Re: on package duplication between Debian and debian-multimedia
Hi Fabian, We are aware of this issue. Christian Marillat, who owns the debian-multimedia.org domain (an official service), declined to renew the domain name, despite Debian offering to cover renewal and transfer costs. As a result, the domain is now in a state called REDEMPTIONPERIOD, before getting finally deleted. The fact that debian-multimedia.org stills has an A record is apparently a bug at the registar, that still exports a Host record for this name to the .org zone. We got in touch with OVH, but we were not able to get them to understand the issue. AFAIK, the content hosted on http://debian-multimedia.org/ has no relation with Christian Marillat. Lucas On 23/05/13 at 11:46 +0200, Fabian Greffrath wrote: o_O That's warez! On a site with Debian's name in it. DPL, please act! Von Samsung Mobile gesendet Ursprüngliche Nachricht Von: Jed Sharp jedsh...@gmx.com Datum: An: pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org Betreff: on package duplication between Debian and debian-multimedia On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 04:37:49PM +0200, Christian Marillat wrote: As I don't want to be bothered, I don't intent to transfert the domain name. I'll delete the DNS entries in six months and not renew the domain name. As it turned out, the debian-multimedia.org domain did get renewed, by Christian Marillat on 26-Apr-2013, according to whois, although www.debian-multimedia.org no longer has an A record. Curiously though, http://debian-multimedia.org/ now serves a collection of rather dubious-looking content which I doubt is doing Debian's reputation a lot of good. What did the Debian project ever do to deserve this I wonder? ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
AW: on package duplication between Debian and debian-multimedia
o_O That's warez! On a site with Debian's name in it. DPL, please act! Von Samsung Mobile gesendet Ursprüngliche Nachricht Von: Jed Sharp jedsh...@gmx.com Datum: An: pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org Betreff: on package duplication between Debian and debian-multimedia On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 04:37:49PM +0200, Christian Marillat wrote: As I don't want to be bothered, I don't intent to transfert the domain name. I'll delete the DNS entries in six months and not renew the domain name. As it turned out, the debian-multimedia.org domain did get renewed, by Christian Marillat on 26-Apr-2013, according to whois, although www.debian-multimedia.org no longer has an A record. Curiously though, http://debian-multimedia.org/ now serves a collection of rather dubious-looking content which I doubt is doing Debian's reputation a lot of good. What did the Debian project ever do to deserve this I wonder? ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
on package duplication between Debian and debian-multimedia
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 04:37:49PM +0200, Christian Marillat wrote: As I don't want to be bothered, I don't intent to transfert the domain name. I'll delete the DNS entries in six months and not renew the domain name. As it turned out, the debian-multimedia.org domain did get renewed, by Christian Marillat on 26-Apr-2013, according to whois, although www.debian-multimedia.org no longer has an A record. Curiously though, http://debian-multimedia.org/ now serves a collection of rather dubious-looking content which I doubt is doing Debian's reputation a lot of good. What did the Debian project ever do to deserve this I wonder? ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: on package duplication between Debian and debian-multimedia
On 31/05/12 at 11:41 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 04:37:49PM +0200, Christian Marillat wrote: In the meantime, and considering your intention of moving away from debian-multimedia.org, I'd like to ask you to transfer the old domain name to a Debian Trusted Organization, such as SPI or FFIS. We can agree on a timeline of, say, 6 months and we will be happy to use it as you please until that time period is over. As I don't want to be bothered, I don't intent to transfert the domain name. I'll delete the DNS entries in six months and not renew the domain name. Well, you are still a Debian Developer and I was hoping you could take into account that you not wanting to be bothered will result in more work for the Debian Project and its peers, in particular by SPI and myself (or future DPLs) as coordinator: procedure 1 --- - SPI will need to race for registering it after expiration - if that works, fine, but still someone has to keep an eye on that and get the timing right - if that doesn't work, we will have to do arbitration, which we will easily win due to the debian trademark, but it will still cost Debian money and SPI lawyers time (pro bono time, which could better be used for the needs of other free sw projects supported by SPI) All this could be avoided, by you, in a very simple way: procedure 2 --- - you set the domain as transfer allowed and mail the Auth-Code to hostmas...@spi-inc.org - when you get a transfer mail from the registrar, you click on a link Procedure 2 will bother (you), but procedure 1 potentially results in way more wasted resources by many other actors. Would you mind reconsidering? Dear Christian, We are now past the domain's expiration date, and whois gives the following status for the domain name: Domain Name:DEBIAN-MULTIMEDIA.ORG Created On:16-Apr-2006 12:50:31 UTC Last Updated On:17-Apr-2013 08:56:43 UTC Expiration Date:16-Apr-2014 12:50:31 UTC Sponsoring Registrar:OVH (R135-LROR) Status:CLIENT DELETE PROHIBITED Status:CLIENT HOLD Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED Status:AUTORENEWPERIOD It seems that this is now our last opportunity to transfer the domain to a Debian trusted organization. If we fail to do that, a domain squatter is likely to register it, and might use it in a way that could be harmful to Debian and to users of the debian-multimedia.org service. So, I urge you to reconsider your decision not to collaborate with Debian to transfer this domain name. Thanks in advance, Lucas ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: on package duplication between Debian and debian-multimedia
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 04:37:49PM +0200, Christian Marillat wrote: As I don't want to be bothered, I don't intent to transfert the domain name. I'll delete the DNS entries in six months and not renew the domain name. Christian, as the domain will expire soon, I feel obliged to try again before it's too late: can you please be kind to the project you're a member of, and avoid us both hassles and the potential loss of valuable assets? In particular, can you please coordinate with SPI's hostmasters (Cc:-ed) to transfer to SPI the ownership of the debian-multimedia.org domain before it expires? It would be much appreciated. Many thanks in advance for considering, Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . z...@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o Debian Project Leader . . . . . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club » signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: on package duplication between Debian and debian-multimedia
Stefano Zacchiroli lea...@debian.org writes: Thanks for your answer. It's a pity, though, that you didn't comment on two important parts of our previous communications: 1) The fact that moving to deb-multimedia.org won't really solve the duplication of effort issues and, more importantly, the issues of *users* who are using both your repository and the Debian archive. Looking from the outside, it really seem you're more interested in keeping your repository alive, no matter the name, than in solving those issues. You're in your own right to do so and I'm not entitled to judge it in any way. Good new, I can do what I want... And my users (more than 20 000 users) http://www.deb-multimedia.org/popcon.jpg are certainly happy do uses what you call broken packages. [...] 2) The donation issue. Can you please add the disclaimers that have been discussed in this thread? I don't intent to add any disclaimers to my pages. I don't see how people can think that I'm affiliated to Debian. Christian ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: on package duplication between Debian and debian-multimedia
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 08:24:42PM +0200, Christian Marillat wrote:
And my users (more than 20 000 users)
http://www.deb-multimedia.org/popcon.jpg are certainly happy do uses
what you call broken packages.
Except that I haven't.
Thanks for your answer, the relative positions are quite clear.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences .. http://upsilon.cc/zack .. . . o
Debian Project Leader... @zack on identi.ca ...o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: on package duplication between Debian and debian-multimedia
Hi Stefano Ive been pointed to this thread ... Not taking any sides here, and iam not sure if this conflict is related to FFmpeg or if it is, how it is. But if there is any problem or bug in FFmpeg, i would be happy to fix it. bugreports on https://ffmpeg.org/trac/ffmpeg or in my inbox surely are welcome! Also if theres any feature in any fork/clone of ffmpeg that isnt in ffmpeg.org master git then as well iam interrested to hear about that so it can be integrated. And if theres anything i can do to get FFmpeg (+ffplay+libavcodec+ libavformat+libavfilter+libswresample+...) back into debian as official package, please tell me. The FFmpeg project definitly wants to be a official package in debian again! [...] Thanks! -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB The educated differ from the uneducated as much as the living from the dead. -- Aristotle signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: on package duplication between Debian and debian-multimedia
Thanks for your answer. It's a pity, though, that you didn't comment on
two important parts of our previous communications:
1) The fact that moving to deb-multimedia.org won't really solve the
duplication of effort issues and, more importantly, the issues of
*users* who are using both your repository and the Debian archive.
Looking from the outside, it really seem you're more interested in
keeping your repository alive, no matter the name, than in solving
those issues. You're in your own right to do so and I'm not entitled
to judge it in any way. But I can't help finding that to be a pity:
working together we can reduce user issues and have overall better
feelings between you and pkg-multimedia-maintainers. Please
reconsider.
2) The donation issue. Can you please add the disclaimers that have been
discussed in this thread?
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 04:37:49PM +0200, Christian Marillat wrote:
In the meantime, and considering your intention of moving away from
debian-multimedia.org, I'd like to ask you to transfer the old domain
name to a Debian Trusted Organization, such as SPI or FFIS. We can agree
on a timeline of, say, 6 months and we will be happy to use it as you
please until that time period is over.
As I don't want to be bothered, I don't intent to transfert the domain
name. I'll delete the DNS entries in six months and not renew the domain
name.
Well, you are still a Debian Developer and I was hoping you could take
into account that you not wanting to be bothered will result in more
work for the Debian Project and its peers, in particular by SPI and
myself (or future DPLs) as coordinator:
procedure 1
---
- SPI will need to race for registering it after expiration
- if that works, fine, but still someone has to keep an eye on that and
get the timing right
- if that doesn't work, we will have to do arbitration, which we will
easily win due to the debian trademark, but it will still cost Debian
money and SPI lawyers time (pro bono time, which could better be used
for the needs of other free sw projects supported by SPI)
All this could be avoided, by you, in a very simple way:
procedure 2
---
- you set the domain as transfer allowed and mail the Auth-Code to
hostmas...@spi-inc.org
- when you get a transfer mail from the registrar, you click on a link
Procedure 2 will bother (you), but procedure 1 potentially results in
way more wasted resources by many other actors. Would you mind
reconsidering?
TIA,
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences .. http://upsilon.cc/zack .. . . o
Debian Project Leader... @zack on identi.ca ...o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: on package duplication between Debian and debian-multimedia
Stefano Zacchiroli lea...@debian.org writes: [...] In the meantime, and considering your intention of moving away from debian-multimedia.org, I'd like to ask you to transfer the old domain name to a Debian Trusted Organization, such as SPI or FFIS. We can agree on a timeline of, say, 6 months and we will be happy to use it as you please until that time period is over. As I don't want to be bothered, I don't intent to transfert the domain name. I'll delete the DNS entries in six months and not renew the domain name. Christian ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: on package duplication between Debian and debian-multimedia
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 7:55 PM, Christian Marillat maril...@free.fr wrote: I'll be busy this week. I'll reply after the 20 may. Time has passed, and it seems you have at least the time to go on kidding us: On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 11:26 PM, Christian Marillat maril...@deb-multimedia.org wrote: libmkv (0.6.5.1-dmo1) unstable; urgency=low . * rebuild with -dmo1 debian version. You uploaded libmkv to your repository immediately you saw the same package was accepted by FTP-masters. It is in a clear view you don't care about versioning and now, thanks to the -dmoX scheme, your package still supersede the libmkv provided by Debian now. You are doing harm to Debian users, and it is *not* appreciated. On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Christian Marillat maril...@debian.org wrote: Did you read the donate page ? There is no ambiguity. Have you ever looked at that custom version of Debian's logo you are still using on your website? It looks very ambiguous to me, much more than the name itself. On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Stefano Zacchiroli lea...@debian.org wrote: We could also consider various in-between solutions, such as adding suitable prominent disclaimers on your website explaining that your initiative is not affiliated with the Debian Project, that it might cause technical incompatibilities with official packages, and that the donations you're collecting are for you personally and not for the Debian Project. Do you agree to publish such a statement/disclaimer to clearly inform users that debian-multimedia.o (deb-multimedia.org, or whatever) *IS NOT* Debian? Please let us know what you think about the point above. Regards. -- Alessio Treglia | www.alessiotreglia.com Debian Developer | ales...@debian.org Ubuntu Core Developer | quadris...@ubuntu.com 0416 0004 A827 6E40 BB98 90FB E8A4 8AE5 311D 765A ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: on package duplication between Debian and debian-multimedia
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Reinhard Tartler siret...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli lea...@debian.org wrote: Unless I'm mistaken, on April 7th, while the discussion between me and the pkg-multimedia-maintainer was going on, you've both renewed debian-multimedia.org for another year and registered the domain that now hosts http://www.deb-multimedia.org . I guess that is the website you want to move debian-multimedia.org to. You're right, that would solve the debian name problem. Frankly, this doesn't solve anything. First of all, deb-multimedia.org is confusingly similar to the former name, because only two letters are dropped. Moreover, the archive itself is still called 'debian-multimedia'. This means that users that use a mirror such as http://debian.informatik.uni-erlangen.de/debian-multimedia/ as advised remain confused. As shown earlier in this thread, such an URL does make people think this was an official Debian resource, which it is not. -- regards, Reinhard ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers His website still shows Debian Multimedia in the header of all pages. Those need to be updated. Also, his website has no disclaimer (that I've seen) which states the site is not a part of or is affiliated with Debian. I know it wasn't explicitly mentioned before that he should post a disclaimer but, he should post a disclaimer on the front of his page and in his FAQ. Also, his donate page only says You can donate by using paypal in Euro/€. PayPal logo or directly to my bank account. account numbers In any case, thanks in advance. This is horrible IMO. This is practically the same kind of message sent via the spam I get every single day. How about showing a little appreciation when asking for contributions? This would work better Please consider offering a donation to help me cover the cost of maintaining this website/service. Your contributions are welcome. instructions on how to donate/who to contact/etc. And of course, his donate page definitely needs to be clear where/who the donations are going to (i.e. it needs a disclaimer making clear none of the donations go to Debian). -- ~ Andres ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: on package duplication between Debian and debian-multimedia
Christian, Unless I'm mistaken, on April 7th, while the discussion between me and the pkg-multimedia-maintainer was going on, you've both renewed debian-multimedia.org for another year and registered the domain that now hosts http://www.deb-multimedia.org . I guess that is the website you want to move debian-multimedia.org to. why not marillat-multimedia.org? or marillat-media.org? I am serious, they are catchy and avoid any confusion concerning affiliation with Deb(ian). - Fabian ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: on package duplication between Debian and debian-multimedia
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli lea...@debian.org wrote: Unless I'm mistaken, on April 7th, while the discussion between me and the pkg-multimedia-maintainer was going on, you've both renewed debian-multimedia.org for another year and registered the domain that now hosts http://www.deb-multimedia.org . I guess that is the website you want to move debian-multimedia.org to. You're right, that would solve the debian name problem. Frankly, this doesn't solve anything. First of all, deb-multimedia.org is confusingly similar to the former name, because only two letters are dropped. Moreover, the archive itself is still called 'debian-multimedia'. This means that users that use a mirror such as http://debian.informatik.uni-erlangen.de/debian-multimedia/ as advised remain confused. As shown earlier in this thread, such an URL does make people think this was an official Debian resource, which it is not. -- regards, Reinhard ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: on package duplication between Debian and debian-multimedia
Stefano Zacchiroli lea...@debian.org writes: I'll be busy this week. I'll reply after the 20 may. Christian ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: on package duplication between Debian and debian-multimedia
On Sun, May 06, 2012 at 07:27:23PM +0200, Christian Marillat wrote:
We could also consider various in-between solutions, such as adding
suitable prominent disclaimers on your website explaining that your
initiative is not affiliated with the Debian Project, that it might
cause technical incompatibilities with official packages, and that the
donations you're collecting are for you personally and not for the
Debian Project.
Did you read the donate page ? There is no ambiguity.
http://www.debian-multimedia.org/donate
Yes, I've read it before contacting you, and I don't think it enough.
The only thing that helps clarifying the donation target is the me in
the sentence donate some money to me. But you are also an official
member of the Debian Project, so a donor might be induced to think you
will use that money for Debian and there is no evidence of that.
For a website that uses the Debian name, I consider necessary two big
fat warnings:
- one on the homepage or, better, in the footer of every page stating
something like this website is not affiliated with the Debian
Project, use it in combination with Debian at your own risk
- one on the donation page stating something like the donations
collected here are not donations to the Debian Project, better if in
combination with a link to http://www.debian.org/donations for those
who really want to donate to the Debian Project
In the Debian BTS there is evidence about users being confused at the
relationships between debian-multimedia.org and the Debian Project. I
think that warrants the above two precautions.
Can you please implement them?
I hope we can reach an agreement on (some variants of) point (1). I'm
personally convinced d-m.o could offer a very useful service to Debian
users, for packages that are not part of the official archive. But d-m.o
really needs to do so in a way that doesn't get in the way of official
packaging activities, otherwise it will remain a perennial source of
conflicts, to the detriment of both parties.
What do you think?
I'll move to a new domain name (without debian), for that I need
time. Maybe 3 or 6 months should be enough, I don't know exactly.
Unless I'm mistaken, on April 7th, while the discussion between me and
the pkg-multimedia-maintainer was going on, you've both renewed
debian-multimedia.org for another year and registered the domain that
now hosts http://www.deb-multimedia.org . I guess that is the website
you want to move debian-multimedia.org to.
You're right, that would solve the debian name problem. I don't think
that is the best way to benefit users of both your repository and of
Debian, because they will keep on suffering of the confusion and
technical issues we have discussed. But you're free to go that way. I
encourage you to think twice and to reach a technical agreement with the
official Debian Multimedia team about what belongs where.
In the meantime, and considering your intention of moving away from
debian-multimedia.org, I'd like to ask you to transfer the old domain
name to a Debian Trusted Organization, such as SPI or FFIS. We can agree
on a timeline of, say, 6 months and we will be happy to use it as you
please until that time period is over.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences .. http://upsilon.cc/zack .. . . o
Debian Project Leader... @zack on identi.ca ...o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
on package duplication between Debian and debian-multimedia
Dear Christian,
as you probably are aware of, there are recurring discussions on the
package duplication between the official Debian archive and the
debian-multimedia.org (d-m.o from now on) that you maintain.
AFAIK, the Debian team in charge of maintaining multimedia packages
(that I'm Cc:-ing) is not happy about the duplication and has approached
you about that [1], providing some evidence of the troubles that it
causes to them and to Debian users that also happen to use d-m.o. OTOH
I'm sure you are maintaining d-m.o to provide a useful service to Debian
users, when some of the packages you distribute are not available in
Debian proper.
[1]
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia-maintainers/2012-March/025498.html
Personally, I think that principle is fine, but I'm worried about the
duplication part. Not only due to the troubles that it might cause to
users, but also for the apparent waste of maintenance energies. Energies
that could be put into better use if you and the pkg-multimedia team
could find a way to collaborate, and to do so contributing to the
*official* Debian packaging of the concerned software.
I have no specific opinion on the technical claims that d-m.o causes
trouble to official Debian packages. That might be true or not. Ditto
for your allegations of conflict of interest in the maintenance of
ffmpeg or libav in Debian. But I observe that *in* Debian we do have
mechanisms to solve that kind of issues, if and when they arise. As long
as you keep on doing your work outside Debian instead of raising your
concerns within Debian, we'll have to keep on assuming that what is
being done in Debian is fine and is entitled to the official status that
come with the name Debian.
Thinking about it, I think we should choose one of the two possible way
forward:
1) You and the pkg-multimedia team reach an agreement on
which-packages-belong-where. One way to settle would be that for
every package that exist in the official Debian archive, the same
package should not exist in d-m.o, unless it has a version that does
not interfere with the official packages in standard Debian
installations. Another way would be to rename packages and sonames.
I understand that such agreements would give a sort of advantage to
the pkg-multimedia people over d-m.o, but that seems to be warranted
by the fact that they are doing the official packaging, while you're
not. If, as I hope, you could start doing your packaging work
(wherever possible) within Debian as well, things would be different
and we could consider solving potential technical conflicts in the
usual Debian way.
2) You stop using debian as part of the domain name of your
repository, which is confusing for users (e.g. [2,3]). That would
allow each part to keep on doing what they want in terms of
packaging, but at least would remove any of the existings doubts
about the official status of d-m.o.
[2] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=660924#20
[3] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=668308#47
I can imagine that would be a painful step for you to take, given the
well established domain name. But it seems fair to ask you to do so
if we couldn't manage to find an agreement between you and the
official Debian packaging initiative of software you're maintaining
in an unofficial repository.
We could also consider various in-between solutions, such as adding
suitable prominent disclaimers on your website explaining that your
initiative is not affiliated with the Debian Project, that it might
cause technical incompatibilities with official packages, and that the
donations you're collecting are for you personally and not for the
Debian Project.
I hope we can reach an agreement on (some variants of) point (1). I'm
personally convinced d-m.o could offer a very useful service to Debian
users, for packages that are not part of the official archive. But d-m.o
really needs to do so in a way that doesn't get in the way of official
packaging activities, otherwise it will remain a perennial source of
conflicts, to the detriment of both parties.
What do you think?
Cheers.
PS we really want this discussion to be public, so please keep the
pkg-multimedia-maintainers list Cc:-ed, as requested with my M-F-T
header. I'll otherwise take the liberty to forward your replies to
the list myself.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences .. http://upsilon.cc/zack .. . . o
Debian Project Leader... @zack on identi.ca ...o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
