An important aspect of the quality assurance of large component repositories is the logical coherence of component metadata. We argue that it is possible to identify certain classes of such problems by checking relevant properties of the possible future repositories into which the current repository may evolve. In order to make a complete analysis of all possible futures effective however, one needs a way to construct a finite set of representatives of this infinite set of potential futures. We define a class of properties for which this can be done. We illustrate the practical usefulness of the approach with two quality assurance applications: (i) establishing the amount of forced upgrades'' induced by introducing new versions of existing components in a repository, and (ii) identifying outdated components that need to be upgraded in order to ever be installable in the future. For both applications we provide experience reports obtained on the Debian distribution.The tools presented in this paper (outdated and challenges) are already in Debian as part of the 'dose-extra' package.
master:/srv/leader/news/bits-from-the-DPL.txt.201203
notmuch-mutt
package. It will work out of the
box with Mutt, without requiring any ~/.muttrc
fiddling~/.cache/notmuch/mutt/
by
default~/.mutt-notmuch*
manually.)/etc/Muttrc.d/
(Debian-specific) or
/etc/Muttrc
I would personally like to thank the Debian kernel developers, specifically Ben Hutchings, Maximilian Attems, Dann Frazier, Bastian Blank, and Moritz Muehlenhoff. They went above and beyond what any "normal" developer would have done, ferreting patches out of the kernel.org releases and the different vendor kernels and bug tracking systems, backporting them to the 2.6.32 kernel, testing, and then forwarding them on to me. Their dedication to their user community is amazing for such a "volunteer" group of developers. I firmly believe that without their help, the 2.6.32 kernel would not have been the success that it was. The users of Red Hat and SuSE products owe them a great debt. Buy them a beer the next time you see them, they more than deserve it.I'll take good care of following his wise advice. Please do the same.
master:/srv/leader/news/bits-from-the-DPL.*
debian-policy
package.
Input data are the debian/copyright
files of all
Debian source packages. If license-count
is not
bugged, our debian/copyright
files might be. One thing
that occurred to me only a few days ago is the habit of
declaring a different license for Debian packaging (the
files under debian/
) than the software being packaged
itself. That's a bad habit because it might cause unwanted license
mixtures via patches that live under debian/
but I've
seen several occurrences of it in the Debian archive. For name and
(self-)shame: I've also been guilty of it in the past, when I
was young .
Is that reason enough to skew results and overestimate
GPL-d software? I don't think so, I hope not, but
ultimately I don't know. It'd be nice to rule out the possibility
entirely. So if anyone is willing to do some sampling of affected
debian/copyright
files and propose patches for
license-count
to exclude those "false positives",
please shout. (As a bonus point: that would also help to take more
sound decision for the typical use case of
license-count
, i.e. deciding when a license should be
added to /usr/share/common-licenses
.)
Other independent reviews of the results are equally
welcome.
Note: the above, as well as John's analysis, would be a trivial
exercise if DEP-5
were already widely deployed in the Debian archive.
license-count
, posted a
way more likely cause of data skew in John's analysis: double
counting among the different types of copyleft licenses
=names
to support mutt macros
that pass folder names+opt
as a valid cmdline option (to
ease tagging)master:/srv/leader/news/bits-from-the-DPL.*
It s a great feeling to have earned the trust of your friends and peers.Elsewhere, I ve been leading the Debian CD team for years too, both doing most of the maintenance of the debian-cd package and producing and testing the regular installation CDs and DVDs that we ship to the world. Again, this is a time-consuming job but it needs doing and it s worthwhile. Raphael: You re currently employed by ARM. What are you working on and are they supportive of your Debian involvement? Steve: The situation within ARM is very interesting; I m employed in PDSW (Processor Division, SoftWare), a new group founded just a couple of years back to help improve the state of software on ARM. Most of the people in the group are working on Free Software at this stage (e.g. toolchains, browsers, Linux kernel), which is lovely. Some of the engineers have also been seconded into a new non-profit company Linaro, which is a collaboration between ARM and a number of other companies investing in core Linux software and tools for ARM-based CPUs. I m one of the ARM engineers in Linaro, and I m a Technical Architect in the Office of the CTO. My role includes looking at future projects for Linaro to help with (e.g. ARM servers), but for the last few months I ve been concentrating on the new armhf architecture in Debian, Ubuntu and elsewhere. armhf is a new architecture in Debian and Ubuntu terms, but it s not strictly a new type of hardware. Instead, it s a new ABI. We have two reasons for doing this work:
This is potentially the killer app for multi-arch: simply install the libraries for the target architecture [ ], install a simple cross-gcc package [ ] and you re all set.Raphael: What s the biggest problem of Debian? Steve: For me, Debian s biggest problem has been the same for a long time: we are forever short of enough people to do the work that we re trying to do. That might sound like a weird thing to claim when Debian is one of the largest Free Software projects on the planet, but it s more a statement of just how huge our goals are. Many of the largest things in Debian are developed or controlled by very small teams working very hard, and there s always a risk of losing people due to burnout in those situations.
We are forever short of enough people to do the work that we re trying to do.Some of the tasks that should be easy given our large membership (e.g. large-scale packaging transitions) can often instead take a very long time. We are fortunate to have more people wanting to join in Debian s work all the time, but we also need to be careful to keep on promoting what we re doing and recruiting new contributors, encouraging them to get more and more involved in core work. Debian gets ever bigger in terms of the size and the number of packages we distribute; we re not currently matching that growth rate elsewhere. Raphael: What motivates you to continue to contribute year after year? Steve: This one is much easier to answer! The thing that first attracted me to Debian was the fact that I could help to develop it, help to decide how things could and should be done within it. Instead of being forced to accept what some corporation decided I could do with my computer, I could change the software to suit my needs and preferences. Alongside that, I could get involved with a strong community of similar people all over the world, all with their own strong opinions about how software should work. I joined in and found it was great fun and very rewarding. That hasn t changed for me in the intervening years, and that s why I m still around. I work on Debian because it helps me to get the OS that I want to use. It seems that lots of people around the world find it useful too, and that s awesome. Raphael: Do you believe that Stefano Zacchiroli will be the first DPL who managed to stay 3 consecutive years on the seat? Would you like him to candidate again? Steve: To be honest, I would be very surprised if Zack stood again for DPL this year. He told me himself that he wasn t planning on it, and I can understand that decision. He s been an awesome DPL in my opinion, and I m glad that he took the job. But: it is also a very difficult and time-consuming task that would be enough to wear down anybody. If Zack does decide to stand again, I would support him 100%. But I know that we also have lots of other good people in Debian who would be ready to take up the challenge next. Raphael: Is there someone in Debian that you admire for their contributions? Steve: There are lots of people I admire in Debian, so many so that I almost don t want to list individuals here for fear of missing people out. But Bdale Garbee has been an inspiration to many of us, for many years. He s technically excellent, a great friend to many of us, an endless source of sage advice and (last but not least) he has some wonderful stories to tell about his experiences over the years. On top of that, he s just cool. Christian Perrier is another exceptional developer, in my eyes he s great at co-ordinating people in translations, working tirelessly to make this very important part of Debian work better and better with every release. He s also a really nice guy and we all love him. I also have to mention Joey Hess here, whether he likes it or not. *grin* He s been responsible for so many good things in Debian over the years, even if he did steal my first package Finally, the teams of people who make sure that Debian is always working: the security team and DSA. The rest of us can choose to take time off from Debian to go and do other things, but these people need to cover things every day. That s a major responsibility, and I salute them for taking on that challenge.
Subscribe to my newsletter to get my monthly summary of the Debian/Ubuntu news and to not miss further interviews. You can also follow along on Identi.ca, Google+, Twitter and Facebook.
One comment Liked this article? Click here. My blog is Flattr-enabled.
Our biggest problem today is that we just don t have enough time to do all we want to.Raphael: It is widely known that Linux is maintained in a git repository. But the Debian kernel team is using Subversion. I believe a switch is planned. Why was not git used from the start? Ben: The linux-2.6 source package dates from the time when Linus made his first release using git. I wasn t part of the team back then so I don t know for sure why it was imported to Subversion. However, at that time hardly anyone knew how to use git, no-one had experience hosting public git repositories, and Alioth certainly didn t offer that option. Today there are no real blockers: everyone on the kernel team is familiar with using git; Alioth is ready to host it; we don t have per-architecture patches that would require large numbers of branches. But it still takes time to plan such a conversion for what is a relatively complex source package (actually a small set of related source packages). Raphael: What are your plans for Debian Wheezy? Ben: Something I ve already done, in conjunction with the installer team, is to start generating udebs from the linux-2.6 source package. The kernel and modules have to be repacked into lots of little udebs to avoid using too much memory during installation. The configuration for this used to be in a bunch of separate source packages; these could get out of step with the kernel build configuration and this would only be noticed some time later. Now we can update them both at the same time, they are effectively cross-checked on every upload, and the installer can always be built from the latest kernel version in testing or unstable. I think that we should be encouraging PC users to install the 64-bit build (amd64), but many users will still use 32-bit (i386) for backward compatibility or out of habit. On i386, we ve slightly reduced the variety of kernel flavours by getting rid of 686 and making 686-pae the default (previously this was called 686-bigmem ). This means that the NX security feature will be used on all systems that support it. It should also mean that the first i386 CD can have suitable kernel packages for all systems. I have been trying to work on providing a full choice of Linux Security Modules (LSMs). Despite their name, they cannot be built as kernel modules, so every enabled LSM is a waste of memory on the systems that don t use it. This is a significant concern for smaller Debian systems. My intent is to allow all unused LSMs to be freed at boot time so that we can happily enable all of them. I recently proposed to drop support for older x86 systems, starting with 486-class processors in wheezy. In general, this would allow the use of more compiler optimisations throughout userland and the kernel. However it seems that there isn t that much to be gained unless we also drop 586-class processors, and there are still quite a few of those in use. So I think this will have to wait. Uwe Kleine-K nig has been working to include real-time support (also known as PREEMPT_RT). This can provide low and very predictable I/O latency, which is useful for live audio synthesis, for example. It still requires a number of patches and a build configuration change, resulting in a separate binary package. We re currently only building that for 64-bit PCs. (You may notice this is missing for Linux 3.1, because the real-time developers skipped this release.) Raphael: What s the biggest problem of Debian? Ben: I think we try too hard to accommodate every possible option, without regard for the cost to developers and users in general. As an example, we now have sysvinit, file-rc, upstart and systemd all in testing. Daemon maintainers can t rely on any advanced features of upstart or systemd because we refuse to choose between them. And the decision to support the FreeBSD kernel means that we cannot choose upstart or systemd as the only option. So all daemon maintainers will have to maintain those baroque init scripts for the indefinite future. We really should be able to decide as a distribution that when one option is technically good and popular then it can be made the only option. But no-one really has the authority to do that, so we muddle along with the pretence that all the options are equally valid and functional, while none of them is supported as well as they should be.
We try too hard to accommodate every possible option, without regard for the cost to developers and users in general.We also try to build every package on every architecture, in general. I m quite sure there are many (package, architecture) combinations that have no users, ever. But if at some point that combination FTBFS, developers will waste time investigating and fixing that time that could have been spent working on bugs and features that users actually care about. Yes, sure, portability is good but you can t prove portability just by making a package compile on every architecture. This also applies to the selection of drivers for the kernel, by the way. Raphael: Is there someone in Debian that you admire for their contributions? Well, there are many people, but I will pick out just a few: Steve McIntyre, for his work as DPL to improve communication with the various Debian derivatives and to bring fresh blood into various core teams. Also for being a generous host for countless Debian social and bug-squashing events. Stefano Zacchiroli, for improving further on communications with both downstream and upstream projects, and for regularly exercising his power to lead discussions to the benefit of the project. Julien Cristau, for maintaining good humour while not only fighting against the tide of graphics driver regressions in X and the Linux kernel but also working on release management. Jonathan Nieder, for taking on the unglamorous and frustrating task of kernel bug triage as a non-maintainer and developing it to a fine art.
Subscribe to my newsletter to get my monthly summary of the Debian/Ubuntu news and to not miss further interviews. You can also follow along on Identi.ca, Google+, Twitter and Facebook .
4 comments Liked this article? Click here. My blog is Flattr-enabled.
master:/srv/leader/news/bits-from-the-DPL.*
The amount of forwarded patches we receive from downstream is at its maximumThis is by far not an achievement of mine alone. In particular, many of the activity of the Derivatives Front Desk have been organized by other enthusiastic volunteers. But I ve done my part, especially in breaking the ice and in proposing a vision of Free Software distribution where all distros play a role and are welcome to join the game, as long as they give back and give credit to their respective upstreams.
We have several project members that [ ] take care of tasks other than packaging.Once gain, this is by far not an achievement of mine alone, very little project-wide achievements are. DAM has helped a lot and support from the project as a whole has been immense.
It s multi-arch [ ] you realize you are finally doing the right thing and ditching piles of ugly hacks.Raphael: If you were not DPL and could spend all your time on Debian, what project would you do? Stefano: I would sit down and do software development for Debian. It s impressive how many important and beneficial changes for Debian could be delivered by specific software improvements in various parts of our infrastructure. We tend to attract many packagers, but not so many people willing to maintain Debian infrastructure softwares like dak, britney, debbugs, the PTS, etc. Their maintenance burden then falls on the shoulders of the respective teams which are generally very busy with other important tasks. As a project, we seem to be more appealing to packagers than to software developers. That is a pity given the amount of exciting coding tasks that are everywhere in Debian. Part of the reason we are not appealing to developers is that we are not particularly good at collecting coding tasks in a place where interested developers could easily pick them up. It also takes quite a bit of inside knowledge to spot infrastructure bugs and understand how to fix them. I long for some spare hacking time to check if I m still good enough of a coder to hunt down longstanding bugs in our infrastructure, which have ended up being my pet peeves. I d also love to dive again into RCBW. It s less committing than package maintenance, more diverse and challenging, and also an immensely useful activity to get Debian releases done. Raphael: Martin Michlmayr is worried that there is so few paid opportunities around Debian. Do you agree with his sentiment, and if yes do you have ideas on how to improve this situation? Stefano: The idealistic me wishes Debian to be a community made only of volunteers that devote their free time to the Project. Oh, and that me also wishes Debian to be competitive with similar projects, no matter how many full-time employees others have! That is coherent with a view of society where everyone has a day job, but also engages in volunteering activities ensuring that public interest is pursued by people motivated by interests other than profit. But I do realize that for Free Software to succeed companies, employees, and salaries should all have a role. I admire projects that strike a good balance between volunteer and paid work. The Linux kernel is emblematic in that respect: many developers are paid by companies that have a commercial or strategic interest in Linux. Nevertheless volunteers contributions are aplenty and the Linux community gives a convincing impression that choices are driven by the community itself (or by its benevolent dictator) without money-driven impositions.
I do realize that for Free Software to succeed companies, employees, and salaries should all have a role.Such an ecosystem does not exist around Debian. We do have a partner program that allows for it to happen, but we have very few partners with an interest in doing distribution development work. Like Martin, I m worried by this state of affairs, because it de facto means we lag behind in terms of available people power. In a community of volunteers, that might frustrate people and that is not good. To improve over the status quo the first step is to federate together small and medium companies that have a strategic interest in Debian and listen to their needs. I m already in touch with representatives of such companies that, in many cases, already employ Debian Developers to do some distribution work in Debian. We will be soon sending out a call to reach out to more such companies, but since we are discussing this, why waiting? If some of our readers here are representative of such companies, I encourage them to get in touch with me about this. Raphael: You know that the fundraising campaign for the Debian Administrator s Handbook is on good track but the liberation of the book is not yet assured. What do you think of this project? Stefano: I m happy about the project, to the point that I ve accepted writing a testimonial for it . I m sad about the scarce availability of up to date and high quality (DFSG-)Free books about Debian and I welcome any initiative that might help closing that gap.
I m sad about the scarce availability of up to date and high quality (DFSG-)Free books about Debian.Free Culture is a great offspring of Free Software and I m convinced we need to stand up against double standards in the two camps. Letting aside software-specific licensing details, the basic freedoms to be defended are the same. They are those freedoms that ensure that a reader is in full control of his book, pretty much as they ensure that a computer user is in full control of the software that runs on it. I m therefore proud that Debian has long resolved that the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) apply not only to software but also to books and other pieces of documentation. But the status quo implies that not only we have very few up to date, high quality books about Debian. It also implies that, at present, we have no such book that we can distribute in the Debian archive, showing off the Free Software (and Free Culture!) values we stand for.
Subscribe to my newsletter to get my monthly summary of the Debian/Ubuntu news and to not miss further interviews. You can also follow along on Identi.ca, Google+, Twitter and Facebook .
7 comments Liked this article? Click here. My blog is Flattr-enabled.
Next.