On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 08:38:17PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> see shy jo, who argued for 4.0 at the appropriate time to discuss the
> version number to use
:-) right
--
Francesco P. Lovergine
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? C
On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 01:17:45AM +0200, Andrea Mennucc wrote:
> Considering that woody was released 19 Jul 2002, it took us
> ~3 years to release; in the meantime, all most important
> components changed completely; and we did a lot of work
> in Sarge, that I do not want to see numerically
> repr
On 5/2/05, Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Another option would be to leave the source package maintainer the same (to
> retain proper credit, etc.), but override the binary package maintainer
> during the build (to reflect that it is a different build, and also display
> a more appropr
Hello Bartosz,
* Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-05-05 11:40]:
> On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 01:17:45AM +0200, Andrea Mennucc wrote:
> > Considering that woody was released 19 Jul 2002, it took us
> > ~3 years to release; in the meantime, all most important
> > components changed co
> "Bartosz" == Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would prefer to be maintainer of the well known distribution which
> *doesn't* bump versions only for the fun of it.
Exactly. This time I think it would have been justified. Consider
* A new installer
* Linux Kernel 2.6
On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 11:53:45AM +0200, Nico Golde wrote:
> > I would prefer to be maintainer of the well known distribution which
> > *doesn't* bump versions only for the fun of it.
> >
> > I know that for most people numbers have some magic meaning, but please can
> > we try to provide stable
On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 03:12:12PM +0530, Ganesan Rajagopal wrote:
> > "Bartosz" == Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I would prefer to be maintainer of the well known distribution which
> > *doesn't* bump versions only for the fun of it.
>
> Exactly. This time I thin
> "Wouter" == Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> * Several new architectures
> Such as?
Sorry, my mistake. I forgot that woody was released on 11 architectures.
Ganesan
--
Ganesan Rajagopal (rganesan at debian.org) | GPG Key: 1024D/5D8C12EA
Web: http://employees.org/~rganesan
Andrew Suffield wrote:
[This part of the thread belongs on -legal]
So, there it goes.
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 11:51:51PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Paul TBBle Hampson]
This of course assumes the phrase "derived work" is legalese for
"code dependancy" or something. I'm sure the GPL ac
On Thu, 5 May 2005, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > * Several new architectures
>
> Such as?
>
negative sparc
negative alpha
negative mips
negative mipsel
...
in fact we addded -8 architectures altogether.
--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
La Salle Debain - http://www.braincells.com/debian/
Joey Hess wrote:
> Andrea Mennucc wrote:
>
>>now that sarge is frozen, I would like to start a discussion
>>on the number to associate to Sarge release.
>
> Now that sarge is frozen we have /etc/debian_version, the installation
> manual, the release notes, and the website all containing the versi
On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 03:52:55PM +0200, Andrea Mennucc wrote:
> I would bet 10$ that during the freeze more than 300 packages will be
> admitted into Sarge.
> And I would bet another 5$ that "base-files" will be one of them.
even considering that base-files has been frozen for, what, half a yea
On Thu, 5 May 2005, Andrea Mennucc wrote:
> I dont see it as a big stopper. You are saying that the number "3.1"
> appears /etc/debian_version (that lives in package "base-files")
> and in 3 documents (and translations).
...and Debian 3.1 Bible whose publisher will be highly annoyed if they are
f
to, 2005-05-05 kello 15:52 +0200, Andrea Mennucc kirjoitti:
> So why nobody did actually change the number then?
Release numbers, like release code names, are up to the release managers
to decide. Since neither is particularly important, there's really not
much point in discussing them at length:
On 5/4/05, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [This part of the thread belongs on -legal]
Sorry to spam debian-devel -- and with a long message containing long
paragraphs too, horrors! -- in replying to this. But that's where
this discussion is actually happening now, and I'm afraid I c
On Thursday 05 May 2005 10:38 am, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> Release numbers, like release code names, are up to the release managers
> to decide. Since neither is particularly important, there's really not
> much point in discussing them at length: if the release managers want
> 3.1, then 3.1 is what
Joey Hess wrote:
> Now that sarge is frozen we have /etc/debian_version, the installation
> manual, the release notes, and the website all containing the version
> number 3.1. I've probably forgotten a few other things. Updating all
> these things to change a version number kinda misses the point o
Andrea Mennucc wrote:
> > see shy jo, who argued for 4.0 at the appropriate time to discuss the
> >version number to use
>
> That is puzzling me. In 2003, in the thread starting at
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/01/msg00337.html
> most people were agreeing with calling sar
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi
I sended a followup to a bug (#267015). Now I got a mail back that this
bug is not existing. But "bts -m show 267015" is showing me the bug
without problemes.
Is the bug tracker broken?
Regards
Klaus
- --
Klaus Ethgen
Le jeudi 05 mai 2005 à 18:41 +0200, Klaus Ethgen a écrit :
> I sended a followup to a bug (#267015). Now I got a mail back that this
> bug is not existing. But "bts -m show 267015" is showing me the bug
> without problemes.
As shows the web page:
"Bug is archived. No further changes may be made."
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello DDs,
I wonder why when you want to upgrade one package, you have to do :
"apt-get install "
and not
"apt-get upgrade "
Is there a reason for that ? It makes me more sens to upgrade the
package when I want to upgrade it... No ?
Thanks
- --
Mar
Is Petr Cech <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> MIA?
Although his last upload is:
pavuk (0.9.32-1) unstable; urgency=high
* New upstream release (closes: #304553, #203089)
* debian/rules: - s/dh_installmanpages/dh_installman/
- Don't install testing scripts.
- Use --disa
hi I see that some people are opposing using "4.0", so I give up.
I just write this e-mail to better understand why
Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote:
> On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 01:17:45AM +0200, Andrea Mennucc wrote:
>
>>So I would much prefer if sarge would be called "Debian 4"
>>
>>Do you agree?
>
On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 02:22:48AM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> Personally, when I rebuild a package that might get handed to someone
> else -- even if I didn't touch the source, but am rebuilding in a
> known environment so I can reproduce it later -- I change the
> Maintainer field to an e
On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 08:08:42PM +0300, Lior Kaplan wrote:
> Is Petr Cech <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> MIA?
>
> Although his last upload is:
>
> pavuk (0.9.32-1) unstable; urgency=high
>
> * New upstream release (closes: #304553, #203089)
> * debian/rules: - s/dh_installmanpages/dh_installman/
>
On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 11:23:51PM +0300, Lior Kaplan wrote:
> The NMU is very simple... I don't have a problem with doing it myself in
> a week or two.
>
> Just try to catch Petr first.
Eh, (1) there is a standing 0-day NMU policy for very long already (at
least half a year, don't remember even)
The NMU is very simple... I don't have a problem with doing it myself in
a week or two.
Just try to catch Petr first.
Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
>On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 08:08:42PM +0300, Lior Kaplan wrote:
>
>
>>Is Petr Cech <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> MIA?
>>
>>Although his last upload is:
>>
>>pa
On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 11:56:45AM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> >The question of whether modified source should have the Maintainer field
> >changed is a reasonable subject for discussion, but in your particular
> >case, both of the source packages listed at
> >https://launch
On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 11:56:45AM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
> I think all other distributions based on Debian do change the Maintainer
> field. If someone wishes to be a maintainer for Ubuntu (or Kubuntu, or
> Gentoo, or Linspire, or RedHat, or ...), then they can apply with a
> given distribution.
On Thu, 05 May 2005, Kari Pahula wrote:
> On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 01:51:28AM +0300, Jaakko Niemi wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > crossfire-* is available for grabs. Upstream is active and helpful.
> > No big issues, just needs some basic work. Any takers?
>
> I can take this.
>
> I'm not a DD (yet)
Perhaps it would help if I explained the current mode of operation for
Ubuntu, as compared with other Debian derivatives. At the end of this
message, I'll restate the questions at hand in this context.
Ubuntu is a distribution based on Debian.
1. Most of the source packages in Ubuntu are inherit
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 10:56:52 +0200, Martin Geisler wrote:
> Romain Francoise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Debian has more than 900 developers, a minimum amount of cooperation
>> is necessary...
>
> May I then ask why the maintainers of PHP4 hasn't joined the
> discussion? I think it would b
> and not
> "apt-get upgrade "
Possibly because apt-get upgrade is used to upgrade the whole system,
not just one package. My guess is that the developers didn't want to
overload the upgrade command.
HTH,
Daniel
--
Neuronstorm: neuronstorm.sourceforge.net
The Neuronstorm Blog: leinad-golb.blogsp
Hi,
in an old version of jed-common two conffiles 00site.sl and 99debian.sl
were included. But caused by some reason they aren't removed on upgrade.
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=266981
Becomes a conffile held if it was modified when it is removed in a new
package version? Wha
On Thu, 5 May 2005 10:30:36 -0400 (EDT), "Jaldhar H. Vyas"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 5 May 2005, Andrea Mennucc wrote:
>> I dont see it as a big stopper. You are saying that the number "3.1"
>> appears /etc/debian_version (that lives in package "base-files")
>> and in 3 documents (and tra
On Thu, 5 May 2005 18:41:28 +0200, Klaus Ethgen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I sended a followup to a bug (#267015).
Do you ever file bug reports with severity "normal", "minor" or
"wishlist"?
Greetings
Marc
--
-- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -
Marc Ha
Kevin Mark wrote:
>Hi DD folks,
>Sarge is now approaching zero kelvin and folks are scrambing to get the
>last few bugs squashed. I was recently thinking about why the non-clued
>folks bash Debian with incomplete or inaccurate facts and a way to
>address that. I think there should be a section on
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello Marc,
Am Fr den 6. Mai 2005 um 8:24 schrieb Marc Haber:
> Do you ever file bug reports with severity "normal", "minor" or
> "wishlist"?
I also write you in german directely. Only this to the list:
4 important a bug which has a major ef
38 matches
Mail list logo
