On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 20:34:33 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I can't agree. From the sound of this and other threads, there are
a number of folks who are unlikely to be satisfied with any
behavior on the part of the Ubuntu project
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 22:27:31 -0800, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 01:26:25AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 11:35:24PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
I believe Ubuntu fills an important gap in the Debian world and
as such
Ubuntu is
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 09:57:15 +0100, Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hello,
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 11:35:24PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
I believe Ubuntu fills an important gap in the Debian world and
as such
Ubuntu is not part of
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 16:40:41 +, Roger Leigh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Andrew, do you understand just how inappropriate and offensive your
mail was? Nothing justifies abuse of our lists like that. d-d-a is
a widely-read list both inside and outside the project, and you have
done harm to
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 01:44:06 +0100, Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sunday 15 January 2006 00:47, Adam Heath wrote:
In fact, both of the last 2 emails to d-d-a go against the AUP.
Procedures should be started to punish the offenders.
They are of a completely different order. One is an
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 17:51:03 +, Roger Leigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Mike Bird [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 2006-01-14 at 08:40, Roger Leigh wrote:
Andrew, do you understand just how inappropriate and offensive
your mail was? Nothing justifies abuse of our lists like that.
d-d-a is
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:39:55 +0900, Junichi Uekawa [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The remaining problem is that we don't really have a standard
location for 'vmlinux'.
How about /boot/vmlinux-$version ?
It would be nice if it's possible to obtain the location information
somewhere, in a
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 11:19:37 -0800, Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Mike Bird [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There was nothing offensive about Andrew's message. Since you do
not offer any reasons for your melodramatic conclusion, I suspect
that you are merely trolling.
I *hope* you are
On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 02:26:36AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
That's kind of a strange position to take, isn't it? Does this mean
that the many users who use Debian directly sheerly on technical
excellence alone, without sharing Debian's founding values, are
not part of the Debian
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 08:34:20PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
Hi Anthony,
On Saturday, 14 Jan 2006, you wrote:
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 04:22:50PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
On Friday, 13 Jan 2006, you wrote:
Things I did today:
2. Removed the empty SuperH architecture
On Sunday 15 January 2006 09:33, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 16:40:41 +, Roger Leigh said:
Andrew, do you understand just how inappropriate and offensive your
mail was? Nothing justifies abuse of our lists like that. d-d-a is
a widely-read list both inside and outside
On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 01:05:11PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 12:59:23AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 09:42:22AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Um, I have said nothing against crediting
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060115 10:00]:
If you remove cruft from one of your packages, do you start notifying
developers on d-d-a?
In case of the developers reference, I did.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
It's also about false statements like We sync our packages to Debian
regularly, because that simply doesn't happen for quite a lot of us,
otherwise all these heated discussions wouldn't happen.
They have their own timetable.
On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 10:20:33AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060115 10:00]:
If you remove cruft from one of your packages, do you start notifying
developers on d-d-a?
In case of the developers reference, I did.
That's a bit of a special case, no?
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 11:19:37 -0800, Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Er, I thought it was offensive because it was sexist, not because
there's anything wrong with being lesbian.
Umm, the fact that the phrase You like looking at
On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 05:35:58PM +0100, Daniel Widenfalk wrote:
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 03:24:42AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 06:04:00PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
The fact you don't have anyone able to make a working cross-compiler
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
I have only said that I would like Ubuntu to clearly label
which is the Debian maintainer and which is the Ubuntu maintainer.
Thing is, in ubuntu - we don't neccesarily have maintainers for packages.
We use a collaborative process - anyone who had access can modify
On Sun, 2006-01-15 at 02:47 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:39:55 +0900, Junichi Uekawa [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The remaining problem is that we don't really have a standard
location for 'vmlinux'.
How about /boot/vmlinux-$version ?
This feels like the
Do you think your constant bitching is funny? Do you think it achieves
anything?
There are other DDs who are also involved in intense debates and flamewars
very often, but you're the only one where I constantly get the impression
that you're just being childish, insulting and annoying for
On Sunday 15 January 2006 10:27, Sami Haahtinen wrote:
What do you want?
