On 9/14/19 12:51 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 9/12/19 2:47 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> 1) there are significant problems we'd run into if we forbid non-free tools
>> in
>> Debian work
>
> Sorry, WHAAAT ? That's shocking to read this from the DPL.
> Are you sure you didn't do a mistake in this
On 9/12/19 6:34 PM, Alf Gaida wrote:> Regarding the workflow and
participation - it might be a problem that> one need an account for
github or other non-free services - it's easy> No account, no
participation, bad luck.
You need an account on salsa.
You need an account on savannah.nongnu.org -
On 9/15/19 1:10 PM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 12:01:24AM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> It is a real life experience that I had to touch horribly maintained
>> packages by unknown contributors, with Vcs-Git:
>> https://github.com//, missing commits not matching the
>>
> "Marco" == Marco d'Itri writes:
Marco> On Sep 16, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> * Work to understand why people are using Github. From my past
Marco> For the same reason why most people are using Twitter instead
Marco> of Mastodon: the community and network effect. This is not a
On Sep 16, Sam Hartman wrote:
> * Work to understand why people are using Github. From my past
For the same reason why most people are using Twitter instead of
Mastodon: the community and network effect.
This is not a technical problem, so it cannot be solved by Debian.
All my packages are on
> "Russ" == Russ Allbery writes:
Russ> Taking a step back, what I'm objecting to here is that I think
Russ> people are implicitly extending the definition of a source
Russ> package to include the VCS and implicitly assuming that we're
Russ> going to require people to use a
Wouter Verhelst writes:
> On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 01:16:26AM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> However, basically, what you're saying is that, for those who care
>> about not using non-free platforms, we should just not do that anymore,
>> as it's not required anyway.
> No.
> If this were about
Hi,
On 15/9/19 3:31 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 9/14/19 6:59 AM, Balasankar "Balu" C wrote:
>> But it shouldn't matter to the project that I do my packaging work in
>> GitLab.com or GitHub.com because as far as Debian is concerned, as long
>> as others can contribute without having an account
On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 01:16:26AM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 9/15/19 12:06 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > There's nothing that requires you to interact with a VCS repository that
> > you
> > don't care to.
>
> But I do care about using Git, and interacting with other DDs using it.
On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 12:01:24AM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> It is a real life experience that I had to touch horribly maintained
> packages by unknown contributors, with Vcs-Git:
> https://github.com//, missing commits not matching the
> archive, and no response from the maintainer to the
On 2019, സെപ്റ്റംബർ 15 12:57:08 AM IST, Sean Whitton
wrote:
>Hello Pirate,
>
>On Sun 15 Sep 2019 at 12:27AM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote:
>
>> That is not going to happen, instead we need to adapt ourselves to
>> this fast paced development and fasttrack.debian.net is a step in
>that
>>
On September 15, 2019 1:20:38 AM GMT+02:00, Scott Kitterman
wrote:
>> Besides this, there's something else I don't understand. How much
>effort
>> is it to use a free software based platform? It's not as if Github
>was
>> so much nicer than Gitlab (at least not anymore). What is it that
On 9/14/19 9:30 PM, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> We have packaged many core build tools like webpack, rollup, gulp, grunt etc
> which makes it easier to build many JavaScript libraries from source
Thanks a lot for that very useful work!
Thomas
On Saturday, September 14, 2019 7:16:26 PM EDT Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 9/15/19 12:06 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 14, 2019 6:01:24 PM EDT Thomas Goirand wrote:
> >> On 9/14/19 6:59 AM, Balasankar "Balu" C wrote:
> >>> So will the GR be
> >>> "You must not do any sort of
On 9/15/19 12:06 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Saturday, September 14, 2019 6:01:24 PM EDT Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> On 9/14/19 6:59 AM, Balasankar "Balu" C wrote:
>>> So will the GR be
>>> "You must not do any sort of contribution to Debian using non-free
>>> software/hardware"
>>>
>>> or
>>>
On 15.09.19 00:05, Russ Allbery wrote:
> We have more agreement here, although there are a lot of details hidden in
> what "forcing" really means. But there's a huge space between "don't
> force other people to use non-free software to contribute to Debian" and
> "forbid using non-free
On Saturday, September 14, 2019 6:01:24 PM EDT Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 9/14/19 6:59 AM, Balasankar "Balu" C wrote:
> > But it shouldn't matter to the project that I do my packaging work in
> > GitLab.com or GitHub.com because as far as Debian is concerned, as long
> > as others can contribute
Thomas Goirand writes:
> On 9/14/19 1:03 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Thomas Goirand writes:
>>> Sorry, WHAAAT ? That's shocking to read this from the DPL. Are you
>>> sure you didn't do a mistake in this sentence?
>>> There's absolutely no problem within the Debian project to forbid
>>> using
On 9/14/19 6:59 AM, Balasankar "Balu" C wrote:
> But it shouldn't matter to the project that I do my packaging work in
> GitLab.com or GitHub.com because as far as Debian is concerned, as long
> as others can contribute without having an account in that service - I
> should not be forbidden using
Thomas Goirand wrote:
> As long as you push to Github *for yourself* (ie: not in order to
> share the repository with other people form the Debian community),
> that's fine. But forcing it to others is not acceptable.
>
> Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Thomas - what you want to achive?
Right now i'm
On 9/14/19 1:03 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Thomas Goirand writes:
>
>> Sorry, WHAAAT ? That's shocking to read this from the DPL.
>> Are you sure you didn't do a mistake in this sentence?
>
>> There's absolutely no problem within the Debian project to forbid using
>> non-free software.
>
> I
On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 01:02:03PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 12:16:43PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > And, despite a massive amount of efforts from you and others, packaged
> > gitlab is not fit for Salsa use. It hasn't also ever been in a stable
> > release of
On 2019, സെപ്റ്റംബർ 14 3:46:43 PM IST, Adam Borowski
wrote:
>On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 09:37:00AM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote:
>> I will also support such a GR. I started packaging gitlab so we
>don't
>> have to compromise on ease of use compared to github.
>
>And, despite a massive amount of
Hello Pirate,
On Sun 15 Sep 2019 at 12:27AM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> That is not going to happen, instead we need to adapt ourselves to
> this fast paced development and fasttrack.debian.net is a step in that
> direction.
It's not just a matter of adapting workflows -- without real stable
On 2019, സെപ്റ്റംബർ 14 3:46:43 PM IST, Adam Borowski
wrote:
>On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 09:37:00AM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote:
>> I will also support such a GR. I started packaging gitlab so we
>don't
>> have to compromise on ease of use compared to github.
>
>And, despite a massive amount of
On 2019-09-14 10:13:09 +0200 (+0200), Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 10:29:32AM +0530, Balasankar "Balu" C wrote:
> > > What exactly do you propose here? The Salsa admins look like
> > > not accepting more contributors, neither seem open to
> > > suggestions. They just do "their
On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 12:16:43PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 09:37:00AM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> > I will also support such a GR. I started packaging gitlab so we don't
> > have to compromise on ease of use compared to github.
>
> And, despite a massive amount
On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 09:37:00AM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> I will also support such a GR. I started packaging gitlab so we don't
> have to compromise on ease of use compared to github.
And, despite a massive amount of efforts from you and others, packaged
gitlab is not fit for Salsa use.
On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 10:29:32AM +0530, Balasankar "Balu" C wrote:
> > What exactly do you propose here? The Salsa admins look like not
> > accepting more contributors, neither seem open to suggestions. They just
> > do "their way". I've countless times wrote to both them and in public
> > that
Hi,
On 14/9/19 4:21 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 9/12/19 2:47 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> 1) there are significant problems we'd run into if we forbid non-free tools
>> in
>> Debian work
>
> Sorry, WHAAAT ? That's shocking to read this from the DPL.
> Are you sure you didn't do a mistake in
On 2019, സെപ്റ്റംബർ 14 4:21:16 AM IST, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>On 9/12/19 2:47 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> 1) there are significant problems we'd run into if we forbid non-free
>tools in
>> Debian work
>
>Sorry, WHAAAT ? That's shocking to read this from the DPL.
>Are you sure you didn't do a
On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 00:51:16 +0200
Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Sorry, WHAAAT ? That's shocking to read this from the DPL.
> Are you sure you didn't do a mistake in this sentence?
Sorry, Sam is right, he just read and understand the DSC $1 right. If
one work on Debian with non-free tools that will
On September 13, 2019 10:51:16 PM UTC, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>On 9/12/19 2:47 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> 1) there are significant problems we'd run into if we forbid non-free
>tools in
>> Debian work
>
>Sorry, WHAAAT ? That's shocking to read this from the DPL.
>Are you sure you didn't do a
Thomas Goirand writes:
> Sorry, WHAAAT ? That's shocking to read this from the DPL.
> Are you sure you didn't do a mistake in this sentence?
> There's absolutely no problem within the Debian project to forbid using
> non-free software.
I use a computer with non-free firmware and push my
On 9/12/19 2:47 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
> 1) there are significant problems we'd run into if we forbid non-free tools in
> Debian work
Sorry, WHAAAT ? That's shocking to read this from the DPL.
Are you sure you didn't do a mistake in this sentence?
There's absolutely no problem within the Debian
On 13.09.19 17:55, Russ Allbery wrote:
> There seems to be an obvious ordering issue here, namely that it's very
> weird to insist on the first (which has been the topic of this thread)
> before we insist on the second.
I wouldn't see it as an ordering issue - my POV is that each of these
Alf Gaida writes:
> Is it really so hard to understand? Github, Gitlab and other service are
> just tools. I don't care if they are free or non-free. No account, no
> participation. And if you had read the whole post - imho the best
> outcome woul be: No hosting of Debian packaging outside
On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 02:51:47PM +0200, Alf Gaida wrote:
> On 9/13/19 10:18 AM, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 06:34:42PM +0200, Alf Gaida wrote:
> >> Regarding the workflow and participation - it might be a problem that
> >> one need an account for github or other non-free
On 13.09.19 15:10, Simon Richter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 02:51:47PM +0200, Alf Gaida wrote:
>
>> Is it really so hard to understand? Github, Gitlab and other service are
>> just tools. I don't care if they are free or non-free.
> For Debian, free software is kind of important.
>
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 02:51:47PM +0200, Alf Gaida wrote:
> Is it really so hard to understand? Github, Gitlab and other service are
> just tools. I don't care if they are free or non-free.
For Debian, free software is kind of important.
Simon
On 9/13/19 10:18 AM, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 06:34:42PM +0200, Alf Gaida wrote:
>> Regarding the workflow and participation - it might be a problem that
>> one need an account for github or other non-free services - it's easy:
> You also need accounts for _free_ services,
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 06:34:42PM +0200, Alf Gaida wrote:
> Regarding the workflow and participation - it might be a problem that
> one need an account for github or other non-free services - it's easy:
You also need accounts for _free_ services, so what do you want to say?
Bastian
--
Lots of
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 03:51:57PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Well, thanks for the rebuke. I hope I have clarified my thinking and
> please do the same again in future. (Or, indeed, right now, if you
> think this message is still frightening...)
I wish you could learn to *listen* first, then
Sam Hartman writes ("Re: Git Packaging Round 2: SHOULD Not or MUSt NOT Github"):
> Ian Jackson writes:
>
> > Sam Hartman writes ("Re: Git Packaging Round 2: SHOULD Not or
> > MUSt NOT Github"):
> >> Unfortunately, I believe you are in the [wron
> "Ian" == Ian Jackson writes:
Ian> Sam Hartman writes ("Re: Git Packaging Round 2: SHOULD Not or
Ian> MUSt NOT Github"):
>> Unfortunately, I believe you are in the [wrong] when judging
Ian placed the word "wrong" in my mouth replacing the word "rough" from
my original mail. I
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 08:47:49 -0400
Sam Hartman wrote:
> That said, I'm really confused that your message didn't get any
> response before now. Considering how sharp some of the responses
> were on -project, I don't know how to take this. Were people not
> responding because the -project
Enrico Zini writes ("Re: Git Packaging Round 2: SHOULD Not or MUSt NOT Github"):
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 02:07:52PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I think this does not demonstrate that I am wrong about project's
> > overall opinion about this. I am confident that a GR
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 02:07:52PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I think this does not demonstrate that I am wrong about project's
> overall opinion about this. I am confident that a GR to forbid this
> would succeed.
For what is worth, I would vote against such a GR.
I'm extremely uncomfortable
Sam Hartman writes ("Re: Git Packaging Round 2: SHOULD Not or MUSt NOT Github"):
> Unfortunately, I believe you are in the [wrong] when judging rough
> consensus on this issue.
>
> This was discussed fairly recently on debian-project; my take is that
> Thomas Goira
> "Ian" == Ian Jackson writes:
Ian> No-one should be asked to interact with a non-free service, as
Ian> part of contributing to Debian.
Ian> Note I say "no-one should be asked". It is not enough, for me,
Ian> for there to be a "plan (b)" route. Ie, it is not OK for a
50 matches
Mail list logo
