Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Daniel Holbach]

Hi everybody,

Am Dienstag, den 31.05.2005, 11:54 -0700 schrieb Matt Zimmerman:
> In some cases, Ubuntu maintainers are not also Debian maintainers, and as
> such would require sponsorship in order to upload their packages to Debian.
> Ubuntu, on the other hand, imports all new source packages from Debian, so
> there's no problem in that direction.

I set up http://www.ubuntulinux.org/wiki/UniverseNewPackages some time
ago, which intended to make it easier for Debian Developers to grab
existing source packages from Ubuntu and include them in Debian. As you
can see, it lists the package name, the location of the source package
and most importantly the maintainer in Ubuntu. I don't think the list is
complete yet, but I will try to make sure every maintainer lists his
added packages.

Ideally, both, the Debian maintainer and the Ubuntu maintainer should
work together and make it an absolutely rocking package with no flaws
and a perfectly crafted packaging system.


> At first glance, it would seem sensible for Ubuntu maintainers to file ITPs
> in order to avoid duplication of effort.  However, it's not clear to me how
> they should proceed once they have packaged the software and uploaded it to
> Ubuntu.  Ideally, they would be connected with a sponsor to upload the
> package to Debian, but this can't be a requirement

In my opinion the Debian maintainer, interested in a package should file
an ITP, since it's an adminstrative instrument used with in the Debian
developer community.


I don't know, if this is of any particular interest, but we try to avoid
collisions and duplicated effort, by having [1] and [2]. 

  * [1] lists user packaging requests, which have comments by some
of our maintainers. 
  * [2] lists already done packages, which are NEW to the world and
not uploaded yet (they require 3 good reviews to be included). 

We already had some cases where it took one maintainer a bit longer to
get the packaging done and somebody else, who was interested joined him
in his efforts quite harmonously.

[1] http://www.ubuntulinux.org/wiki/UniverseCandidates
[2] http://www.ubuntulinux.org/wiki/MOTUNewPackages


> > But I sure want to see good coordination between Ubuntu and Debian.
> 
> As do we, of course.

As do I. I'd really love to see some interaction packaging-wise and I
hope the "NEW package in X" discussion leads to something. In my
understanding we're one big developer crew who definitely can share
efforts, work together more closely and learn from each other.

Have a nice day,
 Daniel




signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Robert Collins]

On Wed, 2005-06-01 at 00:06 -0500, John Goerzen wrote:

> BTW, the baz folks could get some very neat ideas from darcs.  The
> "offline mode comes free" way of working is very nice, and the
> branching being easier than Arch is nice, too.

We have .. we're about 3 releases (~3 months) away from a full
pull-style checkout that will bring all the history and be branchable
via a simple cp.

This is part of our convergence with the bzr design, as bzr proves each
point we're bringing it into baz - quite successfully so far.

Cheers,
Rob

-- 
GPG key available at: .


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Petter Reinholdtsen]

[Matt Zimmerman]
> I don't have any hard statistics, but here are some random examples of
> patches whose development was sponsored by Canonical, were tested and proven
> in Ubuntu, were proactively submitted to Debian by an Ubuntu developer, and
> remain in debbugs months later without comment from the maintainer:
> 
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=298060

This one got lots of comments from the defacto maintainer of the
shadow package, Christian Perrier.

> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=298064

This one was left in silence.

So half of the random examples were left in silence, and the other
half got serious considerations.  Good to know.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Christian Perrier]

> I don't have any hard statistics, but here are some random examples of
> patches whose development was sponsored by Canonical, were tested and proven
> in Ubuntu, were proactively submitted to Debian by an Ubuntu developer, and
> remain in debbugs months later without comment from the maintainer:
> 
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=298060

As Petter pointed, that one has received the interest of the
maintainer, namely the shadow maintenance team, through myself.

I made the decision of not fixing this bug in sarge, mostly because
this was IMHO a too risky change so close of the release.

We're now in the process of cleaning out the BTS AND the Debian
specific patches mess for shadow, so this bug will receive attention
when needed. It is indeed marked as "confirmed" which means that we
will apply the suggested change ("confirmed" means for us that we
agree with the bug reporter about the issue).

It is not fixed yet in the versions in sid only because we didn't went
on it. Our priorities are currently the BTS cleaning and resync with
upstream. All Debian specific stuff will come after.

I already discussed about shadow with Colin and I would very pleased
to see someone from Ubuntu joining the team. Unfortunately, as far as
I have seen, the closest developer for this is Colin Watson, who is
already overloaded with tons of things...:-)

However, it is now, I guess, a very well known fact that I have
absolutely no concern at all with Ubuntu and indeed I'm very well
opened to good collaboration, which I know we can make.

So, when possible, don't take shadow (or d-i) as an example of *bad*
collaboration between Ubuntu and Debian. It is not..:-)

(same for APT or dpkg, by the way, obviously)



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Marc Haber]

On Tue, 31 May 2005 22:53:01 -0700, Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I don't have any hard statistics, but here are some random examples of
>patches whose development was sponsored by Canonical, were tested and proven
>in Ubuntu, were proactively submitted to Debian by an Ubuntu developer, and
>remain in debbugs months later without comment from the maintainer:

It is not uncommon that bug reports stay uncommented until they are
eventually closed, and that the limbo phase of a bug can easily span
many months.

This is a non-courtesy that quite some Debian Developers extend
towards their users, but it is not a practice that is especially
targeted at Ubuntu.

So don't feel bad, we're all volunteers.

Greetings
Marc

-- 
-- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -
Marc Haber |   " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany  | Beginning of Wisdom " | http://www.zugschlus.de/
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834

Re: Keysigning without physically meeting ... thoughts?

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 07:54:51AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Tue, 31 May 2005 14:13:54 -0600, "Wesley J. Landaker"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Right, but they have to get it notarized (or forge a notary's seal, which is 
> >a criminal offense, at least in the US) which requires government ID 
> >(again, at least in the US). 
> 
> The entire procedure is quite US centric. I don't understand why you
> US guys are so fond of your notaries.

A while ago, in an IRC discussion, it was revealed that a notary in the
US doesn't mean as much as it does in Europe.

AIUI, in the US, a notary is just some extra title a lot of secretaries
have, so that they can make some documents more official.

Over here, however, being a notary is a full-time job; in addition, many
notaries employ some clerks, too.

> Over here, it's a three digit bill for the notary to open the office
> door and to offer you a chair,

Well, in Belgium it's not /that/ bad (a notary is required by law to
give you free advice), but the moment he uses his stamp, it indeed is a
three digit bill (around €900 last time I required the use of a notary's
services)

-- 
The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the
pavement is precisely one bananosecond


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Marc Haber]

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 08:08:02 +0200 (CEST), Andreas Tille
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>If there are inactive maintainers in Debian why not starting group
>maintainance?  The Ubuntu maintainer might be listed in the Uploaders
>field and find a sponsor to upload the package (in the best case the
>other maintainer).  THis is called group maintainance and IMHO the
>biggest problem in Debian is that outsiders often assume they just
>have to wait until something in Debian is done.

A lot of Debian maintainers hang on to their packages like a hen over
her eggs and do not want to give away any authority over their
packages which they would to by accepting co-maintainers.

Two quite prominent examples are sysklogd, which is in not-too-good
shape with a gazillion of bug reports open, and ifupdown, which has
recently seen maintainer attention after years of limbo, and where the
maintainer has not extended the courtesy of even replying to a
co-maintainership offer by a group of people who have taken care of
the package during its disregarded phase.

Greetings
Marc

-- 
-- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -
Marc Haber |   " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany  | Beginning of Wisdom " | http://www.zugschlus.de/
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834

Re: Keysigning without physically meeting ... thoughts?

[Ron Johnson]

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 07:54:51 +0200
Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Tue, 31 May 2005 14:13:54 -0600, "Wesley J. Landaker"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Right, but they have to get it notarized (or forge a notary's seal, which is 
> >a criminal offense, at least in the US) which requires government ID 
> >(again, at least in the US). 
> 
> The entire procedure is quite US centric. I don't understand why you
> US guys are so fond of your notaries.

Because they do less in Common Law countries than in Civil Law 
countries.

"In the United States, generally speaking, a notary public is a
public official appointed by the government to serve the public
as an impartial witness."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notary_public

>Over here, it's a three digit
> bill for the notary to open the office door and to offer you a chair,
> so there might be cultures where one thinks twice or even three times
> before having something notarized.
> 
> Additionally, the web of trust is the web of trust because it is
> entirely self-contained, without putting any trust on government and
> state official. Your suggestion violates this principle by moving the
> verification state to the notary.
> 
> Even if the notary were sufficiently advanced to offer PGP key signing
> with her official key this were not good enough for Debian, since the
> Debian web of trust explicitly relies on being self-contained. You'd
> need to have a DD notary, which at this point makes the signature
> valid because of the DD property, and being notary becomes irrelevant.



-- 
-
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson, LA  USA
PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail.

"You may either win your peace or buy it: win it, by resistance
to evil; buy it, by compromise with evil."
John Ruskin


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Andreas Tille]

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Marc Haber wrote:


A lot of Debian maintainers hang on to their packages like a hen over
her eggs and do not want to give away any authority over their
packages which they would to by accepting co-maintainers.

And I guess it is not by chance that packages which fit into this
category often accumulate more and more very old, simply to fix
and boring bugs.  I hope this can be solved since I heard several
positive voices to make group maintainance more popular.

Having the Ubuntu maintainer as co-maintainer would be a drastical
advance for both Debian and Ubuntu.

Kind regards

  Andreas.

--
http://fam-tille.de


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#311479: ITP: Nexuiz -- 1st person 3d shooter

[Alexander Schmehl]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Alexander Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


* Package name: Nexuiz
  Version : 1.0
  Upstream Author : Nexuiz Team
* URL : http://www.nexuiz.com/
* License : GPL
  Description : High End 1st person 3d shooter

(copy paste from their website)
Nexuiz has been in development for 3.5 years by a team of amateur
developers lead by Lee Vermeulen. It is a 3d deathmatch game made
entirely over the internet. The purpose of the game is to bring
deathmatch back to the basics, with perfect weapon balancing and fast
paced action, keeping itself away from the current trend of realistic
shooters. It uses HFX textures by Evil Lair, and currently has 17 maps
to frag in. With an advanced UI, the user can select between 15
different player models to use, with an average of two skins for each,
and can connect to our master server to play people from all over the
world.


Well... since the downloadable zip ist with 161MB quite large (140MB
game date, 4MB sources, some binaries), this might become an inofficla
package at my private repository, seems to be a bit too big for the
archive ;)


-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: powerpc (ppc)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.11-vinyamar
Locale: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (charmap=ISO-8859-15)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#311475: ITP: r-cran-hdf5 -- GNU R package for interfacing to the NCSA HDF5 library

[Rafael Laboissiere]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Rafael Laboissiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


* Package name: r-cran-hdf5
  Version : 1.6.0
  Upstream Author : Marcus G. Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://cran.us.r-project.org/src/contrib/
* License : GPL
  Description : GNU R package for interfacing to the NCSA HDF5 library

This package provides the functions hdf5save and hdf5load which allow saving
and loading of R variables in the Hierarchical Data Format (HDF) format.
Lists, strings, vectors, matrices and higher-dimensional arrays are
supported.
   
It is available in the following apt-getable repository:

http://people.debian.org/~rafael/r-cran-hdf5/


-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.8-1-686
Locale: LANG=en_US, LC_CTYPE=en_US (charmap=ISO-8859-1)



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Example where testing-security was used?

[Nigel Jones]

On 01/06/05, Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > IOW, it doesn't (directly) give meaningful predictions about the rate
> > at which a given piece of hardware becomes obsolete.
> >
> > It also has no capacity to predict an organization's *ability* to
> > replace hardware.
> 
> ok, true
> 
> > > I'm aware that more's law is not appliable on some archs (like arm
> > > I believe) but the question is, well, who uses openoffice.org or
> > > kde on an arm (only to cite those) ?
> >
> > This mitigates the linear growth of the archive itself (assuming we
> > did subset the archive for slower archs), but it doesn't mitigate the
> > growth of software complexity that causes subsequent revisions of the
> > same software to run slower on the same hardware over time -- which,
> > if it's true of nothing else, is at least true of compilers.
> 
> hmmm, if you don't give such monsters like openoffice or any big c++
> application to build on slow/rare arches, I guess that will ease the
> autobuilders a lot too, not only the archive.
> 
> maybe the solution is to write a [EMAIL PROTECTED] (like [EMAIL PROTECTED] or
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] does) in order to ease the autobuilders :D (kidding of
> course)

wouldn't that just be like DistCC that all the Gentoo users rave about?

> 
> --
> ·O·  Pierre Habouzit
> ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> OOOhttp://www.madism.org
> 
> 
> 


-- 
N Jones

Re: Example where testing-security was used?

[Pierre Habouzit]

> > maybe the solution is to write a [EMAIL PROTECTED] (like [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > or
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] does) in order to ease the autobuilders :D (kidding of
> > course)
>
> wouldn't that just be like DistCC that all the Gentoo users rave
> about?

one can imagin a 'job' server that allow you to build bits of debian 
packages at home. not necessarily C source ;)

and then debian servers only check it's coherent

I know, this is completely ScFi
-- 
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OOOhttp://www.madism.org


pgpVjrxrAIGtZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[George Danchev]

On Wednesday 01 June 2005 11:52, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Marc Haber wrote:
> > A lot of Debian maintainers hang on to their packages like a hen over
> > her eggs and do not want to give away any authority over their
> > packages which they would to by accepting co-maintainers.
>
> And I guess it is not by chance that packages which fit into this
> category often accumulate more and more very old, simply to fix
> and boring bugs.  I hope this can be solved since I heard several
> positive voices to make group maintainance more popular.

I dont have any numbers, but I'm inclined to believe that's true in most of 
the cases.

> Having the Ubuntu maintainer as co-maintainer would be a drastical
> advance for both Debian and Ubuntu.

Out of curiousity, is there real examples of DD's and UD's sharing common 
revison control repo for their packaging, e.g. on alioth or at the relevant 
ubuntu service if there is any like alioth ? This way both kind of 
maintainers can coordinate more tightly without need to have access to each 
other's ftp archive/uploadqueue/whatever. I guess that will not work for some 
packages, but for the rest this will be a big benefit imho.

-- 
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 
fingerprint1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Release update: minor delay; no non-RC fixes; upgrade reports

[Steve Langasek]

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 12:27:08AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 04:29:31AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On the contrary, I found your answer reasonably satisfactory, and as a
> > result had postponed replying to you in favor of dealing with more directly
> > pressing release issues.

> > You indicated that as of two weeks ago, you'd been through the "middle
> > seventh" of update_excuses checking for unidentified RC bugs, and that most
> > of the packages below this range were not in testing and therefore wouldn't
> > hold many hidden RC bugs; and I've been tracking the status of RC bugs
> > closed since the freeze began, which accounts for many (though not all) of
> > the more recent uploads.

> What's the current number of RC bugs you've tracked this way?

I haven't distinguished between RC bugs tracked this way, and RC bugs
tracked by other means.  The complete record of packages I've hinted into
sarge since the beginning of the freeze is available at
.

> Am I right to assume that you count them when looking whether you reach 
> your 15 RC bugs in your metric you want to achieve today?

The existence of such closed-but-not-finished RC bugs was factored into the
estimates of how many open RC bugs we needed to be down to at each point in
the timeline.

> Why are there always extremely aggressive timelines (with at least three 
> publically announced release dates for sarge already passed) instead of 
> making everything more relaxed for being able to improve sarge without 
> being in a big hurry?

I think you're the only person on the planet arguing that sarge's release
cycle should be slower...

There is always room for improvement, but you have to decide which axis you
want to improve on.  Do you want a release, or do you want a perpetual
freeze that asymptotically approaches perfection because there's always one
more RC bug to be closed in one little package that has a userbase of a
dozen or less?  This is the tradeoff of hunting down all the RC bugs that
have been reported in the BTS.  It's a diminishing-returns tradeoff, and I
don't think the decision we're making is the wrong one.

> > For my part, I have explicitly *not* given a free pass to packages with RC
> > bugs that were filed a long time ago but only recently raised to their
> > proper severity.  It's great if bug submitters know what severity a bug
> > should be filed at, but it's the *responsibility* of the maintainer to
> > adjust the severity if it's wrong -- even if that means raising the
> > severity, something none of us want to do.  Even more, it's the maintainer's
> > responsibility to *deal with* such bugs at the proper severity even if they
> > were filed wrong.  It simply can't be the responsibility of any central
> > group to babysit the severities of bugs filed: that's not scalable in the
> > least.
> > 
> > So yes, sarge will ship with bugs that should have been considered RC.  But
> > this is inevitable in any case because of the many RC bugs that are never
> > *identified* by our testing, so there's no reason for the release team to
> > treat these bugs as blocking issues if no one cares enough to make sure
> > they're brought to our attention.  This doesn't mean that your work to
> > identify overlooked RC bugs is any less valuable, Adrian, or that I'm any
> > less grateful to you for it (in spite of the visceral irritation sometimes
> > at seeing the bug count moving in the wrong direction ;).  It just means
> > having a pragmatic, big-picture view of what it means to release, and
> > whether the improvement to sarge is worth it to our users every time we
> > delay another week to fix a handful of bugs.  After all, let's not forget
> > that sarge is already quite good, and nothing to be ashamed of!

> As said above, I still don't see why such a hurry was required.

> Yes, woody is completely outdated. But a few weeks more or less until 
> sarge is released doesn't make the big difference.

Well, I'm sorry, but whereas it may not make a big difference to most of our
users or developers whether the release is delayed by a few weeks, as the
one in the hot seat, a prolonged freeze does have a significant impact on
*my* quality of life.  Keeping up on the status of RC issues, coordinating
with maintainers, coordinating bugfixers, submitting packages, doing NMUs,
reviewing and/or handholding packages containing fixes that need to get into
the release, watching one autobuilder after another off-line itself due to
hardware issues and trying to manage the resulting increase in pending
issues, getting the timing right so that all the teams involved in a release
can be available to do their part at the right time in the right order,
making sure that none of the last-minute problems (there are *always*
last-minute problems) derail that timing...

I challenge anyone to do volunteer release management for a project with
Debian's size and complexity and come a

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Daniel Holbach]

Hello everybody,

Am Mittwoch, den 01.06.2005, 10:52 +0200 schrieb Andreas Tille:
> Having the Ubuntu maintainer as co-maintainer would be a drastical
> advance for both Debian and Ubuntu.

Thanks Andreas for pointing this out. I am really happy to hear interest
in this. Since we're all working on the same codebase, the same bugs and
the same user questions, this is a BIG opportunity we simply shouldn't
miss.

The GNOME and Mono teams are good examples of people collaborating and
maintaining software together in both worlds. The developer/maintainer
base in Ubuntu is steadily growing and people interested in specific
topics could form teams, which have 
  * more overview,
  * more eyes on the problematic spots,
  * more expertise and
  * more time.

The team perspective seems to me to be the solution to a lot of problems
mentioned in this thread and I'm absolutely confident in expecting great
things will happen that way.

I can think of IRC meetings, mailing lists, team goals, good interaction
with upstream authors and kind of a "forum" to user requests, which
teams can more easily achieve than single maintainers.

I know most of this is "future talk" but we should now set the course
and take steps, which make it happen.

Have a nice day,
 Daniel



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: New Nokia device is Debian-based?

[Christian Perrier]

Quoting David Weinehall ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):

> Indeed.  The Nokia OSSO (Open Source Software Operations) that work on
> this product consists of several DD's (myself being one), plus at least
> one person in the NM-queue.  Some of our subcontractors are also DD's.


This should be IMHO publicized more widely, for the benefit of both
Debian and Nokia, indeed. 



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Release update: minor delay; no non-RC fixes; upgrade reports

[Christian Perrier]

> I remember times when there where two weeks test cycles where the whole 
> thing was frozen with zero changes for at about a week, and if any 
> serious problems were found they were fixed and then there was the next 
> test cycle.
> 
> Why is there now always such a hurry to get everything out within a 
> week?
> 
> Why are there always extremely aggressive timelines (with at least three 
> publically announced release dates for sarge already passed) instead of 
> making everything more relaxed for being able to improve sarge without 
> being in a big hurry?


My general feeling about all this is that things have changed.a
lot.

In these "good old days", Debian was kinda small both in term of
packages and number of maintainers (yep, even when the woody release
happened) and the process you describe has proven to work.

Probably a lot of things changed since thenand it seems that the
relaxed timelines you're talking about do not really fit. 

Indeed, we are in a relaxed timeline since nearly one year, when the
base system was frozen in August 2004. All package maintainers should
have then started to "mentally freeze" their packages and track down
unsolved RC issues in sargeand be sure that RC issues fixed in
experimental/unstable would indeed go to sarge.

It worked for most of the packages...and seems to fail for
some. IMHO, this only proves that some packages are poorly
maintained, or more precisely, that their current maintainer has
problems to handle the workload.

Many many packages are currently switching to team maintenance because
of that. I think that etch will show this tendency even morewith
teams structuring themselves in specialised activities, one of them
being the handling of RC bugs when releases are close..:-)

About 9000 source packagesabout 1000 active developers. That
mostly makes the point..:-)

Among the tons of problems we are facing for etch, the size problem
will be one : I'm wondering whether it is good to see ITP's flooding
around -devel for tons of anecdotic things while some of our "key"
packages are poorly maintained because their only maintainer cannot
handle the workload.



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Loïc Minier]

Hi,

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005, George Danchev wrote:
> Out of curiousity, is there real examples of DD's and UD's sharing common 
> revison control repo for their packaging, e.g. on alioth or at the relevant 
> ubuntu service if there is any like alioth ? This way both kind of 
> maintainers can coordinate more tightly without need to have access to each 
> other's ftp archive/uploadqueue/whatever. I guess that will not work for some 
> packages, but for the rest this will be a big benefit imho.

 The Debian GNOME team counts Ubuntu developers and has write access to
 the pkg-gnome alioth SVN repository.  Ubuntu GNOME packages are
 directly derived from the Debian ones (rebuilt with minor changes), but
 the work is usually done in the pkg-gnome SVN repository, preparing the
 GNOME 2.10 experimental packages for example, and then adapter slightly
 to Ubuntu.
   AFAICT, Ubuntu doesn't have an additional SCM after pkg-gnome's one
 to deal with that for most packages.

 Ubuntu's developers are giving a lot back through that channel since
 any reported bug at Ubuntu will get fixed on both sides (and of course
 Debian bugs too).

   Regards,
-- 
Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Neutral President: I have no strong feelings one way or the other."


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Keysigning without physically meeting ... thoughts?

[Ron Johnson]

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 10:14:43 +0200
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 07:54:51AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> > On Tue, 31 May 2005 14:13:54 -0600, "Wesley J. Landaker"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >Right, but they have to get it notarized (or forge a notary's seal, which 
> > >is 
> > >a criminal offense, at least in the US) which requires government ID 
> > >(again, at least in the US). 
> > 
> > The entire procedure is quite US centric. I don't understand why you
> > US guys are so fond of your notaries.
> 
> A while ago, in an IRC discussion, it was revealed that a notary in the
> US doesn't mean as much as it does in Europe.
> 
> AIUI, in the US, a notary is just some extra title a lot of secretaries
> have, so that they can make some documents more official.

That's wrong.  You take a non-trivial test, and be background checked.

The secretaries you are referring to are 99.9% of the time in law
offices and title-transfer companies.

For example, why see a lawyer, when all you need is an unbiased 
3rd party to certify that it was actually you who signed that 
document?

-- 
-
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson, LA  USA
PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail.

"Organic chemistry is the chemistry of carbon compounds.
Biochemistry is the study of carbon compounds that crawl."
Mike Adams


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Keysigning without physically meeting ... thoughts?

[Andrew Suffield]

On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 02:13:54PM -0600, Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
> On Tuesday 31 May 2005 14:11, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 09:03:12AM -0600, Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
> > > I wrote this up to someone. I thought I'd share it, and get your
> > > thoughts. (e.g. anybody see any weaknesses in #1-#3 that *aren't*
> > > present in the typical meet, check ID, get GPG fingerprint, assuming #4
> > > is always used afterwards?)
> >
> > Falsifying a government-issued ID is a criminal offence, regardless of
> > how often it happens (using it to buy alcohol is not important; they
> > simply raise the minimum age to compensate, so there's no need to
> > enforce it there). Falsifying a random photograph is not illegal at
> > all, and there is no reason why somebody wouldn't do it. Nothing here
> > has verified their identity with any strength to speak of. A person
> > who wants to generate an identity can do so with minimal effort and no
> > repercussions - so why wouldn't they?
> 
> Right, but they have to get it notarized (or forge a notary's seal, which is 
> a criminal offense, at least in the US) which requires government ID 
> (again, at least in the US). 

A notary doesn't certify that the document you hand them is
correct. All they certify is that you handed them this particular
document on this particular date.

> Regardless, how is this different from meeting someone in person?

The difference would be the deterrent effect. Without it, there's
absolutely no reason why anybody wouldn't generate throwaway
identities at whim.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#311497: ITP: eventlog -- Syslog event logger library

[SZALAY Attila]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: SZALAY Attila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

* Package name: eventlog
  Version : 0.2.3+20050116+1856
  Upstream Author : Scheidler Balazs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.balabit.hu/downloads/syslog-ng/1.9/src/
* License : BSD
  Description : Syslog event logger library

 The EventLog library aims to be a replacement of the simple syslog() API
 provided on UNIX systems. The major difference between EventLog and syslog
 is that EventLog tries to add structure to messages.
 .
 EventLog provides an interface to build, format and output an event record.
 The exact format and output method can be customized by the administrator
 via a configuration file.


-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.4.18
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

NFS in unstable not working, a bug?

[jpahka]

Hello,

I upgraded my home server machine and at the same time moved from debian testing
to unstable. Now, I've basicly got everything else working except for nfs. With
the old machine and testing distribution everything was working fine. So, I'm
wondering if there are broken packages in unstable or is it my setup that's 
broken.

my setup is following: client connecting to the debian/unstable server is ubuntu
hoary machine. ip-number of the client is 192.168.0.10 and that of the server is
192.168.0.1. 

In the server:

/etc/hosts.deny is empty

/etc/hosts.allow has a line:
  ALL: 192.168.0.10

server:# showmount -e 
/home/shared 192.168.0.10

server:# rpcinfo -p localhost
   program vers proto   port
102   tcp111  portmapper
102   udp111  portmapper
132   udp   2049  nfs
133   udp   2049  nfs
134   udp   2049  nfs
132   tcp   2049  nfs
133   tcp   2049  nfs
134   tcp   2049  nfs
1000211   udp  32772  nlockmgr
1000213   udp  32772  nlockmgr
1000214   udp  32772  nlockmgr
1000211   tcp  32768  nlockmgr
1000213   tcp  32768  nlockmgr
1000214   tcp  32768  nlockmgr
151   udp993  mountd
151   tcp996  mountd
152   udp993  mountd
152   tcp996  mountd
153   udp993  mountd
153   tcp996  mountd
3910022   tcp792  sgi_fam
1000241   udp799  status
1000241   tcp802  status

server:# iptables -L
Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT)
target prot opt source   destination

Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT)
target prot opt source   destination

Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT)
target prot opt source   destination



But my client can't make a rpc connection to the server:

client:# rpcinfo -p 192.168.0.1
rpcinfo: can't contact portmapper: RPC: Remote system error - Connection refused


Does anybody have any idea what's going on here? Thanks in advance for any help!

juhis


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Release update: minor delay; no non-RC fixes; upgrade reports

[Adrian Bunk]

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 02:58:21AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 12:27:08AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>...
> > Why are there always extremely aggressive timelines (with at least three 
> > publically announced release dates for sarge already passed) instead of 
> > making everything more relaxed for being able to improve sarge without 
> > being in a big hurry?
> 
> I think you're the only person on the planet arguing that sarge's release
> cycle should be slower...

That's not what I am saying.

The things I'm talking about are on an order of magnitude below the big 
delays of the sarge release cycle.

We are talking about perhaps one or two months.

The first announced release date for sarge is now missed by 18 months 
because the development of the new installer didn't progress as 
expected. If Debian 3.1 would have been released in 2003 with 
slightly updated boot-floppies, etch might be frozen now.

You can't correct a delay of one and a half years by squeezing a few 
weeks off the freeze time.

> There is always room for improvement, but you have to decide which axis you
> want to improve on.  Do you want a release, or do you want a perpetual
> freeze that asymptotically approaches perfection because there's always one
> more RC bug to be closed in one little package that has a userbase of a
> dozen or less?  This is the tradeoff of hunting down all the RC bugs that
> have been reported in the BTS.  It's a diminishing-returns tradeoff, and I
> don't think the decision we're making is the wrong one.

IMHO there's currently too much hurry in the release timelines.

Yes, you can't be 100% perfect.
But one big well-known strength of Debian is stability, and that's IMHO 
worth some effort and time.

>...
> > Yes, woody is completely outdated. But a few weeks more or less until 
> > sarge is released doesn't make the big difference.
> 
> Well, I'm sorry, but whereas it may not make a big difference to most of our
> users or developers whether the release is delayed by a few weeks, as the
> one in the hot seat, a prolonged freeze does have a significant impact on
> *my* quality of life.  Keeping up on the status of RC issues, coordinating
> with maintainers, coordinating bugfixers, submitting packages, doing NMUs,
> reviewing and/or handholding packages containing fixes that need to get into
> the release, watching one autobuilder after another off-line itself due to
> hardware issues and trying to manage the resulting increase in pending
> issues, getting the timing right so that all the teams involved in a release
> can be available to do their part at the right time in the right order,
> making sure that none of the last-minute problems (there are *always*
> last-minute problems) derail that timing...

A freeze with a less aggressive timeline might take longer, but OTOH it 
might make the quality of your life during the freeze better because 
there's less stress.

If you have some spare time after the release of sarge, I'd recommend 
reading e.g. the book "Slack" by Tom DeMarco.

> I challenge anyone to do volunteer release management for a project with
> Debian's size and complexity and come away with the opinion that longer
> freezes are a good thing.

If this is a personal invitation for me to join the Debian release team 
I might consider accepting.

>...
> > And if 6 June 2005 will be the fourth missed officially announced 
> > release date for sarge the negative effect on the reputation of Debian 
> > will most likely be bigger compared to the situation if you'd have 
> > planned and announced a longer freeze.
> 
> Anyone who can't distinguish between an "officially announced release date"
> and a projected target release date isn't worth wasting my breath on.

It seems you underestimate the public effects of release management 
announcements.

Nearly none of your users read d-d-a.

They read the media.

E.g. in Germany the most popular online media for computer related news 
is heise.de [1]. And their latest news regarding Debian was "Completion 
of Debian sarge delayed again" [2].

You might blame the media, but this doesn't help. People who don't know 
what Debian is will only read this headline and might remember it when 
considering using Debian. And some users of Debian will finally give up 
on waiting for sarge since all they hear is that it's delayed again.

> Steve Langasek

cu
Adrian

[1] http://www.heise.de
[2] http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/60089

-- 

   "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
   "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
   Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: NFS in unstable not working, a bug?

[William Lee Irwin III]

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 01:55:45PM +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I upgraded my home server machine and at the same time moved from
> debian testing to unstable. Now, I've basicly got everything else
> working except for nfs. With the old machine and testing distribution
> everything was working fine. So, I'm wondering if there are broken
> packages in unstable or is it my setup that's broken.
> my setup is following: client connecting to the debian/unstable
> server is ubuntu hoary machine. ip-number of the client is
> 192.168.0.10 and that of the server is 192.168.0.1.
> In the server:
> /etc/hosts.deny is empty
> /etc/hosts.allow has a line:
>   ALL: 192.168.0.10
> server:# showmount -e=20
> /home/shared 192.168.0.10
> server:# rpcinfo -p localhost

Please check /etc/default/portmap; I had a nasty surprise there once
when someone dropped OPTIONS="-i localhost" there, which binds it to
lo or to 127.0.0.1 or otherwise makes it refuse connections from
elsewhere, preventing all remote connections. By and large various
defaults that break my setup show up in /etc/default/, which I suppose
saves me the trouble of looking in still odder places, but still, ugh.


-- wli


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: NFS in unstable not working, a bug?

[jpahka]

> 
> Please check /etc/default/portmap; I had a nasty surprise there once
> when someone dropped OPTIONS="-i localhost" there, which binds it to
> lo or to 127.0.0.1 or otherwise makes it refuse connections from
> elsewhere, preventing all remote connections. By and large various
> defaults that break my setup show up in /etc/default/, which I suppose
> saves me the trouble of looking in still odder places, but still, ugh.
> 
> 
> -- wli
> 

Hi,

Firstly, Thanks William for your fast answer. And thanks for solving my
problem!!! Actually in my installation there was no portmap file in /etc/default
 directory, so I thought I'd run dpkg-reconfigure portmap if there's something
wrong with my installation of portmap. Well, dpkg-reconfigure asks if the
portmapper should be bound to localhost and I had this setting as 'yes' (so the
same thing but not in /etc/default). Anyhow, I changed that, and now it's just
working!

Thanks alot!

juhis


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

ogg123 cann't play speex files, 'cause stable speex is missing from sarge !

[SZERVÁC Attila]

 Hi Dear Devs!

 Sorry for irregular Bug Report, but I dont know, how can I refer
correctly to version number in this case in a correct Bug Report, but I
think, this is a grave (RC?) Bug.

 I'm writing a hungarian documention mainly about usability of ogg123 .

 But, today, I cann't play speex files with ogg123.

 Reason: stable 1.0.x Speex branch today is missing from Sarge.

 I don't understand, why, it is unusual (why not libspeex1.0,
speex1.0 etc. *.deb), unacceptable & grave usability bug.

 Please, help 2 solve this problem!!

 THX & sorry:

 sas aka satie


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Please Her Tonite qp6Y

[Carmela Miller]

The Only Clinically Tested Penis En_Largement Products!

- Guuaarantee 1+ inches in 2 months (or moneeyy back)
- Experience Longer Lasting and More Enjoying Seexx
- Easy to Wear With No Additional Exercises Require
- The More You Wear, the Longer It Will Be
- Millions of People are Enjoying the Benefit of It

Check Uss Out Tooday!

http://hybridisms.com/extender/?ronn










o-ut of mai-lling lisst:
http://hybridisms.com/rm.php?ronn
gjp


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Help: Strange behaviour of ldd

[Andreas Tille]

Hi,

I observed a strange problem when trying to sponsor the mummer package

 http://bioinformatics.pzr.uni-rostock.de/~moeller/debian/mummer

I reduced the problem to a quite basic one.  Just go to

 http://people.debian.org/~tille/tmp/test/

and download Makefile *.cc and *.hh (only 5 files) and try make.  This builds
two executables: annotate and gaps. Now try

$ ldd annotate gaps
annotate:
 not a dynamic executable
gaps:
 libstdc++.so.5 => /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.5 (0xb7f19000)
 libm.so.6 => /lib/tls/libm.so.6 (0xb7ef6000)
 libgcc_s.so.1 => /lib/libgcc_s.so.1 (0x41312000)
 libc.so.6 => /lib/tls/libc.so.6 (0xb7dc1000)
 /lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0xb7fea000)

I'm no C++ expert but I really fail to see the difference which causes
ldd to fail. Perhaps we should discuss this on debian-devel list.  I'm
not sure whether such things might be caused by different libraries and
you need to add a certain build dependency.

But this is not the only strange thing here.  You might by lucky and the
problem does not occure on your box.  For instance everything is fine at
my laptop and my desktop in the office.  But at home fails for annotate
and only for this one.  To verify the problem I also tried a Sparc machine
and also here ldd had the problem with annotate.  At first I thought
of a name space conflict but this did not seem to be the case.  (Renaming
the executable did not changed anything).  Moreover it doesn't matter
on which machine the executable was builded - the ldd failure is kind
of "machine-dependant" not "build-machine-dependant".

Anybody able to solve this riddle?

Kind regards

Andreas.

--
http://fam-tille.de


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Release update: minor delay; no non-RC fixes; upgrade reports

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 01:02:28PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 02:58:21AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Anyone who can't distinguish between an "officially announced release date"
> > and a projected target release date isn't worth wasting my breath on.
> 
> It seems you underestimate the public effects of release management 
> announcements.
> 
> Nearly none of your users read d-d-a.
> 
> They read the media.
> 
> E.g. in Germany the most popular online media for computer related news 
> is heise.de [1]. And their latest news regarding Debian was "Completion 
> of Debian sarge delayed again" [2].

... in an article that is full of factual errors.

Example:

"Mitte März gab es erst den dritten Release Candidate für Sarge;"[...]

That's not correct; we had the third release candidate for
debian-installer around that time. While the two are related, Sarge is a
lot more than just debian-installer.

If they can't even get such basic things right, I don't think it's fair
to say that there's a problem here which the RMs can do something about.

On the other hand, note that the release announcements do help in
getting us focused to do whatever is necessary to make the release
happen. Without those things, I for one would probably have tuned out a
while ago, because "nothing happened".

Now choose what's more important for you: having a developer focused on
fixing the release and actually making it happen, or having the mass
media not saying things that be bad for the image Debian has with some
people.

-- 
The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the
pavement is precisely one bananosecond


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Peter Van Eynde]

Hello,


Daniel Holbach wrote:
> I set up http://www.ubuntulinux.org/wiki/UniverseNewPackages some time
...
> Ideally, both, the Debian maintainer and the Ubuntu maintainer should
> work together and make it an absolutely rocking package with no flaws
> and a perfectly crafted packaging system.

A message like this makes you the perfect victim :-) for my question:
what should a debian maintainer do to have his or her packages in
universe in a good shape? I'm even willing to build the packages myself,
but I fail to see how the pieces fit together. Where do universe bugs
go? Who decides which version goes into universe? What do to with my
packages that cannot be 'source only' like cmucl?

The fact that the MOTS seem to place a high importance on IRC, which I
cannot use at work, and the wiki seems a little off-putting.


Groetjes, Peter

-- 
signature -at- pvaneynd.mailworks.org
http://www.livejournal.com/users/pvaneynd/
"God, root, what is difference?" Pitr | "God is more forgiving." Dave
Aronson|


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Release update: minor delay; no non-RC fixes; upgrade reports

[Adrian Bunk]

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 02:27:04PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 01:02:28PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 02:58:21AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > Anyone who can't distinguish between an "officially announced release 
> > > date"
> > > and a projected target release date isn't worth wasting my breath on.
> > 
> > It seems you underestimate the public effects of release management 
> > announcements.
> > 
> > Nearly none of your users read d-d-a.
> > 
> > They read the media.
> > 
> > E.g. in Germany the most popular online media for computer related news 
> > is heise.de [1]. And their latest news regarding Debian was "Completion 
> > of Debian sarge delayed again" [2].
> 
> ... in an article that is full of factual errors.
> 
> Example:
> 
> "Mitte März gab es erst den dritten Release Candidate für Sarge;"[...]

That's the only error I can find.

Since you are saying it "is full of factual errors", can you list a few 
more errors you've found?

> That's not correct; we had the third release candidate for
> debian-installer around that time. While the two are related, Sarge is a
> lot more than just debian-installer.
> 
> If they can't even get such basic things right, I don't think it's fair
> to say that there's a problem here which the RMs can do something about.

The release team has said in announcements before the second announced  
release date for sarge that the whole release schedule was based on the 
installer schedule.

For a casual reader of d-d-a it might not be obvious that this has 
changed.

If people misunderstand announcements it's not always only the fault of 
the people.

> On the other hand, note that the release announcements do help in
> getting us focused to do whatever is necessary to make the release
> happen. Without those things, I for one would probably have tuned out a
> while ago, because "nothing happened".
> 
> Now choose what's more important for you: having a developer focused on
> fixing the release and actually making it happen, or having the mass
> media not saying things that be bad for the image Debian has with some
> people.

Yes, there are examples where this vaporware approach of setting target 
dates that aren't reached works.

But in the long term, people get used to them and do no longer trust 
them. And in my impression even Debian developers aren't too dumb for 
recognizing how many announced dates were missed.


And the image of Debian for users and potential users of Debian is 
actually important - it might influence their decision whether the will 
try or continue to use Debian.


cu
Adrian

-- 

   "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
   "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
   Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

GET CD AND DOWNLOADS, all software under $99-$15

[Hannah]

Get a head start on a new computer career
http://gdgpwf.g52vjfgrdqg5dzg.aconitumil.com




Working in the theater has a lot in common with unemployment.  
Health is not valued till sickness comes.  




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Stephen Birch]

Michael K. Edwards([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2005-05-31 23:01:
> I think it's been so long since Debian started having pre-sarge
> freeze-spasms that we've all forgotten what it's like when the

I am a long time Linux user but only saw the debian light just after
woody released so I have no experience with the flood.  But I can
guess what is about to take place.  Indeed I have several packages of
my own just waiting for the release.

> Once sarge does release, the Ubuntu folks are going to be right there
> in the trenches with everyone else dealing with GCC 4.0, the death of
> devfs, and the demands for a graphical installer.  If anything they'll
> be pulling Debian forward with Linux 2.6.11.bignum, just as they are
> with Python 2.4 and some of the remaining java-in-main issues.  It is
> not in their interest to let their fork (or spoon or other implement
> of destruction) go off into the rough.

All good points.
 
> > Oh my gosh, I hope and pray you are right.
> > 
> > We are all watching ...
> 
> I'm not quite sure this is sarcasm, although I have my suspicions. 

No .. it wasn't intended to be sarcastic.  Both the Ubuntu supporters
and the opponents will be watching to see what takes place.

> But I happened to be watching on #ubuntu-devel as the last few hoary
> RCs got knocked off.  These guys (and gals) are pros, and they're

Yes they are pros.  I haven't started tracking ubuntu-devel yet but
from the reading I have done it looks like Ubuntu has managed to avoid
some of the volatile discourse (flames) that can be counter productive
and, frankly, embarrassing in debian-devel.

> excited about what they're doing, and they aren't any less committed
> to Debian than they were before no-name-yet.  They're used to dealing
> patiently with bull-headed upstreams when wearing their DD hats, so
> they can probably take Debian-Ubuntu frictions in stride.

I guess in many cases Ubuntu have a double level of upstream to cope
with :-)

upstream --> debian --> ubunto

> Some things about the relationship are going to be hard, though.  I
> was very distressed to find that a last-minute ABI change in sarge's
> glibc will cause any package built on sarge that gets a versioned
> glibc dependency to be uninstallable on hoary.  I really had hoped to
> run the same mysql-server packages on both, and I'm not quite sure
> what I'm going to do for a distro-neutral C++ build environment.  :-(

So *that* was the cause.  I have been helping a client upgrade
machines from sarge to Ubuntu and our internal software broke with a
glibc conflict.  It means we are forced to either keep two
repositories of internal code or switch EVERY machine to Ubunto. Sigh.

Steve

 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Stephen Birch]

John Goerzen([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2005-06-01 00:06:
> Out of curiousity, do you have a rough estimate of the percentage that
> actually make it into Debian?  Or the percentage that are held back
> with no good reason?

I wonder if it would be an idea to write a tool that compares Debian
and Ubuntu packages and provides a web based view of the delta so we
can track divergence.

> > In the not-so-distant future, a huge proportion of Ubuntu development will
> > take place in Arch branches, with the intent of promoting more efficient
> > collaboration both within Ubuntu and with Debian.
> 
> Very nice.

Okay ... I missed the development of arch.  Boy ... its difficult to
keep up with everything going on.  How did the arch project improve on
Subversion?

Steve


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Steve Langasek]

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 06:17:48AM -0700, Stephen Birch wrote:
> > Some things about the relationship are going to be hard, though.  I
> > was very distressed to find that a last-minute ABI change in sarge's
> > glibc will cause any package built on sarge that gets a versioned
> > glibc dependency to be uninstallable on hoary.  I really had hoped to
> > run the same mysql-server packages on both, and I'm not quite sure
> > what I'm going to do for a distro-neutral C++ build environment.  :-(

> So *that* was the cause.  I have been helping a client upgrade
> machines from sarge to Ubuntu and our internal software broke with a
> glibc conflict.  It means we are forced to either keep two
> repositories of internal code or switch EVERY machine to Ubunto. Sigh.

Or build against hoary knowing that it'll be installable on both?

Or override the glibc shlibs, because the only ABI change in glibc is to
sched_[gs]et_affinity, which you're probably not using and can therefore
ignore if you know what you're doing (whereas this ABI change can't be
ignored for Debian at large)?

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Release update: minor delay; no non-RC fixes; upgrade reports

[Simon Huggins]

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 02:56:47PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> The release team has said in announcements before the second announced
> release date for sarge that the whole release schedule was based on
> the installer schedule.

> For a casual reader of d-d-a it might not be obvious that this has
> changed.

Eh?  Have you been reading some other d-d-a than the rest of us?

The last ones have been about RC bugs[0],[1] and then[2] there was a call
for upgrades which took longer "due to a hairy bug".  No installer
mentions there.

The one before that[3] is a mixed bag of things that were fixed none of
which were the installer.

So I have to go back through 4 announcements and two months before I
even find a mention of the installer which just says[4] that RC3 was done
and that sarge will release with it.

Perhaps by "casual reader" you mean certain journalists who don't even
bother to read those messages at all?  It's clear from d-d-a that the
release not happening has had nothing to do with the installer lately.

I don't know what your point is but I lump this post in with your other
recent trolls and felt it needed debunking (no pun intended).

You're a native German speaker right Adrian?  Perhaps you could help
Debian instead by pointing out the journalist's mistake(s).

[0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/05/msg00020.html
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/05/msg00011.html
[2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/05/msg00010.html
[3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/04/msg00023.html
[4] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/04/msg3.html

-- 
Simon  [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] *\  "You heard of Kung Fu?  Well get  \**
** ]-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-[ **\ ready for Pork Chop!"  \*
** [  Htag.pl 0.0.22 ] ***\\


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Help: Strange behaviour of ldd

[Uwe Steinmann]

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 02:26:10PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I observed a strange problem when trying to sponsor the mummer package
> 
>  http://bioinformatics.pzr.uni-rostock.de/~moeller/debian/mummer
> 
> I reduced the problem to a quite basic one.  Just go to
> 
>  http://people.debian.org/~tille/tmp/test/
> 
> and download Makefile *.cc and *.hh (only 5 files) and try make.  This 
> builds
> two executables: annotate and gaps. Now try
> 
> $ ldd annotate gaps
> annotate:
>  not a dynamic executable
> gaps:
>  libstdc++.so.5 => /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.5 (0xb7f19000)
>  libm.so.6 => /lib/tls/libm.so.6 (0xb7ef6000)
>  libgcc_s.so.1 => /lib/libgcc_s.so.1 (0x41312000)
>  libc.so.6 => /lib/tls/libc.so.6 (0xb7dc1000)
>  /lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0xb7fea000)
> 
> I'm no C++ expert but I really fail to see the difference which causes
> ldd to fail. Perhaps we should discuss this on debian-devel list.  I'm
> not sure whether such things might be caused by different libraries and
> you need to add a certain build dependency.
> 
At least on my ibook it cannot reproduce it.

[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp$ ldd annotate gaps
annotate:
libstdc++.so.5 => /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.5 (0x0ff27000)
libm.so.6 => /lib/libm.so.6 (0x0fe92000)
libgcc_s.so.1 => /lib/libgcc_s.so.1 (0x0fe64000)
libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x0fd05000)
/lib/ld.so.1 => /lib/ld.so.1 (0x3000)
gaps:
libstdc++.so.5 => /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.5 (0x0ff27000)
libm.so.6 => /lib/libm.so.6 (0x0fe92000)
libgcc_s.so.1 => /lib/libgcc_s.so.1 (0x0fe64000)
libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x0fd05000)
/lib/ld.so.1 => /lib/ld.so.1 (0x3000)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp$ gcc --version
gcc (GCC) 3.3.6 (Debian 1:3.3.6-5.0.1)
Copyright © 2003 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
Dies ist freie Software; die Kopierbedingungen stehen in den Quellen. Es
gibt KEINE Garantie; auch nicht für VERKAUFBARKEIT oder FÜR SPEZIELLE
ZWECKE.

[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp$ ldd --version
ldd (GNU libc) 2.3.2
Copyright (C) 2003 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions.  There is
NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE.
Written by Roland McGrath and Ulrich Drepper.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp$ uname -a
Linux ibook 2.6.11-rc4 #2 Mon Feb 14 19:36:55 CET 2005 ppc GNU/Linux

-- 
  MMK GmbH, Universitaetsstr. 11, 58097 Hagen
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Tel: +2331 840446Fax: +2331 843920


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[George Danchev]

On Wednesday 01 June 2005 16:24, Stephen Birch wrote:
--cut--
> Okay ... I missed the development of arch.  Boy ... its difficult to
> keep up with everything going on.  How did the arch project improve on
> Subversion?

SVN (like CVS) is a centralized SCM, while the Arch is a distributed one. You 
can however compare SVK (which implements distributed functionality on top of 
SVN) with Arch and other distributed SCM's. Probably you are looking for a 
reading like that [1]. All of these are already packaged for Debian.

[1] http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/scm.html

-- 
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 
fingerprint1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[John Goerzen]

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 06:24:52AM -0700, Stephen Birch wrote:
> Okay ... I missed the development of arch.  Boy ... its difficult to
> keep up with everything going on.  How did the arch project improve on
> Subversion?

The main cool thing about Arch is that branching can be done
cross-repository and it remembers the merge history.  So that makes
decentralized development much easier than with, say, Subversion or CVS.
With Arch, the standard way of collaborating on a project is to tell an
author "here, merge from my repo."

Darcs takes all of this farther yet.  With darcs, branching is not only
possible cross-repository, but also extremely easy and a fundamental
operation.  "darcs get" (akin to cvs co) creates a branch that is your
working copy.  When you hack around there, you use "darcs record" to
commit your changes.  When you want to send them to the upstream, you
use "darcs push" to merge them to the upstream repo, or "darcs send" if
you don't have access to the upstream.  (It will e-mail a patchset to
the upstream maintainer.)

Unlike Arch or (SVN, CVS, whatever), darcs branching also preserves each
individual patch in its entirety, complete with its individual log
message and individual changes.  So it is possible to back out or review
any patch from any branch at any time.

To contribute to a project that uses Darcs, your general procedure would
be, for example:

1. darcs get http://darcs.complete.org/darcs-buildpackage
2. hack around in darcs-buildpackage, using darcs record to note your
   changes
3. run "darcs send" to submit the patches you made to upstream

That's easier than with *any* other VC system I've seen.

-- John


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Help: Strange behaviour of ldd

[Andreas Tille]

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Uwe Steinmann wrote:


At least on my ibook it cannot reproduce it.

Thanks for testing.
Joke: An ibook is a Laptop and as I said it works on my laptop. ;-)

So this just proves that it just depends from the box you are trying to
do it.  It is also not only me - the maintainer I want to sponsor has
the same problem.

Kind regards

   Andreas.

--
http://fam-tille.de


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[John Goerzen]

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 05:13:49PM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-06-01 at 00:06 -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> 
> > BTW, the baz folks could get some very neat ideas from darcs.  The
> > "offline mode comes free" way of working is very nice, and the
> > branching being easier than Arch is nice, too.
> 
> We have .. we're about 3 releases (~3 months) away from a full
> pull-style checkout that will bring all the history and be branchable
> via a simple cp.

That sounds very nice indeed.  If that pans out, and you also fix the UI
issues (by which I mean I have to type approximately three times as many
characters to accomplish the same thing that I do in darcs), that would
be very nice.  It would be helpful to everyone to have two VCs that are
as easily, and fully, distributed as darcs.

Would you also preserve the content of each patch in its entirety, like
darcs does, or would you only preserve the log in its entirety and have
an aggregate patch only (like tla does)?

> This is part of our convergence with the bzr design, as bzr proves each
> point we're bringing it into baz - quite successfully so far.

bzr == bazaar-ng?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Example where testing-security was used?

[Rich Walker]

Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 09:30:40PM +0100, Rich Walker wrote:
>> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >
>> > Moore's law is cpu speed. 
>> 
>> *TRANSISTORS* on a single die
>> 
>> 
>
> Bah, yeah, but it's more or less the same thing for a given line of
> chips, even when it's not a linear relationship.

You don't read computer architecture stuff, I take it. 


Saying "more or
less the same thing" would be like saying, ooh, Debian and Ununtu are
more or less the same thing.


cheers, Rich.

-- 
rich walker |  Shadow Robot Company | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
technical director 251 Liverpool Road   |
need a Hand?   London  N1 1LX   | +UK 20 7700 2487
www.shadow.org.uk/products/newhand.shtml


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Help: Strange behaviour of ldd

[Andreas Tille]

[I hope you don't mind quoting you in public because I want people to stop
 downloading the programs and waste their time if this is solved.]

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Petr Salinger wrote:


It is not fault of ldd, but badly designed program.

Ahhh, this explains the dependency from the build machine.


annotate.cc:

#define  MAX_ALIGN  1
...

static void  Show_Alignment (char A [], long int M, char B [], long int N)
{
static int  D [MAX_ALIGN] [MAX_ALIGN];
static char  Op [MAX_ALIGN] [MAX_ALIGN];

Memory requirement for only these two arrays is roughly 500 MB.
(sizeof(int) + sizeof(char)) * MAX_ALIGN * MAX_ALIGN

Ups, this is really a bad design.  I guess we should educate upstream
about dynamic fields.


If you have enough RAM + swap (1 GB) it works,
if you have less (512 MB) it fails.

OK, I'm slightly convinced.  On the other hand: Isn't this a really strange
error message from ldd for this reason?

Kind regards

  Andreas.

--
http://fam-tille.de


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Tollef Fog Heen]

* Stephen Birch 

| John Goerzen([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2005-06-01 00:06:
| > Out of curiousity, do you have a rough estimate of the percentage that
| > actually make it into Debian?  Or the percentage that are held back
| > with no good reason?
| 
| I wonder if it would be an idea to write a tool that compares Debian
| and Ubuntu packages and provides a web based view of the delta so we
| can track divergence.

You mean http://people.ubuntu.com/~scott/ongoing-merge/ which has been
there for at least half a year?

-- 
Tollef Fog Heen,''`.
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are  : :' :
  `. `' 
`-  


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Release update: minor delay; no non-RC fixes; upgrade reports

[Thaddeus H. Black]

Steve Langasek:

> I challenge anyone to do volunteer release management
> for a project with Debian's size and complexity ...

No.  After seeing what Steve does, I'd sooner volunteer
to spar with Darth Maul than to manage a release for a
project with Debian's size and complexity.

Sarge has as many binary packages as a World War II army
division had soldiers, and as many Developers as the
division had officers.  In the Debian division,
moreover, each individual soldier fills a unique,
noninterchangeable role, and each officer is an
unregimentable volunteer.  When can our release
manager say, "Transfer twelve artillery packages to
the third brigade now; remind corps HQ that forty of
our M-4 armor packages still need new rubber grommets;
and tell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> that if he doesn't take
that ridge by noon, I'll relieve him of command!"


pgpgcLpdb7oCc.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Help: Strange behaviour of ldd

[Anonymous]

OK, I'm slightly convinced.  On the other hand: Isn't this a really 
strange

error message from ldd for this reason?


No. see this clip from the man page:

"""
For  ELF  programs,  ldd forks and execs each program with the  appropriate 
environment  variables  set.   The   ELF dynamic  linker,  ld-linux.so, 
which  normally  loads the shared libraries, notices this special case and 
prints the dependencies.

"""
However the program on those machines would dump core before ld-linux.so is 
invoked, because those are static variables.






--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Example where testing-security was used?

[Alexander Schmehl]

* Romain Francoise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050531 15:49]:

> Speaking of prospective ports, what would be the feasibility of keeping
> testing frozen after sarge releases, do whatever toolchain updates are
> needed to support amd64 via t-p-u, and release etch as a "sarge+amd64"
> release in, say, 3 months?

http://www.nl.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_004
http://www.nl.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_003

I can hardly imagine, you can fix all that in three month.


Yours sincerely,
  Alexander

-- 
http://learn.to/quote/
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: RFC: A new video-related section

[Philipp Kern]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Philipp Kern wrote:
> I do not know if there were previous discussions on this topic, but the
> new section I propose would seperate media players from image processing
> tools. Plugins for those players which are currently put into "libs"
> should also be put into this new section. So it would probably be more
> "multimedia" than "video". Any thoughts on this?

So to sum it up: As any change related to a new "multimedia" section
instead of the current "graphics" and "sound" sections would only be a
half-hearted one, debtags is possibly getting implemented into Etch
together with support in user tools like Aptitude and Synaptic? (Apart
from the database issue with an incomplete dataset.)

Kind regards,
Philipp Kern
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Comment: Fingerprint: 1710 7DB1 9A28 42FF B699  7654 ED1A 3933 B2CF CDD8
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkKd46sACgkQ7Ro5M7LPzdj8MwCfasGJbcD/8rf62GZI/PczISN3
zwUAn2X5hpjtU0o6HxSQiXTqcf0VIz9O
=rY0m
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Help: Strange behaviour of ldd

[Petr Salinger]

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Petr Salinger wrote:

Memory requirement for only these two arrays is roughly 500 MB.
If you have enough RAM + swap (1 GB) it works,
if you have less (512 MB) it fails.

OK, I'm slightly convinced.  On the other hand: Isn't this a really strange
error message from ldd for this reason?


ldd ./annotate
not a dynamic executable

It is almost true - it is not executable executable on a given machine ;-)

"/lib/ld-2.3.2.so --verify  ./annotate" doesn't distinguish between 
reasons, why fails. It might be no ELF binary at all,

corrupted binary, small ulimit on memory, ...

May be wishlist bug for glibc ?

Regards

Petr





--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Keysigning without physically meeting ... thoughts?

[Paul TBBle Hampson]

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 05:48:46AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 10:14:43 +0200
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> > On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 07:54:51AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> > > On Tue, 31 May 2005 14:13:54 -0600, "Wesley J. Landaker"
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >Right, but they have to get it notarized (or forge a notary's seal, 
> > > >which is 
> > > >a criminal offense, at least in the US) which requires government ID 
> > > >(again, at least in the US). 

> > > The entire procedure is quite US centric. I don't understand why you
> > > US guys are so fond of your notaries.

> > A while ago, in an IRC discussion, it was revealed that a notary in the
> > US doesn't mean as much as it does in Europe.

> > AIUI, in the US, a notary is just some extra title a lot of secretaries
> > have, so that they can make some documents more official.

> That's wrong.  You take a non-trivial test, and be background checked.

> The secretaries you are referring to are 99.9% of the time in law
> offices and title-transfer companies.

> For example, why see a lawyer, when all you need is an unbiased 
> 3rd party to certify that it was actually you who signed that 
> document?

Oh! That explains so much.

I was told to get a notarised form for a domain transfer before the domain
registrar would release it. I ended up losing the domain (>_<) because I
discovered that to find a notary in Australia, you have to go to a US Embassy.

What you describe above sounds like what we call a Justice of the Peace...
(Although we don't just get them in law offices, you find them all over the
place. I think most states here have an online list of JPs who can witness
things for you.)

-- 
---
Paul "TBBle" Hampson, MCSE
8th year CompSci/Asian Studies student, ANU
The Boss, Bubblesworth Pty Ltd (ABN: 51 095 284 361)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

"No survivors? Then where do the stories come from I wonder?"
-- Capt. Jack Sparrow, "Pirates of the Caribbean"

This email is licensed to the recipient for non-commercial
use, duplication and distribution.
---


pgpvhQn5inuPA.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 10:10:09AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:

> This is a non-courtesy that quite some Debian Developers extend
> towards their users, but it is not a practice that is especially
> targeted at Ubuntu.

There was nothing in my comments which was specific to Ubuntu; this is the
way it has been for years.

-- 
 - mdz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 05:00:31PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:

> * Stephen Birch 
> 
> | John Goerzen([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2005-06-01 00:06:
> | > Out of curiousity, do you have a rough estimate of the percentage that
> | > actually make it into Debian?  Or the percentage that are held back
> | > with no good reason?
> | 
> | I wonder if it would be an idea to write a tool that compares Debian
> | and Ubuntu packages and provides a web based view of the delta so we
> | can track divergence.
> 
> You mean http://people.ubuntu.com/~scott/ongoing-merge/ which has been
> there for at least half a year?

Or rather http://people.ubuntu.com/~scott/patches/ which even provides
separated patches.

-- 
 - mdz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Daniel Holbach]

Hello Peter, hi everybody else,

Am Mittwoch, den 01.06.2005, 14:08 +0200 schrieb Peter Van Eynde:
> A message like this makes you the perfect victim :-) for my question:
> what should a debian maintainer do to have his or her packages in
> universe in a good shape? I'm even willing to build the packages
> myself, but I fail to see how the pieces fit together. Where do
> universe bugs go? Who decides which version goes into universe? What
> do to with my packages that cannot be 'source only' like cmucl?

Wow, that's a lot of questions at once. I want to put the highest
emphasis on collaboration. COLLABORATION! :)

Ideally, people should find together, form teams and discuss the
appropriate packaging and consider all the problems and circumstances.
An agreement should always be possible.

If there's branding or distro-specific changes involved, separated
patches should be no problem.

Universe bugs go to http://launchpad.ubuntu.com/malone - our
next-generation bug tracking tool, which will rock absolutely once it's
ready and serve as a meta bugtracker, capable of watching bugs' progress
in different distros. It's in development and the Ubuntu Universe
component is the current stress tester.

About the "source only" question, I have to pass the question to someone
more experienced, I'm not quite sure, how we handle this. Matt Zimmerman
maybe can answer this.


> The fact that the MOTS seem to place a high importance on IRC, which I
> cannot use at work, and the wiki seems a little off-putting.

I think mailing should work fine, the guys on
[EMAIL PROTECTED] will surely point you to an appropriate
contact.



Are there any team initiatives you (all) can think of?


Have a nice day,
 Daniel



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Is yours Below 5 Innches Long? 8m

[Gail Mckenna]

The Only Clinically Tested Penis En_Largement Products!

- Guuaarantee 1+ inches in 2 months (or moneeyy back)
- Experience Longer Lasting and More Enjoying Seexx
- Easy to Wear With No Additional Exercises Require
- The More You Wear, the Longer It Will Be
- Millions of People are Enjoying the Benefit of It

Check Uss Out Tooday!

http://hybridisms.com/extender/?ronn










o-ut of mai-lling lisst:
http://hybridisms.com/rm.php?ronn
qbkS


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Example where testing-security was used?

[Romain Francoise]

Alexander Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> http://www.nl.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_004
> http://www.nl.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_003

> I can hardly imagine, you can fix all that in three month.

Good point.

-- 
  ,''`.
 : :' :Romain Francoise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 `. `' http://people.debian.org/~rfrancoise/
   `-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Linux / Debian / Ubuntu

[Darren Salt]

I demand that Stephen Birch may or may not have written...

> Darren Salt([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2005-05-31 21:49:
>> For those who've missed the first three broadcasts today, there's one more
>> at 01:05 GMT; also see
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/1478157.stm>.

> Why on earth does the BBC force its listeners to all hit its servers at the
> same time. [...]

Hmm? I made use of a DVB-T card. (I could have listened via a DAB radio too.)

Put the name of a nearby city into the appropriate text box on the World
Service home page and you will find other ways in which you could have
listened to that programme. ;-)

-- 
| Darren Salt   | nr. Ashington, | linux (or ds) at
| sarge,| Northumberland | youmustbejoking
| RISC OS   | Toon Army  | demon co uk
|   Say NO to software patents

The decision doesn't have to be logical; it was unanimous.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 09:38:40AM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:

> [Matt Zimmerman]
> > I don't have any hard statistics, but here are some random examples of
> > patches whose development was sponsored by Canonical, were tested and proven
> > in Ubuntu, were proactively submitted to Debian by an Ubuntu developer, and
> > remain in debbugs months later without comment from the maintainer:
> > 
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=298060
> 
> This one got lots of comments from the defacto maintainer of the
> shadow package, Christian Perrier.

OK, I didn't realize that.  There was a fairly clear consensus at the end
that this was the right thing to do, and yet no action was taken, so I
assumed that no one present had the authority to make the change.

> So half of the random examples were left in silence, and the other
> half got serious considerations.  Good to know.

I'm sure that you aren't drawing very firm conclusions based on a sample
size of 2, just as I wasn't.

-- 
 - mdz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Penis Growth Patches are here!

[Luke]

No pills, no pumps - Its the Patch
http://www.jnaz.net/ss/





OMEN, n. A sign that something will happen if nothing happens.  
I believe in equality for everyone, except reporters and photographers.   
Do not fear death so much, but rather the inadequate life.  
There are no facts, only interpretations.   
A good listener is usually thinking about something else.





--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 06:17:48AM -0700, Stephen Birch wrote:

> No .. it wasn't intended to be sarcastic.  Both the Ubuntu supporters
> and the opponents will be watching to see what takes place.

Firstly, please don't divide the community by implying that they must choose
sides.  There are plenty of reasonable people who don't adopt either of
these labels, and base their decisions on their immediate experience.

If what you're hoping is that after Sarge releases, Ubuntu developers will
sweep in and upload all of the Ubuntu diffs into Debian, that simply isn't
going to happen.  Then, as now, the process of integrating these changes
will depend primarily on Debian maintainers to drive it, just as with other
development efforts in Debian.  We are of course happy to provide our code
(and have been doing so from the beginning), but we cannot force it into
Debian.

> Yes they are pros.  I haven't started tracking ubuntu-devel yet but from
> the reading I have done it looks like Ubuntu has managed to avoid some of
> the volatile discourse (flames) that can be counter productive and,
> frankly, embarrassing in debian-devel.

I think this is much easier to avoid for a smaller organization; it will
become more challenging in the future.

-- 
 - mdz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 08:08:02AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:

> If there are inactive maintainers in Debian why not starting group
> maintainance?  The Ubuntu maintainer might be listed in the Uploaders
> field and find a sponsor to upload the package (in the best case the other
> maintainer).

This would be very convenient, but it isn't quite as simple as this.  If the
maintainer is inactive, how does the Uploaders field get changed?  Ubuntu
developers will not hijack packages in Debian.

In cases where team maintenance already exists (for example, GNOME and d-i),
Ubuntu developers already participate in team maintenance in Debian, and
this works well, but in the traditional Debian maintainer model, there are
just too many obstacles for this kind of direct participation.

> THis is called group maintainance and IMHO the biggest problem in Debian
> is that outsiders often assume they just have to wait until something in
> Debian is done.  If they are active persons they do something outside
> others just whine about Debian. But the best solution would be how to
> learn how to do things *inside* Debian instead of forking / spooning /
> deriving / whatevering.

Derivatives are a fact of life, and have been for some years now.  It would
be better to learn how to cooperate effectively than to wish that they would
go away.  There will always be some level of divergence in a derivative,
even an official Debian subproject.

-- 
 - mdz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[John Goerzen]

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 11:47:46AM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> Ubuntu developers already participate in team maintenance in Debian, and
> this works well, but in the traditional Debian maintainer model, there are
> just too many obstacles for this kind of direct participation.

I think it is high time we revisit the traditional Debian maintainer
model.  We have been aware of its weaknesses for years, and are most
biting in the areas of nonresponsive maintainers.  I think we should
devote some thought to declaring a permanent bug-squashing party and
relaxing the rules for NMUs (for instance, let them happen for any
documented bug of any severity so long as they are uploaded to the 5-day
delayed queue and patches are posted to the BTS at the time of the
upload).  One small step down that road, anyway.

> Derivatives are a fact of life, and have been for some years now.  It would
> be better to learn how to cooperate effectively than to wish that they would
> go away.  There will always be some level of divergence in a derivative,
> even an official Debian subproject.

Well put.  We all (Debian and the derivatives) still suck at this, and
there's no reason that we have to.

-- John


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 10:52:48AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:

> And I guess it is not by chance that packages which fit into this
> category often accumulate more and more very old, simply to fix
> and boring bugs.  I hope this can be solved since I heard several
> positive voices to make group maintainance more popular.

Inactive maintainers are one obstacle, but certainly not the only one.

> Having the Ubuntu maintainer as co-maintainer would be a drastical
> advance for both Debian and Ubuntu.

What problem do you feel would be addressed by such a scheme?  If we were to
ignore all of the obstacles which stand in the way of instituting it across
a huge number of packages, snap our fingers and say that Ubuntu developers
can now upload these packages in Debian, what problem would we have solved?

If your assumption is that Ubuntu (which has orders of magnitude fewer
developers than Debian) could solve Debian's problem of inactive maintainers
by taking over maintenance of these packages, this is far from the truth.

-- 
 - mdz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 08:20:39AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:

> On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, John Goerzen wrote:
> 
> >On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 07:47:19PM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> >>After Sarge, releases, it should be pretty straightforward for someone
> >>to set up a script to mass-mail Debian maintainers copies of the Python
> >>transition patches from Ubuntu (or all of the patches, if that's really
> >>what they believe that Debian maintainers want).
> >I'd prefer wishlist bugs tagged patch when there is a patch relevant for
> >Debian, personally.
> The idea of filing wishlist bug reports against something a user wanted to
> have changed is so straightforeward that I never expected that experienced
> Debian users (= I expect DDs to be experienced users) would come up with
> the idea of mass-mailing patches.

I assume this is meant only as flamebait, since it is fairly obvious that
there are often good reasons to prefer other means of contacting
maintainers, over mass-filing bugs in the BTS.

> IMHO somebody who derives from Debian is just a special type of a Debian
> user (he just uses the code basis) and for user wishes we have implemented
> the wishlist tag in the BTS.  If this has drawbacks for certain purposes
> please explain - at best file a bug report against BTS preferably with a
> patch.

This is an extreme oversimplification of the situation, but if you are
convinced that the correct approach is to mass-file Ubuntu patches as bugs
in the BTS, feel free to propose it clearly on debian-devel, as is
customary.  It should be a simple matter to script the submission process.

-- 
 - mdz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 07:46:24PM +0200, Daniel Holbach wrote:

> Am Mittwoch, den 01.06.2005, 14:08 +0200 schrieb Peter Van Eynde:
> > A message like this makes you the perfect victim :-) for my question:
> > what should a debian maintainer do to have his or her packages in
> > universe in a good shape? I'm even willing to build the packages
> > myself, but I fail to see how the pieces fit together. Where do
> > universe bugs go? Who decides which version goes into universe? What
> > do to with my packages that cannot be 'source only' like cmucl?
> [...]
> About the "source only" question, I have to pass the question to someone
> more experienced, I'm not quite sure, how we handle this. Matt Zimmerman
> maybe can answer this.

I'm not sure what you mean by this; do you mean packages with circular
dependencies which must be bootstrapped manually?  If so, this is generally
handled by our buildd admins.

-- 
 - mdz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 12:18:13PM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 07:46:24PM +0200, Daniel Holbach wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, den 01.06.2005, 14:08 +0200 schrieb Peter Van Eynde:
> > > A message like this makes you the perfect victim :-) for my question:
> > > what should a debian maintainer do to have his or her packages in
> > > universe in a good shape? I'm even willing to build the packages
> > > myself, but I fail to see how the pieces fit together. Where do
> > > universe bugs go? Who decides which version goes into universe? What
> > > do to with my packages that cannot be 'source only' like cmucl?
> > [...]
> > About the "source only" question, I have to pass the question to someone
> > more experienced, I'm not quite sure, how we handle this. Matt Zimmerman
> > maybe can answer this.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by this; do you mean packages with circular
> dependencies which must be bootstrapped manually?  If so, this is generally
> handled by our buildd admins.

Actually, it's handled by those that start the port. Once one version of
said package has been compiled and is available, the previous version
can always be used to build the next version.

-- 
The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the
pavement is precisely one bananosecond


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Frans Pop]

On Wednesday 01 June 2005 07:53, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> I don't have any hard statistics, but here are some random examples of
> patches whose development was sponsored by Canonical, were tested and
> proven in Ubuntu, were proactively submitted to Debian by an Ubuntu
> developer, and remain in debbugs months later without comment from the
> maintainer:
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=298060
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=298064

I don't think the second one is a very good example either as it seems to 
assume udeb support and Debian is not there yet.

I guess the maintainer could have given a response, but AFAICT 
implementing the request is not possible for the foreseeable future.


pgpxwb3WeX58F.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Frans Pop]

On Wednesday 01 June 2005 19:25, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > You mean http://people.ubuntu.com/~scott/ongoing-merge/ which has
> > been there for at least half a year?
>
> Or rather http://people.ubuntu.com/~scott/patches/ which even provides
> separated patches.

What seems to be missing is something that unites all this and makes it 
accessible to a DD who would like to see for the first time what Ubuntu 
has done with "his" packages.

How about putting something like that together and making it available in 
the Developers Corner. A "Ubuntu HOWTO for Debian Developers"?

Cheers,
FJP


pgpF8kiJTCXEr.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Linux / Debian / Ubuntu

[Dave Holland]

On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 09:37:28PM -0700, Stephen Birch wrote:
> Darren Salt([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2005-05-31 21:49:
> > For those who've missed the first three broadcasts today, there's one more 
> > at
> > 01:05 GMT; also see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/1478157.stm>.
> Why on earth does the BBC force its listeners to all hit its servers
> at the same time.

Um, they don't. Click the "audio / 14K modems" link near the top of that
page to get a RealAudio feed.

Dave


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bug in Radeon in kernel 2.6.8?

[Art Edwards]

I'm posting this to the group to notify that the package 
/kernel-source-2.6.8-16.deb
still has the radeon bug. I'm clipping the last part of the compilation

drivers/built-in.o(.text+0x51d71): In function `radeon_cp_cmdbuf':
: undefined reference to `drm_free'
drivers/built-in.o(.text+0x51daf): In function `radeon_cp_cmdbuf':
: undefined reference to `drm_free'
drivers/built-in.o(.text+0x524a7): In function `radeon_cp_cmdbuf':
: undefined reference to `drm_alloc'
make: *** [.tmp_vmlinux1] Error 1

So Bug#301488 should still be open.

Art Edwards

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 05:25:24PM -0400, Marty wrote:
> Art,
> 
> I owe you an apology.  I found out that my kernel sources were
> old.  When I updated them, I ran into the bug.  A web search
> indicates that this bug was filed as Bug#301488.  Here is the
> link I found referencing the bug:
> 
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-kernel/2005/05/msg00377.html
> 
> The bug was supposedly fixed, but I haven't seen the replacement
> package yet.
> 
> Marty
> 
> 
> 
> Marty wrote:
> >Art Edwards wrote:
> >>Marty:
> >>
> >>I attach the config file and the snip of interaction with make bzImage
> >
> >Still works here (see new attachment).  I'm stumped, and I would propose 
> >that you
> >take it back to the list again, to see if anyone else has any ideas.  Good 
> >luck!
> >
> >Marty
> >
> >
> >>
> >>Art
> >>
> >>chalcogenide:/usr/src/kernel-source-2.6.8# make menuconfig
> >>scripts/kconfig/mconf arch/i386/Kconfig
> >>#
> >># using defaults found in .config
> >>#
> >>
> >>
> >>*** End of Linux kernel configuration.
> >>*** Execute 'make' to build the kernel or try 'make help'.
> >>
> >>chalcogenide:/usr/src/kernel-source-2.6.8# make bzImage
> >>  SPLIT   include/linux/autoconf.h -> include/config/*
> >>  make[1]: `arch/i386/kernel/asm-offsets.s' is up to date.
> >>CHK include/linux/compile.h
> >>LD  drivers/char/drm/built-in.o
> >>LD  drivers/char/built-in.o
> >>LD  drivers/built-in.o
> >>GEN .version
> >>CHK include/linux/compile.h
> >>UPD include/linux/compile.h
> >>CC  init/version.o
> >>LD  init/built-in.o
> >>LD  .tmp_vmlinux1
> >>drivers/built-in.o(.text+0x51d71): In function `radeon_cp_cmdbuf':
> >>: undefined reference to `drm_free'
> >>drivers/built-in.o(.text+0x51daf): In function `radeon_cp_cmdbuf':
> >>: undefined reference to `drm_free'
> >>drivers/built-in.o(.text+0x524a7): In function `radeon_cp_cmdbuf':
> >>: undefined reference to `drm_alloc'
> >>make: *** [.tmp_vmlinux1] Error 1
> >>
> >
> 

-- 
Art Edwards
Senior Research Physicist
Air Force Research Laboratory
Electronics Foundations Branch
KAFB, New Mexico

(505) 853-6042 (v)
(505) 846-2290 (f)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Roger Leigh]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 11:47:46AM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>> Ubuntu developers already participate in team maintenance in Debian, and
>> this works well, but in the traditional Debian maintainer model, there are
>> just too many obstacles for this kind of direct participation.
>
> I think it is high time we revisit the traditional Debian maintainer
> model.  We have been aware of its weaknesses for years, and are most
> biting in the areas of nonresponsive maintainers.  I think we should
> devote some thought to declaring a permanent bug-squashing party and
> relaxing the rules for NMUs (for instance, let them happen for any
> documented bug of any severity so long as they are uploaded to the 5-day
> delayed queue and patches are posted to the BTS at the time of the
> upload).  One small step down that road, anyway.

I agree strongly with this.  However, it's only fair to post the patch
to the BTS to give the maintainer a chance to respond before uploading
at all.


Regards,
Roger

- -- 
Roger Leigh
Printing on GNU/Linux?  http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/
Debian GNU/Linuxhttp://www.debian.org/
GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848.  Please sign and encrypt your mail.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 

iD8DBQFCnjMTVcFcaSW/uEgRAhyMAKCKdXAJD6hU/dOZEsotvPGwPhA8dACcDn9Q
R8x8kDEjZcqdRrPVOORRcTg=
=qZgi
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Keysigning without physically meeting ... thoughts?

[Wesley J. Landaker]

On Wednesday 01 June 2005 04:52, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Right, but they have to get it notarized (or forge a notary's seal,
> > which is a criminal offense, at least in the US) which requires
> > government ID (again, at least in the US).
>
> A notary doesn't certify that the document you hand them is
> correct. All they certify is that you handed them this particular
> document on this particular date.

Well, the whole point is that they also certify that you are who you say you 
are, i.e. they check your ID.

> > Regardless, how is this different from meeting someone in person?
>
> The difference would be the deterrent effect. Without it, there's
> absolutely no reason why anybody wouldn't generate throwaway
> identities at whim.

There isn't really any more deterrent if they only one they show their fake 
ID to is me. Make ID, show it to me, dispose of ID afterwards.

Anyway, this has been an interesting thread, because what I am seeing is 
that there really isn't any reason why meeting physically is better at 
building a web-of-trust than alternate methods, if crafted thoughtfully. =)

-- 
Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094  0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2


pgpscM5aLpFYI.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Keysigning without physically meeting ... thoughts?

[Wesley J. Landaker]

On Tuesday 31 May 2005 23:54, Marc Haber wrote:
> The entire procedure is quite US centric. I don't understand why you
> US guys are so fond of your notaries. Over here, it's a three digit
> bill for the notary to open the office door and to offer you a chair,
> so there might be cultures where one thinks twice or even three times
> before having something notarized.

Do you really mean the ENTIRE procedure, or do you just mean the notary? 
What would be a better way to replace that step for a global aware 
procedure? Or do you think it's necessary at all?

> Additionally, the web of trust is the web of trust because it is
> entirely self-contained, without putting any trust on government and
> state official. Your suggestion violates this principle by moving the
> verification state to the notary.

The web of trust's point is to be self-contained once it exists. It might 
need to bootstrap itself using other methods. For instance, it's already 
not self-contained by the above definition--because when you meet somebody, 
you don't just believe them when they say they are who they are, you make 
them show you some sort of ID, usually a government-issued one. 

Or do you think that when signing somebody's GPG key, one shouldn't ask for 
government issued ID, but use some other criteria? If so, I'm curious what 
a good protocol would be.

> Even if the notary were sufficiently advanced to offer PGP key signing
> with her official key this were not good enough for Debian, since the
> Debian web of trust explicitly relies on being self-contained. You'd
> need to have a DD notary, which at this point makes the signature
> valid because of the DD property, and being notary becomes irrelevant.

The notary was to make a connection between the person's "government" ID and 
their picture--the other parts were to connect the picture with the e-mail 
address and GPG key. If this were sufficient to determine that someone is 
who they say they are to about as good of an degree as meeting someone in 
person and checking their ID (even if both methods share weaknesses), I'd 
say that's a success. Wouldn't you?

-- 
Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094  0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2


pgpCbDrVZoFwk.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Keysigning without physically meeting ... thoughts?

[Wesley J. Landaker]

On Tuesday 31 May 2005 23:54, Marc Haber wrote:
> The entire procedure is quite US centric. I don't understand why you
> US guys are so fond of your notaries. Over here, it's a three digit
> bill for the notary to open the office door and to offer you a chair,
> so there might be cultures where one thinks twice or even three times
> before having something notarized.

One thing I should mention, that others sort of alluded to. In the US, a 
notary is very inexpensive. For example, often if you have an account at a 
bank, you can have documents notarized there for free (as I can at my bank) 
or for a few dollars.

That said, I can only think of about 1 thing I've ever needed to have 
notarized in my life, so it's not like I'm "fond" of notaries--but they 
seem to fulfill their intended purpose.

-- 
Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094  0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2


pgpy683rbO8sp.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Tollef Fog Heen]

* John Goerzen 

| I think it is high time we revisit the traditional Debian maintainer
| model.  We have been aware of its weaknesses for years, and are most
| biting in the areas of nonresponsive maintainers.  I think we should
| devote some thought to declaring a permanent bug-squashing party and
| relaxing the rules for NMUs (for instance, let them happen for any
| documented bug of any severity so long as they are uploaded to the 5-day
| delayed queue and patches are posted to the BTS at the time of the
| upload).  One small step down that road, anyway.

If so, I want to implement a way for maintainers to be able to block
particular NMUs if they think it's the wrong fix for a bug or
something similar.

-- 
Tollef Fog Heen,''`.
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are  : :' :
  `. `' 
`-  


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#311567: ITP: wmii -- lightweight, tiling and tabbed X11 window manager

[Christoph Wegscheider]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Christoph Wegscheider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


* Package name: wmii
  Version : 1
  Upstream Author : Anselm R. Garbe 
* URL : http://wmi.modprobe.de/
* License : MIT/X
  Description : lightweight, tiling and tabbed X11 window manager

Window Manager Improved 2 is a lightweight window manager for X, which
attempts to combine the best ideas of tiling and tabbing window managers like
larswm, ratpoison or ion with the flexibility of the Acme programming
environment of the plan9 operating system.


I'm no DD and looking for a sponsor, one can find packages at 
deb-src http://wegi.net/debian unstable/
soon (currently only a devel version is packaged).


Christoph


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Have trouble picking up women? Click here.

[Jasper]

Why are online drugs popular
http://quartered.medkit.info/?ordinatextvuyLutheranizeszvpastounds


The more original a discovery, the more obvious it seems afterwards.  
The only really happy folk are married women and single men.  
Now and then an innocent man is sent to the legislature.  
ONCE, adv. Enough.  




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 11:23:23PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:

> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=298064
> 
> I don't think the second one is a very good example either as it seems to 
> assume udeb support and Debian is not there yet.

I have no idea what you mean.  What does running hpoj as non-root have to do
with udebs?

-- 
 - mdz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Keysigning without physically meeting ... thoughts?

[Bernd Eckenfels]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> Well, the whole point is that they also certify that you are who you say you 
> are, i.e. they check your ID.

In germany the post offices offer a service where you hand the clerk your id
and he will check it, enter the details into a letter which he sends to the
receipient. This is called "postident".

That way you can do age checks and idendity proofs. However you have to
trust a random person to do the job right. PGP has (undefined) assurance
levels to express this.

Greetings
Bernd


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 03:08:51PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:

> I think it is high time we revisit the traditional Debian maintainer
> model.  We have been aware of its weaknesses for years, and are most
> biting in the areas of nonresponsive maintainers.  I think we should
> devote some thought to declaring a permanent bug-squashing party and
> relaxing the rules for NMUs (for instance, let them happen for any
> documented bug of any severity so long as they are uploaded to the 5-day
> delayed queue and patches are posted to the BTS at the time of the
> upload).  One small step down that road, anyway.

Personally, I agree, but this is something which needs to be addressed by
Debian itself.  It is not the responsibility of derivatives, nor is there
anything that they can do to improve that situation.  Only Debian
maintainers can effect a change here.

Ubuntu in particular seems to have drawn attention to this situation due to
the amount of activity that has happened in and around it, but it has
existed since long before Ubuntu, and we run into it ourselves as hard as
everyone else, if not harder.

> Well put.  We all (Debian and the derivatives) still suck at this, and
> there's no reason that we have to.

Speaking for Ubuntu at least, we are devoting significant resources to
building tools and infrastructure to help all of us to suck less at this.
This has been the case for some time now, but there have been hard problems
to solve along the way, and we hope to start to see the fruits of this labor
soon.

-- 
 - mdz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 11:06:18PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 12:18:13PM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > I'm not sure what you mean by this; do you mean packages with circular
> > dependencies which must be bootstrapped manually?  If so, this is generally
> > handled by our buildd admins.
> 
> Actually, it's handled by those that start the port. Once one version of
> said package has been compiled and is available, the previous version
> can always be used to build the next version.

The "our" above was Ubuntu, where those are the same people.

-- 
 - mdz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 11:28:44PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Wednesday 01 June 2005 19:25, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > > You mean http://people.ubuntu.com/~scott/ongoing-merge/ which has
> > > been there for at least half a year?
> >
> > Or rather http://people.ubuntu.com/~scott/patches/ which even provides
> > separated patches.
> 
> What seems to be missing is something that unites all this and makes it 
> accessible to a DD who would like to see for the first time what Ubuntu 
> has done with "his" packages.

We're working on it.

-- 
 - mdz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[John Goerzen]

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 06:14:18PM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 03:08:51PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> 
> > I think it is high time we revisit the traditional Debian maintainer
> > model.  We have been aware of its weaknesses for years, and are most
> 
> Personally, I agree, but this is something which needs to be addressed by
> Debian itself.  It is not the responsibility of derivatives, nor is there

Just to be clear, that is what I meant.

> Ubuntu in particular seems to have drawn attention to this situation due to
> the amount of activity that has happened in and around it, but it has
> existed since long before Ubuntu, and we run into it ourselves as hard as
> everyone else, if not harder.

Agreed.  Even regular Debian folks run into it all the time.

-- John


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Colin Watson]

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 06:16:41PM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 11:23:23PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> 
> > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=298064
> > 
> > I don't think the second one is a very good example either as it seems to 
> > assume udeb support and Debian is not there yet.
> 
> I have no idea what you mean.  What does running hpoj as non-root have to do
> with udebs?

s/udeb/udev/g

-- 
Colin Watson   [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Joey Hess]

Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> I see no need to argue about whether Ubuntu should push; the patches
> are all there in an easily accessible tree, and it would be trivial to
> pull the patches and push them someplace else if that's desirable.

Please take a look at the current Ubuntu 1.6 MB diff for base-config
(the split diffs are useless in this case), and tell me how you consider
this to be "easily accessible". There are some base-config improvements
in here that could benefit others, or at least other derived distros,
such as making it only expect one CD, but not done in a generic or
reusable way and they're all mashed up with tons of Ubuntu specific
hacks.

For what it's worth, I've completly given up on separating the parts
that are applicable to Debian from the parts that aren't. I have some
hope that Colin will manage to merge some of it into the Debian package,
since he's been doing a lot of work on merging in Ubuntu's changes to
d-i, but if that doesn't happen soon, Ubuntu will be left with this
massive patch to forward port as I make huge planned changes to
base-config post-sarge.

If Debian treated our upstreams this way, I'd be suprised if we ever got
any patches accepted upstream.

> remain in debbugs months later without comment from the maintainer:
http://people.ubuntu.com/~scott/patches/ > 
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=298060

Submitted 4 March of this year, comment by maintainer next day.
Obviously impossible to merge $RANDOM_GRATUITIOUS_CHANGE_TO_BASE_PACKAGE
into Debian during the sarge freeze.

> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=298064

Would be nice.


(To answer the thread leader, I consider Ubuntu to be more and more of a
fork and less and less a derivative distribution. If Ubuntu doesn't
start to re-converge with Debian significantly after sarge is released,
and we end up with two sets of X.org packaging, etc, then I will give up
and just consider it purely a fork.)

-- 
see shy jo


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Joey Hess]

Oh, I forgot to mention that if Ubuntu continues to ignore Ian Murdock's
warnings about breaking compatability with debs, it will end up a fork
in my book even if most of the underlying code is substantially the
same, and this will be a very painful and damaging kind of fork too, as
we will get deb dependency hell.

Ignoring, flaming, and pooh-poohing Ian on this, which is all the
response I've seen so far, is not smart. :-/

-- 
see shy jo


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Joey Hess]

George Danchev wrote:
> Out of curiousity, is there real examples of DD's and UD's sharing common 
> revison control repo for their packaging, e.g. on alioth or at the relevant 
> ubuntu service if there is any like alioth ?

Certian Ubuntu developers have commit access to the entire d-i repo, as
well as the associated base-config and tasksel repos. If they wanted to
do their Ubuntu-specific changes in those repos (in a branch), they
could.

-- 
see shy jo


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

binary uploads sometimes are required Was: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Peter Van Eynde]

Hello,

While this is getting a little off topic, I just wanted to correct a
common misconception.

Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>>I'm not sure what you mean by this; do you mean packages with circular
>>dependencies which must be bootstrapped manually?  If so, this is generally
>>handled by our buildd admins.
> 
> 
> Actually, it's handled by those that start the port. Once one version of
> said package has been compiled and is available, the previous version
> can always be used to build the next version.
> 

With normal packages I agree, but what about packages like the
perversion that is cmucl where the developers only guarantee that a
certain release will build that release and no future one[1]? The
build-procedure to get from an older to a newer release can be contrived
and involve manually patching the image as it is constructed.

In general one would need access to the architecture involved and then
construct the new package from the binary release upstream issues. The
related sbcl project can build a new release with an older version.
Notice that there are more architectures supported for sbcl then for
cmucl in Debian.

On the upside, gcc/libc version changes cause me little or no problems :-).


1: see for example http://article.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.cmucl.devel/7925

Groetjes, Peter

-- 
signature -at- pvaneynd.mailworks.org
http://www.livejournal.com/users/pvaneynd/
"God, root, what is difference?" Pitr | "God is more forgiving." Dave
Aronson|


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 12:27:38AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:

> Oh, I forgot to mention that if Ubuntu continues to ignore Ian Murdock's
> warnings about breaking compatability with debs, it will end up a fork
> in my book even if most of the underlying code is substantially the
> same, and this will be a very painful and damaging kind of fork too, as
> we will get deb dependency hell.

If Ian were to approach Ubuntu (rather than, say, Slashdot) with clear and
genuine concerns, I would be more than willing to discuss the situation with
him to explain what we're doing and why.

> Ignoring, flaming, and pooh-poohing Ian on this, which is all the response
> I've seen so far, is not smart. :-/

There's certainly been some amount of ignoring, but if you have records of
anyone representing Ubuntu flaming on this subject (or any other), I'd like
to hear about it privately.

-- 
 - mdz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Re: RFC: A new video-related section

[Jürgen Wehner]

why not define "multimedia" for all sound, video, voip and so on stuff?

Juergen


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Release update: minor delay; no non-RC fixes; upgrade reports

[Nigel Jones]

On 02/06/05, Thaddeus H. Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve Langasek:
> 
> > I challenge anyone to do volunteer release management
> > for a project with Debian's size and complexity ...
> 
> No.  After seeing what Steve does, I'd sooner volunteer
> to spar with Darth Maul than to manage a release for a
> project with Debian's size and complexity.
> 
> Sarge has as many binary packages as a World War II army
> division had soldiers, and as many Developers as the
> division had officers.  In the Debian division,
> moreover, each individual soldier fills a unique,
> noninterchangeable role, and each officer is an
> unregimentable volunteer.  When can our release

Hmmm, This is kinda appropriate, as you could say, Debian and other
distro's are still fighting LW1 (Linux War 1)

> manager say, "Transfer twelve artillery packages to
> the third brigade now; remind corps HQ that forty of
> our M-4 armor packages still need new rubber grommets;
> and tell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> that if he doesn't take
> that ridge by noon, I'll relieve him of command!"
> 
> 
> 

Also, I totally agree with the comments in relation to the fact that
no release date was set in plaster.  Because, those timelines on d-d-a
said "we hope", "we expect", "hopefully", "possibly", all of these are
"abstract" in this context because they don't mean "for certain".

It's not Steve's, or any other RM's fault if the media can't read in
context!  If a media organization wishes to post articles, they should
only do that if they have read "official" sources, using the "real"
English language, reporting what the sources *say* not what they think
they say...


-- 
N Jones

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Romain Francoise]

John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I think we should devote some thought to declaring a permanent
> bug-squashing party and relaxing the rules for NMUs (for instance, let
> them happen for any documented bug of any severity so long as they are
> uploaded to the 5-day delayed queue and patches are posted to the BTS
> at the time of the upload).  One small step down that road, anyway.

What does "documented" mean here?  Filed in the BTS?

Very often the maintainer has a much better understanding of a
particular problem than the random bystander because of his experience
with the code, his privileged relation with upstream or his own research
of the problem prior to replying to the submitter.  Assuming that the
problem has received no attention because the maintainer hasn't replied
to the bug in the BTS is a mistake.

Personally, I don't send messages every five minutes to the bug log
saying "hey, neat, I can reproduce it", then "cool, I see where the
problem is", then "I might have a patch but it's a quick fix, I'm trying
to come up with a better one", etc.

-- 
  ,''`.
 : :' :Romain Francoise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 `. `' http://people.debian.org/~rfrancoise/
   `-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

how to write Build-depends argument for gfortran

[kamaraju kusumanchi]

Hi
  My apologies if this is a newbie question. I searched in google for a 
while and could not find an answer to this.


I want to build debian package for a library called fortranposix. The 
upstream source can be found at


http://sourceforge.net/projects/fortranposix

This library depends on some kind of fortran 90 compiler being installed 
on the system. gfortran is the Fortran 90 compiler available in latest 
versions of gcc. Currently gfortran is available (on sid atleast) only 
through gcc-snapshot. However the description of gcc-snapshot 
specifically asks not to build packages against it.


So now my questions are

1) How can I make sure that the user has gfortran installed on his system.

2) From reading 
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/ch-dreq.en.html , I know 
that only package names can be listed as arguments to Build-Depends 
command. Is there any way I can list binary name (gfortran) instead of 
package name (gcc-snapshot) as dependency?


Making dependency against gfortran has also the advantage that it works 
even if the user has compiled it by himself instead of going through the 
gcc-snapshot way.


Any solutions/work arounds are appreciated. At present, I would be happy 
if the solution works for sid. But if the solution is good for sarge 
then it is even better.


thanks in advance
raju


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Andreas Tille]

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Matt Zimmerman wrote:


This would be very convenient, but it isn't quite as simple as this.  If the
maintainer is inactive, how does the Uploaders field get changed?  Ubuntu
developers will not hijack packages in Debian.

Well, this problem is not unique for Ubuntu developers but for any other
developer as well.  We should deal with this.  I'm not sure whether this
is an issue for the technical commitee or how we should cope with this problem.
In any case we need a solution here.


Derivatives are a fact of life, and have been for some years now.  It would
be better to learn how to cooperate effectively than to wish that they would
go away.  There will always be some level of divergence in a derivative,
even an official Debian subproject.

Sure.  I'm not against derivatives.  But people who derive Debian want to solve
a certain problem which forces them to derive.  If Debian would be able to
recognize the problem and would try to fix it inside Debian will become better
at one hand and the derivative can save a lot of time on the other hand.  So
booth parties can profit if as much work what can be done would be done
inside Debian.  I'm not against derivatives - I'm voting for *clever*
derivatives.  My idea about a "clever" derivative is to enhance Debian to
a maximum and do outside only the small part which *really* can not be
done inside Debian.

So if it would enhance the package quality to switch to group maintainance
this should be done for those packages where it makes sense - for the profit
of Debian, Ubuntu and others.

Kind regards

Andreas.

--
http://fam-tille.de


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]