Re: Salsa CI news
From where I stand it seems to me that you actually don’t care about free software or DFSG or Debian and you only care about enforcing your worldview upon others. You need to stop, go read DFSG and come back only if you and come back with valid arguments how the DFSG is being violated. Or just stop and apologize.
Ondrej
--
Ondřej Surý <ondrej@sury.org>
> On 6 Feb 2020, at 01:33, Dmitry Smirnov <onlyjob@debian.org> wrote:
>
> 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? :(
>
> The first problem is that packaged gitlab-runner (where all the issues are
> addressed) is not used. I consider it to be a problem on its own.
>
> 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.
>
> On top of that there are minor things like sloppy upstream vendoring of many
> packaged components. That is over 90 libraries that may or may not contain
> some binary blobs, pre-generated files, or files licensed under non-DFSG
> compliant terms. Do you really want me to dig there to find you "proof" or
> did I say enough to demonstrate the problem?
>
> User of upstream build (even self-compiled) can not be sure about DFSG
> compliance due to extensive vendoring - a something that took months to
> address in the package that was actually accepted into Debian.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Dmitry Smirnov.
>
> ---
>
> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in
> practice, there is.
> -- Jan L. A. van de Snepscheut
Reply to: