also sprach Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.01.17.0039 +0100]:
> Ubuntu is a Debian derivative. The work that Debian developers do is merged
> into Ubuntu as well. Most of the source packages in Ubuntu are identical to
> the ones in Debian. The statement that you quoted is an expression
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 10:53:04PM -0600, Adam M. wrote:
> Ken Bloom wrote:
> > I noticed that glabels is broken on i386 because it's not binary NMU
> > safe, and someone did a binary NMU.
> > After poking around a bit, I found
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-dpkg/2005/11/msg0.html, which
>
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 09:45:29PM -0500, Eric Cooper wrote:
> I saw today that the python-minimal package in unstable is tagged as
> Essential (and currently pulls in python2.3). According to policy,
> this is supposed to happen only after discussion on debian-devel and
> consensus is reached, bu
[Adam M.]
> Instead of doing blind substitutions like it is done currently, it is
> possible to separate Arch:all from Arch:any|other|whatever in the
> substitution script such that,
>
> Source-Version => bin NMU version for binaries that are build
> Source-Version => 'original' version for Arch:
Ken Bloom wrote:
> Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
>>[Ken Bloom]
>>
>>
>>>$substvar{'Source-Version'}= $fi{"L Version"};
>>>+#Indep-Version is for supporting binary NMUs when a strict
>>>+#version dependancy is required against an arch independant package
>>>+$substvar{'Indep-Version'}= $
Ken Bloom wrote:
> I noticed that glabels is broken on i386 because it's not binary NMU
> safe, and someone did a binary NMU.
>
> After poking around a bit, I found
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-dpkg/2005/11/msg0.html, which
> discussed a possible solution to this problem. Since then, we ha
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 06:58:47PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 05:09:44PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> > > Hmm, it seems to me that Ubuntu has recently changed its practices
> > > regarding what degree of divergence from Debian is appropriate, notably
>
I saw today that the python-minimal package in unstable is tagged as
Essential (and currently pulls in python2.3). According to policy,
this is supposed to happen only after discussion on debian-devel and
consensus is reached, but I couldn't find that discussion in the list
archives.
--
Eric Coo
I have replied to the implied ad-hominem in Matt's mail privately, but I
would like the state here that I didn't appreciate it.
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> I think that you're looking for justification for your position after the
> fact, rather than making judgements based on observations.
I've written at length in my blog before about the mess that Ubuntu
made of packages that I maintain in Debian. This mess seemed to become
* Per Olofsson [Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:11:05 +0100]:
Hi,
> Mike Hommey:
> > The patch was 8 minutes prior to the NMU.
> I'm sorry about that, I had misinterpreted the 0-day NMU policy.
My reading of the NMU policy as set by the release team is that it's
okay to upload right after sending the p
A Mennucc wrote:
> hi everybody
>
> a new version of mplayer 1.0pre7try2 is available ; add either
>
> for the etch version, the line
> "deb http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mplayer/etch ./"
Hi!
Now we have mplayer in this repositories:
http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mplayer/etch
ftp://ftp.nerim.net/
Joey Hess wrote:
Bill Allombert wrote:
Although sarge's aptitude did..
I don't know, there were no ways to upgrade to sarge's aptitude.
The bug log contains a log of astronut doing the upgrade with sarge's
aptitude..
I think the bigger problem is not whether it's possible
Matt Zimmerman writes:
> Is the meaning of this statement truly unclear to you...
"Every Debian developer is also an Ubuntu developer" implies to me that I
can make uploads to Ubuntu. I can't (not that I'm asking for that
privilege). I don't doubt that it was meant as an expression of gratitude
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The ratio of Debian developers to upstream developers is *much* closer to
> 1:1 than the ratio of Ubuntu developers to Debian developers, but even so,
> my guess (based on at least some empirical observation of packages I'm
> familiar with) is that many
On Mon, 2006-01-16 at 19:21 -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> > but I agree with it. I would also say that Debian's upstreams are, in the
> > same sense, Debian developers.
>
> I think that we probably have hundreds of upstreams who would react with
> everything from disbelief to anger if Debian claimed
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 06:58:47PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 05:09:44PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> > > Hmm, it seems to me that Ubuntu has recently changed its practices
> > > regarding what degree of divergence from Debian is appropriate, notably
>
David Nusinow wrote:
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 10:25:58AM -0500, kamaraju kusumanchi wrote:
Hi all
Please let me know if there is other appropriate mailing list to
report this problem. I am looking at the package gerris. This package
has a FTBFS bug reported (along with a patch) against it
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 02:59:58AM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> > It's not about succeeding. It's about false statements all the time,
> > like "Every Debian developer is also an Ubuntu developer." If I were I
> > would know. And they are recompiling all my packages, so
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 06:44:42PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> It's amazing how the Debian project manages to communicate fixes to
> an even more diverse set of upstream authors, isn't it.
I would be interested to know how you've measured this, because it sounds
hard. It's only because Ubuntu publ
Hi
Could we stop the flaming period? Like - forever? And come back to
normal development, making the best distribution on this small planet.
Please remember that we have a Code of Conduct for our lists, which
includes nice things like
# Do not use foul language;
# Try not to flame; it is not poli
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 05:09:44PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Hmm, it seems to me that Ubuntu has recently changed its practices
> > regarding what degree of divergence from Debian is appropriate, notably
> > in the introduction of the MOTU group.
>
> The MOTU team was for
On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 02:59:58AM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> It's not about succeeding. It's about false statements all the time,
> like "Every Debian developer is also an Ubuntu developer." If I were I
> would know. And they are recompiling all my packages, so you can't even
> say that they
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> Only Debian developers can push changes into Debian, and indeed only
> particular Debian developers can push particular changes into Debian.
> Routing patches through this mesh involves a lot of overhead, especially in
> the form of latency. It's commonplace in Debian to wa
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Not really... it happens quite often that I plan on working on a new
> upstream version (or whatever) but for various reasons, I do not prioritze
> it much because I know I will do it in time for etch... however I may be
> interested to have that better version in Ubuntu as
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 06:27:40PM +0100, A Mennucc wrote:
> hi everybody
> a new version of mplayer 1.0pre7try2 is available ; add either
> for the etch version, the line
> "deb http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mplayer/etch ./"
> or
> for the sarge version, the line
> "deb http://tonelli.sns.i
Matthew Palmer wrote:
> It's a hell of a lot better than having useless crap with your
> name on it in a stable release of something as high profile as Ubuntu,
> though.
FYI, I refuse to allow the fact that my code happens to be present in
a currently perceived as high profile distribution to hol
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Not really... it happens quite often that I plan on working on a new
> upstream version (or whatever) but for various reasons, I do not prioritze
> it much because I know I will do it in time for etch...
I think that nearly anyone on the release team will tell you that thi
* A Mennucc ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> hi everybody
>
> a new version of mplayer 1.0pre7try2 is available ; add either
>
> for the etch version, the line
> "deb http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mplayer/etch ./"
>
> or
>
> for the sarge version, the line
> "deb http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mpla
On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 01:08:41AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 12:34:51PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > can easily spot the holes in it. Likewise, a proposal that Ubuntu
> > developers should put their changes into Debian instead sounds simple, but
> > to an Ubuntu de
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Lorenzo Martignoni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: python-pynids
Version : 0.5
Upstream Author : Michael J. Pomraning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://pilcrow.madison.wi.us/pynids/
* License : GPL
Description
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 08:51:12AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Hello Joey,
>
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2006, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Leaving ubuntu out of this, what puzzles me about your message, Raphael,
> > is this:
> >
> > Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > > If you have some uploads pending, and would like
Hi,
Mike Hommey:
> The patch was 8 minutes prior to the NMU.
I'm sorry about that, I had misinterpreted the 0-day NMU policy.
By the way, does anybody have a recommendation on how long the delay
between an NMU patch and upload should be?
(Please CC me on replies.)
--
Pelle
--
To UNSUBSCRIB
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 03:42:54PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 10:25:58AM -0500, kamaraju kusumanchi wrote:
> > Hi all
> > Please let me know if there is other appropriate mailing list to
> > report this problem. I am looking at the package gerris. This package
> > has
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 10:25:58AM -0500, kamaraju kusumanchi wrote:
> Hi all
> Please let me know if there is other appropriate mailing list to
> report this problem. I am looking at the package gerris. This package
> has a FTBFS bug reported (along with a patch) against it 300 days ago.
> Th
Theodore Ts'o <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 12:44:01AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> I think this is not quite true. In any case, my recollection was that
>> the bad cooperation was a two-way street, with you being extremely
>> reluctant to acknowledge the concerns
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: collatinus
Version : 7.13
Upstream Author : Yves Ouvrard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.collatinus.org
* License : GPL
Description : lemmatisation of lati
hi everybody
a new version of mplayer 1.0pre7try2 is available ; add either
for the etch version, the line
"deb http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mplayer/etch ./"
or
for the sarge version, the line
"deb http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mplayer/sarge ./"
to /etc/apt/source.list .
a.
signature.asc
De
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>Russ Allbery wrote:
>>>The thing is... most of the orphaned packages are in fairly good shape.
>>How do you know?
> Well, because at one point I went through the PTS for each one of them,
> checked for filed bugs, checked lintian r
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Stephen Quinney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: libyaml-syck-perl
Version : 0.28
Upstream Author : Audrey Tang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL :
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/A/AU/AUTRIJUS/YAML-Syck-0.28.tar.gz
* License
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 11:35:17PM +1000, Anthony Towns
wrote:
> If you've got more information than is in the bug report, that's fine; add
> it to the bug report, and do whatever else is appropriate to fix the problem.
>
> Closing reports without fixing real bugs isn't "fine", but there's no
>
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 01:36:18PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > Fixing RC bugs just for the sake of making the RC bug count down is not
> > > the best thing to do IMHO.
> > Putting a temporary fix in place while a permanent one continues to be
> > worked out is /exactly/ the right thing to do.
Hi all
Please let me know if there is other appropriate mailing list to
report this problem. I am looking at the package gerris. This package
has a FTBFS bug reported (along with a patch) against it 300 days ago.
The bug report can be found at
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 12:06:29PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > I can give a couple of examples; one is way back when, before I took
> > over the maintenance of the e2fsprogs package, and was merely the
> > upstream author. The then maintainer of e2fsprogs attempted
Peter Samuelson wrote:
> [Ken Bloom]
>
>> $substvar{'Source-Version'}= $fi{"L Version"};
>>+#Indep-Version is for supporting binary NMUs when a strict
>>+#version dependancy is required against an arch independant package
>>+$substvar{'Indep-Version'}= $fi{"L Version"};
>>+#str
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 12:44:01AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> I think this is not quite true. In any case, my recollection was that
> the bad cooperation was a two-way street, with you being extremely
> reluctant to acknowledge the concerns and needs of distributions, and
> on the other s
On Monday 16 January 2006 10:41, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 11:31:10PM -0800, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Well, no, but the fact that it's a longstanding release-critical bug,
> > with no maintainer response, means that it does warrant NMUer attention.
> Yes, it's my
On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 01:07:58PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 06:00:41PM +0100, Jesus Climent wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 07:31:17PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> > > and this answers IMHO what the maintainer wants a patch for: a system
> > > that would work with all d
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 08:34:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns
wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 09:41:12AM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > Well, no, but the fact that it's a longstanding release-critical bug, with
> > > no maintainer response, means that it does warrant NMUer attention. If
> > > some
Package: wnpp
Followup-For: Bug #338694
Owner: Marco Bertorello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: denyhosts
Version : 1.1.4
Upstream Author : Phil Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://denyhosts.sourceforge.net
* License : GPL
Description : simple
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 09:41:12AM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > Well, no, but the fact that it's a longstanding release-critical bug, with
> > no maintainer response, means that it does warrant NMUer attention. If some
> > non-free files have been missed in the process, that would be bad, but tha
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> I can give a couple of examples; one is way back when, before I took
> over the maintenance of the e2fsprogs package, and was merely the
> upstream author. The then maintainer of e2fsprogs attempted to add
> support for filesystems > 2GB, but botched the job, and the result
[Ken Bloom]
> $substvar{'Source-Version'}= $fi{"L Version"};
> +#Indep-Version is for supporting binary NMUs when a strict
> +#version dependancy is required against an arch independant package
> +$substvar{'Indep-Version'}= $fi{"L Version"};
> +#strip out the +bN format binar
(M-F-T set.)
[Frans Jessop]
> When somebody wants to become a DD he is told ?Go find a package to
> maintain, one that you can be the maintainer for.? I see serious
> problems with this approach as Debian increases in DD's. I will how
> this is in a second. What I think should be emphasized is
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: mozilla-bookmarksync
Version : 1.0.2
Upstream Author : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL or Web page :
* License : MPL 1.1/GPL 2.0/LGPL 2.1
Description : Mozilla Firefox extension to synchronize bookmarks
Bookmarks Synchronizer
On Mon, 2006-01-16 at 09:41 +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> Yes, it's my fault i didn't tag the bug or sent any feedback, but I'm
> actually trying to find a better solution than removing the files, with
> upstream cooperation, considering that upstream adds new testcases quite
> often, and that any ad
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Riccardo Setti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: dhcdbd
Version : 0.1.10
Upstream Author : Jason Vas Dias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://people.redhat.com/jvdias/dhcdbd/
* License : GPL
Description : dbus inte
Theodore Ts'o <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 03:12:33PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Actually, upstream maintainers have no voice before the technical
>> committee, which exists to resolve disputes between Debian developers,
>> not between Debian developers and outsi
On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 11:31:10PM -0800, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 07:47:52AM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > There have been 2 NMUs on libxml2 in a week and I never got a message
> > beforehand. Now I wonder if that practice has disappeared s
On 1/16/06, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > While I don't disagree with this sentiment, keep in mind that Debian
> > itself is sometimes guilty of adding changes to packages when the
> > upstream may or may not approve. Of course, we'll justify by saying
> > that "users want it"
Hello Joey,
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006, Joey Hess wrote:
> Leaving ubuntu out of this, what puzzles me about your message, Raphael,
> is this:
>
> Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > If you have some uploads pending, and would like to see those packages
> > included [...]
>
> > If for whatever reason you don't
63 matches
Mail list logo
