If nobody else does it before I (as the Debian developer who has prepared the etoys package and tried to include it in Debian) will do it. But, I prefer to wait some time in order to know more arguments from all of you. I guess this topic might become a flame in debian-devel and I'd like to have as many arguments as possible.<br>
<br> Also, I'm a little burnout with this, after the license problems seem to be fixed , these new problems make me feel I'm wasting my time.<br><br>Regards.<br>José L.<br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2008/5/22 Norbert Hartl <<a href="mailto:norbert@hartl.name">norbert@hartl.name</a>>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Could you please announce when there is a discussion started<br>
on debian-devel?<br>
<br>
thanks,<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Norbert<br>
</font><div class="Ih2E3d">On Wed, 2008-05-21 at 23:34 +0200, Bert Freudenberg wrote:<br>
</div><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">> Etoys was being considered to get into Debian. Now it may be rejected,<br>
> because an image file is not "transparent enough" (see below). It was<br>
> suggested to discuss this issue on the debian-devel list.<br>
><br>
> Do any of you have ideas how to respond? Are there perhaps other<br>
> Debian packages that have a similar issue of accountability?<br>
><br>
> And how hard would it actually be to bootstrap a fresh Squeak image<br>
> from sources nowadays?<br>
><br>
> - Bert -<br>
><br>
> Begin forwarded message:<br>
><br>
> > From: Thomas Viehmann <<a href="mailto:tv@beamnet.de">tv@beamnet.de</a>><br>
> > Date: 21. Mai 2008 23:06:38 MESZ<br>
> > To: "José L. Redrejo Rodríguez" <<a href="mailto:jredrejo@edu.juntaextremadura.net">jredrejo@edu.juntaextremadura.net</a>><br>
> > Cc: Bert Freudenberg <<a href="mailto:bert@freudenbergs.de">bert@freudenbergs.de</a>>, <a href="mailto:ftpmaster@debian.org">ftpmaster@debian.org</a>, <a href="mailto:holger@layer-acht.org">holger@layer-acht.org</a><br>
> > Subject: etoys_3.0.1916+svn132-1_amd64.changes (almost) REJECTED<br>
> > Reply-To: <a href="mailto:ftpmaster@debian.org">ftpmaster@debian.org</a><br>
> ><br>
> > (OK, for technical reasons, this is not the REJECT, but there is<br>
> > little point in delaying this mail now that I have written it.)<br>
> ><br>
> > Hi José, Bert, Holger,<br>
> ><br>
> > this is, unfortunately, the REJECT of etoys.<br>
> > First of all, thanks Bert, Holger, José for the discussion of some of<br>
> > the concepts. However, I am afraid that there are some fundamental<br>
> > concerns that have not been eliminated (yet). As such I would like to<br>
> > invite you to start a discussion on the packaging of squeak session<br>
> > images on <a href="mailto:debian-devel@lists.debian.org">debian-devel@lists.debian.org</a>. Feel free to forward this<br>
> > mail if you consider it useful as a starting point.<br>
> ><br>
> > It seems to me that the method of distributing VM sessions in .image<br>
> > files as the preferred form of modification does not match too well<br>
> > with Debian practices of compiling packages from source and having<br>
> > easy access to the differences between various versions of a package.<br>
> ><br>
> > So as far as I understand it it seems like a typical squeak image<br>
> > cannot be bootstrapped[1] from (textual) source and that the typical<br>
> > mode of operation is to modify some known image and distribute the<br>
> > result. As such, the preferred form of modification is indeed the<br>
> > image file.<br>
> ><br>
> > This, in my opinion, raises at least the following questions that seem<br>
> > fundamental to me:<br>
> ><br>
> > - How easy should it be to figure out what is in an image?<br>
> > While the source code to any class seems to be available, the<br>
> > image is more than that. Does that matter? Should source of Debian<br>
> > packages be auditable and is etoys currently auditable easily<br>
> > enough?<br>
> ><br>
> > - Does Debian (including the various teams that might have to take<br>
> > a look at your packages) want to have easy access to the<br>
> > differences between upstream version, one Debian revision and<br>
> > another? Do squeak session images provide this in a way that<br>
> > is acceptable to Debian?<br>
> ><br>
> > From the squeak wiki pages and your explanations it seems that what I<br>
> > would consider at least partial solutions exist, but it seems that<br>
> > either I am still lacking understanding of important concepts or<br>
> > that the etoys packaging (Debian and maybe also upstream) could<br>
> > possibly be made a bit more transparent.<br>
> > Of course, we might find out that my difficulties with the<br>
> > perspective of squeak images in Debian originate in misconceptions of<br>
> > Debian packaging and maintenance that I may have. Either way, I would<br>
> > appreciate if we could discuss this with the Debian development public<br>
> > at large and draw on their additional expertise.<br>
> ><br>
> > Kind regards<br>
> ><br>
> > Thomas<br>
> ><br>
> > 1. <a href="http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/769" target="_blank">http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/769</a><br>
> > --<br>
> > Thomas Viehmann, <a href="http://thomas.viehmann.net/" target="_blank">http://thomas.viehmann.net/</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>