Re: Git Packaging Round 2: SHOULD Not or MUSt NOT Github
On 2019, സെപ്റ്റംബർ 14 4:21:16 AM IST, 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!
I will also support such a GR. I started packaging gitlab so we don't have to compromise on ease of use compared to github.
>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?
>Thomas Goirand (zigo)
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Reply to: