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

Re: buildd administration

Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> writes:
> Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:

>> 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.

Goswin, with all due respect, you really either have no idea what you're
talking about here or you're rather bad at using Google.  A search on:

    site:www.debian.org repository www.debian.org

despite being for very generic terms turns up a page explaining the CVS
repository for www.debian.org in the third page of results.

Yes, you have to pick some good search terms, since finding the pages that
are about developing the Debian web pages rather than finding pages that
are about developing for Debian is tricky.  But that's just part of using
a search engine.

>> 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?"

You didn't.  If you were saying that, I'd actually have more respect for
your position.

You are instead saying "our stuff is proprietary and we'll only release
the source if the buildd.debian.org maintainers agree to play ball."
That's deeply messed up, and as far as I'm concerned that stops the
conversation cold.  I don't care how messed up the current stuff is -- I'm
very nervous about software written by someone with that attitude coming
anywhere near Debian core infrastructure.

> 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.

And that's not sufficient for any replacement.  I don't think it's great
for the existing scripts either, but they have a few huge advantages:
they're already in place and they're already working.  If we're looking at
giving up those advantages and replacing them with something else, then
the *least* that the new stuff should do is be free software.

> My argument is that is has better functionality not better idiology.

If you want more people to support your argument, produce better ideology
too.  Otherwise, you can keep whining about this on debian-devel until the
end of time and as far as I'm concerned the right thing for everyone
involved in Debian to do is ignore you.

Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Reply to: