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

Re: buildd administration

Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:

> 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:

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
propagation medium.

>> 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.


Reply to: