Re: [Pkg-mozext-maintainers] Fwd: xul-ext-adblock-plus
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 4:13 PM, Ximin Luo wrote: > > Do you have a concrete proposal here? I agree that showing all pages in > the background is worse than showing one page in the foreground on > first-run. > > However what happens in Debian in practice is that first-run is actually > "on every upgrade" which can get pretty annoying. (I haven't checked if > this is the case for Adblock Plus, but it has been the case for some other > extensions I maintain; I assume this is an artifact of the mozilla > extension system.) If every extension did this, I would be perpetually > closing tabs. So I can understand why the maintainer wanted to disable that > page, and I'd also support disabling that page. The proposal here is to remove that patch, restoring the original behavior, opening the first run page, as well as other pages, in the foreground, again. I don't know why first run actions should be performed again on update. This would be really bad, as it would also cause the extension's preferences to be reset. Arguably, disabling or hiding the first run page can't be a solution, if this is the problem. However, from the original bug that resulted into moving all pages opened by Adblock Plus into the background, it seems the problem rather was that back then Adblock Plus was installed automatically as a dependency of the Gnome meta package, and people found it weird that our first run page was the first thing they see when starting Firefox for the first time on a fresh system [1]. However, I'm glad to see that you agree to our other suggestions. We are looking forward to see what the packagers say. [1]: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=693160#10 -- Sebastian Noack Technical Project Manager eyeo GmbH Lichtstraße 25 50825 Cologne, Germany VAT-ID: DE279292414 District Court Cologne: HRB 735085 Managing Directors: Till Faida, Felix Dahlke, Steffen Kiedel ___ Pkg-mozext-maintainers mailing list Pkg-mozext-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-mozext-maintainers
Re: [Pkg-mozext-maintainers] Fwd: xul-ext-adblock-plus
Hey, Firstly, disclaimer: I'm not the package maintainer. Although I'm on the team and it would be OK for me to upload, I've never worked with this package before so I'd prefer to defer the decision to the maintainers: Dmitry E. Oboukhov - not sure how active he is, only a few uploads recently Andrea Veri - he has retired as a DD, unlikely that we'll hear from him David Prévot - seems to be active, since he forwarded this email I do have a few comments, to try to drive the discussion forward: Sebastian Noack: > Hi everyone, > > we are quite happy to see Adblock Plus being included in Debian, and like > to thank you (and in particular David Prévot) for your work to make that > possible. However, we'd like to discuss the patches you redistribute our > code with. > > First of all, you bypass our dependency system [1], getting the latest > version of the dependencies by other means [2], in order to avoid network > activity during build, I suppose. While I understand this motivation, I'd > like to point out that the latest version of a dependency is not always > compatible. Even if the build isn't failing, you might introduce harder to > find bugs, unless you make sure to use the correct revisions as indicated > in the dependencies file [3]. But there might be a much simpler solution; > we provide source archives with all dependencies in the right version > included [4], specifically for package maintainers. ;) > This is sensible, thanks for the pointer. I guess the original packager just made an oversight. I'd just fix the terminology though, these aren't exactly "dependencies" but "internal components" that together form adblock plus. Debian has gotten criticism before (IMO unwarranted) for using slightly different versions of dependencies than upstream, but this situation is different. You're not releasing these components separately to be depended-upon by external projects. Dependencies are that, and they are *supposed* to work across multiple versions (or you bump the major version and Debian creates a new co-installable package), so complaints about Debian "using incorrect versions" are usually misdirected IMO. TL;DR: the case you have described is different, I agree with you with this case, but let's not get it confused with the other cases. > It seems people weren't too happy, our first run page being the first thing > they see when they start Firefox for the first time, back then when > xul-ext-adblock-plus was a dependency of the Gnome meta package [5]. As a > result, you moved all tabs opened by Adblock Plus into the background. Note > that this not only effects the first run page, but also documentation pages > opened through the user interface. Furthermore, while we see why it might > be problematic to push the first run page into the foreground, if Adblock > Plus is installed by default, this seems to no longer to be the case. And > we are concerned that nobody will notice the first run page due to this > (apparent obsolete) change, not to mention documentation pages opened that > way. > Do you have a concrete proposal here? I agree that showing all pages in the background is worse than showing one page in the foreground on first-run. However what happens in Debian in practice is that first-run is actually "on every upgrade" which can get pretty annoying. (I haven't checked if this is the case for Adblock Plus, but it has been the case for some other extensions I maintain; I assume this is an