[Freedombox-discuss] tahoe-lafs now in debian
bertagaz at ptitcanardnoir.org
bertagaz at ptitcanardnoir.org
Sun Jun 19 14:27:17 UTC 2011
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 09:09:12AM -0500, Adam Novak wrote:
> 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.
That'd be nice anyway if FB users had a way to add repositories using the
I intend to push an official backport soon anyway.
> 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
> Freedombox-discuss mailing list
> Freedombox-discuss at lists.alioth.debian.org
More information about the Freedombox-discuss