Re: Supporting armel/armhf in wheezy-lts
- To: Julien Cristau <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Luca Filipozzi <email@example.com>
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Supporting armel/armhf in wheezy-lts
- From: Raphael Hertzog <email@example.com>
- Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 09:55:10 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20160424075510.GA11697@home.ouaza.com>
- Mail-followup-to: Raphael Hertzog <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Julien Cristau <email@example.com>, Luca Filipozzi <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20160423153252.GA19296@emyr.net> <[🔎] 20160423130011.GG2718@betterave.cristau.org>
thanks for the feedback.
On Sat, 23 Apr 2016, Julien Cristau wrote:
> I think one of the contentious points is how "Freexian raising funds to
> work on Debian LTS" is already too close to calling itself "Debian LTS
> fundraising", so I'm not sure bringing them closer would alleviate
> anyone's concerns.
On Sat, 23 Apr 2016, Luca Filipozzi wrote:
> I'm interested in working on Debian Partners but not if it includes Debian LTS
> fundraising as currently structured: either Debian LTS fundraising falls under
> the same umbrella as other Debian fundraising (and subject to the same rules,
> including that funds not be used for reimbursing effort, potentially) or it is
> separate and branded as a Freexian service.
Just to be clear, I don't mind if the money (and the corresponding work
that I don't particularly enjoy) is handled by a trusted organization. But
as long as we assume that Debian is not willing to "reimburse effort" as
you put it, then it just does not make sense since it would mean that
Debian LTS would not exist.
The reason why I did it within Freexian is that it was just the simplest
way to get it started and to prove that given some sane rules it's
possible to not harm the Debian community. Now that it's proven, I believe
we can and should discuss how to handle it at the Debian level directly.
As a Debian developer (and not only as a freelancer/company owner) I do
care about Debian LTS because it is important for Debian's long term
relevance (at least according to me).
> https://wiki.debian.org/LTS/ makes it appear that LTS is an official Debian
And it is. There are multiple Debian developers who have initiated this
project, have been organizing it on firstname.lastname@example.org (and not
all of them have been paid by Freexian, including many members of the
> However, https://wiki.debian.org/LTS/Funding directs those interested in
> providing funding in support LTS to do so through Freexian rather than through
> Software in the Public Interest.
This page directs to Debian developers who are willing to do the work
for money. Most of them preferred to join the initiative I started behind
the Freexian umbrella... mainly because it makes sense to have a common
offer, clear rules, etc.
While you might find that the distinction is not important, I find it
important. Since Freexian is external to Debian, there's no reason
for it to have some exclusive relationship concerning Debian LTS. We
could have other similar structures. I do make a distinction between
the Debian LTS project and Freexian as an administrative facilitator.
> Consequently, I find the use of Debian resources such as the advertising above
> and/or the use of Debian machines as being problematic.
It is really worse that indicating that some Debian services are handled
by a given (commercial) CDN?
> Make the distinction clearer, and the problem goes away.
Do you have some concrete suggestions?
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer
Support Debian LTS: http://www.freexian.com/services/debian-lts.html
Learn to master Debian: http://debian-handbook.info/get/