Debian and Non-Free Services

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
55 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Debian and Non-Free Services

Sam Hartman-3

I'm trying to move a thread from -devel.

Ian Jackson responded [1] to part of a consensus discussion on Git
  recommendations.  I had said that I think we recommend against the use
  of non-free services like Github but do not forbid their use.
  Ian disagreed with this recommendation.

I responded [2] noting that around 7% of the packages with a vcs-git in
  unstable are hosted on Github.

Ian said [3] that he was confident if we had a GR to forbid use of services
  like Github it would pass.

He proposed the following text for such a GR.

I think such a discussion is better on -project.

  [1]:
  https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/23927.51367.848949.15475@...
  [2]: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/tslwoedy93e.fsf_-_@...
  [3]:
  https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/23930.17192.131171.455527@...
 
 
  Subject: Free Software Needs Free Tools

  No Debian contributor should be expected or encouraged, when working
  to improve Debian, to use non-free tools.  This includes proprietary
  web services.  We will ensure this, insofar as it is within Debian's
  collective control.

  For example, Vcs-Git fields in source packages must not refer to
  proprietary git code management systems.  Non-Debian services are
  acceptable here so long as they are principally Free Software.

  We encourage all our upstreams to use Free/Libre tools.

  We recognise that metadata in Debian which describes the behaviour
  of those outside our community, for example fields which refer to
  upstream source management systems, may (in order to be accurate)
  still need to refer to proprietary systems.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

Ansgar Burchardt-5
>   Subject: Free Software Needs Free Tools
>
>   No Debian contributor should be expected or encouraged, when working
>   to improve Debian, to use non-free tools.

Does this include:

 - non-free firmware on Debian hardware,
 - non-free software for interacting with hardware,
 - non-free backup systems?

AFAIK Debian uses all of these and you are probably expected to deal
with them when contributing to relevant parts in Debian.

>   This includes proprietary
>   web services.  We will ensure this, insofar as it is within Debian's
>   collective control.

Does this include use of proprietary CDN networks, DNS services, cloud
services (such as VMs or storage) or social network services (Twitter)?
Again, you probably cannot avoid them when contributing to relevant
parts of the project.

>   For example, Vcs-Git fields in source packages must not refer to
>   proprietary git code management systems.  Non-Debian services are
>   acceptable here so long as they are principally Free Software.

That would just lead to packages using these to no longer including the
Vcs-* fields...  There are some valid reasons to host packages on
services such as GitLab or GitHub such as when they are hosted there as
part of the upstream project and/or for better cooperation with
upstream.

I would not like to make cooperation with upstream more complicated.

Ansgar

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

Marc Haber-5
In reply to this post by Sam Hartman-3
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 01:30:24PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:

> He proposed the following text for such a GR.
>
> I think such a discussion is better on -project.
>
>   [1]:
>   https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/23927.51367.848949.15475@...
>   [2]: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/tslwoedy93e.fsf_-_@...
>   [3]:
>   https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/23930.17192.131171.455527@...
>  
>  
>   Subject: Free Software Needs Free Tools

Count my vote in as a firm "No". This is going the same road as the
"editorial changes" two decades ago, the first occasion where my
motivation in Debian was damaged.

Greetings
Marc

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Haber         | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header
Leimen, Germany    |  lose things."    Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
Nordisch by Nature |  How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 6224 1600421

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

Pierre-Elliott Bécue-3
In reply to this post by Sam Hartman-3
Le jeudi 12 septembre 2019 à 13:30:24-0400, Sam Hartman a écrit :

> I'm trying to move a thread from -devel.
>
> Ian Jackson responded [1] to part of a consensus discussion on Git
>   recommendations.  I had said that I think we recommend against the use
>   of non-free services like Github but do not forbid their use.
>   Ian disagreed with this recommendation.
>
> I responded [2] noting that around 7% of the packages with a vcs-git in
>   unstable are hosted on Github.
>
> Ian said [3] that he was confident if we had a GR to forbid use of services
>   like Github it would pass.
>
> He proposed the following text for such a GR.
>
> I think such a discussion is better on -project.
>
>   [1]:
>   https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/23927.51367.848949.15475@...
>   [2]: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/tslwoedy93e.fsf_-_@...
>   [3]:
>   https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/23930.17192.131171.455527@...
>
>
>   Subject: Free Software Needs Free Tools
>
>   No Debian contributor should be expected or encouraged, when working
>   to improve Debian, to use non-free tools.  This includes proprietary
>   web services.  We will ensure this, insofar as it is within Debian's
>   collective control.
>
>   For example, Vcs-Git fields in source packages must not refer to
>   proprietary git code management systems.  Non-Debian services are
>   acceptable here so long as they are principally Free Software.
>
>   We encourage all our upstreams to use Free/Libre tools.
>
>   We recognise that metadata in Debian which describes the behaviour
>   of those outside our community, for example fields which refer to
>   upstream source management systems, may (in order to be accurate)
>   still need to refer to proprietary systems.
While I'm sensible to the motivations behind this idea, in my opinion¬:

 1. Restricting the platform where people would work on packaging stuff
    is more prone do deprive us from workforce than achieve any good. This also
    would complicate the interactions with our upstreams;
 2. Doing so by forbidding to see these in a metadata field looks like
    mere wishful thinking to me;
 3. Promoting and defending Free Software doesn't mean refusing to rely
    or touch any non-free software. We touch it each and every day;
 4. This kind of GR and the potential decision would just ostracize
    ourselves.

Living up to our own principles is a noble thing, but I'm not keen on
supporting such a GR as I think the drawbacks outweight the benefits for
the project.

I'm of course eager to change my mind if I missed something.

Best,

--
Pierre-Elliott Bécue

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

Dr. Bas Wijnen-2
In reply to this post by Marc Haber-5
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 07:49:26PM +0200, Ansgar wrote:

> >   Subject: Free Software Needs Free Tools
> >
> >   No Debian contributor should be expected or encouraged, when working
> >   to improve Debian, to use non-free tools.
>
> Does this include:
>
>  - non-free firmware on Debian hardware,
>  - non-free software for interacting with hardware,
>  - non-free backup systems?
As far as I'm concerned, yes. But note that the proposal is not to say "our
users must not be allowed to use github". It's "our developers must not be
allowed to force contributors to use github".

I think that is very reasonable, at least for tools (including services) where
free alternatives are available.

> AFAIK Debian uses all of these and you are probably expected to deal
> with them when contributing to relevant parts in Debian.

You may be correct. In that case, this GR, if passed, declares that we want to
change that. Is that controversial?

> >   This includes proprietary
> >   web services.  We will ensure this, insofar as it is within Debian's
> >   collective control.
>
> Does this include use of proprietary CDN networks, DNS services, cloud
> services (such as VMs or storage) or social network services (Twitter)?
> Again, you probably cannot avoid them when contributing to relevant
> parts of the project.

Yes, it should mean that. Again, it doesn't mean people are not allowed to use
them. It means that people who don't want to use them can still contribute to
Debian. So for example, it would not be allowed to ignore the bts and only
accept bug reports through Twitter.

> >   For example, Vcs-Git fields in source packages must not refer to
> >   proprietary git code management systems.  Non-Debian services are
> >   acceptable here so long as they are principally Free Software.
>
> That would just lead to packages using these to no longer including the
> Vcs-* fields...  There are some valid reasons to host packages on
> services such as GitLab or GitHub such as when they are hosted there as
> part of the upstream project and/or for better cooperation with
> upstream.
>
> I would not like to make cooperation with upstream more complicated.
I agree with that. However, I'm not sure if it would make it harder. How does
this cooperation work, where you need your packaging to be on the same host as
upstream?

I usually download their release and work on that. It really doesn't matter
where I do that. Of course I report issues upstream in their issue tracker, but
that doesn't need to be on the host where my packaging is.

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 10:19:46PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> Count my vote in as a firm "No". This is going the same road as the
> "editorial changes" two decades ago, the first occasion where my
> motivation in Debian was damaged.

The problem with that GR was that at the time of voting, people did not realize
what they were deciding. With this GR that won't be the case, if people like
you explain what the problem is. So I don't believe it is a similar situation.

But please, in order to avoid the problem, elaborate on what the problem with
this proposal is.

Thanks,
Bas

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

"Yao Wei (魏銘廷)"-2
In reply to this post by Pierre-Elliott Bécue-3
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 10:43:59PM +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
> Living up to our own principles is a noble thing, but I'm not keen on
> supporting such a GR as I think the drawbacks outweight the benefits for
> the project.

Does this also imply we are reverting the GR on non-free sections?

https://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_002

Yao Wei

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

Norbert Preining
In reply to this post by Ansgar Burchardt-5
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019, Ansgar wrote:
> That would just lead to packages using these to no longer including the
> Vcs-* fields...  There are some valid reasons to host packages on

Indeed, that will happen.

Best

Norbert

--
PREINING Norbert                               http://www.preining.info
Accelia Inc. + IFMGA ProGuide + TU Wien + JAIST + TeX Live + Debian Dev
GPG: 0x860CDC13   fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0 ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

Scott Kitterman-5
In reply to this post by Sam Hartman-3


On September 12, 2019 5:30:24 PM UTC, Sam Hartman <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>I'm trying to move a thread from -devel.
>
>Ian Jackson responded [1] to part of a consensus discussion on Git
> recommendations.  I had said that I think we recommend against the use
>  of non-free services like Github but do not forbid their use.
>  Ian disagreed with this recommendation.
>
>I responded [2] noting that around 7% of the packages with a vcs-git in
>  unstable are hosted on Github.
>
>Ian said [3] that he was confident if we had a GR to forbid use of
>services
>  like Github it would pass.
>
>He proposed the following text for such a GR.
>
>I think such a discussion is better on -project.
>
>  [1]:
>https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/23927.51367.848949.15475@...
>[2]:
>https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/tslwoedy93e.fsf_-_@...
>  [3]:
>https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/23930.17192.131171.455527@...
>  
>  
>  Subject: Free Software Needs Free Tools
>
>  No Debian contributor should be expected or encouraged, when working
>  to improve Debian, to use non-free tools.  This includes proprietary
>  web services.  We will ensure this, insofar as it is within Debian's
>  collective control.
>
>  For example, Vcs-Git fields in source packages must not refer to
>  proprietary git code management systems.  Non-Debian services are
>  acceptable here so long as they are principally Free Software.
>
>  We encourage all our upstreams to use Free/Libre tools.
>
>  We recognise that metadata in Debian which describes the behaviour
>  of those outside our community, for example fields which refer to
>  upstream source management systems, may (in order to be accurate)
>  still need to refer to proprietary systems.

It's based on a false premise.  No one is forced to use any VCS to maintain Debian packages.  If you don't want to talk to GitHub, send a patch to the BTS.

Scott K

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

Guillem Jover
Hi!

On Fri, 2019-09-13 at 00:35:23 +0000, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On September 12, 2019 5:30:24 PM UTC, Sam Hartman <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >Ian said [3] that he was confident if we had a GR to forbid use of
> >services
> >  like Github it would pass.

I very much doubt that, TBH, but…

> >He proposed the following text for such a GR.

> >  Subject: Free Software Needs Free Tools
> >
> >  No Debian contributor should be expected or encouraged, when working
> >  to improve Debian, to use non-free tools.  This includes proprietary
> >  web services.  We will ensure this, insofar as it is within Debian's
> >  collective control.
> >
> >  For example, Vcs-Git fields in source packages must not refer to
> >  proprietary git code management systems.  Non-Debian services are
> >  acceptable here so long as they are principally Free Software.
> >
> >  We encourage all our upstreams to use Free/Libre tools.
> >
> >  We recognise that metadata in Debian which describes the behaviour
> >  of those outside our community, for example fields which refer to
> >  upstream source management systems, may (in order to be accurate)
> >  still need to refer to proprietary systems.
>
> It's based on a false premise.  No one is forced to use any VCS to
> maintain Debian packages.  If you don't want to talk to GitHub, send
> a patch to the BTS.

Exactly. This GR seems just very misguided to me.

With git being distributed you could even just pull once and push
elsewhere, or ask someone else to do that. But even then we don't
really require any git repos, one can just «apt source» stuff. I'm
also not seeing how you can distinguish github from people's own
servers where you get no source for the software used, nor setup
instructions to replicate, etc, etc. In most cases you might not
even know what software is being used at all underneath!

This would end up with people delisting repos from the fields, while
still using them. Which personally I don't see as a huge loss, but I
assume Ian does?

To give some context, I was one of the so called "hard-liners" in the
vote to punt non-free from Debian. I think that's still an ideal I'd
like we pursued, even though I think the firmware case is a tolerable
exception (given that you end up running these blobs anyway even if
you do not update them). To me that leaves the non-free documentation,
which while bad, at least does not execute anything.

So, non-free tools that no one is forced to use are unnaceptable, but
documentation essential to do much work in Debian is not? Many GNU
packages have its entire docs in the non-free section (which I fully
agree with). In my mind a proper GR w/o the selective filtering would
imply we need to switch away too from most of those GNU packages,
starting with gcc, gdb, binutils, make, tar, bison, gawk, etc.

Thanks,
Guillem

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

Ansgar Burchardt-5
In reply to this post by Dr. Bas Wijnen-2
"Dr. Bas Wijnen" writes:

> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 07:49:26PM +0200, Ansgar wrote:
>> >   Subject: Free Software Needs Free Tools
>> >
>> >   No Debian contributor should be expected or encouraged, when working
>> >   to improve Debian, to use non-free tools.
>>
>> Does this include:
>>
>>  - non-free firmware on Debian hardware,
>>  - non-free software for interacting with hardware,
>>  - non-free backup systems?
>
> You may be correct. In that case, this GR, if passed, declares that we want to
> change that. Is that controversial?

The GR forbids using any of these.  That is not helpful.

As far as I know there is no mainstream hardware that doesn't require
non-free firmware; using non-mainstream hardware is possible, but has
other problems.

>> >   This includes proprietary
>> >   web services.  We will ensure this, insofar as it is within Debian's
>> >   collective control.
>>
>> Does this include use of proprietary CDN networks, DNS services, cloud
>> services (such as VMs or storage) or social network services (Twitter)?
>> Again, you probably cannot avoid them when contributing to relevant
>> parts of the project.
>
> Yes, it should mean that. Again, it doesn't mean people are not allowed to use
> them. It means that people who don't want to use them can still contribute to
> Debian. So for example, it would not be allowed to ignore the bts and only
> accept bug reports through Twitter.

So assume I want to avoid using non-free DNS and CDN services, but still
contribute to Debian.  How should that work as long as Debian uses these
services?  How should one contact people using non-free mail services?
(mailto:non-free is probably not better than https://non-free...)

Of course Debian can stop using CDN services and provide a worse
experience for users, but why?  Debian's goal is not to build and
operate a free CDN service...

Ansgar

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

Joerg Jaspert
In reply to this post by Sam Hartman-3
On 15523 March 1977, Sam Hartman wrote:

>   Subject: Free Software Needs Free Tools

I think the subject does not fit the content. Its more like "Forbid DDs
to use certain services".

>   No Debian contributor should be expected or encouraged, when working to
>   improve Debian, to use non-free tools.  This includes proprietary web
>   services.  We will ensure this, insofar as it is within Debian's
>   collective control.

>   For example, Vcs-Git fields in source packages must not refer to
>   proprietary git code management systems.  Non-Debian services are
>   acceptable here so long as they are principally Free Software.

>   We encourage all our upstreams to use Free/Libre tools.

>   We recognise that metadata in Debian which describes the behaviour of
>   those outside our community, for example fields which refer to upstream
>   source management systems, may (in order to be accurate) still need to
>   refer to proprietary systems.

I think that, should this pass, it has negative effects for Debian, not
positive ones.

While we should clearly NOT encourage the use of things like github, the
only thing we IMO should forbid is where it actually hurts us as a
project. Say, it really doesnt matter if i git clone
github.com/something to get what the maintainer is working on right now
- the one "official" source for the Debian package is whats in the
archive - but if the maintainer wants to use GitHub issues as their
mainplace for bug tracking and not the BTS, thats bad. So if anything,
we should forbid such things (as we discourage anyways already).

Difference IMO is where the main, authorative, place for something is.
source in git is just some source in git, the authorative one for Debian
is the upload. You can easily put an NMU on top (or take over package)
While for bugs its the BTS, not some whatever system somewhere.

--
bye, Joerg

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

Andy Simpkins-5
In reply to this post by Sam Hartman-3


On 12/09/2019 18:30, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Subject: Free Software Needs Free Tools
>
>    No Debian contributor should be expected or encouraged, when working
>    to improve Debian, to use non-free tools.  I don't believe that anyone within Debian will have a problem with this
statement.


>    This includes proprietary web services.  
Clearly no issue here either - web services are an instance of a
software application/tool so the above statement holds.


>    We will ensure this, insofar as it is within Debian's
>    collective control."Ensure" is perhaps the wrong word here.  I submit that "Encourage" may
be a better choice.
Just because you, and I, believe that "No Debian contributor should be
expected or encouraged... ...to use any non-free tools" does not mean
that we should *prevent* them from doing so.  The decision to do so
should vest solely with the contributor.  *providing* that their doing
so does not force other contributors to use non-free tools.
It would however, IMO, be acceptable to enforce this for Debian's own
tools, and infrastructure.  Just not for packages where Debian is not
the 'root upstream'.


>
>    For example, Vcs-Git fields in source packages must not refer to
>    proprietary git code management systems.  Non-Debian services are
>    acceptable here so long as they are principally Free Software.
Your example strikes of forcing people to use an entirely free system
for their development process.  If we are to encourage and support
freedom that means that we must also accept that other people have the
freedom to use proprietary git code management systems.
Again if this example is bound within the relm of Debian services, tools
and root packages then IMO this would be acceptable.


>    We encourage all our upstreams to use Free/Libre tools.
Again I can't see anyone within Debian having a problem with this
statement.


>
>    We recognise that metadata in Debian which describes the behaviour
>    of those outside our community, for example fields which refer to
>    upstream source management systems, may (in order to be accurate)
>    still need to refer to proprietary systems.
That is what I am trying to say, and this statement would appear to be
at odds with your example above.

I guess what I am trying to say is for upstream packages distributed
within Debian (the vast majority) we should ensure that contributors to
these packages are able to contribute using exclusively free tools and
software.  This does not prohibit the upstream from using proprietary
services, only that their must be a method to contribute without being
forced to use those services.

Where the Debian project *is* the upstream then of cause we should eat
our own dog food and use entirely FLOSS tools.

/Andy

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov
In reply to this post by Sam Hartman-3
чт, 12 сент. 2019 г. в 20:30, Sam Hartman <[hidden email]>:

>   Subject: Free Software Needs Free Tools
>
>   No Debian contributor should be expected or encouraged, when working
>   to improve Debian, to use non-free tools.  This includes proprietary
>   web services.  We will ensure this, insofar as it is within Debian's
>   collective control.
>
>   For example, Vcs-Git fields in source packages must not refer to
>   proprietary git code management systems.  Non-Debian services are
>   acceptable here so long as they are principally Free Software.

I'd say strict NO to this proposal. While our goal is to enhance free software
and to encourage its usage, we should not limit our developers' freedom
to use any tool they would like.

>   We encourage all our upstreams to use Free/Libre tools.
>
>   We recognise that metadata in Debian which describes the behaviour
>   of those outside our community, for example fields which refer to
>   upstream source management systems, may (in order to be accurate)
>   still need to refer to proprietary systems.
>


--
With best wishes
Dmitry

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

Holger Levsen-2
In reply to this post by Sam Hartman-3
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 01:30:24PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
>   Subject: Free Software Needs Free Tools
 
ZOMG.

IMO one of the less good ideas brought to this list. I will refrain from
further comments for everyones benefit, Ansgar brought up the most
relevant objections already.


--
cheers,
        Holger

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
       PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

Gerardo Ballabio-2
In reply to this post by Sam Hartman-3
Bas Wijnen wrote:
> note that the proposal is not to say "our users must not be allowed to use github". It's "our developers must not be allowed to force contributors to use github".

Scott Kitterman wrote:
> No one is forced to use any VCS to maintain Debian packages.  If you don't want to talk to GitHub, send a patch to the BTS.

I believe it may be useful to think along the "preferred form for
modifications" clause of the GPL. Which is the "preferred form for
modifications" of Debian packaging? As I understand policy, currently
it's the source package. If that doesn't reflect actual practice, that
might be good reason to change policy.

In any case, I'd always expect the "preferred form" of all packages to
be available on the Debian infrastructure: one must not depend on any
external services, free or not, in order to be able to obtain it. So,
if Git-based packaging becomes the norm, it is my understanding that
the master Git repo of all packages must be hosted on Debian servers.

Clearly, maintainers can still host their own working copy wherever
they would like to, and there's no requirement to make it publicly
accessible through a free service, or at all.

Gerardo

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

MJ Ray-2
In reply to this post by Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov


Fri Sep 13 12:06:35 GMT+01:00 2019 Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov :
 
> чт, 12 сент. 2019 г. в 20:30, Sam Hartman :
 
> > For example, Vcs-Git fields in source packages must not refer to
> > proprietary git code management systems. Non-Debian services are
> > acceptable here so long as they are principally Free Software.
>
> I'd say strict NO to this proposal. While our goal is to enhance free software
> and to encourage its usage, we should not limit our developers' freedom
> to use any tool they would like.
 
Both answers limit developers' freedom of choice. NO allows maintainers to
host package sources on github or whatever, but that arguably
requires future maintainers, co-maintainers and so on to use it too.
 
I have some sympathy with the "send a patch to bugs.debian.org" view.
Do any developers ignore those and tell people to join github to use its
private version of pull requests? I know I have patches ignored in there
but I don't remember being told to go sign a github contract.

--

MJR - please excuse brevity because this was sent while mobile

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

Sam Hartman-3
>>>>> "MJ" == MJ Ray <[hidden email]> writes:

 
    MJ> I have some sympathy with the "send a patch to bugs.debian.org"
    MJ> view.  Do any developers ignore those and tell people to join
    MJ> github to use its private version of pull requests? I know I
    MJ> have patches ignored in there but I don't remember being told to
    MJ> go sign a github contract.

I believe we have a strong consensus in the Git Packaging Round 1 thread
on debian-devel that maintainers are expected to process patches
submitted through the BTS.  Telling someone they needed to use Github
would be unacceptable in my mind.

--Sam

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

Scott Kitterman-5
On Friday, September 13, 2019 10:52:37 AM EDT Sam Hartman wrote:

> >>>>> "MJ" == MJ Ray <[hidden email]> writes:
>     MJ> I have some sympathy with the "send a patch to bugs.debian.org"
>     MJ> view.  Do any developers ignore those and tell people to join
>     MJ> github to use its private version of pull requests? I know I
>     MJ> have patches ignored in there but I don't remember being told to
>     MJ> go sign a github contract.
>
> I believe we have a strong consensus in the Git Packaging Round 1 thread
> on debian-devel that maintainers are expected to process patches
> submitted through the BTS.  Telling someone they needed to use Github
> would be unacceptable in my mind.

Is anyone actually doing that?  I think this entire thread is nothing more
than a stalking horse for Ian's crusade to get everyone to use dgit and we
should just move on.

Scott K


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

Norbert Preining-5


On September 14, 2019 12:29:19 AM GMT+09:00, Scott Kitterman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>Is anyone actually doing that?  I think this entire thread is nothing
>more
>than a stalking horse for Ian's crusade to get everyone to use dgit and
>we
>should just move on.

+100

Best comment till now. "Crusade" is the word I should have used in other occasions.

Norbert


--
PREINING Norbert http://www.preining.info
Accelia Inc. + JAIST + TeX Live + Debian Developer
GPG: 0x860CDC13 fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0 ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

Louis-Philippe Véronneau-3
In reply to this post by Scott Kitterman-5
On 19-09-12 20 h 35, Scott Kitterman wrote:

>
>
> On September 12, 2019 5:30:24 PM UTC, Sam Hartman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I'm trying to move a thread from -devel.
>>
>> Ian Jackson responded [1] to part of a consensus discussion on Git
>> recommendations.  I had said that I think we recommend against the use
>>  of non-free services like Github but do not forbid their use.
>>  Ian disagreed with this recommendation.
>>
>> I responded [2] noting that around 7% of the packages with a vcs-git in
>>  unstable are hosted on Github.
>>
>> Ian said [3] that he was confident if we had a GR to forbid use of
>> services
>>  like Github it would pass.
>>
>> He proposed the following text for such a GR.
>>
>> I think such a discussion is better on -project.
>>
>>  [1]:
>> https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/23927.51367.848949.15475@...
>> [2]:
>> https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/tslwoedy93e.fsf_-_@...
>>  [3]:
>> https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/23930.17192.131171.455527@...
>>  
>>  
>>  Subject: Free Software Needs Free Tools
>>
>>  No Debian contributor should be expected or encouraged, when working
>>  to improve Debian, to use non-free tools.  This includes proprietary
>>  web services.  We will ensure this, insofar as it is within Debian's
>>  collective control.
>>
>>  For example, Vcs-Git fields in source packages must not refer to
>>  proprietary git code management systems.  Non-Debian services are
>>  acceptable here so long as they are principally Free Software.
>>
>>  We encourage all our upstreams to use Free/Libre tools.
>>
>>  We recognise that metadata in Debian which describes the behaviour
>>  of those outside our community, for example fields which refer to
>>  upstream source management systems, may (in order to be accurate)
>>  still need to refer to proprietary systems.
>
> It's based on a false premise.  No one is forced to use any VCS to maintain Debian packages.  If you don't want to talk to GitHub, send a patch to the BTS
While I do sympathise with the idea of not having Debian package on
Github, I have to agree with Scott here.

I think I would end up voting against such a GR because the use of Git
isn't mandatory.

If we already had a GR enforcing the use of Git, I think it would only
make sense to make the use of salsa.debian.org mandatory. It seems we
aren't there yet though.

--
  ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
  ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  Louis-Philippe Véronneau
  ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋   [hidden email] / veronneau.org
  ⠈⠳⣄


signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
123