Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.project > #13947 > unrolled thread

XLibre in Debian

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.project

Contents

  XLibre in Debian Wojciech Lipinski <wlipinski@posteo.net> - 2025-10-02 15:20 +0200
    Re: XLibre in Debian Andrey Rakhmatullin <wrar@debian.org> - 2025-10-02 18:00 +0200
      Re: XLibre in Debian Chris Hofstaedtler <zeha@debian.org> - 2025-10-03 10:40 +0200
      Re: XLibre in Debian Joerg Jaspert <joerg@debian.org> - 2025-10-03 23:30 +0200
    Re: XLibre in Debian Bart Martens <bartm@debian.org> - 2025-10-02 19:00 +0200
    Re: XLibre in Debian Antoine Le Gonidec <vv221@debian.org> - 2025-10-02 22:10 +0200
      Re: XLibre in Debian Soren Stoutner <soren@debian.org> - 2025-10-02 23:30 +0200
        Re: XLibre in Debian "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> - 2025-10-03 00:00 +0200
          Re: XLibre in Debian Soren Stoutner <soren@debian.org> - 2025-10-03 00:00 +0200
        Re: XLibre in Debian Soren Stoutner <soren@debian.org> - 2025-10-03 04:10 +0200
          Re: XLibre in Debian <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2025-10-03 07:50 +0200
          Re: XLibre in Debian Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2025-10-03 14:50 +0200
            Re: XLibre in Debian Soren Stoutner <soren@debian.org> - 2025-10-03 18:40 +0200
              Re: XLibre in Debian Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2025-10-03 20:20 +0200
          Re: XLibre in Debian Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@debian.org> - 2025-10-03 18:50 +0200
            Re: XLibre in Debian Soren Stoutner <soren@debian.org> - 2025-10-03 20:20 +0200
              Re: XLibre in Debian "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk> - 2025-10-03 22:10 +0200
                Re: XLibre in Debian Soren Stoutner <soren@debian.org> - 2025-10-03 22:50 +0200
                  Re: XLibre in Debian Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@debian.org> - 2025-10-04 02:30 +0200
        Re: XLibre in Debian Antoine Le Gonidec <vv221@debian.org> - 2025-10-03 04:10 +0200
          Re: XLibre in Debian <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2025-10-03 07:50 +0200
            Re: XLibre in Debian Antoine Le Gonidec <vv221@debian.org> - 2025-10-03 14:50 +0200
              Re: XLibre in Debian Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> - 2025-10-03 15:20 +0200
                Re: XLibre in Debian Otto Kekäläinen <otto@debian.org> - 2025-10-04 11:50 +0200
                Re: XLibre in Debian Alex <alex@puer-robustus.eu> - 2025-10-04 16:40 +0200
                  Re: XLibre in Debian Aaron Johnson <acjohnson@pcdomain.com> - 2025-10-04 23:10 +0200
                    Re: XLibre in Debian Philipp Kern <pkern@debian.org> - 2025-10-05 02:30 +0200
                      Re: XLibre in Debian Aaron Johnson <acjohnson@pcdomain.com> - 2025-10-05 11:50 +0200
              Re: XLibre in Debian Antoine Le Gonidec <vv221@debian.org> - 2025-10-04 13:10 +0200
      Re: XLibre in Debian wlipinski@posteo.net - 2025-10-02 23:30 +0200
        Re: XLibre in Debian Andrey Rakhmatullin <wrar@debian.org> - 2025-10-03 10:30 +0200
    Re: XLibre in Debian wlipinski@posteo.net - 2025-10-09 14:20 +0200

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#13947 — XLibre in Debian

Dear Debian Project Team

I would like to ask if there are any plans to include XLibre (fork of X11) in Debian. It would be a very useful package. I have spent a few months working with Wayland and I am not happy with it despite all the nice features of hyprland, my compositor of choice.

Best wishes
Wojciech Lipinski
Debian user since 2001

-- 
Sent with Dekko

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#13948

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Thu, Oct 02, 2025 at 01:07:43PM +0000, Wojciech Lipinski wrote:
>I would like to ask if there are any plans to include XLibre (fork of 
>X11) in Debian. It would be a very useful package. I have spent a few 
>months working with Wayland and I am not happy with it despite all the 
>nice features of hyprland, my compositor of choice.

Hopefully, no DD will upload/sponsor any work of that guy.

-- 
WBR, wRAR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13961

* Andrey Rakhmatullin <wrar@debian.org> [251002 17:51]:
>On Thu, Oct 02, 2025 at 01:07:43PM +0000, Wojciech Lipinski wrote:
>>I would like to ask if there are any plans to include XLibre (fork 
>>of X11) in Debian. It would be a very useful package. I have spent a 
>>few months working with Wayland and I am not happy with it despite 
>>all the nice features of hyprland, my compositor of choice.
>
>Hopefully, no DD will upload/sponsor any work of that guy.

This is indeed everything that needed to be said here. Thanks for 
spelling it out.

Chris

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13971

On 17735 March 1977, Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote:

>>I would like to ask if there are any plans to include XLibre (fork of 
>>X11) in Debian. It would be a very useful package. I have spent a few 
>>months working with Wayland and I am not happy with it despite all the 
>>nice features of hyprland, my compositor of choice.
> Hopefully, no DD will upload/sponsor any work of that guy.

Would be nice if people could stop discussing this. Andrey can hope 
whatever he wants. Debian can accept whatever it wants. Debian can also 
reject whatever it wants, on whatever grounds. If the reasoning then 
includes something the involved people (that is, FTPTeam and Uploader) 
can not agree on - we have defined procedures to deal with it. Until 
then this whole thread is a huge and useless waste of time.

-- 
bye, Joerg

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13949

On Thu, Oct 02, 2025 at 05:18:23PM +0100, Phil Wyett wrote:
> On Thu, 2025-10-02 at 13:07 +0000, Wojciech Lipinski wrote:
> > Dear Debian Project Team
> > 
> > I would like to ask if there are any plans to include XLibre (fork of X11) in Debian. It would be a
> > very useful package. I have spent a few months working with Wayland and I am not happy with it
> > despite all the nice features of hyprland, my compositor of choice.
> > 
> > Best wishes
> > Wojciech Lipinski
> > Debian user since 2001
> > 

Hi Phil, I think that the "right" way for bringing requests for packaging is
submitting a "request for packaging" (RFP) as meant here:
https://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/
I know, the list is long, so it's somewhat discouraging adding another RFP.
Just pointing the way. This mailing list is rather for general project related
matters.
- B.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13950

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Le Thu, Oct 02, 2025 at 01:07:43PM +0000, Wojciech Lipinski a écrit :
> I would like to ask if there are any plans to include XLibre (fork of X11) in Debian. (…)

I strongly oppose the inclusion of XLibre or any related tool in Debian.
Or, for what it’s worth, the inclusion of anything developed by that team.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13951

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Thursday, October 2, 2025 11:03:07 AM Mountain Standard Time Antoine Le 
Gonidec wrote:
> Le Thu, Oct 02, 2025 at 01:07:43PM +0000, Wojciech Lipinski a écrit :
> > I would like to ask if there are any plans to include XLibre (fork of X11)
> > in Debian. (…)
> I strongly oppose the inclusion of XLibre or any related tool in Debian.
> Or, for what it’s worth, the inclusion of anything developed by that team.

Not knowing anything about XLibre or the team that develops it, I am curious 
to know what would cause you to be so opposed to anything developed by that 
team.  Indeed, I am not accustomed to Debian categorically rejecting software 
that is DFSG-free from inclusion based solely on the team that develops it.

-- 
Soren Stoutner
soren@debian.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13953

On Thu, Oct 02, 2025 at 01:24:48PM -0700, Soren Stoutner wrote:
> On Thursday, October 2, 2025 11:03:07 AM Mountain Standard Time Antoine Le 
> Gonidec wrote:
> > Le Thu, Oct 02, 2025 at 01:07:43PM +0000, Wojciech Lipinski a écrit :
> > > I would like to ask if there are any plans to include XLibre (fork of X11)
> > > in Debian. (…)
> > I strongly oppose the inclusion of XLibre or any related tool in Debian.
> > Or, for what it’s worth, the inclusion of anything developed by that team.
> 
> Not knowing anything about XLibre or the team that develops it, I am curious 
> to know what would cause you to be so opposed to anything developed by that 
> team.  Indeed, I am not accustomed to Debian categorically rejecting software 
> that is DFSG-free from inclusion based solely on the team that develops it.
> 

Soren,

Other projects - including Fedora and Ubuntu - have issues with the stability
of the code from a single developer. Those projects - and many individuals -
may also disapprove of controversial political opinions from the single
developer. 

On occasion, we *do* take wider considerations into account in the Project
before adopting DFSG-software.

All the very best, as ever,

Andrew Cater
(amacater@debian.org)

> -- 
> Soren Stoutner
> soren@debian.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13954

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Thursday, October 2, 2025 2:42:47 PM Mountain Standard Time Andrew M.A. 
Cater wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 02, 2025 at 01:24:48PM -0700, Soren Stoutner wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 2, 2025 11:03:07 AM Mountain Standard Time Antoine Le
> > 
> > Gonidec wrote:
> > > Le Thu, Oct 02, 2025 at 01:07:43PM +0000, Wojciech Lipinski a écrit :
> > > > I would like to ask if there are any plans to include XLibre (fork of
> > > > X11)
> > > > in Debian. (…)
> > > 
> > > I strongly oppose the inclusion of XLibre or any related tool in Debian.
> > > Or, for what it’s worth, the inclusion of anything developed by that 
team.
> > 
> > Not knowing anything about XLibre or the team that develops it, I am 
curious
> > to know what would cause you to be so opposed to anything developed by 
that
> > team.  Indeed, I am not accustomed to Debian categorically rejecting
> > software
> > that is DFSG-free from inclusion based solely on the team that develops 
it.
> 
> Soren,
> 
> Other projects - including Fedora and Ubuntu - have issues with the 
stability
> of the code from a single developer. Those projects - and many individuals -
> may also disapprove of controversial political opinions from the single
> developer.
> 
> On occasion, we *do* take wider considerations into account in the Project
> before adopting DFSG-software.
> 
> All the very best, as ever,

That is true.  I certainly can imagine a scenario where Debian would ban 
contributions from a particular developer or a team of developers.  For 
example, if they had a track record of *intentionally* trying to introduce 
security vulnerabilities into Debian.

However, I an not personally aware of any of these scenarios ever arising.  
And certainly, if they did arise, I would expect there would be some 
discussion about them and such a decision would be documented somewhere.

So, as I said, I am not accustomed to Debian categorically rejecting software 
that is DFSG-free from inclusion based solely on the team that develops it.  
If there is some reason why that should apply in this case, I would very much 
like to know what it is.

-- 
Soren Stoutner
soren@debian.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13955

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Thursday, October 2, 2025 4:48:58 PM Mountain Standard Time Antoine Le 
Gonidec wrote:
> Le Thu, Oct 02, 2025 at 01:24:48PM -0700, Soren Stoutner a écrit :
> > (…) I am not accustomed to Debian categorically rejecting software
> > that is DFSG-free from inclusion based solely on the team that develops 
it.
> 
> To avoid confusion: I gave *my* opinion. My opinion as a Debian
> Developer, but still I am not Debian by myself.
> 
> As for why I strongly oppose the inclusion of this software into Debian,
> I won’t go into details so suffice to say that I am not willing to let
> Debian become a Nazi bar.
> 
> If you’re surprised by the use of such words, I suggest looking up why
> other distributions already rejected XLibre. I for myself do not have
> the energy (nor the will) to spend more time on XLibre than I already
> did writing the current e-mail.

Like I said, I know nothing about XLibre or its history.  But I think it is 
important to state here that I am categorically opposed to any software being 
excluded from Debian because of the politics of the developers (as long as 
those politics are not included in the software itself).

Excluding software because of the politics of the developers is both extremely 
dangerous and contrary to the spirit of the DFSG #5:

"No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups”

To be clear, I am not saying that anyone *has* to package this software.  
Also, I am not saying that Debian should accept any software that is below its 
technical standards (an argument that nobody has yet made regarding XLibre).  
However, based on what has been expressed so far in this thread, I would be 
opposed to anyone preventing *someone else* from packaging this for Debian if 
they so desired.  Perhaps there are further details about the developers that 
would change my mind, but if that is the case those details would need to be 
clearly explained.

-- 
Soren Stoutner
soren@debian.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13958

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Fri, Oct 03, 2025 at 03:27:06AM +0100, Phil Wyett wrote:

[...]

> Hi Soren and all,
> 
> Very close to my thoughts on this subject. Let us concentrate on technical
> standards and the spirit of Debian and the DFSG.

This is IMO too simplistic. Debian, at its core, is a *social* project.

Heck, *any* technical project is a social project, because collaboration
is the juice that powers it.

Ignoring that is the source of much pain.

Cheers
-- 
tomás

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13963

On Thu, Oct 02, 2025 at 05:02:13PM -0700, Soren Stoutner wrote:
>Like I said, I know nothing about XLibre or its history.  But I think it is
>important to state here that I am categorically opposed to any software being

Great! You've made your statement, and also acknowledged that you don't 
know anything about the topic at hand. Let's just leave it there.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13965

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Friday, October 3, 2025 5:38:39 AM Mountain Standard Time Michael Stone 
wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 02, 2025 at 05:02:13PM -0700, Soren Stoutner wrote:
> >Like I said, I know nothing about XLibre or its history.  But I think it is
> >important to state here that I am categorically opposed to any software 
being
> 
> Great! You've made your statement, and also acknowledged that you don't
> know anything about the topic at hand. Let's just leave it there.

My point is that it is important to defend the principles upon which Debian is 
founded.  This relates to both XLibre and any other project, which is why the 
statements I made are generic in nature and not based on any specific defense 
of XLibre.

If people do want to talk specifics about why XLibre should be blacklisted, 
then they need to bring up specific reasons why.  Since I wrote the the 
statement quoted above, a few specifics have been brought up in this thread.  
But, as has already been said by one other person, nothing in those specifics 
come close to justification for preventing software written by the developers 
of XLibre from being included in Debian if someone wants to do the work to 
package it.

-- 
Soren Stoutner
soren@debian.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13967

On Fri, Oct 03, 2025 at 09:31:10AM -0700, Soren Stoutner wrote:
>On Friday, October 3, 2025 5:38:39 AM Mountain Standard Time Michael Stone wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 02, 2025 at 05:02:13PM -0700, Soren Stoutner wrote:
>> >Like I said, I know nothing about XLibre or its history.  But I think it is
>> >important to state here that I am categorically opposed to any software
>being
>>
>> Great! You've made your statement, and also acknowledged that you don't
>> know anything about the topic at hand. Let's just leave it there.
>
>My point 

You've made your point multiple times now. There's nothing to be gained 
by repeating it again. Nobody owes you an explanation for what they want 
to do with their time, and repeatedly demanding one isn't going to make 
it happen.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13966

Soren Stoutner dijo [Thu, Oct 02, 2025 at 05:02:13PM -0700]:
>Like I said, I know nothing about XLibre or its history.  But I think it is
>important to state here that I am categorically opposed to any software being
>excluded from Debian because of the politics of the developers (as long as
>those politics are not included in the software itself).

There are some things we don't want to drop in public channels.

There is known history of the XLibre authors actively conducting a hate
campaign that resulted in a strong personal prejudice (economically and
socially) to a Debian Developer, and that campaign carried on to try to
further harm them.

Of course I am not talking in the name of the project. I cannot.

But I strongly support Debian not willing to engage with toxic developers.

>To be clear, I am not saying that anyone *has* to package this software.
>Also, I am not saying that Debian should accept any software that is below
>its technical standards (an argument that nobody has yet made regarding
>XLibre).

I hope nobody will do the quite nontrivial technical work to get this
packaging done. And I would not be surprised if our ftp-master team (or
whatever it is called by then) eventually refuses to include in Debian
software that's more a liability than anything else.

    – Gunnar.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13968

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Friday, October 3, 2025 9:27:03 AM Mountain Standard Time Gunnar Wolf 
wrote:
> Soren Stoutner dijo [Thu, Oct 02, 2025 at 05:02:13PM -0700]:
> >Like I said, I know nothing about XLibre or its history.  But I think it is
> >important to state here that I am categorically opposed to any software 
being
> >excluded from Debian because of the politics of the developers (as long as
> >those politics are not included in the software itself).
> 
> There are some things we don't want to drop in public channels.
>
> There is known history of the XLibre authors actively conducting a hate
> campaign that resulted in a strong personal prejudice (economically and
> socially) to a Debian Developer, and that campaign carried on to try to
> further harm them.
> 
> Of course I am not talking in the name of the project. I cannot.
> 
> But I strongly support Debian not willing to engage with toxic developers.
> 
> >To be clear, I am not saying that anyone *has* to package this software.
> >Also, I am not saying that Debian should accept any software that is below
> >its technical standards (an argument that nobody has yet made regarding
> >XLibre).
> 
> I hope nobody will do the quite nontrivial technical work to get this
> packaging done. And I would not be surprised if our ftp-master team (or
> whatever it is called by then) eventually refuses to include in Debian
> software that's more a liability than anything else.

I sincerely hope that Debian never goes down the very dangerous path of 
banning software in Debian because of what developers do outside of Debian.  
The reason why I say that is that every single one of us, without exception, 
does something in our personal lives that someone else doesn’t like.  Every 
single one of us could be banned by that standard.

The inclusion of software in Debian should be judged based on the quality of 
the software.

To be a bit more explicit about this, I previously stated that banning such 
software would be against the spirit of DFSG #5.

No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups

Someone in this thread responded that DFSG #5 is speaking about what the 
license must allow users to do with Debian, not what software must be included 
in Debian.  That is correct.  When I wrote my statement I was careful to say 
that banning software from Debian based on things we don’t like about the 
people who developed it was against the *spirit* of the DFSG #5.  However, 
that particular wording was probably subtle enough that its meaning was easy 
to miss, so I will express the idea more verbosely below.

What the DFSG #5 says is that Debian will not distribute software under a 
license that prohibits a particular group of people from using it.  DFSG #6 
expresses a related idea, which is that Debian will not distribute software 
under a license that prohibits it being used in a particular field of 
endeavor.  Since previous posts in this thread have accused the developers of 
XLibre of being Nazis, let me give an example of what this means for Nazis.

If the Nazi party wants to use Debian as the official OS for all of their 
operations at their party headquarters, we cannot prohibit them from doing so.  
If they want to use Debian to serve their webpage and maintain their mailing 
list, we are OK with that.  If they want to use the Debian LibreOffice 
packages to write their newsletters spewing hate, we will not stop them.  If 
somebody writes software and releases it under a license that says, “Everyone 
may use this software except for Nazis,” Debian will not distribute that 
software, because doing so would be against our founding principles.

But why?  Why do we do this?

Before going on, I would recommend that everyone answer the above question to 
their own personal satisfaction.  When the Nazis and their ideology is so 
obviously evil, why don’t we just say that DFSG #4 and #5 doesn’t apply to 
them?

The reason is because DFSG #4 and #5 must apply to everyone or it protects no 
one.  We do this not because we agree with what the Nazis are doing, but 
because we want our own freedom to run software the way we choose.  Either 
everyone has that right or, in the end, nobody does.

I make this point because, even though it isn’t explicit in our founding 
documents, the same principle applies to the software we include in Debian.  
We can’t have it both ways.  We can’t stand for non-discrimination in how 
Debian is used but discriminate against contributors.

To be completely clear, I am speaking about discrimination against 
contributors based on things they do in their personal lives separate from the 
quality of the code they produce.  I am speaking about discriminating against 
contributors because of their political views, or their sexual views, or their 
religious views, or other similar things.

It is completely appropriate for Debian to have high standards of quality for 
code accepted into the project.  One example I used previously is that if a 
developer had *intentionally* tried to introduce a security bug into Debian, 
it would be appropriate to ban future contributions from that developer.  
Also, if a developer had a track record of writing code that was inordinately 
full of security bugs, to the degree that there was a loss of confidence in 
their ability to write secure code, I could also see Debian banning 
contributions from that developer.  I am not aware of either of these two 
things ever happening in the history of Debian (I would be interested to know 
if they ever have), but I give them as examples of what I would consider to be 
appropriate reasons to ban a developer’s code.

In addition to banning a developer based on the quality of their code, there 
are also be reasons to ban a developer based on their interactions with 
Debian.  For someone interacting directly with Debian in the form of 
maintaining packages or writing to the mailing lists, we maintain a set of 
acceptable behavior.  If they do not respect that acceptable behavior, then it 
is appropriate for us to ban them from writing to the mailing lists or block 
them from otherwise interacting with the project in the ways where they have 
previously acted inappropriately.

So, if someone sends a message to this list with a Nazi rant, then it is 
appropriate for us to ban them from sending messages to the list.  But, if 
they post a Nazi rant somewhere else on the internet, but all of their 
interactions with Debian are respectful, they we should ignore whatever they 
do outside of Debian.

Why?  Because we do not discriminate.  Because these same rules protect us as 
much as it protects them.  Because every one of us does something in our own 
personal lives that someone else hates.  Because once Debian goes down the 
road of attempting to police what everyone does outside of Debian, it all 
falls apart.

-- 
Soren Stoutner
soren@debian.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13969

On Fri, 2025-10-03 at 10:20 -0700, Soren Stoutner wrote:
> On Friday, October 3, 2025 9:27:03 AM Mountain Standard Time Gunnar
> Wolf 
> wrote:
> > Soren Stoutner dijo [Thu, Oct 02, 2025 at 05:02:13PM -0700]:
> > > Like I said, I know nothing about XLibre or its history.  But I
> > > think it is
> > > important to state here that I am categorically opposed to any
> > > software 
> being
> > > excluded from Debian because of the politics of the developers
> > > (as long as
> > > those politics are not included in the software itself).
> > 
> > There are some things we don't want to drop in public channels.
> > 
> > There is known history of the XLibre authors actively conducting a
> > hate campaign that resulted in a strong personal prejudice
> > (economically and socially) to a Debian Developer, and that
> > campaign carried on to try to further harm them.
[...]
> I sinncerely hope that Debian never goes down the very dangerous path
> of banning software in Debian because of what developers do outside
> of Debian.  

To be clear, the actions that Gunnar is describing here were *not*
"outside of Debian".

Regards,

Adam

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13970

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Friday, October 3, 2025 1:00:17 PM Mountain Standard Time Adam D. Barratt 
wrote:
> On Fri, 2025-10-03 at 10:20 -0700, Soren Stoutner wrote:
> > On Friday, October 3, 2025 9:27:03 AM Mountain Standard Time Gunnar
> > Wolf
> > 
> > wrote:
> > > Soren Stoutner dijo [Thu, Oct 02, 2025 at 05:02:13PM -0700]:
> > > > Like I said, I know nothing about XLibre or its history.  But I
> > > > think it is
> > > > important to state here that I am categorically opposed to any
> > > > software
> > 
> > being
> > 
> > > > excluded from Debian because of the politics of the developers
> > > > (as long as
> > > > those politics are not included in the software itself).
> > > 
> > > There are some things we don't want to drop in public channels.
> > > 
> > > There is known history of the XLibre authors actively conducting a
> > > hate campaign that resulted in a strong personal prejudice
> > > (economically and socially) to a Debian Developer, and that
> > > campaign carried on to try to further harm them.
> 
> [...]
> 
> > I sinncerely hope that Debian never goes down the very dangerous path
> > of banning software in Debian because of what developers do outside
> > of Debian. 
> 
> To be clear, the actions that Gunnar is describing here were *not*
> "outside of Debian".

In what way?  I would sincerely like to know.  So far, even though other 
people have pointed to some specific statements and actions on the part of at 
least one of the developers of XLibre, I have not seen any information showing 
that the XLibre developers have ever interacted with Debian.

Mostly what I have been hearing from this conversation is that some people 
feel that the XLibre developers have done some terrible things, but they don’t 
want to talk about the specifics.  That is fine.  Nobody should feel obligated 
to talk about the specifics if they don’t want to.

What is not fine is to allege that code written by a developer should be 
banned form Debian while *at the same time* not being willing to point to 
specific reasons why that developer should be banned.  Blacklisting a 
developer is a serious issue.  It is incumbent on anyone who thinks that 
action is appropriate to point to specific reasons why, so that the rest of 
the community can adjudicate the appropriateness of the action.

-- 
Soren Stoutner
soren@debian.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13972

Soren Stoutner dijo [Fri, Oct 03, 2025 at 01:36:04PM -0700]:
>In what way?  I would sincerely like to know.  So far, even though other
>people have pointed to some specific statements and actions on the part of at
>least one of the developers of XLibre, I have not seen any information showing
>that the XLibre developers have ever interacted with Debian.

I'm sorry, it is not something for those of us that witnessed it to
disclose. It involves personal information, and a smearing campaign we do
not want to empower.

This is the last I will say on this regard.

>What is not fine is to allege that code written by a developer should be
>banned form Debian while *at the same time* not being willing to point to
>specific reasons why that developer should be banned.  Blacklisting a
>developer is a serious issue.  It is incumbent on anyone who thinks that
>action is appropriate to point to specific reasons why, so that the rest of
>the community can adjudicate the appropriateness of the action.

The issues are known to the people that would decide on the code's
inclusion. I am sorry, you being one out of roughly 1000 developers does
not grant you the right to gossip on every one of us.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13956

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Le Thu, Oct 02, 2025 at 01:24:48PM -0700, Soren Stoutner a écrit :
> (…) I am not accustomed to Debian categorically rejecting software 
> that is DFSG-free from inclusion based solely on the team that develops it.

To avoid confusion: I gave *my* opinion. My opinion as a Debian
Developer, but still I am not Debian by myself.

As for why I strongly oppose the inclusion of this software into Debian,
I won’t go into details so suffice to say that I am not willing to let
Debian become a Nazi bar.

If you’re surprised by the use of such words, I suggest looking up why
other distributions already rejected XLibre. I for myself do not have
the energy (nor the will) to spend more time on XLibre than I already
did writing the current e-mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.project

csiph-web