Search Results: "lus"

Review: A Study in Honor, by Claire O'Dell

Series:	Janet Watson Chronicles #1
Publisher:	Harper Voyager
Copyright:	July 2018
ISBN:	0-06-269932-6
Format:	Kindle
Pages:	295

A Study in Honor is a near-future science fiction novel by Claire O'Dell, a pen name for Beth Bernobich. You will see some assertions, including by the Lambda Literary Award judges, that it is a mystery novel. There is a mystery, but... well, more on that in a moment. Janet Watson was an Army surgeon in the Second US Civil War when New Confederacy troops overran the lines in Alton, Illinois. Watson lost her left arm to enemy fire. As this book opens, she is returning to Washington, D.C. with a medical discharge, PTSD, and a field replacement artificial arm scavenged from a dead soldier. It works, sort of, mostly, despite being mismatched to her arm and old in both technology and previous wear. It does not work well enough for her to resume her career as a surgeon. Watson's plan is to request a better artificial arm from the VA (the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, which among other things is responsible for the medical care of wounded veterans). That plan meets a wall of unyielding and uninterested bureaucracy. She has a pension, but it's barely enough for cheap lodging. A lifeline comes in the form of a chance encounter with a former assistant in the Army, who has a difficult friend looking to split the cost of an apartment. The name of that friend is Sara Holmes. At this point, you know what to expect. This is clearly one of the many respinnings of Arthur Conan Doyle. This time, the setting is in the future and Watson and Holmes are both black women, but the other elements of the setup are familiar: the immediate deduction that Watson came from the front, the shared rooms (2809 Q Street this time, sacrificing homage for the accuracy of a real address), Holmes's tendency to play an instrument (this time the piano), and even the title of this book, which is an obvious echo of the title of the first Holmes novel, A Study in Scarlet. Except that's not what you'll get. There are a lot of parallels and references here, but this is not a Holmes-style detective novel. First, it's only arguably a detective novel at all. There is a mystery, which starts with a patient Watson sees in her fallback job as a medical tech in the VA hospital and escalates to a physical attack, but that doesn't start until a third of the way into the book. It certainly is not solved through minute clues and leaps of deduction; instead, that part of the plot has the shape of a thriller rather than a classic mystery. There is a good argument that the thriller is the modern mystery novel, so I don't want to overstate my case, but I think someone who came to this book wanting a Doyle-style mystery would be disappointed. Second, the mystery is not the heart of this book. Watson is. She, like Doyle's Watson, is the first-person narrator, but she is far more present in the book. I have no idea how accurate O'Dell's portrayal of Watson's PTSD is, but it was certainly compelling and engrossing reading. Her fight for basic dignity and her rage at the surface respect and underlying disinterested hostility of the bureaucratic war machinery is what kept me turning the pages. The mystery plot is an outgrowth of that and felt more like a case study than the motivating thread of the plot. And third, Sara Holmes... well, I hesitate to say definitively that she's not Sherlock Holmes. There have been so many versions of Holmes over the years, even apart from the degree to which a black woman would necessarily not be like Doyle's character. But she did not remind me of Sherlock Holmes. She reminded me of a cross between James Bond and a high fae. This sounds like a criticism. It very much is not. I found this high elf spy character far more interesting than I have ever found Sherlock Holmes. But here again, if you came into this book hoping for a Holmes-style master detective, I fear you may be wrong-footed. The James Bond parts will be obvious when you get there and aren't the most interesting (and thankfully the misogyny is entirely absent). The part I found more fascinating is the way O'Dell sets Holmes apart by making her fae rather than insufferable. She projects effortless elegance, appears and disappears on a mysterious schedule of her own, thinks nothing of reading her roommate's diary, leaves meticulously arranged gifts, and even bargains with Watson for answers to precisely three questions. The reader does learn some mundane explanations for some of this behavior, but to be honest I found them somewhat of a letdown. Sara Holmes is at her best as a character when she tacks her own mysterious path through a rather grim world of exhausted war, penny-pinching bureaucracy, and despair, pursuing an unexplained agenda of her own while showing odd but unmistakable signs of friendship and care. This is not a romance, at least in this book. It is instead a slowly-developing friendship between two extremely different people, one that I thoroughly enjoyed. I do have a couple of caveats about this book. The first is that the future US in which it is set is almost pure Twitter doomcasting. Trump's election sparked a long slide into fascism, and when that was arrested by the election of a progressive candidate backed by a fragile coalition, Midwestern red states seceded to form the New Confederacy and start a second civil war that has dragged on for nearly eight years. It's a very specific mainstream liberal dystopian scenario that I've seen so many times it felt like a cliche even though I don't remember seeing it in a book before. This type of future projection of current fears is of course not new for science fiction; Cold War nuclear war novels are probably innumerable. But I had questions, such as how a sparsely-populated, largely non-industrial, and entirely landlocked set of breakaway states could maintain a war footing for eight years. Despite some hand-waving about covert support, those questions are not really answered here. The second problem is that the ending of this book kind of falls apart. The climax of the mystery investigation is unsatisfyingly straightforward, and the resulting revelation is a hoary cliche. Maybe I'm just complaining about the banality of evil, but if I'd been engrossed in this book for the thriller plot, I think I would have been annoyed. I wasn't, though; I was here for the characters, for Watson's PTSD and dogged determination, for Sara's strangeness, and particularly for the growing improbable friendship between two women with extremely different life experiences, emotions, and outlooks. That part was great, regardless of the ending. Do not pick this book up because you want a satisfying deductive mystery with bumbling police and a blizzard of apparently inconsequential clues. That is not at all what's happening here. But this was great on its own terms, and I will be reading the sequel shortly. Recommended, although if you are very online expect to do a bit of eye-rolling at the setting. Followed by The Hound of Justice, but the sequel is not required. This book reaches a satisfying conclusion of its own. Rating: 8 out of 10

Review: Liberty's Daughter, by Naomi Kritzer

Publisher:	Fairwood Press
Copyright:	November 2023
ISBN:	1-958880-16-7
Format:	Kindle
Pages:	257

Liberty's Daughter is a stand-alone near-future science fiction fix-up novel. The original stories were published in Fantasy and Science Fiction between 2012 and 2015. Beck Garrison lives on New Minerva (Min), one of a cluster of libertarian seasteads 220 nautical miles off the coast of Los Angeles. Her father brought her to Min when she was four, so it's the only life she knows. As this story opens, she's picked up a job for pocket change: finding very specific items that people want to buy. Since any new goods have to be shipped in and the seasteads have an ambiguous legal status, they don't get Amazon deliveries, but there are enough people (and enough tourists who bring high-value goods for trade) that someone probably has whatever someone else is looking for. Even sparkly high-heeled sandals size eight. Beck's father is high in the informal power structure of the seasteads for reasons that don't become apparent until very late in this book. Beck therefore has a comfortable, albeit cramped, life. The social protections, self-confidence, and feelings of invincibility that come with that wealth serve her well as a finder. After the current owner of the sandals bargains with her to find a person rather than an object, that privilege also lets her learn quite a lot before she starts getting into trouble. The political background of this novel is going to require some suspension of disbelief. The premise is that one of those harebrained libertarian schemes to form a freedom utopia has been successful enough to last for 49 years and attract 80,000 permanent residents. (It's a libertarian seastead so a lot of those residents are indentured slaves, as one does in libertarian philosophy. The number of people with shares, like Beck's father, is considerably smaller.) By the end of the book, Kritzer has offered some explanations for why the US would allow such a place to continue to exist, but the chances of the famously fractious con artists and incompetents involved in these types of endeavors creating something that survived internal power struggles for that long seem low. One has to roll with it for story reasons: Kritzer needs the population to be large enough for a plot, and the history to be long enough for Beck to exist as a character. The strength of this book is Beck, and specifically the fact that Beck is a second-generation teenager who grew up on the seastead. Unlike a lot of her age peers with their Cayman Islands vacations, she's never left and has no experience with life on land. She considers many things to be perfectly normal that are not at all normal to the reader and the various reader surrogates who show up over the course of the book. She also has the instinctive feel for seastead politics of the child of a prominent figure in a small town. And, most importantly, she has formed her own sense of morality and social structure that matches neither that of the reader nor that of her father. Liberty's Daughter is told in first-person by Beck. Judging the authenticity of Gen-Z thought processes is not one of my strengths, but Beck felt right to me. Her narration is dryly matter-of-fact, with only brief descriptions of her emotional reactions, but her personality shines in the occasional sarcasm and obstinacy. Kritzer has the teenage bafflement at the stupidity of adults down pat, as well as the tendency to jump head-first into ideas and make some decisions through sheer stubbornness. This is not one of those fix-up novels where the author has reworked the stories sufficiently that the original seams don't show. It is very episodic; compared to a typical novel of this length, there's more plot but less character growth. It's a good book when you want to be pulled into a stream of events that moves right along. This is not the book for deep philosophical examinations of the basis of a moral society, but it does have, around the edges, is the humans build human societies and develop elaborate social conventions and senses of belonging no matter how stupid the original philosophical foundations were. Even societies built on nasty exploitation can engender a sort of loyalty. Beck doesn't support the worst parts of her weird society, but she wants to fix it, not burn it to the ground. I thought there was a profound observation there. That brings me to my complaint: I hated the ending. Liberty's Daughter is in part Beck's fight for her own autonomy, both moral and financial, and the beginnings of an effort to turn her home into the sort of home she wants. By the end of the book, she's testing the limits of what she can accomplish, solidifying her own moral compass, and deciding how she wants to use the social position she inherited. It felt like the ending undermined all of that and treated her like a child. I know adolescence comes with those sorts of reversals, but I was still so mad. This is particularly annoying since I otherwise want to recommend this book. It's not ground-breaking, it's not that deep, but it was a thoroughly enjoyable day's worth of entertainment with a likable protagonist. Just don't read the last chapter, I guess? Or have more tolerance than I have for people treating sixteen-year-olds as if they're not old enough to make decisions. Content warnings: pandemic. Rating: 7 out of 10

Review: The Box, by Marc Levinson

Publisher:	Princeton University Press
Copyright:	2006, 2008
Printing:	2008
ISBN:	0-691-13640-8
Format:	Trade paperback
Pages:	278

The shipping container as we know it is only about 65 years old. Shipping things in containers is obviously much older; we've been doing that for longer than we've had ships. But the standardized metal box, set on a rail car or loaded with hundreds of its indistinguishable siblings into an enormous, specially-designed cargo ship, became economically significant only recently. Today it is one of the oft-overlooked foundations of global supply chains. The startlingly low cost of container shipping is part of why so much of what US consumers buy comes from Asia, and why most complex machinery is assembled in multiple countries from parts gathered from a dizzying variety of sources. Marc Levinson's The Box is a history of container shipping, from its (arguable) beginnings in the trailer bodies loaded on Pan-Atlantic Steamship Corporation's Ideal-X in 1956 to just-in-time international supply chains in the 2000s. It's a popular history that falls on the academic side, with a full index and 60 pages of citations and other notes. (Per my normal convention, those pages aren't included in the sidebar page count.) The Box is organized mostly chronologically, but Levinson takes extended detours into labor relations and container standardization at the appropriate points in the timeline. The book is very US-centric. Asian, European, and Australian shipping is discussed mostly in relation to trade with the US, and Africa is barely mentioned. I don't have the background to know whether this is historically correct for container shipping or is an artifact of Levinson's focus. Many single-item popular histories focus on something that involves obvious technological innovation (paint pigments) or deep cultural resonance (salt) or at least entertaining quirkiness (punctuation marks, resignation letters). Shipping containers are important but simple and boring. The least interesting chapter in The Box covers container standardization, in which a whole bunch of people had boring meetings, wrote some things done, discovered many of the things they wrote down were dumb, wrote more things down, met with different people to have more meetings, published a standard that partly reflected the fixations of that one guy who is always involved in standards discussions, and then saw that standard be promptly ignored by the major market players. You may be wondering if that describes the whole book. It doesn't, but not because of the shipping containers. The Box is interesting because the process of economic change is interesting, and container shipping is almost entirely about business processes rather than technology. Levinson starts the substance of the book with a description of shipping before standardized containers. This was the most effective, and probably the most informative, chapter. Beyond some vague ideas picked up via cultural osmosis, I had no idea how cargo shipping worked. Levinson gives the reader a memorable feel for the sheer amount of physical labor involved in loading and unloading a ship with mixed cargo (what's called "breakbulk" cargo to distinguish it from bulk cargo like coal or wheat that fills an entire hold). It's not just the effort of hauling barrels, bales, or boxes with cranes or raw muscle power, although that is significant. It's also the need to touch every piece of cargo to move it, inventory it, warehouse it, and then load it on a truck or train. The idea of container shipping is widely attributed, including by Levinson, to Malcom McLean, a trucking magnate who became obsessed with the idea of what we now call intermodal transport: using the same container for goods on ships, railroads, and trucks so that the contents don't have to be unpacked and repacked at each transfer point. Levinson uses his career as an anchor for the story, from his acquisition of Pan-American Steamship Corporation to pursue his original idea (backed by private equity and debt, in a very modern twist), through his years running Sea-Land as the first successful major container shipper, and culminating in his disastrous attempted return to shipping by acquiring United States Lines. I am dubious of Great Man narratives in history books, and I think Levinson may be overselling McLean's role. Container shipping was an obvious idea that the industry had been talking about for decades. Even Levinson admits that, despite a few gestures at giving McLean central credit. Everyone involved in shipping understood that cargo handling was the most expensive and time-consuming part, and that if one could minimize cargo handling at the docks by loading and unloading full containers that didn't have to be opened, shipping costs would be much lower (and profits higher). The idea wasn't the hard part. McLean was the first person to pull it off at scale, thanks to some audacious economic risks and a willingness to throw sharp elbows and play politics, but it seems likely that someone else would have played that role if McLean hadn't existed. Container shipping didn't happen earlier because achieving that cost savings required a huge expenditure of capital and a major disruption of a transportation industry that wasn't interested in being disrupted. The ships had to be remodeled and eventually replaced; manufacturing had to change; railroad and trucking in theory had to change (in practice, intermodal transport; McLean's obsession, didn't happen at scale until much later); pricing had to be entirely reworked; logistical tracking of goods had to be done much differently; and significant amounts of extremely expensive equipment to load and unload heavy containers had to be designed, built, and installed. McLean's efforts proved the cost savings was real and compelling, but it still took two decades before the shipping industry reconstructed itself around containers. That interim period is where this history becomes a labor story, and that's where Levinson's biases become somewhat distracting. In the United States, loading and unloading of cargo ships was done by unionized longshoremen through a bizarre but complex and long-standing system of contract hiring. The cost savings of container shipping comes almost completely from the loss of work for longshoremen. It's a classic replacement of labor with capital; the work done by gangs of twenty or more longshoreman is instead done by a single crane operator at much higher speed and efficiency. The longshoreman unions therefore opposed containerization and launched numerous strikes and other labor actions to delay use of containers, force continued hiring that containers made unnecessary, or win buyouts and payoffs for current longshoremen. Levinson is trying to write a neutral history and occasionally shows some sympathy for longshoremen, but they still get the Luddite treatment in this book: the doomed reactionaries holding back progress. Longshoremen had a vigorous and powerful union that won better working conditions structured in ways that look absurd to outsiders, such as requiring that ships hire twice as many men as necessary so that half of them could get paid while not working. The unions also had a reputation for corruption that Levinson stresses constantly, and theft of breakbulk cargo during loading and warehousing was common. One of the interesting selling points for containers was that lossage from theft during shipping apparently decreased dramatically. It's obvious that the surface demand of the longshoremen unions, that either containers not be used or that just as many manual laborers be hired for container shipping as for earlier breakbulk shipping, was impossible, and that the profession as it existed in the 1950s was doomed. But beneath those facts, and the smoke screen of Levinson's obvious distaste for their unions, is a real question about what society owes workers whose jobs are eliminated by major shifts in business practices. That question of fairness becomes more pointed when one realizes that this shift was massively subsidized by US federal and local governments. McLean's Sea-Land benefited from direct government funding and subsidized navy surplus ships, massive port construction in New Jersey with public funds, and a sweetheart logistics contract from the US military to supply troops fighting the Vietnam War that was so generous that the return voyage was free and every container Sea-Land picked up from Japanese ports was pure profit. The US shipping industry was heavily government-supported, particularly in the early days when the labor conflicts were starting. Levinson notes all of this, but never draws the contrast between the massive support for shipping corporations and the complete lack of formal support for longshoremen. There are hard ethical questions about what society owes displaced workers even in a pure capitalist industry transformation, and this was very far from pure capitalism. The US government bankrolled large parts of the growth of container shipping, but the only way that longshoremen could get part of that money was through strikes to force payouts from private shipping companies. There are interesting questions of social and ethical history here that would require careful disentangling of the tendency of any group to oppose disruptive change and fairness questions of who gets government support and who doesn't. They will have to wait for another book; Levinson never mentions them. There were some things about this book that annoyed me, but overall it's a solid work of popular history and deserves its fame. Levinson's account is easy to follow, specific without being tedious, and backed by voluminous notes. It's not the most compelling story on its own merits; you have to have some interest in logistics and economics to justify reading the entire saga. But it's the sort of history that gives one a sense of the fractal complexity of any area of human endeavor, and I usually find those worth reading. Recommended if you like this sort of thing. Rating: 7 out of 10

This is a post I wrote in June 2022, but did not publish back then. After first publishing it in December 2023, a perfectionist insecure part of me unpublished it again. After receiving positive feedback, i slightly amended and republish it now. In this post, I talk about unpaid work in F/LOSS, taking on the example of hackathons, and why, in my opinion, the expectation of volunteer work is hurting diversity. Disclaimer: I don t have all the answers, only some ideas and questions.

Previous findings In 2006, the Flosspols survey searched to explain the role of gender in free/libre/open source software (F/LOSS) communities because an earlier [study] revealed a significant discrepancy in the proportion of men to women. It showed that just about 1.5% of F/LOSS community members were female at that time, compared with 28% in proprietary software (which is also a low number). Their key findings were, to name just a few:

that F/LOSS rewards the producing code rather than the producing software. It thereby puts most emphasis on a particular skill set. Other activities such as interface design or documentation are understood as less technical and therefore less prestigious.

The reliance on long hours of intensive computing in writing successful code means that men, who in general assume that time outside of waged labour is theirs , are freer to participate than women, who normally still assume a disproportionate amount of domestic responsibilities. Female F/LOSS participants, however, seem to be able to allocate a disproportionate larger share of their leisure time for their F/LOSS activities. This gives an indication that women who are not able to spend as much time on voluntary activities have difficulties to integrate into the community.

We also know from the 2016 Debian survey, published in 2021, that a majority of Debian contributors are employed, rather than being contractors, and rather than being students. Also, 95.5% of respondents to that study were men between the ages of 30 and 49, highly educated, with the largest groups coming from Germany, France, USA, and the UK. The study found that only 20% of the respondents were being paid to work on Debian. Half of these 20% estimate that the amount of work on Debian they are being paid for corresponds to less than 20% of the work they do there. On the other side, there are 14% of those who are being paid for Debian work who declared that 80-100% of the work they do in Debian is remunerated.

So, if a majority of people is not paid, why do they work on F/LOSS? Or: What are the incentives of free software? In 2021, Louis-Philippe V ronneau aka Pollo, who is not only a Debian Developer but also an economist, published his thesis What are the incentive structures of free software (The actual thesis was written in French). One very interesting finding Pollo pointed out is this one:
Indeed, while we have proven that there is a strong and significative correlation between the income and the participation in a free/libre software project, it is not possible for us to pronounce ourselves about the causality of this link.
In the French original text:
En effet, si nous avons prouv qu il existe une corr lation forte et significative entre le salaire et la participation un projet libre, il ne nous est pas possible de nous prononcer sur la causalit de ce lien.
Said differently, it is certain that there is a relationship between income and F/LOSS contribution, but it s unclear whether working on free/libre software ultimately helps finding a well paid job, or if having a well paid job is the cause enabling work on free/libre software. I would like to scratch this question a bit further, mostly relying on my own observations, experiences, and discussions with F/LOSS contributors.

Volunteer work is unpaid work We often hear of hackathons, hack weeks, or hackfests. I ve been at some such events myself, Tails organized one, the IETF regularly organizes hackathons, and last week (June 2022!) I saw an invitation for a hack week with the Torproject. This type of event generally last several days. While the people who organize these events are being paid by the organizations they work for, participants on the other hand are generally joining on a volunteer basis. Who can we expect to show up at this type of event under these circumstances as participants? To answer this question, I collected some ideas:

people who have an employer sponsoring their work

people who have a funder/grant sponsoring their work

people who have a high income and can take time off easily (in that regard, remember the Gender Pay Gap, women often earn less for the same work than men)

people who rely on family wealth (living off an inheritance, living on rights payments from a famous grandparent - I m not making these situations up, there are actual people in such financially favorable situations )

people who don t need much money because they don t have to pay rent or pay low rent (besides house owners that category includes people who live in squats or have social welfare paying for their rent, people who live with parents or caretakers)

people who don t need to do care work (for children, elderly family members, pets. Remember that most care work is still done by women.)

students who have financial support or are in a situation in which they do not yet need to generate a lot of income

people who otherwise have free time at their disposal

So, who, in your opinion, fits these unwritten requirements? Looking at this list, it s pretty clear to me why we d mostly find white men from the Global North, generally with higher education in hackathons and F/LOSS development. ( Great, they re a culture fit! ) Yes, there will also always be some people of marginalized groups who will attend such events because they expect to network, to find an internship, to find a better job in the future, or to add their participation to their curriculum. To me, this rings a bunch of alarm bells.

Low diversity in F/LOSS projects a mirror of the distribution of wealth I believe that the lack of diversity in F/LOSS is first of all a mirror of the distribution of wealth on a larger level. And by wealth I m referring to financial wealth as much as to social wealth in the sense of Bourdieu: Families of highly educated parents socially reproducing privilege by allowing their kids to attend better schools, supporting and guiding them in their choices of study and work, providing them with relations to internships acting as springboards into well paid jobs and so on. That said, we should ask ourselves as well:

Do F/LOSS projects exacerbate existing lines of oppression by relying on unpaid work? Let s look again at the causality question of Pollo s research (in my words):
It is unclear whether working on free/libre software ultimately helps finding a well paid job, or if having a well paid job is the cause enabling work on free/libre software.
Maybe we need to imagine this cause-effect relationship over time: as a student, without children and lots of free time, hopefully some money from the state or the family, people can spend time on F/LOSS, collect experience, earn recognition - and later find a well-paid job and make unpaid F/LOSS contributions into a hobby, cementing their status in the community, while at the same time generating a sense of well-being from working on the common good. This is a quite common scenario. As the Flosspols study revealed however, boys often get their own computer at the age of 14, while girls get one only at the age of 20. (These numbers might be slightly different now, and possibly many people don t own an actual laptop or desktop computer anymore, instead they own mobile devices which are not exactly inciting them to look behind the surface, take apart, learn, appropriate technology.) In any case, the above scenario does not allow for people who join F/LOSS later in life, eg. changing careers, to find their place. I believe that F/LOSS projects cannot expect to have more women, people of color, people from working class backgrounds, people from outside of Germany, France, USA, UK, Australia, and Canada on board as long as volunteer work is the status quo and waged labour an earned privilege.

Wait, are you criticizing all these wonderful people who sacrifice their free time to work towards common good? No, that s definitely not my intention, I m glad that F/LOSS exists, and the F/LOSS ecosystem has always represented a small utopia to me that is worth cherishing and nurturing. However, I think we still need to talk more about the lack of diversity, and investigate it further.

Paid internships are one key to countering lines of oppression Lots of projects, even Outreachy and GSoC, require one contribution to F/LOSS to be made prior to be able to apply for a paid internship. I do well understand the incentive of this, but it s quite a high entry barrier. In 2014/2015 I was able to have 3 months of work on Debian paid for via an Outreachy internship. I was extremely grateful for that opportunity because without this paid internship I would never have found the time to engage with the Debian and F/LOSS ecosystem in depth simply because I would have had to work on my usual day job; I have rent to pay, and a health insurance which is really not cheap. These programs are key because they help counter existing lines of oppression at a strategic point: they buy someone s time by providing them a small income. Back then, the internship was paid 5,500USD gross for 3 months, meaning after taxes and paying social/health insurance, I was left with roughly 1100 per month, really not much money for living decently in Western Europe, but enough to get started. By the way, to my knowledge, 4 women who did an Outreachy internship subsequently became Debian Developers. 3 other female Debian Developers are or were part of Outreachy on the organizer side. I think this shows that this program is a success that we don t celebrate enough!

Some types of work are never being paid Besides free work at hacking events, let me also underline that a lot of work in F/LOSS is not considered payable work (yes, that s an oxymoron!). Which F/LOSS project for example, has ever paid translators a decent fee? Which project has ever considered that doing the social glue work, often done by women in the projects, is work that should be paid for? Which F/LOSS projects pay the people who do their Debian packaging rather than relying on yet another already well-paid white man who can afford doing this work for free all the while holding up how great the F/LOSS ecosystem is? And how many people on opensourcedesign jobs are looking to get their logo or website done for free? (Isn t that heart icon appealing to your altruistic empathy?) In my experience even F/LOSS projects which are trying to do the right thing by paying everyone the same amount of money per hour run into issues when it turns out that not all hours are equal and that some types of work do not qualify for remuneration at all or that the rules for the clocking of work are not universally applied in the same way by everyone.

Not every interaction should have a monetary value, but Some of you want to keep working without being paid, because that feels a bit like communism within capitalism, it makes you feel good to contribute to the greater good while not having the system determine your value over money. I hear you. I ve been there (and sometimes still am). But as long as we live in this system, even though we didn t choose to and maybe even despise it - communism is not about working for free, it s about getting paid equally and adequately. We may not think about it while under the age of 40 or 45, but working without adequate financial compensation, even half of the time, will ultimately result in not being able to care for oneself when sick, when old. And while this may not be an issue for people who inherit wealth, or have an otherwise safe economical background, eg. an academic salary, it is a huge problem and barrier for many people coming out of the working or service classes. (Oh and please, don t repeat the neoliberal lie that everyone can achieve whatever they aim for, if they just tried hard enough. French research shows that (in France) one has only 30% chance to become a class defector , and change social class upwards. But I managed to get out and move up, so everyone can! - well, if you believe that I m afraid you might be experiencing survivor bias.)

Not all bodies are equally able We should also be aware that not all of us can work with the same amount of energy either. There is yet another category of people who are excluded by the expectation of volunteer work, either because the waged labour they do already eats all of their energy, or because their bodies are not disposed to do that much work, for example because of mental health issues - such as depression-, or because of physical disabilities.

When organizing events relying on volunteer work please think about these things. Yes, you can tell people that they should ask their employer to pay them for attending a hackathon - but, as I ve hopefully shown, that would not do it for many people, especially newcomers. Instead, you could propose a fund to make it possible that people who would not normally attend can attend. DebConf is a good example for having done this for many years.

Conclusively I would like to urge free software projects that have a budget and directly pay some people from it to map where they rely on volunteer work and how this hurts diversity in their project. How do you or your project exacerbate pre-existing lines of oppression by granting or not granting monetary value to certain types of work? What is it that you take for granted? As always, I m curious about your feedback!

Worth a read These ideas are far from being new. Ashe Dryden s well-researched post The ethics of unpaid labor and the OSS community dates back to 2013 and is as important as it was ten years ago.

A self-help guide for examining and debugging the AMD display driver within the Linux kernel/DRM subsystem. It s based on my experience as an external developer working on the driver, and are shared with the goal of helping others navigate the driver code. Acknowledgments: These tips were gathered thanks to the countless help received from AMD developers during the driver development process. The list below was obtained by examining open source code, reviewing public documentation, playing with tools, asking in public forums and also with the help of my former GSoC mentor, Rodrigo Siqueira.

Pre-Debugging Steps: Before diving into an issue, it s crucial to perform two essential steps: 1) Check the latest changes: Ensure you re working with the latest AMD driver modifications located in the amd-staging-drm-next branch maintained by Alex Deucher. You may also find bug fixes for newer kernel versions on branches that have the name pattern `drm-fixes-<date>`. 2) Examine the issue tracker: Confirm that your issue isn t already documented and addressed in the AMD display driver issue tracker. If you find a similar issue, you can team up with others and speed up the debugging process.

Understanding the issue: Do you really need to change this? Where should you start looking for changes? 3) Is the issue in the AMD kernel driver or in the userspace?: Identifying the source of the issue is essential regardless of the GPU vendor. Sometimes this can be challenging so here are some helpful tips:

Record the screen: Capture the screen using a recording app while experiencing the issue. If the bug appears in the capture, it s likely a userspace issue, not the kernel display driver.

Analyze the dmesg log: Look for error messages related to the display driver in the dmesg log. If the error message appears before the message `[drm] Display Core v...` , it s not likely a display driver issue. If this message doesn t appear in your log, the display driver wasn t fully loaded and you will see a notification that something went wrong here.

4) AMD Display Manager vs. AMD Display Core: The AMD display driver consists of two components:

Display Manager (DM): This component interacts directly with the Linux DRM infrastructure. Occasionally, issues can arise from misinterpretations of DRM properties or features. If the issue doesn t occur on other platforms with the same AMD hardware - for example, only happens on Linux but not on Windows - it s more likely related to the AMD DM code.

Display Core (DC): This is the platform-agnostic part responsible for setting and programming hardware features. Modifications to the DC usually require validation on other platforms, like Windows, to avoid regressions.

5) Identify the DC HW family: Each AMD GPU has variations in its hardware architecture. Features and helpers differ between families, so determining the relevant code for your specific hardware is crucial.

Find GPU product information in Linux/AMD GPU documentation

Check the dmesg log for the Display Core version (since this commit in Linux kernel 6.3v). For example:

`[drm] Display Core v3.2.241 initialized on DCN 2.1`

`[drm] Display Core v3.2.237 initialized on DCN 3.0.1`

Investigating the relevant driver code: Keep from letting unrelated driver code to affect your investigation. 6) Narrow the code inspection down to one DC HW family: the relevant code resides in a directory named after the DC number. For example, the DCN 3.0.1 driver code is located at drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dc/dcn301. We all know that the AMD s shared code is huge and you can use these boundaries to rule out codes unrelated to your issue. 7) Newer families may inherit code from older ones: you can find dcn301 using code from dcn30, dcn20, dcn10 files. It s crucial to verify which hooks and helpers your driver utilizes to investigate the right portion. You can leverage ftrace for supplemental validation. To give an example, it was useful when I was updating DCN3 color mapping to correctly use their new post-blending color capabilities, such as:

[PATCH] drm/amd/display: set stream gamut remap matrix to MPC for DCN3+

Additionally, you can use two different HW families to compare behaviours. If you see the issue in one but not in the other, you can compare the code and understand what has changed and if the implementation from a previous family doesn t fit well the new HW resources or design. You can also count on the help of the community on the Linux AMD issue tracker to validate your code on other hardware and/or systems. This approach helped me debug a 2-year-old issue where the cursor gamma adjustment was incorrect in DCN3 hardware, but working correctly for DCN2 family. I solved the issue in two steps, thanks for community feedback and validation:

8) Check the hardware capability screening in the driver: You can currently find a list of display hardware capabilities in the drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dc/dcn*/dcn*_resource.c file. More precisely in the dcn*_resource_construct() function. Using DCN301 for illustration, here is the list of its hardware caps:

	/*************************************************
	 *  Resource + asic cap harcoding                *
	 *************************************************/
	pool->base.underlay_pipe_index = NO_UNDERLAY_PIPE;
	pool->base.pipe_count = pool->base.res_cap->num_timing_generator;
	pool->base.mpcc_count = pool->base.res_cap->num_timing_generator;
	dc->caps.max_downscale_ratio = 600;
	dc->caps.i2c_speed_in_khz = 100;
	dc->caps.i2c_speed_in_khz_hdcp = 5; /*1.4 w/a enabled by default*/
	dc->caps.max_cursor_size = 256;
	dc->caps.min_horizontal_blanking_period = 80;
	dc->caps.dmdata_alloc_size = 2048;
	dc->caps.max_slave_planes = 2;
	dc->caps.max_slave_yuv_planes = 2;
	dc->caps.max_slave_rgb_planes = 2;
	dc->caps.is_apu = true;
	dc->caps.post_blend_color_processing = true;
	dc->caps.force_dp_tps4_for_cp2520 = true;
	dc->caps.extended_aux_timeout_support = true;
	dc->caps.dmcub_support = true;
	/* Color pipeline capabilities */
	dc->caps.color.dpp.dcn_arch = 1;
	dc->caps.color.dpp.input_lut_shared = 0;
	dc->caps.color.dpp.icsc = 1;
	dc->caps.color.dpp.dgam_ram = 0; // must use gamma_corr
	dc->caps.color.dpp.dgam_rom_caps.srgb = 1;
	dc->caps.color.dpp.dgam_rom_caps.bt2020 = 1;
	dc->caps.color.dpp.dgam_rom_caps.gamma2_2 = 1;
	dc->caps.color.dpp.dgam_rom_caps.pq = 1;
	dc->caps.color.dpp.dgam_rom_caps.hlg = 1;
	dc->caps.color.dpp.post_csc = 1;
	dc->caps.color.dpp.gamma_corr = 1;
	dc->caps.color.dpp.dgam_rom_for_yuv = 0;
	dc->caps.color.dpp.hw_3d_lut = 1;
	dc->caps.color.dpp.ogam_ram = 1;
	// no OGAM ROM on DCN301
	dc->caps.color.dpp.ogam_rom_caps.srgb = 0;
	dc->caps.color.dpp.ogam_rom_caps.bt2020 = 0;
	dc->caps.color.dpp.ogam_rom_caps.gamma2_2 = 0;
	dc->caps.color.dpp.ogam_rom_caps.pq = 0;
	dc->caps.color.dpp.ogam_rom_caps.hlg = 0;
	dc->caps.color.dpp.ocsc = 0;
	dc->caps.color.mpc.gamut_remap = 1;
	dc->caps.color.mpc.num_3dluts = pool->base.res_cap->num_mpc_3dlut; //2
	dc->caps.color.mpc.ogam_ram = 1;
	dc->caps.color.mpc.ogam_rom_caps.srgb = 0;
	dc->caps.color.mpc.ogam_rom_caps.bt2020 = 0;
	dc->caps.color.mpc.ogam_rom_caps.gamma2_2 = 0;
	dc->caps.color.mpc.ogam_rom_caps.pq = 0;
	dc->caps.color.mpc.ogam_rom_caps.hlg = 0;
	dc->caps.color.mpc.ocsc = 1;
	dc->caps.dp_hdmi21_pcon_support = true;
	/* read VBIOS LTTPR caps */
	if (ctx->dc_bios->funcs->get_lttpr_caps)  
		enum bp_result bp_query_result;
		uint8_t is_vbios_lttpr_enable = 0;
		bp_query_result = ctx->dc_bios->funcs->get_lttpr_caps(ctx->dc_bios, &is_vbios_lttpr_enable);
		dc->caps.vbios_lttpr_enable = (bp_query_result == BP_RESULT_OK) && !!is_vbios_lttpr_enable;
	 
	if (ctx->dc_bios->funcs->get_lttpr_interop)  
		enum bp_result bp_query_result;
		uint8_t is_vbios_interop_enabled = 0;
		bp_query_result = ctx->dc_bios->funcs->get_lttpr_interop(ctx->dc_bios, &is_vbios_interop_enabled);
		dc->caps.vbios_lttpr_aware = (bp_query_result == BP_RESULT_OK) && !!is_vbios_interop_enabled;
	 

Keep in mind that the documentation of color capabilities are available at the Linux kernel Documentation.

Understanding the development history: What has brought us to the current state? 9) Pinpoint relevant commits: Use `git log` and `git blame` to identify commits targeting the code section you re interested in. 10) Track regressions: If you re examining the `amd-staging-drm-next` branch, check for regressions between DC release versions. These are defined by `DC_VER` in the `drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dc/dc.h` file. Alternatively, find a commit with this format `drm/amd/display: 3.2.221` that determines a display release. It s useful for bisecting. This information helps you understand how outdated your branch is and identify potential regressions. You can consider each `DC_VER` takes around one week to be bumped. Finally, check testing log of each release in the report provided on the `amd-gfx` mailing list, such as this one `Tested-by: Daniel Wheeler`:

RE: [PATCH 00/13] DC Patches for Dec 11, 2023

Reducing the inspection area: Focus on what really matters. 11) Identify involved HW blocks: This helps isolate the issue. You can find more information about DCN HW blocks in the DCN Overview documentation. In summary:

Plane issues are closer to HUBP and DPP.

Blending/Stream issues are closer to MPC, OPP and OPTC. They are related to DRM CRTC subjects.

This information was useful when debugging a hardware rotation issue where the cursor plane got clipped off in the middle of the screen. Finally, the issue was addressed by two patches:

[PATCH 21/22] drm/amd/display: Fix rotated cursor offset calculation

[PATCH] drm/amd/display: fix cursor offset on rotation 180

12) Issues around bandwidth (glitches) and clocks: May be affected by calculations done in these HW blocks and HW specific values. The recalculation equations are found in the DML folder. DML stands for Display Mode Library. It s in charge of all required configuration parameters supported by the hardware for multiple scenarios. See more in the AMD DC Overview kernel docs. It s a math library that optimally configures hardware to find the best balance between power efficiency and performance in a given scenario. Finding some clk variables that affect device behavior may be a sign of it. It s hard for a external developer to debug this part, since it involves information from HW specs and firmware programming that we don t have access. The best option is to provide all relevant debugging information you have and ask AMD developers to check the values from your suspicions.

Do a trick: If you suspect the power setup is degrading performance, try setting the amount of power supplied to the GPU to the maximum and see if it affects the system behavior with this command: `sudo bash -c "echo high > /sys/class/drm/card0/device/power_dpm_force_performance_level"`

I learned it when debugging glitches with hardware cursor rotation on Steam Deck. My first attempt was changing the clock calculation. In the end, Rodrigo Siqueira proposed the right solution targeting bandwidth in two steps:

Patch series to create a new internal commit sequence

Enabling pipe split on DCN301

Checking implicit programming and hardware limitations: Bring implicit programming to the level of consciousness and recognize hardware limitations. 13) Implicit update types: Check if the selected type for atomic update may affect your issue. The update type depends on the mode settings, since programming some modes demands more time for hardware processing. More details in the source code:

/* Surface update type is used by dc_update_surfaces_and_stream
 * The update type is determined at the very beginning of the function based
 * on parameters passed in and decides how much programming (or updating) is
 * going to be done during the call.
 *
 * UPDATE_TYPE_FAST is used for really fast updates that do not require much
 * logical calculations or hardware register programming. This update MUST be
 * ISR safe on windows. Currently fast update will only be used to flip surface
 * address.
 *
 * UPDATE_TYPE_MED is used for slower updates which require significant hw
 * re-programming however do not affect bandwidth consumption or clock
 * requirements. At present, this is the level at which front end updates
 * that do not require us to run bw_calcs happen. These are in/out transfer func
 * updates, viewport offset changes, recout size changes and pixel
depth changes.
 * This update can be done at ISR, but we want to minimize how often
this happens.
 *
 * UPDATE_TYPE_FULL is slow. Really slow. This requires us to recalculate our
 * bandwidth and clocks, possibly rearrange some pipes and reprogram
anything front
 * end related. Any time viewport dimensions, recout dimensions,
scaling ratios or
 * gamma need to be adjusted or pipe needs to be turned on (or
disconnected) we do
 * a full update. This cannot be done at ISR level and should be a rare event.
 * Unless someone is stress testing mpo enter/exit, playing with
colour or adjusting
 * underscan we don't expect to see this call at all.
 */
enum surface_update_type  
UPDATE_TYPE_FAST, /* super fast, safe to execute in isr */
UPDATE_TYPE_MED,  /* ISR safe, most of programming needed, no bw/clk change*/
UPDATE_TYPE_FULL, /* may need to shuffle resources */
 ;

Using tools: Observe the current state, validate your findings, continue improvements. 14) Use AMD tools to check hardware state and driver programming: help on understanding your driver settings and checking the behavior when changing those settings.

DC Visual confirmation: Check multiple planes and pipe split policy.

DTN logs: Check display hardware state, including rotation, size, format, underflow, blocks in use, color block values, etc.

UMR: Check ASIC info, register values, KMS state - links and elements (framebuffers, planes, CRTCs, connectors). Source: UMR project documentation

15) Use generic DRM/KMS tools:

IGT test tools: Use generic KMS tests or develop your own to isolate the issue in the kernel space. Compare results across different GPU vendors to understand their implementations and find potential solutions. Here AMD also has specific IGT tests for its GPUs that is expect to work without failures on any AMD GPU. You can check results of HW-specific tests using different display hardware families or you can compare expected differences between the generic workflow and AMD workflow.

drm_info: This tool summarizes the current state of a display driver (capabilities, properties and formats) per element of the DRM/KMS workflow. Output can be helpful when reporting bugs.

Don t give up! Debugging issues in the AMD display driver can be challenging, but by following these tips and leveraging available resources, you can significantly improve your chances of success. Worth mentioning: This blog post builds upon my talk, I m not an AMD expert, but presented at the 2022 XDC. It shares guidelines that helped me debug AMD display issues as an external developer of the driver. Open Source Display Driver: The Linux kernel/AMD display driver is open source, allowing you to actively contribute by addressing issues listed in the official tracker. Tackling existing issues or resolving your own can be a rewarding learning experience and a valuable contribution to the community. Additionally, the tracker serves as a valuable resource for finding similar bugs, troubleshooting tips, and suggestions from AMD developers. Finally, it s a platform for seeking help when needed. Remember, contributing to the open source community through issue resolution and collaboration is mutually beneficial for everyone involved.

Welcome to the November 2023 report from the Reproducible Builds project! In these reports we outline the most important things that we have been up to over the past month. As a rather rapid recap, whilst anyone may inspect the source code of free software for malicious flaws, almost all software is distributed to end users as pre-compiled binaries (more).

Reproducible Builds Summit 2023 Between October 31st and November 2nd, we held our seventh Reproducible Builds Summit in Hamburg, Germany! Amazingly, the agenda and all notes from all sessions are all online many thanks to everyone who wrote notes from the sessions. As a followup on one idea, started at the summit, Alexander Couzens and Holger Levsen started work on a cache (or tailored front-end) for the snapshot.debian.org service. The general idea is that, when rebuilding Debian, you do not actually need the whole ~140TB of data from snapshot.debian.org; rather, only a very small subset of the packages are ever used for for building. It turns out, for `amd64`, `arm64`, `armhf`, `i386`, `ppc64el`, `riscv64` and `s390` for Debian trixie, unstable and experimental, this is only around 500GB ie. less than 1%. Although the new service not yet ready for usage, it has already provided a promising outlook in this regard. More information is available on https://rebuilder-snapshot.debian.net and we hope that this service becomes usable in the coming weeks. The adjacent picture shows a sticky note authored by Jan-Benedict Glaw at the summit in Hamburg, confirming Holger Levsen s theory that rebuilding all Debian packages needs a very small subset of packages, the text states that 69,200 packages (in Debian sid) list 24,850 packages in their `.buildinfo` files, in 8,0200 variations. This little piece of paper was the beginning of rebuilder-snapshot and is a direct outcome of the summit! The Reproducible Builds team would like to thank our event sponsors who include Mullvad VPN, openSUSE, Debian, Software Freedom Conservancy, Allotropia and Aspiration Tech.

Beyond Trusting FOSS presentation at SeaGL On November 4th, Vagrant Cascadian presented Beyond Trusting FOSS at SeaGL in Seattle, WA in the United States. Founded in 2013, SeaGL is a free, grassroots technical summit dedicated to spreading awareness and knowledge about free source software, hardware and culture. The summary of Vagrant s talk mentions that it will:
[ ] introduce the concepts of Reproducible Builds, including best practices for developing and releasing software, the tools available to help diagnose issues, and touch on progress towards solving decades-old deeply pervasive fundamental security issues Learn how to verify and demonstrate trust, rather than simply hoping everything is OK!
Germane to the contents of the talk, the slides for Vagrant s talk can be built reproducibly, resulting in a PDF with a SHA1 of `cfde2f8a0b7e6ec9b85377eeac0661d728b70f34` when built on Debian bookworm and `c21fab273232c550ce822c4b0d9988e6c49aa2c3` on Debian sid at the time of writing.

Human Factors in Software Supply Chain Security Marcel Fourn , Dominik Wermke, Sascha Fahl and Yasemin Acar have published an article in a Special Issue of the IEEE s Security & Privacy magazine. Entitled A Viewpoint on Human Factors in Software Supply Chain Security: A Research Agenda, the paper justifies the need for reproducible builds to reach developers and end-users specifically, and furthermore points out some under-researched topics that we have seen mentioned in interviews. An author pre-print of the article is available in PDF form.

Community updates On our mailing list this month:

Julien Lepiller mentioned that they were interested in translating our website, and provided offered GNU Guix s translation framework (Weblate) as a potential model to emulate.

Bernhard M. Wiedemann posted a positive LibreOffice success story documenting that, after some work:
[ ] today I hold in my hands the first two bit-identical LibreOffice rpm packages. And this is the success I wanted to share with you all today [and] it makes me feel as if we can solve anything.

kpcyrd reported on their excellent results with making `esp32c3` microcontroller firmware reproducible with Rust, repro-env and Arch Linux:
I chose the `esp32c3` [board] because it has good Rust support from the `esp-rs` project, and you can get a dev board for about 6-8 . To document my build environment I used `repro-env` together with Arch Linux because its archive is very reliable and contains all the different Rust development tools I needed.

Separate to their work on LibreOffice however, Bernhard M. Wiedemann also requested assistance with a number of packages that so far refuse to build reproducibly. He writes that the common theme around them is that they use scheme or lisp to produce binaries with a `dump` command and hopes that someone may be able to help.

Finally, Fay Stegerman regrettably reports that she will no longer be able to work on Android reproducible builds nor update the Reproducible Builds community with the status of reproducibility within F-Droid.

openSUSE updates Bernhard M. Wiedemann has created a wiki page outlining an proposal to create a general-purpose Linux distribution which consists of 100% bit-reproducible packages albeit minus the embedded signature within RPM files. It would be based on openSUSE Tumbleweed or, if available, its Slowroll-variant. In addition, Bernhard posted another monthly update for his work elsewhere in openSUSE.

Reproducibility-related changes in Debian As recently reported in the most recent Debian Developer News, Paul Gevers has integrated a package s reproducibility status into the way Debian migrates packages into the next stable release. For the `amd64`, `arm64`, `i386` and `armhf` architectures, data is collected from the Reproducible Builds testing framework is collected by this migration software even though, at the time of writing, it neither causes nor migration bonuses nor blocks migration. Indeed, the information only results are visible on Britney s excuses as well as on individual packages pages on tracker.debian.org.

Ubuntu Launchpad now supports `.buildinfo` files Back in 2017, Steve Langasek filed a bug against Ubuntu s Launchpad code hosting platform to report that `.changes` files (artifacts of building Ubuntu and Debian packages) reference `.buildinfo` files that aren t actually exposed by Launchpad itself. This was causing issues when attempting to process `.changes` files with tools such as Lintian. However, it was noticed last month that, in early August of this year, Simon Quigley had resolved this issue, and `.buildinfo` files are now available from the Launchpad system.

PHP reproducibility updates There have been two updates from the PHP programming language this month. Firstly, the widely-deployed PHPUnit framework for the PHP programming language have recently released version 10.5.0, which introduces the inclusion of a `composer.lock` file, ensuring total reproducibility of the shipped binary file. Further details and the discussion that went into their particular implementation can be found on the associated GitHub pull request. In addition, the presentation Leveraging Nix in the PHP ecosystem has been given in late October at the PHP International Conference in Munich by Pol Dellaiera. While the video replay is not yet available, the (reproducible) presentation slides and speaker notes are available.

diffoscope changes diffoscope is our in-depth and content-aware diff utility that can locate and diagnose reproducibility issues. This month, Chris Lamb made a number of changes, including:

Improving DOS/MBR extraction by adding support for `7z`. [ ]

Adding a missing `RequiredToolNotFound` import. [ ]

As a UI/UX improvement, try and avoid printing an extended traceback if diffoscope runs out of memory. [ ]

Mark diffoscope as stable on PyPI.org. [ ]

Uploading version `252` to Debian unstable. [ ]

Website updates A huge number of notes were added to our website that were taken at our recent Reproducible Builds Summit held between October 31st and November 2nd in Hamburg, Germany. In particular, a big thanks to Arnout Engelen, Bernhard M. Wiedemann, Daan De Meyer, Evangelos Ribeiro Tzaras, Holger Levsen and Orhun Parmaks z. In addition to this, a number of other changes were made, including:

Chris Lamb migrated the website s homepage to a hero image [ ], improved the documentation related to `SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH` and CMake [ ], added iomart (ne Bytemark) and DigitalOcean to our sponsors page [ ] and dropped an unnecessary link on some horizontal navigation buttons [ ].

Holger Levsen also made a large number of notes pages from our 2022 summit in Venice [ ], migrated the website s syntax highlighter from [Pygments]https://pygments.org/() to Rouge [ ], fixed some grammar on our donate page [ ][ ][ ] and did a lot of updates to the Hamburg Summit s general information page [ ][ ].

Upstream patches The Reproducible Builds project detects, dissects and attempts to fix as many currently-unreproducible packages as possible. We endeavour to send all of our patches upstream where appropriate. This month, we wrote a large number of such patches, including:

Bernhard M. Wiedemann:

`amber-cli` (date-related issue)

`bin86` (FTBFS-2038)

`buildah` (timestamp)

`colord` (CPU)

`google-noto-fonts` (file modification issue)

`grub2` (directory-related metadata)

`guile-fibers` (parallelism issue)

`guile-newt` (parallelism issue)

`gutenprint` (embedded date/hostname)

`hub` (random build path)

`ipxe` (nondeterministic behavoiour)

`joker` / `joker`

`kopete` (undefined behaviour)

`kraft` (embedde hostname)

`libcamera` (signature)

`libguestfs` (embeds build host file)

`llvm` (toolchain/Rust-related issue)

`nfdump` (date-related issue)

`ovmf` (unknown cause)

`quazip` (missing fonts)

`rdflib` (nondeterminstic behaviour)

`rpm` (toolchain)

`tigervnc` (embedded an RSA signature)

`whatsie` (date-related issue)

`xen` (time-related issue)

Cathy Hu:

`policycoreutils` (sort-related issue)

Chris Lamb:

#1055919 filed against `python-ansible-pygments`.

#1055920 filed against `bidict`.

#1056117 filed against `meson`.

#1056118 filed against `radsecproxy`.

#1056119 filed against `taffybar`.

#1056398 filed against `php-doc`.

#1056571 filed against `pelican`.

#1056572 filed against `maildir-utils`.

#1056573 filed against `openmrac-data`.

#1056649 filed against `vectorscan`.

Vagrant Cascadian:

#1055969 filed against `kuttypy`.

Reproducibility testing framework The Reproducible Builds project operates a comprehensive testing framework (available at tests.reproducible-builds.org) in order to check packages and other artifacts for reproducibility. In October, a number of changes were made by Holger Levsen:

Debian-related changes:

Track packages marked as `Priority: important` in a new package set. [ ][ ]

Stop scheduling packages that fail to build from source in bookworm [ ] and bullseye. [ ].

Add old releases dashboard link in web navigation. [ ]

Permit re-run of the `pool_buildinfos` script to be re-run for a specific year. [ ]

Grant jbglaw access to the `osuosl4` node [ ][ ] along with lynxis [ ].

Increase RAM on the `amd64` Ionos builders from 48 GiB to 64 GiB; thanks IONOS! [ ]

Move buster to archived suites. [ ][ ]

Reduce the number of `arm64` architecture workers from 24 to 16 in order to improve stability [ ], reduce the workers for `amd64` from 32 to 28 and, for `i386`, reduce from 12 down to 8 [ ].

Show the entire build history of each Debian package. [ ]

Stop scheduling already tested package/version combinations in Debian bookworm. [ ]

Snapshot service for rebuilders

Add an HTTP-based API endpoint. [ ][ ]

Add a Gunicorn instance to serve the HTTP API. [ ]

Add an NGINX config [ ][ ][ ][ ]

System-health:

Detect failures due to HTTP 503 Service Unavailable errors. [ ]

Detect failures to update package sets. [ ]

Detect unmet dependencies. (This usually occurs with builds of Debian `live-build`.) [ ]

Misc-related changes:

do install systemd-ommd on jenkins. [ ]

fix harmless typo in squid.conf for codethink04. [ ]

fixup: reproducible Debian: add gunicorn service to serve /api for rebuilder-snapshot.d.o. [ ]

Increase codethink04 s Squid `cache_dir` size setting to 16 GiB. [ ]

Don t install `systemd-oomd` as it unfortunately kills `sshd` [ ]

Use `debootstrap` from backports when commisioning nodes. [ ]

Add the `live_build_debian_stretch_gnome`, `debsums-tests_buster` and `debsums-tests_buster` jobs to the zombie list. [ ][ ]

Run `jekyll build` with the `--watch` argument when building the Reproducible Builds website. [ ]

Misc node maintenance. [ ][ ][ ]

Other changes were made as well, however, including Mattia Rizzolo fixing `rc.local` s Bash syntax so it can actually run [ ], commenting away some file cleanup code that is (potentially) deleting too much [ ] and fixing the `html_brekages` page for Debian package builds [ ]. Finally, diagnosed and submitted a patch to add a `AddEncoding gzip .gz` line to the tests.reproducible-builds.org Apache configuration so that Gzip files aren t re-compressed as Gzip which some clients can t deal with (as well as being a waste of time). [ ]

If you are interested in contributing to the Reproducible Builds project, please visit our Contribute page on our website. However, you can get in touch with us via:

IRC: `#reproducible-builds` on `irc.oftc.net`.

Mailing list: `rb-general@lists.reproducible-builds.org`

Mastodon: @reproducible_builds

Twitter: @ReproBuilds

A new release of my mixed collection of things package dang package arrived at CRAN a little while ago. The dang package regroups a few functions of mine that had no other home as for example lsos() from a StackOverflow question from 2009 (!!), the overbought/oversold price band plotter from an older blog post, the market monitor blogged about as well as the checkCRANStatus() function tweeted about by Tim Taylor. And more so take a look. This release brings a number of updates, including a rather nice improvement to the market monitor making updates buttery smooth and not flickering (with big thanks to Paul Murrell who calmly pointed out once again that base R does of course have the functionality I was seeking) as well as three new functions (!!) and then a little maintenance on the -Wformat print format string issue that kept everybody busy this week. The NEWS entry follows.

Changes in version 0.0.16 (2023-12-02)

Added new function str.language() based on post by Bill Dunlap

Added new argument sleep in intradayMarketMonitor

Switched to dev.hold() and dev.flush() in intradayMarketMonitor with thanks to Paul Murrell

Updated continued integration setup, twice, and package badges

Added new function shadowedPackages

Added new function limitDataTableCores

Updated two error() calls to updated tidyCpp signature to not tickle -Wformat warnings under R-devel

Updated two URL to please link checks in R-devel

Switch two tests for variable of variable to is.* and inherits(), respectively

Courtesy of my CRANberries, there is a comparison to [the previous release][previous releases]. For questions or comments use the the issue tracker at the GitHub repo. If you like this or other open-source work I do, you can now sponsor me at GitHub.

This post by Dirk Eddelbuettel originated on his Thinking inside the box blog. Please report excessive re-aggregation in third-party for-profit settings.

A maintenance release of the tidyCpp package arrived on CRAN this morning. The packages offers a clean C++ layer (as well as one small C++ helper class) on top of the C API for R which aims to make use of this robust (if awkward) C API a little easier and more consistent. See the vignette for motivating examples. This release follows a number of other releases this week in accomodating the recently added -Wformat -Wformat-security from the development branch of R. It also includes a new example snippet illustrating creation of a numeric matrix. The NEWS entry follows.

Changes in tidyCpp version 0.0.7 (2023-11-30)

Add an example for a numeric matrix creator

Update the continuous integration setup

Accomodate print format warnings from r-devel

Thanks to my CRANberries, there is also a diffstat report for this release. For questions, suggestions, or issues please use the issue tracker at the GitHub repo. If you like this or other open-source work I do, you can now sponsor me at GitHub.

This post by Dirk Eddelbuettel originated on his Thinking inside the box blog. Please report excessive re-aggregation in third-party for-profit settings.

I do not think seasoned Debian contributors quite appreciate how much knowledge we have picked up and internalized. As an example, when I need to look up documentation for debhelper, I generally know which manpage to look in. I suspect most long time contributors would be able to a similar thing (maybe down 2-3 manpages). But new contributors does not have the luxury of years of experience. This problem is by no means unique to debhelper. One thing that debhelper does very well, is that it is hard for users to tell where a addon "starts" and debhelper "ends". It is clear you use addons, but the transition in and out of third party provided tools is generally smooth. This is a sign that things "just work(tm)". Except when it comes to documentation. Here, debhelper's static documentation does not include documentation for third party tooling. If you think from a debhelper maintainer's perspective, this seems obvious. Embedding documentation for all the third-party code would be very hard work, a layer-violation, etc.. But from a user perspective, we should not have to care "who" provides "what". As as user, I want to understand how this works and the more hoops I have to jump through to get that understanding, the more frustrated I will be with the toolstack. With this, I came to the conclusion that the best way to help users and solve the problem of finding the documentation was to provide "online documentation". It should be possible to ask debputy, "What attributes can I use in install-man?" or "What does path-metadata do?". Additionally, the lookup should work the same no matter if debputy provided the feature or some third-party plugin did. In the future, perhaps also other types of documentation such as tutorials or how-to guides. Below, I have some tentative results of my work so far. There are some improvements to be done. Notably, the commands for these documentation features are still treated a "plugin" subcommand features and should probably have its own top level "ask-me-anything" subcommand in the future.

Automatic discard rules Since the introduction of install rules, debputy has included an automatic filter mechanism that prunes out unwanted content. In 0.1.9, these filters have been named "Automatic discard rules" and you can now ask debputy to list them.

$ debputy plugin list automatic-discard-rules
+-----------------------+-------------+
  Name                    Provided By  
+-----------------------+-------------+
  python-cache-files      debputy      
  la-files                debputy      
  backup-files            debputy      
  version-control-paths   debputy      
  gnu-info-dir-file       debputy      
  debian-dir              debputy      
  doxygen-cruft-files     debputy      
+-----------------------+-------------+

For these rules, the provider can both provide a description but also an example of their usage.

$ debputy plugin show automatic-discard-rules la-files
Automatic Discard Rule: la-files
================================
Documentation: Discards any .la files beneath /usr/lib
Example
-------
    /usr/lib/libfoo.la        << Discarded (directly by the rule)
    /usr/lib/libfoo.so.1.0.0

The example is a live example. That is, the provider will provide debputy with a scenario and the expected outcome of that scenario. Here is the concrete code in debputy that registers this example:

api.automatic_discard_rule(
    "la-files",
    _debputy_prune_la_files,
    rule_reference_documentation="Discards any .la files beneath /usr/lib",
    examples=automatic_discard_rule_example(
        "usr/lib/libfoo.la",
        ("usr/lib/libfoo.so.1.0.0", False),
    ),
)

When showing the example, debputy will validate the example matches what the plugin provider intended. Lets say I was to introduce a bug in the code, so that the discard rule no longer worked. Then debputy would start to show the following:

# Output if the code or example is broken
$ debputy plugin show automatic-discard-rules la-files
[...]
Automatic Discard Rule: la-files
================================
Documentation: Discards any .la files beneath /usr/lib
Example
-------
    /usr/lib/libfoo.la        !! INCONSISTENT (code: keep, example: discard)
    /usr/lib/libfoo.so.1.0.0
debputy: warning: The example was inconsistent. Please file a bug against the plugin debputy

Obviously, it would be better if this validation could be added directly as a plugin test, so the CI pipeline would catch it. That is one my personal TODO list. :) One final remark about automatic discard rules before moving on. In 0.1.9, debputy will also list any path automatically discarded by one of these rules in the build output to make sure that the automatic discard rule feature is more discoverable.

Plugable manifest rules like the install rule In the manifest, there are several places where rules can be provided by plugins. To make life easier for users, debputy can now since 0.1.8 list all provided rules:

$ debputy plugin list plugable-manifest-rules
+-------------------------------+------------------------------+-------------+
  Rule Name                       Rule Type                      Provided By  
+-------------------------------+------------------------------+-------------+
  install                         InstallRule                    debputy      
  install-docs                    InstallRule                    debputy      
  install-examples                InstallRule                    debputy      
  install-doc                     InstallRule                    debputy      
  install-example                 InstallRule                    debputy      
  install-man                     InstallRule                    debputy      
  discard                         InstallRule                    debputy      
  move                            TransformationRule             debputy      
  remove                          TransformationRule             debputy      
  [...]                           [...]                          [...]        
  remove                          DpkgMaintscriptHelperCommand   debputy      
  rename                          DpkgMaintscriptHelperCommand   debputy      
  cross-compiling                 ManifestCondition              debputy      
  can-execute-compiled-binaries   ManifestCondition              debputy      
  run-build-time-tests            ManifestCondition              debputy      
  [...]                           [...]                          [...]        
+-------------------------------+------------------------------+-------------+

(Output trimmed a bit for space reasons) And you can then ask debputy to describe any of these rules:

$ debputy plugin show plugable-manifest-rules install
Generic install ( install )
===========================
The generic  install  rule can be used to install arbitrary paths into packages
and is *similar* to how  dh_install  from debhelper works.  It is a two "primary" uses.
  1) The classic "install into directory" similar to the standard  dh_install 
  2) The "install as" similar to  dh-exec 's  foo => bar  feature.
Attributes:
 -  source  (conditional): string
    sources  (conditional): List of string
   A path match ( source ) or a list of path matches ( sources ) defining the
   source path(s) to be installed. [...]
 -  dest-dir  (optional): string
   A path defining the destination *directory*. [...]
 -  into  (optional): string or a list of string
   A path defining the destination *directory*. [...]
 -  as  (optional): string
   A path defining the path to install the source as. [...]
 -  when  (optional): manifest condition (string or mapping of string)
   A condition as defined in [Conditional rules](https://salsa.debian.org/debian/debputy/-/blob/main/MANIFEST-FORMAT.md#Conditional rules).
This rule enforces the following restrictions:
 - The rule must use exactly one of:  source ,  sources 
 - The attribute  as  cannot be used with any of:  dest-dir ,  sources 
[...]

(Output trimmed a bit for space reasons) All the attributes and restrictions are auto-computed by debputy from information provided by the plugin. The associated documentation for each attribute is supplied by the plugin itself, The debputy API validates that all attributes are covered and the documentation does not describe non-existing fields. This ensures that you as a plugin provider never forget to document new attributes when you add them later. The debputy API for manifest rules are not quite stable yet. So currently only debputy provides rules here. However, it is my intention to lift that restriction in the future. I got the idea of supporting online validated examples when I was building this feature. However, sadly, I have not gotten around to supporting it yet.

Manifest variables like PACKAGE I also added a similar documentation feature for manifest variables such as PACKAGE . When I implemented this, I realized listing all manifest variables by default would probably be counter productive to new users. As an example, if you list all variables by default it would include DEB_HOST_MULTIARCH (the most common case) side-by-side with the the much less used DEB_BUILD_MULTIARCH and the even lessor used DEB_TARGET_MULTIARCH variable. Having them side-by-side implies they are of equal importance, which they are not. As an example, the ballpark number of unique packages for which DEB_TARGET_MULTIARCH is useful can be counted on two hands (and maybe two feet if you consider gcc-X distinct from gcc-Y). This is one of the cases, where experience makes us blind. Many of us probably have the "show me everything and I will find what I need" mentality. But that requires experience to be able to pull that off - especially if all alternatives are presented as equals. The cross-building terminology has proven to notoriously match poorly to people's expectation. Therefore, I took a deliberate choice to reduce the list of shown variables by default and in the output explicitly list what filters were active. In the current version of debputy (0.1.9), the listing of manifest-variables look something like this:

$ debputy plugin list manifest-variables
+----------------------------------+----------------------------------------+------+-------------+
  Variable (use via:   NAME  )   Value                                    Flag   Provided by  
+----------------------------------+----------------------------------------+------+-------------+
  DEB_HOST_ARCH                      amd64                                           debputy      
  [... other DEB_HOST_* vars ...]    [...]                                           debputy      
  DEB_HOST_MULTIARCH                 x86_64-linux-gnu                                debputy      
  DEB_SOURCE                         debputy                                         debputy      
  DEB_VERSION                        0.1.8                                           debputy      
  DEB_VERSION_EPOCH_UPSTREAM         0.1.8                                           debputy      
  DEB_VERSION_UPSTREAM               0.1.8                                           debputy      
  DEB_VERSION_UPSTREAM_REVISION      0.1.8                                           debputy      
  PACKAGE                            <package-name>                                  debputy      
  path:BASH_COMPLETION_DIR           /usr/share/bash-completion/completions          debputy      
+----------------------------------+----------------------------------------+------+-------------+
+-----------------------+--------+-------------------------------------------------------+
  Variable type           Value    Option                                                 
+-----------------------+--------+-------------------------------------------------------+
  Token variables         hidden   --show-token-variables OR --show-all-variables         
  Special use variables   hidden   --show-special-case-variables OR --show-all-variables  
+-----------------------+--------+-------------------------------------------------------+

I will probably tweak the concrete listing in the future. Personally, I am considering to provide short-hands variables for some of the DEB_HOST_* variables and then hide the DEB_HOST_* group from the default view as well. Maybe something like ARCH and MULTIARCH, which would default to their DEB_HOST_* counter part. This variable could then have extended documentation that high lights DEB_HOST_<X> as its source and imply that there are special cases for cross-building where you might need DEB_BUILD_<X> or DEB_TARGET_<X>. Speaking of variable documentation, you can also lookup the documentation for a given manifest variable:

$ debputy plugin show manifest-variables path:BASH_COMPLETION_DIR
Variable: path:BASH_COMPLETION_DIR
==================================
Documentation: Directory to install bash completions into
Resolved: /usr/share/bash-completion/completions
Plugin: debputy

This was my update on online reference documentation for debputy. I hope you found it useful. :)

Thanks On a closing note, I would like to thanks Jochen Sprickerhof, Andres Salomon, Paul Gevers for their recent contributions to debputy. Jochen and Paul provided a number of real world cases where debputy would crash or not work, which have now been fixed. Andres and Paul also provided corrections to the documentation.

At Arm for two days before the mini-Debconf this weekend.First time at Arm for a few years: huge new buildings, shiny lecture theatre.Arm have made us very welcome. A superb buffet lunch and unlimited coffee plus soft drinks - I think they know what Debian folk are like.
Not enough power blocks laid out at the beginning - only one per table - but we soon fixed that
The room is full of Debian folk: some I know, some new faces. Reminiscing about meeting some of them from 25 years ago - and the chance to thank people for help over a long time.
Andy (RattusRattus) and I have been working out the bugs on an install script using UEFI for a Raspberry Pi 4. More on that in the next post, maybe.As ever, it's the sort of place where "I can't get into the wiki" is sorted by walking three metres across the room or where an "I can't find where to get X for Raspberry Pi" can be solved by asking the person who builds Raspbian. "Did you try and sign up to the Debian wiki last week - you didn't follow the instructions to mail wiki@ - I _know_ you didn't because I didn't see the mail ... "

My kind of place and my kind of people, as ever.

Thanks again to Arm who are one of our primary sponsors for this mini-Debconf.

Here in the US, we celebrate Thanksgiving tomorrow. I am thankful to be a part of such an amazing community. I have raised enough to manage another month and I can continue my job search in less dire circumstances. I am truly grateful to each and every one of you. While my focus will remain on my job hunt, I will be back next week at reduced hours to maintain my work. I have to alter my priorities to keep my hours reduced enough to focus on my job search so I will be contributing as follows:

I will ramp up my Debian work to increase my skillset here, as it is an important skill and one that I am seeking employment in. I will be increasing the areas of expertise in packaging different languages, security updates and help the KDE team with the Qt6 transition.
I will continue to help where I can with KDE neon, because well, I love KDE neon and our team. If time allows, I would like to help with moving forward with Harald s initial work to transition us to use Gitlab infrastructure. It will be a big move from Jenkins.
Snaps: I will only support our Qt5 snaps at this point. That entails possibly one more release and I will maintain / fix bugs on these. Snaps have been a huge chunk of my time ( 191 snaps! plus content packs, extensions, updates, fixes, solving confinement issues ). I simply cannot do it all over again with Qt6. Unless of course someone wants to fund my work. Then I will reconsider.
I am also going to expand my knowledge in the containerized world with Flatpaks and refresher on Appimages to flesh out my resume.

Again, thank you all ever so much for your support. Though, this didn t end up being my year, I am confident I will find my place in this career path in the near future. I could still use some funds to make land and car payment or at least partial. We purchased from friends so they won t take away my wheels or home, I just feel bad I haven t been able to make payments in awhile. Thanks for your consideration. https://gofund.me/f9f0fb53

Did you hear the news? Firefox development is moving from Mercurial to Git. While the decision is far from being mine, and I was barely involved in the small incremental changes that ultimately led to this decision, I feel I have to take at least some responsibility. And if you are one of those who would rather use Mercurial than Git, you may direct all your ire at me. But let's take a step back and review the past 25 years leading to this decision. You'll forgive me for skipping some details and any possible inaccuracies. This is already a long post, while I could have been more thorough, even I think that would have been too much. This is also not an official Mozilla position, only my personal perception and recollection as someone who was involved at times, but mostly an observer from a distance. From CVS to DVCS From its release in 1998, the Mozilla source code was kept in a CVS repository. If you're too young to know what CVS is, let's just say it's an old school version control system, with its set of problems. Back then, it was mostly ubiquitous in the Open Source world, as far as I remember. In the early 2000s, the Subversion version control system gained some traction, solving some of the problems that came with CVS. Incidentally, Subversion was created by Jim Blandy, who now works at Mozilla on completely unrelated matters. In the same period, the Linux kernel development moved from CVS to Bitkeeper, which was more suitable to the distributed nature of the Linux community. BitKeeper had its own problem, though: it was the opposite of Open Source, but for most pragmatic people, it wasn't a real concern because free access was provided. Until it became a problem: someone at OSDL developed an alternative client to BitKeeper, and licenses of BitKeeper were rescinded for OSDL members, including Linus Torvalds (they were even prohibited from purchasing one). Following this fiasco, in April 2005, two weeks from each other, both Git and Mercurial were born. The former was created by Linus Torvalds himself, while the latter was developed by Olivia Mackall, who was a Linux kernel developer back then. And because they both came out of the same community for the same needs, and the same shared experience with BitKeeper, they both were similar distributed version control systems. Interestingly enough, several other DVCSes existed:

SVK, a DVCS built on top of Subversion, allowing users to create local (offline) branches of remote Subversion repositories. It was also known for its powerful merging capabilities. I picked it at some point for my Debian work, mainly because I needed to interact with Subversion repositories.
Arch (tla), later known as GNU arch. From what I remember, it was awful to use. You think Git is complex or confusing? Arch was way worse. It was forked as "Bazaar", but the fork was abandoned in favor of "Bazaar-NG", now known as "Bazaar" or "bzr", a much more user-friendly DVCS. The first release of Bzr actually precedes Git's by two weeks. I guess it was too new to be considered by Linus Torvalds for the Linux kernel needs.
Monotone, which I don't know much about, but it was mentioned by Linus Torvalds two days before the initial Git commit of Git. As far as I know, it was too slow for the Linux kernel's needs. I'll note in passing that Monotone is the creation of Graydon Hoare, who also created Rust.
Darcs, with its patch-based model, rather than the common snapshot-based model, allowed more flexible management of changes. This approach came, however, at the expense of performance.

In this landscape, the major difference Git was making at the time was that it was blazing fast. Almost incredibly so, at least on Linux systems. That was less true on other platforms (especially Windows). It was a game-changer for handling large codebases in a smooth manner. Anyways, two years later, in 2007, Mozilla decided to move its source code not to Bzr, not to Git, not to Subversion (which, yes, was a contender), but to Mercurial. The decision "process" was laid down in two rather colorful blog posts. My memory is a bit fuzzy, but I don't recall that it was a particularly controversial choice. All of those DVCSes were still young, and there was no definite "winner" yet (GitHub hadn't even been founded). It made the most sense for Mozilla back then, mainly because the Git experience on Windows still wasn't there, and that mattered a lot for Mozilla, with its diverse platform support. As a contributor, I didn't think much of it, although to be fair, at the time, I was mostly consuming the source tarballs. Personal preferences Digging through my archives, I've unearthed a forgotten chapter: I did end up setting up both a Mercurial and a Git mirror of the Firefox source repository on alioth.debian.org. Alioth.debian.org was a FusionForge-based collaboration system for Debian developers, similar to SourceForge. It was the ancestor of salsa.debian.org. I used those mirrors for the Debian packaging of Firefox (cough cough Iceweasel). The Git mirror was created with hg-fast-export, and the Mercurial mirror was only a necessary step in the process. By that time, I had converted my Subversion repositories to Git, and switched off SVK. Incidentally, I started contributing to Git around that time as well. I apparently did this not too long after Mozilla switched to Mercurial. As a Linux user, I think I just wanted the speed that Mercurial was not providing. Not that Mercurial was that slow, but the difference between a couple seconds and a couple hundred milliseconds was a significant enough difference in user experience for me to prefer Git (and Firefox was not the only thing I was using version control for) Other people had also similarly created their own mirror, or with other tools. But none of them were "compatible": their commit hashes were different. Hg-git, used by the latter, was putting extra information in commit messages that would make the conversion differ, and hg-fast-export would just not be consistent with itself! My mirror is long gone, and those have not been updated in more than a decade. I did end up using Mercurial, when I got commit access to the Firefox source repository in April 2010. I still kept using Git for my Debian activities, but I now was also using Mercurial to push to the Mozilla servers. I joined Mozilla as a contractor a few months after that, and kept using Mercurial for a while, but as a, by then, long time Git user, it never really clicked for me. It turns out, the sentiment was shared by several at Mozilla. Git incursion In the early 2010s, GitHub was becoming ubiquitous, and the Git mindshare was getting large. Multiple projects at Mozilla were already entirely hosted on GitHub. As for the Firefox source code base, Mozilla back then was kind of a Wild West, and engineers being engineers, multiple people had been using Git, with their own inconvenient workflows involving a local Mercurial clone. The most popular set of scripts was moz-git-tools, to incorporate changes in a local Git repository into the local Mercurial copy, to then send to Mozilla servers. In terms of the number of people doing that, though, I don't think it was a lot of people, probably a few handfuls. On my end, I was still keeping up with Mercurial. I think at that time several engineers had their own unofficial Git mirrors on GitHub, and later on Ehsan Akhgari provided another mirror, with a twist: it also contained the full CVS history, which the canonical Mercurial repository didn't have. This was particularly interesting for engineers who needed to do some code archeology and couldn't get past the 2007 cutoff of the Mercurial repository. I think that mirror ultimately became the official-looking, but really unofficial, mozilla-central repository on GitHub. On a side note, a Mercurial repository containing the CVS history was also later set up, but that didn't lead to something officially supported on the Mercurial side. Some time around 2011~2012, I started to more seriously consider using Git for work myself, but wasn't satisfied with the workflows others had set up for themselves. I really didn't like the idea of wasting extra disk space keeping a Mercurial clone around while using a Git mirror. I wrote a Python script that would use Mercurial as a library to access a remote repository and produce a git-fast-import stream. That would allow the creation of a git repository without a local Mercurial clone. It worked quite well, but it was not able to incrementally update. Other, more complete tools existed already, some of which I mentioned above. But as time was passing and the size and depth of the Mercurial repository was growing, these tools were showing their limits and were too slow for my taste, especially for the initial clone. Boot to Git In the same time frame, Mozilla ventured in the Mobile OS sphere with Boot to Gecko, later known as Firefox OS. What does that have to do with version control? The needs of third party collaborators in the mobile space led to the creation of what is now the gecko-dev repository on GitHub. As I remember it, it was challenging to create, but once it was there, Git users could just clone it and have a working, up-to-date local copy of the Firefox source code and its history... which they could already have, but this was the first officially supported way of doing so. Coincidentally, Ehsan's unofficial mirror was having trouble (to the point of GitHub closing the repository) and was ultimately shut down in December 2013. You'll often find comments on the interwebs about how GitHub has become unreliable since the Microsoft acquisition. I can't really comment on that, but if you think GitHub is unreliable now, rest assured that it was worse in its beginning. And its sustainability as a platform also wasn't a given, being a rather new player. So on top of having this official mirror on GitHub, Mozilla also ventured in setting up its own Git server for greater control and reliability. But the canonical repository was still the Mercurial one, and while Git users now had a supported mirror to pull from, they still had to somehow interact with Mercurial repositories, most notably for the Try server. Git slowly creeping in Firefox build tooling Still in the same time frame, tooling around building Firefox was improving drastically. For obvious reasons, when version control integration was needed in the tooling, Mercurial support was always a no-brainer. The first explicit acknowledgement of a Git repository for the Firefox source code, other than the addition of the .gitignore file, was bug 774109. It added a script to install the prerequisites to build Firefox on macOS (still called OSX back then), and that would print a message inviting people to obtain a copy of the source code with either Mercurial or Git. That was a precursor to current bootstrap.py, from September 2012. Following that, as far as I can tell, the first real incursion of Git in the Firefox source tree tooling happened in bug 965120. A few days earlier, bug 952379 had added a mach clang-format command that would apply clang-format-diff to the output from hg diff. Obviously, running hg diff on a Git working tree didn't work, and bug 965120 was filed, and support for Git was added there. That was in January 2014. A year later, when the initial implementation of mach artifact was added (which ultimately led to artifact builds), Git users were an immediate thought. But while they were considered, it was not to support them, but to avoid actively breaking their workflows. Git support for mach artifact was eventually added 14 months later, in March 2016. From gecko-dev to git-cinnabar Let's step back a little here, back to the end of 2014. My user experience with Mercurial had reached a level of dissatisfaction that was enough for me to decide to take that script from a couple years prior and make it work for incremental updates. That meant finding a way to store enough information locally to be able to reconstruct whatever the incremental updates would be relying on (guess why other tools hid a local Mercurial clone under hood). I got something working rather quickly, and after talking to a few people about this side project at the Mozilla Portland All Hands and seeing their excitement, I published a git-remote-hg initial prototype on the last day of the All Hands. Within weeks, the prototype gained the ability to directly push to Mercurial repositories, and a couple months later, was renamed to git-cinnabar. At that point, as a Git user, instead of cloning the gecko-dev repository from GitHub and switching to a local Mercurial repository whenever you needed to push to a Mercurial repository (i.e. the aforementioned Try server, or, at the time, for reviews), you could just clone and push directly from/to Mercurial, all within Git. And it was fast too. You could get a full clone of mozilla-central in less than half an hour, when at the time, other similar tools would take more than 10 hours (needless to say, it's even worse now). Another couple months later (we're now at the end of April 2015), git-cinnabar became able to start off a local clone of the gecko-dev repository, rather than clone from scratch, which could be time consuming. But because git-cinnabar and the tool that was updating gecko-dev weren't producing the same commits, this setup was cumbersome and not really recommended. For instance, if you pushed something to mozilla-central with git-cinnabar from a gecko-dev clone, it would come back with a different commit hash in gecko-dev, and you'd have to deal with the divergence. Eventually, in April 2020, the scripts updating gecko-dev were switched to git-cinnabar, making the use of gecko-dev alongside git-cinnabar a more viable option. Ironically(?), the switch occurred to ease collaboration with KaiOS (you know, the mobile OS born from the ashes of Firefox OS). Well, okay, in all honesty, when the need of syncing in both directions between Git and Mercurial (we only had ever synced from Mercurial to Git) came up, I nudged Mozilla in the direction of git-cinnabar, which, in my (biased but still honest) opinion, was the more reliable option for two-way synchronization (we did have regular conversion problems with hg-git, nothing of the sort has happened since the switch). One Firefox repository to rule them all For reasons I don't know, Mozilla decided to use separate Mercurial repositories as "branches". With the switch to the rapid release process in 2011, that meant one repository for nightly (mozilla-central), one for aurora, one for beta, and one for release. And with the addition of Extended Support Releases in 2012, we now add a new ESR repository every year. Boot to Gecko also had its own branches, and so did Fennec (Firefox for Mobile, before Android). There are a lot of them. And then there are also integration branches, where developer's work lands before being merged in mozilla-central (or backed out if it breaks things), always leaving mozilla-central in a (hopefully) good state. Only one of them remains in use today, though. I can only suppose that the way Mercurial branches work was not deemed practical. It is worth noting, though, that Mercurial branches are used in some cases, to branch off a dot-release when the next major release process has already started, so it's not a matter of not knowing the feature exists or some such. In 2016, Gregory Szorc set up a new repository that would contain them all (or at least most of them), which eventually became what is now the mozilla-unified repository. This would e.g. simplify switching between branches when necessary. 7 years later, for some reason, the other "branches" still exist, but most developers are expected to be using mozilla-unified. Mozilla's CI also switched to using mozilla-unified as base repository. Honestly, I'm not sure why the separate repositories are still the main entry point for pushes, rather than going directly to mozilla-unified, but it probably comes down to switching being work, and not being a top priority. Also, it probably doesn't help that working with multiple heads in Mercurial, even (especially?) with bookmarks, can be a source of confusion. To give an example, if you aren't careful, and do a plain clone of the mozilla-unified repository, you may not end up on the latest mozilla-central changeset, but rather, e.g. one from beta, or some other branch, depending which one was last updated. Hosting is simple, right? Put your repository on a server, install hgweb or gitweb, and that's it? Maybe that works for... Mercurial itself, but that repository "only" has slightly over 50k changesets and less than 4k files. Mozilla-central has more than an order of magnitude more changesets (close to 700k) and two orders of magnitude more files (more than 700k if you count the deleted or moved files, 350k if you count the currently existing ones). And remember, there are a lot of "duplicates" of this repository. And I didn't even mention user repositories and project branches. Sure, it's a self-inflicted pain, and you'd think it could probably(?) be mitigated with shared repositories. But consider the simple case of two repositories: mozilla-central and autoland. You make autoland use mozilla-central as a shared repository. Now, you push something new to autoland, it's stored in the autoland datastore. Eventually, you merge to mozilla-central. Congratulations, it's now in both datastores, and you'd need to clean-up autoland if you wanted to avoid the duplication. Now, you'd think mozilla-unified would solve these issues, and it would... to some extent. Because that wouldn't cover user repositories and project branches briefly mentioned above, which in GitHub parlance would be considered as Forks. So you'd want a mega global datastore shared by all repositories, and repositories would need to only expose what they really contain. Does Mercurial support that? I don't think so (okay, I'll give you that: even if it doesn't, it could, but that's extra work). And since we're talking about a transition to Git, does Git support that? You may have read about how you can link to a commit from a fork and make-pretend that it comes from the main repository on GitHub? At least, it shows a warning, now. That's essentially the architectural reason why. So the actual answer is that Git doesn't support it out of the box, but GitHub has some backend magic to handle it somehow (and hopefully, other things like Gitea, Girocco, Gitlab, etc. have something similar). Now, to come back to the size of the repository. A repository is not a static file. It's a server with which you negotiate what you have against what it has that you want. Then the server bundles what you asked for based on what you said you have. Or in the opposite direction, you negotiate what you have that it doesn't, you send it, and the server incorporates what you sent it. Fortunately the latter is less frequent and requires authentication. But the former is more frequent and CPU intensive. Especially when pulling a large number of changesets, which, incidentally, cloning is. "But there is a solution for clones" you might say, which is true. That's clonebundles, which offload the CPU intensive part of cloning to a single job scheduled regularly. Guess who implemented it? Mozilla. But that only covers the cloning part. We actually had laid the ground to support offloading large incremental updates and split clones, but that never materialized. Even with all that, that still leaves you with a server that can display file contents, diffs, blames, provide zip archives of a revision, and more, all of which are CPU intensive in their own way. And these endpoints are regularly abused, and cause extra load to your servers, yes plural, because of course a single server won't handle the load for the number of users of your big repositories. And because your endpoints are abused, you have to close some of them. And I'm not mentioning the Try repository with its tens of thousands of heads, which brings its own sets of problems (and it would have even more heads if we didn't fake-merge them once in a while). Of course, all the above applies to Git (and it only gained support for something akin to clonebundles last year). So, when the Firefox OS project was stopped, there wasn't much motivation to continue supporting our own Git server, Mercurial still being the official point of entry, and git.mozilla.org was shut down in 2016. The growing difficulty of maintaining the status quo Slowly, but steadily in more recent years, as new tooling was added that needed some input from the source code manager, support for Git was more and more consistently added. But at the same time, as people left for other endeavors and weren't necessarily replaced, or more recently with layoffs, resources allocated to such tooling have been spread thin. Meanwhile, the repository growth didn't take a break, and the Try repository was becoming an increasing pain, with push times quite often exceeding 10 minutes. The ongoing work to move Try pushes to Lando will hide the problem under the rug, but the underlying problem will still exist (although the last version of Mercurial seems to have improved things). On the flip side, more and more people have been relying on Git for Firefox development, to my own surprise, as I didn't really push for that to happen. It just happened organically, by ways of git-cinnabar existing, providing a compelling experience to those who prefer Git, and, I guess, word of mouth. I was genuinely surprised when I recently heard the use of Git among moz-phab users had surpassed a third. I did, however, occasionally orient people who struggled with Mercurial and said they were more familiar with Git, towards git-cinnabar. I suspect there's a somewhat large number of people who never realized Git was a viable option. But that, on its own, can come with its own challenges: if you use git-cinnabar without being backed by gecko-dev, you'll have a hard time sharing your branches on GitHub, because you can't push to a fork of gecko-dev without pushing your entire local repository, as they have different commit histories. And switching to gecko-dev when you weren't already using it requires some extra work to rebase all your local branches from the old commit history to the new one. Clone times with git-cinnabar have also started to go a little out of hand in the past few years, but this was mitigated in a similar manner as with the Mercurial cloning problem: with static files that are refreshed regularly. Ironically, that made cloning with git-cinnabar faster than cloning with Mercurial. But generating those static files is increasingly time-consuming. As of writing, generating those for mozilla-unified takes close to 7 hours. I was predicting clone times over 10 hours "in 5 years" in a post from 4 years ago, I wasn't too far off. With exponential growth, it could still happen, although to be fair, CPUs have improved since. I will explore the performance aspect in a subsequent blog post, alongside the upcoming release of git-cinnabar 0.7.0-b1. I don't even want to check how long it now takes with hg-git or git-remote-hg (they were already taking more than a day when git-cinnabar was taking a couple hours). I suppose it's about time that I clarify that git-cinnabar has always been a side-project. It hasn't been part of my duties at Mozilla, and the extent to which Mozilla supports git-cinnabar is in the form of taskcluster workers on the community instance for both git-cinnabar CI and generating those clone bundles. Consequently, that makes the above git-cinnabar specific issues a Me problem, rather than a Mozilla problem. Taking the leap I can't talk for the people who made the proposal to move to Git, nor for the people who put a green light on it. But I can at least give my perspective. Developers have regularly asked why Mozilla was still using Mercurial, but I think it was the first time that a formal proposal was laid out. And it came from the Engineering Workflow team, responsible for issue tracking, code reviews, source control, build and more. It's easy to say "Mozilla should have chosen Git in the first place", but back in 2007, GitHub wasn't there, Bitbucket wasn't there, and all the available options were rather new (especially compared to the then 21 years-old CVS). I think Mozilla made the right choice, all things considered. Had they waited a couple years, the story might have been different. You might say that Mozilla stayed with Mercurial for so long because of the sunk cost fallacy. I don't think that's true either. But after the biggest Mercurial repository hosting service turned off Mercurial support, and the main contributor to Mercurial going their own way, it's hard to ignore that the landscape has evolved. And the problems that we regularly encounter with the Mercurial servers are not going to get any better as the repository continues to grow. As far as I know, all the Mercurial repositories bigger than Mozilla's are... not using Mercurial. Google has its own closed-source server, and Facebook has another of its own, and it's not really public either. With resources spread thin, I don't expect Mozilla to be able to continue supporting a Mercurial server indefinitely (although I guess Octobus could be contracted to give a hand, but is that sustainable?). Mozilla, being a champion of Open Source, also doesn't live in a silo. At some point, you have to meet your contributors where they are. And the Open Source world is now majoritarily using Git. I'm sure the vast majority of new hires at Mozilla in the past, say, 5 years, know Git and have had to learn Mercurial (although they arguably didn't need to). Even within Mozilla, with thousands(!) of repositories on GitHub, Firefox is now actually the exception rather than the norm. I should even actually say Desktop Firefox, because even Mobile Firefox lives on GitHub (although Fenix is moving back in together with Desktop Firefox, and the timing is such that that will probably happen before Firefox moves to Git). Heck, even Microsoft moved to Git! With a significant developer base already using Git thanks to git-cinnabar, and all the constraints and problems I mentioned previously, it actually seems natural that a transition (finally) happens. However, had git-cinnabar or something similarly viable not existed, I don't think Mozilla would be in a position to take this decision. On one hand, it probably wouldn't be in the current situation of having to support both Git and Mercurial in the tooling around Firefox, nor the resource constraints related to that. But on the other hand, it would be farther from supporting Git and being able to make the switch in order to address all the other problems. But... GitHub? I hope I made a compelling case that hosting is not as simple as it can seem, at the scale of the Firefox repository. It's also not Mozilla's main focus. Mozilla has enough on its plate with the migration of existing infrastructure that does rely on Mercurial to understandably not want to figure out the hosting part, especially with limited resources, and with the mixed experience hosting both Mercurial and git has been so far. After all, GitHub couldn't even display things like the contributors' graph on gecko-dev until recently, and hosting is literally their job! They still drop the ball on large blames (thankfully we have searchfox for those). Where does that leave us? Gitlab? For those criticizing GitHub for being proprietary, that's probably not open enough. Cloud Source Repositories? "But GitHub is Microsoft" is a complaint I've read a lot after the announcement. Do you think Google hosting would have appealed to these people? Bitbucket? I'm kind of surprised it wasn't in the list of providers that were considered, but I'm also kind of glad it wasn't (and I'll leave it at that). I think the only relatively big hosting provider that could have made the people criticizing the choice of GitHub happy is Codeberg, but I hadn't even heard of it before it was mentioned in response to Mozilla's announcement. But really, with literal thousands of Mozilla repositories already on GitHub, with literal tens of millions repositories on the platform overall, the pragmatic in me can't deny that it's an attractive option (and I can't stress enough that I wasn't remotely close to the room where the discussion about what choice to make happened). "But it's a slippery slope". I can see that being a real concern. LLVM also moved its repository to GitHub (from a (I think) self-hosted Subversion server), and ended up moving off Bugzilla and Phabricator to GitHub issues and PRs four years later. As an occasional contributor to LLVM, I hate this move. I hate the GitHub review UI with a passion. At least, right now, GitHub PRs are not a viable option for Mozilla, for their lack of support for security related PRs, and the more general shortcomings in the review UI. That doesn't mean things won't change in the future, but let's not get too far ahead of ourselves. The move to Git has just been announced, and the migration has not even begun yet. Just because Mozilla is moving the Firefox repository to GitHub doesn't mean it's locked in forever or that all the eggs are going to be thrown into one basket. If bridges need to be crossed in the future, we'll see then. So, what's next? The official announcement said we're not expecting the migration to really begin until six months from now. I'll swim against the current here, and say this: the earlier you can switch to git, the earlier you'll find out what works and what doesn't work for you, whether you already know Git or not. While there is not one unique workflow, here's what I would recommend anyone who wants to take the leap off Mercurial right now:

Make sure git is installed. Chances are you already have it.

Install git-cinnabar where mach bootstrap would install it.

$ mkdir -p ~/.mozbuild/git-cinnabar
$ cd ~/.mozbuild/git-cinnabar
$ curl -sOL https://raw.githubusercontent.com/glandium/git-cinnabar/master/download.py
$ python3 download.py && rm download.py

Add git-cinnabar to your PATH. Make sure to also set that wherever you keep your PATH up-to-date (.bashrc or wherever else).
```
$ PATH=$PATH:$HOME/.mozbuild/git-cinnabar
```
Enter your mozilla-central or mozilla-unified Mercurial working copy, we'll do an in-place conversion, so that you don't need to move your mozconfigs, objdirs and what not.

Initialize the git repository from GitHub.

$ git init
$ git remote add origin https://github.com/mozilla/gecko-dev
$ git remote update origin

Switch to a Mercurial remote.

$ git remote set-url origin hg::https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-unified
$ git config --local remote.origin.cinnabar-refs bookmarks
$ git remote update origin --prune

Fetch your local Mercurial heads.
```
$ git -c cinnabar.refs=heads fetch hg::$PWD refs/heads/default/*:refs/heads/hg/*
```
This will create a bunch of hg/<sha1> local branches, not all relevant to you (some come from old branches on mozilla-central). Note that if you're using Mercurial MQ, this will not pull your queues, as they don't exist as heads in the Mercurial repo. You'd need to apply your queues one by one and run the command above for each of them.
Or, if you have bookmarks for your local Mercurial work, you can use this instead:
```
$ git -c cinnabar.refs=bookmarks fetch hg::$PWD refs/heads/*:refs/heads/hg/*
```
This will create hg/<bookmark_name> branches.
Now, make git know what commit your working tree is on.
```
$ git reset $(git cinnabar hg2git $(hg log -r . -T ' node '))
```
This will take a little moment because Git is going to scan all the files in the tree for the first time. On the other hand, it won't touch their content or timestamps, so if you had a build around, it will still be valid, and mach build won't rebuild anything it doesn't have to.

As there is no one-size-fits-all workflow, I won't tell you how to organize yourself from there. I'll just say this: if you know the Mercurial sha1s of your previous local work, you can create branches for them with:

$ git branch <branch_name> $(git cinnabar hg2git <hg_sha1>)

At this point, you should have everything available on the Git side, and you can remove the .hg directory. Or move it into some empty directory somewhere else, just in case. But don't leave it here, it will only confuse the tooling. Artifact builds WILL be confused, though, and you'll have to ./mach configure before being able to do anything. You may also hit bug 1865299 if your working tree is older than this post. If you have any problem or question, you can ping me on #git-cinnabar or #git on Matrix. I'll put the instructions above somewhere on wiki.mozilla.org, and we can collaboratively iterate on them. Now, what the announcement didn't say is that the Git repository WILL NOT be gecko-dev, doesn't exist yet, and WON'T BE COMPATIBLE (trust me, it'll be for the better). Why did I make you do all the above, you ask? Because that won't be a problem. I'll have you covered, I promise. The upcoming release of git-cinnabar 0.7.0-b1 will have a way to smoothly switch between gecko-dev and the future repository (incidentally, that will also allow to switch from a pure git-cinnabar clone to a gecko-dev one, for the git-cinnabar users who have kept reading this far). What about git-cinnabar? With Mercurial going the way of the dodo at Mozilla, my own need for git-cinnabar will vanish. Legitimately, this begs the question whether it will still be maintained. I can't answer for sure. I don't have a crystal ball. However, the needs of the transition itself will motivate me to finish some long-standing things (like finalizing the support for pushing merges, which is currently behind an experimental flag) or implement some missing features (support for creating Mercurial branches). Git-cinnabar started as a Python script, it grew a sidekick implemented in C, which then incorporated some Rust, which then cannibalized the Python script and took its place. It is now close to 90% Rust, and 10% C (if you don't count the code from Git that is statically linked to it), and has sort of become my Rust playground (it's also, I must admit, a mess, because of its history, but it's getting better). So the day to day use with Mercurial is not my sole motivation to keep developing it. If it were, it would stay stagnant, because all the features I need are there, and the speed is not all that bad, although I know it could be better. Arguably, though, git-cinnabar has been relatively stagnant feature-wise, because all the features I need are there. So, no, I don't expect git-cinnabar to die along Mercurial use at Mozilla, but I can't really promise anything either. Final words That was a long post. But there was a lot of ground to cover. And I still skipped over a bunch of things. I hope I didn't bore you to death. If I did and you're still reading... what's wrong with you? ;) So this is the end of Mercurial at Mozilla. So long, and thanks for all the fish. But this is also the beginning of a transition that is not easy, and that will not be without hiccups, I'm sure. So fasten your seatbelts (plural), and welcome the change. To circle back to the clickbait title, did I really kill Mercurial at Mozilla? Of course not. But it's like I stumbled upon a few sparks and tossed a can of gasoline on them. I didn't start the fire, but I sure made it into a proper bonfire... and now it has turned into a wildfire. And who knows? 15 years from now, someone else might be looking back at how Mozilla picked Git at the wrong time, and that, had we waited a little longer, we would have picked some yet to come new horse. But hey, that's the tech cycle for you.

Ubuntu 23.10 Mantic Minotaur Desktop, showing network settings We released Ubuntu 23.10 Mantic Minotaur on 12 October 2023, shipping its proven and trusted network stack based on Netplan. Netplan is the default tool to configure Linux networking on Ubuntu since 2016. In the past, it was primarily used to control the Server and Cloud variants of Ubuntu, while on Desktop systems it would hand over control to NetworkManager. In Ubuntu 23.10 this disparity in how to control the network stack on different Ubuntu platforms was closed by integrating NetworkManager with the underlying Netplan stack. Netplan could already be used to describe network connections on Desktop systems managed by NetworkManager. But network connections created or modified through NetworkManager would not be known to Netplan, so it was a one-way street. Activating the bidirectional NetworkManager-Netplan integration allows for any configuration change made through NetworkManager to be propagated back into Netplan. Changes made in Netplan itself will still be visible in NetworkManager, as before. This way, Netplan can be considered the single source of truth for network configuration across all variants of Ubuntu, with the network configuration stored in /etc/netplan/, using Netplan s common and declarative YAML format.

Netplan Desktop integration On workstations, the most common scenario is for users to configure networking through NetworkManager s graphical interface, instead of driving it through Netplan s declarative YAML files. Netplan ships a libnetplan library that provides an API to access Netplan s parser and validation internals, which is now used by NetworkManager to store any network interface configuration changes in Netplan. For instance, network configuration defined through NetworkManager s graphical UI or D-Bus API will be exported to Netplan s native YAML format in the common location at `/etc/netplan/`. This way, the only thing administrators need to care about when managing a fleet of Desktop installations is Netplan. Furthermore, programmatic access to all network configuration is now easily accessible to other system components integrating with Netplan, such as snapd. This solution has already been used in more confined environments, such as Ubuntu Core and is now enabled by default on Ubuntu 23.10 Desktop.

Migration of existing connection profiles On installation of the NetworkManager package (network-manager >= 1.44.2-1ubuntu1) in Ubuntu 23.10, all your existing connection profiles from /etc/NetworkManager/system-connections/ will automatically and transparently be migrated to Netplan s declarative YAML format and stored in its common configuration directory /etc/netplan/. The same migration will happen in the background whenever you add or modify any connection profile through the NetworkManager user interface, integrated with GNOME Shell. From this point on, Netplan will be aware of your entire network configuration and you can query it using its CLI tools, such as sudo netplan get or sudo netplan status without interrupting traditional NetworkManager workflows (UI, nmcli, nmtui, D-Bus APIs). You can observe this migration on the apt-get command line, watching out for logs like the following:

Setting up network-manager (1.44.2-1ubuntu1.1) ...
Migrating HomeNet (9d087126-ae71-4992-9e0a-18c5ea92a4ed) to /etc/netplan
Migrating eduroam (37d643bb-d81d-4186-9402-7b47632c59b1) to /etc/netplan
Migrating DebConf (f862be9c-fb06-4c0f-862f-c8e210ca4941) to /etc/netplan

In order to prepare for a smooth transition, NetworkManager tests were integrated into Netplan s continuous integration pipeline at the upstream GitHub repository. Furthermore, we implemented a passthrough method of handling unknown or new settings that cannot yet be fully covered by Netplan, making Netplan future-proof for any upcoming NetworkManager release.

The future of Netplan Netplan has established itself as the proven network stack across all variants of Ubuntu Desktop, Server, Cloud, or Embedded. It has been the default stack across many Ubuntu LTS releases, serving millions of users over the years. With the bidirectional integration between NetworkManager and Netplan the final piece of the puzzle is implemented to consider Netplan the single source of truth for network configuration on Ubuntu. With Debian choosing Netplan to be the default network stack for their cloud images, it is also gaining traction outside the Ubuntu ecosystem and growing into the wider open source community. Within the development cycle for Ubuntu 24.04 LTS, we will polish the Netplan codebase to be ready for a 1.0 release, coming with certain guarantees on API and ABI stability, so that other distributions and 3rd party integrations can rely on Netplan s interfaces. First steps into that direction have already been taken, as the Netplan team reached out to the Debian community at DebConf 2023 in Kochi/India to evaluate possible synergies.

Conclusion Netplan can be used transparently to control a workstation s network configuration and plays hand-in-hand with many desktop environments through its tight integration with NetworkManager. It allows for easy network monitoring, using common graphical interfaces and provides a single source of truth to network administrators, allowing for configuration of Ubuntu Desktop fleets in a streamlined and declarative way. You can try this new functionality hands-on by following the Access Desktop NetworkManager settings through Netplan tutorial.
If you want to learn more, feel free to follow our activities on Netplan.io, GitHub, Launchpad, IRC or our Netplan Developer Diaries blog on discourse.

I ve just discovered a new xterm replacement named Kitty [1]. It boasts about being faster due to threading and using the GPU and it does appear faster on some of my systems but that s not why I like it. A trend in terminal programs in recent years has been tabbed operation so you can have multiple sessions in one OS window, this is something I ve never liked just as I ve never liked using Screen to switch between sessions when I had the option of just having multiple sessions on screen. The feature that I like most about Kitty is the ability to have a grid based layout of sessions in one OS window. Instead of having 16 OS windows on my workstation or 4 OS windows on a laptop with different entries in the window list and the possibility of them getting messed up if the OS momentarily gets confused about the screen size (a common issue with laptop use) I can just have 1 Kitty window that has all the sessions running. Kitty has Kitten processes that can do various things, one is icat which displays an image file to the terminal and leaves it in the scroll-back buffer. I put the following shell code in one of the scripts called from .bashrc to setup an alias for icat.

if [ "$TERM" == "xterm-kitty" ]; then
  alias icat='kitty +kitten icat'
fi

The kitten interface can be supported by other programs. The version of the mpv video player in Debian/Unstable has a --vo=kitty option which is an interesting feature. However playing a video in a Kitty window that takes up 1/4 of the screen on my laptop takes a bit over 100% of a CPU core for mpv and about 10% to 20% for Kitty which gives a total of about 120% CPU use on my i5-6300U compared to about 20% for mpv using wayland directly. The option to make it talk to Kitty via shared memory doesn t improve things. Using this effectively requires installing the kitty-terminfo package on every system you might ssh to. But you can set the term type to xterm-256color when logged in to a system without the kitty terminfo installed. The fact that icat and presumably other advanced terminal functions work over ssh by default is a security concern, but this also works with Konsole and will presumably be added to other terminal emulators so it s a widespread problem that needs attention. There is support for desktop notifications in the Kitty terminal encoding [2]. One of the things I m interested in at the moment is how to best manage notifications on converged systems (phone and desktop) so this is something I ll have to investigate. Overall Kitty has some great features and definitely has the potential to improve productivity for some work patterns. There are some security concerns that it raises through closer integration between systems and between programs, but many of them aren t exclusive to Kitty.

a wide and flat round loaf of bread with a well cooked crust

I ve made it again. And again. And a few more times, and now it has an official household name, Pan Sbagliato , or Wrong Bread . And this is the procedure I ve mostly settled on; starting on the day before (here called Saturday) and baking it so that it s ready for lunch time (on what here is called Sunday). Saturday: around 13:00

In a bowl, mix together and work well:

250 g water;

400 g flour;

8 g salt;

cover to rise.

Saturday: around 18:00

In a small bowl, mix together:

2-3 g yeast;

10 g water;

10 g flour.

Saturday: around 21:00

In the bowl with the original dough, add the contents of the small bowl plus:

100 g flour;

100 g water;

and work well; cover to rise overnight.

Sunday: around 8:00

Pour the dough on a lined oven tray, leave in the cold oven to rise.

Sunday: around 11:00

Remove the tray from the oven, preheat the oven to 240 C, bake for 10 minutes, then lower the temperature to 160 C and bake for 20 more minutes. Waiting until it has cooled down a bit will make it easier to cut, but is not strictly necessary.

the loaf cut in half, to show thin stripes of crumb from the high hydration.

I ve had up to a couple of hours variations in the times listed, with no ill effects.

Review: Going Infinite, by Michael Lewis

Publisher:	W.W. Norton & Company
Copyright:	2023
ISBN:	1-324-07434-5
Format:	Kindle
Pages:	255

My first reaction when I heard that Michael Lewis had been embedded with Sam Bankman-Fried working on a book when Bankman-Fried's cryptocurrency exchange FTX collapsed into bankruptcy after losing billions of dollars of customer deposits was "holy shit, why would you talk to Michael Lewis about your dodgy cryptocurrency company?" Followed immediately by "I have to read this book." This is that book. I wasn't sure how Lewis would approach this topic. His normal (although not exclusive) area of interest is financial systems and crises, and there is lots of room for multiple books about cryptocurrency fiascoes using someone like Bankman-Fried as a pivot. But Going Infinite is not like The Big Short or Lewis's other financial industry books. It's a nearly straight biography of Sam Bankman-Fried, with just enough context for the reader to follow his life. To understand what you're getting in Going Infinite, I think it's important to understand what sort of book Lewis likes to write. Lewis is not exactly a reporter, although he does explain complicated things for a mass audience. He's primarily a storyteller who collects people he finds fascinating. This book was therefore never going to be like, say, Carreyrou's Bad Blood or Isaac's Super Pumped. Lewis's interest is not in a forensic account of how FTX or Alameda Research were structured. His interest is in what makes Sam Bankman-Fried tick, what's going on inside his head. That's not a question Lewis directly answers, though. Instead, he shows you Bankman-Fried as Lewis saw him and was able to reconstruct from interviews and sources and lets you draw your own conclusions. Boy did I ever draw a lot of conclusions, most of which were highly unflattering. However, one conclusion I didn't draw, and had been dubious about even before reading this book, was that Sam Bankman-Fried was some sort of criminal mastermind who intentionally plotted to steal customer money. Lewis clearly doesn't believe this is the case, and with the caveat that my study of the evidence outside of this book has been spotty and intermittent, I think Lewis has the better of the argument. I am utterly fascinated by this, and I'm afraid this review is going to turn into a long summary of my take on the argument, so here's the capsule review before you get bored and wander off: This is a highly entertaining book written by an excellent storyteller. I am also inclined to believe most of it is true, but given that I'm not on the jury, I'm not that invested in whether Lewis is too credulous towards the explanations of the people involved. What I do know is that it's a fantastic yarn with characters who are too wild to put in fiction, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. There are a few things that everyone involved appears to agree on, and therefore I think we can take as settled. One is that Bankman-Fried, and most of the rest of FTX and Alameda Research, never clearly distinguished between customer money and all of the other money. It's not obvious that their home-grown accounting software (written entirely by one person! who never spoke to other people! in code that no one else could understand!) was even capable of clearly delineating between their piles of money. Another is that FTX and Alameda Research were thoroughly intermingled. There was no official reporting structure and possibly not even a coherent list of employees. The environment was so chaotic that lots of people, including Bankman-Fried, could have stolen millions of dollars without anyone noticing. But it was also so chaotic that they could, and did, literally misplace millions of dollars by accident, or because Bankman-Fried had problems with object permanence. Something that was previously less obvious from news coverage but that comes through very clearly in this book is that Bankman-Fried seriously struggled with normal interpersonal and societal interactions. We know from multiple sources that he was diagnosed with ADHD and depression (Lewis describes it specifically as anhedonia, the inability to feel pleasure). The ADHD in Lewis's account is quite severe and does not sound controlled, despite medication; for example, Bankman-Fried routinely played timed video games while he was having important meetings, forgot things the moment he stopped dealing with them, was constantly on his phone or seeking out some other distraction, and often stimmed (by bouncing his leg) to a degree that other people found it distracting. Perhaps more tellingly, Bankman-Fried repeatedly describes himself in diary entries and correspondence to other people (particularly Caroline Ellison, his employee and on-and-off secret girlfriend) as being devoid of empathy and unable to access his own emotions, which Lewis supports with stories from former co-workers. I'm very hesitant to diagnose someone via a book, but, at least in Lewis's account, Bankman-Fried nearly walks down the symptom list of antisocial personality disorder in his own description of himself to other people. (The one exception is around physical violence; there is nothing in this book or in any of the other reporting that I've seen to indicate that Bankman-Fried was violent or physically abusive.) One of the recurrent themes of this book is that Bankman-Fried never saw the point in following rules that didn't make sense to him or worrying about things he thought weren't important, and therefore simply didn't. By about a third of the way into this book, before FTX is even properly started, very little about its eventual downfall will seem that surprising. There was no way that Sam Bankman-Fried was going to be able to run a successful business over time. He was extremely good at probabilistic trading and spotting exploitable market inefficiencies, and extremely bad at essentially every other aspect of living in a society with other people, other than a hit-or-miss ability to charm that worked much better with large audiences than one-on-one. The real question was why anyone would ever entrust this man with millions of dollars or decide to work for him for longer than two weeks. The answer to those questions changes over the course of this story. Later on, it was timing. Sam Bankman-Fried took the techniques of high frequency trading he learned at Jane Street Capital and applied them to exploiting cryptocurrency markets at precisely the right time in the cryptocurrency bubble. There was far more money than sense, the most ruthless financial players were still too leery to get involved, and a rising tide was lifting all boats, even the ones that were piles of driftwood. When cryptocurrency inevitably collapsed, so did his businesses. In retrospect, that seems inevitable. The early answer, though, was effective altruism. A full discussion of effective altruism is beyond the scope of this review, although Lewis offers a decent introduction in the book. The short version is that a sensible and defensible desire to use stronger standards of evidence in evaluating charitable giving turned into a bizarre navel-gazing exercise in making up statistical risks to hypothetical future people and treating those made-up numbers as if they should be the bedrock of one's personal ethics. One of the people most responsible for this turn is an Oxford philosopher named Will MacAskill. Sam Bankman-Fried was already obsessed with utilitarianism, in part due to his parents' philosophical beliefs, and it was a presentation by Will MacAskill that converted him to the effective altruism variant of extreme utilitarianism. In Lewis's presentation, this was like joining a cult. The impression I came away with feels like something out of a science fiction novel: Bankman-Fried knew there was some serious gap in his thought processes where most people had empathy, was deeply troubled by this, and latched on to effective altruism as the ethical framework to plug into that hole. So much of effective altruism sounds like a con game that it's easy to think the participants are lying, but Lewis clearly believes Bankman-Fried is a true believer. He appeared to be sincerely trying to make money in order to use it to solve existential threats to society, he does not appear to be motivated by money apart from that goal, and he was following through (in bizarre and mostly ineffective ways). I find this particularly believable because effective altruism as a belief system seems designed to fit Bankman-Fried's personality and justify the things he wanted to do anyway. Effective altruism says that empathy is meaningless, emotion is meaningless, and ethical decisions should be made solely on the basis of expected value: how much return (usually in safety) does society get for your investment. Effective altruism says that all the things that Sam Bankman-Fried was bad at were useless and unimportant, so he could stop feeling bad about his apparent lack of normal human morality. The only thing that mattered was the thing that he was exceptionally good at: probabilistic reasoning under uncertainty. And, critically to the foundation of his business career, effective altruism gave him access to investors and a recruiting pool of employees, things he was entirely unsuited to acquiring the normal way. There's a ton more of this book that I haven't touched on, but this review is already quite long, so I'll leave you with one more point. I don't know how true Lewis's portrayal is in all the details. He took the approach of getting very close to most of the major players in this drama and largely believing what they said happened, supplemented by startling access to sources like Bankman-Fried's personal diary and Caroline Ellis's personal diary. (He also seems to have gotten extensive information from the personal psychiatrist of most of the people involved; I'm not sure if there's some reasonable explanation for this, but based solely on the material in this book, it seems to be a shocking breach of medical ethics.) But Lewis is a storyteller more than he's a reporter, and his bias is for telling a great story. It's entirely possible that the events related here are not entirely true, or are skewed in favor of making a better story. It's certainly true that they're not the complete story. But, that said, I think a book like this is a useful counterweight to the human tendency to believe in moral villains. This is, frustratingly, a counterweight extended almost exclusively to higher-class white people like Bankman-Fried. This is infuriating, but that doesn't make it wrong. It means we should extend that analysis to more people. Once FTX collapsed, a lot of people became very invested in the idea that Bankman-Fried was a straightforward embezzler. Either he intended from the start to steal everyone's money or, more likely, he started losing money, panicked, and stole customer money to cover the hole. Lots of people in history have done exactly that, and lots of people involved in cryptocurrency have tenuous attachments to ethics, so this is a believable story. But people are complicated, and there's also truth in the maxim that every villain is the hero of their own story. Lewis is after a less boring story than "the crook stole everyone's money," and that leads to some bias. But sometimes the less boring story is also true. Here's the thing: even if Sam Bankman-Fried never intended to take any money, he clearly did intend to mix customer money with Alameda Research funds. In Lewis's account, he never truly believed in them as separate things. He didn't care about following accounting or reporting rules; he thought they were boring nonsense that got in his way. There is obvious criminal intent here in any reading of the story, so I don't think Lewis's more complex story would let him escape prosecution. He refused to follow the rules, and as a result a lot of people lost a lot of money. I think it's a useful exercise to leave mental space for the possibility that he had far less obvious reasons for those actions than that he was a simple thief, while still enforcing the laws that he quite obviously violated. This book was great. If you like Lewis's style, this was some of the best entertainment I've read in a while. Highly recommended; if you are at all interested in this saga, I think this is a must-read. Rating: 9 out of 10

Recently I completed a small project, including an embedded microcontroller. For me, using the popular Arduino IDE, and C, was a mistake. The experience with Rust was better, but still very exciting, and not in a good way. Here follows the rant.

Introduction In a recent project (I ll write about the purpose, and the hardware in another post) I chose to use a DigiSpark board. This is a small board with a USB-A tongue (but not a proper plug), and an ATTiny85 microcontroller, This chip has 8 pins and is quite small really, but it was plenty for my application. By choosing something popular, I hoped for convenient hardware, and an uncomplicated experience. Convenient hardware, I got. Arduino IDE The usual way to program these boards is via an IDE. I thought I d go with the flow and try that. I knew these were closely related to actual Arduinos and saw that the IDE package arduino was in Debian. But it turns out that the Debian package s version doesn t support the DigiSpark. (AFAICT from the list it offered me, I m not sure it supports any ATTiny85 board.) Also, disturbingly, its board manager seemed to be offering to install board support, suggesting it would download stuff from the internet and run it. That wouldn t be acceptable for my main laptop. I didn t expect to be doing much programming or debugging, and the project didn t have significant security requirements: the chip, in my circuit, has only a very narrow ability do anything to the real world, and no network connection of any kind. So I thought it would be tolerable to do the project on my low-security video laptop . That s the machine where I m prepared to say yes to installing random software off the internet. So I went to the upstream Arduino site and downloaded a tarball containing the Arduino IDE. After unpacking that in /opt it ran and produced a pointy-clicky IDE, as expected. I had already found a 3rd-party tutorial saying I needed to add a magic URL (from the DigiSpark s vendor) in the preferences. That indeed allowed it to download a whole pile of stuff. Compilers, bootloader clients, god knows what. However, my tiny test program didn t make it to the board. Half-buried in a too-small window was an error message about the board s bootloader ( Micronucleus ) being too new. The boards I had came pre-flashed with micronucleus 2.2. Which is hardly new, But even so the official Arduino IDE (or maybe the DigiSpark s board package?) still contains an old version. So now we have all the downsides of curl bash-ware, but we re lacking the it s up to date and it just works upsides. Further digging found some random forum posts which suggested simply downloading a newer micronucleus and manually stuffing it into the right place: one overwrites a specific file, in the middle the heaps of stuff that the Arduino IDE s board support downloader squirrels away in your home directory. (In my case, the home directory of the untrusted shared user on the video laptop,) So, whatever . I did that. And it worked! Having demo d my ability to run code on the board, I set about writing my program. Writing C again The programming language offered via the Arduino IDE is C. It s been a little while since I started a new thing in C. After having spent so much of the last several years writing Rust. C s primitiveness quickly started to grate, and the program couldn t easily be as DRY as I wanted (Don t Repeat Yourself, see Wilson et al, 2012, 4, p.6). But, I carried on; after all, this was going to be quite a small job. Soon enough I had a program that looked right and compiled. Before testing it in circuit, I wanted to do some QA. So I wrote a simulator harness that #included my Arduino source file, and provided imitations of the few Arduino library calls my program used. As an side advantage, I could build and run the simulation on my main machine, in my normal development environment (Emacs, make, etc.). The simulator runs confirmed the correct behaviour. (Perhaps there would have been some more faithful simulation tool, but the Arduino IDE didn t seem to offer it, and I wasn t inclined to go further down that kind of path.) So I got the video laptop out, and used the Arduino IDE to flash the program. It didn t run properly. It hung almost immediately. Some very ad-hoc debugging via led-blinking (like printf debugging, only much worse) convinced me that my problem was as follows: Arduino C has 16-bit ints. My test harness was on my 64-bit Linux machine. C was autoconverting things (when building for the micrcocontroller). The way the Arduino IDE ran the compiler didn t pass the warning options necessary to spot narrowing implicit conversions. Those warnings aren t the default in C in general ~~because C compilers hate us all~~ for compatibility reasons. I don t know why those warnings are not the default in the Arduino IDE, but my guess is that they didn t want to bother poor novice programmers with messages from the compiler explaining how their program is quite possibly wrong. After all, users don t like error messages so we shouldn t report errors. And novice programmers are especially fazed by error messages so it s better to just let them struggle themselves with the arcane mysteries of undefined behaviour in C? The Arduino IDE does offer a dropdown for compiler warnings . The default is None. Setting it to All didn t produce anything about my integer overflow bugs. And, the output was very hard to find anyway because the log window has a constant stream of strange messages from javax.jmdns, with hex DNS packet dumps. WTF. Other things that were vexing about the Arduino IDE: it has fairly fixed notions (which don t seem to be documented) about how your files and directories ought to be laid out, and magical machinery for finding things you put nearby its sketch (as it calls them) and sticking them in its ear, causing lossage. It has a tendency to become confused if you edit files under its feet (e.g. with git checkout). It wasn t really very suited to a workflow where principal development occurs elsewhere. And, important settings such as the project s clock speed, or even the target board, or the compiler warning settings to use weren t stored in the project directory along with the actual code. I didn t look too hard, but I presume they must be in a dotfile somewhere. This is madness. Apparently there is an Arduino CLI too. But I was already quite exasperated, and I didn t like the idea of going so far off the beaten path, when the whole point of using all this was to stay with popular tooling and share fate with others. (How do these others cope? I have no idea.) As for the integer overflow bug: I didn t seriously consider trying to figure out how to control in detail the C compiler options passed by the Arduino IDE. (Perhaps this is possible, but not really documented?) I did consider trying to run a cross-compiler myself from the command line, with appropriate warning options, but that would have involved providing (or stubbing, again) the Arduino/DigiSpark libraries (and bugs could easily lurk at that interface). Instead, I thought, if only I had written the thing in Rust . But that wasn t possible, was it? Does Rust even support this board? Rust on the DigiSpark I did a cursory web search and found a very useful blog post by Dylan Garrett. This encouraged me to think it might be a workable strategy. I looked at the instructions there. It seemed like I could run them via the privsep arrangement I use to protect myself when developing using upstream cargo packages from crates.io. I got surprisingly far surprisingly quickly. It did, rather startlingly, cause my rustup to download a random recent Nightly Rust, but I have six of those already for other Reasons. Very quickly I got the trinket LED blink example, referenced by Dylan s blog post, to compile. Manually copying the file to the video laptop allowed me to run the previously-downloaded micronucleus executable and successfully run the blink example on my board! I thought a more principled approach to the bootloader client might allow a more convenient workflow. I found the upstream Micronucleus git releases and tags, and had a look over its source code, release dates, etc. It seemed plausible, so I compiled v2.6 from source. That was a success: now I could build and install a Rust program onto my board, from the command line, on my main machine. No more pratting about with the video laptop. I had got further, more quickly, with Rust, than with the Arduino IDE, and the outcome and workflow was superior. So, basking in my success, I copied the directory containing the example into my own project, renamed it, and adjusted the path references. That didn t work. Now it didn t build. Even after I copied about .cargo/config.toml and rust-toolchain.toml it didn t build, producing a variety of exciting messages, depending what precisely I tried. I don t have detailed logs of my flailing: the instructions say to build it by cd ing to the subdirectory, and, given that what I was trying to do was to not follow those instructions, it didn t seem sensible to try to prepare a proper repro so I could file a ticket. I wasn t optimistic about investigating it more deeply myself: I have some experience of fighting cargo, and it s not usually fun. Looking at some of the build control files, things seemed quite complicated. Additionally, not all of the crates are on crates.io. I have no idea why not. So, I would need to supply local copies of them anyway. I decided to just git subtree add the avr-hal git tree. (That seemed better than the approach taken by the avr-hal project s cargo template, since that template involve a cargo dependency on a foreign git repository. Perhaps it would be possible to turn them into path dependencies, but given that I had evidence of file-location-sensitive behaviour, which I didn t feel like I wanted to spend time investigating, using that seems like it would possibly have invited more trouble. Also, I don t like package templates very much. They re a form of clone-and-hack: you end up stuck with whatever bugs or oddities exist in the version of the template which was current when you started.) Since I couldn t get things to build outside avr-hal, I edited the example, within avr-hal, to refer to my (one) program.rs file outside avr-hal, with a #[path] instruction. That s not pretty, but it worked. I also had to write a nasty shell script to work around the lack of good support in my nailing-cargo privsep tool for builds where cargo must be invoked in a deep subdirectory, and/or Cargo.lock isn t where it expects, and/or the target directory containing build products is in a weird place. It also has to filter the output from cargo to adjust the pathnames in the error messages. Otherwise, running both cd A; cargo build and cd B; cargo build from a Makefile produces confusing sets of error messages, some of which contain filenames relative to A and some relative to B, making it impossible for my Emacs to reliably find the right file. RIIR (Rewrite It In Rust) Having got my build tooling sorted out I could go back to my actual program. I translated the main program, and the simulator, from C to Rust, more or less line-by-line. I made the Rust version of the simulator produce the same output format as the C one. That let me check that the two programs had the same (simulated) behaviour. Which they did (after fixing a few glitches in the simulator log formatting). Emboldened, I flashed the Rust version of my program to the DigiSpark. It worked right away! RIIR had caused the bug to vanish. Of course, to rewrite the program in Rust, and get it to compile, it was necessary to be careful about the types of all the various integers, so that s not so surprising. Indeed, it was the point. I was then able to refactor the program to be a bit more natural and DRY, and improve some internal interfaces. Rust s greater power, compared to C, made those cleanups easier, so making them worthwhile. However, when doing real-world testing I found a weird problem: my timings were off. Measured, the real program was too fast by a factor of slightly more than 2. A bit of searching (and searching my memory) revealed the cause: I was using a board template for an Adafruit Trinket. The Trinket has a clock speed of 8MHz. But the DigiSpark runs at 16.5MHz. (This is discussed in a ticket against one of the C/C++ libraries supporting the ATTiny85 chip.) The Arduino IDE had offered me a choice of clock speeds. I have no idea how that dropdown menu took effect; I suspect it was adding prelude code to adjust the clock prescaler. But my attempts to mess with the CPU clock prescaler register by hand at the start of my Rust program didn t bear fruit. So instead, I adopted a bodge: since my code has (for code structure reasons, amongst others) only one place where it dealt with the underlying hardware s notion of time, I simply changed my delay function to adjust the passed-in delay values, compensating for the wrong clock speed. There was probably a more principled way. For example I could have (re)based my work on either of the two unmerged open MRs which added proper support for the DigiSpark board, rather than abusing the Adafruit Trinket definition. But, having a nearly-working setup, and an explanation for the behaviour, I preferred the narrower fix to reopening any cans of worms. An offer of help As will be obvious from this posting, I m not an expert in dev tools for embedded systems. Far from it. This area seems like quite a deep swamp, and I m probably not the person to help drain it. (Frankly, much of the improvement work ought to be done, and paid for, by hardware vendors.) But, as a full Member of the Debian Project, I have considerable gatekeeping authority there. I also have much experience of software packaging, build systems, and release management. If anyone wants to try to improve the situation with embedded tooling in Debian, and is willing to do the actual packaging work. I would be happy to advise, and to review and sponsor your contributions. An obvious candidate: it seems to me that micronucleus could easily be in Debian. Possibly a DigiSpark board definition could be provided to go with the arduino package. Unfortunately, IMO Debian s Rust packaging tooling and workflows are very poor, and the first of my suggestions for improvement wasn t well received. So if you need help with improving Rust packages in Debian, please talk to the Debian Rust Team yourself. Conclusions Embedded programming is still rather a mess and probably always will be. Embedded build systems can be bizarre. Documentation is scant. You re often expected to download board support packages full of mystery binaries, from the board vendor (or others). Dev tooling is maddening, especially if aimed at novice programmers. You want version control? Hermetic tracking of your project s build and install configuration? Actually to be told by the compiler when you write obvious bugs? You re way off the beaten track. As ever, Free Software is under-resourced and the maintainers are often busy, or (reasonably) have other things to do with their lives. All is not lost Rust can be a significantly better bet than C for embedded software: The Rust compiler will catch a good proportion of programming errors, and an experienced Rust programmer can arrange (by suitable internal architecture) to catch nearly all of them. When writing for a chip in the middle of some circuit, where debugging involves staring an LED or a multimeter, that s precisely what you want. Rust embedded dev tooling was, in this case, considerably better. Still quite chaotic and strange, and less mature, perhaps. But: significantly fewer mystery downloads, and significantly less crazy deviations from the language s normal build system. Overall, less bad software supply chain integrity. The ATTiny85 chip, and the DigiSpark board, served my hardware needs very well. (More about the hardware aspects of this project in a future posting.)

comments

About fifteen years ago, while debugging a database probem, I was horrified to discover that we had two root users - one with the password I had been using and one without a password. Nooo! So, I wrote a simple maintenance script that searched for and deleted any user in our database without a password. I even made it part of our puppet recipe - since the database server was in use by users and I didn t want anyone using SQL statements to change their password to an empty value. Then I forgot about it. Recently, I upgraded our MariaDB databases to Debian bullseye, which inserted the mariadb.sys user which . doesn t have a password set. It seems to be locked down in other ways, but my dumb script didn t know about that and happily deleted the user. Who needs that mariadb.sys user anyway? Apparently we all do. On one server, I can t login as root anymore. On another server I can login as root, but if I try to list users I get an error:

ERROR 1449 (HY000): The user specified as a definer ( mariadb.sys @ localhost ) does not exist

The Internt is full of useless advice. The most common is to simply insert that user. Except

MariaDB [mysql]> CREATE USER  mariadb.sys @ localhost  ACCOUNT LOCK PASSWORD EXPIRE;
ERROR 1396 (HY000): Operation CREATE USER failed for 'mariadb.sys'@'localhost'
MariaDB [mysql]>

Yeah, that s not going to work. It seems like we are dealing with two changes. One, the old mysql.user table was replaced by the global_priv table and then turned into a view for backwards compatibility. And two, for sensible reasons the default definer for this view has been changed from the root user to a user that, ahem, is unlikely to be changed or deleted. Apparently I can t add the mariadb.sys user because it would alter the user view which has a definer that doesn t exist. Although not sure if this really is the reason? Fortunately, I found an excellent suggestion for changing the definer of a view. My modified version of the answer is, run the following command which will generate a SQL statement:

SELECT CONCAT("ALTER DEFINER=root@localhost VIEW ", table_name, " AS ", view_definition, ";") FROM information_schema.views WHERE table_schema='mysql' AND definer = 'mariadb.sys@localhost';

Then, execute the statement. And then also update the mysql.proc table:

UPDATE mysql.proc SET definer = 'root@localhost' WHERE definer = 'mariadb.sys@localhost';

And lastly, I had to run:

DELETE FROM tables_priv WHERE User = 'mariadb.sys';
FLUSH privileges;

Wait, was the tables_priv entry the whole problem all along? Not sure. But now I can run:

CREATE USER  mariadb.sys @ localhost  ACCOUNT LOCK PASSWORD EXPIRE;
GRANT SELECT, DELETE ON  mysql . global_priv  TO  mariadb.sys @ localhost ;

And reverse the other statements:

SELECT CONCAT("ALTER DEFINER= mariadb.sys @localhost VIEW ", table_name, " AS ", view_definition, ";") FROM information_schema.views WHERE table_schema='mysql' AND definer = 'root@localhost';

[Execute the output.]

UPDATE mysql.proc SET definer = 'mariadb.sys@localhost' WHERE definer = 'root@localhost';

And while we re on the topic of borked MariaDB authentication, here are the steps to change the root password and restore all root privielges if you can t get in at all or your root user is missing the GRANT OPTION (you can change ALTER to CREATE if the root user does not even exist):

systemctl stop mariadb
mariadbd-safe --skip-grant-tables --skip-networking &
mysql -u root
[mysql]> FLUSH PRIVILEGES
[mysql]> ALTER USER  root @ localhost  IDENTIFIED VIA mysql_native_password USING PASSWORD('your-secret-password') OR unix_socket; 
[mysql]> GRANT ALL PRIVILEGES ON *.* to 'root'@'localhost' WITH GRANT OPTION;
mariadbd-admin shutdown
systemctl start mariadb

Contributing to Debian is part of Freexian s mission. This article covers the latest achievements of Freexian and their collaborators. All of this is made possible by organizations subscribing to our Long Term Support contracts and consulting services.

Freexian Meetup, by Stefano Rivera, Utkarsh Gupta, et al. During DebConf, Freexian organized a meetup for its collaborators and those interested in learning more about Freexian and its services. It was well received and many people interested in Freexian showed up. Some developers who were interested in contributing to LTS came to get more details about joining the project. And some prospective customers came to get to know us and ask questions. Sadly, the tragic loss of Abraham shook DebConf, both individually and structurally. The meetup got rescheduled to a small room without video coverage. With that, we still had a wholesome interaction and here s a quick picture from the meetup taken by Utkarsh (which is also why he s missing!).

Debusine, by Rapha l Hertzog, et al. Freexian has been investing into debusine for a while, but development speed is about to increase dramatically thanks to funding from SovereignTechFund.de. Rapha l laid out the 5 milestones of the funding contract, and filed the issues for the first milestone. Together with Enrico and Stefano, they established a workflow for the expanded team. Among the first steps of this milestone, Enrico started to work on a developer-friendly description of debusine that we can use when we reach out to the many Debian contributors that we will have to interact with. And Rapha l started the design work of the autopkgtest and lintian tasks, i.e. what s the interface to schedule such tasks, what behavior and what associated options do we support? At this point you might wonder what debusine is supposed to be let us try to answer this: Debusine manages scheduling and distribution of Debian-related build and QA tasks to a network of worker machines. It also manages the resulting artifacts and provides the results in an easy to consume way. We want to make it easy for Debian contributors to leverage all the great QA tools that Debian provides. We want to build the next generation of Debian s build infrastructure, one that will continue to reliably do what it already does, but that will also enable distribution-wide experiments, custom package repositories and custom workflows with advanced package reviews. If this all sounds interesting to you, don t hesitate to watch the project on salsa.debian.org and to contribute.

lpr/lpd in Debian, by Thorsten Alteholz During Debconf23, Till Kamppeter presented CPDB (Common Print Dialog Backend), a new way to handle print queues. After this talk it was discussed whether the old lpr/lpd based printing system could be abandoned in Debian or whether there is still demand for it. So Thorsten asked on the debian-devel email list whether anybody uses it. Oddly enough, these old packages are still useful:

Within a small network it is easier to distribute a printcap file, than to properly configure cups clients.

One of the biggest manufacturers of WLAN router and DSL boxes only supports raw queues when attaching an USB printer to their hardware. Admittedly the CPDB still has problems with such raw queues.

The Pharos printing system at MIT is still lpd-based.

As a result, the lpr/lpd stuff is not yet ready to be abandoned and Thorsten will adopt the relevant packages (or rather move them under the umbrella of the debian-printing team). Though it is not planned to develop new features, those packages should at least have a maintainer. This month Thorsten adopted rlpr, an utility for lpd printing without using /etc/printcap. The next one he is working on is lprng, a lpr/lpd printer spooling system. If you know of any other package that is also needed and still maintained by the QA team, please tell Thorsten.

/usr-merge, by Helmut Grohne Discussion about lifting the file move moratorium has been initiated with the CTTE and the release team. A formal lift is dependent on updating debootstrap in older suites though. A significant number of packages can automatically move their `systemd` unit files if `dh_installsystemd` and `systemd.pc` change their installation targets. Unfortunately, doing so makes some packages FTBFS and therefore patches have been filed. The analysis tool, `dumat`, has been enhanced to better understand which upgrade scenarios are considered supported to reduce false positive bug filings and gained a mode for local operation on a `.changes` file meant for inclusion in salsa-ci. The filing of bugs from `dumat` is still manual to improve the quality of reports. Since September, the moratorium has been lifted.

Miscellaneous contributions

Rapha l updated Django s backport in bullseye-backports to match the latest security release that was published in bookworm. Tracker.debian.org is still using that backport.

Helmut Grohne sent 13 patches for cross build failures.

Helmut Grohne performed a maintenance upload of `debvm` enabling its use in `autopkgtests`.

Helmut Grohne wrote an API-compatible reimplementation of `autopkgtest-build-qemu`. It is powered by `mmdebstrap`, therefore unprivileged, EFI-only and will soon be included in mmdebstrap.

Santiago continued the work regarding how to make it easier to (automatically) test reverse dependencies. An example of the ongoing work was presented during the Salsa CI BoF at DebConf 23.
In fact, omniorb-dfsg test pipelines as the above were used for the omniorb-dfsg 4.3.0 transition, verifying how the reverse dependencies (tango, pytango and omnievents) were built and how their autopkgtest jobs run with the to-be-uploaded omniorb-dfsg new release.

Utkarsh and Stefano attended and helped run DebConf 23. Also continued winding up DebConf 22 accounting.

Anton Gladky did some science team uploads to fix RC bugs.