On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 06:17:09PM -0700, Evan Broder wrote:
Hmm...a lot of this discussion seems to be getting caught up in the
ubuntu-devel moderation queue, but I'll try to guess context as best
as I can...
The moderation queue doesn't have any outstanding messages for this thread,
though
On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 01:54:37PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
Iain Lane writes (Re: Uploading to multiple distros):
For normal syncs we generally advise not using syncpackage, but it
might make sense when doing simultaneous uploads.
Hrm. So syncpackage generates a .changes for uploading
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.8
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 06:52:27 -0400
Source: sysklogd
Binary: sysklogd klogd
Architecture: source amd64
Version: 1.5-6.1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Martin Schulze j...@debian.org
Changed-By: Matt Zimmerman m
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:43:44AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
At the same time, In doing all that we should not consider Ubuntu as a
special case, as that would be a mistake. Ubuntu is currently one of a
kind in term of users, but assuming it will be the case forever is
risky. After all,
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 10:26:00AM +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
On Wed, January 16, 2008 10:13, Peter Palfrader wrote:
Hi Anibal,
please write what actually changed, what the issue was about.
| bzip2 (1.0.4-1) unstable; urgency=low
|
| * Synchronise with Ubuntu. Closes: #456237
On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 07:18:11PM +0100, Martin Pitt wrote:
What do you think about this approach? I'm well aware that this alone
won't rescue desktop security (getting there is looots of more work),
but one has to start somewhere.
I'm not particularly fussed about the race conditions
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 03:51:15PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote:
Michael Vogt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- automatic removal of unused dependencies moved into libapt so that
applications like synaptic, python-apt, update-manger etc directly
benefit from it. A HUGE
On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 12:25:50AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
After 6 years or so of setting ftp.jp.debian.org as default for
pbuilder, I'm finally determined that it shouldn't stay like this. So
I'd like to have some default guessing to happen. Preferably I don't
want to ask via debconf,
On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 02:39:27PM +0200, Eric Lavarde wrote:
Hello Bart,
is there some kind of agreement between Debian and Ubuntu concerning the
distribution part of the version?
The scheme is described here:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment#UbuntuPackages
which is linked, along
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 11:30:32PM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote:
On 4/2/07, Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As some of you may have noticed, the patches.ubuntu.com website and
equivalent mailing of changes to the Debian PTS and ubuntu-patches
mailing list has been offline, or at
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 03:07:27PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 10:20:23AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
In Ubuntu you have a parallel version. You split of from the main
trunk but you follow parallel
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 10:20:23AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
In stable/testing/unstable you have releases with a fixed version that
can only split of from the main trunk. Any change to stable/testing
MUST be made special for the old version in stable/testing and forks
off the main
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 07:44:59PM -0400, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
Then lets look at how stable ubuntu stable is or is not. I know I've
seen posts on these lists suggesting that ubuntu stable tends to pull
in things from debian unstable[1] and is therefore less stable.
Ubuntu does not pull
On Sun, Aug 27, 2006 at 01:05:56AM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 04:02:04PM +0200, Hendrik Sattler wrote:
- X ran with the wrong resolution (typical i915 problem) and with the wrong
dpi setting
Can't speak to that; my ATI Firegl video worked automatically out of
the
On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 10:34:12PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 11:49:07AM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 12:58:15PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
When Ubuntu leads to users having ideas like the one in the parent post,
this is manifestly false
On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 05:17:22PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
On Sunday 30 July 2006 16:21, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
I agree with you that there is this kind of technological competition among
derivatives, and so long as it is all free software, Debian and its
derivatives all stand to gain
Your message came off as somewhat accusatory toward Debian, and positioned
Debian and Ubuntu as rivals engaged in a struggle. I'll try to address your
points individually, but please try to take a less inflammatory stance. The
relationship between Debian and Ubuntu is a sensitive topic with
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 10:46:57AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
Debian is a project of volunteers. I am a Debian volunteer. I'm not
going to write something just because you gripe at me about it. I have
no obligation to you. I will work on things that are interesting to me.
Absolutely
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 12:58:15PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
When Ubuntu leads to users having ideas like the one in the parent post,
this is manifestly false.
Similar comments have been made by the uninformed in the past, before Ubuntu
even existed, with Red Hat, SuSE, Linspire, etc. in its
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 06:38:57PM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
One of them is that Ubuntu developers get paid. That makes a huge
difference, as they can devote a lot more time each day to their work
than, say, a student who also needs to work besides his university duties
to stay afloat, and
On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 05:08:57AM +1000, Andrew Vaughan wrote:
Also remember that non-free drivers typically aren't installed automatically
in Debian, whereas IIRC they are automatically installed in Ubuntu.
The following non-free drivers are installed by default in Ubuntu:
- madwifi
On Sun, Jul 16, 2006 at 08:14:48PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
For starters, we'd need a *lot* of hardware to be able to do all these
builds. Many of them will fail, because there *will* be people who will
neglect to test their builds, and they will hog the machine so that
other people (who
On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 10:19:02PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
So by default it is assumed that I should make Ubuntu's work and dig
into these patches to see if some pieces should be applied into Debian?
No thanks, I am getting tired of all those Debian developers who are
more interested in
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:59:21PM +0200, Alexander Sack wrote:
I hope this special treatment has nothing to do with the sun-ubuntu deal
announced a few days ago.
What relationship could you possibly suspect between this event and
processing of this package in Debian's queue/new?
--
- mdz
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 10:34:35AM -0700, Alex Ross wrote:
The following is based on premises that portability is good and
that POSIX is a standard. A proposal.
I didn't see a concrete proposal in your email, only information about where
to find gnusolaris build logs. Can you elaborate?
--
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 01:15:44PM -0700, Alex Ross wrote:
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 10:34:35AM -0700, Alex Ross wrote:
The following is based on premises that portability is good and that
POSIX is a standard. A proposal.
I didn't see a concrete proposal in your email
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 12:19:35AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You don't need to wait for a particular event to be finished processing;
instead you should wait for the resource you actually need to become
available, e.g. a device node
The rest of the Linux distribution world is using udev with the current
semantics and has not crumbled. If you don't like the current semantics, I
understand, but that shouldn't stand in the way of its adoption.
--
- mdz
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 12:14:48PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't see it as a general issue either; if you have problems of this type,
you should report them to the bug tracking system so that they can be fixed.
Debian
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 09:14:40AM -0700, Mike Bird wrote:
How else should I report this, if at all?
In working on (unsupported) dist-upgrades from Ubuntu/Breezy
to Debian/Etch I ran into a lot of failures due to missing
gconf-schemas. A lot of gnome software uses gconf-schemas
in postinst
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 11:56:36AM -0700, Mike Bird wrote:
On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 11:31, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Apr 26, Mike Bird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In working on (unsupported) dist-upgrades from Ubuntu/Breezy
to Debian/Etch I ran into a lot of failures due to missing
FYI, this
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 07:26:07PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 05:56:10PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
I hadn't replied to the bug report because I wasn't involved in the
Ubuntu kernel at the point when it was filed, so I didn't reply there.
When you brought my
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 06:20:47PM +0100, Sergio Callegari wrote:
As far as I know, it should exist in Debian too.
No, it doesn't.
--
- mdz
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 04:16:20PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Matt Zimmerman:
One of the appealing things about the Python language is their batteries
included philosophy: users can assume that the standard library is
available, documentation and examples are written to the full API
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 01:48:11AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One example is .config maintainer scripts, some of which are quite complex
and worth writing in a higher-level language than shell.
This is surely true; Steve Langasek asked
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 01:04:25PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Granted if it is a real issue, then why not use perl? Yes, I hate
perl too, but really, the argument hey, people like Python too
implies that we should have a scheme interpreter
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 10:38:08PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Ok, but now I'm confused: why is python-minimal needed in Essential?
Why not simply depend on it straightforwardly?
Because there are parts of the packaging system where there is no way to
express such a dependency
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 10:32:06AM +0100, Thomas Hood wrote:
I'll assume that python2.4-minimal Recommending: python2.4 won't be
enough.
I'd imagine not.
How about this? The current python2.4-minimal package contains
/usr/bin/python2.4. We would move this to /usr/lib/python2.4/interpreter
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 12:12:39PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You seem to require a standard of attribution in the Maintainer field
that Debian does not itself follow in our default procedures. To wit:
NMUs _within_ Debian keep the Maintainer field
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:40:55AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
I asked this question earlier, and no one answered. Are there .config
scripts being written in python today in Ubuntu? (Hmm, where are the python
bindings for debconf, and what ensures that they're installed?)
