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

Re: Non-free buildd's [Was: Re: Screw non-free.]

On Sun, Mar 14, 2004 at 06:04:23PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 14, 2004 at 05:01:49PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 14, 2004 at 02:31:49PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > On Sun, Mar 14, 2004 at 07:40:05AM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> > > > Are you aware that the current build daemons do not build non-free
> > > > packages automatically?  I'm not sure when they stopped doing that,
> > > > but it isn't done any more.  So non-free need separate build daemons
> > > > already. :)
> > > 
> > > It's never _been_ done. What has been done is that some people built
> > > non-free packages manually. There is no wanna-build database for
> > > non-free, and there has never been one either; and it doesn't look as if
> > > there will ever be one.
> > 
> > I'm planning to set one up, though it ?sn't exactly at the top of my
> > TODO list currently. Most tools are available, the current requirement
> > on ssh I plan to drop
> There is no current requirement on ssh :-)
> (buildd has a "$ssh_cmd" variable, which it will prepend to any
> wanna-build calls it wants to run. that can be anything, even empty, in
> which case it'll run the commands locally).

Ah, ok, but there is a dependency on a remote process call then, which
might be useful to replace with, as a previous thread sort of concluded,
a different TCP-capable protocol which does not involve the need to
execute stuff on a remote host.
> > (can maybe be merged into the free buildd infrastructure, especially
> > since wanna-build isn't very security-critical, it's merely advisory).
> > 
> > If someone else wants to help setting it up, or just doing it, please do
> > contact me.
> Not me.

I already kind of guessed that :)

> You may be interested in knowing the reasons why non-free and contrib
> aren't autobuilt: we don't know whether we're (legally) allowed to
> actually do that.
> The only requirement for a package to be allowed in non-free is "Debian
> must be allowed to distribute it". It does not include "you're allowed
> to compile it on any random architecture", "everyone is allowed to use
> it", "it must not be patent-encumbered", etcetera. For that reason,
> you'd need a list of buildd machines with what non-free software they're
> allowed to install and/or compile (based on who owns the machine, where
> it is running, and the licenses of the non-free packages), and would
> need to go through the list of non-free packages, reading all their
> licenses, every time you would want to add a buildd.

I'm fully aware of these issues, I merely have a general
idea-of-implementation, which is currently whitelist-based, i.e.
maintaining a set of relations buildd vs. licences that it may build
packages for.
> That's rather, uh, cumbersome. To say the least. It also happens to be
> one of the reasons why I don't want to be involved in that can of worms,
> even if I support the non-free part of our archives.

Of course (as it hasn't been done yet), I do not know whether this turns
out to be feasable. I think it is, but it could turn out to be not worth
the effort. Time will learn.

> > Also people on non-i386 archs who are willing to run a non-free buildd,
> > please do mail. My personal guess is that on most architectures there
> > must be someone willing to offer a non-free buildd,
> Perhaps; but it's quite likely that just one won't be enough if you want
> to build everything.

Possibly, again, let's see. As I said before, this little 'project'
hasn't grown beyond the 'idea' stage yet, in other words, it's currently
merely vapourware ;).

Thank you for sharing your thoughts about it,

Jeroen van Wolffelaar
Jeroen@wolffelaar.nl (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357)

Attachment: pgpr7ftrtje6r.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: