Re: buildd administration
Russ Allbery <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow <email@example.com> writes:
>> Russ Allbery <firstname.lastname@example.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:
Point was that there is no "source repository" link on www.debian.org
>>> 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.
That is not at all what was said. When I first used buildd.net I
wanted to have graphs and some other features for it so I just went on
irc ans asked IJ for the scripts so I could patch them. 5 minutes
later I was patching in gnuplot scriplets.
You just try to make a point out of buildd.net not having a direct
source link which is completly irelevant imho.
>> 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.
If you (as in buildd.d.o) want to add a source link then do it. That
is debians decision ultimately. So far Debian hasn't made that
addition and Ingo didn't want to make it. That is your/his choice and
changes nothing on the freeness of the software. It just changes the
>> 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.
DFSG free is good enough for me.