Re: debian-multimedia.org considered harmful
On Sunday, March 18, 2012 04:51:10, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 6:35 AM, Russ Allbery <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Chris Knadle <Chris.Knadle@coredump.us> writes:
> >> On Saturday, March 17, 2012 21:53:18, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >>> Hence the Debian patent policy.
> >>> We can't just ignore things like this, nor is it responsible use of
> >>> project resources to openly flaunt disobedience to laws, however
> >>> ill-conceived. But neither is it Debian policy to seek out trouble
> >>> when that trouble isn't forthcoming.
> >>> If you do want to be part of an organization that openly disobeys
> >>> stupid laws and makes a point of civil disobedience, more power to you.
> >>> I personally will be cheering you on. But the Debian Project is not
> >>> that organization, nor is it structured to be that organization (and
> >>> carefully structuring such an organization is important). The Debian
> >>> Project has other goals, which mostly require that it work within the
> >>> legal framework that it has available while making public statements
> >>> when that legal framework interferes with project goals.
> >> The above explains the whole reason d-m.o exists.
> >> However perhaps it also might explain the tenuous relationship d.o has
> >> with d-m.o because d.o may need to distance itself from the work d-m.o
> >> does.
> > Yup. Exactly. Christian is taking on himself the legal risk of
> > providing those packages, which the project as a whole can't really do.
> > Discussion about the confusion that can be caused by some of the other
> > packages he carries aside (and I do think that issue is real), I for one
> > thank him for his work.
> It would be great if dmo would restrict itself to this, or at least
> separate these "add-on" packages from packages that are problematic.
Some public discussion with the repository maintainer about this might be
warranted. Such would be worhwhile even if the outcome is not what is
desired, because at least then there will be a public record of where d-m.o
and d.o stand.
> Unfortunately, dmo does not categorize his archive in a way that would
> allow recommending at least parts. Therefore, adding this archive to
> the package sources of a system remains harmful.
If d-m.o doesn't have a BTS, requesting that one be created I think is
reasonable. Filing bugs on the packages in d-m.o (by whatever means is
common) is reasonable. IMHO putting priority on the packages within d.o over
those in d-m.o for those that understand what that choice means is reasonable.
But what I don't think is realistic is requesting everyone not to use the
archive at d-m.o. And I also don't think that the answer of "any packages
within d-m.o aren't worth debugging at all" sounds really lame; I certainly
wouldn't want that to be the norm for Debian as a whole. At minimum, users
can and do use the d-m.o mailing list to file bugs, and they get handled, so
I'd much rather that be the answer than for the bugs to simply be dropped and
to point to the repo as a whole as the problem.
Now that said, I also don't think it's fair that the Debian BTS has to handle
the bugs introduced from an external repository. It would be nice if there
was a way of clearly knowing that a package is external and telling the
reporter of the bug where the bug needs to be filed instead.