokenring/3c359_microcode.h In other words, *all* of the above drivers. It's even worse than that. Look at the information about drgs: Hi, ... Given the way i was attacked when this issue came back last year, and the sabotaging of my effort to go in a right direction, and prepare a GR that could be used to build on and approach the hardware manufacturers, how do you expect anything to have changed ? Especially since i was expulsed from debian since then, and in general censored from all lists, and expulsed and shuned by the few remaining active kernel team members. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian's Linux kernel continues to regress on freedom
On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 02:39:09PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote: On 11140 March 1977, Nathanael Nerode wrote: I'm not sure I can take the Debian kernel team seriously any more. What team? We dont seem to have a team. The most recent linux-source-2.6.22 contains the following files: [...] In other words, *all* of the above drivers. It's even worse than that. Look at the information about drgs: Non-free material is being included in main for the benefit of *precisely zero* users. There's no two ways about this: this is a Social Contract violation. Oh well, the kernel team just lost its trust, which means new uploads of kernel-team packages dont get their old way of fasttracking in NEW, as I now need to check all of their uploads for such cases. Thank you, kernel-team, for that useless amount of extra work. :( Well, what do you expect after the way my implication in the non-free GR last year was duly sabotaged by both Steve Langasek and Manoj ? The position of the kernel team had always more or less been after the disaster of that GR, which the RMs said before the result of the vote they would not respect, to ship the kernel as is upstream, and don't bother anymore to be implicated in the non-free firmware stuff, since we got nil support from the rest of debian about it, outright sabotage, and on top of that, i was blamed for my active participation in that disaster, having to juggle between people like nerode, and people like maks who threatened to leave the kernel team and debian if those firmwares where removed. So, this comes as no surprise to me, and one more reason why you should not have expulsed me, but rather should have given me more support in the work i tried to do for debian. Your lose, Sadly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian's Linux kernel continues to regress on freedom
On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 03:42:28PM +0200, Ondrej Certik wrote: I guess the Social Contract really is a joke. I don't know why new applicants are supposed to agree to it. Old members apparently violate it at will for years with no consequences. It doesn't make me respect Debian very much. I am not a DD (yet), but all my packages were very strictly checked for all non-free stuff that I forgot to delete and the Social Contract is not a joke at all. This is why I am using Debian. Developers you have, are better than developers you don't have. The ones you have, make Debian what it is. If reality doesn't match the theory, change the theory, not the reality. I disagree - this is one of the reasons I am using Debian, because it strictly distinguishes between main and non-free. If there are some non-free parts in the kernel, it can go to non-free immediatelly, so that users can use it now, but things in main should be DFSG free and that's how it should be. As I see it, the non-free section is here precisely for those cases, that intuition says the packages should be in Debian, nevertheless, they are not DFSG free. Then, where was your support last year, when the non-free firmware GR disaster happened, and the work i and the kernel team was doing to progress on this issue was duly sabotaged by both MAnoj and Steve Langasek ? IF you close your eyes while people get attacked beside you for trying to do what you are calling for, then you have nothing to complain when things not happen like you want. Especially when those people who involve themselves get the kind of suffering and abuse i got because of my implication in the non-free firmware discussion. Note, i have since been expulsed, banned, humiliated, punished, kicked out of the kernel team, and in general am considered as a sub-human of the most evil kind, while everyone congratulated themselves to get ride of me. This mail will thus most probably not reach the mailing lists, consider bouncing it if you consider it appropriate. Sadly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian's Linux kernel continues to regress on freedom
On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 10:30:52AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:42:56 +0300, Riku Voipio [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 12:39:05AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Non-free material is being included in main for the benefit of *precisely zero* users. There's no two ways about this: this is a Social Contract violation. Kernel has 736[1] open bugs, including ones that corrupt data and make other packages fail to build. All but one affect actual users. Does the Social Contract really mandate that we should fix bugs affecting 0 users before dealing with bugs that actually degrade the user experience? I think you are framing the question in a biased manner. The inclusion of non-free software often does not directly impair operations or degrade utility for most users -- they often are not concerned about exercising the freedoms that are being curtailed. But we have common cause in promoting free software, we acknowledge that non-free software is harmful, and we relegate it to a a repository that is not part of Debian, but it exists for users who want the functionality and do not care about the freedom aspect. So, in my opinion, getting rid of the non-fee material, and actually conforming to our social contract is indeed worth more than fixing these other bugs -- how many of those are release critical, as this bob-free material issue is? There is also the factor of the social contract being our given word, and people trusting us -- if we can not be expected to even try to keep our word on the social contract, what _can_ we be trusted with? IF you really think so, then why did you sabotage my efforts to reach a GR which could be used as a basis to address this issue with the hardware manufacturers last year ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Explications needed...
On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 04:45:32PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: So, why : * does aurelien initiative causes troubles ? If the packages he uploads have already been built (but not uploaded) by the autobuilders, the packages in the archive will not correspond to the public build logs, which reduces the utility of buildd.debian.org as a debugging tool. It will also leave the buildd maintainer with errors when he does upload the autobuilt packages and ftp-master rejects them as duplicates. Notice that the source-only uploads were disabled, or the idea of discarding the sources and do clean builds on all arches was rejected, because it was deemed unacceptable that our users wait even a single day for uploads. And this is a direct quote from elmo who i asked about this during debconf Helsinki. Don't you find it a bit hypocrit to have x86 uploads go directly to the archive, and not allowing even a single day delay which would allow to stop unclean DD-build-boxes breakage and a clean state, and on the other day let the other arches depend on the good will of the buildd maintainer, who is usually a single person, who doesn't communicate much, and who sometimes is not able to sign and thus upload the packages for a couple of days (sometimes more even, but i guess this is the exception). This is the single-point-of-failure all over again, and we should really move away from such setups and into a more transparent team-based with inter-team communication and multiple backups setup. This is i believe the major challenge that debian has been facing into all his structural positions, and altough some areas made the move cleanly, altough not without growing pains, the buildd infrastructure is maybe not one of them. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted mkvmlinuz 28 (source powerpc)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 17:20:48 +0100 Source: mkvmlinuz Binary: mkvmlinuz Architecture: source powerpc Version: 28 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Debian Kernel Team debian-kernel@lists.debian.org Changed-By: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: mkvmlinuz - create a kernel to boot a PowerPC machine from Open Firmware Closes: 401384 Changes: mkvmlinuz (28) unstable; urgency=low . * Added support for 2.6.19 kernels. * Added portuguese translation. (Closes: #401384) Files: f8ffb213ba282ec480c50a8a02c3f41c 572 devel optional mkvmlinuz_28.dsc dad89493f28a241fcaa2c76e11c91b44 56200 devel optional mkvmlinuz_28.tar.gz 94dfbd35e2c07b042f788d1952442dc8 37714 devel optional mkvmlinuz_28_powerpc.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFgygC2WTeT3CRQaQRAkCiAKCkqdS0xm3iZI0A94CJtbciZbffbgCghiRU AhJBXE+cZEp9tjKsrBvhNsM= =MsyF -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: mkvmlinuz_28.dsc to pool/main/m/mkvmlinuz/mkvmlinuz_28.dsc mkvmlinuz_28.tar.gz to pool/main/m/mkvmlinuz/mkvmlinuz_28.tar.gz mkvmlinuz_28_powerpc.deb to pool/main/m/mkvmlinuz/mkvmlinuz_28_powerpc.deb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted mkvmlinuz 29 (source powerpc)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 02:18:19 +0100 Source: mkvmlinuz Binary: mkvmlinuz Architecture: source powerpc Version: 29 Distribution: unstable Urgency: high Maintainer: Debian Kernel Team debian-kernel@lists.debian.org Changed-By: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: mkvmlinuz - create a kernel to boot a PowerPC machine from Open Firmware Changes: mkvmlinuz (29) unstable; urgency=high . * Added Efika support. Files: 580c857585261e3472d78b4c026e1677 572 devel optional mkvmlinuz_29.dsc 7152dd015cc769d3b5a6781ead3f64e4 56232 devel optional mkvmlinuz_29.tar.gz d0c6168cd605771dd746bc1e7134f2b2 37734 devel optional mkvmlinuz_29_powerpc.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFg0q72WTeT3CRQaQRAkaTAJ9WxwhY1YhaOXlZ5oZNelacTlBhuACeNlLQ 1O7saOq0kyVtEazci7diXQc= =CXUn -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: mkvmlinuz_29.dsc to pool/main/m/mkvmlinuz/mkvmlinuz_29.dsc mkvmlinuz_29.tar.gz to pool/main/m/mkvmlinuz/mkvmlinuz_29.tar.gz mkvmlinuz_29_powerpc.deb to pool/main/m/mkvmlinuz/mkvmlinuz_29_powerpc.deb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted mol 0.9.71.dfsg-4 (source powerpc)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 20:42:29 +0100 Source: mol Binary: mol mol-source mol-modules-source Architecture: source powerpc Version: 0.9.71.dfsg-4 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: MOL Packaging Team [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: mol- The Mac-on-Linux emulator mol-modules-source - transitional dummy package mol-source - The Mac-on-Linux emulator - source for kernel modules Closes: 400376 Changes: mol (0.9.71.dfsg-4) unstable; urgency=low . [ Sven Luther ] * Added m4 as dependency to mol-source in order for linux-module-extra. (Closes: #400376) Files: c22b15205bab1d3a7c8c5459a24410dd 980 otherosfs optional mol_0.9.71.dfsg-4.dsc 98ec3a2455979832d4824b8c1d3fa92e 26253 otherosfs optional mol_0.9.71.dfsg-4.diff.gz 316ad07ea4a684fb9e6694bfddbdf44f 981772 otherosfs optional mol_0.9.71.dfsg-4_powerpc.deb 0880584de3e9fd94ff305cccd0e00ea2 109556 otherosfs optional mol-source_0.9.71.dfsg-4_powerpc.deb 72b4373f10a331a2f28ac8044130cde0 11554 otherosfs optional mol-modules-source_0.9.71.dfsg-4_powerpc.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFaJ6b2WTeT3CRQaQRAp1XAJ9J89Q2HROl69xzWVMI9WIGqAd78wCfTsd5 BMlZMYIR541OCJrm5Y2BV6U= =RiSi -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: mol-modules-source_0.9.71.dfsg-4_powerpc.deb to pool/main/m/mol/mol-modules-source_0.9.71.dfsg-4_powerpc.deb mol-source_0.9.71.dfsg-4_powerpc.deb to pool/main/m/mol/mol-source_0.9.71.dfsg-4_powerpc.deb mol_0.9.71.dfsg-4.diff.gz to pool/main/m/mol/mol_0.9.71.dfsg-4.diff.gz mol_0.9.71.dfsg-4.dsc to pool/main/m/mol/mol_0.9.71.dfsg-4.dsc mol_0.9.71.dfsg-4_powerpc.deb to pool/main/m/mol/mol_0.9.71.dfsg-4_powerpc.deb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted mkvmlinuz 27 (source powerpc)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 22:43:28 +0100 Source: mkvmlinuz Binary: mkvmlinuz Architecture: source powerpc Version: 27 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Debian Kernel Team debian-kernel@lists.debian.org Changed-By: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: mkvmlinuz - create a kernel to boot a PowerPC machine from Open Firmware Closes: 399768 Changes: mkvmlinuz (27) unstable; urgency=low . * Corrected typo. (Closes: 399768) Files: 6fbc82382759926557a2b6578ae5a6e9 572 devel optional mkvmlinuz_27.dsc 0c8fc543aea28b83b4ce4a2d396ae0a8 56008 devel optional mkvmlinuz_27.tar.gz 45f3718444a0da359d2d9ba1374633a6 37502 devel optional mkvmlinuz_27_powerpc.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFY3RF2WTeT3CRQaQRAtacAJ9Qk+2juN3wI48StHJ7er4KX0mNTgCeNd0Z 3E/VRbt5Gb3tHEWEEn793N4= =jSo5 -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: mkvmlinuz_27.dsc to pool/main/m/mkvmlinuz/mkvmlinuz_27.dsc mkvmlinuz_27.tar.gz to pool/main/m/mkvmlinuz/mkvmlinuz_27.tar.gz mkvmlinuz_27_powerpc.deb to pool/main/m/mkvmlinuz/mkvmlinuz_27_powerpc.deb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted rootskel 1.43 (source powerpc)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 10:59:02 +0100 Source: rootskel Binary: rootskel-bootfloppy rootskel Architecture: source powerpc Version: 1.43 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Debian Install System Team debian-boot@lists.debian.org Changed-By: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: rootskel - Skeleton root filesystem used by debian-installer (udeb) rootskel-bootfloppy - Skeleton root filesystem used by debian-installer boot floppy (udeb) Changes: rootskel (1.43) unstable; urgency=low . [ Sven Luther ] * Added S05fancontrol-linux-powerpc, in order to actually load the fancontrol modules, in order to not have G5 apple box go into aircraft noise level a few minutes after the start of the installation. Files: 76ea8f0a7310b987d6d195a70f01930a 942 debian-installer standard rootskel_1.43.dsc c4310df7333b08d725d68cd67aa6580d 37247 debian-installer standard rootskel_1.43.tar.gz 012d921ef4e866377a1b03f57335ac8e 6280 debian-installer standard rootskel_1.43_powerpc.udeb 296ed52c6de6458134ae93faba5e6a5d 101260 debian-installer extra rootskel-bootfloppy_1.43_powerpc.udeb Package-Type: udeb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFYC222WTeT3CRQaQRAuEkAKCh8+TRf8kk6J4UVHsmT2yx3MQHpQCfeXs1 GINbx0sYfos6YRCHx8MLuOI= =q8cC -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: rootskel-bootfloppy_1.43_powerpc.udeb to pool/main/r/rootskel/rootskel-bootfloppy_1.43_powerpc.udeb rootskel_1.43.dsc to pool/main/r/rootskel/rootskel_1.43.dsc rootskel_1.43.tar.gz to pool/main/r/rootskel/rootskel_1.43.tar.gz rootskel_1.43_powerpc.udeb to pool/main/r/rootskel/rootskel_1.43_powerpc.udeb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted mkvmlinuz 26 (source powerpc)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 21:41:01 +0100 Source: mkvmlinuz Binary: mkvmlinuz Architecture: source powerpc Version: 26 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Debian Kernel Team debian-kernel@lists.debian.org Changed-By: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: mkvmlinuz - create a kernel to boot a PowerPC machine from Open Firmware Changes: mkvmlinuz (26) unstable; urgency=low . * Fixed -prep support. Files: 059f680a19843dfe0f8da4d83becd350 572 devel optional mkvmlinuz_26.dsc 25ded4fcad2749b42c2a2a8df5edee9f 55964 devel optional mkvmlinuz_26.tar.gz f155b18b1b15be0e07ba15825d73e048 37464 devel optional mkvmlinuz_26_powerpc.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFX3CQ2WTeT3CRQaQRAkTjAJ4q5SveYtPmdwTFQFY7F968t/kA8QCfX1bh JIlgT9uhnYBM+p9+Ab6IwuI= =i5CB -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: mkvmlinuz_26.dsc to pool/main/m/mkvmlinuz/mkvmlinuz_26.dsc mkvmlinuz_26.tar.gz to pool/main/m/mkvmlinuz/mkvmlinuz_26.tar.gz mkvmlinuz_26_powerpc.deb to pool/main/m/mkvmlinuz/mkvmlinuz_26_powerpc.deb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted gnome-randr-applet 0.2-2 (source powerpc)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 10:07:04 +0100 Source: gnome-randr-applet Binary: gnome-randr-applet Architecture: source powerpc Version: 0.2-2 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: gnome-randr-applet - Simple gnome-panel front end to the xrandr extension Changes: gnome-randr-applet (0.2-2) unstable; urgency=low . * Acknowledge both 0.1-1.1 and 0.2-1.2 NMUs. * Particular thanks to Steaphan Greene for having prepared this upload. Files: 0cfb07a4a15c00ce5b4d1fd0ef4d3f02 697 gnome optional gnome-randr-applet_0.2-2.dsc 27f17345e80996de7fbd6fb7d26229e9 19424 gnome optional gnome-randr-applet_0.2-2.diff.gz 81025aef57ab6020eb092522527bb41f 10786 gnome optional gnome-randr-applet_0.2-2_powerpc.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFVtoT2WTeT3CRQaQRAuf1AJ42Cy3c1gupKlldzFRzHhz9G2R1SwCbBx9Z D3GtDPAikdyj7oi5nSsKDc8= =Hui8 -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: gnome-randr-applet_0.2-2.diff.gz to pool/main/g/gnome-randr-applet/gnome-randr-applet_0.2-2.diff.gz gnome-randr-applet_0.2-2.dsc to pool/main/g/gnome-randr-applet/gnome-randr-applet_0.2-2.dsc gnome-randr-applet_0.2-2_powerpc.deb to pool/main/g/gnome-randr-applet/gnome-randr-applet_0.2-2_powerpc.deb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted parted 1.8.0~rc3-1 (source all powerpc)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 19:27:46 +0100 Source: parted Binary: libparted1.8-i18n libparted1.8-udeb libparted1.8-0 parted-udeb parted-doc parted libparted1.8-dbg libparted1.8-dev Architecture: source powerpc all Version: 1.8.0~rc3-1 Distribution: experimental Urgency: low Maintainer: Parted Maintainer Team [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: libparted1.8-0 - The GNU Parted disk partitioning shared library libparted1.8-dbg - The GNU Parted disk partitioning library debug development files libparted1.8-dev - The GNU Parted disk partitioning library development files libparted1.8-i18n - The GNU Parted disk partitioning library i18n support libparted1.8-udeb - The GNU Parted disk partitioning shared library (udeb) parted - The GNU Parted disk partition resizing program parted-doc - The GNU Parted disk partition resizing program documentation parted-udeb - The GNU Parted disk partition resizing program (udeb) Changes: parted (1.8.0~rc3-1) experimental; urgency=low . * New upstream release. . [ Otavio Salvador ] * doc-package.dpatch: fixed file paths; * devfs.dpatch: minor change to make it apply again since linux.c had its #includes massively changed; * lvm2.dpatch: removed since upstream version now has device-manager support natively; * s390.dpatch: removed since upstream version now has device-manager support natively; * parted.files: we're not installing pt_BR manpage anymore since it needs to be updated to new translation systems that is being use in Parted now; . [ Xavier Oswald ] * add po4a as build-dependancy. * Adding myself as comaintainer of the package. * policy 3.7.2 Files: fb4fa40947db9ecfdc81ba5c66a1b128 1096 admin optional parted_1.8.0~rc3-1.dsc 2bf4fa14ef039141ed2f62d128f995ad 1700155 admin optional parted_1.8.0~rc3.orig.tar.gz d809dc9367b30a9252ef272d64f91700 37597 admin optional parted_1.8.0~rc3-1.diff.gz 0c6f2d8440b8ae4daf316460a2d47ad5 56786 admin optional parted_1.8.0~rc3-1_powerpc.deb a74361f7e8cf141d96e3f14dc9380f93 27530 debian-installer extra parted-udeb_1.8.0~rc3-1_powerpc.udeb 4a10dca077ce145867db9bcfc1fa9349 213508 libs optional libparted1.8-0_1.8.0~rc3-1_powerpc.deb 964882a3463c40e00585ab378d126bb1 169754 debian-installer extra libparted1.8-udeb_1.8.0~rc3-1_powerpc.udeb 4fdf793fda0d455e4ed8762038ae3036 284934 libdevel optional libparted1.8-dev_1.8.0~rc3-1_powerpc.deb 0c9a85d241cc1a3021616f8e75165f3f 882422 libdevel extra libparted1.8-dbg_1.8.0~rc3-1_powerpc.deb 68386ed93aaf3d9bd8759dd74645902f 250626 libs optional libparted1.8-i18n_1.8.0~rc3-1_all.deb eeb91f45cadd9b577d8bf388fba552a9 82480 doc optional parted-doc_1.8.0~rc3-1_all.deb Package-Type: udeb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFUh3P2WTeT3CRQaQRAtVlAKCSTJ9yt1qFRgT7V/5vNzv1N0p4twCfWe1F l82bg6HNJ8CJSSpKsjXj78s= =nHt5 -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: libparted1.8-0_1.8.0~rc3-1_powerpc.deb to pool/main/p/parted/libparted1.8-0_1.8.0~rc3-1_powerpc.deb libparted1.8-dbg_1.8.0~rc3-1_powerpc.deb to pool/main/p/parted/libparted1.8-dbg_1.8.0~rc3-1_powerpc.deb libparted1.8-dev_1.8.0~rc3-1_powerpc.deb to pool/main/p/parted/libparted1.8-dev_1.8.0~rc3-1_powerpc.deb libparted1.8-i18n_1.8.0~rc3-1_all.deb to pool/main/p/parted/libparted1.8-i18n_1.8.0~rc3-1_all.deb libparted1.8-udeb_1.8.0~rc3-1_powerpc.udeb to pool/main/p/parted/libparted1.8-udeb_1.8.0~rc3-1_powerpc.udeb parted-doc_1.8.0~rc3-1_all.deb to pool/main/p/parted/parted-doc_1.8.0~rc3-1_all.deb parted-udeb_1.8.0~rc3-1_powerpc.udeb to pool/main/p/parted/parted-udeb_1.8.0~rc3-1_powerpc.udeb parted_1.8.0~rc3-1.diff.gz to pool/main/p/parted/parted_1.8.0~rc3-1.diff.gz parted_1.8.0~rc3-1.dsc to pool/main/p/parted/parted_1.8.0~rc3-1.dsc parted_1.8.0~rc3-1_powerpc.deb to pool/main/p/parted/parted_1.8.0~rc3-1_powerpc.deb parted_1.8.0~rc3.orig.tar.gz to pool/main/p/parted/parted_1.8.0~rc3.orig.tar.gz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted mkvmlinuz 25 (source powerpc)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 22:13:12 +0100 Source: mkvmlinuz Binary: mkvmlinuz Architecture: source powerpc Version: 25 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Debian Kernel Team debian-kernel@lists.debian.org Changed-By: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: mkvmlinuz - create a kernel to boot a PowerPC machine from Open Firmware Closes: 298972 331020 Changes: mkvmlinuz (25) unstable; urgency=low . [ Christian Perrier ] * Switch to po-debconf for debconf templates. Closes: 298972 * Debconf translations: - Add Swedish (updated during the l10n update campaign) Closes: #331020 - Add Vietnamese. Sent during the l10n update campaign - Add Czech. Sent during the l10n update campaign - Add Romanian. Sent during the l10n update campaign - Add French. Sent during the l10n update campaign - Add German. Sent during the l10n update campaign - Add Russian. Sent during the l10n update campaign - Add Brazilian Portuguese. Sent during the l10n update campaign Files: ca44f23a1460c30e297fb0c7e590c6f1 572 devel optional mkvmlinuz_25.dsc 518190549423ca2030e70106e155c440 55831 devel optional mkvmlinuz_25.tar.gz 8083f0b366b1acf87cc9de751c2e7f30 37456 devel optional mkvmlinuz_25_powerpc.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFU5un2WTeT3CRQaQRAsAkAKCem5RERIukairlqncXaiHJ/S5pHgCgkAcT HVGRbqeGLbWN16R6f1bamBg= =iBKP -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: mkvmlinuz_25.dsc to pool/main/m/mkvmlinuz/mkvmlinuz_25.dsc mkvmlinuz_25.tar.gz to pool/main/m/mkvmlinuz/mkvmlinuz_25.tar.gz mkvmlinuz_25_powerpc.deb to pool/main/m/mkvmlinuz/mkvmlinuz_25_powerpc.deb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted parted 1.7.1-3 (source all powerpc)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 17:45:28 +0100 Source: parted Binary: libparted1.7-1 libparted1.7-dbg libparted1.7-dev libparted1.7-i18n parted-udeb parted-doc parted libparted1.7-udeb Architecture: source powerpc all Version: 1.7.1-3 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Parted Maintainer Team [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: libparted1.7-1 - The GNU Parted disk partitioning shared library libparted1.7-dbg - The GNU Parted disk partitioning library debug development files libparted1.7-dev - The GNU Parted disk partitioning library development files libparted1.7-i18n - The GNU Parted disk partitioning library i18n support libparted1.7-udeb - The GNU Parted disk partitioning shared library (udeb) parted - The GNU Parted disk partition resizing program parted-doc - The GNU Parted disk partition resizing program documentation parted-udeb - The GNU Parted disk partition resizing program (udeb) Closes: 392767 Changes: parted (1.7.1-3) unstable; urgency=low . * parted-print-name.dpatch : Fix bug in parted print, when there are no extended partitions, but partition names. * disabled parted part of kfreebsd-gnu.dpatch, since the patch caused parted to have trouble in a d-i environment to print the partition table, thus causing tools relying on parted -s print to find information about the partition table to break, like the one checking for RAID partitions in d-i. (Closes: #392767) Files: 31e30a4dbc587ddec61c3e9c2a8cc306 978 admin optional parted_1.7.1-3.dsc 290bee64fca7e55c9efbe2b13e8e006d 1668714 admin optional parted_1.7.1-3.tar.gz 1587804a679f635f6bd66287e4167c7a 59678 admin optional parted_1.7.1-3_powerpc.deb 9ba8d9e4dadd03eafae56d85dff4df15 27384 debian-installer extra parted-udeb_1.7.1-3_powerpc.udeb 7b5d84e24391e58fa0b9c58e1f8b7683 204774 libs optional libparted1.7-1_1.7.1-3_powerpc.deb 8fc7c686e19b02ea7980a841682c8f78 161980 debian-installer extra libparted1.7-udeb_1.7.1-3_powerpc.udeb f0224548ae5c53aeab815e9300671a8d 267682 libdevel optional libparted1.7-dev_1.7.1-3_powerpc.deb 7f612f3583ea2373170738eff403f9bb 844436 libdevel extra libparted1.7-dbg_1.7.1-3_powerpc.deb bbdc7b7c16540a248960abebb0e78f5a 236316 libs optional libparted1.7-i18n_1.7.1-3_all.deb 7943b4580586625335b687e543072dd2 81248 doc optional parted-doc_1.7.1-3_all.deb Package-Type: udeb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFUgsa2WTeT3CRQaQRAmpoAJ9zpBlqeC5pd7nTdIoDN00IiGdO/gCePVJI N9tG2aSj1uIXgbJ2mV3fZjE= =KXY9 -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: libparted1.7-1_1.7.1-3_powerpc.deb to pool/main/p/parted/libparted1.7-1_1.7.1-3_powerpc.deb libparted1.7-dbg_1.7.1-3_powerpc.deb to pool/main/p/parted/libparted1.7-dbg_1.7.1-3_powerpc.deb libparted1.7-dev_1.7.1-3_powerpc.deb to pool/main/p/parted/libparted1.7-dev_1.7.1-3_powerpc.deb libparted1.7-i18n_1.7.1-3_all.deb to pool/main/p/parted/libparted1.7-i18n_1.7.1-3_all.deb libparted1.7-udeb_1.7.1-3_powerpc.udeb to pool/main/p/parted/libparted1.7-udeb_1.7.1-3_powerpc.udeb parted-doc_1.7.1-3_all.deb to pool/main/p/parted/parted-doc_1.7.1-3_all.deb parted-udeb_1.7.1-3_powerpc.udeb to pool/main/p/parted/parted-udeb_1.7.1-3_powerpc.udeb parted_1.7.1-3.dsc to pool/main/p/parted/parted_1.7.1-3.dsc parted_1.7.1-3.tar.gz to pool/main/p/parted/parted_1.7.1-3.tar.gz parted_1.7.1-3_powerpc.deb to pool/main/p/parted/parted_1.7.1-3_powerpc.deb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#395262: Arch: all package FTBFS due to test needing network access - RC?
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 11:53:32PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote: Robert Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I can also note why bazaar wont build as root: its test suite includes a test for the ability to handle read only directories correctly. As root, anything is writable, so this test fails. [Goswin von Brederlow] That test should add a test for root and skip it. If that is the only reason not to build as root then that should be no excuse (post etch). Your unspoken premise is that there is a _reason_ to support building packages as root. Why? I think it is better just to tell people not to do that. Do some arch not have trouble with fakeroot, and need sudo to work ? This means you need to be able to build packages as real root, no ? Or was this fixed lately ? I think mips/mipsel, and some other arch where concerned. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted nobootloader 1.14 (source all)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 09:36:13 +0100 Source: nobootloader Binary: nobootloader Architecture: source all Version: 1.14 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Debian Install System Team debian-boot@lists.debian.org Changed-By: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: nobootloader - Don't install any bootloader. (udeb) Changes: nobootloader (1.14) unstable; urgency=low . [ Sven Luther ] * Genesi firmware 1.3 will be released without the chrp compliant partition numbering finally, so bumped the check to 1.3.99 and up. Files: da5135279353633f17f34699191c179b 708 debian-installer standard nobootloader_1.14.dsc 96724b40c33ea5190b4df9476b74466f 56596 debian-installer standard nobootloader_1.14.tar.gz bae235d67105edb2d16ce9a2552397d9 44488 debian-installer standard nobootloader_1.14_all.udeb Package-Type: udeb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFRGkb2WTeT3CRQaQRApFhAJ9AGfVgaWMJQN41sjN4NlznuyXz6ACfeoTw qYKYYFakmQTMShrkK+uE8tQ= =vUB/ -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: nobootloader_1.14.dsc to pool/main/n/nobootloader/nobootloader_1.14.dsc nobootloader_1.14.tar.gz to pool/main/n/nobootloader/nobootloader_1.14.tar.gz nobootloader_1.14_all.udeb to pool/main/n/nobootloader/nobootloader_1.14_all.udeb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal to delay the decition of the DPL of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 06:10:46PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote: Hi, As I count, this resolution to delay the decition of the DPL of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation has received 2K sponsors, which means that § 4.2.2.2 of the constitution to be called into action. , | 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election | 4.1. Powers | 3. Override any decision by the Project Leader or a Delegate. | 4.2. Procedure | 2. Delaying a decision by the Project Leader or their Delegate: | 1. If the Project Leader or their Delegate, or the Technical | Committee, has made a decision, then Developers can override | them by passing a resolution to do so; see s4.1(3). | 2. If such a resolution is sponsored by at least 2K Developers, | or if it is proposed by the Technical Committee, the | resolution puts the decision immediately on hold (provided | that resolution itself says so). | 4. If the decision is put on hold, an immediate vote is held to | determine whether the decision will stand until the full vote | on the decision is made or whether the implementation of the | original decision will be delayed until then. There is no | quorum for this immediate procedural vote. ` So, an immediate procedural vote has to be held to determine whether the decision will stand until the full vote, on the decision is made or whether the implementation of the original decision (i.e. withdrawl of delegation from the policy delegates) will be delayed until then. I am proposing the following draft ballot for this immediate vote, while I go about setting up the voting infrastructure. The vote page containing the details of this general resolution is not yet up, but as soon as it is it would be found at: http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_008 Manoj, ... You are overpassing your rights as secretary, it is not for you as secretary to call for a vote, or take any such actions, but it is only the proposer and the seconders who can do such. This action of yours right now, casts more light to your abysmal behaviour on the non-free firmware vote, where you first let the issue wait until you where able to propose a proposal of your liking, and then hurried in to get the vote down, thus rejecting other proposals which where better and more in line of what debian needed, and which you didn't want. In light of this and your actions here, i strongly propose that on issues you have a strong interest or opinion, that someone else than you is in charge of doing the day-to-day work of the secretary, maybe the DPL or TC would be adequate on this here, or maybe some kind of assistant secretary either permanent or delegated for the occasion. Anthony, can you comment on this ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Lettre ouverte a Josselin
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 11:11:39AM +0200, Alexis Sukrieh wrote: Sven Luther wrote: Salut Josselin, Dit, tu peut m'expliquer ton comportement sur irc. Tu me kick pour te repondre, alors que tu n'arrete pas de mentioner mon nom et donc de parler de moi. Ça commence à devenir super pénible cette tendance à transformer les espaces de discussion de Debian en cours de récréation géante. Moi aussi je trouve cela extremement pénible. Amicalement, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Lettre ouverte a Josselin
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 11:33:08AM +0200, Mohammed Adnène Trojette wrote: On Mon, Oct 16, 2006, Sven Luther wrote: Moi aussi je trouve cela extremement pénible. Serais-tu donc masochiste alors ? Et Josselin et co sadique alors ? Amicalement, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lettre ouverte a Josselin
Salut Josselin, Dit, tu peut m'expliquer ton comportement sur irc. Tu me kick pour te repondre, alors que tu n'arrete pas de mentioner mon nom et donc de parler de moi. Si tu veut m'ignorer, je te prie d'etre honete avec toi meme, et de m'ignorer completement, y compris en arretant de faire des remarques, souvent desobligeantes, a mon sujet. Amicalement, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Lettre ouverte a Josselin
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 11:48:07PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 11:40:33PM +0200, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Salut Josselin, Dit, tu peut m'expliquer ton comportement sur irc. Tu me kick pour te repondre, alors que tu n'arrete pas de mentioner mon nom et donc de parler de moi. Si tu veut m'ignorer, je te prie d'etre honete avec toi meme, et de m'ignorer completement, y compris en arretant de faire des remarques, souvent desobligeantes, a mon sujet. Et il fallait vraiment envoyer ça sur d-d-f... Et tu voulais que je fasse comment sinon ? Serieusement, s'il m'ignore, tant mieux pour lui, mais qu'il arrete de me citer pour rien dire de constructif alors. Amicalement, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Lettre ouverte a Josselin
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 11:56:44PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: Serieusement, s'il m'ignore, tant mieux pour lui, mais qu'il arrete de me citer pour rien dire de constructif alors. Depuis quand c'est interdit de citer les gens ? Non, c'est pas interdit. Mais alors, faut pas s'etonner qu'ils repondent, surtout si tu dis des choses desobligeantes (pour rester poli) a leur sujet. Amicalement, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Lettre ouverte a Josselin
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 11:57:23PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le dimanche 15 octobre 2006 à 23:40 +0200, Sven Luther a écrit : Salut Josselin, Dit, tu peut m'expliquer ton comportement sur irc. Tu me kick pour te repondre, alors que tu n'arrete pas de mentioner mon nom et donc de parler de moi. Si tu veut m'ignorer, je te prie d'etre honete avec toi meme, et de m'ignorer completement, y compris en arretant de faire des remarques, souvent desobligeantes, a mon sujet. Un peu de faits ne feront pas de mal. J'ai parlé deux fois de toi aujourd'hui : oct 15 21:34:44 Np239 bouz, en prenant jb et sven comme exemples, ça détruit complètement le raisonnement (commentaire à propos d'un mail qui parlait de toi sur debian-private) oct 15 23:34:12 bouz le blog d'erich, c'est de la fumisterie, je vois pas comment il peut appliquer le talk sur les Poisonous people à ces GRs oct 15 23:34:56 zorglub ca m'a l'air beaucoup trop tourné développement oct 15 23:34:59 Np239 au mieux il peut l'appliquer à sven Tu peut aussi citer la reponse que je t'ai faite ? La suite, c'est bien entendu Sven/Caliméro qui est en /ignore mais veut quand même qu'on l'entende. Et pour ce qui est de la réaction à avoir face à quelqu'un qui change de nick pour contourner les /ignore, sachant que tu as déjà reçu un avertissement hier pour la *même* raison, je connais peu d'ops qui n'en feraient pas autant. J'ai recu un avertissement hier pour la meme raison ? A bon. J'ai juste vu que tu m'a kicker, et ensuite j'ai perdu la fenetre. Tu peut aussi citer les commentaires beaucoup plus desobligeant a mon sujet de ces derniers jours ? Amicalement, Ton courriel n'a rien d'amical. Ton attitude envers moi ces derniers jours/semaines n'a rien d'amical. Tu peut ne pas apprecier ce que je dit plus haut, mais si tu dit que cela n'a rien d'amical, peut tu me dire en quoi les quelques lignes plus haut justifie cette qualification ? Amicalement, malgres tout, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CdBC pour la liste debian-devel-french?
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 10:33:29AM +0200, Loïc Minier wrote: Salut, Que pensez-vous de l'idée de s'engager formellement à respecter un Code de Bonne Conduite (approximation de Code of Conduct) ? Par exemple nous pourrions l'articuler autour d'extraits des Debian Community Guidelines, http://people.debian.org/~enrico/dcg/. Cela vaudrait bien entendu aussi bien pour tous les abonnés, développeur officiel ou pas. Je suis pour, pareil pour les listes irc meme. Amicalement, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CdBC pour la liste debian-devel-french?
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 02:31:19PM +0200, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote: On Fri, 2006-10-13 at 12:16 +0200, Sven Luther wrote: Tu aurais pas un peu peur de devoir revoir ton comportement sur les listes et sur irc par hazard ? Et a propos, pour les donneurs de leçons en orthographes, à mon avis, sur la manière débattre, cela veut pas dire grand chose. Du coup je me demande s'il faut lire hasard ou hazard, en fait. hasard probablement. Amicalement, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
position statement from the kernel team over the current non-free firmware GR vote (Was: Call for votes for GR: : Handling source-less firmware in the Linux kernel)
Hello, The kernel team consider that neither of the two proposals currently under vote [1] are a good solution to the non-free firmware problem. Furthermore, a consensual proposal has now reached enough seconds [2] to be put to vote, and is much preferable, both in clearness of text as in actual content. The proposal made by Josselin (Choice 2) will have a hard time to pass, as it needs 3:1 supermajority. It gives a longer term exception for firmwares beyond the etch release, which we believe not being necessary, and furthermore, it is an amendment to the original proposal from Steve, now withdrawn, and is thus less clean. The proposal originally from Frederik as amended by Manoj (Choice 1) has serious issues. It doesn't correspond to the wish of the kernel team, as expressed by the position statement at [3] following the kernel team meeting about the firmware issue. This proposal is titled : Choice 1: Release Etch even with kernel firmware issues but this is highly misleading, since the actual proposal in many ways contradicts this. The proposal states : 1. It forces us to not release as part of etch those firmwares removed in sarge, which include popular drivers used for installation as tg3 and acenic (Point 3.). 2. It means illegal to distribute firmwares will have to go (good), altough it is silent about the sourceless GPL ones (Point 4.). 3. It means we will not distribute firmwares with non-DFSG free licenses (Point 4.). This is highly confusing, because the distinction is made on the licenses, and not on the actual freeness, and it thus favours firmwares under free licenses, but not respecting the terms of the licenses, over those firmwares whose copyright holder has clarified their licensing, like broadcom did for the tg3 license. Furthermore, the current choice 1, which will allow to ship sourceless GPLed firmwares, should have needed a 3:1 supermajority, as it directly contradicts the DFSG. For all these reasons, the kernel team believes that the solution proposed at [3], and which already reached enough seconds, and will thus be needed to be voted on, is a better solution, and since it is not possible anymore to amend the current ballot, we urge all voters to vote Further Discussion, and allow for the recast of a new ballot containing the better solution, and possible other amendments (like a rewording of Josselin's proposal on top of the consensual proposal for example). On behalf of the Debian Kernel Team, Friendly, Sven Luther [1] - http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_007 [2] - http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/10/msg00183.html [3] - http://wiki.debian.org/KernelFirmwareLicensing#head-98e7641feaea08b775f4d5c58d071b77ff172c90 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Call for votes for GR: : Handling source-less firmware in the Linux kernel
On Sat, Oct 07, 2006 at 06:52:41PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote: - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- c2d43675-9efa-4809-a4aa-af042b62786e [ ] Choice 1: Release Etch even with kernel firmware issues Manoj, you have again overstepped your Secretarial position, by issuing a misleading title for the proposal you propose. The proposal of Frederik would have allowed etch to release, while the one amended by you, will cause more problems that it solves, in particular it will mean many firmwares will have to go, among them the tg3 one, and so we either drop support for the users of those hardware (and there was general outcry for this one, even inside the kernel team when this was first proposed), or we delay etch until the d-i folk get the support for non-free firmware going. So, given this poorly worded ballot, i suppose the vote will be void anyway, and i strongly call for everyone to vote further discussion over the other solutions. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
NO-OP vote ... Re: FIRST CALL FOR VOTES FOR DFSG #2 applies to all programmatic works
On Sat, Sep 30, 2006 at 06:05:28PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote: - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 22fc4edd-1f6c-454f-b204-6aa0bad0ce1d [ ] Choice 1: DFSG #2 applies to all programmatic works [ ] Choice 2: Further discussion - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Just for information. This is a no-op vote, since we either reafirm the current status quo (already re-afirmed previous to the sarge release), or further discuss the issue, but in all cases, nothing will prevent further discussion at a later time, and indeed our DPL has already said he intent to trigger further discussion about these issues around the edinbourg debconf time. So, i am not going to vote on this one. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: pas de génératio n des modules .ko avec linux 2.6.18
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 09:47:54PM +0200, Ludovic Rousseau wrote: Le 03.10.2006, à 19:37:42, Ludovic Rousseau a écrit: Je recompile le noyau avec kernel-package 10.062 du 1 Oct 2006 et je fait un rapport de bug si le problème persiste. J'ai trouvé le bug. J'utilise la colorisation de grep avec $ echo $GREP_OPTIONS --colour=always Du coup les scripts qui parse le résultat d'un grep se retrouvent avec des caractères en plus et ils n'aiment pas ça. Par exemple kernel-package ne voulait même plus compiler mon noyau jusqu'au bout. Voir #390924 par exemple. Question subsidiaire : Comment avoir la couleur pour $ grep | less et pas pour $ grep | sed Je crois que je vais me faire un alias grepless qui fait ce que je veux. Merci et désolé pour le dérangement. Euh, le mieux serait de faire un bug report contre kernel-package, de maniere a ce qu'il mette a vide les $GREP_OPTIONS. Amicalement, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: pas de génératio n des modules .ko avec linux 2.6.18
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 10:53:14PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 09:47:54PM +0200, Ludovic Rousseau wrote: Le 03.10.2006, à 19:37:42, Ludovic Rousseau a écrit: Je recompile le noyau avec kernel-package 10.062 du 1 Oct 2006 et je fait un rapport de bug si le problème persiste. J'ai trouvé le bug. J'utilise la colorisation de grep avec $ echo $GREP_OPTIONS --colour=always Du coup les scripts qui parse le résultat d'un grep se retrouvent avec des caractères en plus et ils n'aiment pas ça. Par exemple kernel-package ne voulait même plus compiler mon noyau jusqu'au bout. Voir #390924 par exemple. Question subsidiaire : Comment avoir la couleur pour $ grep | less et pas pour $ grep | sed Je crois que je vais me faire un alias grepless qui fait ce que je veux. Merci et désolé pour le dérangement. Euh, le mieux serait de faire un bug report contre kernel-package, de maniere a ce qu'il mette a vide les $GREP_OPTIONS. Pour info : 22:53 svenl Manoj: apparently setting funny stuff in $GREP_OPTIONS breaks kernel-package. In particularly having --colour=always there. 22:54 svenl Manoj: maybe kernel-package should in some way guard against this ? 22:54 Manoj svenl: umm, the user may have useful things in there. 22:54 Manoj anyway, if you put funny stuff in grep_options, other scripts may break too, so don't do it 22:56 Manoj one should not export it for inferiotr shells, in any case 22:58 svenl Manoj: i helped him debug brokeness in on some french list, i asked him to file a bug report against kernel-package, because i thought you wanted to know about it. 22:58 Manoj svenl: thanks. I'll add it to the PROBLEMS file Amicalement, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: pas de génératio n des modules .ko avec linux 2.6.18
On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 04:20:56PM +0200, Ludovic Rousseau wrote: Bonjour, Je me suis compilé un noyau 2.6.18 grâce à kernel-package. Tout va bien. Ensuite je veux installer des modules externes en utilisant module-assistant et ça ne va plus. module-assistant ne génère pas les fichiers .ko. La compilation se passe bien, le .o est généré mais aucun fichier .ko. Mon problème est que je ne sais même pas pour quel paquet faire le rapport de bug : le paquet utilisant module-assistant ? module-assistant lui même ? kernel-package ? La solution doit être toute bête genre un fichier .h qui manque mais je ne sais pas trop comment tracer la compilation dans les (jolis) Makefile de Linux. Avec Linux 2.6.17 je n'ai pas ce problème. Quelqu'un à une idée ? Tu peut verifier que : /lib/modules/2.6.18-efi/source existe bien, et contient bien les bonnes infos. Tu a les divers linux-headers-2.6.18-efi installe ? et le linux-kbuild ? Sinon, tu peut verifier ques les .ko sont bien builder et simplemment pas installe, ou pas builder du tout. Si ils sont pas builder, file un bug contre linux-2.6, sinon contre kernel-package. Amicalement, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: pas de génératio n des modules .ko avec linux 2.6.18
On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 09:14:31PM +0200, Ludovic Rousseau wrote: Le 01.10.2006, à 19:00:25, Sven Luther a écrit: On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 04:20:56PM +0200, Ludovic Rousseau wrote: Bonjour, Je me suis compilé un noyau 2.6.18 grâce à kernel-package. Tout va bien. Ensuite je veux installer des modules externes en utilisant module-assistant et ça ne va plus. module-assistant ne génère pas les fichiers .ko. La compilation se passe bien, le .o est généré mais aucun fichier .ko. Mon problème est que je ne sais même pas pour quel paquet faire le rapport de bug : le paquet utilisant module-assistant ? module-assistant lui même ? kernel-package ? La solution doit être toute bête genre un fichier .h qui manque mais je ne sais pas trop comment tracer la compilation dans les (jolis) Makefile de Linux. Avec Linux 2.6.17 je n'ai pas ce problème. Quelqu'un à une idée ? Tu peut verifier que : /lib/modules/2.6.18-efi/source existe bien, et contient bien les bonnes infos. $ ls -l /lib/modules/2.6.18-efi/source lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 21 2006-09-24 20:39 /lib/modules/2.6.18-efi/source - /usr/src/linux-2.6.18 Toutes les sources sont encore présentes. Ah, c'est un kernel self-build, et pas un kernel debian, donc le package ou reporter des bugs est kernel-package. Tu a les divers linux-headers-2.6.18-efi installe ? et le linux-kbuild ? Pas de linux-headers-2.6.18-efi puisque le noyau est compilé par mes soins et que le code source de Linux est encore à sa place dans /usr/src/linux-2.6.18 Je viens d'installer linux-kbuild-2.6.18. J'avais déjà les scripts de build de Linux 2.6.18 dans /usr/src/linux-2.6.18/scripts/. Ça n'a pas changé la situation. Sur, c'etait pour builder des modules contre le kernel debian. Sinon, tu peut verifier ques les .ko sont bien builder et simplemment pas installe, ou pas builder du tout. Ils ne sont pas builder du tout. J'ai les .o mais pas de .ko Ok. Si ils sont pas builder, file un bug contre linux-2.6, sinon contre kernel-package. Le linux étant une version à moi (avec des patchs pour Apple MacBook pro) j'hésite à faire un bug sur linux-2.6 qui n'y est pour rien. Exact. Tu a recuperer ou tes modules de toute facon ? Les modules fournis avec les sources du noyau sont correctement construits eux. Il doit juste manquer un petit quelque chose. Mais quoi ? un truc dans les sources de tes modules probablement. C'est probablement un source avec des makefiles pour kernel 2.4. regarde si il y a un Makefile.26 ou un truc du genre, ou un autre target. Sinon, je te conseil le livre LDD3 (Linux Driver Development v3), aussi disponible online chez oreilly, qui te donnera toutes les infos (et des exemples aussi) pour ecrire des modules pour des noyaux 2.6, et donc pour resoudre ton probleme. Merci de ton aide De rien. PS : Ça vaut le coup demander l'inclusion des patchs pour macintel dans le noyau officiel Debian ou ces patches sont encore trop expérimentaux ? Aucune idee, moi je travail que sur les vrais macs. Ils sont disponibles sur http://svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/mactel-linux/trunk/kernel/mactel-patches-2.6.18/ Demande sur debian-kernel@lists.Debian.org Amicaelement, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted mkvmlinuz 24 (source powerpc)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 21:57:48 +0200 Source: mkvmlinuz Binary: mkvmlinuz Architecture: source powerpc Version: 24 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Debian Kernel Team debian-kernel@lists.debian.org Changed-By: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: mkvmlinuz - create a kernel to boot a PowerPC machine from Open Firmware Changes: mkvmlinuz (24) unstable; urgency=low . * Adapted uncompressor object list to 2.6.18. * Re-enabled -prep support. Files: 2102a357d920c6beb31a85bc43f56162 571 devel optional mkvmlinuz_24.dsc c8b57939126458034da1e063c565e5de 52799 devel optional mkvmlinuz_24.tar.gz 5386e652720c0ac3521e46d91d035436 36356 devel optional mkvmlinuz_24_powerpc.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFFZJl2WTeT3CRQaQRAj1SAJ45dLVn+kYVw9ESv74FyiBKI2eFIACbBYqb OtfRo14yzmf0rVLzrBK8qF4= =5hLV -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: mkvmlinuz_24.dsc to pool/main/m/mkvmlinuz/mkvmlinuz_24.dsc mkvmlinuz_24.tar.gz to pool/main/m/mkvmlinuz/mkvmlinuz_24.tar.gz mkvmlinuz_24_powerpc.deb to pool/main/m/mkvmlinuz/mkvmlinuz_24_powerpc.deb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The bigger issue is badly licensed blobs (was Re: Firmware poll
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 09:27:21AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: On Aug 30, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Debian must decide whether it wants to ship BLOBs with licensing which technically does not permit redistribution. At least 53 blobs have this problem. Many of them are licensed under the GPL, but without source code provided. Since the GPL only grants permission to distribute if you provide source code, the GPL grants no permission to distribute in these cases. Many people disagree with this interpretation. A few very vocal people do. I guess they can be counted on the fingers of both hands or so. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The bigger issue is badly licensed blobs (was Re: Firmware poll
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 05:16:29PM +0200, Toni Mueller wrote: Hello, On Wed, 30.08.2006 at 09:27:21 +0200, Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Aug 30, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Debian must decide whether it wants to ship BLOBs with licensing which technically does not permit redistribution. At least 53 blobs have this problem. Many of them are licensed under the GPL, but without source code provided. Since the GPL only grants permission to distribute if you provide source code, the GPL grants no permission to distribute in these cases. Many people disagree with this interpretation. I'm not a lawyer, but my take on this is that if someone ships you a BLOB under the GPL, you have the legal right to demand sources from him. So, in other words, I think Debian (or SPI? or FSF?) *could* make a real hurricane in the press (and courts) by trying to wrestle source code from said vendors. If that'd be good or bad for Debian, I don't know, but it will be very expensive and time consuming. My own understanding, and we discussed this on -legal when we aproached broadcom about the tg3 licencing, is that this is not the case, not really anyway. What happens, is that we, debian have not the possibility to provide those sources, and as thus, simply lose all rights per the GPL to distribute the source code in question, and thus what could happen, would be for the copyright holder to sue us for not respecting the GPL clauses. Obviously, since he doesn't do so himself, he would lose anyway, so the point is mostly moot, but the GPL itself says it doesn't allow us to distribute the problematic code in those cases. Since the firmware blobs are not derivative works of the kernel, but constitute mere agregation in the same binary format, the authors of other pieces of GPLed code fo the linux kernel cannot even sue us for distributing the kernel code with those GPL-violating binary BLOBs. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The bigger issue is badly licensed blobs (was Re: Firmware poll
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 08:18:28PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Sven Luther wrote: Since the firmware blobs are not derivative works of the kernel, but constitute mere agregation in the same binary format, the authors of other pieces of GPLed code fo the linux kernel cannot even sue us for distributing the kernel code with those GPL-violating binary BLOBs. This is not clear in the cases where the blobs are embedded directly into Please reread the discussion on debian-legal about this, where consensus was mostly found to support this idea, and also remember that we contacted broadcom with this analysis, who contacted their legal team, and i also mailed the FSF lawyers with it, and got no counter-claim to it. the kernel, particularly when they're embedded in the same source files. There's a case to be made that this is *not* mere aggregation, but creation of an enhanced combination work which is derivative of both the firmware and the other parts of the kernel. Simply putting files side by side is mere aggregation -- what's happening with the drivers and firmware might be mere aggregation, but nobody can be sure until a court case happens. Well, in the debian-legal discussion i gave plenty of counter examples, ranging from a firmware flasher (little C program with embedded firmware, exact same case as the kernel situation), to compressed binaries with uncompressing software embedded, passing by filesystem binaries containing both GPLed content as well as non-free content. So, all in all, unless you bring new evidence, there is really very little doubt about this, unless you want to consider your hardware a derived work of the linux kernel, but i doubt a judge will follow you on this one. IANAL, but there is a part of common sense and simple logic in most legal cases. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted mkvmlinuz 23 (source powerpc)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 22:04:50 +0200 Source: mkvmlinuz Binary: mkvmlinuz Architecture: source powerpc Version: 23 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Debian Kernel Team debian-kernel@lists.debian.org Changed-By: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: mkvmlinuz - create a kernel to boot a PowerPC machine from Open Firmware Closes: 260219 374185 Changes: mkvmlinuz (23) unstable; urgency=low . * Fallback arch/powerpc/boot object files for chrp kernels without mkvmlinuz support. This uses the 2.6.16+ code, but should work with any 2.6 kernel. * Now supports the creation of a /boot/vmlinuz symlink to the last created vmlinuz kernel. (Closes: #260219) * Now uses /bin/bash as interpeter, as we use bashisms. (Closes: #374185) Files: 0fba890ae01c41967dac1d1b2954f361 572 devel optional mkvmlinuz_23.dsc 22850262534a6a35f90c477b2cef184b 113743 devel optional mkvmlinuz_23.tar.gz f43885068a02e5fd2328a388955ddb43 36276 devel optional mkvmlinuz_23_powerpc.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEqvUX2WTeT3CRQaQRAh6HAJ4yqPTcI7RtJN5wEV/5jfFwcsf6FACgilE0 O8yqLIZ0N6QiYF073Ki4b0c= =cdl+ -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: mkvmlinuz_23.dsc to pool/main/m/mkvmlinuz/mkvmlinuz_23.dsc mkvmlinuz_23.tar.gz to pool/main/m/mkvmlinuz/mkvmlinuz_23.tar.gz mkvmlinuz_23_powerpc.deb to pool/main/m/mkvmlinuz/mkvmlinuz_23_powerpc.deb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted mkvmlinuz 22 (source powerpc)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 17:40:37 +0200 Source: mkvmlinuz Binary: mkvmlinuz Architecture: source powerpc Version: 22 Distribution: unstable Urgency: high Maintainer: Debian Kernel Team debian-kernel@lists.debian.org Changed-By: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: mkvmlinuz - create a kernel to boot a PowerPC machine from Open Firmware Changes: mkvmlinuz (22) unstable; urgency=high . * Fixed broken 2.6.16+ support. Files: c0ce8c5ad57e51db9b7d60e550bf94c5 571 devel optional mkvmlinuz_22.dsc 251d5771a47c5ac68be3dbfbc4f741a8 22071 devel optional mkvmlinuz_22.tar.gz 5c1b615e3bb7f5dd8a470e779196e86c 10674 devel optional mkvmlinuz_22_powerpc.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEjeLj2WTeT3CRQaQRAj4PAKCkUfk1n0ZRo8oCLbNSv6X/R3Q2eACfUX4H FZduzsjPkyfwjGBiuDaq9+o= =KpYR -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: mkvmlinuz_22.dsc to pool/main/m/mkvmlinuz/mkvmlinuz_22.dsc mkvmlinuz_22.tar.gz to pool/main/m/mkvmlinuz/mkvmlinuz_22.tar.gz mkvmlinuz_22_powerpc.deb to pool/main/m/mkvmlinuz/mkvmlinuz_22_powerpc.deb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bits from the 2IC
On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 01:10:16AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: Unfortunately, other mailing list discussions have been less happy. A somewhat acrimonious argument between Sven Luther and members of the d-i team spread out across various lists, starting at [3]. There has been quite lot of public discussion and more private attempts to repair the situation, but at this point things are not looking too hopeful. The situation is indeed not hopeful. The mediation attempt of the DPL failed, as he ranged himself basically with the opinion of the d-i team, and acted more like a judge delivering a sentence, than a mediator, sending his sentence to a public list, without even forewarning me. I guess Anthony doesn't know what mediation means. I am thankful for the effort Steve made to try a true mediation, altough there was absolutely no visibility and transparence of what discussions where going on with the other side of this argument, which i believe only foreshadowed the final sentence. It was more important to not hurt the feeling of the d-i team and to let them have their pride, than to search a real solution to this issue. Also, i do believe it sets a bad precedent, in that the DPL affirmed by this actions, that it is ok for people inside debian to chose moment of personal distress of other DDs to get revenge on them, and have no respect for the person behind the DD. This is i belive a failure of the electronic media we use for communication, people would generally not behave such in real life, and if they did, they would be scorned upon by their entourage, and not justified like it happens here. I guess this means that i will take a less active role in debian in the future, and to all those who are now saying good riddance, shame on you, you are not worthy of what debian represents, altough that sure seems to have changed since i first joined 8 years ago. Hurt, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted mkvmlinuz 21 (source powerpc)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 19:32:16 + Source: mkvmlinuz Binary: mkvmlinuz Architecture: source powerpc Version: 21 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Debian Kernel Team debian-kernel@lists.debian.org Changed-By: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: mkvmlinuz - create a kernel to boot a PowerPC machine from Open Firmware Closes: 365978 Changes: mkvmlinuz (21) unstable; urgency=low . * Fixed commented out cleanup call, now doesn't fill /tmp with cruft anymore. Thanks to Colin Watson for noticing this. (Closes: #365978) Files: 447f084b3bbbca806879d5fc6b6379fc 570 devel optional mkvmlinuz_21.dsc e27c00c2d9efa97b41dbd31713826efe 9748 devel optional mkvmlinuz_21.tar.gz 1abb6070f52221d3130d7db199c49bd8 10582 devel optional mkvmlinuz_21_powerpc.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEYFed9t0zAhD6TNERAobTAJ94Gu1TF+npcBqOwo/CX6H0pvjxCQCdFXNZ yhO/waJ4El1/Cbu5kSKnCIQ= =VOBL -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: mkvmlinuz_21.dsc to pool/main/m/mkvmlinuz/mkvmlinuz_21.dsc mkvmlinuz_21.tar.gz to pool/main/m/mkvmlinuz/mkvmlinuz_21.tar.gz mkvmlinuz_21_powerpc.deb to pool/main/m/mkvmlinuz/mkvmlinuz_21_powerpc.deb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#365010: Xserver G5 usb keyboard not loaded ...
On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 03:21:12PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 12:40:48AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 03:34:30PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 10:46:24PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: The maintainer is held responsible (and frans and joeyh have not stepped down from reminding me of this in the past) of the build failure, while a contributor is free commit fixes, without necessarily being the one to blame for every problem of the port. And whereas when the alpha daily builds are broken and require build env updates to get them working again I simply fix them at my earliest opportunity, you invariably used this as an excuse to accuse the rest of the I don't remember it such, i remember frans accusing me of negligence and misconduct because i did give a (maybe a bit uninformed) advice to a powerpc user. You had quite strong words for Frans, accusing him (and other d-i folk) of breaking your daily builds. They didn't do anything of the sort; *I* broke the daily builds, because there was a libnewt soname bump and udebs needed to be rebuilt against the new soname, which broke the daily builds until libnewt0.52 was installed in the build env because this was before we had support for udeb shlibs. That didn't stop you from accusing Frans of first breaking the build and then picking on you. I didn't accuse Frans, i did accuse the d-i folk in general. English has this poor feature of not distinguishing between the polite you, the singular you and the plural you, maybe we should switch to a more advanced language instead :) Now, putting things in context, some user complained about brokeness on debian-powerpc. I know that appart from me, nobody is reading debian-powerpc from the d-i team, so i told Shaymal that he should post on debian-boot instead, or better file a bug report directly, since i was hardly available to do real work, and to do the bridge between debian-powerpc and d-i at that time. I was away in el salvador at the time, my mother had just passed a severe respipratory crisis a few hours before, and i had gone to read debian-powerpc in order to change my mind a bit, and being me, i could not help trying to be helpful to users, even though i didn't really take the time to investigate fully, and may have made a mistake, but given my situation, you have to admit that this is understandable, no ? As a result, i got an immediate response from Frans, not only telling me i was wrong, and that the i failed miserably to keep the daily builds going, but also adding that little bashing paragraph, the kind that frans has been giving to me with various degrees of subtletly since over 8 month now or so, and which yourself agreed yesterday was not correct. Given this, two things happened. I wrote Frans a personal mail asking him for comprehension, and kind of explaining my personal situation, which i don't really feel he has acted upon, and second i was pretty much feedup that even in the situation i found myself, there was nobody who would take care of either fixing this issue, or at least inform the users that it was a known problem, that i was currently unavailable for severe personal reasons, and it would be fixed soon. Seeing things in that light, and given of what Frans did know at that time, is there still any doubt left that the removal of my commit access was nothing more that an unfeeling attempt to get ride of me, and that the resignation letter is nothing but an excuse ? I was also told a bit before this events (on irc and i saddly don't kep logs) that some people didn't really want (after the expulsion event) for me to make the effort to come back to debian, and would be happy to be ride of me. I wasn't told who those people are, but given these events, one can guess. Now, the critic i have is of another kind, and one i have done repeteadly in the past, and for which the d-i team had marked me as someone to bash at will. The problem here is very speaking, As you say, something happened, so the build broke. The build breaking is listed on joeyh's web page, but depending on folk, browsing a web page daily is a poor substitute for email notification, and i guess we all agree on this, or we would be using bugzilla over our BTS :). So, it broke, some folk noticed this, and fixed their daily builds (joeyh or whoever maintains the x86 daily build among them), but nobody informed the other daily build maintainers, so each one would have to discover the issue alone, investigate the problem and do the fix. This i believe is not efficient, and i said so, and something which is mirrored in the way the kernel .udebs are handled, and i have said so in the past, tried to start a discussion to get more efficiency into this, and proposed some possible solutions. At the same time, Joey was repeteadly blaming the lazy porters for for the d-i state and stuff like that. This exact issue
Re: Bug#365010: Xserver G5 usb keyboard not loaded ...
On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 03:58:17AM +0300, Daniel Stone wrote: On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 08:28:11PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: Notice also that both you and Colin Watson, where donated pegasos machines, (and guess who arranged that), so the unavailability of a decent build machine is no excuse. I can't speak for the other guys, but I have a Pegasos machine (sitting under my desk at the moment, actually), sent to me by yourself. You offered it to me when I told you that I had no powerpc machines, and thus couldn't test X with PowerPC. I made it very, very clear to you that I could not guarantee that the machine would ever get turned on, let alone used productively. Repeatedly. You said that was fine. Indeed. However, you then got upset when Pegasos support lapsed, and ripped into me for not doing enough to fix it, given that you sent me an ODW. So, I Notice that first, this was an ubuntu matter, and i got upset, not because you didn't get the pegasos/X support fixed in a timely way, but because my patches sent to the ubuntu BTS where coldly received, and even ignored until i pushed some. can't help but think, maybe this is another case where people explicitly told you that they couldn't ensure the machine was used productively, but you still got upset when it wasn't? Joey Hess received a machine in order to do daily d-i powerpc tests. This was the exact wording, and it was an additional machine outside of the first donation. I know since then that his machine broke, for whatever reason, some time ago, but he never informed me of this (we would have replaced it), and i only knew about this in Helsinki, and if he would have told me about this a week before, i would have swapped it out. The 4 machines i had in Heslinki for debconf admin purpose where all donated to to debian or skolelinux purpose, except the one where i burned the power supply, and supposedly the debconf assurance would have covered. So, with all that said, do you still believe it is normal that a perfectly running daily build was rejected in maybe a few minutes/hours after i sent that email, while i had offered to continue running it until a proper replacement was found, and some unstable solution has been used ever since, which doesn't even include to this day the miboot support ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#365010: Xserver G5 usb keyboard not loaded ...
On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 05:26:38PM +0300, Daniel Stone wrote: On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 04:13:10PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: So, with all that said, do you still believe it is normal that a perfectly running daily build was rejected in maybe a few minutes/hours after i sent that email, while i had offered to continue running it until a proper replacement was found, and some unstable solution has been used ever since, which doesn't even include to this day the miboot support ? If you're going to attempt to drag other people into your petty personal tiffs, you might as well at least try to rope in people who are sympathetic to your cause. Please tell me then, what interest is your post to the issue at hand ? Or does this mean, that whatever i say, you would still be against me, because you are 'unsympathetic to my cause' ? I also don't see you aknowledging the correction on the misleading information you mentioned in your first post. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#365010: Xserver G5 usb keyboard not loaded ...
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 12:53:12PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: On Thursday 27 April 2006 12:14, Sven Luther wrote: 1) daily build business card and netinst isos are failing to build since april 1, which means they don't include the broadcom tg3 module at all, and are thus not really usable for installs at this time. Reason is that prep and chrp d-i cdrom images are failing in daily d-i builds. This results in debian-cd not being able to find a file needed for mkisofs. I understand from comments on IRC that this is due to a kernel issue? Oh fun, i don't have any commit access to the d-i repo anymore, so i can't even fix this issue myself. This clearly shows the pettiness of the d-i team, i am disgusted. ... Dear fellow powerpc folk, this clearly means that the debian support for powerpc is dead or almost so, and i strongly recomend you to go find another distribution to run which cares a bit more about the powerpc architecture. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#365010: Xserver G5 usb keyboard not loaded ...
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 01:30:17PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: Oh fun, i don't have any commit access to the d-i repo anymore, so i can't even fix this issue myself. This clearly shows the pettiness of the d-i team, i am disgusted. ... Dear fellow powerpc folk, this clearly means that the debian support for powerpc is dead or almost so, and i strongly recomend you to go find another distribution to run which cares a bit more about the powerpc architecture. I'd rather prefer if you don't overexegerate. No i don't think i am overexagerating. The installer images are broken since over a month, the d-i folk kicked me out after having joined Andres's wolf-hunt, while i was in personal distress over my mother's sickness and subsequent death, and now they are failing to take their responsabilities and are screwing our powerpc users. They are not worth to be debian developpers, if you would ask me, and in any case, they are not true to the social contract. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#365010: Xserver G5 usb keyboard not loaded ...
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 01:59:54PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: * Toni L. Harbaugh-Blackford [Contr] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060427 13:53]: On Thu, 27 Apr 2006, Andreas Barth wrote: * Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060427 13:23]: Dear fellow powerpc folk, this clearly means that the debian support for powerpc is dead or almost so, and i strongly recomend you to go find another distribution to run which cares a bit more about the powerpc architecture. I'd rather prefer if you don't overexegerate. I'm not sure he's exagerating. There has been a grave silence about the daily images not building, for anyone who doesn't access IRC anyway. I'm not too happy either to become aware of that issue in this way - but well, I think his cited words debian support for powerpc is dead or almost so and his recommendation people to change away from debian do way more harm than the images not building the images for a month, and I also don't really see any ground for these words. Because they kicked out the powerpc porter ? Do you not think this is reason enough to consider debian for powerpc dead, at least with the current set of d-i team members ? Of course, best that could happen now would be if someone just takes up the loose ends, and tries to fix the issues - and I hope someone just does. Yeah, problem is we where already there a month ago, and see what happened. I was going to fix it, maybe it would have been fixed already, but no, the d-i team decided this otherwise. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#365010: Xserver G5 usb keyboard not loaded ...
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 02:53:07PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: * Toni L. Harbaugh-Blackford [Contr] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060427 14:38]: I don't think you understand. There was not a peep on the list about anything being up with the daily image until Sven explicitely stated it. I would have expected the maintainer or others privy to the situation to have said something earlier, along the lines of: [...] Yes, that is what I assumed what happened, and that is what really worries me. But I don't think it is as bad as Sven tries to make it look like - it is currently at a level where it could be repaired, and where we could still prevent that bad things remain. Andreas, do you have an explanation of why d-i commit access was taken from me, and why i find out only now as i was going to fix the issue ? Does this together with the poor state of the d-i powerpc images not clearly show that nobody is in charge anymore (or at least nobody who will notice or have the time to fix it or even ask for help if he doesn't has the time) ? And in light of those two facts, can you please tell me again with a straight face that i am over-reacting ? friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#365010: Xserver G5 usb keyboard not loaded ...
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 02:40:08PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course, best that could happen now would be if someone just takes up the loose ends, and tries to fix the issues - and I hope someone just does. Yeah, problem is we where already there a month ago, and see what happened. I was going to fix it, maybe it would have been fixed already, but no, the d-i team decided this otherwise. Can't you provide a patch nevertheless? Let's see what they do with it... That is not the issue. These are the same people who have been bashing me for over a year, and happily joined in with Andres expulsion request at the first occasion, and said that i was not irreplacable and that debian would be better off without me. So i was silent for some time, and now i notice that not only is the build broken for almost a month, but they took away my possibility to fix it. This is a worse problem, where some guys believe they have dictatorial control on who can or cannot do something in debian, and act out of personal revenge to hurt those they dislike. I am seriously starting to think that the debian project would be better off since peopel like that. I already know too many people who are being stopped from providing useful contributions out of no good reason, and i believe that after almost 8 year of debian contributions, and being one of the main powerpc maintainer these past years, i deserve something more than that. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#365010: Xserver G5 usb keyboard not loaded ...
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 03:15:17PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote: On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 02:19:34PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: Because they kicked out the powerpc porter ? Do you not think this is reason enough to consider debian for powerpc dead No, this is only reason enough to look for a new powerpc porter. Sure, which they did do when they kicked me out, over a month ago. They claimed they had found some, but reality proves that this is not the case. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#365010: Xserver G5 usb keyboard not loaded ...
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 02:27:35PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 02:19:34PM +0200, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was going to fix it, maybe it would have been fixed already, but no, the d-i team decided this otherwise. You can't *commit*, but you still can send patches, can't you ? What good is a patch in the BTS, if there is nobody on the other side to apply it ? Still, there is a worse problem here than just svn commit access, and i think it is my duty as DD to inform the powerpc community of how things stand, since it is clear nobody else will talk about this. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#365010: Xserver G5 usb keyboard not loaded ...
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 03:17:08PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 03:07:36PM +0200, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 02:27:35PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 02:19:34PM +0200, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was going to fix it, maybe it would have been fixed already, but no, the d-i team decided this otherwise. You can't *commit*, but you still can send patches, can't you ? What good is a patch in the BTS, if there is nobody on the other side to apply it ? http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2006/04/msg00178.html Why does this come now only after the brokeness was there for almost 4 weeks, and activity only happened after i made a fuss over it ? This was already the case with the yaird problem, and going a bit farther away, Ethan's rejection of the yaboot/amiga-partition-table patch. And notice, yaboot is currently orphaned, and nobody has shown up and took it over, mol is currently in sad dissaray, and people go about and expulse and kick the few powerpc porters we have remaining. So, things clearly look grim for debian/powerpc. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#365010: Xserver G5 usb keyboard not loaded ...
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 04:52:09PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: * Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060427 15:05]: Andreas, do you have an explanation of why d-i commit access was taken from me, and why i find out only now as i was going to fix the issue ? http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/03/msg01075.html sounds like you stepped back, and http://lists.debian.org/debian-powerpc/2006/03/msg00490.html confirms that. I stepped back from d-i powerpc port maintainer, not as d-i contributor. Also, i don't believe there is any justification for taking away svn commit access except when there was a clear misuse of it being made. So, basically, you are saying that it is ok to take commit right away because of personal dislike situations like apparently happened here ? Again, i ask you, what possible reason where there to take svn commit access away from me ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#365010: Xserver G5 usb keyboard not loaded ...
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 05:10:17PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote: Hi, Sven Luther wrote: On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 04:52:09PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: * Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060427 15:05]: Andreas, do you have an explanation of why d-i commit access was taken from me, and why i find out only now as i was going to fix the issue ? http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/03/msg01075.html sounds like you stepped back, and http://lists.debian.org/debian-powerpc/2006/03/msg00490.html confirms that. I stepped back from d-i powerpc port maintainer, not as d-i contributor. So there apparently was a misunderstanding. No, there was a deliberate intention for revenge and hurting. I doubt any of the other d-i contributors commit right where removed when they stopped contributing, and there must be over a 100 such dormant contributors by now. Also, i don't believe there is any justification for taking away svn commit access except when there was a clear misuse of it being made. So, basically, you are saying that it is ok to take commit right away because of personal dislike situations like apparently happened here ? It is OK to remove svn access for a person which stepped down from d-i activity (see above) imho, yes. who was kicked out you mean ? Again, i ask you, what possible reason where there to take svn commit access away from me ? See above. That is no reply. I don't believe such was done in any of the other previous cases, at least not without months of waiting and at least a ping tentative. So tell me, could this really be interpreted as anythind else than a tentative to get ride of me ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#365010: Xserver G5 usb keyboard not loaded ...
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 05:32:42PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote: Sven Luther wrote: On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 05:10:17PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote: Hi, Sven Luther wrote: On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 04:52:09PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: * Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060427 15:05]: Andreas, do you have an explanation of why d-i commit access was taken from me, and why i find out only now as i was going to fix the issue ? http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/03/msg01075.html sounds like you stepped back, and http://lists.debian.org/debian-powerpc/2006/03/msg00490.html confirms that. I stepped back from d-i powerpc port maintainer, not as d-i contributor. So there apparently was a misunderstanding. [...] who was kicked out you mean ? ^^ [...] Please decide. I was kicked out. If you reread the message, i told that i not interested in continuing being the powerpc porter, just so franz could blame me for every time, even if i tried to help as best i could as i did in the parent post to those you quoted (which was when i was with my dying mother, and Frans perfectly knew that). So i said i was not interested to continue this role unless those d-i team member who believe debian would be better off without me, and that i was no irreplacable, and who happily joined in in my expulsion request, at least apologized for the hurt they did me during the expulsion request. Less than a few minutes after this came Franz mail officializing my expulsion from the d-i team, and searching for contributors, contributors who failed to show up since then i notice, and a few days after the powerpc d-i cds broke. So, please tell me how this whole process can be seen as anything else but kicking me out, or how it could be called a 'misunderstanding' as some did ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#365010: Xserver G5 usb keyboard not loaded ...
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 11:43:02AM -0400, Toni L. Harbaugh-Blackford [Contr] wrote: Just what are the rules for someone to have commit access? None, it is the full decision of the project admin, and i believe what happened here is that one such project admin did let some petty personal considerations overstep his responsabilities. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#365010: Xserver G5 usb keyboard not loaded ...
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 06:46:11PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: (dropping the ridiculous CC list, AFAICT everybody is subscribed) On Thursday 27 April 2006 17:47, Sven Luther wrote: None, it is the full decision of the project admin, and i believe what happened here is that one such project admin did let some petty personal considerations overstep his responsabilities. Yep, and the admin feels completely justified by this ridiculous escalation of a minor issue [0]. The commit access was revoked based on the fact Sven resigned but that decision was influenced by the circumstances in which that happened. Not only I, but several members of the d-i team, have long had issues working with Sven and basically we decided enough was enough. Then live up to your responsability and don't let the powerpc port break again, because i promise you i will be watching and remembering the world of your failure if that happens. This is the price you pay for kicking people out, after doing your best for hurting them in the first place. Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#365010: Xserver G5 usb keyboard not loaded ...
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 12:36:56PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: Toni L. Harbaugh-Blackford [Contr] wrote: I don't think you understand. There was not a peep on the list about anything being up with the daily image until Sven explicitely stated it. All of us who read http://people.debian.org/~joeyh/d-i/build-logs.html on a daily basis knew that the powerpc builds had not updated in a Ah, yeah, and when where you going to fix this ? And when where you going to inform the powerpc users ? while, but given that a) They're marked as currently on a laptop so not cronned, should be moved soon That is no excuse, since you kicked me out, and where very quick to throw away the buildd i maintained, just to get ride of me, without having proper replacement. Notice also that both you and Colin Watson, where donated pegasos machines, (and guess who arranged that), so the unavailability of a decent build machine is no excuse. At worse you could have used my buildd until a decent solution was found, but no, it was more important to get ride of sven, than to care for the powerpc users. b) The mips builds had been down longer until recently. c) The mipsel builds had been down nearly as long. And that machine seems to be dead. Argh. You didn't kick the mips/mipsel maintainers out of the d-i team though, so your responsability is not engaged. d) The i386 floppy builds had been broken for longer until recently. e) The amd64 builds have been down just as long and still are. f) The arm CD builds have been broken for quite a while. Same here. It wasn't very clear, to me at least, that anything was exceptionally wrong with the powerpc builds. There is something exceptionally wrong, and this is the unprecedented fact that you kicked the powerpc maintainer out of the project, with uther contempt for all the work i did do in the past for this, promised you had found a replacement, and that the port would be well taken care off, and failed in this. I would have expected the maintainer or others privy to the situation to have said something earlier, along the lines of: Hey folks, we know the daily image is busted and we are working on it. We'll let you know when it's fixed so don't bug us. We have an automated page to track the status of the builds so that we don't have to waste everyone's time doing that on a continual basis. Yeah, but you are to chicken to take the next logical step, namely to have a mailing list report scheme or something to make people aware of this who don't necessarily have time to daily look at the build log web page. But then, i suppose you prefer bugzilla over our BTS too. This is just a bunch of excuses, you expulsed me, and then the build failed, and it was gone almost 4 weeks without being fixed. You are fully responsible for this failure, and should assume your responsability. But then i know already that you are not going to assume it, and like always just do on more round of sven-bashing, and hope everything will be fine. Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#365010: Xserver G5 usb keyboard not loaded ...
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 09:47:33PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: * Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060427 17:03]: On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 04:52:09PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: * Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060427 15:05]: Andreas, do you have an explanation of why d-i commit access was taken from me, and why i find out only now as i was going to fix the issue ? http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/03/msg01075.html sounds like you stepped back, and http://lists.debian.org/debian-powerpc/2006/03/msg00490.html confirms that. I stepped back from d-i powerpc port maintainer, not as d-i contributor. I don't call myself authoritative what your other contributions to d-i The maintainer is held responsible (and frans and joeyh have not stepped down from reminding me of this in the past) of the build failure, while a contributor is free commit fixes, without necessarily being the one to blame for every problem of the port. include. It might be a good idea to clarify your status within the d-i team first, instead of telling all people that debian has stopped ppc support (which is just wrong, and is definitly neither the intention of the d-i team nor the release team). Well, it is what i see. There is nothing to clarify on this point. They removed me to get ride of me, and despite Colin's help, they don't really have someone to make the real work. This is actually the real problem of the d-i team, they lack manpower to properly care about d-i as it deserves, and this makes them irritable. Also, i don't believe there is any justification for taking away svn commit access except when there was a clear misuse of it being made. Actually, I think revoking svn commit access from people who stopped to work on d-i (or any project, that is not d-i specific) is ok. E.g. we also revoke upload privileges of people who don't do Debian work anymore. If that was a misunderstanding - please try to clarify it in private first (without the noise that this thread makes). After having read the replies of both Joeyh and fjp, i don't believe it was a misunderstanding, but a deliberate decision of the d-i team. If you read something else out of it, i would be very interested in you interpretation of it. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#365010: Xserver G5 usb keyboard not loaded ...
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 03:34:30PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 10:46:24PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: The maintainer is held responsible (and frans and joeyh have not stepped down from reminding me of this in the past) of the build failure, while a contributor is free commit fixes, without necessarily being the one to blame for every problem of the port. And whereas when the alpha daily builds are broken and require build env updates to get them working again I simply fix them at my earliest opportunity, you invariably used this as an excuse to accuse the rest of the I don't remember it such, i remember frans accusing me of negligence and misconduct because i did give a (maybe a bit uninformed) advice to a powerpc user. d-i team of misconduct or negligence. Your technical skills and committment to powerpc are valuable traits, but the only thing you bring to the table that's irreplaceable is your penchant for vitriol, and I'm quite sure everyone involved would be happy to be rid of that. I am most assuredly not the only one in debian with this trait, who will you get ride of next ? It's unfortunate that even your resignation as d-i porter doesn't spare the rest of the d-i team from having their time wasted by threads like this. Oh, thanks. so you also believe that the removal of my d-i commit rights was warranted. Could you please explain this in the open, and not in this cabal like fasion ? (22:36:45) vorlon fjp: can you speak to why svenl's commit access to d-i was revoked? I vaguely remember a clean-up of unused d-i accounts, but I thought that only covered accounts that had been unused for some time. (22:37:07) fjp vorlon: I'd prefer /msg So, why was i not informed of that fact ? And why is the powerpc port broken since 4 weeks without nobody noticing ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#365010: Xserver G5 usb keyboard not loaded ...
On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 12:44:13AM +0200, Wolfgang Pfeiffer wrote: On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 10:46:24PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: Well, it is what i see. There is nothing to clarify on this point. They removed me to get ride of me, and despite Colin's help, they don't really have someone to make the real work. So Colin's help isn't real, or what? Sure it is, if it confirms itself that he has enough time to fullfill it. The reality is that the powerpc d-i port was broken since *4 WEEKS*, and nobody noticed, and nobody informed the powerpc users who where complaining and wondering. Please don't get me wrong: I definitely appreciate the outstanding entertainment value of this thread ... But please make sure *everyone* can laugh ... At my depends, right ? And when i am gone, who will be the next scape-goat ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#365010: Xserver G5 usb keyboard not loaded ...
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 11:49:08PM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote: This one time, at band camp, Sven Luther said: you kicked me out [...] just to get ride of me [...] it was more important to get ride of sven [...] that you kicked the powerpc maintainer out of the project [...] uther contempt for all the work i did do in the past for this [...] you expulsed me [...] and like always just do on more round of sven-bashing [...] Nobody loves me, everybody hates me, I think I'll just eat worms. Lighten up, dude. Better yet, find professional help. Thanks all the same for the 8 year of time i spent on the debian project, and the innumberable hours i spent helping out users. Seriously, in what did this mail help ? Do you feel better now ? Was it in any way constructive ? In what do you believe you are better than me over this ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted mkvmlinuz 20 (source powerpc)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 18:42:41 + Source: mkvmlinuz Binary: mkvmlinuz Architecture: source powerpc Version: 20 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Debian Kernel Team debian-kernel@lists.debian.org Changed-By: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: mkvmlinuz - create a kernel to boot a PowerPC machine from Open Firmware Changes: mkvmlinuz (20) unstable; urgency=low . * Ported to 2.6.16 powerpc kernels. * Added powerpc64 support. Files: c9f044f42cd2e3491275e32d3dc8d4ca 578 devel optional mkvmlinuz_20.dsc c8cbd65d6f29db0716e19e7704121a79 9694 devel optional mkvmlinuz_20.tar.gz df6f2448c5a8515d24725081e705a691 10490 devel optional mkvmlinuz_20_powerpc.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkRORc8ACgkQLkAIIn9ODhEVfACeOfzitsAmO2EiXsp+8ce9jOiZ 6DgAoMQ9NHDV2/nRdFGTVjTH6SCrAQWJ =1nwS -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: mkvmlinuz_20.dsc to pool/main/m/mkvmlinuz/mkvmlinuz_20.dsc mkvmlinuz_20.tar.gz to pool/main/m/mkvmlinuz/mkvmlinuz_20.tar.gz mkvmlinuz_20_powerpc.deb to pool/main/m/mkvmlinuz/mkvmlinuz_20_powerpc.deb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted mkvmlinuz 19 (source powerpc)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 16:25:10 +0100 Source: mkvmlinuz Binary: mkvmlinuz Architecture: source powerpc Version: 19 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Debian Kernel Team debian-kernel@lists.debian.org Changed-By: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: mkvmlinuz - create a kernel to boot a PowerPC machine from Open Firmware Closes: 342372 Changes: mkvmlinuz (19) unstable; urgency=low . * Added debconf dependency. (Closes: #342372) Files: 8c000469aafc6a8d2e824323210de252 578 devel optional mkvmlinuz_19.dsc a86ef7adc8cb2052776ee8824bd05a5c 9374 devel optional mkvmlinuz_19.tar.gz 9c0bfdd4437709e78cb2d79ec6ac103d 10144 devel optional mkvmlinuz_19_powerpc.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkRHxg0ACgkQLkAIIn9ODhEG8gCfY/bQyH7EkAuZ8OC1ro1z3gUD QlIAoNrst+OdKi6bseAwbQv3abk2ZhCu =4Dx1 -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: mkvmlinuz_19.dsc to pool/main/m/mkvmlinuz/mkvmlinuz_19.dsc mkvmlinuz_19.tar.gz to pool/main/m/mkvmlinuz/mkvmlinuz_19.tar.gz mkvmlinuz_19_powerpc.deb to pool/main/m/mkvmlinuz/mkvmlinuz_19_powerpc.deb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Election du leader Debian
On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 09:51:22AM +0200, Loïc Minier wrote: Tout ça ne s'applique par contre qu'aux paquets sources, je ne comprends pas pourquoi les paquets binaires ne suivent pas un traitement disjoint qui ne doit probablement impliquer que la mise à jour des overrides. La logique derriere le controle des paquets binaires, est d'excerce un control des changements d'api inoportun, et des split sauvage et exagere des packages. Cependant, je pense qu'il y a un certain paternalisme la, et qu'ils serait plus productif d'eduquer les mainteneurs a agir dans les bonnes regles, que de les considered comme des idiots incapable d'etre responsable, ce qui semble etre la vue des ftp-masters en ce moment (ou du moins dans le passe proche). Amicalement, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Election du leader Debian
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 10:07:51AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le jeudi 06 avril 2006 à 09:48 +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit : On Thu, 06 Apr 2006, Josselin Mouette wrote: Ce travail pourrait parfaitement être fait en aval. En aucun cas il ne justifie des délais d'un mois pour l'ajout de nouveaux paquets *binaires* à la distribution, et pour l'ajout de paquets source c'est très discutable. En ce qui concerne le contrôle sur les paquets sources, c'est indispensable. S'il est indispensable à ce point, pourquoi n'est-il pas fait à chaque nouvelle version upstream ? La licence peut très bien changer. D'ailleurs on trouve fréquemment des paquets avec des problèmes de licences, et ces problèmes sont corrigés après coup. Parcequ'il faut que chaque nouveau source soit declarer aux autorites des etats-unis, qui controllent tout ce que nous faissons. Le deplacement de l'archive master dans un pays libre resoudrait cela cependant. Quand aux modifications mineures de packages, je me suis fait flammer a mort pour avoir ne serait-ce que proposer d'automatiser NEW pour les changement d'abi (kernel, bibliotheques, etc), donc je doute que cela passe. Dans l'ensemble le probleme de l'archive et de NEW et de l'infrastructure en general souffre d'une certaine inertie, liee au manque de main d'oeuvre, et au peu de confiance que les ftp-masters actuels ont envers les personnes externes au team (quoique jeroen soit DD depuis quelques annees seulement, et soit devenu ftp-master assistant que depuis recement). (Peut-etre qu'ils ont simplement besoin d'un peu de concurence pour les bouge un peu cependant :) Amicalement, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ATA_PIIX and initrd
On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 03:01:29PM +0100, Jose Luis Ayala wrote: Hi guys! I don't know if you are working on the ata_piix bug that prevents me from using the IDE CDROM with the ATA HD... but it's making me going crazy! :) I've following the recommendations of making a new initrd file with the modules ide-generic ata_piix sd_mod and ordered in this way. Now, during the boot, the DVD and CDROM are detected, but the HD is not responding any more :( There other interesting modules in my initrd like libata and ide-core. Do you know any ordering of the modules to make the system work? or do you know any other way to solve my problems? :) Please upgrade to the 2.6.15 or upcoming 2.6.16 kernel in etch/sid, and it is very well probable that your problems should go away. For information, all your problems have absolutely nothing to do with ide-generic, but some brokeness involving the ide-modular patch from Herbert Xu, which was now dropped. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The problem with killfiles, and other musings [Was: Re: removal of svenl from the project]
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 02:24:23AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 12:28:14PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: I was going to make a large answer where i was going to denouse the inexactitudes and false claims of this clearly inflamatory mail, but i will refrain from doing so. I wonder if Steve, and others of the 'esteemed' DDs, is following his own advice, and rereading the mails he writes, and if so, why did he need to add such a great amount of ad-hominem attacks again, and what was the added value it did bring to his point. So Sven is going to continue to be used here as an illustrative example, not because I want to pick on Sven, but because I want to demonstrate the plausibility of the problem I'm talking about. I believe that you could have made the selfsame point without expressing that list. It may be hidden in good intentions, but it stays a list of things reproached to me, some of them being true, but others being false. Further more, if i replied to them, i would be seen as falling again in the same thing i was almost expelled for. So, even if your claim above was right, it was an unfortunate way to say it given the context, and you mail would have been perfectly valid without it. This was *not about you*. I was not expressing support for expelling you from the project, I was addressing the fallacious claim that killfiling people we don't get along with is a fix for conflict. I'm sorry if you felt attacked by my mail, but not only was it not ad-hominem (since you were not It had my name, had it not. You prefaced it by a its not about sven, but it was still a list of those accusations, some of them false. There are others in the project people have a difficult time working with, including some of the respected and eminent guys, but nobody would dare expulse them for it, or even critic. We weren't talking about expulsions or criticism, we were talking about killfiling. I guess I could use myself as an example here instead of you, That would have been welcome in this context. And aren't your follow-ups here a perfect example of why people complain about you personalizing all discussions? Sorry, but you had 10+ line paragraph attacking me, some of which not being true, and even if you had those three lines telling it was not about me, i think it was misfortunate, like turning the knife in the wound. I mean, it is like saying : its not about you, and then following up with a huge list of insults, it will have the same effect on the guy you are using as example. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dicussion about patches ... ignoring patches make motivation to provide them fall
On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 08:29:18AM +0100, Martin Wuertele wrote: * Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-03-19 08:06]: The question is if the problems with the patches and the reason for not applying it will be commented, thus giving the author a chance to modify it, or change his approach to fixing the bug, or if the patch will be utherly ignored, which is an act of total contempt to his author as well as the users affected by the bug. If you think not applying a pacht without given reasoning is a contempt to his author as well as the users affected by the bug you perform an unjustifyable imputation as you don't know the, tough not communticated, reasons for not applying. Please stop this behaviour, you cannot read Point taken, altough i believe that there are cases where this is clear. I have had a case where a patch i submitted to the X strike force for driver SDK support (allowing build of standalone drivers for a given prebuilt X server) has been moldering in the BTS mostly without comment for something like 3-4 years now, and the patch which started all this sat over a month without a single comment, and then two more month. I am not saying that there needs to be an immediate response, or all patches need to be applied, but i believe that it is elementary politeness from a package maintainer, to at least aknowledge a patch or bug report when it is submitted. peoples minds! Be calm and friendly give the maintainer time and than, in a friendly tone, ask for reasons and you will get them. And don't Yes, ok, but what if this is not the case ? You wait and ask and don't get reason. I understand that a maintainer can be MIA, or have little time, but when a patch sits without comments and there is uploads of the package for example, or other maintainer activity, then this is the case i am speaking of here. tell me you asked in a nice way, I've read so many of your mails that seem to have been sent before you finished thinking and you had to apologize afterwards. I have indeed asked nicely in person in real life and on irc in both the above cases, as well as asked in the bug report again, as you could convince yourself if you looked at them. But this is scarcely the point here, i am not speaking about me, but was making a general point : DDs who maintain packages should strive to at least provide a simple comment to bug reports in general, and patches in particular. If they don't really have time to look after the packages or after this particular bug, for whatever reason, the more this need is important, as to not reject help coming in. As for the bug reporter, and the patch submitter, being ignored for a long time when it is clear there is activity, is a proof that his work in searching for the bug, and in trying (even if clumsily) to find a patch is wasted time, and motivation to do so in the future will fall. This is not something we want to encourage, i believe, as the overall quality of debian will (and may have already) suffered from it. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The problem with killfiles, and other musings [Was: Re: removal of svenl from the project]
Well, I was going to make a large answer where i was going to denouse the inexactitudes and false claims of this clearly inflamatory mail, but i will refrain from doing so. I wonder if Steve, and others of the 'esteemed' DDs, is following his own advice, and rereading the mails he writes, and if so, why did he need to add such a great amount of ad-hominem attacks again, and what was the added value it did bring to his point. As a vote for adding kill-files, i believe that i should have kill-filled jonas and manoj and a few others, it would have done me good, and made the infuriating nature of some of their mails much less. I even /ignore'd jonas on some occasions on irc, but i believe(d) (maybe in error) that there is no reasonable way to work together with killfilling or /ignore'ing key persons of the problem you are investigating. Another point, i think that this issue which affected me could much betters have been solved by communicating about this internally, and not of the one-sided-lesson-giving kind that seems so usual in these cases, but this didn't happen. Anyway, Steve, please try to live up to your own standard, and cut the ad-hominem attacks out in the future. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dicussion about patches ... ignoring patches make motivation to provide them fall
On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 12:44:05PM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: [Sven Luther] I am not saying that there needs to be an immediate response, or all patches need to be applied, but i believe that it is elementary politeness from a package maintainer, to at least aknowledge a patch or bug report when it is submitted. I believe you are wrong. If you are right, then I am a very impolite maintainer, as I have too many packages with too many bugs to look after, so I do not manage to look at, nor acknowledge and comment on, all the reported bugs against them, nor evaluate or commit the patches provided. But I try my best, and fail to see why your assumption that my behavior is impolite can in any way be correct. Ok, possible. my opinion on this may be colored by getting explained during an hour why the patch should not be applied :) Still, this is a real problem, as it affects the quality of debian, which is why i think that team-maintainership or backup maintainers is the real issue. That said, the polite thing to do would be to say in the bug report that you are too busy, in order for the submitter to know about it, and not a resounding silence as is often the case. As for the bug reporter, and the patch submitter, being ignored for a long time when it is clear there is activity, is a proof that his work in searching for the bug, and in trying (even if clumsily) to find a patch is wasted time, and motivation to do so in the future will fall. Well, I believe a bug reporter and patch submitter is better off if she accepts the rewarding thoughts of a job well done, and not waste time waiting for others to acknowledge it too. Working on free software need to be self motivated, or one will end up very frustrated as there is almost no external rewards. err. i don't believe a work well done is one that is moldering in the BTS and will never be applied. It is frustrating, because you have done all you can, and the rest is not in your hands anymore. All we can do is to make sure the bugs we find and the patches we create are published and easy to find for the others that work on the same package and find the same problem, and then work with the upstream developers and distribution maintainers to get them to look at the issue. Expecting this to happen by itself after submitting an email without careful attention from the bug reporter or patch writer is not going to cause anything but grief and frustration. This may be, but it doesn't fall in the category where the package maintainer is simply ignoring the issue. Mmm, i am probably repeating myself again :) I've sent hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of patches to developers and maintainers, and had lots of them ignored for a long time. There is no point for me to accuse the developers and maintainers of anything but having other priorities than me and having other things to spend time on. The only way to try to get them to look at my issue is by talking to them and attract their attention to the issue. Well, as a maintainer, i try to always respond to bug reports, with or without patch. It is not easy, but it is the least we can do. A simple few lines saying you don't have time is enough, and will probably prompt others seeing the bug to help you out. And as the lead developer of debian-edu, a contributing member of debian-gis and debian-java, a long time contributor of debian-installer and a vocal proponent of working in groups within debian, I believe I have some experience to back my claim that my approach work and lower the frustration level of working on free software. Yes, it is still a bit frustrating to see patches submitted to BTS being ignored for years, but at least I know that the responsivility for this is on my end, not having spend enough time working with the developer and maintainer to get him to give the task enough priority. It does no good to try to blame anyone else but myself for this, and I recommend the rest of you to place the blame there as well. :) Err. So, ... This is exactly what i am saying. it is furstrating to the submitter, who will probably next time say, heck, why should i bother, and this is a loss to the project. Going upstream is one possibility, but not always possible, particularly for debian only stuff. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The problem with killfiles, and other musings [Was: Re: removal of svenl from the project]
On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 12:34:09PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote: * Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-03-19 12:28]: Anyway, Steve, please try to live up to your own standard, and cut the ad-hominem attacks out in the future. Describing the situation as it is perceived by many people doesn't really count as ad-hominem attacks. Maybe for once you should listen Ok, but there is a serious problem there. There is a part of truth in his description, but also he is not telling the whole truth and misrepresenting part of it. I was scheduled for summary expulsion because i replied to such, and in the wake of the expulsion process, he could have avoided it. and ask yourself why so many people have a difficult time working with you, rather than taking it as ad-hominem attacks or people being against Pegasos or whatever explanation you came up for yourself. There are others in the project people have a difficult time working with, including some of the respected and eminent guys, but nobody would dare expulse them for it, or even critic. I mean, Steve mentioned the debian-legal thing, but failed to mention that part of my involvement with debian-legal (over the ocaml issue, but previously the XFree86 licence mess), made me the receiving end of a irc-witch-hunt from branden assufield and a few others i don't remember, which would have made andres have an heart attack had he seen it. Furthermore he says i maligned the RMs, while i ever had problems only with him, and over the vancouver document, which i believe many will agree was not an example of peacefull communication and utter lack of respect for the work of part the debian developers, or that joey hess regularly has some hateful diatribe against the lazy porters, ignoring the fact that d-i itself makes their job more difficult, and i could continue such, but i would be finger pointed because of it. When Manoj or Steve or other 'well-respected' developers exhibit the same behavior i have had here, then all is normal, right ? Nothing is always that black and white, and it is especially this kind of wild accusations, with the menace of expulsion would i dare to reply which is really difficult to swallow, right ? I really expected more of you than this. Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: removal of svenl from the project
On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 03:07:41PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: On 10595 March 1977, Sven Luther wrote: There is a difference here though, this is my public process for expulsion, No, this is a random flamewar on a random list and has *nothing* to do with any actually running process anywhere. Yeah, what good will the actual process be to me, the world at large will see all those un-responded accusations against me, right ? It includes already public finger pointing at me, when Andres first posted to debian-vote, and now i am listed aside assufield in the DPL minutes. Thanks a lot. I believe i have the right to defend myself against false accusations, as well as i did accept the part which was my fault in this whole mess. I don't think i will ever see a similar mea-culpa from the other party though. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
dicussion about patches ...
On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 04:01:58PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote: You missed the sarcasm. I understood Daniel's point to be that just because a patch is syntatically correct doesn't mean that it will (or should) be applied. The question is if the problems with the patches and the reason for not applying it will be commented, thus giving the author a chance to modify it, or change his approach to fixing the bug, or if the patch will be utherly ignored, which is an act of total contempt to his author as well as the users affected by the bug. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: removal of svenl from the project
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 10:48:11PM +0100, Samuel Mimram wrote: Hi, Andres Salomon wrote: On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 10:59:46AM -0500, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: Thanks for yours and Ralf's responses. To be honest, I wasn't expecting anyone to actually say that they *enjoyed* working w/ Sven. This is making me seriously reconsider my request; obviously, I don't want to penalize teams that want Sven around. My intent really is to improve the project, not to hurt Sven (or any other teams). Does the rest of the ocaml team feel this way as well? I also did *enjoy* working with Sven. I started as a maintainer by packaging ocaml programs and the help of the whole ocaml-maint team (including Sven) was very valuable. He often did answer my questions and helped me to learn packaging and the specificities of caml packages. He was also willing to let others help (i.e. wasn't the never-touch-my-package type). Interacting with him always been nice and fruitful. As far as the ocaml-related packaging is concerned, I really feel that his work has always been quite productive. I tend to try to spare my time and I only read lists like debian-devel from time to time, so I'm not judging here the whole interaction of Sven with the Debian project. Please mail me privately, no sense in cluttering up the lists any more. Sorry for not doing this but this mail made me discover you expulsion thing and I wanted to give my public support to Sven at least once. Thanks, ... Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: No insulting messages?
On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 03:23:45AM -0500, Filipus Klutiero wrote: But do you think that anything i said in those is insulting in some way, or a reason for me to be expelled from debian ? Referring to what came after that, I guess jonas going on with his bullshit is pretty close to an insult. I am also natively French-speaking, Yep, altough it seems common usage, so i am unsure. I guess having been at branden's school for email usage doesn't help there :) but I think you will agree that jonas replying with more erroneous arguments would be safer. Yeah, will use that nexty time. I don't know if native speaker realise this, because many non-native speaker seem to have a fluent english, but there are times when the right words just don't come, and you are grasping with finding the right word, and often make un-wise choices. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: removal of svenl from the project
that some good comes out of this thread. I think i have already improved my approach, i removed myself from most irc channels, and don't read most mailing lists. I would appreciate it if others would consider how these observations apply to them as well. I'm sure no one on this mailing list is perfect... Thanks for the long reply, but please take time to read my comments too, and you will understand how it is possible that all this happened, and where you think things are a mild issue not worth it, but it lead to me snapping. There is a limit to how you can handle a fellow human being, and altough this is well understood in real life case, people often don't notice when someone is snapping in this immaterial community we have, and unwillingly contribute to worsen the problem. Friendly, Sven Luther -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: removal of svenl from the project
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 06:33:00PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On 15 Mar 2006, Sven Luther told this: You did never intent to do so, since you clearly said numerous time that you where frustrated with the kernel team taking over your work on kernel-package, and that you put self-compiled kernels at a higher priority than the official debian kernels. This is a lie. I merely would not let the official kernel image use case obliterate the ome user use case, and I refuse to create diverging code bases for these use cases. A solution that panders entirely to one4 use case would not be acceptable, no. Notice thought that you left the kernel team many month almost alone to handle this, and then came suddenly back to impose your dictat in a strong way, which resulted in a clash. We have since then, i believe, solved this to everyone's satisfaction, but you where not better than me in how we handled that dispute, so i find it astunding that you jump on me at the first occasion like you seem to do. (but what can one judge more than on seeming ?). Already people like Bastian Blank are so frustrated with you that they repeteadly threatened to remove all dependency on kernel-package from the kernel, So you keep telling me. point taken. I think his position is known enough about this, and i will no more invoke it, and let him say it or not as he wants. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
i am not reading d-d anymore, and will reply only to personal mail or CCs.
On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 12:15:15PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Replying to this since it is addressed to me personally. Err, ... This line seems to add some incomprehension. I am no more readin debian-devel, nor any of the other mailing lists. Steve, on irc, has informed about the mail he was going to post, and asked me to read it, and we had a discussion on irc. Maybe i should have made it a personal reply, i don't know, but contrary to others, Steve chose to send it to the mailing list, and i have replied thus. So for all, i have stopped reading the public lists, except when people make reference to it in personal mail, and i have removed myself from most irc forums, and i don't want to continue posting here. If someone mails me personally though, and cross posts it to the forum, i think it is normal i reply though, not sure about this, maybe i shouldn't. Thanks all for your support, and special thanks to C Shore, who as an uninvolved third party, was able to express how i feel about this whole mess very clearly. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: removal of svenl from the project
On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 08:18:09AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: When I tried to open a dialogue, I was told that kernel package was crap, it was broken shit, and I was lucky that people had not yanked it out of the dependencies of the official packaging. Not a very conducive atmosphere for dialogue. I also came away with Where you told that exclusively by me ? and immediately upon your return ? Was this the first approach i had with you when you came back, after i had to look into the k-p internals and learn some perl, in order to solve the ramdisk generator issue ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mediation not Politics (Re: removal of svenl from the project)
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 10:57:42PM -0500, C Shore wrote: Abstract Thanks for your message, this indeed sums up my feeling very well. As for mediation, seeing the thing go into an impass, i asked Andreas Barth (on the technical comittee) to mediate on thursday/friday, and went into offline land, trying to forget the issue. He sais he had no time immediately, but would look into it. This whole issue still blew up because of a single harmless comment i made on wednesday, and my insatisfaction for jonas not crediting my work in solving the bug, which is a sad thing. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: removal of svenl from the project
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 02:58:29PM +1100, Brian May wrote: Eduard == Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Eduard Sven, you have a problem with not having the last word in Eduard a dispute. If someone hurts you (or even it may _look_ Eduard for you this way while it has not been meant to be Eduard offensive), you cannot stop and reconsider your Eduard actions. You have to kick your opponent again and again, Eduard and you insist on leaving the battle as a winner. At some Eduard point either you or your opponents (driven by your Eduard aggresive kind) began with stupid polemics, and on this Eduard point the constructive discussion is over. Eye for an eye Eduard is not a good way to find acceptable solutions. If somebody attacks you, especially in public, it is a natural reaction to defend yourself. Even if that person is right. Very likely you may not even consider the possibility that the other person is right. So I think you could replace Sven in the above paragraph with any number of other people, including Debian developers. IMHO This is not sufficient grounds for expelling him. PS: I noticed you had the header set: Mail-Followup-To: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED], debian-devel@lists.debian.org was this intentional? I think Sven is subscribed to this list... I am subscribed, but am not actyively reading the mailing list, in order to fight back on the urge to reply too much. Thus i asked to be CCed if a reply from me was wanted. Not sure about the M-F-T thingy though. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: removal of svenl from the project
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 01:00:19PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know Sven may sometimes be a bit overpresent in some trolls, he also=20 may answer too quick, without having read the mail he answers to=20 correctly enough. But AFAICT, I've always seen him apologies when he=20 did so (I can provide links if you can't believe me). Sven has insulted me and accused me of engaging in a conspiracy against him and his employers in order to cover up my own incompetence on more than one occasion without any hint of an apology. Well, this was on the ubuntu irc channel, when you where all presenting excuses for not having applied the patch that allowed the pegasos to be fully supported on ubuntu, even though i did so one month before the release, and nobody commented on that bug. I was a bit short on you, because you started to make noise about the reason for the refusal being a #include being wrongly placed in the patch, and a printk that was not strictly necessary, which i think for someone like you or the ubuntu kernel team is a joke reason not to even do a single reply on the bug report. Then you can add the fact that the ubuntu kernel people are making noise on public conferences about unifying the kernel (based on their stuff) for all debian and debian based distros, while nobody at the debian kernel team is aware of that, and contrary to when fabbionne was the ubuntu kernel maintainer, ben collins hardly communicates with us. I gave up on trying to communicate with the ubuntu kernel folk about pegasos support since then, and when i learned they dropped the mkvmlinuz support with a nobody should be using oldworlds by now comment, which was extremely clueless as oldworlds don't use it, only ibm chrp, pseries and the pegasos, weeks after genesi became a ubuntu partner, i decided to let this pass by the hierarchical way instead. I note also that Andres Salomon is now, to a degree, involved with the ubuntu folk, which is ok with me, but may color his request with regard to the above. I also remember that you where much less than curteous and extremely patronizing when i proposed myself to handle the ubuntu powerpc kernels, a year or so ago, when i still believed that cooperation was possible, and i never heard you apologize for that, so should we expulse you for both being offensive to me (and having gone over to the ennemy :) ? So, please tell me when i have said anything such to you in the context of debian, i would be very surprised about it. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: removal of svenl from the project
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 03:56:48PM +0100, Jorgen Schaefer wrote: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 09:01:09PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote: Hi, I am going through the expulsion process to have Sven Luther removed from the project. The process is outlined here: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/08/msg5.html, and I have already completed step 1. Thanks very much Andres, this is really appreciated. /me leaves in disgust. Not being involved in the kernel team at all, I'd be rather interested in your point of view on this - seemingly severe - issue. Do you think you could share it? I had decided to keep silent for the next few week to let matters settle, but as you ask directly and i was pointer to your question, i will break that resolution once, but please CC me privately in the future or something. What Andres is reproaching me, is that i was too vocal in my disput with jonas (and some previous disputes also with some others), and there he is right. I was at a level of frustration which made me so irrational i used some (too) strong words speaking to jonas and later vorlon. I notice though that jonas called me names too previously, but i am trully baffled about the issue with vorlon, since, maybe due to english not being my native tongue, it was interpreted as badly, i meant that as mostly in a joking tone, altough i failed to add a smiley or something (he was speaking about me and jonas, i asked him a question about it and he left, so i said something like bah, coward, which i really really was not thinking could offend someone, and if so i apologize for it). I notice also, that if we are going to expulse people due to strong wordings, i guess we should be expulsing half of debian, if not more. Now, to the issue with jonas. I arrived at a level of frustration i seldom reached on this issue, and it is all documented in the bug report #345067, the last development being that jonas decided to close the bug (as requested by me since the begining and even hinted at in november), without crediting the crucial role i played in finding the reason for the bug, nobody before me, and particularly not jonas whose job it was, did investigate the issue in the code itself, they all prefered to resort to wild hypothesis and shuffling modules around instead. I commented that this was not correct, which lead to Andres asking for my removal. Anyway, i am now in some personal problems (i learned friday that my mother will probably die in the next 2 months) and i really don't have time or energy to defend me or other such, so i will step back from debian activity and this whole mess for some time, sad that it had come to that after 8 years of active partiticipation, and will devote my time to my mother. I am probabably not going to post on this issue anymore, all or most of the fact are public, i think i tried to handle jonas as best i could, and every morning i tried to contribute positively to the solution of this issue, until it ended again in the same level of frustration due to jonas thigh-headedness. This does not excuse my behaviour though, but i think i did much to solve this issue in a good way, even though i didn't manage to stay calm and posed as i know i should have. I apologize for the problems i caused everyone on this, and hope you all good luck for the next time, and will try to contribute more when things have settled some. I also don't really think that the motion of expulsion will pass, as even assufield didn't gather against him enough seconds for this to happen, and i really don't think that i did worse than him, but that would be up to you all to judge. I resent Andres some, because he passed hasty judgement on this without even caring to hear me out (sure he spoke with me, but it was an one-sided kind of conversation), and i particularly resent him how he escalated this to the world during the DPL debate. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: removal of svenl from the project
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 05:56:10PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 05:56:05PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: I was a bit short on you, because you started to make noise about the reason for the refusal being a #include being wrongly placed in the patch, and a printk that was not strictly necessary, which i think for someone like you or the ubuntu kernel team is a joke reason not to even do a single reply on the bug report. I hadn't replied to the bug report because I wasn't involved in the Ubuntu kernel at the point when it was filed, so I didn't reply there. When you brought my attention to it, I pointed out two issues that you could fix in seconds. I had none of the hardware in question, and didn't want to spend time trying to work out if there was some subtle reason for the code being there. There was certainly no effort to sabotage your platform, and I haven't heard any sort of apology for your accusations. Well, i think that benc comment about nobody should use oldworld's by now is particularly clueless, and you in particular did know better than that. So, please stay to reality, and my maybe unjudicious use of the word sabotage was dedicated to this second issue. Now, really, you should all cool down, if one has to guard every word he says in order to not offend folk, this is going to be no fun at all. And we elected branden as DPL even :) I also remember that you where much less than curteous and extremely patronizing when i proposed myself to handle the ubuntu powerpc kernels, a year or so ago, when i still believed that cooperation was possible, and i never heard you apologize for that, so should we expulse you for both being offensive to me (and having gone over to the ennemy :) ? I have absolutely no recollection of this happening, and can't find any references to you talking to me about it in my logs. You appeared to spend some time arguing with Thibaut Varene - are you sure you're not confused? I may indeed be confused about this, if so i apologize. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: removal of svenl from the project
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 03:47:05PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote: - I've seen him several times reject good or even optimum solutions to problems, upon which a fair number of other people agreed, just for them going against his own personal agenda; which is, oook, something not so uncommon in this project, albeit very very undesirable. please provide backing for this diffamation, especially the accusation of not having the best of debian in mind, but a personal agenda. Svenl was also involved. And this is something that, fortunately, one does not get to see everyday in the project, and something that has made me terribly sad whenever I've had to watch it. I was in clear distress over this issue with jonas, and nobody considered it worth intervening except a few. i appealed to the tech comittee and jonas countered with outright lies and inexactitudes, and then i see aj commended jonas for working hard to solve the problem, while he has done nothing at all upto there. I haven't decided myself whether I think this procedure is too much for this particular case or not, and I'm aware that Svenl is not regarded as so nocive by many people who just see his good technical work and not him interact with others. But, if you want to listen, I jonas is also known to be difficult to work with, and this nobody even thought may have an influence on me. Of the 4 times in 8 years of my participation in debian, that things degenerated, he was involved twice, and when i meet him in real life and tried to solve the issue, i had the same problems i had on irc/mail to even communicate with him, which is something totally different from my experience with frans, who i also had words with in the past, and was perfectly able to work with in extremadura, ask him please. But then, i also fail to understand the fellow members of the debian-kernel team, when i warn them about the yaird situation, and particularly jonas words in erkelenz : - i don't understand the issue enough to comment on it. - i can't do anything without the advice of my upstream. ( especially given that his upstream has been MIA since december). - please contact the tech committee if you disagree with how i handle this bug. - long rant about why he should not fix the bug when i proposed to look over it then, mentioning he was not sure it didn't break in some case he was unable to mention, while it broke real systems do think Svenl has done much harm, if not to the project, to the _PEOPLE_ involved in some parts of the project, which is something And i think that much harm and hurt has been done to me, and that people like andres, i counted as friend on this, and stood with when he had his difficulties with the security team and dam and whatever, backstabbed me so. He did indeed speak to me once, but it was a one-way patronizing kind of thing, not something which could help the problem. that needs a solution. It's bad if your actions jeopardize a project's good name, or decrement its overall quality, but it's not bad but Ah, and andres attacking the security team publicly doesn't fall in the same category ? terrible when they go directly to contributors' feelings and amount of motivaion. Again, not sure still the proposed solution is the best. And then, what do you think about people who stubbornly refuse to fix bugs when users are seeing them ? Even though help is offered in all good faith ? Do we care about our users or only our pride ? Also, just as a small anecdote: during the huge Vancouver thread, I mentally marked two people as having had a terribe and inexcusable behavior, and Svenl was one of them. While several people expressed I agree with that, still many had the same strong feeling about the whole vancouver process, and i can probably name at least 10 or more people who agreed with me on that. their unhappiness or frustration very strongly, sometimes with nasty accusations or even insults, my mind could, while disagreeing to it, explain those reactions by putting them under a caused by unbearable frustration category; Svenl's behavior, otoh, surpassed the limits of my mind. Technical problems are hard, but we love them; social problems are harder, and we repeteadly ignore them until they explode. And ignore people who, maybe not directly, ask for help, and fall of them like a pack of wolves when they stumble, right ? Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: removal of svenl from the project
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 09:40:15AM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote: The DAM has accepted the request; please send seconds directly to [EMAIL PROTECTED], cc'ing me as well. For the people who seem to think that there are more constructive ways of dealing w/ this issue rather than the expulsion process: http://squishy.cc/svenl.txt This is a lot from two weeks ago, right after Sven threatened Jonas. If he had actually changed his behavior sometime in the past two years, /me remembers having threatened jonas last thursday, so Andres clearly seems to live in some kind of parallel world :) rather than just viewing every discussion as a battle that must be won at all costs, I would not be making this request. Yeah, well. I waited almost three month for something to happen on that bug report, and nothing ever came of it. I also note that jonas is not excempt from the fault, and that other had had trouble dealing with him, even if you didn't know that when you made your hasty judgement. Friendly, still, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: removal of svenl from the project
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 11:53:04AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: I strongly agree that Sven Luther is a disruptive element, and his presence hurts the project more than it helps. I have found a pattern of behaviour from him, where any discussion first focuses on blame allocation, and swiftly proceeds to personal recrimination, mischaracterization, and extreme polemics. Indeed, it is my experience that his prolific, rude, and relentless insults, misquotes, and distortions often result in delays in discovering the correct technical solution to the problem being investigated. This comming from you, who insulted me on irc together with jonas while i may have argued, but never used a and insulting word, about the ramdisk generation issue, i guess you have no shame. By itself this would not be enough, but the pattern of bahaviour has lead to people opting not to join the kernel team, myself included. You did never intent to do so, since you clearly said numerous time that you where frustrated with the kernel team taking over your work on kernel-package, and that you put self-compiled kernels at a higher priority than the official debian kernels. Already people like Bastian Blank are so frustrated with you that they repeteadly threatened to remove all dependency on kernel-package from the kernel, and which i tried to convince not do to anything hasty since i believed in agreement with you that this would not be the best for debian. A recent example of his not keeping the personal attacks away even after repeated requests and admonitions can be seen in the recent escalation to the tech ctte, where Ian had to repeatedly rebuke Sven, and even then he did not refrain. Yeah, sure, i apologized for that, i was beside myself, and should have stayed away from a computer during it. You don't say a word of this, right ? And i never saw any excuse coming from your part when you and jonas insulted me on irc, while i believe i have always presented apologizes and tried to restart the thread positively. On this exact issue with jonas, i 4 times tried to forget all my grieves, and provide reasonable, constructive and friendly further technical content, only to had it ruined again by jonas behavior. Not one or twice, but 4 times, and even when i proved him without doubt that there was no way his point could be possible, with a lengthy code analysis of the kernel did he relent and accept this. And then he credited jurij, but not me in the changelog entry closing the bug. Sven has not limited his activities to a single mailing list in the past, and this recaltricanse, refusal to listen to moderating voices, or even rebukes from the tech-ctte folks (and I do not mean myself), and the creation of a hostile working environment in any aspect of the project he touches is a reason this action should proceed. Thanks so much. This is how you repay me for taking care of kernel-package when you where away on medical trouble, but what could i expect more from you. The exact same thing you accuse me of, you are self subject to to some degree, and my error has been not to back away and let you have the final word, as i did in person in erkelenz with jonas because i noticed it may end badly had i not. I do not have a comment on his technical expertise, but echnical expertise does not trump collegiality. I am not asking for Mr. Rogers neighborhood here, I have been in too many flamewars not to know a certain degree of friction is inevitable in a large organization like Debian. Sven is one of two people I think of as having a deleterious systemic effect. I believe i am one of the only who speak up when i see manifest errors being done, and this together with english not being my native tongue, and maybe a fault in my caracter who make me to emotive on this things, lead to obvious clash when faced with people who have the same character dispositions. This includes you, jonas and fjp, altough i believe that i could work with all of you except jonas just nicely despite this. So, before you bane me, please look at your own reflection on this, and how you handled the selfsame situation you accuse me of. Finally, i don't think i need to apologize for being to emotional in wanting to make debian the best distribution out there, and pointing out technical errors, even if not in the best of form, but really falling on me like a pack of wolves when i cried out for help on handling this issue is not the ideal i see in debian, and make me think twice about investing so much of my time in it. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: removal of svenl from the project
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 10:54:58AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 07:26:07PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 05:56:10PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: I hadn't replied to the bug report because I wasn't involved in the Ubuntu kernel at the point when it was filed, so I didn't reply there. When you brought my attention to it, I pointed out two issues that you could fix in seconds. I had none of the hardware in question, and didn't want to spend time trying to work out if there was some subtle reason for the code being there. There was certainly no effort to sabotage your platform, and I haven't heard any sort of apology for your accusations. Well, i think that benc comment about nobody should use oldworld's by now is particularly clueless, and you in particular did know better than that. Fortunately, that isn't what was said, and you should stop placing quotation marks around it. Ok, second hand knowledge only, but this is how it was brought to my attention, feel free to correct me though. I am still a bit disgusted of seeing a bug report i provided to ubuntu, with patch and all the proper research immediately after the breezy beta go unanswered and uncared for though, so this may color my relationship with ubuntu, but i did also personally remove myself from all ubuntu channels and lists in order to not bother you with my personal issues, so seeing matthew bring this in here is i believe not correct. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: removal of svenl from the project
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 02:26:09PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: Adeodato Simó wrote: I've never worked closely with Sven Luther, but I've lurked in some teams he's member of, so if my capability as an observer is worth something to you, you may be interested in this if you're unfamiliar with Svenl. I've led a team that Sven was involved in and I agree with your observations completly. For what it's worth, Sven is one of the two people I have ever had to consider kicking out of d-i (the other left on his own accord), and he is the only Debian developer (and indeed, the only person) whom I have ever killfiled[1]. My stress levels have been quite a bit better since I began systemtically ignoring him some months ago. I feel that I've been a bit remiss in not addressing the problems he occasionally causes to d-i though. Notice that i left almost if not all debian-boot involvement some time ago because of that, and that the problems you mention where mostly caused by Frans commenting on things i said on debian-kernel, and not really directed at him, and he taked offense. Notice also that i am still expecting excuses on how you threated me in april last year, when i almost was brought to leave the project due to the abuse i got at the time, but i really am not expecting them anymore. Ever since i have questioned my involvement in debian, and after 8 years of participation, i have to say that issues got worse and worse the last year since a few of you guys used me as scapegoat to vent all their frustration on the delayed sarge release. So, i don't expect anything better from you, or manoj, or jonas. I notice thought that i have worked fine with Frans in extremadura, and haven't really caused any kind of trouble to the debian-boot team you mention since some month now. I did raise a few technical issues that are of the responsability of the debian-boot team to solve with regard to the kernel issue, but upto now nothing has happened there, and i fear that with me left, they may simply be forgotten, altough i hope someone else will take them over. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: removal of svenl from the project
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 11:17:06PM +0200, Daniel Stone wrote:
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 08:08:27PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
I am still a bit disgusted of seeing a bug report i provided to ubuntu, with
patch and all the proper research immediately after the breezy beta go
unanswered and uncared for though, so this may color my relationship with
ubuntu, but i did also personally remove myself from all ubuntu channels and
lists in order to not bother you with my personal issues, so seeing matthew
bring this in here is i believe not correct.
Sven,
The following is technically a well-formed diff:
--- init/main.c.orig2006-03-15 23:11:48.0 +0200
+++ init/main.c 2006-03-15 23:12:23.0 +0200
@@ -653,6 +653,9 @@
static int init(void * unused)
{
+char *foo = NULL, *bar = NULL;
+strdup(bar, foo);
+
lock_kernel();
/*
* init can run on any cpu.
However I don't think you'd be right to hold a grudge against anyone
who refused to apply it. If Matthew raised some issues with your patch,
why did you not fix them? Surely removing a debugging printk and moving
Because he raised them after there was no way for me to change anything about
it, and the only way was 'wait 6 month for the dapper release', when i
submitted the patch immediately after the first beta, one full month before
the release, and this exact patch was asked by the ubuntu kernel team from me
after the breezy-1 release.
Providing patch, doing the work, just to have them ignored is a really
frustrating thing to happen, don't you agree ?
the #include to the head of the file would've been pretty obvious.
Sure, but then why was i not told that, nobody even commented on the patch,
and seriously, any decent kernel hacker would recognize this problem at the
first glance, and either fix it or put a comment in the bug report for the
submitter to fix it.
It's not an isolated event, either. My refusal to apply a patch which
was unprecedented in the xorg packaging, for an issue that I feel (with
not insignificant justification) is a purely hardware issue was
presented as me hating on Pegasos. Similarly, your refusal to fix the
patch you provided was also presented as the kernel team despising you
and the Pegasos. (Money being paid or no. Principles are principles,
mmm?)
Well, if you remember well, we did solve this issue, did discuss it, and did
solve it to everyone satisfaction, did we not ?
I believe that in a volunteer world like debian, plainly ignoring the work of
others who provide patches is the most despissable and insulting thing that
can happen, since contrary to paid workers, we all sacrifice our free time to
make this happen.
See the frustration you went over which led to your problems with the X strike
force, and i guess you would understand how i felt about this. For example, i
left all involvement with the X strike force, when i submitted a patch
(trivial patch, i committed almost all of it upstream), to enable the driver
SDK to work with the debian packages, and it was 3+ years long 'not quite
time'. Or when i had to flamewar during 6 month with Ethan Benson, before he
allowed the debian yaboot maintainer to even look at the amiga partition table
support patch.
You seem to have this horrendous victim syndrome, exacerbated by bizzare
claims you have better things to do with your time[0] when you throw a
hissy fit and leave. Turning everyone's legitimate concerns into your
code into hate crusades against you and Genesi isn't in the least
productive, and I really wish you'd grow up and let it go.
Nope, this i disclaim. i think there may be legitimate concern sometimes, but
other times there is just plain unexcusable behaviour disguised as legitimate
concern. This is clearly the case with this current jonas case, and i invite
you to read the bug report in question.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: removal of svenl from the project
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 08:48:48PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 07:21:09PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: I had decided to keep silent for the next few week to let matters settle, but as you ask directly and i was pointer to your question, i will break that resolution once, That resolution seems to have slipped by a mail or two now? Yep. Your continuing replies seem to nicely demonstrate this exercise to some degree. But do you think that anything i said in those is insulting in some way, or a reason for me to be expelled from debian ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: removal of svenl from the project
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 08:23:53PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote: #include hallo.h * Sven Luther [Wed, Mar 15 2006, 08:04:50PM]: On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 11:53:04AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: I strongly agree that Sven Luther is a disruptive element, and his presence hurts the project more than it helps. I have found a pattern of behaviour from him, where any discussion first focuses on blame allocation, and swiftly proceeds to personal recrimination, mischaracterization, and extreme polemics. Indeed, it is my experience that his prolific, rude, and relentless insults, misquotes, and distortions often result in delays in discovering the correct technical solution to the problem being investigated. This comming from you, who insulted me on irc together with jonas while i may have argued, but never used a and insulting word, about the ramdisk generation issue, i guess you have no shame. Sven, you have a problem with not having the last word in a dispute. If someone hurts you (or even it may _look_ for you this way while it has not been meant to be offensive), you cannot stop and reconsider your actions. You have to kick your opponent again and again, and you insist on leaving the battle as a winner. At some point either you or your opponents (driven by your aggresive kind) began with stupid polemics, and on this point the constructive discussion is over. Eye for an eye is not a good way to find acceptable solutions. I am not sure that you do realize that. Because you did not anything wrong in your POV. And because eye-for-an-eye strategy may look okay in your eyes, and pushing the tone of the discussion into the dirt is acceptable risk (collateral damage). I am not sure that you won't be able to learn to act more cooperatively, trying to find compromises. But you have been warned and you shall get another chance, therefore I do not support this expulsion process (yet). Well, this may be true, but it is a bit difficult though to stand by and have its public process being made without intervening. And then have those who insulted me personally (and sorry, but i believe fuck off and idiot are more than match for coward), without even thinking the hurt they could do, now stand up and support my removal. This after years and years of contribution to debian, it is hard to take. Also, this exact point you are making, is i believe a perception problem, because it is exactly what made me misbehave in the case of jonas. I did the work he should have done, proved without doubt, after a many hour examination of the linux kernel source code, than he was wrong, and then i see aj comending him for trying to solve the issue, and having things well in hand, and some other guy menacing to publicly reprimand me, and jonas going on with his bullshit. Sorry, i am ranting again, i need to stop, i know, but it is not easy. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: removal of svenl from the project
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 11:36:50PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote: Dear Sven, reply went privately, just one comment though It seems to me that you don't actually enjoy kernel and d-i powerpc work, but rather see it as an obligation because your business in part depends on Debian supporting powerpc. This i cannot accept. My work obligation is exclusively to the 32bit pegasos machine, and have nothing at all to do with the remaining of the powerpc machines. A quick google search will show you i was strongly active in all kind of powerpc machines, from oldworld and nubus powermacs, to 64bit powerpc support, passing with the amiga/apus ones. I believe that this above idea is pure diffamation which bubled out of a comment i made on the jonas/yaird thread, where i mentioned that i was indeed taking a real life hit by him ignoring the bug, since i had to do user support for all those users he willingly and uncaringly broke their system. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: removal of svenl from the project
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 02:45:42PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote: On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 07:20:20PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: also sprach Gustavo Franco [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.03.15.1512 +0100]: [...] I'm asking myself what's behind all that ? Ubuntu ? Probably no. Subconcious fear to delivery in time ? Probably yes. Stop thinking about who you're going to ask to be expelled next and spend some time considering not my words, but just Etch. Thank you! If I didn't care about etch, I could just as easily sit back and let Sven do his thing (as I have been doing for the past few months); however, I Are you implying that it was because of me that you have taken a backseat recently ? I remember somethign else, about you being frustrated with DAM and the security team, and deciding to work more with the ubuntu guys at that time. I was really sad to see this happen, as your input was very valuable to the debian kernel team, and i told you so back then. would like to see the release happen. Given the time and resources that Sven's arguments consume, I am convinced that expelling him will make things run a lot smoother. maybe, but then you forget all the work i did to get 2.6.14 out, and i do currently not believe that we would have achieved that much if i had not strongly worked for it. I had to endure flames and insults from maks, manoj and jonas over the ramdisk-generator issue, an issue all where talking about since weeks and months, but nobody decided to act. Notice that already then there was a rather odious flamewar, and it is instead disgusting to have to go through such to get people to not dismiss you out of the hand because it is not like they have been doing since since forever. As a result, we solved the ramdisk generator dilemna to everybody's satisfaction, we managed to do same-day releases, which nobody thought possible, and was never heard off in debian (who was known for largely out-dated kernels, and needing a whole month to upgrade the d-i kernel). For starters, I/we need to figure out a sane way to deal w/ 3rd party kernel modules. I'm not sure the status of this, since Sven was adamant about this happening his way; I'm not even willing to even touch the issue while he's I notice though that back then my way, was also the way you advocated against manoj. Strange no, the way memory work. active in the kernel team. I don't need the extra stress. If Sven remains active, I intend to just ignore the issue and let someone else deal w/ it; perhaps someone who thinks that expulsion is too harsh. There are other issue to be dealt with : - the problem of the drivers with non-free firmware, and how d-i will be able to load those of external media ? This to this day is not solved, altough i tried to push for a resolution on this. I have some doubt this will be solved in the etch timeframe, or will be a last minute hack. - the problem of out-of-tree modules. Bastian Blank is working on this, and i am plainly confident he will do so with success. - the problem of d-i .udebs, and the mess they are in. We achieved much with the common infrastructure kernel, which i was the first in advocating, and getting flames by joeyh and others back then for even suggesting it, but this has to be continued to the d-i kernel .udebs to be complete. It works nicely for ubuntu, so why not for us ? I leave this all to you, i hope you are up to the responsability, and will not participate again in the kernel team until i am asked to. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: removal of svenl from the project
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 05:48:38PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote: On 15-Mar-06, 15:40 (CST), Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But do you think that anything i said in those is insulting in some way, or a reason for me to be expelled from debian ? No, it's a demonstration of your apparent need to reply to *every* *single* *message* in any thread that you get involved in, each reply saying more-or-less the same thing, presumably under the assumption that repeating an argument improves it, and that people are disagreeing because the continue to misunderstand you. Yeah, well. There is a difference here though, this is my public process for expulsion, and i believe i should have the right to be heard. I tried to stay out of it altogether, but was asked to reply, and was sucked in again, sorry, i am trying to take more and more of it to public mail though. I'm a little sympathetic, because I used to suffer from the same disease, and I still have the occasional outbreak, but I'm trying hard, and mostly getting better. I think. :) In and of itself, it wouldn't be reason to expell you, because there are several others around here who suffer similarly. But it doesn't make it easier for people to defend you. Ok, thanks for this insight. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: removal of svenl from the project
On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 11:07:02AM +1100, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote: On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 05:48:38PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote: I'm a little sympathetic, because I used to suffer from the same disease, and I still have the occasional outbreak, but I'm trying hard, and mostly getting better. I think. It appears as if you're diagnosing svenl with the same disease that you're suffering. Is the desease called obsessive-compulsive disorder? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsessive-compulsive_disorder This is a common disease in debian, i would even say this may be caused to some point by debian involvement. I never had such before i started participating here :) Friendly, Sven Lutyher -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
