Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ‘lenny-ignore’? - Debian

This is a discussion on Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ‘lenny-ignore’? - Debian ; On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 04:31:00PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 08:48:50AM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: > > While fixing > > these issues is and should be a goal of Debian, ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 107

Thread: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ‘lenny-ignore’?

  1. Re: Bug reports of DFSG violatio ns are tagged ‘lenny-ignore’?

    On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 04:31:00PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
    > On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 08:48:50AM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
    > > While fixing
    > > these issues is and should be a goal of Debian, it's hardly something
    > > that can be done in the last few weeks before releasing.

    >
    > If I may make a suggestion, instead of trying to justify that Debian should
    > change its goals against the will of the majority of the developers,


    Not the majority, try again (hint: 271 < ~500).

    > the release team could just keep ignoring them all the same, and
    > instead of referring to the result as "Debian", just find another name
    > to make SC #1 happy.


    Debian vote is -> way. I'll be happy to take a GR vote off you.

    > And if you find yourself in difficulty finding a name, I think "Blobbie" is
    > a pretty one.
    >


    We've got plenty, thanks. If you want to enforce your own name, perhaps
    helping with the release may be a path to becoming a RM yourself.

    Neil
    --
    hm, maybe wearing a black t-shirt while dusting my bedroom for the
    first time in years wasn't such a good idea

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFI/ORW97LBwbNFvdMRAiPbAJ4uVHZyeHQZEGZ8bEKHTtcCgXAOdAC fQKL4
    O+ubZxsjY3zU5mA85J1zU68=
    =gPHg
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  2. Re: Bug reports of DFSG violatio ns are tagged ‘lenny-ignore’?

    On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 09:33:49PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
    > On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 08:46:18PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
    > > Robert Millan writes:
    > > > It seems we relied primarily on the release team, which has betrayed
    > > > the goals of the project,

    > >
    > > I do not accept to be called names because I firmly believe that
    > > Debian's goal is to distribute the best possible free software to our
    > > users. All of our work has no value unless people are able to use the
    > > software we integrate, test and improve.
    > >
    > > I believe what you want to say is "I'm willing to pick up all the work
    > > of the release team" before you start insulting the people who invest a
    > > lot more time into this project than you do.

    >
    > Sorry for my blunt description of the situation. Sometimes it has to come
    > this way, but I don't think it's insulting.
    >


    It is incredibly insulting.

    > If that makes you feel better, I dearly appreciate most of your work (that is,
    > the part that doesn't involve dismissing DFSG violations as non-RC issues).
    >


    Not at all. A justification that involves a 'but' is nullified. If you
    really want to help, I'd love to see some drivers that you consider free
    that will replace the ones that you don't.

    Neil
    --
    * hermanr feels like a hedgehog having sex...

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFI/OK997LBwbNFvdMRAgkpAJ4+cRNIBH0U8JmYaJC3ck+3pzdWsQC fc6L2
    R9ybEGzkAosrabpILj3mMD0=
    =RoJA
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  3. Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ‘lenny-ignore’?

    Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt writes:

    > Ben Finney writes:
    > > I would think at least a meaningful justification in the bug
    > > report is required

    >
    > Well, apply common sense.


    Common sense, i.e. the policy, social contract, and DFSG that are each
    agreed in common by all DDs, would have those bugs prevent packages
    violating the DFSG from being released in Debian.

    If you have some other justification that overrides this common sense,
    *please* make it explicit in the bug report when tagging bugs to be
    ignored despite the evident unsuitability of the package for release.

    > In all of the bugs I recently tagged, the DFSG violation is usually
    > a formal problem, something that other distributions and upstream
    > don't consider a problem at all.


    That appears to be a no-op: other distributions and upstream have not
    in general made an explicit social contract to follow the DFSG, while
    the Debian project has done so.

    > While fixing these issues is and should be a goal of Debian, it's
    > hardly something that can be done in the last few weeks before
    > releasing.


    Is that release deadline externally imposed, then? Are we bound to
    release on a specific date regardless of what bugs, ‘lenny-ignore’
    tagged or otherwise, remain in the packages?

    Or is it the case, as I'd understood from the guiding documents of the
    Debian project, that it's more important to release Debian such that
    it meets the project's own promises?

    > The drawbacks of delaying the release indefinitely for these bugs
    > are much greater than releasing with these minor DFSG violations
    > [1].


    This is a fallacy of the excluded middle. You omit the option to
    remove the parts of the work that violate the DFSG, which is a
    long-accepted solution to these types of bugs.

    --
    \ “Dare to be naïve.” —Richard Buckminster Fuller, personal motto |
    `\ |
    _o__) |
    Ben Finney


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  4. Re: Bug reports of DFSG violatio ns are tagged ‘lenny-ignore’?

    * Manoj Srivastava [Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:14:15 -0500]:

    Hi,

    > But developers are not the only infliences on your decision. You
    > have agreed to abide by the social contract, have you not? That, too,
    > should dictate how you act within your delegated role.


    [...]

    > There is nothing to feel betrayed by, all kinds of people make
    > all kinds of mistakes, and I do not live in a perpetual feeling of
    > victimization or betrayal.


    [...]

    > In other words, if the release team is allowing packages to
    > violate the DFSG, one must prove something to the relese team (not sure
    > what that is, exactly). Is it in dispute that non-free blobs that
    > violate the DFSG actually violate the DFSG?


    > Or does the release team need someone to quote the contitution
    > and the social contrat to them? (I doubt that is the case, since the
    > RM"s are mostly quite competent)


    > Are you saying you want the project to show you that the SC is
    > still relevant, by passing yet another GR?


    > Please pardon my confusion, since you ought to be aware that
    > English is not my first (or second) language.


    > So, could you explain your view of the issue here, without
    > bringing in feeling of betrayal, which I do not comprehend?


    I agreed to abide by the social contract, but I happen to think that
    these lenny-ignore tags at hand are acceptable in order to get a release
    out, /and/ I also believe that a majority of the developers happens to
    think the same (otherwise I wouldn't condone their use; I repeat: if I
    thought most DDs would think they are not reasonable, I would not
    approve of them even if they'd be reasonable to me).

    I may as well be mistaken in this belief, so I'm open to being proved
    wrong. To be proven, specifically, that the developers at large don't
    want these lenny-ignore tags applied. (That should answer your question
    above.)

    > I have no idea about how betrayal features here: I just believe
    > that the decision to ignore these problems in Lenny fall beyond the
    > powers given to delegates.


    This is a very interesting point, actually. My opinion is that: (a) they
    are a tool the release team should have, (b) the release team should not
    drift from the project at large in their use, (c) as with every other
    decision from a developer, they are always overrideable by a GR.

    HTH,

    --
    Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
    Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org

    Listening to: Dar Williams - This Was Pompeii


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  5. Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ???lenny-ignore????

    Robert Millan wrote:
    >> > > Has the current release team lowered the bar on Debian actually
    >> > > trying to follow the social contract?
    >> >
    >> > Yes, they have.

    >>
    >> What if, instead of ranting everywhere, you actually contributed code to
    >> fix these bugs?

    >
    > I did...


    You contributed one(!) - untested - patch for e100 and did nothing for the
    rest since beginning of August.

    These bugs were tagged "help" by the Debian Kernel Team since the same
    day you filed them. The same team, which is already heavily overworked
    and which already fixed/pruned lots of drivers with the 2.6.23-1 upload.

    If it were really important, why didn't you start with this directly after
    Etch release? Why didn't you do anything substantially since two and a half
    months?

    Where are your patches working on these issues upstream? If it is so
    important to you, why didn't you even notice that all this firmware
    separation work is already going on upstream led by David Woodhouse?
    (The same applies to Nathanael Nerode, who never did a thing to get
    all this resolved instead of pestering around)

    > ...but you missed the point. They're not wishlist bugs. If they were, I
    > wouldn't care much about them.


    Well, bugs don't get magically fixed.
    You didn't do anything substantially about them, so you can hardly complain.

    Cheers,
    Moritz


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  6. Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ???lenny-ignore????

    On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 12:22:25PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
    > On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 19:11 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
    > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 10:55:00AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:


    > > > We need the relevant maintainers to be told "your unwillingness to fix
    > > > this means we will not be able to release".


    > > I don't think that's a particularly constructive approach to take,
    > > especially not in a volunteer project.


    > I think that it is singularly non-constructive to see the maintainers of
    > packages regard compliance with our foundational documents as wishlist
    > items, and the release team regard such things as anything other than
    > show-stoppers.


    No, really. The kernel team are volunteers. Ordering them to do things
    doesn't help at all; one could equally well send the same message to
    everyone working on Debian (or, indeed, the wider community) since they
    could also step up to the plate and help fix this issue.

    If they were actively stopping people working on these issues then that
    would be different but I have not seen them doing this.

    --
    "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever."


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  7. Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ‘lenny-ignore’?

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On 20-10-2008 19:09, Adeodato Simó wrote:
    > * Manoj Srivastava [Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:14:15 -0500]:

    [...]
    >> So, could you explain your view of the issue here, without
    >> bringing in feeling of betrayal, which I do not comprehend?

    >
    > I agreed to abide by the social contract, but I happen to think that
    > these lenny-ignore tags at hand are acceptable in order to get a release
    > out, /and/ I also believe that a majority of the developers happens to
    > think the same (otherwise I wouldn't condone their use; I repeat: if I
    > thought most DDs would think they are not reasonable, I would not
    > approve of them even if they'd be reasonable to me).
    >
    > I may as well be mistaken in this belief, so I'm open to being proved
    > wrong. To be proven, specifically, that the developers at large don't
    > want these lenny-ignore tags applied. (That should answer your question
    > above.)


    This sounds like "appeal to popularity", just because
    a supposed majority do not care about something being applied
    that doesn't instantly make it reasonable.

    I do accept that lenny-ignore tags are an important
    tool for the Release Team to make another successful release,
    but I also think we will need to handle the non-free linux
    blobs in some way.

    People may had been harsh in expressing their feelings
    about the situation, now that the problem got a lot more
    attention, my honest question is: what are the alternatives we
    have from the Kernel and Release Team point of views? I mean,
    do we have other alternatives besides doing something similar
    we did for etch?


    Kind regards,
    - --
    Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)
    "Debian. Freedom to code. Code to freedom!"
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
    Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

    iEYEARECAAYFAkj8/eYACgkQCjAO0JDlykaAKACff3Lkfb9CsMHWDdGNeQCo5T9X
    bK8AoNJZp81/YQW5oiUZJ5M407PpVQb1
    =fX56
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  8. Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ‘lenny-ignore’?

    On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 10:55 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
    > On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 11:43 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
    > > Actually, I think we need a GR on the lines of
    > > ,----
    > > | http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_007
    > > | General Resolution: Handling source-less firmware in the Linux kernel
    > > `----
    > >
    > > To get a special dispensation for lenny.

    >
    > I think this would be insane. It smacks of the nonsense of the US
    > Congress extending copyright over and over again, always for a "limited
    > term", but such that the terms just never actually expire.


    According to [1], we are talking about 13 bugs.
    5 were opened in August
    2 were opened in September
    7 were opened in October

    Thanks to those who hunted those bugs (Robert and Ben), and those who
    submitted patches (Robert and Ben).

    > I object very strongly to the feeling that I am being held hostage by
    > developers who will not fix the bug, and then protest "emergency! we
    > must release! no delay! we'll do it next time!" and then sit on their
    > hands again for another go-round. The solution is to refuse to play
    > along, and to say, "hey, you had two years; we're just going to wait
    > until you fix the bug."


    None of the "ignore-lenny" bugs have been opened for two years, right ?

    How can we expect magazines to reserve their cover-page for us, if they
    have no clue about when we release ?

    I'm not saying it's fine to violate SC, I'm just the kind of guy who
    accept some compromises (temporary compromises here).
    May be we should only allow such "ignore-lenny" violation, if N+1 (i.e
    2.6.27) has the guilty feature removed in experimental?

    BTW, Kudos to the D-I team who did an excellent job handling non-free
    firmware in Lenny. A user is prompted for non-free firmware. That's a
    very good way to reverse the "not supported" paradigm: As far as a user
    is concerned, it is not Linux that doesn't support "my" device, it is
    "my" device that require a damned non-free driver.

    Franklin

    [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgre...g=lenny-ignore


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  9. Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ‘lenny-ignore’?

    On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 19:22 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
    > Le lundi 20 octobre 2008 * 16:34 +0200, Robert Millan a écrit :
    > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 04:21:24PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
    > > > What if, instead of ranting everywhere, you actually contributed codeto
    > > > fix these bugs?

    > >
    > > I did...

    >
    > And you deserve kudos for that.
    >
    > But still, it is unrealistic to ask, so late in the release process,
    > to introduce several thousand-lines patches in the kernel, even if they
    > finally exist (and AFAIK there are not patches for all these bugs).


    These patches exist, and they change less than a thousand lines in
    total. Here's the state of things:

    driver bug "source" file(s) licence action
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    cassini 498631 net/cassini.h GPLv2 remove
    dabusb 502663 media/video/dabfirmware.h BSDish move (dabusb)
    dsp56k 494010 char/dsp56k.c GPLv2 add source
    e100 494308 net/e100.c BSDish move (e100)
    kaweth 502665 net/usb/kawethfw.h GPLv2 remove
    mga 502666 char/drm/mga_ucode.h MIT move (matrox)
    qla1280 502667 scsi/ql1{2160,040,280}_fw.h GPLv2 remove
    r128 494007 char/drm/r128_cce.c MIT move (ati)
    radeon 494009 char/drm/radeon_microcode.h MIT move (ati)
    starfire 501152 net/starfire_firmware.h unmodified redist move (adaptec)
    tehuti 501153 net/tehuti_fw.h GPLv2 remove
    typhoon 502669 net/typhoon-firmware.h unmodified redist move (3com)
    whiteheat 502668 usb/serial/whiteheat_fw.h GPLv2 remove

    "Action" is what my changes would do. If the licence requires source
    distribution, remove. If the licence allows binary-only distribution,
    move to firmware-nonfree (the names given are the package names minus
    the leading "firmware-". In the case of dsp56k we can provide the
    source. In fact Robert has been working to provide a package of the
    assembler for the source.

    The modified linux-2.6 and firmware-nonfree source packages, and the
    linux-source-2.6.26 and firmware-* binary packages, can be found in:
    http://people.debian.org/~benh/firmware-removal/

    Please test them if you can. I have only been able to test the radeon
    changes myself.

    Ben.

    PS: I've now managed to find firmware for qla1280
    ,
    tehuti
    and
    kaweth under a
    4-clause BSD licence, so they are candidates for firmware-nonfree after
    all. The BSD driver for Cassini doesn't have the Saturn firmware patch
    and there seems to be no BSD driver for Whiteheat.


    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQBI/Q2g79ZNCRIGYgcRAtKuAJ9RWpFqDxk8y6PLPrB6vRZkL57urAC ghD7G
    fGDHOAa0zOUVPY2Bk+9pkEg=
    =+R13
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  10. Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ???lenny-ignore????

    Moritz Muehlenhoff writes:

    > Well, bugs don't get magically fixed.
    > You didn't do anything substantially about them, so you can hardly
    > complain.


    These specific bug reports describe instances where the Debian project
    breaks its own promises, which is why their severity is ‘serious’. The
    complaint is that positive action is being taken (the tagging of bug
    reports so that they are to be ignored for a Debian release) to ensure
    that breach occurs.

    Every recipient of the social contract's promise is entitled to hold
    the Debian project to its promises.

    --
    \ “No matter how cynical you become, it's never enough to keep |
    `\ up.” —Jane Wagner, via Lily Tomlin |
    _o__) |
    Ben Finney


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  11. Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ???lenny-ignore????

    On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 22:26 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
    > On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 12:22:25PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
    > > On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 19:11 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
    > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 10:55:00AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:

    >
    > > > > We need the relevant maintainers to be told "your unwillingness to fix
    > > > > this means we will not be able to release".

    >
    > > > I don't think that's a particularly constructive approach to take,
    > > > especially not in a volunteer project.

    >
    > > I think that it is singularly non-constructive to see the maintainers of
    > > packages regard compliance with our foundational documents as wishlist
    > > items, and the release team regard such things as anything other than
    > > show-stoppers.

    >
    > No, really. The kernel team are volunteers. Ordering them to do things
    > doesn't help at all; one could equally well send the same message to
    > everyone working on Debian (or, indeed, the wider community) since they
    > could also step up to the plate and help fix this issue.

    [...]

    Actually, I've done the last part of the work to remove firmware (mostly
    adapting patches written by others). The remaining problems are (a) a
    very few drivers don't have redistributable firmware (b) most of the
    other patches have not been properly tested, at least not with the
    Debian kernel.

    Ben.


    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQBI/RxX79ZNCRIGYgcRApjYAJ4m0rmtZUMeTW9Kqdz1SpWVJvX/mgCg5o/d
    eYpSK/uCTUXFrO9cC8CizxI=
    =pNPk
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  12. Re: Bug reports of DFSG violatio ns are tagged ‘lenny-ignore’?

    On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 04:52:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
    > I think that we should not just assume that the developers think
    > that violating the DFSG is acceptable just to release a new version. I


    Sure, but we shouldn't assume the contrary either, and it seems to me
    that a lot of participants in this thread did precisely that.

    > The tools do not make decisions, people do. I also think that
    > the foundation documents codify what the core values for the project
    > are. If the release team is drifting away from the foundation
    > documents, I think they are drifting away from the project at large, by
    > definition.


    But why nobody is making these very same arguments to the maintainer
    of their packages or to the FTP masters FWIW? According to these
    arguments they are drifting as away as the RMs. Either this is
    actually so (which I don't believe), or as Dato said the general
    feeling about these issues agrees with them RMs.

    > If the social contract and the whole freedom thing have become
    > passe, and the project members think so, we should then pass a GR
    > deleting the SC and the DFSG, and just ship whatever is convenient. I
    > am not sure I would still want to be part of the project that does
    > that, though.


    Please, don't get epic.

    Truth is that this is yet another case where I would like to see more
    a poll (still authenticated with devotee) to feel the general feelings
    of DDs, more than a GR with a decision which would actually be a
    pretest just to understand the general feeling.

    Maybe Jeroen which did that in the past can fire up a poll on the fly?
    The question would be as simple as: do you agree with RMs about
    tagging lenny-ignore bugs LIST_OF_BUGS_WITH_URLS?.

    I'm quite sure the answer would be yes, but here I'm entering myself
    the guesswork terrain which permeates this thread.

    Cheers.

    --
    Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
    zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
    Dietro un grande uomo c' sempre /oo\ All one has to do is hit the right
    uno zaino -- A.Bergonzoni \__/ keys at the right time -- J.S.Bach

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFI/Udj1cqbBPLEI7wRAlW1AKCIJrugSOLBcpJrpEuvgf0ZskFVQwC eL6+j
    hE++c9z7yi19q4nAVIDRAaY=
    =DDLp
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  13. Re: Bug reports of DFSG violatio ns are tagged ‘lenny-ignore’?

    On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 09:38:00PM +0200, Adeodato Sim wrote:
    > When I do my release work, I have certain tools, and decisions about how
    > to use them. One of these tools is britney, and another is the possibility
    > of saying that certain bugs will not stop the release from happening.


    > Unstable is also "Debian", you know.)


    I found these arguments actually really convincing. So, to the GR
    proposers, beware of how do you propose it, because I would have
    really hard time understanding a GR that simply asks for not
    *releasing* stuff which we continue *distributing* in some of our
    suites (i.e., unstable). Why should the treatment be different?

    ... and if it is *not* different, why should be the release managers
    be considered responsible for it? They "just" decide (and kudos for
    all their hard work, BTW) if something which is already in Debian gets
    released or not.

    Cheers.

    PS Note that I don't want yet to take part in judging the severity of
    the issues, mostly because I'm still offline and I want to read the
    bug logs. But I believe the points I've raised above are valid no
    matter what is written in that bug logs.

    --
    Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
    zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
    Dietro un grande uomo c' sempre /oo\ All one has to do is hit the right
    uno zaino -- A.Bergonzoni \__/ keys at the right time -- J.S.Bach

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFI/UXo1cqbBPLEI7wRAhpAAJ9LN8+DnKIMVysi2tU9E1FBPLy2MwC eI5Vk
    ZXcF6WFyFsq4xOENtLcC6hk=
    =xczs
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  14. Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ‘lenny-ignore’?

    Stefano Zacchiroli writes:

    > On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 04:52:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
    > > I think that we should not just assume that the developers
    > > think that violating the DFSG is acceptable just to release a new
    > > version.

    >
    > Sure, but we shouldn't assume the contrary either


    What, in your view, would allow such an assumption? I'd have thought
    an explicit agreement to follow the social contract would be *exactly*
    what's required to allow assumption that the agreement will be
    followed.

    > I'm quite sure the answer would be «yes», but here I'm entering
    > myself the guesswork terrain which permeates this thread.


    I don't see how claims of “guesswork” can be raised for assuming
    that an explicit agreement remains in place unless explicitly
    nullified.

    --
    \ “Room service? Send up a larger room.” —Groucho Marx |
    `\ |
    _o__) |
    Ben Finney


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  15. Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged 'lenny-ignore'?

    Manoj Srivastava wrote:
    > On Mon, Oct 20 2008, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
    >
    >> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 09:38:00PM +0200, Adeodato Sim wrote:


    >> ... and if it is *not* different, why should be the release managers
    >> be considered responsible for it? They "just" decide (and kudos for
    >> all their hard work, BTW) if something which is already in Debian gets
    >> released or not.

    >
    > I am not sure that violating a foundation document falls under
    > the powers of a delegate. I wish it did, being a delegate, but it does
    > not. I looked.


    Stop this nonsense, it's not the release team that is violating a
    foundation document. It's Debian as a whole and it's happening now, not
    when we release or not. The only thing we did as a release team is to
    make clear that we don't want to delay the release if these bugs won't
    get fixed. As always we don't object that lenny-ignore bugs would get
    fixed before lenny.

    Cheers

    Luk


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  16. Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged 'lenny-ignore'?

    Manoj Srivastava wrote:
    > On Tue, Oct 21 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
    >
    >> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
    >>> On Mon, Oct 20 2008, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 09:38:00PM +0200, Adeodato Sim wrote:
    >>>> ... and if it is *not* different, why should be the release managers
    >>>> be considered responsible for it? They "just" decide (and kudos for
    >>>> all their hard work, BTW) if something which is already in Debian gets
    >>>> released or not.
    >>> I am not sure that violating a foundation document falls under
    >>> the powers of a delegate. I wish it did, being a delegate, but it does
    >>> not. I looked.

    >> Stop this nonsense, it's not the release team that is violating a
    >> foundation document. It's Debian as a whole and it's happening now, not
    >> when we release or not. The only thing we did as a release team is to
    >> make clear that we don't want to delay the release if these bugs won't
    >> get fixed. As always we don't object that lenny-ignore bugs would get
    >> fixed before lenny.

    >
    > Hmm. I am not so sire it is nonsense. Yes, the release team is
    > not alone in this, and, really, all of us are somewhat to blame for not
    > helping the kernel team fix the DFSG violations. But I don't think that
    > the release team is blameless, either, since they decided to release
    > with DFSG violating code.


    We didn't decide to release yet...

    > Now, if we are all so very eager to have these bugs go away, we
    > have no objections to an NMU with the patches that have been posted on
    > -kernel mailing list, right? (Note: some of these patches have only
    > recently been posted, so NMU's based on these patches have only just
    > becme possible).


    Not in principle, though I would object an NMU that is not tested properly.

    Cheers

    Luk


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  17. Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged 'lenny-ignore'?

    Luk Claes writes:

    > it's not the release team that is violating a foundation document.
    > It's Debian as a whole and it's happening now, not when we release
    > or not.


    This is an important distinction, thank you.

    > The only thing we did as a release team is to make clear that we
    > don't want to delay the release if these bugs won't get fixed.


    Surely the requirement is not to *ignore* a serious bug, but to
    *remove* the offending package unless the bug is resolved?

    Yes, I understand we're talking about, in some cases, kernel packages
    that have these bugs. What I don't see is why these serious bugs, that
    (as you point out) violate the Debian project's foundation documents,
    can be ignored for the sake of releasing on a particular date.

    --
    \ “I doubt, therefore I might be.” —anonymous |
    `\ |
    _o__) |
    Ben Finney


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  18. Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged 'lenny-ignore'?

    Luk Claes writes:

    > Manoj Srivastava wrote:
    > > Hmm. I am not so sire it is nonsense. Yes, the release
    > > team is not alone in this, and, really, all of us are somewhat to
    > > blame for not helping the kernel team fix the DFSG violations.
    > > But I don't think that the release team is blameless, either,
    > > since they decided to release with DFSG violating code.

    >
    > We didn't decide to release yet...


    That's not the point being made: As I understand Manoj's point, it is
    that tagging a bug ‘lenny-ignore’ is an active decision that a
    particular bug, even if it represents a DFSG violation, will not be
    considered in the decision to release.

    To that extent, it *is* making the decision that it is acceptable to
    release Debian with DFSG-violating works, in advance of the decision
    to actually release.

    --
    \ “As the evening sky faded from a salmon color to a sort of |
    `\ flint gray, I thought back to the salmon I caught that morning, |
    _o__) and how gray he was, and how I named him Flint.” —Jack Handey |
    Ben Finney


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  19. Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ???lenny-ignore????

    On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:49:40 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG
    wrote:
    >On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 22:26 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
    >> No, really. The kernel team are volunteers. Ordering them to do things
    >> doesn't help at all; one could equally well send the same message to
    >> everyone working on Debian (or, indeed, the wider community) since they
    >> could also step up to the plate and help fix this issue.

    >
    >Of course. These are RC bugs. I would be happy to upload an NMU that
    >fixed the RC issue by removing support for the relevant hardware, and
    >dropping blobs from the source. I don't think it's a very challenging
    >task, but I'm happy to do so. Will that be ok?


    You're not seriously thinking that a release without E100 support does
    make any sense and is any good for Debian, right?

    Greetings
    Marc

    --
    -------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -----
    Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header
    Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | http://www.zugschlus.de/
    Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  20. Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged 'lenny-ignore'?

    Ben Finney (2008-10-21 17:37 +1100):

    > That's not the point being made: As I understand Manoj's point, it is
    > that tagging a bug ‘lenny-ignore’ is an active decision that a
    > particular bug, even if it represents a DFSG violation, will not be
    > considered in the decision to release.
    >
    > To that extent, it *is* making the decision that it is acceptable to
    > release Debian with DFSG-violating works, in advance of the decision
    > to actually release.


    OK guys, please. As a random Debian user may I suggest that you stop
    investigating _who_ is violating DFSG and instead focus on _what_ things
    are the cause of violating DFSG. I guess we know about the "what" part
    already and that part exists in Sid too. So I think you should do

    apt-get source linux-2.6

    and go fix the issues you are concerned about - or help testing the
    fixes provided by others (I might do some testing too). And perhaps the
    users whose hardware won't be supported anymore appreciate some help on
    how to work around their problem. (It looks like this includes me.)

    Anyway, thanks for all the DDs and Debian community for this
    mostly-pretty-good operating system.


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast