On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 05:32:02PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> metadata file - without checking licensing of each and every _file_
> which we *must* do (machine-readable or not).
Why do you believe this to be true?
On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 07:20:36PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> We should go for "weak code ownership" instead, which *in theory* is
> what we already have (given every DD can NMU any package), but the
> *culture* of strong ownership is so rooted in the project that people
> are still too
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 03:17:20PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> It's important in order to make the project feel more welcoming and open.
I bet that's truer than you think it is.
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 02:31:12PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I'm extremely sympathetic to the problem you're trying to solve, but I
> think it's a fairly fundamental UI issue in how email works, and I'm
> dubious that creating another list will help much.
Right, what we need is a way of
On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 09:04:28PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> I'm not aware of any retainer paid to Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC)
> directly by Debian. SFLC is Debian's lawyer "transitively", via the
> services that they offer to SPI's affiliated projects. It might be the
> case that
On Thu, Jan 01, 2015 at 07:10:39PM +, Jonathan McDowell wrote:
Happy New Year! The previously announced removal of OpenPGP keys
shorter than 2048 bits from the Debian keyrings has now been completed.
hopenpgp-tools 0.13-1, jq 1.4-2.1, attached script
(debian-keyring.gpg)
Total primary keys:
Contrasting the DC14 KSP keyring[0] from roughly the start of DebConf
(and thus before the keysigning party) against roughly a month later,
there has been a change in ranking of the top 5 connectors:
[20140821]
1872: Stefano Zacchiroli (4900 707D DC5C 07F2 DECB 0283 9C31 503C 6D86 6396)
1240:
Upon request. Made with an unpackaged set of keyrings[0].
(/tmp/keyrings/debian-keyring.gpg)
Total primary keys: 994
Key versions:
994 4
Primary key pubkey algorithms:
550 DSA
444 RSA
Primary key pubkey sizes:
551 1024
28 2048
3 3072
409 4096
2 8192
On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 07:27:36PM -0400, Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote:
This is true of the dropbox daemon too. Are we to throw out DDs with
dropboxd installed?
Yes, please. We have too many apologists for non-free software
as it is.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 12:54:09PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
Anyone has a script to find out the full keyid of all keys that have been
signed by a specific [full] keyid?
You could look here[0] or use keyanalyze yourself.
[0]
I've received some requests for information about hash algorithms
used in signatures and the potential impact of dropping 1024-bit
keys on connectivity.
The software used is graphviz 2.26.3-16.2, hopenpgp-tools 0.7, and the
attached script. All info represents only verified, unexpired V4
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 10:07:29PM +, Clint Adams wrote:
The following three reports were generated with debian-keyring
2013.12.13, hopenpgp-tools 0.4-1, jshon 20131010-3, and the
Redone with debian-keyring 2014.01.31, hopenpgp-tools 0.6-1,
jq 1.3-1.1, and attached script:
(/usr/share
I have been asked to share this information.
Firstly, to view a report on your own key, substitute your fingerprint
in the following pipeline:
hkt export-pubkeys --keyring /usr/share/keyrings/debian-keyring.gpg \
4E46 9519 ED67 7734 268F BD95 8F7B F8FC 4A11 C97A | hokey lint
The following
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 01:35:38AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
But the main point here is that the team should normally be able to
manage its membership directly.
I couldn't disagree more.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe.
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 02:10:40PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
I think that hexadecimal is a fairly poor pre-encoding for information
exchange via data to speech and speech to data engines (aka voice boxes,
brains and fingers). Reading out and typing long strings of hexadecimal
digits at OpenPGP
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 11:31:55PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
For reasons I won't elaborate on here (they would drive us far away
from the topic under discussion), I consider the GNU GPL v3 as a
license with a broken copyleft mechanism (at least for some aspects).
Hence, whenever I want to
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 09:31:39AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
I have not added links to their competitors, as I think that it would be
bad taste, but yes, I invite every developer to consider Free alternatives
such as Gitorious or Branchable.
I find it in poor taste to self-censor due to
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 07:50:06PM -0500, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
maintainers aggressively alter the default User-Agent or some other
indicator which would deny upstream their rightful due. Would you agree?
I reject and resent the idea that any software project has
the entitlement to profit off of
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 09:25:48AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
Do you mind trading a little privacy to allow us to declare your use
of Debian to search engines, and thus possibly benefit from revenue
sharing arising from your searches?
I think this would risk implying that we are in
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:07:30AM +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
So I would advise to only make an effort to 'clean up' groups that have
sufficiently 'dangerous' consequences attached to them.
Then logically it would follow that the ones that don't should be
gid 800 instead.
--
To
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:27:43AM -0400, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
- It's only useful to talk to a porter if the bug clearly is a porting
issue, rather than a bug in the package. This isn't always easy to
make out from the build log.
What would you think if you saw this happening only on a
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 12:17:15AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
The maintainer have to fix the missing error checks first. I fail to
see any arch-specific problems, only a missing library.
Okay, so your answer is that the maintainer should review the build log,
notice the missing library, and
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 08:44:17PM +0200, Hector Oron wrote:
Maintainers are the ones that know best their software, they are
encouraged to maintain their packages in best manner following a
strict policy and following strict verification and validation
procedures. In Debian, it is requested
Shouldn't it be the responsibility of the buildd admin
(if, for some reason, the buildd admin is not a porter)
to notify an architecture's porters of any porting issues
manifesting themselves in a package build?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 10:24:19PM +0300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
I think it should be. Or the porters should monitor the builds on their
architecture to be able to detect FTBFS and act on them, without the
maintainer having to manually ping them.
If I were a porter, I would not bother doing
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 04:51:21PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
The very first message may be private (or partially so), but the main
part of the discussion usually isn't, and certainly the OT leaves of
the discussion aren't. [In past four big threads we were 2/4 of
starting messages being
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 02:30:51PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
As wrote by Jonas, there is a risk of cabalization.
Good discussion could also start from off-topic bad threads.
I don't care if there's a cabal to discuss whether or not America,
Hy-Brazil, Eurasia, and Scandinavia are
On Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 04:52:42PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
I don't think traffic shoudl be keep at minimun, it is not a
important list. We don't hide problem, so important things are
send to d-d-a (which is the only required list for DD).
Why would we not be better served if the
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 06:07:38PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
How about making archive chunks available e.g. at monthly periods
and telling people they have 2 months to voice objections before the
stuff is simply disclosed. Those people who don't want their stuff
disclosed are the ones that
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 03:09:43PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
To that end, it would be nice to have a specific question posed on
-vote: that venue is IMHO more appropriate to answer your question than
-project. (Or just prod the candidates to follow-up there if the above
is already the
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 08:18:54PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
I'm confused as to why you are expecting to be involved in or be informed
about
a meeting of a team you are not a part of?
I'm confused as to why multiple DDs don't seem to understand
what transparency means.
--
To
[Adding and M-F-T-ing -project]
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 10:04:58AM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
I want to point out that Luk's mail was not in any way discussed in the
release team. I think it is horrible.
I welcome everyone to critize the release team. I would prefer help, of
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 04:09:34PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
Although to some level I agree with you [1], I wonder if you could explain
one thing.
That meeting took place in May of last year. What's the point of discussing
it almost 9 months later? What exactly triggered your blog post?
We
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 09:23:23PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2009/03/msg00011.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2009/05/msg00080.html
So it wasn't that secret after all. (Note that all this happened last
year, including Luk's
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 11:45:47PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
argued that everyone can and should work together. I just mentioned
that if the pool of people willing to do annoyingly tedious work in
exchange for being insulted regularly on mailing lists was that large,
we should have seen more
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 07:04:47PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
Do you really honestly believe that people should join a team when they
can't get along with the existing members. Do you really honestly believe
that saying that the ability to get along is expected is a bad thing?
Pretending
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:31:36PM +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
So its IMHO not really a good idea to give power to people,
who _do not need_ the power.
Why not? Is this the same reason it's not a good idea to let people
have liquids on airplanes?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 03:23:34PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
No, for the same reasons that you exit a root shell when you are
done with whatever required you to open one, or that you don't stand
in the middle of a road while reading the map. Come on, Clint!
Those are decisions I make
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 02:55:19PM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
and offering an apology acceptable to the release team. Debian has, in my
opinion, the obligation towards the people doing one of the hardest tasks
Debian has to offer (look at the number of people it has worn out) to not
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 12:10:29AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
This was initially written by me, then discussed within DAM (so take
us two for we) and then discussed with DSA, FTPMaster,
Keyring-Maint, Secretary, FrontDesk and the DPL.
I am disappointed in all of these people.
--
To
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 03:10:20PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
non-free
programs
documents
firmware
art-work
games
I like it, except for the hyphen.
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 09:21:42AM +0900, Charles Plessy
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 11:16:44AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
This thread seems to establish that you're in a small minority with this
opinion.
I'll weigh in on MJ's side and also concede that it's a small minority,
unfortunately.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 05:53:20PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
suites. Well we don't really want to special case i386, but currently it
Then why do you?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 01:35:01PM +0100, Patrick Ballpark Frank wrote:
But lets have a look at http://pastebin.ca/885288 again and see how
HennaX started the chat when he joined that channel. He asked if he
has to reveal private data. A person answered him that he does not
Speaking of private
On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 02:38:52AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
Awww, just when we were able to keep it constructive for a couple of
messages...
Redefining redundancy is constructive?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 10:50:29PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
* Infrastructure teams have to decide to accept or reject candidates who
nominated themselves. The basic requirements are:
Why should teams decide on their own membership? I don't think this
should be allowed.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 05:13:04PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
They are not my guidelines. I imagine that the list guidelines and code
of conduct were thouroughly vetted. However, I have not been around
long enough to know. Perhaps someone who has been around longer can say
for sure.
Instead, will you please explain what you believe would be the advantages to
the *project* that demoting many DDs would bring?
Fairness in the power structure. It would also seem honorable to give
DMs a partial weighted vote (I believe three-fifths of one vote has
some negative connotations,
How about going after Try hard to improve things, but don't shake the house
too much while at it? There is a cost to improving things, and if you
have to disturb everyone to do it, then that cost is high. It may not be
worth it.
What? How does that not apply to the very DM proposal that
Um. Quantity != quality. I hope no one is going to grant someone upload
privileges based solely on the number of times they've prepared package
revisions.
Good. I hope this means that we're prepared to demote to DM all
DDs that only maintain one or two packages and all DDs that do a
poor
Assuming that was not just an useless sarcastic post, well, you could try to
come up with a technical criteria to do it, and then propose a GR about it
(since it is bound to be a very contentious issue).
I wouldn't bother, though. To me that would just waste time, waste a lot of
effort,
Personally, I think the idea of a DD having to ack his nomination, though only
after being nominated by some (Q?) fellow DDs would be better than a plain
self-nomination. What do others think?
Sounds better to me.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe.
I think you're confusing the buildd admin with the porters. I expect
Maybe that's because the buildd admins used to be the porters, and then,
for some reason I do not understand, this mysteriously stopped being
true.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 09:13:11AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
The above is probably intended to be ironic, but as I've noted
elsewhere, funding DWN has been successful in the past. :-)
You're confusing funding you with funding DWN.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
Joey Hess sez:
Funding me to write DWN.
What were the terms of that contract? In particular, what remedies
would you be obliged to provide if you failed to publish DWN every week,
or if the quality fell below a defined threshold?
Were you paid by the word or by the issue?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 04:27:13PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
You're making assumptions about $COMPANY's management that may not apply. :-)
You're representing $COMPANY's funding of DWN in ways that may be overly
creative?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 05:17:15PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
Sorry, but do you have any point, and does it have anything to do with
DWN or with debian-project?
Yes.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 04:58:24PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
do would be relevant public matters. If I have lunch with someone
who works for HP, and he suggests that something needs to go into
reportbug, is that some sort of undue influence on my package? What
if he pays for my meal? Or
If that's not your goal but your ideals are offended because
volunteers are getting paid, consider that you are the problem, not
the project.
If you reply to GR proposals with the clever and useful phrase *Not*
seconded in some silly attempt to bully people into quietly putting
up with
I beg to differ in a small detail. The project gets to decide
which _team_ is the official team, but now who all constitute the
team, or how the team is run internally.
Why not?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
I wonder, do you and the other me too people also have a reason to
justify switching?
How about Rob Levin is still alive?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(warning: spoilers)
Stop that.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In other words, those who are responsible, decide.
I agree. So let's divest of their voting privileges those DDs who
don't contribute enough. We have several hundred of those.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
Please help out the MIA process. It would really be
appreciated.
The MIA process does not address the type of people that are the
object of my complaints.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you make James be lynched by the mob, I will go as well.
All the people who think it's appropriate to blackmail the project with
full or partial withdrawal of their services should probably start
listing in great detail those contributions which we would be missing
if they actually followed
I was recently thinking about the misuse of debian-private mailing list,
and I saw that most of the bad-uses of -private were made with the
intention of reaching all developers.
Is this wrong? Yes, and no. The question is that debian-devel has too
much traffic and it's difficult to follow
To our users who were used to quality packages from accountable
maintainers even if the software wasn't 100% DFSG-compliant: bummer, man.
Out of date in non-free by arch
---
alpha72
arm 78
hppa 72
i386 6
ia64 67
m68k 59
mips101
mipsel
Would it be so bad if dinstall rejected uploads that appeared to be NMUs
but didn't identify themselves as such in the changelog?
Lame.
Once again, what do you people think?
Change the CNAME now.
While there's nothing inherently wrong with rebuilding the world, in the
current circumstances it seems more like a competitive strategy than an
enhancement strategy.
Sure. Let's get functional i386-emulation for sparc, m68k, and
alpha, and then we can save a whole lot of archive bloat and
I guess you just can't see how this is different from the case where
you have two different kernels for the same cpu, and they already have
the capability of running many of the same binaries?
They can? I thought iBCS was dead.
Or did you have a point?
Why would emulation under a different
I think the issue is not if we don't want to have any package recompilation.
The issue is if we can take advantage of binary compatibility where it
doesn't make a difference.
By attempting to fill demand for FreeBSD kernel with Debian by
providing a FreeBSD kernel with Linux binary support and
Who said anything about emulated binaries? Port glibc to freebsd, and use it
natively.
Raul did. Did you miss the keep everything the same but the kernel
and a compatibility package plan? I can't imagine why anyone would
find this appealing.
Another problem is that we are essentially giving first aid to
software that is dying (and rightfully so) because of its license. We
should not be inflating the stature of BSD in the eyes of those that
seek to undermine free software, as so doing only serves to increase
the pressure to
Very little software should need to be recompiled in this case -- just
use the bsd kernel with the linux compatability library.
The post I saw looked like an attempt to marshal support for recompiling
every debian package.
If the purpose is indeed what you say the approach is all wrong.
75 matches
Mail list logo