Bugs filed in Debian's bts, with the patches attached and the rationale why
this patch is done.
Just like many DD work with upstream, by pushing non-Debian changes back
actively, and not just saying 'all are changes are
You do realize that your work is out there for anyone to take and to
modify. I agree that for the modified packages it should be more clear
that the package has been modified by ubuntu and the maintainer or some
And why isn't this done? It's so simple to do. I would prefer to know about MY
On Saturday 14 January 2006 18:16, Mike Bird wrote:
There was nothing offensive about Andrew's message.
Context.
This debate is not at all about the content of Andrew's message. Somebody
tried to increase the cooperation between Debian and Ubunut in a well-meant
effort (personally, while I
On Sunday 15 January 2006 09:31, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 01:44:06 +0100, Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sunday 15 January 2006 00:47, Adam Heath wrote:
In fact, both of the last 2 emails to d-d-a go against the AUP.
Procedures should be started to punish the
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Gavin Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* Package name: cableswig
Version : 2.4.0
Upstream Author : Brad King [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://www.itk.org/HTML/CableSwig.html
* License
[ retiring ]
Just in case you missed that part: if you want your account to be closed
etc, please inform the keyring maintainer as per
http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-developer-duties.en.html#s3.7
(and with a gpg-signed email, bug on dev-reference being filed.)
cheers
--
On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 11:58:51AM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
Do you think your constant bitching is funny? Do you think it achieves
anything?
There are other DDs who are also involved in intense debates and flamewars
very often, but you're the only one where I constantly get the
[Martin Meredith]
Thing is, in ubuntu - we don't neccesarily have maintainers for
packages.
We use a collaborative process - anyone who had access can modify the
package. Basically - many many people can change a package, which can
be confusing for people.
Here's the thing: the Maintainer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Michael Meskes wrote:
other field should reflect that. But again, some people are offended if
the maintainer field is changed to something ubuntu specific for the
modified packages. As before it's not an easy task, you get burnt if you
go either way.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 11:03:37PM +, Brett Parker wrote:
Of course, the post to d-d-a about lesbians that then goes on state
Don't post irrelevant
But Windows security advisories don't contain debian packages. Ubuntu
does contain close to all debian packages, and (I hope) most DDs have an
interest to include improvements of other distributions in their
packages (at least I do).
Maemo (from the Nokia 770 fame) contains Debian
On 10535 March 1977, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
Do you think your constant bitching is funny? Do you think it achieves
anything?
Do you think a constandt flaming on public lists is funny? Do you think
it achieves anything?
There are other DDs who are also involved in intense debates and
On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 10:42:20AM +, Martin Meredith wrote:
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
I have only said that I would like Ubuntu to clearly label
which is the Debian maintainer and which is the Ubuntu maintainer.
Thing is, in ubuntu - we don't neccesarily have maintainers for
[David Nusinow]
As far as I know this wasn't any corporate decision by Canonical to
give back to Debian, but it was a personal decision by Daniel to
help me (for which I'm immensely grateful).
I do not really understand this kind of reasoning. I get the
impression that you see a difference
[Sami Haahtinen]
like 'dpkg --show-primary-contact package' That way we could even
add a separate field Preferred-Contact: (or something alike) that
could override the maintainer and modifier.
Preferred contact is *exactly* what the Maintainer field means.
[Well, and the co-maintainers
On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 01:28:26PM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
[David Nusinow]
As far as I know this wasn't any corporate decision by Canonical to
give back to Debian, but it was a personal decision by Daniel to
help me (for which I'm immensely grateful).
I do not really understand
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Peter Samuelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[Sami Haahtinen]
like 'dpkg --show-primary-contact package' That way we could even
add a separate field Preferred-Contact: (or something alike) that
could override the maintainer and modifier.
Preferred
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 12:04:46PM +0100, Thomas Hood wrote:
I don't think that patches-submitted-to-the-BTS is a good way to
measure how much Ubuntu is contributing to Debian. Ubuntu's patches
are readily available:
http://people.ubuntulinux.org/~scott/patches/
I looked at the patches
On 1/15/06, Roger Leigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Completely agreed. While I don't object to occasional mails from
Ubuntu users, I don't generally have a proper Ubuntu contact (or list)
to point them to. This would help a lot there, as well as preventing
the problem in the first place.
On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 01:07:05PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
Completely agreed. While I don't object to occasional mails from
Ubuntu users, I don't generally have a proper Ubuntu contact (or list)
to point them to. This would help a lot there, as well as preventing
the problem in the first
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On 1/15/06, Roger Leigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Completely agreed. While I don't object to occasional mails from
Ubuntu users, I don't generally have a proper Ubuntu contact (or list)
to point them to. This would help a lot
Hi,
The remaining problem is that we don't really have a standard
location for 'vmlinux'.
How about /boot/vmlinux-$version ?
This feels like the right answer to me. It's consistent with
the naming and using of the rest of the kernel's bits and pieces
On Sunday 15 January 2006 01:36, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 17:51:03 +, Roger Leigh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Mike Bird [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 2006-01-14 at 08:40, Roger Leigh wrote:
Andrew, do you understand just how inappropriate and offensive
your mail
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
I looked at the patches for e2fsprogs, and I have to conclude that
unfortunately, they patches are worse than useless. It's not clear
exactly what is being diffed against what, but if I had to guess it's
a diff of Debian stable or Debian testing versus the latest in
Steve Dunham wrote:
I haven't had time for Debian in a long while - I've held on for a
while because I've enjoyed working for Debian, but I don't think I'll
find time again. Now I'm renovating a house and have switched to OSX,
so it's time I move on.
I'm truly sorry that I have neglected
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Rene Engelhard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Package name: ieee80211softmac
Version : 20060114
Upstream Authors:
* Copyright (c) 2005 Johannes Berg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*Joseph Jezak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*Larry
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Rene Engelhard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Package name: bcm43xx
Version : 20060108
Upstream Authors:
Copyright (c) 2005 Martin Langer [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Stefano Brivio [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Michael Buesch
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 02:34:32PM +0900, Charles Plessy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
As stated by the Debian Policy Manual :
The Depends field should be used if the depended-on package is required
for the depending package to provide a significant amount of
functionality.
and
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 11:41:25AM +0900, Miles Bader [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
Daniel Burrows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[0] alert readers will note that the caveat if the user waits for a
sufficient amount of time has to be added here; however, this is typically
much less than
On Jan 15, 2006, at 8:58 AM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Steve Dunham wrote:
I haven't had time for Debian in a long while - I've held on for a
while because I've enjoyed working for Debian, but I don't think I'll
find time again. Now I'm renovating a house and have switched to OSX,
so it's time I
sysvinit 2.86.ds1-10 is now in incoming. Along with udev 0.080-1 this
should fix the problem (/dev/pts not mounted early enough) that kept some
people from using bootlogd. Beyond that, it is the latest of a string of
experimental releases. The sysvinit team is hoping that it is not too
far off
Hi Matt,
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 02:34:31PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Ubuntu could report in the BTS all the bugs it finds, and submit patches
via the BTS.
[...]
Many patches are submitted via the BTS, though not every patch published in
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Sam Morris [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Package name: smbnetfs
Version : 0.3.2
Upstream Author : Mikhail Kshevetskiy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
URL : http://smbnetfs.airm.net/
License : GPL
Description : User-space filesystem for
Thomas Hood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I can't comment on your package. I have seen changes in some packages
that looked gratuitious, but then I have been comforted by the thought
that the perpetrators of gratuitous changes are the ones who have to pay
the price for it, because they have to
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 Go find a package team and
Frans Jessop wrote:
First, as the announcement just came a few days ago some are ignoring
their
bugs for months. If a team was on the project that is less likely to
happen.
Hmm this already happens today with packages who *are* maintained by teams.
Second, collaboration on ideas for
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 10:42:20 +, Martin Meredith [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
I have only said that I would like Ubuntu to clearly label which is
the Debian maintainer and which is the Ubuntu maintainer.
