Re: buildd administration
Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> writes:
> Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:
>> C'mon, this is a free software project. The obvious first step for
>> providing better infrastructure would be to make that infrastructure
>> publically available for anyone to download, play with, hack on, or
>> otherwise evaluate, whether the existing infrastructure component is
>> similarly available or not. I'd think this would just be common sense.
> You can test and play around with buildd.net all you want and easily see
> "its superiority". You can also contact Ingo and ask him for the
> scripts, as I have done, and you may recieve them. Something that I
> found impossible for buildd.d.o.
> Ingo is offering a service and paying for it. That he isn't throwing the
> source at anyone casualy stumbling accross his site should hinder anyone
> intrested.
I wholeheartedly approve of the decision to decline to use the software of
people with this attitude towards free software as part of the core Debian
infrastructure. It's one thing to have the source diverge due to lack of
time, but the above rings TONS of MAJOR warning bells for me. It sounds
very much like the sort of conversation that I get into with vendors who
are trying to say they do "open source" without actually doing anything of
the sort.
Much of what we do here is *exactly* about throwing the source at anyone
casually stumbling across our site.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: