Re: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?

[Marc Haber]

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 00:01:12 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
>If you do not consider this user interface good enough for your uses
>then feel free to implement the debconf interface described in #369479.

Maintaining _YOUR_ packages is _YOUR_ fscking job. Writing "send a
patch" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] keeps your record nice and clean on the first
view, but it doesn't make you a good maintainer.

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: package ownership in Debian (was: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?)

[George Danchev]

On Friday 28 July 2006 22:06, Katrina Jackson wrote:
>   Okay here is another honest question:   Do you really honestly think not
> having co-maintainers for base packages is ever a good idea?  What if
> someone is busy?  You don't really feel safe noticing your base packages
> aren't being co-maintained since people are busy.

Collaborative maintenance (even non-DD could be involved and sponsored) has 
been invented and allplied in Debian long time ago. Have a look at 
alioth.debian.org. 

-- 
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 
fingerprint 1AE7 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: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?

[George Danchev]

On Saturday 29 July 2006 00:42, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jul 28, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "innovation" is the industy's current buzzword. Doing things well even
> > if someone else had a similar idea before will outlive it.
>
> We used to take pride in inventing stuff like update-alternatives which
> solve long-time problems.
>
> > Or do you really think that udev is a useless project? After all, all
> > the innovation was done in devfs and hotplug.
>
> The innovation in udev (with HAL, new kernel features and other stuff)
> is allowing implementing new features which used to not be possible or
> required very complex hacks.
> There is a middle ground between useless and innovative, BTW.

Could you please give your definition for `innovation' ? (If it is about to 
distribute more and more non-free stuff, then I'm glad we have different 
definitions for innovation.)

What do you think Debian should innovate ?



-- 
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 
fingerprint 1AE7 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: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?

[Loïc Minier]

On Fri, Jul 28, 2006, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> When everyone is responsible for something, no one is
>  responsible. 

 If everyone is motivated to work on the distribution and fix bugs in
 the distribution, it doesn't change the global amount of work that we
 can produce in fixing bugs.

 The release team will always give the green flag for a release anyway,
 so they will be the final judge, and if something is not perfect, and
 they think it is important, they will say so, and one of the gazillions
 of developers motivated enough by the release will fix it.

-- 
Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


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

Bug#380308: ITP: libsvm-ruby -- Ruby binding to the LibSVM pattern recognition using SVM library

[Rudi Cilibrasi]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Rudi Cilibrasi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


* Package name: libsvm-ruby
  Version : 2.8.2
  Upstream Author : Rudi Cilibrasi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://rubysvm.cilibrar.com/
* License : GPL
  Programming Lang: C++,Ruby
  Description : Ruby binding to the LibSVM pattern recognition using SVM 
library

This is the Ruby binding to the popular LibSVM machine learning system.
It allows you to train and use Support Vector Machines using Ruby.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (500, 'testing'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.15-1-k7
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]

Re: package ownership in Debian

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 04:26:33AM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
>   (Format: X-Vcs-${VCS}: ${URL})
>   X-Vcs-Bzr: http://people.debian.org/~adeodato/code/packages/taglib
> 
> Another, perhaps more parseable format, would be:
> 
>   X-VCS-Url: ${VCS}:${URL}
>   X-Vcs-Url: bzr:http://people.debian.org/~adeodato/code/packages/taglib

I don't know if we should fear to add too many headers, if we don't I
would rather prefer:

  X-Vcs-Type: bzr
  X-Vcs-Url: http://people.debian.org/~adeodato/code/packages/taglib

BTW, that's wonderful!

/me going to add the headers to packages of mine ...

-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy
[EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/
If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity
of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!-


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

[ text reordered during quoting ]

On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 11:10:24PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > I agree.  We should do it like the BSDs: a tree that any developer
> > can commit to, for any package.
> 
> How would you handle dilution of responsibility?
> 
> When everyone is responsible for something, no one is responsible. 

I heard this argument several time. But as a matter of fact the
collaborative projects I'm involved with (pkg-ocaml-maint, pkg-vim) do
work well.

I personally also tend to feel more inclined to sponsoring (since I can
easily get and review changes made by non-DD). It has also happened
several times that people not traditionally involved with the
maintenance of some package contributed code to it, way more often we
used to have NMU before the projects were fired up.

Do you have examples of collaborative maintenance projects where the "no
one is responsible" part plays a role, making people willing to go back
to non-collaborative maintenance?

> Or too many people making broad commits to to many packages without
> considering the details of the particular package being touched?

This happen in all large development projects and it is not a big deal.
Breakages do occur and people fix them. Is this all that difference than
a maintainer uploading a library breaking ABI compatibility with tons of
packages not touched by the upload?


BTW, note that there are intermediate positions among 1 package per
maintainer and one global source tree. Requiring all packages to be
either group maintained or have a fallback group (as in stratus'
proposal) is IMO a viable one.

Cheers.

-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy
[EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/
If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity
of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!-


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?

[Eduard Bloch]

#include 
* George Danchev [Sat, Jul 29 2006, 10:23:58AM]:
> On Saturday 29 July 2006 00:42, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > On Jul 28, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > "innovation" is the industy's current buzzword. Doing things well even
> > > if someone else had a similar idea before will outlive it.
> >
> > We used to take pride in inventing stuff like update-alternatives which
> > solve long-time problems.
> >
> > > Or do you really think that udev is a useless project? After all, all
> > > the innovation was done in devfs and hotplug.
> >
> > The innovation in udev (with HAL, new kernel features and other stuff)
> > is allowing implementing new features which used to not be possible or
> > required very complex hacks.
> > There is a middle ground between useless and innovative, BTW.
> 
> Could you please give your definition for `innovation' ? (If it is about to 
> distribute more and more non-free stuff, then I'm glad we have different 
> definitions for innovation.)

Haha, now the thread reaches the point where every fanatic uncovers his
favorite issue and begins to "interpret" into it. Can we stop here right
now?  Or move it to a separate thread, thanks.

Eduard.
-- 
 bla. mach ichs halt als root.
  Oh ja, machs mir als root!


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

Re: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?

[George Danchev]

On Saturday 29 July 2006 11:17, Eduard Bloch wrote:
--cut--
> > > The innovation in udev (with HAL, new kernel features and other stuff)
> > > is allowing implementing new features which used to not be possible or
> > > required very complex hacks.
> > > There is a middle ground between useless and innovative, BTW.
> >
> > Could you please give your definition for `innovation' ? (If it is about
> > to distribute more and more non-free stuff, then I'm glad we have
> > different definitions for innovation.)
>
> Haha, now the thread reaches the point where every fanatic uncovers his
> favorite issue and begins to "interpret" into it. Can we stop here right
> now?  Or move it to a separate thread, thanks.

Ok, sorry for the bad taste... I didn't intend personal attacks, just trying 
to grasp what someone's definition for innovation could be.

Here is what I think a debian related innovation could look like:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2006/07/msg00034.html

it is innovation because: a) it introduces new ideas, and b) get the 
successful exploitation of these new ideas.

Please, do not CC, I'm subscribed.

-- 
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 
fingerprint 1AE7 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: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?

[Holger Levsen]

Hi,

On Saturday 29 July 2006 08:43, Christian Perrier wrote:
> And get a very nice random theme for gdm, making the system different
> each time it's booted up. Very user friendly.

I agree with Christian. Quite some people will be confused by this, and it's 
completly unnecessary to have a random theme as default. (Even if it does 
look more fancy for those who won't be confused.)


regards,
Holger


pgpYXrirckGOQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Bug#380328: ITP: pdfcrack -- PDF files password cracker

[Nacho Barrientos Arias]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Nacho Barrientos Arias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

* Package name: pdfcrack
  Version : 0.7
  Upstream Author : Henning Noren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://sourceforge.net/projects/pdfcrack
* License : GPL
  Programming Lang: C
  Description : PDF files password cracker

pdfcrack is a simple tool for recovering passwords from pdf-documents.
It should be able to handle all pdfs that uses the standard security handler
but the pdf-parsing routines are a bit of a quick hack so you might stumble
across some pdfs where the parser needs to be fixed to handle.

pdfcrack allows configure the size of the searched password, use an 
external wordlist file and save cracking sessions to restore it later.

This software uses xpdf/poppler stuff (categorized as free).

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.17.1
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]

virtual packages `pinentry' and `pinentry-x11'

[Tatsuya Kinoshita]

Should `pinentry' and `pinentry-x11' be added to the list of
virtual package names?

I've discovered that the virtual package `pinentry' is provided by
pinentry-curses, pinentry-gtk, pinentry-gtk2 and pinentry-qt, and
the virtual package `pinentry-x11' is provided by pinentry-gtk,
pinentry-gtk2 and pinentry-qt, but `pinentry' and `pinentry-x11'
are not found in the list of virtual package names.

Comments?

--
Tatsuya Kinoshita


pgpu41a84yqhk.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Bug#380328: ITP: pdfcrack -- PDF files password cracker

[Nacho Barrientos Arias]

Hi,

Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 12:02:37 +0200
Nacho Barrientos Arias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Package: wnpp
> Severity: wishlist
> Owner: Nacho Barrientos Arias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> * Package name: pdfcrack
>   Version : 0.7
>   Upstream Author : Henning Noren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * URL : http://sourceforge.net/projects/pdfcrack
> * License : GPL
>   Programming Lang: C
>   Description : PDF files password cracker
> 
> pdfcrack is a simple tool for recovering passwords from pdf-documents.
> It should be able to handle all pdfs that uses the standard security handler
> but the pdf-parsing routines are a bit of a quick hack so you might stumble
> across some pdfs where the parser needs to be fixed to handle.
> 
> pdfcrack allows configure the size of the searched password, use an 
> external wordlist file and save cracking sessions to restore it later.
> 

What could be the best section for this package? 'admin' like
"john" (pdfcrack has got a similar behaviour) or 'utils'?

Thanks,

-- 
Nacho Barrientos Arias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://criptonita.com/~nacho


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

Re: virtual packages `pinentry' and `pinentry-x11'

[Christoph Berg]

Re: Tatsuya Kinoshita 2006-07-29 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Should `pinentry' and `pinentry-x11' be added to the list of
> virtual package names?
> 
> I've discovered that the virtual package `pinentry' is provided by
> pinentry-curses, pinentry-gtk, pinentry-gtk2 and pinentry-qt, and
> the virtual package `pinentry-x11' is provided by pinentry-gtk,
> pinentry-gtk2 and pinentry-qt, but `pinentry' and `pinentry-x11'
> are not found in the list of virtual package names.

Policy: 3.6. Virtual packages

 All packages should use virtual package names where appropriate, and
 arrange to create new ones if necessary.  They should not use virtual
 package names (except privately, amongst a cooperating group of
 packages) unless they have been agreed upon and appear in the list of
 virtual package names.

I think pinentry* is a clear case of a "cooperating group of packages".

The policy could be updated though on what "privately" means.

Christoph
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.df7cb.de/


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Bug#380328: ITP: pdfcrack -- PDF files password cracker

[Christoph Berg]

Re: Nacho Barrientos Arias 2006-07-29 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> What could be the best section for this package? 'admin' like
> "john" (pdfcrack has got a similar behaviour) or 'utils'?

Cracking pdfs is not something an admin would usually do.

Christoph
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.df7cb.de/


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Bug#380328: ITP: pdfcrack -- PDF files password cracker

[Thijs Kinkhorst]

On Sat, 2006-07-29 at 13:16 +0200, Nacho Barrientos Arias wrote:
> 
> What could be the best section for this package? 'admin' like
> "john" (pdfcrack has got a similar behaviour) or 'utils'? 

"john" is in admin because it's intended to be run by the administrator
to check if any of the users have a weak password. "pdfcrack" is to be
used by a user who has forgotten the password of a PDF, thus making it
more suitable for 'utils' or 'text'.


Thijs


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

Re: Bug#380328: ITP: pdfcrack -- PDF files password cracker

[Nacho Barrientos Arias]

Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 13:18:49 +0200
Christoph Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Cracking pdfs is not something an admin would usually do.
> 
> Christoph

Thijs Kinkhorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> "john" is in admin because it's intended to be run by the administrator
> to check if any of the users have a weak password. "pdfcrack" is to be
> used by a user who has forgotten the password of a PDF, thus making it
> more suitable for 'utils' or 'text'.
> 

Just what i was thinking, i agree with your answers.

Thank you,

-- 
Nacho Barrientos Arias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://criptonita.com/~nacho


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

Re: virtual packages `pinentry' and `pinentry-x11'

[Tatsuya Kinoshita]

On July 29, 2006 at 1:18PM +0200,
myon (at debian.org) wrote:

> > Should `pinentry' and `pinentry-x11' be added to the list of
> > virtual package names?

> Policy: 3.6. Virtual packages
>
>  All packages should use virtual package names where appropriate, and
>  arrange to create new ones if necessary.  They should not use virtual
>  package names (except privately, amongst a cooperating group of
>  packages) unless they have been agreed upon and appear in the list of
>  virtual package names.
>
> I think pinentry* is a clear case of a "cooperating group of packages".
>
> The policy could be updated though on what "privately" means.

Thanks for the commnet.

BTW, I maintain mew-beta-bin package, and new version of
mew-beta-bin package includes a simple pinentry program
`/usr/bin/mew-pinentry'.  It can be used as `pinentry'.

At the moment, should `pinentry' be added to the list of virtual
package names?  If so, I'll file a wishlist bug against debian-policy.

--
Tatsuya Kinoshita


pgpFf7RB4TwkR.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?

[Gustavo Noronha Silva]

Em Fri, 28 Jul 2006 16:23:21 +0100
Steve Kemp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escreveu:

> > Why does Ubuntu have to have
> >all the great ideas for their users?  One example:  They have a
> > pop up telling you updates are ready.  Now maybe you now have this
> > feature,
>  
>Debian does have this feature.  (Package 'update-notifier'.)
> 
>I don't know offhand whether "they" had it first or "we" had it
>   first, and I don't think it matters terribly much.  Some packages
>   both distributions have in common (many!) and some start in one
>   and get shared to the other later.

They had it first and we worked together to 'utnubu' it into Debian, by
patching the underlying software (update-manager) to work with any
distribution, feature which has been kept in their last release.

My opinion about the whole issue:

I believe Debian has been and still is very innovative; then again,
Ubuntu had a very solid and mature base, so they could think about
stuff to put *above* that. I would not say the innovation they brought
is bigger than Debian's; they just focused their resources in a
different set of problems, which were only solvable, in some cases,
because of the good base Debianites have created so far (and in which we
put quite a bit effort simply for maintainance).

In the end of the day, it is still being a good thing for both, I
believe, as long as utnubu keeps happening as fast as ubuntunization of
Debian stuff. I enjoy having update-{manager,notifier}, even though I
use aptitude myself, it means my mother has a simpler way of updating
her Debian system at home. =)

See you,

-- 
Gustavo Noronha Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://people.debian.org/~kov/


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

Re: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?

[Gustavo Noronha Silva]

Em Fri, 28 Jul 2006 18:55:26 +0200
Fabio Tranchitella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escreveu:

> If you need to apply a patch to one of my packages for a
> non-critical bug in order to complete an integration work, please send
> me the patch by BTS and if I do not reply in a few days feel free to
> upload an NMU.
> 
> How many Debian maintainers think the same? I'm sure there are a
> lot of them who do not soffer of the "this is my package, go away"
> syndrome.

I do. I think there was a list being built listing the people who think
alike in this issue?

See you,

-- 
Gustavo Noronha Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://people.debian.org/~kov/


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

Re: virtual packages `pinentry' and `pinentry-x11'

[Joerg Jaspert]

On 10730 March 1977, Tatsuya Kinoshita wrote:

> At the moment, should `pinentry' be added to the list of virtual
> package names?  If so, I'll file a wishlist bug against debian-policy.

Nope. If it can work as the pinentry thing then provide it. Thats it for you.

-- 
bye Joerg
I read the DUMP and agree to it.


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

Re: virtual packages `pinentry' and `pinentry-x11'

[Tatsuya Kinoshita]

On July 29, 2006 at 4:02PM +0200,
joerg (at debian.org) wrote:

> > At the moment, should `pinentry' be added to the list of virtual
> > package names?  If so, I'll file a wishlist bug against debian-policy.
>
> Nope. If it can work as the pinentry thing then provide it. Thats it for you.

Hmm, I have not yet understand the policy 3.6:

|  All packages should use virtual package names where appropriate, and
|  arrange to create new ones if necessary.  They should not use virtual
|  package names (except privately, amongst a cooperating group of
|  packages) unless they have been agreed upon and appear in the list of
|  virtual package names.

Could anyone rephrase "except privately, amongst a cooperating
group of packages"?

--
Tatsuya Kinoshita


pgppM3QEKrhp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: virtual packages `pinentry' and `pinentry-x11'

[Joerg Jaspert]

On 10730 March 1977, Tatsuya Kinoshita wrote:

> |  All packages should use virtual package names where appropriate, and
> |  arrange to create new ones if necessary.  They should not use virtual
> |  package names (except privately, amongst a cooperating group of
> |  packages) unless they have been agreed upon and appear in the list of
> |  virtual package names.
> Could anyone rephrase "except privately, amongst a cooperating
> group of packages"?

A group of packages getting you (nearly) the same functionality/interface.

-- 
bye Joerg
 And mind you, I have always been respectful to every debian
  developer EXCEPT Branden.


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

Bug#380366: ITP: python-jinja -- simple pythonic template language

[Piotr Ozarowski]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Piotr Ozarowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

* Package name: python-jinja
  Version : 0.8
  Upstream Author : Armin Ronacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://wsgiarea.pocoo.org/jinja/
* License : BSD
  Programming Lang: Python
  Description : simple pythonic template language

 Jinja is a text-based template language similar to Cheetah and Smarty.
 The syntax and parts of the code where taken from the django template.
 .
 Like the django template, Jinja tries to simplify templating but provide a
 powerful syntax. The idea is to remove all application logic from the
 template. Sounds limited but you should have a look at the example below to
 see the power behind the system.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.17.4-grsec
Locale: LANG=pl_PL, LC_CTYPE=pl_PL (charmap=ISO-8859-2)


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

Re: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 10:27:34 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
said: 

> [ text reordered during quoting ]
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 11:10:24PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > I agree.  We should do it like the BSDs: a tree that any
>> > developer can commit to, for any package.
>> 
>> How would you handle dilution of responsibility?
>> 
>> When everyone is responsible for something, no one is responsible.

> I heard this argument several time. But as a matter of fact the
> collaborative projects I'm involved with (pkg-ocaml-maint, pkg-vim)
> do work well.

Goon for you. My experiences differ.

> Do you have examples of collaborative maintenance projects where the
> "no one is responsible" part plays a role, making people willing to
> go back to non-collaborative maintenance?

Yes, there was a mention of it just this month on
 #debian-devel. I am unwilling to  derail this thread with the merits
 of the maintainer and package team's position in this instance by
 naming names and bringing the affair into the limelight, but I can
 send you excerpts of the log privately.

>> Or too many people making broad commits to to many packages without
>> considering the details of the particular package being touched?

> This happen in all large development projects and it is not a big
> deal.  Breakages do occur and people fix them. Is this all that
> difference than a maintainer uploading a library breaking ABI
> compatibility with tons of packages not touched by the upload?

It could go either way, of course, but I was referring to the
 difference between due diligence of a group, as opposed to an
 individual; potentially, a team is only as strong as the weakest
 link. So in some cases the quality of uploads may actually fall, or
 impose greater burdens on the members inclined towards higher
 quality.

On the other hand, the team may haul up a slacker lone
 developer to higher standards. The point is, no one can say or
 sure a priori which road shall be taken.

manoj

-- 
Others may not understand that we must practice self-control, but
quarrelling dies away in those who understand this fact. 6
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


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

Re: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 09:29:49 +0200, Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> On Fri, Jul 28, 2006, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> When everyone is responsible for something, no one is responsible.

>  If everyone is motivated to work on the distribution and fix bugs
>  in the distribution, it doesn't change the global amount of work
>  that we can produce in fixing bugs.

Nice state of Utopia. Bu of course, everyone is not uniformly
 motivated, and people's motivation is not static, it changes over
 time, real life has a trendency to sometimes intrude, --- so the
 reality is far from everyone is all equal and interchangeable cogs in
 the happy happy debian machine.

>  The release team will always give the green flag for a release
>  anyway, so they will be the final judge, and if something is not
>  perfect, and they think it is important, they will say so, and one
>  of the gazillions of developers motivated enough by the release
>  will fix it.

I don't know how this applies to the team-or-no-team question
 one way or the other. Are you implying one may fuck up to one's
 hearts content since the super-uber release team shall fly in to save
 the day?

manoj
-- 
VMS must die!
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


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

Re: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?

[Michael Banck]

On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 08:43:28AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > We do, see my reply for Matthew and test if you want. You can install
> > the 'desktop' and 'gnome-desktop' task in a sid or testing system
> > using aptitude too.
> 
> And get a very nice random theme for gdm, making the system different
> each time it's booted up. Very user friendly.

It makes no sense to complain about this until we have a good default
artwork.  So let's fix that first, then convince the gdm maintainer that
we should use this.


Michael


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

Re: Two versions of pan in etch?

[Ron Johnson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Søren Boll Overgaard wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Pan[0] is currently undergoing a major rewrite, and being the 
> maintainer, I am currently considering what version of pan to 
> include in etch. This mail[1] from one of the pan mailing lists 
> sums up the situation quite nicely.
> 
> Essentially, what it boils down to is this: Would it be prudent 
> to include two separate versions of pan in etch (perhaps named 
> pan and pan2)? The rewrite has been in Debian experimental for 
> some time now, and it has definite advantages over the old one, 
> whereas the old one has stability and feature completeness going 
> for it.
> 
> A few google searches didn't yield any obvious precedents that I 
> could spot, so I would appreciate your input.

As a pan user, if maintaining pan 0.14 is easy then I'd think it
would be a good idea.

AS LONG AS they can be installed *together*, so that one can test
pan 0.1xx while being able to fall back to the usable pan 0.14.

That seems like it would be lots of work on your part, and if so,
pan 0.14 still "needs" to be in Etch.

Personally, I don't think I'll *want* to move to pan 1.x, since it
uses the GTK file picker, and the 0.14 file picker is *really*
*useful* for newsgroups.

> [0] http://pan.rebelbase.com/ [1] 
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/pan-users/2006-07/msg00158.html



- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Is "common sense" really valid?
For example, it is "common sense" to white-power racists that
whites are superior to blacks, and that those with brown skins
are mud people.
However, that "common sense" is obviously wrong.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEy4v2S9HxQb37XmcRAgIBAKCXNje/nlefSqzos6qjM4dCQmPHSwCgiTxt
zpqwKRbwcTuEpbvqP5ctZDc=
=PZXl
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


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

Re: package ownership in Debian

[Gustavo Franco]

On 7/29/06, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 14:38:52 -0300, Gustavo Franco
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

> * Promote NMU LowThreshold wiki list giving it some official status.

What does this mean?


That you're out of date on what's going on and trying to make jokes of
my opinions before reading for a second time.

FYI, http://wiki.debian.org/LowThresholdNmu


> For existing packages:

> * The package that contains only the Maintainer field with the name
>   of a person and not a group can be uploaded by any DD. ping the
>   current maintainer is good but not required;

> * If the package contains a group in the Maintainer field and/or a
>   group of people in the Maintainer field or Uploaders. It's
>   required that the uploader ping the group and coordinate his
>   upload.

Why the disrtinction? If the maintainer is active, and is
 currently working on the package, you have just made matters worse by
 not pinging.  If the team is negligent, why should it be treated
 differently?


I've changed my opinion on this based on what Joerg wrote, already
stated this some messages ago two times.


> I think with something similar to what i wrote above we will end up
> with almost all the packages maintained by groups and some packages
> maintained by Debian as a whole and not individuals.  The next step
> would be groups allowing other groups to upload some of "their"
> packages.

I am mostly unconvinced that this would improve the quality of
  distribution.


Yes, so let us keep the lack of communication and "my packages, don't
touch team" approach or do you have suggestions for the problems on
the table? Don't you see any problem?


> The core stuff will be more flexible and well maintained, if we
> don't have groups where just one person do all the work and others
> are there just to look cool.

Why do you think that is not likely to happen?  My experience
 leads to to think that your view point is akin to the island called
 Utopia.



My experience with Debian Python Modules Team, pkg-ltsp and pkg-gnome,
show me that groups, communication in these groups, cooperation from
non DDs are better than "mail me and i'll reply in two weeks...".
Again, my point isn't that every package should be under group (as in
alioth) maintenance, some packages would be under group maintenance as
in Debian under some less restrict rules for NMU along the lines
Joerg's wrote.

regards,
-- stratus


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

Re: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?

[George Danchev]

On Saturday 29 July 2006 18:51, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
-cut--
> It could go either way, of course, but I was referring to the
>  difference between due diligence of a group, as opposed to an
>  individual; potentially, a team is only as strong as the weakest
>  link. 

`weakest link' is not always the case for each package release. It might 
happens that only `strongest links' has been involved in a package release 
also. Furthermore, a single maintainer could also has a `bad day' and produce 
a bad package release. So, I don't believe there is unified formula to 
measure how much a team is being strong, it all boils down to have a good 
communication inside the group. You will hadly have a good rollover with a 
single maintainer..., well except NMUers and Hijackers.

>  So in some cases the quality of uploads may actually fall, or 
>  impose greater burdens on the members inclined towards higher
>  quality.

Yes, we deal with human beings, which are all different sometimes ;-)

-- 
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 
fingerprint 1AE7 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: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?

[Gustavo Franco]

On 7/29/06, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 12:23:33 -0500, John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

> On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 05:44:38PM +0100, Steve Kemp wrote:
>> > If Debian had slightly less of a culture of "Keep your hands off
>> > my package", I'd do it here instead.
>>
>> That seems understandable.  I'm keen on teams, but even more keen
>> on a less "ownery" stance by package owners.

> I agree.  We should do it like the BSDs: a tree that any developer
> can commit to, for any package.

How would you handle dilution of responsibility?  Or too many
 people making broad commits to to many packages without considering
 the details of the particular package being touched?

When everyone is responsible for something, no one is
 responsible.



Group admins. A group can have more than one admin, but at least one
is reachable and/or is leading the group (eg: python-modules, d-i), if
not the group organization is broken, but it happens more often with
the one man approach by default, IMHO.

regards,
-- stratus


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

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

[Adam D. Barratt]

On Thu, 2006-07-27 at 18:28 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
[breaking circular dependencies]
> Dpkg does it the way policy says it should do it and even slightly
> better since it checks for postinst files.

That's unsurprising, given that the relevant sections of policy and dpkg
were written by the same person. Specifically, the policy section was
written as documentation of what dpkg /does/, rather than vice versa.

Cheers,

Adam


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

Re: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 19:27:57 +0300, George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> On Saturday 29 July 2006 18:51, Manoj Srivastava wrote: -cut--
>> It could go either way, of course, but I was referring to the
>> difference between due diligence of a group, as opposed to an
>> individual; potentially, a team is only as strong as the weakest
>> link.

> `weakest link' is not always the case for each package release. It
> might happens that only `strongest links' has been involved in a
> package release also.

I am not sure I understand what that last sentence means.

> Furthermore, a single maintainer could also has a `bad day' and
> produce a bad package release. So, I don't believe there is unified
> formula to measure how much a team is being strong, it all boils
> down to have a good communication inside the group. You will hadly
> have a good rollover with a single maintainer..., well except NMUers
> and Hijackers.

I am not sure you have made the thesis that a team is always
 to be preferred, to the point of foisting teams on people by force.

manoj
-- 
"Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love."
Albert Einstein
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


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

Re: package ownership in Debian

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 16:27:26 +, Gustavo Franco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> On 7/29/06, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 14:38:52 -0300, Gustavo Franco
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> 
>> > * Promote NMU LowThreshold wiki list giving it some official
>> >   status.
>> 
>> What does this mean?

> That you're out of date on what's going on and trying to make jokes
> of my opinions before reading for a second time.

Actually, it just reinforces my view that you jump to wild
 conclusions with inadequate data.

> FYI, http://wiki.debian.org/LowThresholdNmu

*Sigh*. I see I'll have to use non polysyllabic words here.

I know about the LowThresholdNmu page. What exactly do you
 mean about giving it "official status"?

>> > I think with something similar to what i wrote above we will end
>> > up with almost all the packages maintained by groups and some
>> > packages maintained by Debian as a whole and not individuals.
>> > The next step would be groups allowing other groups to upload
>> > some of "their" packages.
>> 
>> I am mostly unconvinced that this would improve the quality of
>> distribution.

> Yes, so let us keep the lack of communication and "my packages,
> don't touch team" approach or do you have suggestions for the
> problems on the table? Don't you see any problem?

We have a policy on NMU's. I think the release team has
 authorized 0-day NMU's, while following the rest of the NMU
 guidelines (nmudiff to the BTS, etc), in order to correct lacunnae in
 packages.

There is nothing wrong with offering to help out with packages
 either -- and nothing wrong with people forming teams. Rammning it
 down people's throats won't work, though.


> My experience with Debian Python Modules Team, pkg-ltsp and
> pkg-gnome, show me that groups, communication in these groups,
> cooperation from non DDs are better than "mail me and i'll reply in
> two weeks...".  Again, my point isn't that every package should be
> under group (as in alioth) maintenance, some packages would be under
> group maintenance as in Debian under some less restrict rules for
> NMU along the lines Joerg's wrote.

You have examples pro teams.  There are also anecdotes where
 teams do not work.  Teams are akin to marriages: somethimes they work
 wonderfully, other times they result in the analogue to a nasty
 divorce. Even worse are teams that function like bad marriages: there
 is tension in the air, people distrust other members on the team,
 commits are reverted with no discussion, changes are made to SVN
 trees without any discussion, and the whole project suffers.

So, if teams form naturally, and work well, that great.

Mandating it from up on high is not.

manoj
-- 
"Taxes?  We don't need no stinking taxes." Jeff Daiell
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


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

Re: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?

[George Danchev]

On Saturday 29 July 2006 21:00, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 19:27:57 +0300, George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > On Saturday 29 July 2006 18:51, Manoj Srivastava wrote: -cut--
> >
> >> It could go either way, of course, but I was referring to the
> >> difference between due diligence of a group, as opposed to an
> >> individual; potentially, a team is only as strong as the weakest
> >> link.
> >
> > `weakest link' is not always the case for each package release. It
> > might happens that only `strongest links' has been involved in a
> > package release also.
>
> I am not sure I understand what that last sentence means.

I'm arguing that yours "a team is only as strong as the weakest link" is 
similar to the conclusion of "an individual is only as strong as its worst 
characteristic". See the deadlock ?

> > Furthermore, a single maintainer could also has a `bad day' and
> > produce a bad package release. So, I don't believe there is unified
> > formula to measure how much a team is being strong, it all boils
> > down to have a good communication inside the group. You will hadly
> > have a good rollover with a single maintainer..., well except NMUers
> > and Hijackers.
>
> I am not sure you have made the thesis that a team is always
>  to be preferred, to the point of foisting teams on people by force.

I doubt there are people who believe in any ultimate decision wrt team 
maintenance and forcing that on others, at least no normative doc says that. 
It it merely like if people think they can benefit from a team-based 
maintenace then they assemble a team. Yes, you have good and bad teams, good 
and bad individuals, and any other combinations thereof. 

-- 
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB 


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

Bug#380385: ITP: rest2web -- web site builder using ReST as basic content format

[martin f krafft]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

* Package name: rest2web
  Version : 0.4.0~alpha
  Upstream Author : Michael Foord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/rest2web/
* License : BSD
  Programming Lang: Python
  Description : web site builder using ReST as basic content format

Packages are in preparation, but some issues have to be resolved
with upstream first regarding the use of the pythonutils module
collection, which I refuse to package up as is because the name's
just too broad.

If everything goes well, this will be (among) the first package(s)
to use ~ in the version. Yay! :)

Here's the long description.

 rest2web is a simple tool that lets you build your website from a single
 template (or as many as you want), and keep the contents in ReStructured Text
 (docutils; you can still keep pages in HTML if needed).
 .
 It can also aid in having multiple translations of your site (i18n) and
 provides a host of other features:
 .
 * Automatically builds index pages and navigation links (sidebars and
   breadcrumbs).
 * Embedded code in templates for unlimited expressiveness.
 * Flexible macro system.
 * Uses relative links, so sites can be viewed from the filesystem.
 * Unicode internally - so you don't have to be.
 * Includes features for multiple translations of sites.
 * Built-in gallery creator plugin.
 * The basic system is very easy to use.
 * Lots of powerful (optional) features.
 .
 Adding new pages is as easy as dropping a text file into the right folder.
 rest2web builds the new page and adds a link to it in the index (optionally
 with a description as well). Removing a page is just as easy. Delete the
 file, and when you run rest2web again it removes the entry.
 .
 Because rest2web generates sites using relative paths, the results can be
 viewed from the filesystem. This means that it is an effective way of
 bundling documentation.

-- 
Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list!
 
 .''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: :'  :proud Debian developer and author: http://debiansystem.info
`. `'`
  `-  Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)

Re: package ownership in Debian

[Gustavo Franco]

On 7/29/06, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 16:27:26 +, Gustavo Franco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

> On 7/29/06, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 14:38:52 -0300, Gustavo Franco
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>> > * Promote NMU LowThreshold wiki list giving it some official
>> >   status.
>>
>> What does this mean?

> That you're out of date on what's going on and trying to make jokes
> of my opinions before reading for a second time.

Actually, it just reinforces my view that you jump to wild
 conclusions with inadequate data.

> FYI, http://wiki.debian.org/LowThresholdNmu

*Sigh*. I see I'll have to use non polysyllabic words here.

I know about the LowThresholdNmu page. What exactly do you
 mean about giving it "official status"?


I wrote that it could be integrated with PTS, somebody else suggested
a new header in control. I think subscribe/unsubscribe a package
(using signed messages) to "LowThresholdNMU" with notes that could be
queried by mail and included in PTS web interface, would do.


>> > I think with something similar to what i wrote above we will end
>> > up with almost all the packages maintained by groups and some
>> > packages maintained by Debian as a whole and not individuals.
>> > The next step would be groups allowing other groups to upload
>> > some of "their" packages.
>>
>> I am mostly unconvinced that this would improve the quality of
>> distribution.

> Yes, so let us keep the lack of communication and "my packages,
> don't touch team" approach or do you have suggestions for the
> problems on the table? Don't you see any problem?

We have a policy on NMU's. I think the release team has
 authorized 0-day NMU's, while following the rest of the NMU
 guidelines (nmudiff to the BTS, etc), in order to correct lacunnae in
 packages.


0day NMU's for RC bugs more than a week old - send the patch to the
BTS before upload apply. This is different than Joerg's idea.


There is nothing wrong with offering to help out with packages
 either -- and nothing wrong with people forming teams. Rammning it
 down people's throats won't work, though.


Don't you see that the team thing is to avoid a random developer that
have no idea what's going on with the history of that package, do the
upload ? The packages that aren't under group maintenance and will
never be, needs more not so strict NMU rules.


> My experience with Debian Python Modules Team, pkg-ltsp and
> pkg-gnome, show me that groups, communication in these groups,
> cooperation from non DDs are better than "mail me and i'll reply in
> two weeks...".  Again, my point isn't that every package should be
> under group (as in alioth) maintenance, some packages would be under
> group maintenance as in Debian under some less restrict rules for
> NMU along the lines Joerg's wrote.

You have examples pro teams.  There are also anecdotes where
 teams do not work.  Teams are akin to marriages: somethimes they work
 wonderfully, other times they result in the analogue to a nasty
 divorce. Even worse are teams that function like bad marriages: there
 is tension in the air, people distrust other members on the team,
 commits are reverted with no discussion, changes are made to SVN
 trees without any discussion, and the whole project suffers.


Please don't attack the team model, without pointing where it could be
better if it was a one-man approach. "The team foo is broken!" but it
would better with you or me maintaining the package(s) alone? Who
knows?


So, if teams form naturally, and work well, that great.

Mandating it from up on high is not.


I think the discussion is around how to put the teams to work well and
some kind of better relationship between the teams and less strict NMU
rules to non team maintaned packages.

regards,
-- stratus


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

Bug#380388: ITP: toga2 -- computer chess engine, calculates chess moves

[Oliver Korff]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Oliver Korff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


* Package name: toga2
  Version : 1.2.1.1
  Upstream Author : Thomas Gaksch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.uciengines.de/UCI-Engines/TogaII/togaii.html
* License : GPL
  Programming Lang: C++
  Description : computer chess engine, calculates chess moves

 Advancement of the strong chess engine fruit, it is
 even stronger, and will be further developed. As communication
 protocol it uses the UCI (universal chess interface), so you
 need an UCI capable frontend to play against it.
 .
 http://www.uciengines.de/UCI-Engines/TogaII/togaii.html

This is one of the strongest chess programs on the planet. 
Hell of an opponent and stronger than 90% of the commercial 
chess engines.

Oliver

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.17-1-686
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]

Re: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?

[Loïc Minier]

On Sat, Jul 29, 2006, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Nice state of Utopia. Bu of course, everyone is not uniformly
>  motivated, and people's motivation is not static, it changes over
>  time, real life has a trendency to sometimes intrude, --- so the
>  reality is far from everyone is all equal and interchangeable cogs in
>  the happy happy debian machine.

 Utopia which is working pretty nicely with Ubuntu...  And the argument
 that you advance are more in favor of my mode of working: if people's
 motivation is not static, it is even better not to have to rely on
 people to work on their packages and to let everyone do so.

> >  The release team will always give the green flag for a release
> >  anyway, so they will be the final judge, and if something is not
> >  perfect, and they think it is important, they will say so, and one
> >  of the gazillions of developers motivated enough by the release
> >  will fix it.
> I don't know how this applies to the team-or-no-team question
>  one way or the other. Are you implying one may fuck up to one's
>  hearts content since the super-uber release team shall fly in to save
>  the day?

 No, I already mentionned that I think some people are fucking things
 too greatly and why I wouldn't consider open NMU a good thing right now
 in Debian; I won't repeat the arguments here, but I simply think it's
 not possible "as is" in Debian right now.
   However, would this be possible, I consider it would be the rold of
 the release team to block the release until the bugs which matter are
 fixed: surprise, this is what they do right now!

 I think you're imaginating things based on what I said which are not
 correct simply because we are both talking on a to high level.  In
 other words, we're both loosing our time if we can make so stupide
 misunderstandings.

-- 
Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


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

Re: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 21:35:28 +0300, George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> On Saturday 29 July 2006 21:00, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 19:27:57 +0300, George Danchev
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > On Saturday 29 July 2006 18:51, Manoj Srivastava wrote: -cut--
>> >
>> >> It could go either way, of course, but I was referring to the
>> >> difference between due diligence of a group, as opposed to an
>> >> individual; potentially, a team is only as strong as the weakest
>> >> link.
>> >
>> > `weakest link' is not always the case for each package
>> > release. It might happens that only `strongest links' has been
>> > involved in a package release also.
>> 
>> I am not sure I understand what that last sentence means.

> I'm arguing that yours "a team is only as strong as the weakest
> link" is similar to the conclusion of "an individual is only as
> strong as its worst characteristic". See the deadlock ?

The difference being that I am not arguing for mandatory
 single developer for each package status, you know.  

>> > Furthermore, a single maintainer could also has a `bad day' and
>> > produce a bad package release. So, I don't believe there is
>> > unified formula to measure how much a team is being strong, it
>> > all boils down to have a good communication inside the group. You
>> > will hadly have a good rollover with a single maintainer..., well
>> > except NMUers and Hijackers.
>> 
>> I am not sure you have made the thesis that a team is always to be
>> preferred, to the point of foisting teams on people by force.

> I doubt there are people who believe in any ultimate decision wrt
> team maintenance and forcing that on others, at least no normative
> doc says that.  It it merely like if people think they can benefit
> from a team-based maintenace then they assemble a team. Yes, you
> have good and bad teams, good and bad individuals, and any other
> combinations thereof.

That is fine. I entered this thread in response to various
 ideas being floated around about mandating team development only.  If
 that proposal is off the table, I have little of consequence to add
 to this thread.

manoj
-- 
You will have a long and unpleasant discussion with your supervisor.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


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

Re: Bug#380388: ITP: toga2 -- computer chess engine, calculates chess moves

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit Oliver Korff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>   Description : computer chess engine, calculates chess moves

We seem to have several such engines already. Could the description
please say something that distinguishes this from the other ones?

> This is one of the strongest chess programs on the planet. 
> Hell of an opponent and stronger than 90% of the commercial 
> chess engines.

Would X% of Debian's other free chess engines not be a more relevant
comparison?

-- 
Henning Makholm "sh: line 1: fortune: command not found"


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

Re: package ownership in Debian

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 20:00:21 +, Gustavo Franco
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:  

> On 7/29/06, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 16:27:26 +, Gustavo Franco
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> 
> I wrote that it could be integrated with PTS, somebody else
> suggested a new header in control. I think subscribe/unsubscribe a
> package (using signed messages) to "LowThresholdNMU" with notes that
> could be queried by mail and included in PTS web interface, would
> do.

Ah. Sounds like a decent idea.

>> There is nothing wrong with offering to help out with packages
>> either -- and nothing wrong with people forming teams. Rammning it
>> down people's throats won't work, though.

> Don't you see that the team thing is to avoid a random developer
> that have no idea what's going on with the history of that package,
> do the upload ? The packages that aren't under group maintenance and
> will never be, needs more not so strict NMU rules.

Seems to me you need rules exactly as strict, since the people
 doing the NMU are less familiar with the package, and thus  need to
 exercise more care, and need to bring in the input of the person most
 experienced with the package. Lowering the upload threshold from
 people unfamiliar with the package probably would lead to a drop in
 quality, simply because it is harder to package something one is
 unfamiliar with.

> Please don't attack the team model, without pointing where it could
> be better if it was a one-man approach. "The team foo is broken!"
> but it would better with you or me maintaining the package(s) alone?
> Who knows?

I would think that my packages would be better than some of
 the worst case team maintained packages, so yes, I would know.  And
 ritisizing one alternative does not require that one shows advantages
 in other alternatives -- for a true  comparison of the alternatives,
 one should not be afraid of an honest, unflinching critique of all
 options on the table.

> I think the discussion is around how to put the teams to work well
> and some kind of better relationship between the teams and less
> strict NMU rules to non team maintaned packages.

I have not quarrel with the former.  I don't see why the
 number of people involved in packaging should have anything to do
 with NMU rules; in any individual case, the severity of the BUG, the
 responsiveness of the maintainer(s), the amount of time spent seeking
 input and advice from the experts on that package count for more than
 the number of people in the uploaders field.

manoj
-- 
Mediocrity finds safety in standardization. Frederick Crane
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


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

Re: package ownership in Debian

[Gustavo Franco]

On 7/29/06, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 20:00:21 +, Gustavo Franco
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

> On 7/29/06, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 16:27:26 +, Gustavo Franco
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
> I wrote that it could be integrated with PTS, somebody else
> suggested a new header in control. I think subscribe/unsubscribe a
> package (using signed messages) to "LowThresholdNMU" with notes that
> could be queried by mail and included in PTS web interface, would
> do.

Ah. Sounds like a decent idea.

>> There is nothing wrong with offering to help out with packages
>> either -- and nothing wrong with people forming teams. Rammning it
>> down people's throats won't work, though.

> Don't you see that the team thing is to avoid a random developer
> that have no idea what's going on with the history of that package,
> do the upload ? The packages that aren't under group maintenance and
> will never be, needs more not so strict NMU rules.

Seems to me you need rules exactly as strict, since the people
 doing the NMU are less familiar with the package, and thus  need to
 exercise more care, and need to bring in the input of the person most
 experienced with the package. Lowering the upload threshold from
 people unfamiliar with the package probably would lead to a drop in
 quality, simply because it is harder to package something one is
 unfamiliar with.


I'm not here for push "new upstream releases" into your packages, for
example. We're talking about bug fixing and better integration, eg:
better hardware support, as Anthony pointed out.


(...)


regards,
-- stratus


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

Re: Bug#380388: ITP: toga2 -- computer chess engine, calculates chess moves

[Ben Pfaff]

Oliver Korff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>  Advancement of the strong chess engine fruit, it is
>  even stronger, and will be further developed.

Please work on the phrasing.  It doesn't make much sense as
written.  Perhaps "Advanced chess engine under active
development."?
-- 
Ben Pfaff 
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
web: http://benpfaff.org


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

Re: package ownership in Debian

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 21:20:35 +, Gustavo Franco
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:  

> I'm not here for push "new upstream releases" into your packages,
> for example. We're talking about bug fixing and better integration,
> eg: better hardware support, as Anthony pointed out.

Even then, there might be different ways of implementing a bug
 fix -- and thus my input should still be sought. After all, I'll be
 the one who has to live with the code.

What about fixes for bugs that would have been labelled
 wontfix were I had been given time to  ofer an input? Not all
 reported RC bugs are indeed that, or warrant a fix.

I see no real reason for cutting the maintainer out of the NMU
 loop, even if they are not a team -- which is why provisions for
 keeping the maintainer in the loop are a Good Thing™.

manoj
-- 
QOTD: "I used to get high on life but lately I've built up a
resistance."
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Re: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 22:31:28 +0200, Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> On Sat, Jul 29, 2006, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Nice state of Utopia. Bu of course, everyone is not uniformly
>> motivated, and people's motivation is not static, it changes over
>> time, real life has a trendency to sometimes intrude, --- so the
>> reality is far from everyone is all equal and interchangeable cogs
>> in the happy happy debian machine.

>  Utopia which is working pretty nicely with Ubuntu...

I think you might have an argument about that ...

>  And the argument that you advance are more in favor of my mode of
>  working: if people's motivation is not static, it is even better
>  not to have to rely on people to work on their packages and to let
>  everyone do so.

Except that responsibility is often a goad.

manoj
-- 
God gives us relatives; thank goodness we can chose our friends.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


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

Re: package ownership in Debian

[Gustavo Franco]

On 7/29/06, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 21:20:35 +, Gustavo Franco
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

> I'm not here for push "new upstream releases" into your packages,
> for example. We're talking about bug fixing and better integration,
> eg: better hardware support, as Anthony pointed out.

Even then, there might be different ways of implementing a bug
 fix -- and thus my input should still be sought. After all, I'll be
 the one who has to live with the code.

What about fixes for bugs that would have been labelled
 wontfix were I had been given time to  ofer an input? Not all
 reported RC bugs are indeed that, or warrant a fix.

I see no real reason for cutting the maintainer out of the NMU
 loop, even if they are not a team -- which is why provisions for
 keeping the maintainer in the loop are a Good Thing™.



I agree. Please read again[0], [1] and [2]. You replied [0] after i
wrote [0], [1] and [2].

[0] = http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/07/msg01170.html
[1] = http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/07/msg01219.html
[2] = http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/07/msg01230.html

thanks in advance,
-- stratus

Re: cdrtools

[Anthony DeRobertis]

Erast Benson wrote:
>
> I do not need to make the build system 
> available under GPL (GPL §3 requires me to make it available but does
> not mention a license) 

GPL 3(a) requires the "complete corresponding source code [be]
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above". GPL 3
defines the source code to include the "the scripts used to control
compilation and installation of the executable."

Section 2(b) requires third parties to publish derived works under the
GPL ("to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under
the terms of this License."). Section 2 also states "[T]he distribution
of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for
other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every
part regardless of who wrote it."


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

Re: compromise of gluck.debian.org, lock down of other debian.org machines

[Brian May]

Hello,

What is the situation with gluck?

I am cut off from debian-devel, while my mail is accumulating on
gluck, as I can't log in with my DSA key.

I was under the impression from the security announcement that DSA
logins should still be working.

Unfortunately, the ssh connections hang immediately after
authentication succeeds.

I tried contacting James Troup previously, but got no response.

In the meantime I am concerned that my BSMTP mail spool on gluck must
be getting huge.

(I also have some important issues I want to discuss on debian-devel
concerning etch).

Thanks.

(PS: Please send responses directly to me for obvious reasons)

[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ssh -v gluck.debian.org
OpenSSH_3.8.1p1  Debian-krb5 3.8.1p1-7, OpenSSL 0.9.7e 25 Oct 2004
debug1: Reading configuration data /home/bam/.ssh/config
debug1: /home/bam/.ssh/config line 2: Deprecated option "FallBackToRsh"
debug1: Reading configuration data /etc/ssh/ssh_config
debug1: Connecting to gluck.debian.org [192.25.206.10] port 22.
debug1: Connection established.
debug1: identity file /home/bam/.ssh/identity type -1
debug1: identity file /home/bam/.ssh/id_rsa type -1
debug1: identity file /home/bam/.ssh/id_dsa type 2
debug1: Remote protocol version 2.0, remote software version 3.9p1
debug1: no match: 3.9p1
debug1: Enabling compatibility mode for protocol 2.0
debug1: Local version string SSH-2.0-OpenSSH_3.8.1p1  Debian-krb5 3.8.1p1-7
debug1: Miscellaneous failure
No credentials cache found

debug1: Miscellaneous failure
No credentials cache found

debug1: SSH2_MSG_KEXINIT sent
debug1: SSH2_MSG_KEXINIT received
debug1: kex: server->client aes128-cbc hmac-md5 zlib
debug1: kex: client->server aes128-cbc hmac-md5 zlib
debug1: SSH2_MSG_KEX_DH_GEX_REQUEST(1024<1024<8192) sent
debug1: expecting SSH2_MSG_KEX_DH_GEX_GROUP
debug1: SSH2_MSG_KEX_DH_GEX_INIT sent
debug1: expecting SSH2_MSG_KEX_DH_GEX_REPLY
debug1: Host 'gluck.debian.org' is known and matches the RSA host key.
debug1: Found key in /home/bam/.ssh/known_hosts:219
debug1: ssh_rsa_verify: signature correct
debug1: Enabling compression at level 6.
debug1: SSH2_MSG_NEWKEYS sent
debug1: expecting SSH2_MSG_NEWKEYS
debug1: SSH2_MSG_NEWKEYS received
debug1: SSH2_MSG_SERVICE_REQUEST sent
debug1: SSH2_MSG_SERVICE_ACCEPT received
debug1: Authentications that can continue: publickey,keyboard-interactive
debug1: Next authentication method: publickey
debug1: Trying private key: /home/bam/.ssh/identity
debug1: Trying private key: /home/bam/.ssh/id_rsa
debug1: Offering public key: /home/bam/.ssh/id_dsa
debug1: Remote: Pty allocation disabled.
debug1: Remote: X11 forwarding disabled.
debug1: Remote: Agent forwarding disabled.
debug1: Remote: Port forwarding disabled.
debug1: Server accepts key: pkalg ssh-dss blen 433
debug1: read PEM private key done: type DSA
debug1: Remote: Pty allocation disabled.
debug1: Remote: X11 forwarding disabled.
debug1: Remote: Agent forwarding disabled.
debug1: Remote: Port forwarding disabled.
debug1: Authentication succeeded (publickey).
debug1: channel 0: new [client-session]
debug1: Entering interactive session.


-- 
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


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

Re: how to deal with packages depending on mysql-server

[Anthony DeRobertis]

Bastian Venthur wrote:
> What is the preferred solution for this kind of problem?
>
>   


I've heard rumors that packages have a Description: field which could
probably contain a note along the lines of:

WordPress requires access to a local or remote MySQL server. If you
wish to run the server locally, additionally install the
mysql-server package.


of course, the rumors of the Description: field's existence could be false.


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

new host key?: Re: compromise of gluck.debian.org, lock down of other debian.org machines

[Osamu Aoki]

Hi,

Are you sure it is Debian gluck issue?

I can connect with SSH to it now with minor problem.

On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 11:28:36AM +1000, Brian May wrote:
...
> debug1: expecting SSH2_MSG_KEX_DH_GEX_REPLY
> debug1: Host 'gluck.debian.org' is known and matches the RSA host key.
> debug1: Found key in /home/bam/.ssh/known_hosts:219
> debug1: ssh_rsa_verify: signature correct

It looks like gluck's new SSH uses new host identification.

I got following message when I connected with ssh -v
...
@@@
@WARNING: REMOTE HOST IDENTIFICATION HAS CHANGED! @
@@@
IT IS POSSIBLE THAT SOMEONE IS DOING SOMETHING NASTY!

After removing old entries from ~/.ssh/known_hosts, I can update host
key and login.

Good luck.

Osamu

PS: It would have been nicer if old hosk identification was backuped and
used in new system.



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: new host key?: Re: compromise of gluck.debian.org, lock down of other debian.org machines

[Russ Allbery]

Osamu Aoki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> PS: It would have been nicer if old hosk identification was backuped and
> used in new system.

Well, not if the system had a root compromise.  The attacker must be
assumed to have the private host key, which means that reusing the same
key would allow them to attack future ssh connections to the system.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])   


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

Re: lilypond and python

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Le jeudi 27 juillet 2006 à 16:38 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit :
>> Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 
>> >   it seems that guile 1.6.8 is buggy. people reported to have build 
>> > lilypond with guile 1.6.7 and/or guile-1.8 correctly. And I suppose 
>> > *HERE* is the real problem, which you failed to spot, because you 
>> > didn't even TRIED to. I had that problem 1 hour after I started 
>> > (previous steps included, so after roughly 20 minutes of compilation). 
>> 
>> Actually, way ahead of you on that.
>
> So what? If you know how to fix that issue, then why don't you upload a
> package based on Pierre's work with the fix? Why don't you do it RIGHT
> NOW and get DONE with this madness?

I don't know a fix for that issue except to use Guile 1.8.

Re: lilypond and python

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>  This is the stupidiest thing you ever did, because everyone had to look
>  at your handling of your packages.  Everybody saw your gcc-4.1 RC with
>  a patch which you're blocking until the new upstream release.
>  Everybody saw the awful packaging mistakes you did.  You can close or
>  downgrade the bugs I reported, it's too late.

Actually, I didn't make those "packaging mistakes"; the previous
maintainer did.  But I'm not somehow trying to keep secrets or claim
some moral high ground.

You seem to think this is a battle, in which there is a winner and a
loser.  I don't.

>  I heard from multiple sources that the problem with the new upstream
>  release was not at all caused by the default python version -- as you
>  claimed -- but either by a higher guile requirement.

No, it requires *both* the newer Python *and* the newer Guile.  You
are not paying attention.  You are instead trying to get by with
minimal understanding, proclaiming how deficient I am, reporting so
far *three* bugs, one of which is not a bug, and the other two of
which are *clearly* wishlist items; indeed, in one of the reports
*you yourself* indicate that it's a wishlist item.  Grow up.

Re: package ownership in Debian

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Yes, and we could start by really enforcing co-maintainership.  Make it 100%
> mandatory for all essential, required and base packages at first.

There are many ways of working together with people, and
co-maintainership works well for some people and not for others.

Moreover, a mandator co-maintainership has some serious problems
besides it being only one pattern of cooperation.

For example, would someone be required to accept a co-maintainer even
if there were no volunteers they thought they could work with
productively?

Thomas


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

Translated packages descriptions progress

[Michael Vogt]

Dear Friends,

the current version of apt in debian/experimental has support for
translated package descriptions and we have a the current translations
available for sid on the mirrors (currently not on ftp.debian.org 
itself because of the mirror split I suspect).

This means that everyone with non-english locales will get translated
packages descriptions on the next "apt-get update" run if they install
the apt from experimental. Synaptic and aptitude have support for this
feature as well, python-apt and others will follow soon.

Please help testing the new code and report problems and/or
success. It should be enough to install apt, python-apt, synaptic from
experimental and if your LANG is set to something other than C it
should download the appropriate translation indexes and displays them
with apt-cache or synaptic (warning: not everything is translated
yet).

I think this is a important step forward for a fully localized system
and I'm pretty excited about it.

The ddtp system was developed by Michael Bramer, the code in apt is
based on the work of Otavio Salvador <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> who
implemented a patch against apt for 0.5.5.1. The translated package
descriptions where imported by Anthony Towns for sid. Thanks to all
of you :) And to the busy translators who work on making that happen!

More information:
* the first announcement I was able to find:
  http://lwn.net/2002/0103/a/deb-ddtp.php3
* original announcement about apt-i18n: http://lwn.net/Articles/34753/

The ddtp project is hosted at http://ddtp.debian.net/. You can view
the status of the various package descriptions via the webpage. If you
want to help translating, please to the following:

 1. send a Mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the subject 'GET 3 cs'
(use cs da de eo es fi fr hu it ja nl pl pt_BR pt_PT ru sk sv_SE
 uk as langcode)
 2. you get a mail from the ddtp server with three untranslated
descriptions.
 3. Translate the descriptions
 4. send this as mail attachments back to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Cheers,
 Michael

-- 
Linux is not The Answer. Yes is the answer. Linux is The Question. - Neo


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