Planet Debian

Subscribe to Planet Debian feed
Planet Debian -
Updated: 1 hour 11 min ago

Niels Thykier: Release Team unblock queue flushed

22 November, 2014 - 03:46

At the start of this week, I wrote that we had 58 open unblock requests open (of which 25 were tagged moreinfo).  Thanks to an extra effort from the Release Team, we now down to 25 open unblocks – of which 18 are tagged moreinfo.

We have now resolved 442 unblock requests (out of a total of 467).  The rate has also declined to an average of ~18 new unblock requests a day (over 26 days) and our closing rated increased to ~17.

With all of this awesomeness, some of us are now more than ready to have a well-deserved weekend to recharge our batteries.  Meanwhile, feel free to keep the RC bug fixes flowing into unstable.

Richard Hartmann: Release Critical Bug report for Week 47

22 November, 2014 - 03:31

There's a BSP this weekend. If you're interested in remote participation, please join #debian-muc on

The UDD bugs interface currently knows about the following release critical bugs:

  • In Total: 1213 (Including 210 bugs affecting key packages)
    • Affecting Jessie: 342 (key packages: 152) That's the number we need to get down to zero before the release. They can be split in two big categories:
      • Affecting Jessie and unstable: 260 (key packages: 119) Those need someone to find a fix, or to finish the work to upload a fix to unstable:
        • 37 bugs are tagged 'patch'. (key packages: 20) Please help by reviewing the patches, and (if you are a DD) by uploading them.
        • 12 bugs are marked as done, but still affect unstable. (key packages: 3) This can happen due to missing builds on some architectures, for example. Help investigate!
        • 211 bugs are neither tagged patch, nor marked done. (key packages: 96) Help make a first step towards resolution!
      • Affecting Jessie only: 82 (key packages: 33) Those are already fixed in unstable, but the fix still needs to migrate to Jessie. You can help by submitting unblock requests for fixed packages, by investigating why packages do not migrate, or by reviewing submitted unblock requests.
        • 65 bugs are in packages that are unblocked by the release team. (key packages: 26)
        • 17 bugs are in packages that are not unblocked. (key packages: 7)

How do we compare to the Squeeze release cycle?

Week Squeeze Wheezy Jessie 43 284 (213+71) 468 (332+136) 319 (240+79) 44 261 (201+60) 408 (265+143) 274 (224+50) 45 261 (205+56) 425 (291+134) 295 (229+66) 46 271 (200+71) 401 (258+143) 427 (313+114) 47 283 (209+74) 366 (221+145) 342 (260+82) 48 256 (177+79) 378 (230+148) 49 256 (180+76) 360 (216+155) 50 204 (148+56) 339 (195+144) 51 178 (124+54) 323 (190+133) 52 115 (78+37) 289 (190+99) 1 93 (60+33) 287 (171+116) 2 82 (46+36) 271 (162+109) 3 25 (15+10) 249 (165+84) 4 14 (8+6) 244 (176+68) 5 2 (0+2) 224 (132+92) 6 release! 212 (129+83) 7 release+1 194 (128+66) 8 release+2 206 (144+62) 9 release+3 174 (105+69) 10 release+4 120 (72+48) 11 release+5 115 (74+41) 12 release+6 93 (47+46) 13 release+7 50 (24+26) 14 release+8 51 (32+19) 15 release+9 39 (32+7) 16 release+10 20 (12+8) 17 release+11 24 (19+5) 18 release+12 2 (2+0)

Graphical overview of bug stats thanks to azhag:

Jonathan Wiltshire: On kFreeBSD and FOSDEM

22 November, 2014 - 02:16

Boy I love rumours. Recently I’ve heard two, which I ought to put to rest now everybody’s calmed down from recent events.

kFreeBSD isn’t an official Jessie architecture because <insert systemd-related scare story>

Not true.

Our sprint at ARM (who kindly hosted and caffeinated us for four days) was timed to coincide with the Cambridge Mini-DebConf 2014. The intention was that this would save on travel costs for those members of the Release Team who wanted to attend the conference, and give us a jolly good excuse to actually meet up. Winners all round.

It also had an interesting side-effect. The room we used was across the hall from the lecture theatre being used as hack space and, later, the conference venue, which meant everybody attending during those two days could see us locked away there (and yes, we were in there all day for two days solid, except for lunch times and coffee missions). More than one conference attendee remarked to me in person that it was interesting for them to see us working (although of course they couldn’t hear what we were discussing), and hadn’t appreciated before that how much time and effort goes into our meetings.

Most of our first morning was taken up with the last pieces of architecture qualification, and that was largely the yes/no decision we had to make about kFreeBSD. And you know what? I don’t recall us talking about systemd in that context at all. Don’t forget kFreeBSD already had a waiver for a reduced scope in Jessie because of the difficulty in porting systemd to it.

It’s sadly impossible to capture the long and detailed discussion we had into a couple of lines of status information in a bits mail. If bits mails were much longer, people would be put off reading them, and we really really want you to take note of what’s in there. The little space we do have needs to be factual and to the point, and not include all the background that led us to a decision.

So no, the lack of an official Jessie release of kFreeBSD has very little, if anything, to do with systemd.

Jessie will be released during (or even before) FOSDEM

Not necessarily true.

Debian releases are made when they’re ready. That sets us apart from lots of other distributions, and is a large factor in our reputation for stability. We may have a target date in mind for a freeze, because that helps both us and the rest of the project plan accordingly. But we do not have a release date in mind, and will not do so until we get much closer to being ready. (Have you squashed an RC bug today?)

I think this rumour originated from the office of the DPL, but it’s certainly become more concrete than I think Lucas intended.

However, it is true that we’ve gone into this freeze with a seriously low bug count, because of lots of other factors. So it may indeed be that we end up in good enough shape to think about releasing near (or even at) FOSDEM. But rest assured, Debian 8 “Jessie” will be released when it’s ready, and even we don’t know when that will be yet.

(Of course, if we do release before then, you could consider throwing us a party. Plenty of the Release Team, FTP masters and CD team will be at FOSDEM, release or none.)

On kFreeBSD and FOSDEM is a post from: | Flattr

Gunnar Wolf: Status of the Debian OpenPGP keyring — November update

22 November, 2014 - 01:29

Almost two months ago I posted our keyring status graphs, showing the progress of the transition to >=2048-bit keys for the different active Debian keyrings. So, here are the new figures.

First, the Non-uploading keyring: We were already 100% transitioned. You will only notice a numerical increase: That little bump at the right is our dear friend Tássia finally joining as a Debian Developer. Welcome! \o/

As for the Maintainers keyring: We can see a sharp increase in 4096-bit keys. Four 1024-bit DM keys were migrated to 4096R, but we did have eight new DMs coming in To them, also, welcome \o/.

Sadly, we had to remove a 1024-bit key, as Peter Miller sadly passed away. So, in a 234-key universe, 12 new 4096R keys is a large bump!

Finally, our current-greatest worry — If for nothing else, for the size of the beast: The active Debian Developers keyring. We currently have 983 keys in this keyring, so it takes considerably more effort to change it.

But we have managed to push it noticeably.

This last upload saw a great deal of movement. We received only one new DD (but hey — welcome nonetheless! \o/ ). 13 DD keys were retired; as one of the maintainers of the keyring, of course this makes me sad — but then again, in most cases it's rather an acknowledgement of fact: Those keys' holders often state they had long not been really involved in the project, and the decision to retire was in fact timely. But the greatest bulk of movement was the key replacements: A massive 62 1024D keys were replaced with stronger ones. And, yes, the graph changed quite abruptly:

We still have a bit over one month to go for our cutoff line, where we will retire all 1024D keys. It is important to say we will not retire the affected accounts, mark them as MIA, nor anything like that. If you are a DD and only have a 1024D key, you will still be a DD, but you will be technically unable to do work directly. You can still upload your packages or send announcements to regulated mailing lists via sponsor requests (although you will be unable to vote).

Speaking of votes: We have often said that we believe the bulk of the short keys belong to people not really active in the project anymore. Not all of them, sure, but a big proportion. We just had a big, controversial GR vote with one of the highest voter turnouts in Debian's history. I checked the GR's tally sheet, and the results are interesting: Please excuse my ugly bash, but I'm posting this so you can play with similar runs on different votes and points in time using the public keyring Git repository:

  1. $ git checkout 2014.10.10
  2. $ for KEY in $( for i in $( grep '^V:' tally.txt |
  3. awk '{print "<" $3 ">"}' )
  4. do
  5. grep $i keyids|cut -f 1 -d ' '
  6. done )
  7. do
  8. if [ -f debian-keyring-gpg/$KEY -o -f debian-nonupload-gpg/$KEY ]
  9. then
  10. gpg --keyring /dev/null --keyring debian-keyring-gpg/$KEY \
  11. --keyring debian-nonupload-gpg/$KEY --with-colons \
  12. --list-key $KEY 2>/dev/null \
  13. | head -2 |tail -1 | cut -f 3 -d :
  14. fi
  15. done | sort | uniq -c
  16. 95 1024
  17. 13 2048
  18. 1 3072
  19. 371 4096
  20. 2 8192

So, as of mid-October: 387 out of the 482 votes (80.3%) were cast by developers with >=2048-bit keys, and 95 (19.7%) were cast by short keys.

If we were to run the same vote with the new active keyring, 417 votes would have been cast with >=2048-bit keys (87.2%), and 61 with short keys (12.8%). We would have four less votes, as they retired:

  1. 61 1024
  2. 14 2048
  3. 2 3072
  4. 399 4096
  5. 2 8192

So, lets hear it for November/December. How much can we push down that pesky yellow line?

Disclaimer: Any inaccuracy due to bugs in my code is completely my fault!

Daniel Pocock: PostBooks 4.7 packages available, xTupleCon 2014 award

21 November, 2014 - 21:12

I recently updated the PostBooks packages in Debian and Ubuntu to version 4.7. This is the version that was released in Ubuntu 14.10 (Utopic Unicorn) and is part of the upcoming Debian 8 (jessie) release.

Better prospects for Fedora and RHEL/CentOS/EPEL packages

As well as getting the packages ready, I've been in contact with xTuple helping them generalize their build system to make packaging easier. This has eliminated the need to patch the makefiles during the build. As well as making it easier to support the Debian/Ubuntu packages, this should make it far easier for somebody to create a spec file for RPM packaging too.

Debian wins a prize

While visiting xTupleCon 2014 in Norfolk, I was delighted to receive the Community Member of the Year award which I happily accepted not just for my own efforts but for the Debian Project as a whole.

Steve Hackbarth, Director of Product Development at xTuple, myself and the impressive Community Member of the Year trophy

This is a great example of the productive relationships that exist between Debian, upstream developers and the wider free software community and it is great to be part of a team that can synthesize the work from so many other developers into ready-to-run solutions on a 100% free software platform.

Receiving this award really made me think about all the effort that has gone into making it possible to apt-get install postbooks and all the people who have collectively done far more work than myself to make this possible:

Here is a screenshot of the xTuple web / JSCommunicator integration, it was one of the highlights of xTupleCon:

and gives a preview of the wide range of commercial opportunities that WebRTC is creating for software vendors to displace traditional telecommunications providers.

xTupleCon also gave me a great opportunity to see new features (like the xTuple / Drupal web shop integration) and hear about the success of consultants and their clients deploying xTuple/PostBooks in various scenarios. The product is extremely strong in meeting the needs of manufacturing and distribution and has gained a lot of traction in these industries in the US. Many of these features are equally applicable in other markets with a strong manufacturing industry such as Germany or the UK. However, it is also flexible enough to simply disable many of the specialized features and use it as a general purpose accounting solution for consulting and services businesses. This makes it a good option for many IT freelancers and support providers looking for a way to keep their business accounts in a genuinely open source solution with a strong SQL backend and a native Linux desktop interface.

Julien Danjou: Distributed group management and locking in Python with tooz

21 November, 2014 - 19:10

With OpenStack embracing the Tooz library more and more over the past year, I think it's a good start to write a bit about it.

A bit of history

A little more than year ago, with my colleague Yassine Lamgarchal and others at eNovance, we investigated on how to solve a problem often encountered inside OpenStack: synchronization of multiple distributed workers. And while many people in our ecosystem continue to drive development by adding new bells and whistles, we made a point of solving new problems with a generic solution able to address the technical debt at the same time.

Yassine wrote the first ideas of what should be the group membership service that was needed for OpenStack, identifying several projects that could make use of this. I've presented this concept during the OpenStack Summit in Hong-Kong during an Oslo session. It turned out that the idea was well-received, and the week following the summit we started the tooz project on StackForge.


Tooz is a Python library that provides a coordination API. Its primary goal is to handle groups and membership of these groups in distributed systems.

Tooz also provides another useful feature which is distributed locking. This allows distributed nodes to acquire and release locks in order to synchronize themselves (for example to access a shared resource).

The architecture

If you are familiar with distributed systems, you might be thinking that there are a lot of solutions already available to solve these issues: ZooKeeper, the Raft consensus algorithm or even Redis for example.

You'll be thrilled to learn that Tooz is not the result of the NIH syndrome, but is an abstraction layer on top of all these solutions. It uses drivers to provide the real functionalities behind, and does not try to do anything fancy.

All the drivers do not have the same amount of functionality of robustness, but depending on your environment, any available driver might be suffice. Like most of OpenStack, we let the deployers/operators/developers chose whichever backend they want to use, informing them of the potential trade-offs they will make.

So far, Tooz provides drivers based on:

All drivers are distributed across processes. Some can be distributed across the network (ZooKeeper, memcached, redis…) and some are only available on the same host (IPC).

Also note that the Tooz API is completely asynchronous, allowing it to be more efficient, and potentially included in an event loop.

Features Group membership

Tooz provides an API to manage group membership. The basic operations provided are: the creation of a group, the ability to join it, leave it and list its members. It's also possible to be notified as soon as a member joins or leaves a group.

Leader election

Each group can have a leader elected. Each member can decide if it wants to run for the election. If the leader disappears, another one is elected from the list of current candidates. It's possible to be notified of the election result and to retrieve the leader of a group at any moment.

Distributed locking

When trying to synchronize several workers in a distributed environment, you may need a way to lock access to some resources. That's what a distributed lock can help you with.

Adoption in OpenStack

Ceilometer is the first project in OpenStack to use Tooz. It has replaced part of the old alarm distribution system, where RPC was used to detect active alarm evaluator workers. The group membership feature of Tooz was leveraged by Ceilometer to coordinate between alarm evaluator workers.

Another new feature part of the Juno release of Ceilometer is the distribution of polling tasks of the central agent among multiple workers. There's again a group membership issue to know which nodes are online and available to receive polling tasks, so Tooz is also being used here.

The Oslo team has accepted the adoption of Tooz during this release cycle. That means that it will be maintained by more developers, and will be part of the OpenStack release process.

This opens the door to push Tooz further in OpenStack. Our next candidate would be write a service group driver for Nova.

The complete documentation for Tooz is available online and has examples for the various features described here, go read it if you're curious and adventurous!

Jonathan Wiltshire: Getting things into Jessie (#6)

21 November, 2014 - 17:30
If it’s not in an unblock bug, we probably aren’t reading it

We really, really prefer unblock bugs to anything else right now (at least, for things relating to Jessie). Mails on the list get lost, and IRC is dubious. This includes for pre-approvals.

It’s perfectly fine to open an unblock bug and then find it’s not needed, or the question is really about something else. We’d rather that than your mail get lost between the floorboards. Bugs are easy to track, have metadata so we can keep the status up to date in a standard way, and are publicised in all the right places. They make a great to-do list.

By all means twiddle with the subject line, for example appending “(pre-approval)” so it’s clearer – though watch out for twiddling too much, or you’ll confuse udd.

(to continue my theme: asking you to file a bug instead costs you one round-trip; don’t forget we’re doing it at scale)


Getting things into Jessie (#6) is a post from: | Flattr

Steve McIntyre: UEFI Debian CDs for Jessie...

21 November, 2014 - 04:59

So, my work for Wheezy gave us working amd64 UEFI installer images. Yay! Except: there were a few bugs that remained, and also places where we could deal better with some of the more crappy UEFI implementations out there. But, things have improve since then and we should be better for Jessie in quite a few ways.

First of all, Colin and the other Grub developers have continued working hard and quite a lot of the old bugs in this area look to be fixed. I'm hoping we're not going to see so many "UEFI boot gives me a blank black screen" type of problems now.

For those poor unfortunates with Windows 7 on their machines, using BIOS boot despite having UEFI support in their hardware, I've fixed a long-standing bug (#763127 that could leave people with broken systems, unable to dual boot.

We've fixed a silly potential permissions bug in how the EFI System Partition is mounted: (#770033.

Next up, I'm hoping to add a workaround for some of the broken UEFI implementations, by adding support in our Grub packages (and in d-i) for forcing the installation of a copy of grub-efi in the removable media path. See #746662 for more of the details. It's horrid to be doing this, but it's just about the best thing we can do to support people with broken firmware.

Finally, I've been getting lots of requests for adding i386 (32-bit x86) UEFI support in our official images. Back in the Wheezy development cycle, I had test images that worked on i386, but decided not to push that support into the release. There were worries about potentially critical bugs that could be tickled on some hardware, plus there were only very few known i386 UEFI platforms at the time; the risk of damage outweighed the small proportion of users, IMHO. However, I'm now revisiting that decision. The potentially broken machines are now 2 years older, and so less likely to be in use. Also, Intel have released some horrid platform concoction around the Bay Trail CPU: a 64-bit CPU (that really wants a 64-bit kernel), but running a 32-bit UEFI firmware with no BIOS Compatibility Mode. Recent kernels are able to cope with this mess, but at the moment there is no sensible way to install Debian on such a machine. I'm hoping to fix that next (#768461. It's going to be awkward again, needing changes in several places too.

You can help! Same as 2 years ago, I'll need help testing some of these images. Particularly for the 32-bit UEFI support, I currently have no relevant hardware myself. That's not going to make it easy... :-/

I'll start pushing unofficial Jessie EFI test images shortly.

Tiago Bortoletto Vaz: Things to celebrate

21 November, 2014 - 03:32

Turning 35 today, then I get the great news that the person whom I share my dreams with has just become a Debian member! Isn't beautiful? Thanks Tássia, thanks Debian! I should also thank friends who make an ideal ambience for tonight's fun.

Neil McGovern: Barbie the Debian Developer

21 November, 2014 - 03:00

Some people may have seen recently that the Barbie series has a rather sexist book out about Barbie the Computer Engineer. Fortunately, there’s a way to improve this by making your own version.

Thus, I made a short version about Barbie the Debian Developer and init system packager.

(For those who don’t know me, this is satirical. Any resemblance to people is purely coincidental.)

Gunnar Wolf: UNAM. Viva México, viva en paz.

21 November, 2014 - 01:38

We have had terrible months in Mexico; I don't know how much has appeared about our country in the international media. The last incidents started on the last days of September, when 43 students at a school for rural teachers were forcefully disappeared (in our Latin American countries, this means they were taken by force and no authority can yet prove whether they are alive or dead; forceful disappearance is one of the saddest and most recognized traits of the brutal military dictatorships South America had in the 1970s) in the Iguala region (Guerrero state, South of the country) and three were killed on site. An Army regiment was stationed few blocks from there and refused to help.

And yes, we live in a country where (incredibly) this news by themselves would not seem so unheard of... But in this case, there is ample evidence they were taken by the local police forces, not by a gang of (assumed) wrongdoers. And they were handed over to a very violent gang afterwards. Several weeks later, with far from a thorough investigation, we were told they were killed, burnt and thrown to a river.

The Iguala city major ran away, and was later captured, but it's not clear why he was captured at two different places. The Guerrero state governor resigned and a new governor was appointed. But this was not the result of a single person behaving far from what their voters would expect — It's a symptom of a broken society where policemen will kill when so ordered, where military personnel will look away when pointed out to the obvious, where the drug dealers have captured vast regions of the country where are stronger than the formal powers.

And then, instead of dealing with the issue personally as everybody would expect, the president goes on a commercial mission to China. Oh, to fix some issues with a building company. That coincidentally or not was selling a super-luxury house to his wife. A house that she, several days later, decided to sell because it was tarnishing her family's honor and image.

And while the president is in China, the person who dealt with the social pressure and told us about the probable (but not proven!) horrible crime where the "bad guys" for some strange and yet unknown reason (even with tens of them captured already) decided to kill and burn and dissolve and disappear 43 future rural teachers presents his version, and finishes his speech saying that "I'm already tired of this topic".

Of course, our University is known for its solidarity with social causes; students in our different schools are the first activists in many protests, and we have had a very tense time as the protests are at home here at the university. This last weekend, supposed policemen entered our main campus with a stupid, unbelievable argument (they were looking for a phone reported as stolen three days earlier), get into an argument with some students, and end up firing shots at the students; one of them was wounded in the leg.

And the university is now almost under siege: There are policemen surrounding us. We are working as usual, and will most likely finish the semester with normality, but the intimidation (in a country where seeing a policeman is practically never a good sign) is strong.

And... Oh, I could go on a lot. Things feel really desperate and out of place.

Today I will join probably tens or hundreds of thousands of Mexicans sick of this simulation, sick of this violence, in a demonstration downtown. What will this achieve? Very little, if anything at all. But we cannot just sit here watching how things go from bad to worse. I do not accept to live in a state of exception.

So, this picture is just right: A bit over a month ago, two dear friends from Guadalajara city came, and we had a nice walk in the University. Our national university is not only huge, it's also beautiful and loaded with sights. And being so close to home, it's our favorite place to go with friends to show around. This is a fragment of the beautiful mural in the Central Library. And, yes, the University stands for "Viva México". And the university stands for "Peace". And we need it all. Desperately.

Steve Kemp: An experiment in (re)building Debian

20 November, 2014 - 20:28

I've rebuilt many Debian packages over the years, largely to fix bugs which affected me, or to add features which didn't make the cut in various releases. For example I made a package of fabric available for Wheezy, since it wasn't in the release. (Happily in that case a wheezy-backport became available. Similar cases involved repackaging gtk-gnutella when the protocol changed and the official package in the lenny release no longer worked.)

I generally release a lot of my own software as Debian packages, although I'll admit I've started switching to publishing Perl-based projects on CPAN instead - from which they can be debianized via dh-make-perl.

One thing I've not done for many years is a mass-rebuild of Debian packages. I did that once upon a time when I was trying to push for the stack-smashing-protection inclusion all the way back in 2006.

Having had a few interesting emails this past week I decided to do the job for real. I picked a random server of mine,, which stores backups, and decided to rebuild it using "my own" packages.

The host has about 300 packages installed upon it:

root@rsync ~ # dpkg --list | grep ^ii | wc -l

I got the source to every package, patched the changelog to bump the version, and rebuild every package from source. That took about three hours.

Every package has a "skx1" suffix now, and all the build-dependencies were also determined by magic and rebuilt:

root@rsync ~ # dpkg --list | grep ^ii | awk '{ print $2 " " $3}'| head -n 4
acpi 1.6-1skx1
acpi-support-base 0.140-5+deb7u3skx1
acpid 1:2.0.16-1+deb7u1skx1
adduser 3.113+nmu3skx1

The process was pretty quick once I started getting more and more of the packages built. The only shortcut was not explicitly updating the dependencies to rely upon my updages. For example bash has a Debian control file that contains:

Depends: base-files (>= 2.1.12), debianutils (>= 2.15)

That should have been updated to say:

Depends: base-files (>= 2.1.12skx1), debianutils (>= 2.15skx1)

However I didn't do that, because I suspect if I did want to do this decently, and I wanted to share the source-trees, and the generated packages, the way to go would not be messing about with Debian versions instead I'd create a new Debian release "alpha-apple", "beta-bananna", "crunchy-carrot", "dying-dragonfruit", "easy-elderberry", or similar.

In conclusion: Importing Debian packages into git, much like Ubuntu did with bzr, is a fun project, and it doesn't take much to mass-rebuild if you're not making huge changes. Whether it is worth doing is an entirely different question of course.

Daniel Pocock: Is Amnesty giving spy victims a false sense of security?

20 November, 2014 - 19:48

Amnesty International is getting a lot of attention with the launch of a new tool to detect government and corporate spying on your computer.

I thought I would try it myself. I went to a computer running Microsoft Windows, an operating system that does not publish its source code for public scrutiny. I used the Chrome browser, users often express concern about Chrome sending data back to the vendor about the web sites the users look for.

Without even installing the app, I would expect the Amnesty web site to recognise that I was accessing the site from a combination of proprietary software. Instead, I found a different type of warning.

Beware of Amnesty?

Instead, the online warning I received was from Amnesty's own cookies:

Even before I install the app to find out if the government is monitoring me, Amnesty is keen to monitor my behaviour themselves.

While cookies are used widely, their presence on a site like Amnesty's only further desensitizes Internet users to the downside risks of tracking technologies. By using cookies, Amnesty is effectivley saying a little bit of tracking is justified for the greater good. Doesn't that sound eerily like the justification we often hear from governments too?

Is Amnesty part of the solution or part of the problem?

Amnesty is a well known and widely respected name when human rights are mentioned.

However, their advice that you can install an app onto a Windows computer or iPhone to detect spyware is like telling people that putting a seatbelt on a motorbike will eliminate the risk of death. It would be much more credible for Amnesty to tell people to start by avoiding cloud services altogether, browse the web with Tor and only use operating systems and software that come with fully published source code under a free license. Only when 100% of the software on your device is genuinely free and open source can independent experts exercise the freedom to study the code and detect and remove backdoors, spyware and security bugs.

It reminds me of the advice Kim Kardashian gave after the Fappening, telling people they can continue trusting companies like Facebook and Apple with their private data just as long as they check the privacy settings (reality check: privacy settings in cloud services are about as effective as a band-aid on a broken leg).

Write to Amnesty

Amnesty became famous for their letter writing campaigns.

Maybe now is the time for people to write to Amnesty themselves, thank them for their efforts and encourage them to take more comprehensive action.

Feel free to cut and paste some of the following potential ideas into an email to Amnesty:

I understand you may not be able to respond to every email personally but I would like to ask you to make a statement about these matters on your public web site or blog.

I understand it is Amnesty's core objective to end grave abuses of human rights. Electronic surveillence, due to its scale and pervasiveness, has become a grave abuse in itself and in a disturbing number of jurisdictions it is an enabler for other types of grave violations of human rights.

I'm concerned that your new app Detekt gives people a false sense of security and that your campaign needs to be more comprehensive to truly help people and humanity in the long term.

If Amnesty is serious about solving the problems of electronic surveillance by government, corporations and other bad actors, please consider some of the following:

  • Instead of displaying a cookie warning on, display a warning to users who access the site from a computer running closed-source software and give them a link to download an open source web browser like Firefox.
  • Redirect all visitors to your web site to use the HTTPS encrypted version of the site.
  • Using spyware-free open source software such as the Linux operating system and LibreOffice for all Amnesty's own operations, making a public statement about your use of free open source software and mentioning this in the closing paragraph of all press releases relating to surveillance topics.
  • Encouraging Amnesty donors, members and supporters to choose similar software especially when engaging in any political activities.
  • Make a public statement that Amnesty will not use cloud services such as SalesForce or Facebook to store, manage or interact with data relating to members, donors or other supporters.
  • Encouraging the public to move away from centralized cloud services such as those provided by their smartphone or social networks and use de-centralized or federated services such as XMPP chat.

Given the immense threat posed by electronic surveillance, I'd also like to call on Amnesty to allocate at least 10% of annual revenue towards software projects releasing free and open source software that offers the public an alternative to the centralized cloud.

While publicity for electronic privacy is great, I hope Amnesty can go a step further and help people use trustworthy software from the ground up.

Jonathan Wiltshire: Getting things into Jessie (#5)

20 November, 2014 - 17:30
Don’t assume another package’s unblock is a precedent for yours

Sometime we’ll use our judgement when granting an unblock to a less-than-straightforward package. Lots of factors go into that, including the regression risk, desirability, impact on other packages (of both acceptance and refusal) and trust.

However, a judgement call on one package doesn’t automatically mean that the same decision will be made for another. Every single unblock request we get is called on its own merits.

Do by all means ask about your package in light of another. There may be cross-over that makes your change desirable as well.

Don’t take it personally if the judgement call ends up being not what you expected.

Getting things into Jessie (#5) is a post from: | Flattr

Stefano Zacchiroli: Thoughts on the Init System Coupling GR

20 November, 2014 - 15:59
on perceived hysteria and silent sanity

As you probably already know by now, the results of the Debian init system coupling general resolution (GR) look like this:

Init system coupling GR: results (arrow from A to B means that voters preferred A to B by that margin)

Some random thoughts about them:

  • The turnout has been the highest since 2010 DPL elections and the 2nd highest among all GRs (!= DPL elections) ever. The highest among all GRs dates back to 2004 and was about dropping non-free. In absolute terms this vote scores even better: it is the GR with the highest number of voters ever.

    Clearly there was a lot of interest within the project about this vote. The results appear to be as representative of the views of project members as we have been able to get in the second half of Debian history.

  • There is a total ordering of options (which is not always the case with our voting system). Starting with the winning option, each option in the results beats every subsequent option. The winning option ("General resolution is not required") beats the runner-up ("Support for other init systems is recommended, i.e., "you SHOULD NOT require a specific init") by a large margin: 100 votes, ~20.7% of the voters. The winning options wins over further options by increasingly large margins: 173 votes (~35.8%) against "Packages may require specific init systems if maintainers decide" (the MAY option); 176 (~36.4%) against "Packages may not require a specific init system" (the MUST NOT option); 263 (~54.5%) against "Further discussion" (the "let's keep on flaming" option).

    While judging from Debian mailing lists and news sites you might have gotten the impression that the project was evenly split on init system matters, at least w.r.t. the matter on the ballot that doesn't seem to be the case.

  • The winning option is not as crazy as its label might imply (voting to declare that the vote was not required? WTH?). What the winning option actually says is more articulated than that; quoting from the ballot (highlight mine):

    Regarding the subject of this ballot, the Project affirms that the procedures for decision making and conflict resolution are working adequately and thus a General Resolution is not required.

    With this GR the Debian Project affirms that the procedures we have used to decide the default init system for Jessie and to arbitrate the ensuing conflicts are just fine. People might flame and troll debian-devel as much as they want (actually, I'm pretty sure we would all like them to stop, but that matter wasn't on the ballot so you'll have to take my word for it). People might write blog posts and make headlines corroborating the impression that Debian is still being torn apart by ongoing init system battles. But this vote says instead that the large majority of project members thinks our decision making and conflict-arbitration procedures, which most prominently include the Debian Technical Committee, have served use "adequately" well over the past troubled months.

    That of course doesn't mean that everyone in Debian is happy about every single recent decision, otherwise we wouldn't have had this GR in the first place. But it does mean that we consider our procedures good enough to (a) avoid getting in their way with a project-wide vote, and (b) keep on trusting them for the foreseeable future.

  • [ It is not the main focus of this post, but if you care specifically about the implications of this GR on SystemD adoption in Debian, I recommend reading this excellent GR commentary by Russ Allbery. ]

My take home message is that we are experiencing a huge gap between the public perception of the state of Debian (both from within and from without the project) and the actual beliefs of the silent majority of people that make Debian with their work, day after day.

In part this is old news. The most "senior" members of the project will remember that the topic of "vocal minorities vs silent majority" was a recurrent one in Debian 10+ years ago, when flames were periodically ravaging the project. Since then Debian has grown a lot though, and we are now part of a much larger and varied ecosystem. We are now at a scale at which there are plenty of FOSS "mass-media" covering daily what happens in Debian, inducing feedback loops with our own perception of ourselves which we do not fully grok yet. This is a new factor in the perception gap. This situation is intrinsically bad, nor there is blame to assign here: after all influential bloggers, news sites, etc., just do their job. And their attention also testifies of the huge interest that there is around Debian and our choices.

But we still need to adapt and learn to take perceived hysteria with a pinch (or two) of salt. It might just be time for our decennial check-up. Time to remind ourselves that our ways of doing things might in fact still be much more sane than sometimes we tend to believe.

We went on 10+ years ago, after monumental flames. It looks like we are now ready to move on again, putting The Era of the Great SystemD Histeria™ behind us.

Matthew Palmer: Multi-level prefix delegation is not a myth! I've seen it!

20 November, 2014 - 12:00

Unless you’ve been living under a firewalled rock, you know that IPv6 is coming. There’s also a good chance that you’ve heard that IPv6 doesn’t have NAT. Or, if you pay close attention to the minutiae of IPv6 development, you’ve heard that IPv6 does have NAT, but you don’t have to (and shouldn’t) use it.

So let’s say we’ll skip NAT for IPv6. Fair enough. However, let’s say you have this use case:

  1. A bunch of containers that need Internet access…

  2. That are running in a VM…

  3. On your laptop…

  4. Behind your home router!

For IPv4, you’d just layer on the NAT, right? While SIP and IPsec might have kittens trying to work through three layers of NAT, for most things it’ll Just Work.

In the Grand Future of IPv6, without NAT, how the hell do you make that happen? The answer is “Prefix Delegation”, which allows routers to “delegate” management of a chunk of address space to downstream routers, and allow those downstream routers to, in turn, delegate pieces of that chunk to downstream routers.

In the case of our not-so-hypothetical containers-in-VM-on-laptop-at-home scenario, it would look like this:

  1. My “border router” (a DNS-323 running Debian) asks my ISP for a delegated prefix, using DHCPv6. The ISP delegates a /561. One /64 out of that is allocated to the network directly attached to the internal interface, and the rest goes into “the pool”, as /60 blocks (so I’ve got 15 of them to delegate, if required).

  2. My laptop gets an address on the LAN between itself and the DNS-323 via stateless auto-addressing (“SLAAC”). It also uses DHCPv6 to request one of the /60 blocks from the DNS-323. The laptop puts one /64 from that block as the address space for the “virtual LAN” (actually a Linux bridge) that connects the laptop to all my VMs, and puts the other 15 /64 blocks into a pool for delegation.

  3. The VM that will be running the set of containers under test gets an address on the “all VMs virtual LAN” via SLAAC, and then requests a delegated /64 to use for the “all containers virtual LAN” (another bridge, this one running on the VM itself) that the containers will each connect to themselves.

Now, almost all of this Just Works. The current releases of ISC DHCP support prefix delegation just fine, and a bit of shell script plumbing between the client and server seals the deal – the client needs to rewrite the server’s config file to tell it the netblock from which it can delegate.

Except for one teensy, tiny problem – routing. When the DHCP server delegates a netblock to a particular machine, the routing table needs to get updated so that packets going to that netblock actually get sent to the machine the netblock was delegated to. Without that, traffic destined for the containers (or the VM) won’t actually make it to its destination, and a one-way Internet connection isn’t a whole lot of use.

I cannot understand why this problem hasn’t been tripped over before. It’s absolutely fundamental to the correct operation of the delegation system. Some people advocate running a dynamic routing protocol, but that’s a sledgehammer to crack a nut if ever I saw one.

Actually, I know this problem has been tripped over before, by OpenWrt. Their solution, however, was to use a PHP script to scan logfiles and add routes. Suffice it to say, that wasn’t an option I was keen on exploring.

Instead, I decided to patch ISC DHCP so that the server can run an external script to add the necessary routes, and perhaps modify firewall rules – and also to reverse the process when the delegation is released (or expired). If anyone else wants to play around with it, I’ve put it up on Github. I don’t make any promises that it’s the right way to do it, necessarily, but it works, and the script I’ve added in contrib/prefix-delegation-routing.rb shows how it can be used to good effect. By the way, if anyone knows how pull requests work over at ISC, drop me a line. From the look of their website, they don’t appear to accept (or at least encourage) external contributions.

So, that’s one small patch for DHCP, one giant leap for my home network.

  1. The standard recommendation is for ISPs to delegate each end-user customer a /48 (giving 65,536 /64 networks); my ISP is being a little conservative in “only” giving me 256 /64s. It works fine for my purposes, but if you’re an ISP getting set for deploying IPv6, make life easy on your customers and give them a /48.

Russ Allbery: Interpreting the Debian init system GR

20 November, 2014 - 11:42

I originally posted this in a thread on debian-private, but on further reflection it seems appropriate for a broader audience. So I'm posting it here, as well as on debian-project.

There is quite a lot of discussion in various places about what the recent GR result means. Some are concluding that systemd won in some way that implies Debian is not going to support other init systems, or at least that support for other init systems is in immediate danger. A lot of that analysis concludes that the pro-systemd "side" in Debian won some sort of conclusive victory.

I have a different perspective.

I think we just had a GR in which the Debian developer community said that we, as a community, would like to work through all of the issues around init systems together, as a community, rather than having any one side of the argument win unambiguously and impose its views on those who disagree.

There were options on the ballot that clearly required loose coupling and that clearly required tight coupling. The top two options did neither of those things. The second-highest option said, effectively, that we should feel free to exercise our technical judgement for our own packages, but should do so with an eye to enabling people to make different choices, and should merge their changes and contributions where possible. The highest option said that we don't even want to say that, and would instead prefer to work this whole thing out through discussion, respect, consensus, and mutual support, without giving *anyone* a clear mandate or project-wide blessing for their approach.

In other words, the way I choose to look at this GR is that the project as a whole just voted to take away the sticks that we were using to beat each other with.

In a way, we just chose thet *hardest* option. We didn't make a simplifying technical decision that provides clear guidance to everyone. Instead, we made a complicating social decision that says that, sorry, there's no short cut to avoid having to talk to each other, respect each other's views, and try to reach workable collaborative compromises. Even though it's really hard, even though everyone is raw and upset, that's what the project as a whole is asking us to do.

Are we up to the challenge?

Thomas Goirand: Rotten tomatoes

20 November, 2014 - 06:45

There’s many ways to interpret the last GR. The way I see it is how Joey hoped Debian was: the outcome of the poll shows that we don’t want to do technical decisions by voting. At the beginning of this GR, I was supportive of it, and though it was a good thing to enforce the rule that we care for non-systemd setups. Though I have slowly changed my mind, and I think that this final outcome is awesome. Science (and computer science) has never been about voting, otherwise the earth would be flat, without drifting continents.

So my hope is that the Debian project as a whole, will allow itself to do mistakes, iterative trials, errors, and go back on any technical decision if they don’t make sense anymore. When being asked something, it’s ok to reply: “I don’t know”, and it should be ok for the Debian project to have this alternative as one of the possible answers. I’m convince that refusing to take a drastic choice in this point in time was exactly what we needed to do. And my hope is that Joey comes back after he realizes that we’ve all understood and embarrassed his position that science cannot be governed by polls.

For Stretch, I’m sure there’s going to be a lot of new alternatives. Maybe uselessd, eudev and others. Maybe I’ll have a bit of time to work on OpenRC Debian integration myself (hum… I’m dreaming here…). Maybe something else. Let’s just wait. We have more than 300 bugs to fix before Jessie can be released. Let’s happilly work on that together, and forget about the init systems for a while…

P.S: Just to be on the safe side: the rotten tomatoes image was not about criticizing the persons who started the poll, who I respect a lot, especially Ian, who I am convinced is trying to do his best for Debian (hug).

Jonathan Dowland: Moving to Red Hat

20 November, 2014 - 04:56

I'm changing jobs!

From February 2015, I will be joining Red Hat as a Senior Software Engineer. I'll be based in Newcastle and working with the Middleware team. I'm going to be working with virtualisation, containers and Docker in particular. I know a few of the folks in the Newcastle office already, thanks to their relationship with the School of Computing Science, and I'm very excited to work with them, as well as the wider company. It's also going to be great to be contributing to the free software community as part of my day job.

This October marked my tenth year working for Newcastle University. I've had a great time, learned a huge amount, and made some great friends. It's going to be sad to leave, especially the School of Computing Science where I've spent the last four years, but it's the right time to move on, It's an area that I've been personally interested in for a long time and I'm very excited to be trying something new.

Miriam Ruiz: Awesome Bullying Lesson

20 November, 2014 - 04:36

A teacher in New York was teaching her class about bullying and gave them the following exercise to perform. She had the children take a piece of paper and told them to crumple it up, stamp on it and really mess it up but do not rip it. Then she had them unfold the paper, smooth it out and look at how scarred and dirty is was. She then told them to tell it they’re sorry. Now even though they said they were sorry and tried to fix the paper, she pointed out all the scars they left behind. And that those scars will never go away no matter how hard they tried to fix it. That is what happens when a child bullies another child, they may say they’re sorry but the scars are there forever. The looks on the faces of the children in the classroom told her the message hit home.

( Source: )


Creative Commons License ลิขสิทธิ์ของบทความเป็นของเจ้าของบทความแต่ละชิ้น
ผลงานนี้ ใช้สัญญาอนุญาตของครีเอทีฟคอมมอนส์แบบ แสดงที่มา-อนุญาตแบบเดียวกัน 3.0 ที่ยังไม่ได้ปรับแก้