[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Proposed transition plan for non-free and call for help

On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 02:36:49PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> [-devel and -vote CCed. Please respect the Mail-Followup-To -project.
> You should really subscribe to -project, it's not that big. In any case,
> I will try read and reply to any comment]

Thanks Michael for taking the time to do this.

As you know, i am not really convinced that this is really a good thing
in the long run, but let's see what will happen.

> 2. The proposed implementation for non-free.org.
> Basically, there are two possibilities, a) using a GForge service and b)
> reproducing the debian.org services, but in a less complex way, where
> possible.

I would vote for b), since it would cause the less difference of use
over the current system.

> B. Reproducing the debian.org services. What is mostly needed are the
> Debian archive itself, the BTS, mailing-lists and the PTS.
>  a) The archive. This has been taken care of already, as Daniel Stone's
>     box already features a katie installation.

No mirror though, what about backups ? Not everyone has personal
backups, and i at least somewhat was relying on the archive to store the
packages, especially at times of limited disk space (like when trying to
build X :).

>  b) The Bug Tracking System. Other projects (e.g. mutt) are using it,
>     there is a package for it around, it should be rather easy to setup.
>     The hard part would be to import the current bugs from non-free
>     packages to the non-free.org BTS. One solution would be to copy the
>     entire BTS and then removing archived bugs and the bugs for packages
>     in main.

Like said, migration of bugs between non-free and debian would be
problematic, we can make do for now though, but i believe that this will
also be problematic for DD receiving eroned bug reports. I fear these
bug reports, or at least a proportion thereof may simply get lost if the
transition method is too involved. I don't know if this would be
significant though.

>  c) The Package Tracking System. I talked to Raphael Hertzog about this
>     a while ago. The code for the PTS is available and he told me that
>     it should be possible to adopt it for something like non-free.org
>     within an acceptable time frame. I'm not quite sure how hard it will
>     be to transfer the current subscribers to non-free packages.

Still, no more single per maintainer page where both non-free, contrib
and main packages are visible, i guess :(

BTW, what about contrib ? Will it move to non-free or stay in debian ?

> One problem with the transition that has been identified is the
> reassignment of bugs from non-free packages back to main packages. The
> easy solution here would be to just open a new bug on the main package,
> with the full bug log from non-free.org attached. Maybe a better
> solution can be hashed out in the future, if this case proves to be
> quite common.

Ok. I don't think this is only a transition problem though, but will
also be felt later on.

> Another outstanding issue is the handling of the non-free.org keyring.
> We believe it should be kept synced with the debian keyring and other
> people should be added only after good consideration. Whether this
> amounts to a full-blown NM process will have to be seen.

Ok, but given this and other remark, i have some serious doubts how this
separate project could be seen as somthing other than related to the
debian project, and officially approved by it. I also again wonder if
the effort going into this would not be better spent in a more useful
way, but hey, if you can bring this trough, more power to you.


Sven Luther

Reply to: