[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: 185 Packages that look orphaned

On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 03:11:31AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <wouter@grep.be> writes:
> > Op di 27-01-2004, om 04:08 schreef Goswin von Brederlow:
> > > Maybe we could make a list of packages that should be autobuild in
> > > contrib/non-free and distribute that to the buildds.
> > 
> > No, we couldn't. The only requirement for a package to go into non-free
> > is "Debian must be allowed to distribute it". That does not include
> > automated compilation (or even compilation, for that matter) or porting
> > the thing to a different architecture. Apart from that, many autobuilder
> > admins (including me) will simply not want to run an autobuilder
> > building non-free packages.
> How about contrib?

same problem.

> There are reasons for packages being in contrib or non-free which
> don't make me "hate" them, like the deb will Depend on something
> non-free. The list should only contain packages we can legally build
> and don't violate our personel or Debian philosophy (too much).
> I don't see a problem with building GPL software that depends on
> something outside of debian for example.

What if the license of that particular dependency doesn't allow me to
use it? For instance, there could be a clause in the license which would
forbid people in countries X, Y and Z to use the software.

You can make a "positive" list of software that would not be of any
problem to anyone, but there might be problems in that gray area.

> Or software with a software patent on it (which is void where I am,
> thank god.).
> If I stick a non-free package in build/REDO (e.g. if someone asks me
> to build it for example) will the buildd reject it or does that work
> fine?

If it can reach the source... but it'd be better if you just set up your
own non-free w-b database.

That said, you'd better not configure a4000 or a1200 for this, or you'll
have to find someone else to sign their logs -- at least as long as
you're not a DD. I don't care manually building a non-free package from
time to time, but I will not run an autobuilder which does them.

> > > > >- FTBFS or RC bugs
> > > > Don't include packages with "Keep this out of testing" RC bugs.
> > > 
> > > Too lazy to look at every package, sorry.
> > 
> > That's OK, but then don't start pointing fingers. Thanks.
> I will get them when I run through unclaimed packages in details. For
> the list i just assumed that anything kept out of sarge for a reason
> like being a unstable release or cvs snapshot would get updated more
> frequently than 100 days. Whats the point of a cvs snapshot otherwise?
> I know its not perfect, already removed 2 packages I previously didn't
> spot.

You shouldn't have included them in the first place.

If you send a mail to a developer claiming he's not doing his job well
(which is exactly what you did), you had better be damn sure you're
right. If you don't do that, you'll be pointing fingers to, and
accusing, people who don't deserve it. That's the best way I could think
of to demotivate a volunteer, and could, worst case, result in those
leaving the project. Is that what you want?

If you start pointing fingers at people for not maintaining their
packages right -read: for being lazy- then make sure that's not
something people can say you are.

Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
"Stop breathing down my neck." "My breathing is merely a simulation."
"So is my neck, stop it anyway!"
  -- Voyager's EMH versus the Prometheus' EMH, stardate 51462.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: