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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #164423 > unrolled thread

Re: Debian package on Windows

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

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Debian package on Windows Thiago <thiago.zoroastro@yahoo.com.br> - 2016-02-21 03:30 +0100
    Re: Debian package on Windows Gary Dale <garydale@torfree.net> - 2016-02-21 23:10 +0100
      Re: Debian package on Windows "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@galactic.demon.co.uk> - 2016-02-22 00:00 +0100
      Re: Debian package on Windows Thiago <thiago.zoroastro@yahoo.com.br> - 2016-02-22 02:20 +0100
        Re: Debian package on Windows John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2016-02-22 03:50 +0100
          Re: Debian package on Windows Thiago <thiago.zoroastro@yahoo.com.br> - 2016-02-22 13:50 +0100
    Re: Debian package on Windows Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2016-02-22 15:00 +0100
      Re: Debian package on Windows Thiago <thiago.zoroastro@yahoo.com.br> - 2016-02-22 16:20 +0100
    Re: Debian package on Windows Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 17:10 +0100
      Re: Debian package on Windows Jean-Baptiste Thomas <cau2jeaf1honoq@laposte.net> - 2016-02-22 17:50 +0100
        Re: Debian package on Windows Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 18:00 +0100
        Re: Debian package on Windows Nate Bargmann <n0nb@n0nb.us> - 2016-02-22 19:30 +0100
          Re: Debian package on Windows John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2016-02-22 20:30 +0100

#164423 — Re: Debian package on Windows

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

Hello,

Why did you send this message on Debian Apache and not in the main
mailing list? I'm sorry, but you're not able to own GNU GPL to suck in
your Application Manager. Either you will be educated mentioning it and
respecting his copyright.

I don't know why do you do it. Maybe you thought in new things to do.
Congrats for using Clang instead of GNU C Compiler, at least you're
trying don't using it to don't need mentioning him. But Debian is signed
in GPG too.

And of course, taking apt-get/Debian and implementing new DRMs to avoid
GNU. History is same the even. Or would be Microsoft don't mistreating
who shares the packing management? Are you trying to take it and kick
that out of new hardwares?

Reply us.

Att.


Em 19-02-2016 23:09, Eric Mittelette escreveu:
> Hi
> 
>  
> 
> I contact you today about a crazy idea, but I hope it is a right kind of
> crazy!
> 
>  
> 
> I’m PM in the Visual C++ Team (VC Lib to be precise here at Microsoft),
> we started to think about lib acquisition (still a painful process for
> C++ on Windows) and we are imaging different options, one is to port
> apt-get on Windows.
> 
> Porting Apt-Get mean using Debian format (we love it) and providing
> Windows binary inside the package…
> 
>  
> 
> For doing that we imagine a light way process to adapt your actual build
> script to generate Windows binaries using our latest Clang/c2 compiler
> integration (meaning in theory just changing an env variable to switch
> from gcc or Clang to our Clang/C2 compiler will be enough…)
> 
>  
> 
> The main idea here is to not reinvent the wheel for packaging management
> and use something existing, powerful and well known by the community.
> 
> Of course all the project will be open source (the new Microsoft J)
> 
>  
> 
> I know you’re really busy, and don’t want to boring you, but I wanted to
> know your feedback about this idea?
> 
> Do you want to be included in future discussions and provide feedback as
> we get more details fleshed out?
> 
>  
> 
> Again it is just a draft idea, nothing concrete, but wanted to validate
> with you and the Debian maintainers community if that make sense for you…
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks for your time
> 
>  
> 
> Eric Mittelette
> 
> Senior Program Manager – Visual C++ (VCLib)
> 
> ericmitt@microsoft.com <mailto:ericmitt@microsoft.com>
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#164458

I don't see why you object so strongly to the idea of porting apt-get to 
Windows. The idea may be a little crazy in that Windows programs don't 
install the same way or use the same libraries but there are lots of 
other programs that run on Linux and Windows without provoking a hostile 
response. So long as it continues to use the GPL, I don't have see the 
issue.

If it helps them write more portable software, I'd say go for it.



On 20/02/16 09:21 PM, Thiago wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Why did you send this message on Debian Apache and not in the main
> mailing list? I'm sorry, but you're not able to own GNU GPL to suck in
> your Application Manager. Either you will be educated mentioning it and
> respecting his copyright.
>
> I don't know why do you do it. Maybe you thought in new things to do.
> Congrats for using Clang instead of GNU C Compiler, at least you're
> trying don't using it to don't need mentioning him. But Debian is signed
> in GPG too.
>
> And of course, taking apt-get/Debian and implementing new DRMs to avoid
> GNU. History is same the even. Or would be Microsoft don't mistreating
> who shares the packing management? Are you trying to take it and kick
> that out of new hardwares?
>
> Reply us.
>
> Att.
>
>
> Em 19-02-2016 23:09, Eric Mittelette escreveu:
>> Hi
>>
>>   
>>
>> I contact you today about a crazy idea, but I hope it is a right kind of
>> crazy!
>>
>>   
>>
>> I’m PM in the Visual C++ Team (VC Lib to be precise here at Microsoft),
>> we started to think about lib acquisition (still a painful process for
>> C++ on Windows) and we are imaging different options, one is to port
>> apt-get on Windows.
>>
>> Porting Apt-Get mean using Debian format (we love it) and providing
>> Windows binary inside the package…
>>
>>   
>>
>> For doing that we imagine a light way process to adapt your actual build
>> script to generate Windows binaries using our latest Clang/c2 compiler
>> integration (meaning in theory just changing an env variable to switch
>> from gcc or Clang to our Clang/C2 compiler will be enough…)
>>
>>   
>>
>> The main idea here is to not reinvent the wheel for packaging management
>> and use something existing, powerful and well known by the community.
>>
>> Of course all the project will be open source (the new Microsoft J)
>>
>>   
>>
>> I know you’re really busy, and don’t want to boring you, but I wanted to
>> know your feedback about this idea?
>>
>> Do you want to be included in future discussions and provide feedback as
>> we get more details fleshed out?
>>
>>   
>>
>> Again it is just a draft idea, nothing concrete, but wanted to validate
>> with you and the Debian maintainers community if that make sense for you…
>>
>>   
>>
>> Thanks for your time
>>
>>   
>>
>> Eric Mittelette
>>
>> Senior Program Manager – Visual C++ (VCLib)
>>
>> ericmitt@microsoft.com <mailto:ericmitt@microsoft.com>
>>
>>   
>>
>>   
>>

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

#164460

On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 04:37:27PM -0500, Gary Dale wrote:
> I don't see why you object so strongly to the idea of porting apt-get to
> Windows. The idea may be a little crazy in that Windows programs don't
> install the same way or use the same libraries but there are lots of other
> programs that run on Linux and Windows without provoking a hostile response.
> So long as it continues to use the GPL, I don't have see the issue.
> 
> If it helps them write more portable software, I'd say go for it.
> 

As the person who helped name APT and apt-get all those years ago: this is slightly missing the point.

There is a sort-of, near enough apt-get clone from the VSS group - it's called Nu-get - there's One-get
and Chocolatey.

All of these miss the fact that it's tight dependency management, well documented packaging strategies
and an attempted consistent approach across many years that has got Debian to this point.
Policy, practice, package-shaming, enforcement of API / ABI where feasible, declaring flag days for major 
changes - oh, and testing over months and years. Toolsets, culture, learned development habits - all takes
time.

Now Eric is coming along - with, potentially, the best of intentions and a polite approach. Microsoft look
to be abandoning Codeplex for Github and, if they're just starting to changeC compilers, for example, there's
a whole new learning curve. 

It might be nice to assume that one isolated Microsoft employee is not, immediately, a messenger of malice and
to answer questions with respect.

Rebuilding even one Microsoft product to take advantage of 20 years of someone else's good practice is, at the very least
a non-trivial problem.

You're right, though, it might be better aimed at the debian-devel or debian-mentors lists.

AndyC

> 
> 
> On 20/02/16 09:21 PM, Thiago wrote:
> >Hello,
> >
> >Why did you send this message on Debian Apache and not in the main
> >mailing list? I'm sorry, but you're not able to own GNU GPL to suck in
> >your Application Manager. Either you will be educated mentioning it and
> >respecting his copyright.
> >
> >I don't know why do you do it. Maybe you thought in new things to do.
> >Congrats for using Clang instead of GNU C Compiler, at least you're
> >trying don't using it to don't need mentioning him. But Debian is signed
> >in GPG too.
> >
> >And of course, taking apt-get/Debian and implementing new DRMs to avoid
> >GNU. History is same the even. Or would be Microsoft don't mistreating
> >who shares the packing management? Are you trying to take it and kick
> >that out of new hardwares?
> >
> >Reply us.
> >
> >Att.
> >
> >
> >Em 19-02-2016 23:09, Eric Mittelette escreveu:
> >>Hi
> >>
> >>
> >>I contact you today about a crazy idea, but I hope it is a right kind of
> >>crazy!
> >>
> >>
> >>I’m PM in the Visual C++ Team (VC Lib to be precise here at Microsoft),
> >>we started to think about lib acquisition (still a painful process for
> >>C++ on Windows) and we are imaging different options, one is to port
> >>apt-get on Windows.
> >>
> >>Porting Apt-Get mean using Debian format (we love it) and providing
> >>Windows binary inside the package…
> >>
> >>
> >>For doing that we imagine a light way process to adapt your actual build
> >>script to generate Windows binaries using our latest Clang/c2 compiler
> >>integration (meaning in theory just changing an env variable to switch
> >>from gcc or Clang to our Clang/C2 compiler will be enough…)
> >>
> >>
> >>The main idea here is to not reinvent the wheel for packaging management
> >>and use something existing, powerful and well known by the community.
> >>
> >>Of course all the project will be open source (the new Microsoft J)
> >>
> >>
> >>I know you’re really busy, and don’t want to boring you, but I wanted to
> >>know your feedback about this idea?
> >>
> >>Do you want to be included in future discussions and provide feedback as
> >>we get more details fleshed out?
> >>
> >>
> >>Again it is just a draft idea, nothing concrete, but wanted to validate
> >>with you and the Debian maintainers community if that make sense for you…
> >>
> >>
> >>Thanks for your time
> >>
> >>
> >>Eric Mittelette
> >>
> >>Senior Program Manager – Visual C++ (VCLib)
> >>
> >>ericmitt@microsoft.com <mailto:ericmitt@microsoft.com>
> >>
> >>
> >>

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

#164467

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

So strongly to: new DRMs are NOT needed. Free Software is a permissive
license, the GPL is not the problem. Who is accustomed managing the
restrictions on computers & softwares that's really bad.

I don't like the idea of Debian allowing the restrictions. Free Software
is about ethics to the copyright. Knowledge, owned, must not be
knowledge restricted. Sharing is helpful. Education is respectful. Helps
when people adopts academic behavior to quote the authors.


Em 21-02-2016 18:37, Gary Dale escreveu:
> I don't see why you object so strongly to the idea of porting apt-get to
> Windows. The idea may be a little crazy in that Windows programs don't
> install the same way or use the same libraries but there are lots of
> other programs that run on Linux and Windows without provoking a hostile
> response. So long as it continues to use the GPL, I don't have see the
> issue.
> 
> If it helps them write more portable software, I'd say go for it.
> 
> 
> 
> On 20/02/16 09:21 PM, Thiago wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Why did you send this message on Debian Apache and not in the main
>> mailing list? I'm sorry, but you're not able to own GNU GPL to suck in
>> your Application Manager. Either you will be educated mentioning it and
>> respecting his copyright.
>>
>> I don't know why do you do it. Maybe you thought in new things to do.
>> Congrats for using Clang instead of GNU C Compiler, at least you're
>> trying don't using it to don't need mentioning him. But Debian is signed
>> in GPG too.
>>
>> And of course, taking apt-get/Debian and implementing new DRMs to avoid
>> GNU. History is same the even. Or would be Microsoft don't mistreating
>> who shares the packing management? Are you trying to take it and kick
>> that out of new hardwares?
>>
>> Reply us.
>>
>> Att.
>>
>>
>> Em 19-02-2016 23:09, Eric Mittelette escreveu:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>>  
>>> I contact you today about a crazy idea, but I hope it is a right kind of
>>> crazy!
>>>
>>>  
>>> I’m PM in the Visual C++ Team (VC Lib to be precise here at Microsoft),
>>> we started to think about lib acquisition (still a painful process for
>>> C++ on Windows) and we are imaging different options, one is to port
>>> apt-get on Windows.
>>>
>>> Porting Apt-Get mean using Debian format (we love it) and providing
>>> Windows binary inside the package…
>>>
>>>  
>>> For doing that we imagine a light way process to adapt your actual build
>>> script to generate Windows binaries using our latest Clang/c2 compiler
>>> integration (meaning in theory just changing an env variable to switch
>>> from gcc or Clang to our Clang/C2 compiler will be enough…)
>>>
>>>  
>>> The main idea here is to not reinvent the wheel for packaging management
>>> and use something existing, powerful and well known by the community.
>>>
>>> Of course all the project will be open source (the new Microsoft J)
>>>
>>>  
>>> I know you’re really busy, and don’t want to boring you, but I wanted to
>>> know your feedback about this idea?
>>>
>>> Do you want to be included in future discussions and provide feedback as
>>> we get more details fleshed out?
>>>
>>>  
>>> Again it is just a draft idea, nothing concrete, but wanted to validate
>>> with you and the Debian maintainers community if that make sense for
>>> you…
>>>
>>>  
>>> Thanks for your time
>>>
>>>  
>>> Eric Mittelette
>>>
>>> Senior Program Manager – Visual C++ (VCLib)
>>>
>>> ericmitt@microsoft.com <mailto:ericmitt@microsoft.com>
>>>
>>>  
>>>  
> 

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

#164468

Thiego writes:
> I don't like the idea of Debian allowing the restrictions.

I don't know what you mean by that.  It's Free Software.  They can do
with it what the license terms permit and no more absent special
permission from the copyright owner.  The authors released it under the
GPL and that's that.  Debian, not owning the copyright, is not able to
allow or forbid anything.

Debian or some members thereof might or might not choose to assist in
the endeavor, but that's a different matter.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

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

#164486

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

Em 21-02-2016 23:49, John Hasler escreveu:
> I don't know what you mean by that.  It's Free Software.  They can do
> with it what the license terms permit and no more absent special
> permission from the copyright owner.  The authors released it under the
> GPL and that's that.  Debian, not owning the copyright, is not able to
> allow or forbid anything.
> 
> Debian or some members thereof might or might not choose to assist in
> the endeavor, but that's a different matter.
> 

John,

"They can do with it what the license terms permit and no more absent
permission from the copyright owner." -> That's true, no more further
reply would be needed.

If Microsoft will be respecting freedom, ok. But I doubt which they will
do. Will they own it and remove software freedom? I hope no. If they own
something in GPL, we know they have to maintain software freedom in this
way.

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

#164487

On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 11:21:46PM -0300, Thiago wrote:
> Why did you send this message on Debian Apache and not in the main
> mailing list?

Since this is a development query, debian-devel would be more appropriate than
debian-user, and unless I'm mistaken, you should make it clear that you do not
speak for Debian as you are not formally affiliated with the project in any way.

-- 
Jonathan Dowland

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

#164491

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

Em 22-02-2016 10:56, Jonathan Dowland escreveu:
> On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 11:21:46PM -0300, Thiago wrote:
> Since this is a development query, debian-devel would be more appropriate than
> debian-user, and unless I'm mistaken, you should make it clear that you do not
> speak for Debian as you are not formally affiliated with the project in any way.
> 

Yes, it is.

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

#164492

On 02/20/2016 09:21 PM, Thiago wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Why did you send this message on Debian Apache and not in the main
> mailing list? I'm sorry, but you're not able to own GNU GPL to suck in
> your Application Manager. Either you will be educated mentioning it and
> respecting his copyright.

First, thanks for top-posting and totally screwing up the timeline. To 
me, anyone top-posting usually winds up in my junk filters with extreme 
prejudice. I'd rather a top-poster not try to educate ~anyone~ within 
the Debian scheme of things.

Second, the OP openly asked for the thoughts and opinions as how to 
potentially proceed. According to the GPL anyone is free to take the 
source-code, edit/change it and compile it any way they wish AS LONG AS 
the GPL remains intact. That means they can compile a binary and 
distribute it, as long as the source code remains available to anyone 
and the GPL notice is included. I saw no mention to avoid the GPL in his 
request for information. Ergo, as long as the GPL is honored, this plan 
is actually a plus for Debian. Ric


> I don't know why do you do it. Maybe you thought in new things to do.
> Congrats for using Clang instead of GNU C Compiler, at least you're
> trying don't using it to don't need mentioning him. But Debian is signed
> in GPG too.
>
> And of course, taking apt-get/Debian and implementing new DRMs to avoid
> GNU. History is same the even. Or would be Microsoft don't mistreating
> who shares the packing management? Are you trying to take it and kick
> that out of new hardwares?
>
> Reply us.
>
> Att.
>
>
> Em 19-02-2016 23:09, Eric Mittelette escreveu:
>> Hi
>>
>>
>>
>> I contact you today about a crazy idea, but I hope it is a right kind of
>> crazy!
>>
>>
>>
>> I’m PM in the Visual C++ Team (VC Lib to be precise here at Microsoft),
>> we started to think about lib acquisition (still a painful process for
>> C++ on Windows) and we are imaging different options, one is to port
>> apt-get on Windows.
>>
>> Porting Apt-Get mean using Debian format (we love it) and providing
>> Windows binary inside the package…
>>
>>
>>
>> For doing that we imagine a light way process to adapt your actual build
>> script to generate Windows binaries using our latest Clang/c2 compiler
>> integration (meaning in theory just changing an env variable to switch
>> from gcc or Clang to our Clang/C2 compiler will be enough…)
>>
>>
>>
>> The main idea here is to not reinvent the wheel for packaging management
>> and use something existing, powerful and well known by the community.
>>
>> Of course all the project will be open source (the new Microsoft J)
>>
>>
>>
>> I know you’re really busy, and don’t want to boring you, but I wanted to
>> know your feedback about this idea?
>>
>> Do you want to be included in future discussions and provide feedback as
>> we get more details fleshed out?
>>
>>
>>
>> Again it is just a draft idea, nothing concrete, but wanted to validate
>> with you and the Debian maintainers community if that make sense for you…
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for your time
>>
>>
>>
>> Eric Mittelette
>>
>> Senior Program Manager – Visual C++ (VCLib)
>>
>> ericmitt@microsoft.com <mailto:ericmitt@microsoft.com>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
"There are two Great Sins in the world...
..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad.
http://linuxcounter.net/user/44256.html

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

#164494

De: "Ric Moore" <wayward4now@gmail.com>
> and the GPL notice is included. I saw no mention to avoid the GPL in his 
> request for information. Ergo, as long as the GPL is honored, this plan 
> is actually a plus for Debian.

How is Debian better off from Microsoft porting apt to Windows ?

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

#164495

On 02/22/2016 11:40 AM, Jean-Baptiste Thomas wrote:
> De: "Ric Moore" <wayward4now@gmail.com>
>> and the GPL notice is included. I saw no mention to avoid the GPL in his
>> request for information. Ergo, as long as the GPL is honored, this plan
>> is actually a plus for Debian.
>
> How is Debian better off from Microsoft porting apt to Windows ?

Because they didn't select YUM. :) Ric


-- 
My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
"There are two Great Sins in the world...
..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad.
http://linuxcounter.net/user/44256.html

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

#164503

* On 2016 22 Feb 10:42 -0600, Jean-Baptiste Thomas wrote:
> De: "Ric Moore" <wayward4now@gmail.com>
> > and the GPL notice is included. I saw no mention to avoid the GPL in his 
> > request for information. Ergo, as long as the GPL is honored, this plan 
> > is actually a plus for Debian.
> 
> How is Debian better off from Microsoft porting apt to Windows ?

Your question is a non sequitur.  The GPL does not require derivatives
of a work to benefit the original author in any way.  It only requires
that the terms it spells out be honored by anyone exercising the rights
to the covered work granted by it [GPL].

IANAL, etc.

- Nate

-- 

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds.  The pessimist fears this is true."

Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://www.n0nb.us

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

#164505

Nate Bargmann writes:
> Your question is a non sequitur.  The GPL does not require derivatives
> of a work to benefit the original author in any way.  It only requires
> that the terms it spells out be honored by anyone exercising the
> rights to the covered work granted by it [GPL].

True, but so what?  Ric claimed this is a plus for Debian.
Jean-Baptiste asked how.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web