Hi Blair, Quoting Blair Noctis (2024-09-04 04:33:10) > On 02/09/2024 06:38, Richard Lewis wrote: > > PICCA Frederic-Emmanuel <frederic-emmanuel.picca@synchrotron-soleil.fr> writes: > > > >> What about dog fooding ? > >> > >> for now we can setup a schroot and sbuild very easily and start to build a local repository in minutes. > >> > >> But when it comes to install gitlab and the CI system it is another story. So we rely on the central salsa instance. > > > > fwiw, i dont think that a properly scoped DEP would change any of > > that. eg, it could be written to be only about what goes into the > > archive and not say anything about using schroot locally, or whether > > salsa is gitlab or something else. but maybe i misunderstand > > >> I do not know if I am clear but I have the fear that this > >> centralisation will make us forget that de-centralisation is sort of > >> "central" to the Debian way. > > > > I suspect that if the DEP was clearer in scope and aims, these concerns > > would not actually arise > > Debian infrastructure is "centralized" in many ways. The power to decide which > packages go in the archive and which do not is "centralized" in the FTP team, > and you must upload to a "centralized" machine for them to review. buildds build > the public facing packages, debci runs migration reference tests, they are all > "centralized" on a few hosts and in a few people. Packages are distributed from > a single source (mirrors don't have the say of the content). Even the very list > you are posting to is hosted on a centralized machine. How would storing > packaging sources on a centralized code hosting instance be different than > package distribution? How would a centralized CI be different than buildds and > debci? > > The more important decentralization is in the decision process. Not everything > is fit for decentralization; don't push it only for the sake of it. > > GitLab isn't perfect, sure, but it's an implementation detail of having a > centralized code hosting and CI. I'd personally expect the CI to be basically > the same as debci (maybe even merge the two or make salsa delegate CI to debci), > but that's another topic. Yes, some parts of Debian are centralized, but it seems you turn those into reasons for giving up on the flexibility of others which are not. I have worked in areas with weak internet connection (near the Amazonas jungle in Peru, and at the country side of Sweden) where I could have a full mirror of Debian and an archive of email conversations, and from that not only release package updates but also work on developing Debian Pure Blends (i.e. "forks" of Debian containing purely Debian parts), with only occational need to syncronize my data with Debian. I don't say that Debian must work for jungle developers, nor that we must all use email and not different forms of collaboration requiring better connectivity. My point is that Debian *allows* collaboration also without heavy realtime connectivity that most of us take for granted in our working environments, and I fail to see why the few points that are centralized is a reason for giving up on all the others as well. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature