Re: Git Packaging Round 2: SHOULD Not or MUSt NOT Github
On September 13, 2019 10:51:16 PM UTC, Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> wrote:
>On 9/12/19 2:47 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> 1) there are significant problems we'd run into if we forbid non-free
>tools in
>> Debian work
>
>Sorry, WHAAAT ? That's shocking to read this from the DPL.
>Are you sure you didn't do a mistake in this sentence?
>
>There's absolutely no problem within the Debian project to forbid using
>non-free software. That's what I've signed-up for (ie: "debian will
>remain 100% free", aka the FIRST LINE of the social contract), and what
>I want, and I'm sure the vast majority of DDs agree.
>
>In the long run, there's going to be significant problems if we open
>then Pandora box of using non-free stuff to build Debian. To some
>degree, it has already been partially opened.
>
>Indeed, I'm being increasingly frustrated with what's going on in Salsa
>in general, and especially when it comes to using Google's
>infrastructure. We *must* get out of this. If going through a GR helps
>Salsa admins to realize a point of view that I believe I share with a
>large amount of people within Debian, then I'm all for it.
>
>On 9/12/19 3:07 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> We should resolve this with a GR. Something like:
>
>I would second that GR. My opinion was that we would need a GR to
>enforce things, with this discussion, I'm even more convince we do need
>one. My problem was that I'm not as good writing nice English texts as
>you are. Good if you can do it.
>
>On 9/12/19 3:07 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> Non-Debian services are
>> acceptable here so long as they are principally Free Software.
>
>s/principally/fully/
>
>Please, no compromise here. (or is it that I'm badly reading your
>English, and that "principally" means something else than in French?)
>
>On 9/12/19 4:37 PM, Enrico Zini wrote:
>> I see you keep pushing things with a strong cohercive slant rather
>> than working on creating useful and attractive infrastructure to make
>> everyone's work easier.
>
>What exactly do you propose here? The Salsa admins look like not
>accepting more contributors, neither seem open to suggestions. They
>just
>do "their way". I've countless times wrote to both them and in public
>that I'd love to be involved to make things more free. They also
>refused
>to use a packaged version of Gitlab even before it was a thing. They
>decided to use Google service, without prior communication about it and
>agreement of the community. When some of us pointed out it wasn't ok,
>it
>was strongly rejected, despite any possible offer to use something else
>(like Swift storage of other providers).
>
>So, exactly what do you think one can do, given the current situation?
>Or are you suggesting someone opens a solution that would compete
>what's
>been done on Salsa? This sounds counter-productive to me.
>
>On 9/12/19 4:51 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> The latter is what I am trying to do. I'm sorry that the opposite is
>> occuring.
>
>Ian, you're doing just right. I'm 100% with you on this. We shall not
>compromise, we did enough of that already, and in my opinion, we are
>already leaning too much on the wrong direction with Salsa.
>
>On 9/13/19 9:39 AM, Enrico Zini wrote:
>> Sam showed you how the situation in Debian seems to be different from
>> what you understood, and your response was not to acknowledge, try to
>> understand, and map the current status quo, but to consider of a GR
>to
>> force the status quo to fit to your expectations.
>
>I very much don't agree on this. If 7% of the packages with VCS fields
>are using Github, we *MUST* do something about it. And that's not just
>to fit Ian's own malicious agenda, or to please him. If this has to go
>through a GR, to make the small minority understand that the vast
>majority of us don't agree, then let's do it!
>
>On 9/13/19 9:39 AM, Enrico Zini wrote:
>> This cannot be the discussion culture of a group where I can be
>> comfortable working with others.
>
>I'm feel sorry to read these lines, though, I don't see how we can
>compromise on how much free Debian should be. I'm very surprised read
>you're not comfortable working in a group where some of us are pointing
>this out. Now, this makes *me* uncomfortable. That's not what I thought
>Debian was about then. I thought we all signed up on "Debian will
>remain
>100% free"... How come we don't have a strong consensus on this then?
>Have some of us just given-up on software freedom?
The logical conclusion of this line of argument is that I'm only allowed to do my packaging work on a computer that doesn't require non-free firmware blobs, because doing otherwise is using non-free tools to make Debian.
Are you willing to create a fully free software based CDN and commit to maintaining it for the foreseeable future so that we can stop using commercial CDN services without harming our users?
Heck, we should probably shut down any mirrors using hardware with non-free firmware too.
Scott K
Reply to: