Re: buildd administration
Russ Allbery <email@example.com> writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.
That implies that you already know/suspect it is in cvs.
>> 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.
Where did I ever say "We must use this because it is free?"
Both buildd.d.o and buildd.net are in exactly the same state regarding
openness: You have to ask the maintainer for the scripts
personaly. Only difference is that Ryan never replied to my queries
while Ingo did. But that is subjective I'm sure.
> 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.
The buildd 'team' has decided nothing. The buildd.d.o admin did decide
> 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.
My argument is that is has better functionality not better idiology.
The graph scripts I did for buildd.net are all GPLed so if you get
hold of them do whatever you like and the gpl permits with them. From
my point there are totaly free, that they aren't published on the
buildd.net webpages itself does not change that in my view.