FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 11-28-2008, 09:57 PM
Holger Levsen
 
Default what about a unofficial public community repo? (was: qmail and related packages in NEW)

Hi,

On Friday 28 November 2008 22:42, William Pitcock wrote:
> I think issues like these call for an unsupported repository outside of
> Debian, but publicized within the community as an unofficial repository
> for things like qmail, packages unwanted in Debian proper for the time
> being, etc.

debian-unofficial.org


regards,
Holger
 
Old 11-29-2008, 12:19 AM
Holger Levsen
 
Default what about a unofficial public community repo? (was: qmail and related packages in NEW)

Hi,

On Saturday 29 November 2008 01:57, William Pitcock wrote:
> What I propose is something more along the lines of Gentoo's "sunrise"
> overlay... a repository that anyone can get upload access to provided
> that they understand basic Debian policy and have established that they
> will be non-malicious (likely through some sort of indirect uploading
> for a few months). Basically a true *community* repo.

just seen on #debian-community

<h01ger> hmmm
<h01ger> "community-repo" makes me think we should setup somethink like
ubuntus PPA on debian-community.org
<h01ger> interesting idea
* h01ger scratches head


regards,
Holger

Disclaimer: I have absolutly not the ressources to do this or help much with
doing it. But I probably like to see this very much... /me needs sleep.

BTW, d-c.org finally (since a bit of time) provides email and jabber accounts
for Debian contributors!
 
Old 11-29-2008, 12:28 AM
"Paul Wise"
 
Default what about a unofficial public community repo? (was: qmail and related packages in NEW)

On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 6:42 AM, William Pitcock
<nenolod@sacredspiral.co.uk> wrote:

> I think issues like these call for an unsupported repository outside of
> Debian, but publicized within the community as an unofficial repository
> for things like qmail, packages unwanted in Debian proper for the time
> being, etc.
>
> That way if people want to run qmail, they can easily get it, but under
> the understanding that it was unofficial and totally unsupported by
> Debian itself. (A debbugs installation could be provided for maintainers
> if necessary though.)
>
> We could also use this repository as a way for teaching new maintainers
> (as an alternative to sponsorship, for the most part) -- packages that
> people use could be cherrypicked out of this archive by DDs who want the
> package in Debian.

I've long been thinking a debian-unsupported.org archive; something
for all those packages that we don't support because they haven't been
good enough to get into Debian or were chucked out of Debian,
basically the Debian answer to Ubuntu's universe. The main reason I
started thinking about this was that I got annoyed when QA folks chuck
orphaned packages (i've changed my mind about this since though).
However, this isn't the only reason I think this is a good idea -
there are lots of packages and package repositories out there that
Debian and our users could benefit from, but that are not up to
scratch enough to support in Debian. Gathering these in one place
would help our users to find packages for software they need but is
unsupported. It would also help Debian get more popcon data about
non-Debian packages and provide a source for rough packages.

Some ramblings about what it might involve:

strictly for packages not in Debian or not updated in Debian - any
package not supported by Debian - it should whine about or reject
directly uploaded packages that have a maintainer or where someone
seems to be "supporting" a particular package by doing lots of
uploads.

automatic merging of packages removed from Debian and packages
uploaded to Ubuntu, Nexenta, Preventa, mentors, revu and any other
Debian-based distros that have public archives.

addition of automatically created packages using the tool that was
recently posted about on debian-devel

software would be a combination of dak, ubuntu's merge-o-matic (or
similar), maybe debbugs, pdo, pts, patches.u.c, maybe DDPO, buildd
stuff, lintian and perhaps others.

DDs would be discouraged from participating since they should be
supporting packages/etc within Debian instead.

Allow uploads from DDs, DMs, NMs, DD-connected mentors.d.n keys,
DD-connected REVU keys, Ubuntu developer keys, Ubuntu MOTU keys and
people in a separate MOTU (master of the unsupported) keyring that is
relatively easy to get into.

Infrastructure should be similarly supported and hosted by mainly
non-DDs; buildds, porting machines and so on.

not sure if integrating debian-ports.org there is appropriate or not,
but maybe it would be a good idea later down the track.

A while ago on -devel there was a post about automatic creation of
rough packages using automatic software discovery and AI techniques
for the packaging, I definitely want to feed that into this idea.

Once all the repositories are merged into one place, then we can
export all their patches against debiann to merge.debian.net and have
that linked from the PTS like patches.ubuntu.com is. More about that
idea here:

http://wiki.debian.org/MergeDerivedDistributions

--
bye,
pabs

http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 11-29-2008, 12:37 AM
"Miriam Ruiz"
 
Default what about a unofficial public community repo? (was: qmail and related packages in NEW)

2008/11/29 Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org>:

> DDs would be discouraged from participating since they should be
> supporting packages/etc within Debian instead.

I'm not exactly sure about this. I have quite a lot of packages that I
made for my own usage but I don't have time or interest in maintaining
on a permanent basis. I guess that's something that happens to more
DDs out there. We could upload these packages there as: here you are,
if it's useful for you it's great, but I don't plan on supporting
this package more than this. Does it make sense?

Greetings,
Miry


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 11-29-2008, 12:56 AM
Evgeni Golov
 
Default what about a unofficial public community repo? (was: qmail and related packages in NEW)

On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 10:28:58 +0900 Paul Wise wrote:

> Infrastructure should be similarly supported and hosted by mainly
> non-DDs; buildds, porting machines and so on.

Actually I was thinking about something similar yesterday.
Asa non-DD it is very hard to reproduce bugs from arches you don't own,
so why not build a network of buildds, accessible by non-DDs where they
can test their stuff?

Count on me on this, I offer my UltraSparc IIe as a playground


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 11-29-2008, 02:07 AM
Romain Beauxis
 
Default what about a unofficial public community repo? (was: qmail and related packages in NEW)

Le Friday 28 November 2008 23:57:09 Holger Levsen, vous avez écrit*:
> On Friday 28 November 2008 22:42, William Pitcock wrote:
> > I think issues like these call for an unsupported repository outside of
> > Debian, but publicized within the community as an unofficial repository
> > for things like qmail, packages unwanted in Debian proper for the time
> > being, etc.
>
> debian-unofficial.org

Or, why not
apt-get.org ?
Or
mentors.debian.net ?

Honnestly, I fail to see clearly the benefit of it, apart from more confusion
and new issues..

Romain


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 11-29-2008, 03:05 AM
Raphael Geissert
 
Default what about a unofficial public community repo? (was: qmail and related packages in NEW)

William Pitcock wrote:
[...]
>
> The ideal way to handle this would be to have a single repository. PPAs
> solve a different problem, which is giving contributors and developers a
> playground to publish their in-progress packages. This is more about
> getting packages to users in an efficient way, for maintainers that do
> not wish to include those packages in Debian proper for either policy
> reasons, code quality reasons, or otherwise.

Solution:
http://their.domain.tld/debian sid main

Why do people even want to care about those packages?
I mean, why would one want to use a package which has dubious quality, dubious
maintenance, dubious origins (can it even be legally distributed/used/etc?),
dubious <insert whatever you want here>?.

If a package is not in shape, then get it in shape.
If they don't know how to setup a simple repository or don't know how to package
and are not willing to learn, then they should just forget about it and install
the software by hand (if they know how to do that, of course).

There's no reason to spend/waste more time/resources on all that extra stuff
only newcomers will, wrongly, use.

Or do we have so much man power that there's no much left to do but to waste it?

>
> William

P.S. no need to reply; I just can't stand seeing this topic being brought to
discussion over and over again, always suggesting the same, silly
IMO, "solutions".

Cheers,
Raphael Geissert



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 11-29-2008, 06:18 PM
Gunnar Wolf
 
Default what about a unofficial public community repo? (was: qmail and related packages in NEW)

Miriam Ruiz dijo [Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 02:37:16AM +0100]:
> > DDs would be discouraged from participating since they should be
> > supporting packages/etc within Debian instead.
>
> I'm not exactly sure about this. I have quite a lot of packages that I
> made for my own usage but I don't have time or interest in maintaining
> on a permanent basis. I guess that's something that happens to more
> DDs out there. We could upload these packages there as: here you are,
> if it's useful for you it's great, but I don't plan on supporting
> this package more than this. Does it make sense?

I agree with Miry here - I also have my personal repository of
packages I often use (i.e. Drupal modules and Munin plugins for work,
or the acerfand fan controlling daemon for my Acer Aspire One) which
I won't maintain in Debian - Why? In some cases, I don't want to
upload something I don't fully trust, and in some, I just know I would
be a lousy maintainer (i.e. I don't grok php, which is used for every
Drupal module - I just use them and want to be able to track them as
packages).

But, yes, it should not promote the idea that "is NEW-processing
taking too long? Just upload to -unsupported!"

--
Gunnar Wolf - gwolf@gwolf.org - (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244
PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23
Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973 F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 11-29-2008, 06:27 PM
Gunnar Wolf
 
Default what about a unofficial public community repo? (was: qmail and related packages in NEW)

William Pitcock dijo [Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 06:57:37PM -0600]:
> (...)
> What I propose is something more along the lines of Gentoo's "sunrise"
> overlay... a repository that anyone can get upload access to provided
> that they understand basic Debian policy and have established that they
> will be non-malicious (likely through some sort of indirect uploading
> for a few months). Basically a true *community* repo.

Umh... If I am malicious, don't you think I will be able to behave for
the first couple of months? Anyway, I don't expect -unsupported
packages to rank very high popcon-wise. I think it will suffice to say
clearly and loudly enough, "this is not Debian, you are using this at
your own risk". Maybe to be as obnoxious with this as to provide an
unsigned archive, so that aptitude (or whatever tool) _always_
complains when installing from there.

Probably the only thing that must be kept (almost?) as strict as it is
in Debian (+non-free) is the licensing checks - Even if it is at
-unsupported, we cannot distribute non-distributable software.

> This would likely be with the packaging source being maintained in SVN,
> so that there is a large amount of transparency in the maintenance
> process.

Yes, having a VCS-based service looks as very important in my eyes.

--
Gunnar Wolf - gwolf@gwolf.org - (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244
PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23
Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973 F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 11-29-2008, 06:33 PM
Gunnar Wolf
 
Default what about a unofficial public community repo? (was: qmail and related packages in NEW)

Raphael Geissert dijo [Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 10:05:23PM -0600]:
> William Pitcock wrote:
> [...]
> >
> > The ideal way to handle this would be to have a single repository. PPAs
> > solve a different problem, which is giving contributors and developers a
> > playground to publish their in-progress packages. This is more about
> > getting packages to users in an efficient way, for maintainers that do
> > not wish to include those packages in Debian proper for either policy
> > reasons, code quality reasons, or otherwise.
>
> Solution:
> http://their.domain.tld/debian sid main

The problem there is for this is that people want their work to be
known by more people. Have you seen how outdated apt-get.org is? It
was a valuable resource back then, but... Well, last time I checked,
there were still several Potato backports for software in Woody.

Oh, and right now it has become completely useless - It says it knows
about 1448 sites, but lists only one: http://ftp.debian.org/debian

> Why do people even want to care about those packages?
> I mean, why would one want to use a package which has dubious quality, dubious
> maintenance, dubious origins (can it even be legally distributed/used/etc?),
> dubious <insert whatever you want here>?.
>
> If a package is not in shape, then get it in shape.
> If they don't know how to setup a simple repository or don't know how to package
> and are not willing to learn, then they should just forget about it and install
> the software by hand (if they know how to do that, of course).
>
> There's no reason to spend/waste more time/resources on all that extra stuff
> only newcomers will, wrongly, use.

I have to agree with you on this rant, as a DD. However, there are
LOTS of software which are not up to Debian's standards in
this-or-that regard. Having an infrastructure where just about anybody
can upload packages (with just a legality check, I'd say) is positive.

Then again... We can direct them to Ubuntu ;-) They are offering the
service with their PPAs.

--
Gunnar Wolf - gwolf@gwolf.org - (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244
PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23
Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973 F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF


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

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 08:28 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org