Re: confusion about non-free (Re: Bits from the Debian Eee PC team, summer 2008)
Robert Millan wrote: [ adding debian-project ] On Sun, Aug 03, 2008 at 01:53:54PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: On Sun, Aug 03, 2008 at 08:28:19AM -0300, Ben Armstrong wrote: Earliest Eee models fully supported in Lenny Lenny will release with the atl2 ethernet driver and the non-free madwifi-source now works with the earliest Eee models as well, Hi Ben Lenny is Debian. non-free is not part of Debian. Check the Social Contract. I wonder what is it that we do wrong to spread this confusion so much that it affects even Debian developers themselves. What is this to blame? Would it be the FTP archive layout? Perhaps having an unified BTS? There are some problem with terms/words: they are inconsistent, sometime also along the same documentation file. BTW I'm trying to document it: http://wiki.debian.org/PolicyGlossary Anyway: From policy: The main category forms the Debian GNU/Linux distribution. But I'm not sure that Lenny is only Debian: From http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/dists/lenny/Release (thus using 'dak' terminology): : Origin: Debian : Label: Debian : Suite: testing : Codename: lenny : Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 08:39:59 UTC : Architectures: alpha amd64 arm armel hppa i386 ia64 mips mipsel powerpc s390 sparc : Components: main contrib non-free : Description: Debian x.y Testing distribution - Not Released So lenny is made from main (Debian), contrib and non-free. ciao cate -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: confusion about non-free (Re: Bits from the Debian Eee PC team, summer 2008)
On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 03:18:24PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote: : Origin: Debian : Label: Debian : Suite: testing : Codename: lenny : Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 08:39:59 UTC : Architectures: alpha amd64 arm armel hppa i386 ia64 mips mipsel powerpc s390 sparc : Components: main contrib non-free : Description: Debian x.y Testing distribution - Not Released So lenny is made from main (Debian), contrib and non-free. Therefore Lenny is not Debian, but a superset of it? This is troubling. Do you have any suggestions on how to address this? -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: confusion about non-free (Re: Bits from the Debian Eee PC team, summer 2008)
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 20:36:17 +0200, Robert Millan wrote: This is troubling. Do you have any suggestions on how to address this? Stop trolling about utterly uninteresting details? HTH, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: confusion about non-free (Re: Bits from the Debian Eee PC team, summer 2008)
On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 08:46:36PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 20:36:17 +0200, Robert Millan wrote: This is troubling. Do you have any suggestions on how to address this? Stop trolling about utterly uninteresting details? I think it's you who are trolling. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: confusion about non-free (Re: Bits from the Debian Eee PC team, summer 2008)
Robert Millan wrote: On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 03:18:24PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote: : Origin: Debian : Label: Debian : Suite: testing : Codename: lenny : Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 08:39:59 UTC : Architectures: alpha amd64 arm armel hppa i386 ia64 mips mipsel powerpc s390 sparc : Components: main contrib non-free : Description: Debian x.y Testing distribution - Not Released So lenny is made from main (Debian), contrib and non-free. Therefore Lenny is not Debian, but a superset of it? This is troubling. Do you have any suggestions on how to address this? It is complex :-( Debian is a distribution (Origin in dak terminology), which has some distributions (stable, testing, unstable; Suite in dak terminology, sometime named archive on apt). But Debian GNU/Linux distribution: build from the main category (note that category sometime is named segment or area or component) so we have an additional definition for distribution and for Debian. There are so many overloaded terms in Debian. So I agree that it is confusing. How to address? It is simple! Ask to the relevant people. The original case was about lenny release/installation. So ask to RM or d-i what lenny means on these groups (teams or cabals or mailing-list or roles or ...) ;-) ciao cate -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: confusion about non-free (Re: Bits from the Debian Eee PC team, summer 2008)
Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Therefore Lenny is not Debian, but a superset of it? This is troubling. Do you have any suggestions on how to address this? I recommend not attributing such judgements to the configuration files of software packages. I'm looking for review of http://bugs.debian.org/473439, which tries to help clarify terminology in this area. If you have a chance and care, please review that bug and second or discuss the proposed change in that bug. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: confusion about non-free (Re: Bits from the Debian Eee PC team, summer 2008)
Russ Allbery wrote: Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Therefore Lenny is not Debian, but a superset of it? This is troubling. Do you have any suggestions on how to address this? I recommend not attributing such judgements to the configuration files of software packages. Sorry??? It is more that a configuration file, and BTW the same notation it is also used by apt. Archive and its format are an area of ftp-master. And BTW the terminology was not important, and debian policy should agree with the same reasoning: Debian distribution is main (explicit written in policy, chapter 2). stable has something called main, contrib and non-free (terminology changes, but not important in this case). So stable is a super set of Debian distribution (aka main). Judgement was on such reasoning, not on the dak terminology. Debian distribution is also used with other meanings, but not relevant to the initial question. I used Release file, because in 6 lines, DDs see the problem of terminology of different divisions in Debian, and because it is one of the few places where we find the name lenny, which was the initial problem. I'm looking for review of http://bugs.debian.org/473439, which tries to help clarify terminology in this area. If you have a chance and care, please review that bug and second or discuss the proposed change in that bug. The bug is only relevant to policy, but as stated by policy team, debian/copyright, interpretation of DFSG, archive sections (devel, libs, mail), etc. are areas outside policy, but they are in ftp-master hands. So IMHO what Debian means (linked to DFSG) and what Lenny means (archive) is outside debian-policy (and outside of the cited bug). This is unfortunate. The terminology and the area of competences should be cleared defined by debian project, and probably result to a common document (with addition to all bureaucratic things, no to pass on other foot). IMHO the Debian project should give developers (and users) more importance, i.e. we need a single and consistent document. Only internally Debian should defines the edit right of different team (and in which area). Unfortunately now it is done in the other direction: actually the priority is on relevant teams and not to developers, so DDs should check is few places new rules. But this means also that teams doesn't coordinate and we have different and confusing terminologies. ciao cate -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: confusion about non-free (Re: Bits from the Debian Eee PC team, summer 2008)
Giacomo Catenazzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Russ Allbery wrote: I recommend not attributing such judgements to the configuration files of software packages. Sorry??? It is more that a configuration file, and BTW the same notation it is also used by apt. Archive and its format are an area of ftp-master. I disagree. The Release file in the archive is a configuration file that is part of the software interface to the archive. The terminology that it uses refers to capabilities within the archive maintenance software and within the software that downloads files from a Debian archive. It does not have anything to do with legal, administrative, or focus decisions taken by the Debian project. Mixing the terminology used for a software package with the terminology used for the founding organizational documents of the project is a mistake, in my opinion. The Debian archive software is general software that could be used for any project, even with an entirely different use of the component feature that has nothing to do with licensing. We happen to use it for licensing and to separate things that are part of the distribution from things that are not, but this is not in any way inherent to the component concept within the archive software. The bug is only relevant to policy, but as stated by policy team, debian/copyright, interpretation of DFSG, archive sections (devel, libs, mail), etc. are areas outside policy, but they are in ftp-master hands. So IMHO what Debian means (linked to DFSG) and what Lenny means (archive) is outside debian-policy (and outside of the cited bug). This is unfortunate. I don't agree that this is the case to the extent that you describe, or that it follows from that bug or from other Policy discussions, although I agree that thet Constitution and Social Contract have more to say about this than Policy does. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: confusion about non-free (Re: Bits from the Debian Eee PC team, summer 2008)
On Aug 05, Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I disagree. The Release file in the archive is a configuration file that is part of the software interface to the archive. The terminology that it uses refers to capabilities within the archive maintenance software and within the software that downloads files from a Debian archive. It does not have anything to do with legal, administrative, or focus decisions taken by the Debian project. Agreed. Let's stop this idiocy/trolling/whatever. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: confusion about non-free (Re: Bits from the Debian Eee PC team, summer 2008)
On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 14:17:46 +0200 Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wonder what is it that we do wrong to spread this confusion so much that it affects even Debian developers themselves. What is this to blame? Would it be the FTP archive layout? Perhaps having an unified BTS? I'd be very interested in finding an answer to that question, and proposing a reform if we find something conclussive. I'm speechless. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
