This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
What is the policy (or accepted reasons) for making a "point release"? Which packages are "allowed" to get updates and why? -- RokerHRO ( talk) 20:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
The Debian project is sometimes branded as a Do-ocracy. Since I do use the Debian operating system but I do not participate in the Debian project, how good does the term match the reality? If it fits, the term should be somewhere in the article. Semsi Paco Virchow ( talk) 22:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
The introduction could be better. I tried a bit around, but this should be done by a native speaker. IMO most important points of debian in the short introduction are:
dpkg-reconfigure
Currently there are 36,500 packages available. Notable packages being:
@Semsi Paco Virchow
Hi, I think timetable should be updated (include 6.0.8 release - http://www.debian.org/News/2013/20131020), but I can't do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.240.45.197 ( talk) 12:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Is it really necessary, to repeat it three times? "only the first optical iso image of any of its downloadable sets is sufficient. Debian requires the first installable image, but uses online repositories for additional software. Debian's basic installation requires only the first CD or DVD of its release in order to have a working desktop ex" 141.39.13.45 ( talk) 07:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Someone may have noticed a nomination. I expect editors to cooperate constructively. 84.127.80.114 ( talk) 18:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Replying to this removal, anyone may nominate any article. [1] 84.127.80.114 ( talk) 06:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
The review has started. I remind that the nominator is not in a special position. All interested editors are encouraged to participate. I will wait one more day and then I will edit the article to address the reviewer's concerns. 84.127.80.114 ( talk) 12:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Jamesx12345 ( talk · contribs) 21:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I'll review this over the next few days.
Jamesx
12345
21:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Part 1
|
---|
Sorry about the delay. I'll get a few more points down now. Jamesx 12345 14:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
First pass done. I'll let you make some fixes and then go through it again. Thanks for being so quick at responding to points. Jamesx 12345 22:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
|
I'll just go through it again, and might add a few tags. Jamesx 12345 17:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Part 2
|
---|
Sorry about another delay. Jamesx 12345 10:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
|
As far as I know, the Debian article is now eligible for the Wikipedia:Did you know process. I will not participate in the process, but I will wait at least one week before improving the article further, just in case other editors are interested. On the one hand, nominations can take weeks or months to reach the main page. On the other hand, this is a Top-importance Linux article. 84.127.80.114 ( talk) 13:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I added [[:File:Linux API and Linux ABI.svg|thumb|Even though they share the same code base and implement the same APIs, derivatives of Debian, such as e.g. Ubuntu, are not binary compatible with Debian. This, and the general lack of a long-time stable Linux ABI raises the bar for ISVs who want to sell proprietary software for Linux.]] to the section derivatives. I think binary compatibility and work regarding a long-time stable Linux ABI in LSB or x32 ABI deserve some more attention.
I would like to turn "Third-party repositories" into a "Multimedia support" section. Current paragraph is targeted at deb-multimedia.org. The Wheezy announcement and release notes mention the improved multimedia support. Debian asked Marillat to stop using the name "debian" [11] and the official blog announced the end of debian-multimedia.org. [12] This repository was interfering with official maintenance. As I see it, Debian has warned users more against deb-multimedia than against non-free software. I am not aware of any other unofficial repository in this situation.
The bit about libdvdcss would go in this section.
This is not the time for a dispute resolution. If anyone is against this change, please say so and I will desist. 84.127.80.114 ( talk) 00:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
As noted, the release manager is an important role but there are more: e.g. the technical committee. The release management is carried by a team. Debian maintains a list of leaders and a list of releases, but does not seem to maintain a list of release managers.
I will drop the list and merge the section. 84.127.80.114 ( talk) 09:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I ask an able editor to upload this SVG flowchart that will replace the one in "Development procedures".
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
<!DOCTYPE svg PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD SVG 1.1//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/1.1/DTD/svg11.dtd">
<svg version="1.1" width="170" height="400"
xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg">
<defs>
<style type="text/css">
text {
font-family: sans-serif;
}
</style>
<rect id="state" width="120" height="30"
style="fill:#fff;stroke:#000"/>
<rect id="distribution" width="120" height="30"
style="fill:#333;stroke:#000"/>
<g id="arrow">
<path d="m 60,30 0,40" style="stroke:#000"/>
<path d="m 60,70 -5,-10 10,0 z"/>
</g>
</defs>
<rect width="170" height="400" style="fill:#fff"/>
<g transform="translate(10,10)">
<use xlink:href="#state"/>
<text x="60" y="20" style="text-anchor:middle">upstream</text>
<use xlink:href="#arrow"/>
<text x="70" y="50">packaging</text>
</g>
<g transform="translate(10,80)">
<use xlink:href="#state"/>
<text x="60" y="20" style="text-anchor:middle">package</text>
<use xlink:href="#arrow"/>
<text x="70" y="50">upload</text>
</g>
<g transform="translate(10,150)">
<use xlink:href="#state"/>
<text x="60" y="20" style="text-anchor:middle">incoming</text>
<use xlink:href="#arrow"/>
<text x="70" y="50">checks</text>
</g>
<g transform="translate(10,220)">
<use xlink:href="#distribution"/>
<text x="60" y="20"
style="text-anchor:middle;fill:#fff">unstable</text>
<use xlink:href="#arrow"/>
<text x="70" y="50">migration</text>
</g>
<g transform="translate(10,290)">
<use xlink:href="#distribution"/>
<text x="60" y="20"
style="text-anchor:middle;fill:#fff">testing</text>
<use xlink:href="#arrow"/>
<text x="70" y="50">freeze</text>
</g>
<g transform="translate(10,360)">
<use xlink:href="#distribution"/>
<text x="60" y="20"
style="text-anchor:middle;fill:#fff">stable</text>
</g>
</svg>
84.127.80.114 ( talk) 19:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
debian-private is a major fact. Krafft wrote about it ("Other uses include the discussion of problems related to individuals, or financial and organisational issues"); I wonder about the justification "I am mentioning it here for completeness". Coleman wrote about too ("some of the more interesting discussions unfold there [...] I have been told about many such conversations").
debian-private is used in the retirement process. [13] I already talked about expulsion or equivalent, and list bans. It is natural that people start to ask questions. Why a General Resolution for such a harmless list? Why some developers deny the importance of these channels that are used for more than announcing vacations? Debian has no intention of declassifying. [14]
When I read about lack of volunteers and problems processing a mailing list, I remember the different spam clean teams. Are the issues technical? Giacomo A. Catenazzi admits that they do not want to show all world "about personal issues we have with other people".
Developers say that issues relevant to the user base are not discussed in debian-private. The problem is that the private discussions are not mere rants, they translate into people getting out of the project. An important part of Debian is the people behind Debian. When human resources are discarded, the project has a problem.
Why cannot we use this kind of material? Zacchiroli mentioned TINC in his platform, why cannot we say "cabal"? It is a recurrent topic with a mix of joke and fear. I find the anecdote about Raul Miller's existence an interesting one.
"Sometimes the divisiveness spills out into the larger Debian community in unpleasant ways." [15] Indeed, the departure of Matthew Garrett in 2006 was noted. [16] According to Bruce Byfield, Garrett claimed that decisions were made in "poorly advertised (or even secret) IRC channels used by smaller groups [...] to get work done"; as I read it, somewhere more private than debian-private. Frustration existed and Benjamin Mako Hill summed up the attitude: "This is the Debian project. We run on fear. Grow a skin or get out."
Internal communications are important in Debian. This article cannot claim to be comprehensive without a single reference to debian-private. That is my opinion. 84.127.80.114 ( talk) 04:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
On the grounds that consensus can change, I would like to explain the following. In 2009, Wikipedia Signpost published a review of a book that examines how authority works on Wikipedia. This book is of interest to this article:
O'Neil, Mathieu (2009). "7. The Imperfect Committee: debian.org". Cyberchiefs: Autonomy and Authority in Online Tribes. Pluto Press. ISBN 978-0-7453-2796-9.
The chapter starts with an event related to Debian Women's origin. Later, O'Neil mentions the encyclopedic nature of Debian, as well as perfectionist: "Debian is the Mary Poppins of operating systems". He talks about the SL case, SL being the author of this message.
Sven Luther was the reason for a topic in the 2006 election. According to Anthony Towns, Luther's conflict surely escalated: "Sven's conflict with Frans, the d-i team and others is probably the most extreme example of a problem we've had to resolve." [17]
I still believe that one of "the most extreme" social problems Debian had to deal with is a major fact. 84.127.80.114 ( talk) 06:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
What is the policy (or accepted reasons) for making a "point release"? Which packages are "allowed" to get updates and why? -- RokerHRO ( talk) 20:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
The Debian project is sometimes branded as a Do-ocracy. Since I do use the Debian operating system but I do not participate in the Debian project, how good does the term match the reality? If it fits, the term should be somewhere in the article. Semsi Paco Virchow ( talk) 22:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
The introduction could be better. I tried a bit around, but this should be done by a native speaker. IMO most important points of debian in the short introduction are:
dpkg-reconfigure
Currently there are 36,500 packages available. Notable packages being:
@Semsi Paco Virchow
Hi, I think timetable should be updated (include 6.0.8 release - http://www.debian.org/News/2013/20131020), but I can't do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.240.45.197 ( talk) 12:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Is it really necessary, to repeat it three times? "only the first optical iso image of any of its downloadable sets is sufficient. Debian requires the first installable image, but uses online repositories for additional software. Debian's basic installation requires only the first CD or DVD of its release in order to have a working desktop ex" 141.39.13.45 ( talk) 07:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Someone may have noticed a nomination. I expect editors to cooperate constructively. 84.127.80.114 ( talk) 18:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Replying to this removal, anyone may nominate any article. [1] 84.127.80.114 ( talk) 06:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
The review has started. I remind that the nominator is not in a special position. All interested editors are encouraged to participate. I will wait one more day and then I will edit the article to address the reviewer's concerns. 84.127.80.114 ( talk) 12:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Jamesx12345 ( talk · contribs) 21:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I'll review this over the next few days.
Jamesx
12345
21:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Part 1
|
---|
Sorry about the delay. I'll get a few more points down now. Jamesx 12345 14:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
First pass done. I'll let you make some fixes and then go through it again. Thanks for being so quick at responding to points. Jamesx 12345 22:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
|
I'll just go through it again, and might add a few tags. Jamesx 12345 17:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Part 2
|
---|
Sorry about another delay. Jamesx 12345 10:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
|
As far as I know, the Debian article is now eligible for the Wikipedia:Did you know process. I will not participate in the process, but I will wait at least one week before improving the article further, just in case other editors are interested. On the one hand, nominations can take weeks or months to reach the main page. On the other hand, this is a Top-importance Linux article. 84.127.80.114 ( talk) 13:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I added [[:File:Linux API and Linux ABI.svg|thumb|Even though they share the same code base and implement the same APIs, derivatives of Debian, such as e.g. Ubuntu, are not binary compatible with Debian. This, and the general lack of a long-time stable Linux ABI raises the bar for ISVs who want to sell proprietary software for Linux.]] to the section derivatives. I think binary compatibility and work regarding a long-time stable Linux ABI in LSB or x32 ABI deserve some more attention.
I would like to turn "Third-party repositories" into a "Multimedia support" section. Current paragraph is targeted at deb-multimedia.org. The Wheezy announcement and release notes mention the improved multimedia support. Debian asked Marillat to stop using the name "debian" [11] and the official blog announced the end of debian-multimedia.org. [12] This repository was interfering with official maintenance. As I see it, Debian has warned users more against deb-multimedia than against non-free software. I am not aware of any other unofficial repository in this situation.
The bit about libdvdcss would go in this section.
This is not the time for a dispute resolution. If anyone is against this change, please say so and I will desist. 84.127.80.114 ( talk) 00:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
As noted, the release manager is an important role but there are more: e.g. the technical committee. The release management is carried by a team. Debian maintains a list of leaders and a list of releases, but does not seem to maintain a list of release managers.
I will drop the list and merge the section. 84.127.80.114 ( talk) 09:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I ask an able editor to upload this SVG flowchart that will replace the one in "Development procedures".
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
<!DOCTYPE svg PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD SVG 1.1//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/1.1/DTD/svg11.dtd">
<svg version="1.1" width="170" height="400"
xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg">
<defs>
<style type="text/css">
text {
font-family: sans-serif;
}
</style>
<rect id="state" width="120" height="30"
style="fill:#fff;stroke:#000"/>
<rect id="distribution" width="120" height="30"
style="fill:#333;stroke:#000"/>
<g id="arrow">
<path d="m 60,30 0,40" style="stroke:#000"/>
<path d="m 60,70 -5,-10 10,0 z"/>
</g>
</defs>
<rect width="170" height="400" style="fill:#fff"/>
<g transform="translate(10,10)">
<use xlink:href="#state"/>
<text x="60" y="20" style="text-anchor:middle">upstream</text>
<use xlink:href="#arrow"/>
<text x="70" y="50">packaging</text>
</g>
<g transform="translate(10,80)">
<use xlink:href="#state"/>
<text x="60" y="20" style="text-anchor:middle">package</text>
<use xlink:href="#arrow"/>
<text x="70" y="50">upload</text>
</g>
<g transform="translate(10,150)">
<use xlink:href="#state"/>
<text x="60" y="20" style="text-anchor:middle">incoming</text>
<use xlink:href="#arrow"/>
<text x="70" y="50">checks</text>
</g>
<g transform="translate(10,220)">
<use xlink:href="#distribution"/>
<text x="60" y="20"
style="text-anchor:middle;fill:#fff">unstable</text>
<use xlink:href="#arrow"/>
<text x="70" y="50">migration</text>
</g>
<g transform="translate(10,290)">
<use xlink:href="#distribution"/>
<text x="60" y="20"
style="text-anchor:middle;fill:#fff">testing</text>
<use xlink:href="#arrow"/>
<text x="70" y="50">freeze</text>
</g>
<g transform="translate(10,360)">
<use xlink:href="#distribution"/>
<text x="60" y="20"
style="text-anchor:middle;fill:#fff">stable</text>
</g>
</svg>
84.127.80.114 ( talk) 19:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
debian-private is a major fact. Krafft wrote about it ("Other uses include the discussion of problems related to individuals, or financial and organisational issues"); I wonder about the justification "I am mentioning it here for completeness". Coleman wrote about too ("some of the more interesting discussions unfold there [...] I have been told about many such conversations").
debian-private is used in the retirement process. [13] I already talked about expulsion or equivalent, and list bans. It is natural that people start to ask questions. Why a General Resolution for such a harmless list? Why some developers deny the importance of these channels that are used for more than announcing vacations? Debian has no intention of declassifying. [14]
When I read about lack of volunteers and problems processing a mailing list, I remember the different spam clean teams. Are the issues technical? Giacomo A. Catenazzi admits that they do not want to show all world "about personal issues we have with other people".
Developers say that issues relevant to the user base are not discussed in debian-private. The problem is that the private discussions are not mere rants, they translate into people getting out of the project. An important part of Debian is the people behind Debian. When human resources are discarded, the project has a problem.
Why cannot we use this kind of material? Zacchiroli mentioned TINC in his platform, why cannot we say "cabal"? It is a recurrent topic with a mix of joke and fear. I find the anecdote about Raul Miller's existence an interesting one.
"Sometimes the divisiveness spills out into the larger Debian community in unpleasant ways." [15] Indeed, the departure of Matthew Garrett in 2006 was noted. [16] According to Bruce Byfield, Garrett claimed that decisions were made in "poorly advertised (or even secret) IRC channels used by smaller groups [...] to get work done"; as I read it, somewhere more private than debian-private. Frustration existed and Benjamin Mako Hill summed up the attitude: "This is the Debian project. We run on fear. Grow a skin or get out."
Internal communications are important in Debian. This article cannot claim to be comprehensive without a single reference to debian-private. That is my opinion. 84.127.80.114 ( talk) 04:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
On the grounds that consensus can change, I would like to explain the following. In 2009, Wikipedia Signpost published a review of a book that examines how authority works on Wikipedia. This book is of interest to this article:
O'Neil, Mathieu (2009). "7. The Imperfect Committee: debian.org". Cyberchiefs: Autonomy and Authority in Online Tribes. Pluto Press. ISBN 978-0-7453-2796-9.
The chapter starts with an event related to Debian Women's origin. Later, O'Neil mentions the encyclopedic nature of Debian, as well as perfectionist: "Debian is the Mary Poppins of operating systems". He talks about the SL case, SL being the author of this message.
Sven Luther was the reason for a topic in the 2006 election. According to Anthony Towns, Luther's conflict surely escalated: "Sven's conflict with Frans, the d-i team and others is probably the most extreme example of a problem we've had to resolve." [17]
I still believe that one of "the most extreme" social problems Debian had to deal with is a major fact. 84.127.80.114 ( talk) 06:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)