Thing is, in ubuntu - we don't neccesarily have maintainers
On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 11:03:06AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
However, to the degree that the Ubuntu patches have these sorts of
gratuitous changes that shouldn't be merged with Debian, the patch
database quickly becomes useless. The current patch system is only useful
if a maintainer can
su, 2006-01-15 kello 20:21 +, Mark Brown kirjoitti:
Deploying Wig Pen would also help, of course.
Speaking of which: what needs to happen for Wig Pen (the new source
format) to be usable? Is it possible to get it to happen within etch?
What can we do to help with this?
--
Those who do,
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 want to upload the new package to Debian
directly [...]
This seems
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 08:34:33PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I can't agree. From the sound of this and other threads, there are a number
of folks who are unlikely to be satisfied with any behavior on the part of
the Ubuntu project or its
Kevin Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
would it be usefull if the Ubuntu Maintainer would add a
'ubuntu-specific' usertag to those bugs in the Ubuntu BTS as a way of
telling Debian folks (as well as others) that they should not address
this bugs.
You aren't listening. Do not submit irrelevant
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
I looked at the patches for e2fsprogs, and I have to conclude that
unfortunately, they patches are worse than useless.
Unfortunatly, it doesn't seem to help the situation in general to tell
Ubuntu this, although in specific cases raising a large enough stink
might result in
On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 09:42:22AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Um, I have said nothing against crediting maintainers in the
packages. I have only said that I would like Ubuntu to clearly label
which is the Debian maintainer and which is the
I looked at the homepage, and while this does appear useful, is it really
nescessary to be packaged all by itself?
Think about a collection package; I don't think debian should be overloaded
with tons of single-program packages.
I'm getting used to package software for debian, and this seems
Steve Dunham wrote:
I haven't had time for Debian in a long while - I've held on for a
while because I've enjoyed working for Debian, but I don't think I'll
find time again. Now I'm renovating a house and have switched to OSX,
so it's time I move on.
I'm truly sorry that I have
On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 08:21:20AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
And on _top_ of that, we have all sorts of gratuitous autotools
changes.
Let's not forget the random conversion of build systems -- dpatch seems to
be a favourite to rewrite perfectly functioning build systems into.
This is
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
This is only the latest expression of the same general discontent which has
been rehashed again and again on this list. A year ago it was Ubuntu
aren't contributing, then Ubuntu aren't contributing in the right way,
and now Ubuntu aren't contributing in the way that they
Hi,
The remaining problem is that we don't really have a standard
location for 'vmlinux'.
How about /boot/vmlinux-$version ?
This feels like the right answer to me. It's consistent with
the naming and using of the rest of the kernel's bits and pieces
On 1/15/06, Martin-Éric Racine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Many patches are submitted via the BTS, though not every patch published in
the patch archive is submitted this way, for reasons which have been
discussed to death in previous threads.
What I think could be done in a significantly
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 10:27:31PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 01:26:25AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 11:35:24PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
I believe Ubuntu fills an important gap in the Debian world and as such
Ubuntu is not part of
On Sun, 2006-01-15 at 06:28 -0500, sean finney wrote:
On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 11:58:51AM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
Do you think your constant bitching is funny? Do you think it achieves
anything?
There are other DDs who are also involved in intense debates and flamewars
very
On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 01:54:09PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Could you then take my name off as being reponsible for
software that this diverse group of people have modified, if the
modifications are more than cosmetic? Also, I would like the bug
reports to be triaged and
Theodore Ts'o [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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, or that it is in the best
* Sami Haahtinen [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-15 11:27]:
Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
It's also about false statements like We sync our packages to Debian
regularly, because that simply doesn't happen for quite a lot of us,
otherwise all these heated discussions wouldn't happen.
They have their own
This must constitute the perfect post. I too care about Debian's future.
_
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
--
To
On 1/15/06, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you can't understand sarcasm, why didn't you read the part for
people who can't understand sarcasm?
debian-announce is not meant to play games. Someone made a (perhaps
honest) mistake, and were duly criticised. But you know the rules.
Daniel Burrows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When you say that normal operation is getting slower, do you mean just
the load time or its overall performance? The time required to load
in all the state files is a bit long, but once they're loaded the
program seems to run reasonably quickly to me.
On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 12:23:51PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote:
On 1/14/06, Kevin Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 03:03:14PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote:
(...)
Exactly my point Matthew, and calm down David, i wrote: e.g.: David
said that Daniel helped him, but if
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 formed about a week after the first
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 outsiders.
Indeed. And likewise, we have absolutely
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 have
changed the version
On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 01:36:43PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Kevin Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
would it be usefull if the Ubuntu Maintainer would add a
'ubuntu-specific' usertag to those bugs in the Ubuntu BTS as a way of
telling Debian folks (as well as others) that they
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 somehow.
I admit I've not spent enough time for libxml2 recently, but still, I
wouldn't have been bothered by some poking beforehand.
Moreover, I'm not exactly sure the
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Marcela Tiznado [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Package name: pywireless
Version : 3.2
Upstream Author : S.Çaglar Onur [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://svn.uludag.org.tr/viewcvs/PyWireless/
* License : GPL
Description : basic
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006, Kevin Mark wrote:
There's no Ubuntu maintainer for a specific package... packages in
Universe are sometimes uploaded by several different person.
Hi Rapael,
So WHO exactly would you expect Ubuntu folks to think to email with
requests? The result by experience is
* Mike Hommey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 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 somehow.
I admit I've not spent enough time for libxml2 recently, but still, I
wouldn't have been bothered by some poking
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006, Joey Hess wrote:
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
This is only the latest expression of the same general discontent which has
been rehashed again and again on this list. A year ago it was Ubuntu
aren't contributing, then Ubuntu aren't contributing in the right way,
and now
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 somehow.
I admit I've not spent enough time for libxml2 recently, but still, I
wouldn't have
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 15:47:15 +0100
Source: libktoblzcheck
Binary: libktoblzcheck1c2a libktoblzcheck-bin libktoblzcheck1-dev
Architecture: source i386
Version: 1.9-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Thomas Viehmann [EMAIL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:54:16 +0100
Source: glibc
Binary: libc6-dev-amd64 libc6-i686 libc6-dev-ppc64 libc0.3-pic glibc-doc
libc1-udeb libc0.3 libc6.1-dev libc1-pic libc6-s390x libnss-files-udeb
libc1-dbg libc6-dev-sparc64 libc0.3-dev
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 21:25:03 +0100
Source: klog
Binary: klog
Architecture: source powerpc
Version: 0.3.2-2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Jaime Robles [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Jaime Robles [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 11:25:25 +0100
Source: root-portal
Binary: root-portal
Architecture: source i386
Version: 0.5.2-2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Tollef Fog Heen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Tollef Fog Heen [EMAIL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 21:16:08 +
Source: ktrack
Binary: ktrack
Architecture: source powerpc
Version: 0.3.0-alpha1-7
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Jaime Robles [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Jaime Robles [EMAIL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 12:15:02 +0100
Source: xdialog
Binary: xdialog
Architecture: source i386
Version: 2.0.6-4
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Debian QA Group [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: LENART Janos [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 11:57:48 +
Source: matchbox-panel
Binary: matchbox-panel
Architecture: source i386
Version: 0.9.2-3
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Moray Allan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Moray Allan [EMAIL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 13:03:20 +0100
Source: wmcalclock
Binary: wmcalclock
Architecture: source i386
Version: 1.25-10
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Gordon Fraser [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Gordon Fraser [EMAIL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 13:11:37 +0100
Source: wmcb
Binary: wmcb
Architecture: source i386
Version: 0.2-3
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Gordon Fraser [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Gordon Fraser [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 21:16:53 +0100
Source: zoem
Binary: zoem-doc zoem
Architecture: source i386 all
Version: 06-010-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Joost van Baal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Joost van Baal [EMAIL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 12:15:29 +
Source: matchbox-desktop
Binary: matchbox-desktop matchbox-desktop-dev
Architecture: source i386
Version: 0.9.1-3
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Moray Allan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1 - 100 of 272 matches
Mail list logo
