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

Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move

Ed Cogburn <edcogburn@hotpop.com> writes:

> On Sunday 08 May 2005 9:27am, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>> On 10283 March 1977, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
>> >> Whats going on == someone needs to check it. Thats it.
>> >
>> > That was the point made by Ed Cogburn.  Its already been checked in the
>> > other arch!  If this is not the case please explain why.  Without that
>> > explanation I am forced to agree with Ed - the problem are political... 
>> > Which is the bane of debian.
>> We are *NOT* Debian
> We ARE Debian for Heaven's sake!  This move to another server is just 
> TEMPORARY!  We WILL be Debian as soon as sarge gets out and development on 

You said it yourself.

> etch picks up.  Who in the world is going to get upset when they know we will 
> soon be part of official Debian, and they've already given permission for 
> Debian to distribute their stuff!  Get real people!
> How many non-free packages have been cleared?  Why haven't you at least set up 
> non-free and moved the packages known to be ok into it?  I know for sure that 
> the rogue-like games in non-free are perfectly fine and can brought on-line 
> now, since they and a lot of other stuff is in non-free just because they are 
> "old" pre-GPL software with "don't sell for money" restrictions which make 
> them fail the DFSG test on distribution, but are otherwise fully open-source 
> (and who's earlier authors can no longer be found to ask them if they'd agree 
> to a change to the GPL or some other Free license).
> In fact, looking through the non-free docs section, most of that can go in 
> right now because they don't require anyone's permission to distribute since 
> they're in non-free because of the dispute between Debian and FSF over 
> documentation.

Will you pay us for the work and cover legal fees if any should arise?

Seriously, get some patience and don't inflame the situation
please. Things like "most of that" is of zero help in deciding what
can go in and what not. We know most of it can, the question is what
packages are those in particular. We can't just add all of non-free
and say it is mostly OK.

>> thats all you need to get!
> Hogwash.  This sounds like an extremely defensive response.  How many packages 
> have been cleared for non-free?  Why haven't you just put up a non-free 
> section with the stuff thats been cleared?  Why has it been more than a week, 
> with no non-free section at all, no indication of how the "vetting" process 
> is going, and with you telling us above that we don't need to know anything 
> more?  Now do you understand why I'm just a little bit skeptical?

We had (an empty) non-free right after the dns switch so apt-get
wouldn't fail. And we told you exactly what the status is: "Someone
has to do the work".

> Just establish the non-free section and move everything over.  If anyone 
> complains then just drop the package they're complaining about.  Of course, 
> NO ONE is going to complain since they know we will "become" Debian soon 
> anyway (and for all intents we ARE Debian - just not on their server), and 
> they've already given Debian permission to distribute.  For the rest of 
> non-free, permission to distribute is not an issue, and not the reason 
> they're in non-free to begin with.

The pine author would for one thing.

> Re-evaluating non-free is just silly when we're going to "officially" become 
> Debian again in a few months, certainly less than a year, anyway (assuming 
> Debian gets Sarge out soon).  Heck, Debian doesn't even advertise us, we're 
> the bastard child they don't want to talk about, because when they do it 
> reignites the argument about which architectures to "officially" support, and 
> why... and why not.  NO ONE IS GOING TO CARE ABOUT OUR NON-FREE!

It will be at least 18 month going by the release plans till etch will
be stable and sarge amd64 can be dropped. Considering the track record
of past timelines 2-3 years is probably more accurate. That is a long
time for someone to start suing.

In one point you are right though:

the exception of nvidia* package it seems. That is the only package
that users missed so far. Please excuse us for not giving it higher
priority than fixing RC bugs or otherwise vital archive maintainance.


Reply to: