November 9th, 2014 by lucas
This is quite an achievement from the project as a whole, and the Release Team specifically. First, we froze on the date announced more than a year ago, and the freeze seems to have been well respected by all maintainers.
Second, with 310 RC bugs at the time of the freeze, we are probably breaking a record for all recent Debian releases (though I don’t have hard numbers for that). It seems that auto-removals of RC-buggy non-key packages helped a lot to keep the bug number under control. Assuming that all RC-buggy non-key packages were removed (which would be quite sad of course), we would even be down to about 150 RC bugs!
Could we have the shorter Debian freeze ever? (wheezy: 44 weeks; squeeze: 26 weeks; lenny: 28 weeks; etch: 17 weeks). Given that FOSDEM is 12 weeks away, could we even release before FOSDEM, and have a big party there to celebrate?
That’s not impossible, but we need everybody’s help. Random tip and tricks:
- Richard Hartmann’s weekly stats are actually generated from this web page, that provides a good live breakdown of RC bugs per category. Some RC bugs are hard, but some just deserve more attention. Some ideas of rather easy tasks:
- In the RC bugs list, sort bugs by last modification, take a bug that wasn’t worked on recently, and try to provide a summary of the situation and of possible actions.
- In the RC bugs list, sort bugs by bug number, and look at recent bugs: you might be among the first ones to look at them, so there might still be easy ways to make progress.
- Review and analyze proposed solutions in the lists of bugs with patches, or which have been fixed in unstable but not unblocked yet.
- And of course, try to attack the bulk of bugs without known fixes, and advance towards such a fix!
- If you are not so good at fixing bugs, do like me, and become good at opening new (real) bugs: the sooner they will be found, the sooner they can be fixed! I just opened ~100 RC bugs this morning, caused by packages failing to build from source in jessie.
October 21st, 2014 by lucas
This is an update of my previous attempt at summarizing this discussion. As I proposed one of the amendments, you should not blindly trust me, of course. :-)
First, let’s address two FAQ:
What is the impact on jessie?
On the technical level, none. The current state of jessie already matches what is expected by all proposals. It’s a different story on the social level.
Why are we voting now, then?
Ian Jackson, who submitted the original proposal, explained his motivation in this mail.
We now have four different proposals: (summaries are mine)
- [iwj] Original proposal (Ian Jackson): Packages may not (in general) require one specific init system (Choice 1 on this page)
- [lucas] Amendment A (Lucas Nussbaum): support for alternative init systems is desirable but not mandatory (Choice 2 on this page)
- [dktrkranz] Amendment B (Luca Falavigna): Packages may require a specific init system (Choice 3 on this page)
- [plessy] Amendment C (Charles Plessy): No GR, please: no GR required (Choice 4 on this page)
[plessy] is the simplest, and does not discuss the questions that the other proposals are answering, given it considers that the normal Debian decision-making processes have not been exhausted.
In order to understand the three other proposals, it’s useful to break them down into several questions.
Q1: support for the default init system on Linux
A1.1: packages MUST work with the default init system on Linux as PID 1.
(That is the case in both [iwj] and [lucas])
A1.2: packages SHOULD work with the default init system on Linux as PID 1.
With [dktrkranz], it would no longer be required to support the default init system, as maintainers could choose to require another init system than the default, if they consider this a prerequisite for its proper operation; and no patches or other derived works exist in order to support other init systems. That would not be a policy violation. (see this mail and its reply for details). Theoretically, it could also create fragmentation among Debian packages requiring different init systems: you would not be able to run pkgA and pkgB at the same time, because they would require different init systems.
Q2: support for alternative init systems as PID 1
A2.1: packages MUST work with one alternative init system (in [iwj])
(Initially, I thought that “one” here should be understood as “sysvinit”, as this mail, Ian detailed why he chose to be unspecific about the target init system. However, in that mail, he later clarified that a package requiring systemd or uselessd would be fine as well, given that in practice there aren’t going to be many packages that would want to couple specifically to systemd _or_ uselessd, but where support for other init systems is hard to provide.)
To the user, that brings the freedom to switch init systems (assuming that the package will not just support two init systems with specific interfaces, but rather a generic interface common to many init systems).
However, it might require the maintainer to do the required work to support additional init systems, possibly without upstream cooperation.
Lack of support is a policy violation (severity >= serious, RC).
Bugs about degraded operation on some init systems follow the normal bug severity rules.
A2.2: packages SHOULD work with alternative init systems as PID 1. (in [lucas])
This is a recommendation. Lack of support is not a policy violation (bug severity < serious, not RC). A2.3: nothing is said about alternative init systems (in [dktrkranz]). Lack of support would likely be a wishlist bug.
Q3: special rule for sysvinit to ease wheezy->jessie upgrades
(this question is implicitly dealt with in [iwj], assuming that one of the supported init systems is sysvinit)
A3.1: continue support for sysvinit (in [lucas])
For the jessie release, all software available in Debian ‘wheezy’ that supports being run under sysvinit should continue to support sysvinit unless there is no technically feasible way to do so.
A3.2: no requirement to support sysvinit (in [dktrkranz])
Theoretically, this could require two-step upgrades: first reboot with systemd, then upgrade other packages
Q4: non-binding recommendation to maintainers
A4.1: recommend that maintainers accept patches that add or improve
support for alternative init systems. (in both [iwj] and [lucas], with a different wording)
A4.2: say nothing (in [dktrkranz])
Q5: support for init systems with are the default on non-Linux ports
A5.1: non-binding recommendation to add/improve support with a high priority (in [lucas])
A5.2: say nothing (in [iwj] and [dktrkranz])
Comments are closed: please discuss by replying to that mail.
October 17th, 2014 by lucas
TL;DR: static version of http://debaday.debian.net/, as it was when it was shut down in 2009, available!
A long time ago, between 2006 and 2009, there was a blog called Debian Package of the Day. About once per week, it featured an article about one of the gems available in the Debian archive: one of those many great packages that you had never heard about.
At some point in November 2009, after 181 articles, the blog was hacked and never brought up again. Last week I retrieved the old database, generated a static version, and put it online with the help of DSA. It is now available again at http://debaday.debian.net/. Some of the articles are clearly outdated, but many of them are about packages that are still available in Debian, and still very relevant today.
September 10th, 2014 by lucas
The start of the jessie freeze is quickly approaching, so now is a good time to ensure that packages you rely on will the part of the upcoming release. Thanks to automated removals, the number of release critical bugs has been kept low, but this was achieved by removing many packages from jessie: 841 packages from unstable are not part of jessie, and won’t be part of the release if things don’t change.
It is actually simple to check if you have packages installed locally that are part of those 841 packages:
apt-get install how-can-i-help(available in backports if you don’t use testing or unstable)
- Look at packages listed under Packages removed from Debian ‘testing’ and Packages going to be removed from Debian ‘testing’
Then, please fix all the bugs :-) Seriously, not all RC bugs are hard to fix. A good starting point to understand why a package is not part of jessie is tracker.d.o.
On my laptop, the two packages that are not part of jessie are the geeqie image viewer (which looks likely to be fixed in time), and josm, the OpenStreetMap editor, due to three RC bugs. It seems much harder to fix… If you fix it in time for jessie, I’ll offer you a $drink!
September 1st, 2014 by lucas
In March 2013 I looked at Debian releases used by popcon participants. I’ve just re-done the same analysis. Please see the previous post on this topic for details.
August 31st, 2014 by lucas
After an intensive evening of brainstorming by the 5th floor cabal, I am happy to release the very first version of the Debian Trivia, modeled after the famous TCP/IP Drinking Game. Only the questions are listed here — maybe they should go (with the answers) into a package? Anyone willing to co-maintain? Any suggestions for additional questions?
- what was the first release with an “and-a-half” release?
- Where were the first two DebConf held?
- what are Debian releases named after? Why?
- Give two names of girls that were originally part of the Debian Archive Kit (dak), that are still actively used today.
- Swirl on chin. Does it ring a bell?
- What was Dunc Tank about? Who was the DPL at the time? Who were the release managers during Dunc Tank?
- Cite 5 different valid values for a package’s urgency field. Are all of them different?
- When was the Debian Maintainers status created?
- What is the codename for experimental?
- Order correctly lenny, woody, etch, sarge
- Which one was the Dunc Tank release?
- Name three locations where Debian machines are hosted.
- What does the B in projectb stand for?
- What is the official card game at DebConf?
- Describe the Debian restricted use logo.
- One Debian release was frozen for more than a year. Which one?
- name the kernel version for sarge, etch, lenny, squeeze, wheezy. bonus for etch-n-half!
- What happened to Debian 1.0?
- Which DebConfs were held in a Nordic country?
- What does piuparts stand for?
- Name the first Debian release.
- Order correctly hamm, bo, potato, slink
- What are most Debian project machines named after?
August 24th, 2014 by lucas
He makes the point (quoting slide 16) that the Free Software community is winning a war that is becoming increasingly pointless: yes, users have 100% Free Software thin client at their fingertips [or are really a few steps from there]. But all their relevant computations happen elsewhere, on remote systems they do not control, in the Cloud.
That give-up on control of computing is a huge and important problem, and probably the largest challenge for everybody caring about freedom, free speech, or privacy today. Stefano rightfully points out that we must do something about it. The big question is: how can we, as a community, address it?
Towards a Free Service Definition?
I believe that we all feel a bit lost with this issue because we are trying to attack it with our current tools & weapons. However, they are largely irrelevant here: the Free Software Definition is about software, and software is even to be understood strictly in it, as software programs. Applying it to services, or to computing in general, doesn’t lead anywhere. In order to increase the general awareness about this issue, we should define more precisely what levels of control can be provided, to understand what services are not providing to users, and to make an informed decision about waiving a particular level of control when choosing to use a particular service.
Benjamin Mako Hill pointed out yesterday during the post-talk chat that services are not black or white: there aren’t impure and pure services. Instead, there’s a graduation of possible levels of control for the computing we do. The Free Software Definition lists four freedoms — how many freedoms, or types of control, should there be in a Free Service Definition, or a Controlled-Computing Definition? Again, this is not only about software: the platform on which a particular piece of software is executed has a huge impact on the available level of control: running your own instance of WordPress, or using an instance on wordpress.com, provides very different control (even if as Asheesh Laroia pointed out yesterday, WordPress does a pretty good job at providing export and import features to limit data lock-in).
The creation of such a definition is an iterative process. I actually just realized today that (according to Wikipedia) the very first occurrence of an attempt at a Free Software Definition was published in 1986 (GNU’s bulletin Vol 1 No.1, page 8) — I thought it happened a couple of years earlier. Are there existing attempts at defining such freedoms or levels of controls, and at benchmarking such criteria against existing services? Such criteria would not only include control over software modifications and (re)distribution, but also likely include mentions of interoperability and open standards, both to enable the user to move to a compatible service, and to avoid forcing the user to use a particular implementation of a service. A better understanding of network effects is also needed: how much and what type of service lock-in is acceptable on social networks in exchange of functionality?
I think that we should inspire from what was achieved during the last 30 years on Free Software. The tools that were produced are probably irrelevant to address this issue, but there’s a lot to learn from the way they were designed. I really look forward to the day when we will have:
- a Free Software Definition equivalent for services
- Debian Free Software Guidelines-like tests/checklist to evaluate services
- an equivalent of The Cathedral and the Bazaar, explaining how one can build successful business models on top of open services
April 9th, 2014 by lucas
While trying to debug a bandwidth problem on a 3G connection, I tried speedtest.net, which ranks fairly high when one searches for “bandwidth test” on various search engines. I was getting very strange results, so I started wondering if my ISP might be bandwidth-throttling all traffic except the one from speedtest.net tests. After all, that’s on a 3G network, and another french 3G ISP (SFR) apparently uses Citrix ByteMobile to optimize the QoE by minifying HTML pages and recompressing images on-the-fly (amongst other things).
So, I fired wireshark, and discovered that no, it’s just speedtest being a bit naive. Speedtest uses its own text-based protocol on port 8080. Here is an excerpt of a download speed test:
< HELLO 2.1 2013-08-14.01
> DOWNLOAD 1000000
Yeah, right: sequences of “ABCDEFGHIJ”. How course, extremely easy to compress, which apparently happens transparently on 3G (or is it PPP? but I tried to disable PPP compression, and it did not see any change).
It’s funny how digging into problems that look promising at first sight often results in big disappointments :-(
February 27th, 2014 by lucas
Following my blog post on the topic, I played a bit with various options.
But let’s explain my use case (which might be quite specific). I need to deal with three main sources of events:
- the Zimbra instance from my lab. It provides a CalDav interface.
- the ICS export from my University’s teaching timetable.
- a calendar for personal stuff. I don’t want to use my lab’s Zimbra for that.
Additionally, I follow some ICS feeds for some colleagues and other events.
I tend to access my calendar mostly on my computer, and sometimes on my N900 phone.
None of the web interfaces I looked at enabled me to (1) manage different calendars hosted on different CalDav servers; (2) subscribe to ICS feeds; (3) provide a CalDav interface to synchronize my phone.
I ended up using a radicale instance for my personal calendar, which was extremely easy to set up. It’s unfortunately a bit slow when there are many events (1600 since 2010 in my case), so I ended up importing only future events, and I will probably have to cleanup from time to time.
I switched to using IceDove with the Lightning add-on to manage all my calendars and ICS feeds. It’s unfortunately slower and less user-friendly than Google Calendar, but I’ll live with it.
On my N900, I used syncevolution to synchronize my various CalDav calendars. It works fine, but understanding how to configure it is rather tricky due to the number of concepts involved (templates, databases, servers, contexts, …). The synchronization is quite slow (several minutes for the 400-events Zimbra calendar), but works.
I also wanted a way to export my calendars to colleagues (both in a “free/busy” version, and in a “full information” version). I quickly hacked something using ruby-agcaldav (which is not packaged in Debian, and required quite a few dependencies, but it was easy to generate packages for all of them using gem2deb — the situation with other languages did not look better).
The resulting script is:
cal = AgCalDAV::Client.new(:uri => 'LABCALDAVSERVER', :user => 'xx', :password => "xx")
ev = cal.find_events(:start => '2014-02-01', :end => '2200-01-01')
cal = AgCalDAV::Client.new(:uri => 'RADICALESERVER', :user => 'xx', :password => "xx")
ev2 = cal.find_events(:start => '2014-02-01', :end => '2200-01-01')
limit = (Time::now - 7*86400).to_datetime
# create new empty calendars
ncpriv = Icalendar::Calendar.new
ncpub = Icalendar::Calendar.new
(ev + ev2).each do |e|
next if e.end < limit # drop old events to keep the calendar small
# build event for the free/busy calendar
pe = Icalendar::Event.new
pe.start = e.start
pe.end = e.end
pe.klass = "PRIVATE"
pe.transp = e.transp
# build event for the calendar with event information
pube = Icalendar::Event.new
pube.start = e.start
pube.end = e.end
pube.transp = e.transp
if not e.klass == "PRIVATE"
pube.summary = e.summary
pube.location = e.location
# export free/busy calendar
fd = File::new('xx.ics', 'w')
# export calendar with event information
fd = File::new('yy-Zeeh9bie.ics', 'w')
So, mostly everything works. The only thing that doesn't is that I haven't found a way to subscribe to an ICS feed on my N900. Any ideas?
February 25th, 2014 by lucas
I’m trying to self-host my calendar setup, and I must admit that I’m lost between all the different solutions.
My requirements are:
- (A) manage my own personal calendar using a reasonably modern web interface (probably on my own CalDAV server)
- (B) display a dozen public ICS calendars in the web interface. Organizing those public calendars in a tree would be great.
- (C) display several caldav calendars (from two different instances of zimbra), preferably in RW mode
- (D) provide ICS links with a secret token that allow me to provide a full view of my calendar to some people (except for private events, where I should just be marked ‘busy’)
- (E) provide ICS links with a secret token that allow me to provide a “busy/available” view of my calendar to some people
- (F) export something usable on my n900. MFE would be great since that is already known to work.
- (G) easy to setup (Debian packages available in wheezy or wheezy-backports, especially for the server part)
- (H) preferably lightweight. I don’t need a full groupware application. I can ignore the other bits if really needed.
It does not seem to be possible to find a single framework doing all of the above. AFAIK:
- Owncloud does A, D, G
- Baikal does A. not sure about the rest.
- For (B), an alternative is to script the download of the ics and then upload it to the CalDAV using cadaver. But that sounds quite low-level for such a trivial use case.
- I’ve looked at using IceOwl (and Thunderbird+Lightning) with a CalDAV server such as Radicale. That would solve A (using iceowl instead), B, C. But which CalDAV servers support D, E, F ? Radicale does not do any of those, apparently.
What did I miss?