| 1 |
On 02/14/2015 02:48 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Hi all, |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> whenever the suggestion comes up to enable contributions to Gentoo via Github |
| 6 |
> pull requests, we also encounter discussion of the Gentoo Social Contract. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> The two points that are seen as conflicting are |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> * The software running Github is closed source, proprietary. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> * The Gentoo Social Contract states [1]: |
| 13 |
> "Gentoo will never depend upon a piece of software or metadata unless it |
| 14 |
> conforms to the GNU General Public License, the GNU Lesser General Public |
| 15 |
> License, the Creative Commons - Attribution/Share Alike or some other license |
| 16 |
> approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI)." |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> We need to resolve this discussion somehow, by formulating a clear policy. |
| 19 |
> Which is why I'm putting it up here for discussion and will ask to add it to |
| 20 |
> the next council meeting agenda. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Many arguments have already been made. Feel free to summarize your points |
| 23 |
> again in a reply to this e-mail. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Cheers, |
| 26 |
> Andreas |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> [1] http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/contract.xml |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
While Gentoo should use open source software where it can, I don't think |
| 31 |
we can all the time, everywhere. It would be nice to have our primary |
| 32 |
repo on an infrastructure that facilitates working with the community |
| 33 |
(github / bitbucket or better yet gitlab or gogs). |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
From an infra side I've looked at packaging gitlab, but it, like many |
| 36 |
other projects these days, just installs to /opt. It's update mechanism |
| 37 |
doesn't even support Gentoo (chef based and chef on Gentoo is in the |
| 38 |
same boat...). I don't know what the state of gogs is, but given what I |
| 39 |
know about go packaging it's not going to work well either. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
What we are doing now is nice and works well I think. We have the |
| 42 |
portage mirror on github, accepting pull requests. We even have a way |
| 43 |
to take the pull request and apply it to CVS. For now that's good, but |
| 44 |
a smoother solution would of course be better (gitlab or gogs as |
| 45 |
mentioned above). |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
I do agree, that from a security perspective at least, github should not |
| 48 |
be our source of truth. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
-- |
| 51 |
-- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire) |
Archives