On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:58:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> > I'm quickly losing interest in discussing this with you at all, to be
> >> >
Hi,
Am Dienstag, den 17.01.2006, 18:56 -0500 schrieb Christopher Peterman:
> Package: wnpp
> Severity: wishlist
>
> * Package name: gtkedit
> Version : 0.1/b1
> Upstream Author : Daniel Guerrero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * URL or Web page : http://gtkedit1.sourceforge.net
> * License
unsubscribe
Send instant messages to your online friends http://in.messenger.yahoo.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:54:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Besides which, do you honestly know which packages other Debian derivatives
> > rebuild? As a rule, they are far less communicative about their practices
> > than Ubuntu.
>
> H
I do apologise. These should plainly have been on -legal.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tuesday 17 January 2006 16:54, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > You have not ever shown a serious interest in what Debian would like.
>
> This is, again, insulting, and nonsensical in the face of the repeated
> dialogues I have initiated and participated in with Debian developers
> regarding Ubuntu pra
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 03:21:14AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> I'm not going to defend patch clauses. I think they're massively
>> horrible things, and the world would be a better place without them. But
>> deciding that they're not free any more woul
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Jamie Wilkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: puppet
Version : 0.11.1
Upstream Author : Luke Kanies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://reductivelabs.com/projects/puppet/
* License : GPL
Description : centralise
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 07:32:20PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> Have they modified these packages?
> >
> > Some of them, yes. Mostly the backports.
>
> What happens to the maintainer field in these cases?
I haven't seen any that have been
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Have they modified these packages?
>
> Some of them, yes. Mostly the backports.
What happens to the maintainer field in these cases?
Certainly, if they are modifying the packages, I would think the same
there here applies as in the case of Ubuntu: t
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 07:23:41PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The DCCA distribution is a mixture of packages from Sarge plus some
> > backports. In all cases, the Maintainer: field appears to be the same as
> > in Debian. Several derived dist
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Interestingly, the DCC Alliance says that it wants to become part of
>> Debian.
>>
>> Do you have information on their plans with respect to the issues
>> discussed in this thread?
>
> The DCCA distribution is a mixture of packages from Sarge plus
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Patch clauses only prohibit code reuse if your build system is
>> insufficiently complicated.
>
> And you are willing to contain an entire copy of the codebase from
> which you are extracting. [Unless the pat
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Other than, say, the DCC Alliance?
>
> I wasn't aware of them until just now. :)
Wow!
> Interestingly, the DCC Alliance says that it wants to become part of
> Debian.
>
> Do you have information on
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> No other Debian derivative, as far as I'm aware, says that it
>> cooperates fully with Debian.
>
> Other than, say, the DCC Alliance?
I wasn't aware of them until just now. :)
Interestingly, the D
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> mdz writes:
>> Have you ever received such a notification?
>
> Yes.
I haven't. I'm going to cry now :-(((
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAI
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No other Debian derivative, as far as I'm aware, says that it
> cooperates fully with Debian.
Other than, say, the DCC Alliance?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscri
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:38:29PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:09:50PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Notice that what you say, in response to what has been asked over and
> > over, is "my opinion is that changing the Maintainer field on
> > otherwise-unmodified
David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:58:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > If that were true, you wouldn't be having this conversation with me. It is
>> > costing me an unreasonable amount of time to deal
Mike Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 17:29, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > I don't agree. This isn't even the case within Debian. Binary-only NMUs
>> > don't modify the source package, even though the binaries are recompiled
Adam Borowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Extra bloat doesn't noticeably hurt Ubuntu because Ubuntu doesn't try
> to support memory sticks, old hardware, embedded things or farms of
> tiny virtual machines; Debian does. No one cares about wasting some
> memory and disk space on a modern desktop.
Steve Langasek wrote:
> 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
On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 17:29, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I don't agree. This isn't even the case within Debian. Binary-only NMUs
> > don't modify the source package, even though the binaries are recompiled.
>
> Actually, binary-only NMUs, after the
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:58:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > If that were true, you wouldn't be having this conversation with me. It is
> > costing me an unreasonable amount of time to deal with this trivial issue,
> > and I've spent a di
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't think you can speak to what tools we do or do not have. The fact
> is, we import most Debian source packages unmodified, and do not have any
> such tool for modifying them.
It's really a very short perl script, or a simple modification in C to
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 09:25:40AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > Personally, I'd suggest:
> > * for unmodified debs (including ones that have been rebuilt, possibly
> >with different versions of libraries), keep the Maintainer: field the
> >same
> Joey Hess and others in this thread hav
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:58:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > If that were true, you wouldn't be having this conversation with me. It is
> > costing me an unreasonable amount of time to deal with this trivial issue,
> > and I've spent a di
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:09:50PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Notice that what you say, in response to what has been asked over and
> over, is "my opinion is that changing the Maintainer field on
> otherwise-unmodified source packages is too costly for derivatives in
> general."
>
> But y
I wrote:
> I am pleased when downstream distributions notify me that they are using
> my packages.
mdz writes:
> Have you ever received such a notification?
Yes.
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If that were true, you wouldn't be having this conversation with me. It is
> costing me an unreasonable amount of time to deal with this trivial issue,
> and I've spent a disproportionate amount of it going in circles with you.
> I'm quickly losing int
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:05:35PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > That simply isn't true, and taken at face value, it's insulting, because you
> > attribute malicious intent.
>
> Um, I have said nothing about your intent.
>
> I think you are d
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Besides which, do you honestly know which packages other Debian derivatives
> rebuild? As a rule, they are far less communicative about their practices
> than Ubuntu.
How does the behavior of other Debian derivatives matter?
As a rule, those other
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 06:19:32PM -0600, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 11:44:48AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > It is important, in particular, to account for the fact that Ubuntu is not
> > the only Debian derivative, and that proposals like yours would amount to
> > Debian d
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 11:44:48AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> It is important, in particular, to account for the fact that Ubuntu is not
> the only Debian derivative, and that proposals like yours would amount to
> Debian derivatives being obliged to fork *every source package in Debian*
> for
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: gtkedit
Version : 0.1/b1
Upstream Author : Daniel Guerrero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL or Web page : http://gtkedit1.sourceforge.net
* License : MIT
Description : Notepad clone based on GTK+
GTKEdit is a lightw
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 12:34:33AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Matt Zimmerman:
>
> > It is important, in particular, to account for the fact that Ubuntu is not
> > the only Debian derivative, and that proposals like yours would amount to
> > Debian derivatives being obliged to fork *every sou
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You quite obviously haven't read
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html yet, where I
> wrote (among other important things), "it would be fairly straightforward
> for Ubuntu to override the Maintainer field in binary packages". I
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 12:37:15PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > In my opinion, it's much more practical and reasonable for there to be an
>> > agreement on consistent treatment of all packages,
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 06:39:37PM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> 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
> pr
Le samedi 14 janvier 2006 à 21:26 +0100, Sune Vuorela a écrit :
> * Package name: kde-icons-gorilla
> Version : 1.4
> Upstream Author : Patrick Yavitz
> * URL : http://kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=6927
> * License : GPL
> Description : Yellowish g
* Matt Zimmerman:
> It is important, in particular, to account for the fact that Ubuntu is not
> the only Debian derivative, and that proposals like yours would amount to
> Debian derivatives being obliged to fork *every source package in Debian*
> for the sake of changing a few lines of text.
Su
Le mardi 17 janvier 2006 à 12:46 -0600, Adam Heath a écrit :
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> > > What I find very dissapointing is that mdz asked on debian-devel twice
> > > for a decision from debian how ubuntu should handle the maintainer Field
> > > without any luck:
> > > http:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 03:50:09PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>
> > > Debian developers set the Maintainer field to themselves(or a team), when
> > > they
> > > upload to Debian. The upstream author is only mentioned in the copyright
> > > file.
> > >
>
Joe Wreschnig writes:
> On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 09:32 -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 02:31:47PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > > You're underestimating the grave consequences of losing 25MB off every
> > > memory stick and virtual machine.
> >
> > python-minimal is about
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 03:07:25PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> You're already rebuilding the package, which I expect entails possible
> Depends: line changes and other things which would pretty clearly
> 'normally' entail different Debian package revision numbers; changing
> the Maintainer field
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 12:37:15PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > In my opinion, it's much more practical and reasonable for there to be an
> > agreement on consistent treatment of all packages, than for each Debian
> > derivative to try to ple
Le dimanche 15 janvier 2006 à 19:55 +0200, Martin-Éric Racine a écrit :
> I personally appreciate the excellent work done by Ubuntu. Just looking
> at major GNOME improvements that directly resulted from Ubuntu efforts
> (by Debian Developers such as Sébastien Bacher) clearly shows how Ubuntu
> hel
* Thomas Viehmann:
> I think that not shipping unmaintained and unsupported packages is a
> benefit. Packages need a maintainer to enter, I think they should need
> one to stay.
A real problem is that willingness to maintain a package in unstable
is not as good a predictor as you might think for
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 12:37:47PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > It is important, in particular, to account for the fact that Ubuntu is not
> > the only Debian derivative, and that proposals like yours would amount to
> > Debian derivatives be
* Steve Dunham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd like to offer these three packages for adoption: x-symbol, xmix,
> and oneko.
> x-symbol is probably the most used of these and needs someone who knows
> emacsen and a little TeX.
I would also love to see a recent version of x-symbol in
Debian. Ho
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> In my point of view, maintainer field just need to be change when
> Ubuntu does a non-trivial change on it. Otherwise, at least to me, is
> OK to leave the maintainer field unchanged. Directly imported source
> (that will be just recompiled by Ubuntu)
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > Debian developers set the Maintainer field to themselves(or a team), when
> > they
> > upload to Debian. The upstream author is only mentioned in the copyright
> > file.
> >
> > Ubuntu should do something similiar. Set the Maintainer field to someo
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > Debian developers set the Maintainer field to themselves(or a team), when
> > they
> > upload to Debian. The upstream author is only mentioned in the copyright
> > file.
> >
> > Ubuntu should do something similiar. Set the Maintainer field to someo
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 11:07:40AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> CC:ing -project because this is a project wide call for discussion.
>
> Am Montag, den 16.01.2006, 18:36 -0500 schrieb Joey Hess:
> > Please consider ALL code written/maintained by me that is present in
> > Ubuntu and is not bit-i
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would very much appreciate if folks would review
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html and consider the
> points that I raise there. I put some effort into collating the issues
> which came up the last time and presenting them.
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 10:34:57AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 06:52:10PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > It'd probably be great if Ubuntu would set up (or, if it already exists,
> > advertise) some way to have a canonical way (no pun intended) to contact
> > the Ubuntu
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It is important, in particular, to account for the fact that Ubuntu is not
> the only Debian derivative, and that proposals like yours would amount to
> Debian derivatives being obliged to fork *every source package in Debian*
> for the sake of changing
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In my opinion, it's much more practical and reasonable for there to be an
> agreement on consistent treatment of all packages, than for each Debian
> derivative to try to please individual maintainers with differing tastes on
> this subject.
Your strat
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 07:01:42PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 09:25:40AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> [snip]
> > There will always be differing personal preferences, but in spite of these,
> > there are times when an organization needs to take an official position on
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 06:46:26PM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> * Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-16 15:39]:
> > Is the meaning of this statement truly unclear to you, or is this purely a
> > rhetorical point? Under the assumption that you read it differently than I
> > do, I'll atte
Andrew Suffield wrote on 15/01/2006 05:20:
[I know the below quote has been directly linked to the 2005/08 incident
of which I know no details - not being a DD yet myself - but I assume
you would hold the same opinion with respect to your recent d-d-a post]
> I fail to see how expressing a simple
* Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I would very much appreciate if folks would review
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html and consider the
> points that I raise there. I put some effort into collating the issues
> which came up the last time and presenting them.
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 12:46:52PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> > > What I find very dissapointing is that mdz asked on debian-devel twice
> > > for a decision from debian how ubuntu should handle the maintainer Field
> > > without any luck:
> > > http:/
Joey Hess wrote:
> FYI, I refuse to allow the fact that my code happens to be present in
> a currently perceived as high profile distribution to hold my time
> hostage. I've never done it before with other high profile distributions
> (Corel's mangling of alien comes to mind), and I won't start no
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 06:52:10PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 04:04:09PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > The ratio of Debian developers to upstream developers is *much* closer to
> > 1:1 than the ratio of Ubuntu developers to Debian developers,
>
> Obviously; but stil
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > What I find very dissapointing is that mdz asked on debian-devel twice
> > for a decision from debian how ubuntu should handle the maintainer Field
> > without any luck:
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/01/msg00678.html
> > http://lists.de
Hi,
Am Dienstag, den 17.01.2006, 18:20 +0200 schrieb Niklas Vainio:
> Please take a few minutes to answer the survey at
> http://hiisi.fi/survey/debian
Some suggestions:
Surveys from a university should have a place on the university's
webserver -- they look official.
Question 11 (income):
Is t
* Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > * for unmodified debs (including ones that have been rebuilt, possibly
> >with different versions of libraries), keep the Maintainer: field the
> >same
>
> Joey Hess and others in this thread have said that this is not acceptable to
> them.
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Joey Hess wrote:
> Please consider ALL code written/maintained by me that is present in
> Ubuntu and is not bit-identical to code/binaries in Debian to be not
> suitable for release with my name on it.
Then how would d-i+debconf have gotten some of the enhancments that you
yo
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 09:25:40AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
[snip]
> There will always be differing personal preferences, but in spite of these,
> there are times when an organization needs to take an official position on
> behalf of its members, even if they don't all agree, so that other
> or
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 11:07:40AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> What I find very dissapointing is that mdz asked on debian-devel twice
> for a decision from debian how ubuntu should handle the maintainer Field
> without any luck:
[...]
> This is a call for discussion: What does debian actually
Pádraig Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> However when trying it on my ubuntu breezy desktop,
> I noticed some missing dependencies.
> For e.g. imagemagick isn't reported to depend on libc6 ?
> $ whatrequires libc6 | grep imagemagick
> $ ldd /usr/bin/convert | grep libc
>libc.so.6 =
* Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-16 15:39]:
> 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
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 04:04:09PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> The ratio of Debian developers to upstream developers is *much* closer to
> 1:1 than the ratio of Ubuntu developers to Debian developers,
Obviously; but still, I'd appreciate it if people responsible downstream
for my packages would
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 09:58:28AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > What I find very dissapointing is that mdz asked on debian-devel twice
> > for a decision from debian how ubuntu should handle the maintainer Field
> > without any luck:
>
On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 09:32 -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 02:31:47PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > You're underestimating the grave consequences of losing 25MB off every
> > memory stick and virtual machine.
>
> python-minimal is about two megabytes installed, with no n
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 09:45:13PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 11:07:40AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > There have been no responses which would indicate what we should do.
>
> Actually, there've been lots, some of them are just contradictory.
There was a lot of dis
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 02:31:47PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> You're underestimating the grave consequences of losing 25MB off every
> memory stick and virtual machine.
python-minimal is about two megabytes installed, with no non-Essential
dependencies.
(strictly an observation of fact; I'm n
I wrote a script on the train this morning to determine
the "complete" reverse dependencies for a
specified set of packages, for both RPM and DEB.
http://www.pixelbeat.org/scripts/whatrequires
It works as expected on my fedora core 3 laptop.
However when trying it on my ubuntu breezy desktop,
I no
Dear Debian contributors,
The Hypermedia lab at the University of Tampere, Finland is doing a
survey on free/open source software (FOSS) communities. We ask Debian
contributors, including developers, bug fixers, documentation writers,
testers, packagers and coordinators to participate in the s
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes ("Re: Need for launchpad"):
> Actually, upstream maintainers have no voice before the technical
> committee, which exists to resolve disputes between Debian developers,
> not between Debian developers and outsiders.
This is not true. Constitution s6 defines the powers o
Anthony Towns writes:
> 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
Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Canonical's business model"):
> What would I *like* to see? Well, that they treat me like I
> treat my upstreams; I triage bug reports, I keep feature specific
> patches separate, I submit these feature requests to upstream BTS,
> or upstream author, depend
Hello, beauty,
Bolden
See you
Bolden
Bolden
Bolden
Bolden
Bolden
Bolden
Bolden
Bolden
Bolden
Bolden
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Michael Banck wrote:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 01:28:07PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Anthony Towns wrote:
I've changed the override to Priority: standard; I can't say I'm remotely
impressed by how this has been handled.
Could this be stopped, please?
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 01:28:07PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> A quick comparison of fresh unconfigured i386 chroots:
> 94420 woody
> 146140 sarge
That's a bit more than I would've expected; though the sarge chroots
are notably be more functional than woody ones.
> 160264 etch
I get 131140
Am 2005-12-28 22:33:10, schrieb Benjamin Seidenberg:
> Seriously? Where? I live in the states, and we pay approx. $50/month
> (600 USD/year) for residential DSL (I think, parents pay the bill).
> That's a 1.5m down/512k up pipe, with horrible reliability (alltel
> sucks). Where can I get the fi
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 01:28:07PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Anthony Towns wrote:
> >I've changed the override to Priority: standard; I can't say I'm remotely
> >impressed by how this has been handled.
>
> Could this be stopped, please?
I am not sure why you are replyin
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 09:45:13PM +1000, Anthony Towns
wrote:
> * for changes that are likely to be useful in Debian or generally, submit
>the change upstream, by filing a bug with a minimal patch included to
>bugs.debian.org, or by the appropriate mechanism further upstream.
s/or/and/
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Anthony Towns wrote:
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 debi
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Francesco Paolo Lovergine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: autodir
Version : 0.99.0
Upstream Author : Venkata Ramana Enaganti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.intraperson.com/autodir/
* License : Creative Commons
Am Dienstag 17 Januar 2006 11:07 schrieb Reinhard Tartler:
> Am Montag, den 16.01.2006, 18:36 -0500 schrieb Joey Hess:
> > Please consider ALL code written/maintained by me that is present in
> > Ubuntu and is not bit-identical to code/binaries in Debian to be not
> > suitable for release with my n
* Reinhard Tartler [Tue, 17 Jan 2006 11:07:40 +0100]:
> What I find very dissapointing is that mdz asked on debian-devel twice
> for a decision from debian how ubuntu should handle the maintainer Field
> without any luck:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html
Yah, zero lu
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Robert Collins wrote:
> And yet most upstreams can get pretty much arbitrary code into Debian,
> just by committing it?. How many DD's read the -entire- diff on major
> version upgrades from upstream. And not just read, audit.
Not all, but it might be quite a few more than wha
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 11:07:40AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> CC:ing -project because this is a project wide call for discussion.
(-project is for discussion about the project, not for "project wide"
stuff; dunno if this fits that)
> What I find very dissapointing is that mdz asked on debia
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Steve Langasek wrote:
> horrible, horrible kludge! No, the correct solution is to introduce two new
> variables and deprecate the old one, instead of further re-defining
> "Source-Version" in ways that have even less to do with the source version.
Agreed.
> And why is this o
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> What I find very dissapointing is that mdz asked on debian-devel twice
> for a decision from debian how ubuntu should handle the maintainer Field
> without any luck:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/01/msg00678.html
> http://lists.debian.org
CC:ing -project because this is a project wide call for discussion.
Am Montag, den 16.01.2006, 18:36 -0500 schrieb Joey Hess:
> Please consider ALL code written/maintained by me that is present in
> Ubuntu and is not bit-identical to code/binaries in Debian to be not
> suitable for release with my
Dear webmaster,
I would like to introduce myself, T Damarla and my company, Louis
Technologies (www.louistechnologies.net ). My company is a Software
Development based in New Jersey. We recently launched a Web site named
www.eazyrentals.com, which, as you'll see, provides rental information
o
[..]
> Future A:
>
> There are now 10,000 DD's and over 100,000 packages, most nobody uses, they
> are just there because they were needed by people who wanted to become DD's.
> Now that they are, those unused packages are ignored. A major upload
> occures and now there are 30,000 bugs on th
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
