Re: Salsa CI news
Dmitry Smirnov <onlyjob@debian.org> writes:
> On Thursday, 6 February 2020 10:22:24 AM AEDT Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I can't speak for Bernd, but I haven't seen any evidence in this thread
>> that the built binary is not DFSG-compliant.
> So now you are going to nitpick on my language with all your eloquence? :(
Accusing fellow project members of intentionally violating the DFSG is
serious. If that isn't what you meant to do, and instead you only
intended to complain that the deployment wasn't to the quality
expectations of the archive, wasn't using packaged software, and that it
was inobvious how to find appropriate source, I think you chose your words
poorly in a way that goes substantially beyond nitpicking.
You also doubled down on accusing your fellow project members of
intentional wrong-doing:
On second thought, yes I would use "excuse" anyway precisely for its
moral implications and accusation of wrongdoing. In another community
it would not be obvious that DFSG compliance is a good thing. But here
in Debian where we all agree that DFSG is good, and compliance
concerns should be default, ideally. It should not be necessary to
call for DFSG compliance. It should be on abuser to explain that it
was not possible to build a service in a fully DFSG compliant manner
only from components provided by Debian.
This is a serious accusation of violation of the project principles to
which we've all agreed. If that wasn't what you intended to do, I think
you should consider toning your language way down.
> Second, it that binary build, the way it is compiled upstream, would
> never be accepted by ftp-masters due to lack of some sources in Debian
> "main". That's what I called problem with DFSG compliance.
Missing sources in main when those sources are reasonably believed to
covered under a DFSG-compatible license, just not uploaded to main, is not
what DFSG compliance normally means. It is indeed a release-critical flaw
in packages uploaded to Debian main, but it's not the same thing as
running Debian services on non-free software, which is how I believe a
reasonable person would have interpreted your original message.
That said, thank you for clarifying, and I *do* appreciate you pointing
out lack of obviously available source for Debian project infrastructure,
since I think that's something we should be aware of and ideally fix. I'm
just objecting to the moral accusation that you coupled with that bug
report.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: