[Freedombox-discuss] tahoe-lafs now in debian

Adam Novak interfect at gmail.com
Sun Jun 19 14:09:12 UTC 2011

We don't need it in years. We need it now. We needed it in February. If
there needs to be a repository in addition to the main Debian one in order
to ship now rather than later, we can set that up now and get all the
packages into the mainline later.
On Jun 19, 2011 7:33 AM, "Jonas Smedegaard" <dr at jones.dk> wrote:
> On 11-06-18 at 06:30pm, Luka Marčetić wrote:
>> On 06/17/2011 09:27 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> >On 11-06-17 at 09:13pm, Luka Marčetić wrote:
>> >>On 06/17/2011 07:24 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> >>>On 11-06-17 at 05:04pm, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> >>>>On 11-06-17 at 04:40pm, bertagaz at ptitcanardnoir.org wrote:
>> >>>>>With the freedombox in mind, I've packaged tahoe-lafs and it's
>> >>>>>dependencies in Debian with the help of a proper DD. It has been
>> >>>>>accepted in unstable some hours ago, and it should pop up in the
>> >>>>>archive soon.
>> >>>>Cool!
>> >>>Now available unofficially for Debian stable using this APT line:
>> >>>
>> >>> deb http://debian.jones.dk/ squeeze freedombox
>> >>OT: Dirty hacks are dirty. We need desktop Debian (sid, not
>> >>testing).
>> >Uhm, what do you mean by that?
>> >
>> >Tahoe-lafs being dirty? My backporting effort being dirty?
>> >FreedomBox being dirty and desktops not so?!?
>> Back-porting being dirty, yes.
> Thanks for clarifying.
>> There should be no need. Are you suggesting Freedombox will be using
>> backports?
> No. The backport is offered as an aid for potential FreedomBox
> developers interested in unofficially(!) experiement with Tahoe-LAFS on
> an otherwise stable system.
> The debian.jones.dk repository is deliberately *not* signed to emphasize
> that using backports is dirty and risky.
> (as a related note, I consider backports.debian.org as dirty too, and
> find it problematic that Debian has no easy mechanism to flag if an
> install is dirty - independent on whether _delivery_ of it is safe).
> In my opinion FreedomBox should be a Debian Pure Blend, which implies
> that it uses only Debian, is only configured by Debian, and is
> distributed by Debian.
> I disagree with your possible suggestion that FreedomBox as shipped to
> our end-users should use Debian unstable. I feel that only a FreedomBox
> installed from Debian stable (and *only Debian stable, no addons of any
> kind) should be considered a stable FreedomBox installation.
> Yes, that means I expect FreedomBox to take years to mature. Until then
> we can make various experimental, unstable and testing installs - and
> dirty unofficial mixtures like installs "infected" with material from
> the debian.jones.dk repository.
> - Jonas
> --
> * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
> * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
> [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/freedombox-discuss/attachments/20110619/d747b223/attachment.html>

More information about the Freedombox-discuss mailing list