artifact of the mozilla extension system.) If every extension did this, I would be perpetually closing tabs. So I can understand why the maintainer wanted to disable that page, and I'd also support disabling that page. > Finally, you seem to disagree with our initiative for Acceptabe Ads [6], > and decided to disable this feature by default. We, however, believe that a > middle ground discouraging intrusive ads by blocking them, while still > allowing websites to monetize, is fundamental for a free and sustainable > web, and eventually better for everybody. I cannot, and don't want to, > judge whether this is in line with Debian's philosophy. But we feel quite > uncomfortable having you redistribute a product under our brand, that does > not have this feature enabled by default. I hope this topic is less > controversial now, where Adblock Plus is no longer automatically installed > for Gnome users. But otherwise, we might also agree to a compromise in > which the user has to make an explicit decision (e.g. through apt/dpkg > during installation or on the first run page), as long as no user action > doesn't result into blocking all ads. > I personally think this is OK, since ublock-origin exists in Debian as an alternative that defaults to blocking all ads and doesn't have a concept of "acceptable". Ximin -- GPG: ed25519/56034877E1F87C35 GPG: rsa4096/1318EFAC5FBBDBCE https://github.com/infinity0/pubkeys.git ___ Pkg-mozext-mai
[Pkg-mozext-maintainers] Fwd: xul-ext-adblock-plus
Forwarding on behalf of upstream (initial message got rejected since they have not subscribed to the list, so please keep them CCed on reply). Message transféré Sujet : xul-ext-adblock-plus Date : Fri, 21 Apr 2017 22:10:40 +0200 De : Sebastian Noack Pour : pkg-mozext-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org, taf...@debian.org Copie à : Wladimir Palant Hi everyone, we are quite happy to see Adblock Plus being included in Debian, and like to thank you (and in particular David Prévot) for your work to make that possible. However, we'd like to discuss the patches you redistribute our code with. First of all, you bypass our dependency system [1], getting the latest version of the dependencies by other means [2], in order to avoid network activity during build, I suppose. While I understand this motivation, I'd like to point out that the latest version of a dependency is not always compatible. Even if the build isn't failing, you might introduce harder to find bugs, unless you make sure to use the correct revisions as indicated in the dependencies file [3]. But there might be a much simpler solution; we provide source archives with all dependencies in the right version included [4], specifically for package maintainers. ;) It seems people weren't too happy, our first run page being the first thing they see when they start Firefox for the first time, back then when xul-ext-adblock-plus was a dependency of the Gnome meta package [5]. As a result, you moved all tabs opened by Adblock Plus into the background. Note that this not only effects the first run page, but also documentation pages opened through the user interface. Furthermore, while we see why it might be problematic to push the first run page into the foreground, if Adblock Plus is installed by default, this seems to no longer to be the case. And we are concerned that nobody will notice the first run page due to this (apparent obsolete) change, not to mention documentation pages opened that way. Finally, you seem to disagree with our initiative for Acceptabe Ads [6], and decided to disable this feature by default. We, however, believe that a middle ground discouraging intrusive ads by blocking them, while still allowing websites to monetize, is fundamental for a free and sustainable web, and eventually better for everybody. I cannot, and don't want to, judge whether this is in line with Debian's philosophy. But we feel quite uncomfortable having you redistribute a product under our brand, that does not have this feature enabled by default. I hope this topic is less controversial now, where Adblock Plus is no longer automatically installed for Gnome users. But otherwise, we might also agree to a compromise in which the user has to make an explicit decision (e.g. through apt/dpkg during installation or on the first run page), as long as no user action doesn't result into blocking all ads. Let us know if there is anything we can do to help resolving these issues. And thanks again for your great work on Debian. [1]: https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-mozext/adblock-plus.git/tree/debian/patches/0004-Drop-dependency-check.patch?id=96ce19438a94e94afbc9b75b2036175decaf3f0a [2]: https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-mozext/adblock-plus.git/tree/debian/rules?id=96ce19438a94e94afbc9b75b2036175decaf3f0a#n15 [3]: https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-mozext/adblock-plus.git/tree/dependencies?id=96ce19438a94e94afbc9b75b2036175decaf3f0a [4]: https://downloads.adblockplus.org/adblockplus-2.8.2-source.tgz [5]: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=693160 [6]: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=653112 -- Sebastian Noack Technical Project Manager eyeo GmbH Lichtstraße 25 50825 Cologne, Germany VAT-ID: DE279292414 District Court Cologne: HRB 735085 Managing Directors: Till Faida, Felix Dahlke, Steffen Kiedel !DSPAM:58fa6c02153641201013577! signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Pkg-mozext-maintainers mailing list Pkg-mozext-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-mozext-maintainers
