Re: Supporting armel/armhf in wheezy-lts
On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 02:41:30PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > That's why I have been advocating for a change of the DMUP. It has been used > far too often to annoy persons who are being paid (or who are accepting > donations) to work on Debian instead of causing real troubles that could > annoy sponsors or create problems to the DSA team. I think that the distinction between Debian LTS and Freexian is too indefinite. https://wiki.debian.org/LTS/ makes it appear that LTS is an official Debian effort. However, https://wiki.debian.org/LTS/Funding directs those interested in providing funding in support LTS to do so through Freexian rather than through Software in the Public Interest. Freexian isn't a TO and the funds it collects aren't subject to the same disbursement conditions (approval by DPL; execution by SPI Treasurer; review by Debian Auditor) as funds collected by Debian. Consequently, I find the use of Debian resources such as the advertising above and/or the use of Debian machines as being problematic. Make the distinction clearer, and the problem goes away. > I have also been looking at ways to bring the "LTS funding" closer to Debian > and to find a way to join all this in the Debian Partner program but we don't > have many volunteers interested in this work. We discussed it a bit last year > during Debconf with Luca Filippozi, Martin Krafft and Neil McGovern, but this > never went further. And I obviously don't want to be leading this project due > to the clear conflict of interest that I would have... I'm interested in working on Debian Partners but not if it includes Debian LTS fundraising as currently structured: either Debian LTS fundraising falls under the same umbrella as other Debian fundraising (and subject to the same rules, including that funds not be used for reimbursing effort, potentially) or it is separate and branded as a Freexian service. I don't begrudge people making a living supporting Debian. I do mind the indistinction between Debian LTS and Freexian. It's situations like these that cause organizations to have things like DMUP. (You also have a clear conflict of interest in arguing for changes to the DMUP. That said, periodic re-examination of policies and procedures is healthy for organizations.) (The majority of Debian equipment is still hosted by post-secondary institutions where commercial activity using university resources is frowned upon.) -- Luca Filipozzi http://www.crowdrise.com/SupportDebian
Re: Supporting armel/armhf in wheezy-lts
On 23/04/16 13:41, Raphael Hertzog wrote: Hi, On Fri, 22 Apr 2016, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: I am not speaking on behalf of DSA here. Thanks for making this clear. I also want to explain why I included DSA in the discussion: I wanted to make sure that the fact that we run wheezy armel/armhf buildd for two more years do not go against some DSA plans to decommission some machines running those buildd and that you had no other problems to keep those machine running during the LTS timeframe. I'm not DSA but my understanding is that all suites are built on the same buildds, since jessie supports armel and armhf and squeeze will almost certainly support at least one and hopefully both of those we will need autobuilder hardware for the forseeable future.
give-back cmake on all
Hi, Please gb cmake_3.5.2-1 . all I can't reproduce the test failure and it built fine on amd64. Thanks, Felix
Re: Supporting armel/armhf in wheezy-lts
On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 14:41:30 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > I have also been looking at ways to bring the "LTS funding" closer to Debian > and to find a way to join all this in the Debian Partner program but we > don't have many volunteers interested in this work. We discussed it a bit > last year during Debconf with Luca Filippozi, Martin Krafft and Neil > McGovern, but this never went further. And I obviously don't want to be > leading this project due to the clear conflict of interest that I would > have... > I think one of the contentious points is how "Freexian raising funds to work on Debian LTS" is already too close to calling itself "Debian LTS fundraising", so I'm not sure bringing them closer would alleviate anyone's concerns. Cheers, Julien
Re: Supporting armel/armhf in wheezy-lts
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 05:16:19PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > > The LTS period is about to start soon and we will send out an announce > > soon... it would be nice to be able to say a word about armel/armhf, so > > an official confirmation from ftpmasters/DSA would be nice. > > So, I'm a bit divided on all this. While the DMUP is heavy artillery > and we should be careful about invoking it, I think it crosses the line > in «Don't use Debian Facilities for private financial gain or for > commercial purposes, including consultancy or any other work outside the > scope of official duties or functions for the time being, without > specific authorization to do so.», so you need explicit authorization > before you start. I'm a bit surprised you bring this up now, when the question at hand is, whether to add armel+armhf as new supported architectures to Wheezy LTS. Because, also for doing Squeeze LTS for i386 and amd64, Debian machines were used, with - I'd say - consens of the project that this is ok, IOW: there was specific authorisation to do so. There's another Debian project which is in a similar situation: official Debian images for cloud services, made on Debian hardware. There's a commercial purpose too. (And then we get into the blurry area of all the consultants and freelancers and employees working on paid time on Debian stuff using Debian ressources…) And while I think we absolutly should discuss these things (dc16?) and probably revisited the DMUP (written how long ago?) this will all take time and right now we have a somewhat pressing issue at hand: Can we add armel/armhf to Wheezy LTS *now*? LTS starts in 3 days. -- cheers, Holger signature.asc Description: Digital signature
