Re: buildd administration
Goswin von Brederlow <email@example.com> writes:
> Ok, lets take an example: Where is the source thrown at you for
> It isn't. You have to ask around, get to know or dig deep along the
> links to find cvs.debian.org.
Funny, I just did a Google search for
site:www.debian.org cvs repository www.debian.org
and there it was, plain as day.
> Ingo and I wanted to improve the (still non public) buildd.d.o scripts
> and were rejected with "All the info is already there". That is why
> buildd.net now runs the scripts. The warning bells ring with buildd.d.o,
> not buildd.net.
> And yes, the buildd.net scripts are now closed sourced if you will. But
> the offer to open them up, to integrate them into and improve buildd.d.o
> was made long before that and still stands.
See, what you keep missing is that, regardless of the willingness of the
current buildd maintainers to work with you, you are using the openness or
not of your work as a bargaining point. I have serious philosophical
problems with that.
Until such time as the proposed new infrastructure is *actually* free
software, as opposed to a bargaining chip, I personally consider your
objections invalid and completely support the decision of the buildd team.
Even if the current software isn't publically available for whatever
reason (personally, I'm putting my money on "hacked into place over time
and not particularly easy to massage into a form someone else could run,"
but who knows), if you want to make an argument that your stuff is better,
you have to actually release it as free software as far as I'm concerned.
It's the minimal bar to meet, and it's not even interesting to have a
conversation with you about it until you meet that bar.
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>