gmane.linux.debian.devel.project

Re: Slowdown problem of a Debian package

Shigio YAMAGUCHI — 2013-06-20T00:35:19

Hello Ron,

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 21:56:52 +0930
Ron <ron< at >debian.org> wrote:


I don't understand what you are saying.
 

Would you please explain it in detail instead of fragmentary words?
I have not hear your explanation yet.

'a generated script' means 'bless.sh' script? If so, it is only the
default that the script requires root permission.

        [The default]
        $ htags -f --system-cgi=mykey
        $ cd HTML
        # sh bless.sh   <- records the current directory to database

You can change the permission or owner ship of the database directory
'/usr/local/var/gtags/sitekeys' (default permission is 755).

        # chmod 777 /usr/local/var/gtags/sitekeys
or
        # chown you /usr/local/var/gtags/sitekeys

After the change, bless.sh is not required.

        $ htags -f --system-cgi=mykey

Of course, you can change the permission suitable for Debian in the
Debian package.

Besides, 'bless.sh' script is not dangerous. It is like follows.

        [bless.sh]
        +------------------------------

Re: Proposal #3: Upstream/Debian Project donations

Nikolaus Rath — 2013-06-19T23:47:52

That's not true. The way the proposal is currently worded it could be
implemented by Manu on his own without any need for consensus (other
than some individual being willing to package the donate
program). Pointing out that the package would be even more useful if a
standard for the DONATION file were to be publicized via freedesktop.org
isn't at all the same as telling Manu to "go to another list".



Best,

   -Nikolaus

Re: Doing something about "should remain private forever" emails

Bernhard R. Link — 2013-06-19T19:07:02

* Russell Coker <russell< at >coker.com.au> [130619 05:53]:

How does the task get easier with less information? It's much easier to
decide which mail includes parts from "to be kept private forever" mails
as long as one still has all of them to be sure.

        Bernhard R. Link

Re: Proposal #3: Upstream/Debian Project donations (was: PaySwarm-based donations)

Holger Levsen — 2013-06-19T19:17:17

While I agree that we should not mock those, I absolutly do think we should 
block those....

Once motivation is destroyed, it's often impossible to rebuild it. We must 
avoid this happening.

Introducing money will demotivate people who are currently active. And new 
contributors who come for money are unlikely to replace them.

Re: Doing something about "should remain private forever" emails

Raphael Geissert — 2013-06-19T18:01:10


I believe you have misunderstood that I was talking about the opposite: 
burying the posts that can not be declassified.

Cheers,

Re: Proposal #3: Upstream/Debian Project donations (was: PaySwarm-based donations)

Paul Tagliamonte — 2013-06-19T17:59:39

Ditto, that's not the issue here - this wouldn't be funding
*developers*, it would be going to general support to run our machines,
or get us developers together, so we don't have to spend our personal
savings on such things.

Which I think would be a nice thing, JFTR.

I am against developers expecting to get paid, and yes, a 5 buck tip for
a 5 hour bugfix is hardly my going rate, I'd rather a "thank you", but
paying for my coffee is a nice gesture that I'd be happy to encourage.


I quite agree with you.



Cheers,
  Paul

Re: Doing something about "should remain private forever" emails

Raphael Geissert — 2013-06-19T17:55:11

Hi,

On 19 June 2013 00:41, Gunnar Wolf <gwolf< at >gwolf.org> wrote:

CC'ing you, but dropping -private.


My proposal doesn't change anything in that regard. It is only a way
to achieve what people have been requesting for years when posting to
-private.

Many people already say that their posts should remain private every
single time they post to -private. A quick search with some keywords
indicate that there are about 15 threads that should remain private
every year, without counting VAC messages.

Cheers,
--
Raphael Geissert - Debian Developer
www.debian.org - get.debian.net

Re: Proposal #3: Upstream/Debian Project donations (was: PaySwarm-based donations)

Scott Kitterman — 2013-06-19T17:45:49

While I agree with not mocking people, I'm not certain that this is a 
guaranteed net win for the project and that blocking might (I say might) be 
appropriate.

Personally, economic incentives have very little to do with why I work on 
Debian.  Fundamentally, if I was here for the money, Debian couldn't afford me.  
While I understand the desire to build up the economic system around FOSS so 
that more people can afford to participate more, but there's also a risk that 
if participation is monetized, those who aren't here for the money will be 
demotivated.

Scott K

Re: Doing something about "should remain private forever" emails

Neil McGovern — 2013-06-19T17:53:08

It's really not - the onus is on the person doing the declassification.
Efforts to reduce this is welcome, but false positives (for
declassification) must be reduced as much as possible, and this is only
possible via manual processing.
Hence the reason why the GR has never been enacted[0].

Additionally, changing the rules in this way from what was agreed the
norms at the time is the very reason I seconded the amendment to that
vote.

Neil

[0] And also the reason I dislike any votes which require a future
theoretical person to do a large amount of work.

Re: PaySwarm-based Debian donations

Venture Communism — 2013-06-19T17:51:13

I'd like to apologize. 

"SPI with all its manpower" was a poor attempt at irony. Elsewhere I've tried to emphasize that I respect and 
honor the work people have done on the accounting side intaking donations etc and generally doing the things people rarely want to 
do in a FOSS project such as be responsible for and handle large sums of money in a transparent and accountable way given limited 
technologies. The context would have been that about everybody and their brother on this thread has been praising gift 
economies only when they involve contributions of labor, but never money.

My apologies for the poorly executed humor. Such was not my intention.

As for the facts, I would dig deeper for example into material such as this: http://stakeventures.com/articles/2011/12/21/opentransact-the-payment-standard-where-everything-is-out-of-scope


----- Original Message -----
From: MJ Ray <mjr< at >phonecoop.coop>
To: debian-project< at >lists.debian.org
Cc: 
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 7:37 AM
Subject: Re: PaySwarm-b

Re: Proposal #3: Upstream/Debian Project donations (was: PaySwarm-based donations)

Steve McIntyre — 2013-06-19T17:43:13

I understand the concerns of Gunnar and others; regardless of the
intent, there is a likelihood that it will be a failure and *harm*
Debian. That's the problem here.

Re: Proposal #3: Upstream/Debian Project donations (was: PaySwarm-based donations)

Paul Tagliamonte — 2013-06-19T17:38:08

While I am warry, I don't think we should mock or block those wishing to
build this system to help aid Debian.

Cheers,
   Paul

Re: Proposal #3: Upstream/Debian Project donations (was: PaySwarm-based donations)

Gunnar Wolf — 2013-06-19T17:35:36

Scott Howard dijo [Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:01:27AM -0400]:

$ donate --build-depends $100 world-peace

Yeah, right.

Sorry, I cannot look at this donations proposal but as a deep failure
waiting to happen.

Re: Doing something about "should remain private forever" emails

Raphael Geissert — 2013-06-19T17:35:26

[Dropping -private, just like I originally wanted by setting a
reply-to -project]

On 19 June 2013 08:24, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder< at >gmail.com> wrote:

I believe sgran's question was intended for Charles' proposal that is
basically more time consuming than declassifying.

And yes, the benefit of my proposal is that everything that can be
automatically detected as not to be made public (following the
guidelines of the GR, if you wish) can be buried without hesitation.
If people start asking for the non-disclosure of their messages in
other languages or any other way that prevents an automated process
then it is their problem. They would be fighting against their own
desire.

Cheers,
--
Raphael Geissert - Debian Developer
www.debian.org - get.debian.net

Re: Proposal #3: Upstream/Debian Project donations (was: PaySwarm-based donations)

Scott Howard — 2013-06-19T15:01:27

The donate mechanism probably could be extended to increase donation
awareness of important libraries/tools since apt knows what is really
needed for each package even if end users may not.

Maybe something can be done like:
$ donate --build-depends $5 libreoffice
to donate to libreoffice and everything that allows it to exist

$ donate debian-infrastructure
$ donate debian-qa
could check metadata for some pseudo-package and donate accordingly

Re: Slowdown problem of a Debian package

Ron — 2013-06-19T12:26:52

I really don't know why you keep trying to frame this in terms of
completely unrelated things and avoid discussing the actual problem
that I have repeatedly indicated to you, since the very first day
you asked for my opinion on making that change.

The current blocker is that you have introduced an interface which
requires root to run a generated script from an insecure location,
and you refuse to discuss this or do anything to remedy it.

So at this stage you continue to tie my hands.  This is not an
acceptable interface to introduce to a distro package.  So either
you need to fix that (which is the outcome I am hoping for), or
someone else will need to fork this project and do that instead.
And in the meantime the best thing we can do is stay with the
version we have which does not have that problem.

You cannot just jump up and down and insist that we ignore this
and upload it anyway.  But when you fix this problem, I will be
happy to prepare a new version for Debian.  I am losing count of
the number of

Re: PaySwarm-based Debian donations

MJ Ray — 2013-06-19T11:37:13

Venture Communism <venturecommunism< at >yahoo.com>

JSON-LD seems fine.  That doesn't mean I agree with embedding PaySwarm
into apt, or anything that's limited to the Meritoria payment
processor that is limited to US bank account holders, only uses USD,
charges $50/hour if you fail to meet US law (which as an Englishman, I
do not know much), makes you liable for unspecified "financial
network" fees and uses terms like "intellectual property theft" and
"sell digital content".  Meritoria seems pretty much the opposite of
an international Free and Open Source Software project.

Now some of those problems are not their fault (US law, I suspect),
but still mean I would prefer not to recommend them.  There are
reasons why Paypal is based in Singapore, besides the evil
scrutiny-avoiding ones.

Would it be possible to have a JSON-LD general donation tool that
could trigger other (maybe direct) transfers?  Why has the W3C Web
Payments Group not published any specifications yet?  The more I look
into the specific proposal

Re: Proposal #3: Upstream/Debian Project donations

MJ Ray — 2013-06-19T10:55:46

Russ Allbery <rra< at >debian.org>

Not awful, but selective to fit its narrative and some links have
succumbed to bitrot.  Like it notes that I was hard-line on saying
that the experiment failed, but I wrote elsewhere that there should be
no shame in a experiment that fails to achieve its success criteria -
some say we can learn more from failures than successes.  That doesn't
mean politicians should be allowed to redefine failed-with-lessons as
successes, though.

And yes, contrary to that article, a specific date (2006-12-04) was
given.  Was it a commitment? Depends if you think an external business
can commit the debian project to anything.

I think it's also worth reading Anthony Towns's last (AFAIK) summary
of it, which I found using the search on http://planet.debian.net :
http://www.erisian.com.au/wordpress/2007/06/17/dunc-tank-report-ideas

That poses the key questions which the project probably needs to address
before some clear, structured funding can happen, but like I noted in
http://lists.debian.org

Re: PaySwarm-based Debian donations

Venture Communism — 2013-06-19T10:48:04

"tfheen is not alone.  This podcast suggests a correlation between
tipping and other forms of corruption - maybe because it normalises
the concept of informal payment for work if and only if you like the
outcome - and a deeply-researched link between various types of
discrimination and tipping:
http://www.freakonomics.com/2013/06/03/should-tipping-be-banned-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/"

Europe is right again. If you hire people to do a job you should pay your workers and not put it off onto your customers. 

Good thing Debian is not a restaurant. 

"but I'm not sure that PaySwarm is the best way."

Everything you said made sense until you said PaySwarm might not bet the best way to expose financial data to the light of day. Actually 
PaySwarm's data formats are in JSON-LD and therefore allow for web native royalty-free ontology hosting in a way that is
maximally interoperable with the web of open data.

Remember how I gave eight digit accuracy for two 1 cent transactions earlier in the thread, whereas

Re: system time has change while installing

Konstantin Khomoutov — 2013-06-19T10:05:27

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 01:43:08 +0400
Maxim Markov <mnm1979< at >inbox.ru> wrote:

(Culled debian-devel from the Cc list.)


This is a change [3] in Debian introduced in Wheezy (7.0)
and documented [4] in its installation manual.

Debian assumes your clock is in UTC while in BIOSes of most
consumer-grade x86-based computers the time is stored in local time,
and Windows assumes it's in local time.

To fix this:

1) Append the string "LOCAL" without quotes to the file "/etc/adjtime".
   This will ensure the time will be correct on the next boot when it's
   read from the system clock.

2) Run `/sbin/hwclock --hctosys --localtime` to fix the time on the
   running system.

P.S.
For a question like yours, please next time use the debian-user
mailing list [1] or an appropriate "for users" list of your native
language (see [2] for instance).

1. http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/
2. http://lists.debian.org/debian-russian/
3. http://bugs.debian.org/660365
4. http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/apds03.html.en#idp78

Re: Answers to questions raised about registering the Debian Logo as our trademark

Lucas Nussbaum — 2013-06-19T10:04:30

Hi,

On 12/06/13 at 11:49 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:

Yes, thanks a lot.


As Gunnar pointed out, yes, we could start elsewhere and then extend to
other countries. However, given SFLC is going to help us through the
process, and SPI will involved too as the trademark holder, it just
sounds easier to start with a US registration.

We can discuss extension to other countries later, when we will have
made sufficient progress on the US registration.


Not doing it would mean going against our legal counsel, and also being
the only major project deciding not to register its logo. Also,
affording this is not a problem, and is unlikely to be even in the more
distant future.

Dear trademark team[1], could you please work with SFLC and SPI to
register our logo as a US trademark?

[1] yes, this is still to be announced, but we have a real trademark
team now, as Joe Healy and Richard Hartmann volunteered to join Brian
Gupta, following the call for help in the last d-d-a "bits".

Thanks,

Lucas