No, not yet. The
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:08:38PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
I keep hearing this, but I really don't believe it. In Debian, Maintainer
means An individual or group of people primarily responsible for the
on-going well being of a package. As I understand it, in Ubuntu, the MOTUs
have
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:24:57PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:20:33AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same thing, however. Most of
the packages in universe are maintained only by the Debian maintainer, and
The thing
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:35:55PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Arg, and to make matters worse, this discussion is CCed to a
closed-moderated-list, Matt, this is really not a friendly way to have a
conversation.
I didn't add the CC to ubuntu-motu, nor the one to debian-project. I've
merely
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 07:13:31AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:20:33AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:08:38PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
I keep hearing this, but I really don't believe it. In Debian,
Maintainer
means
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 08:31:44AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
All you'll get is the loud minority having a whinge then, no matter what the
outcome.
It will certainly beat the hell out of continuing this thread.
--
- mdz
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 02:05:40PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:34:58PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
If we followed the same method for python-base, then we would
a) instroduce python-base iff we had some package(s) written in python
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:25:45AM -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
I was unable to locate the quote, but it seems that the quote is/could
be taken liteally. Why not modify the quote to state that it is
metaphorical by using something like 'Every Debian developer is an
Ubuntu developer in the same
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 02:15:15PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 16:03:05 -0800, Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Do you realize that Xandros, who maintains a Debian derivative which they
box and sell for US$50-$129 per copy, leaves the Maintainer field
unmodified
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 01:14:17PM +0100, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
you are able to do init.d scripts, pre- and postinsts etc in
python. That is a ease of development helper for ubuntu.
All of those can be done today using dependencies.
.config scripts, for example, cannot.
--
- mdz
--
To
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:08:32PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 03:00:53PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
I believe there are still packages which break when bin-NMU'd (e.g.,
Depends: = ${Source-Version}), and there are parts of our infrastructure
which do not support
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 07:21:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 09:56:59PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 12:12:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
* allowing us to easily use python (as well as C, C++ and perl) for
programs
in the base
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:34:58PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
If we followed the same method for python-base, then we would
a) instroduce python-base iff we had some package(s) written in python
that we wanted in the base system (apt-listchanges comes to mind)
b) include only the modules
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:47:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
In any case, I want to note what has just happened here. You received
a clear, easily implemented, request about what would be a wonderful
contribution, and which is (from the Debian perspective) entirely
non-controversial.
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 09:23:30PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-19 12:45]:
Please don't do this; it implies that python-minimal would be part
of base, but not full python, and this is something that python
upstream explicitly objects to.
Why
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 05:58:20PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
That said, I don't really understand why it's Ok for Ubuntu to do this but
not us.
Ubuntu never installs python-minimal without python, even in base.
--
- mdz
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 06:38:55PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:18:48PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 05:58:20PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
That said, I don't really understand why it's Ok for Ubuntu to do this but
not us.
Ubuntu
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 08:42:57PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Programs that want to use python can assume that python-minimal is
there (since it's Essential), and since python-minimal is never
installed without python also installed, they can also now assume that
all of python,
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 12:16:55AM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
Just to clarify, because I'm also confused and genuinely curious... you
guys use the minimal package during bootstrapping or something and then by
the end of the installation process you will necessarily have the full
python
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 09:41:58AM +0100, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
On Tuesday 17 January 2006 00:39, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
The full quote is We sync our packages to Debian regularly, because that
introduces the latest work, the latest upstream code, and the newest
packaging efforts
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 05:29:40PM -0800, 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
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:01:31AM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
* Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-17 11:36]:
I'm saying that you should pause and consider that you're looking at a
world-writable resource before treating its contents as a position statement
on behalf of the project
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:57:51PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
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
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:21:32AM +0100, Thomas Hood wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
Given that python-minimal is Essential: yes in Ubuntu, the *only*
use for this package in Debian (given that there would be no
packages in the wild that depend on it -- the definition of Essential
is that
, including arch: all packages. The output
of apt-cache shows the field 'Origin' to indicate that this is not a
package built on debian systems.
Good grief, and Matt Zimmerman said the exact opposite recently,
saying that Ubuntu does not rebuild every package.
I said no such thing, and would
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 01:28:17PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:57:51PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't think you can speak to what tools we do or do not have
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 01:43:53PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is something that Python upstream explicitly does not want; the only
reason for creating python-minimal was so that it could be Essential: yes,
not to support stripped-down
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 02:47:05PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Ok, then I must have misunderstood something. So it is clear then
that Ubuntu does recompile every package.
To clarify explicitly:
- Ubuntu does not use any binary packages from Debian
- Most Ubuntu source packages are
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 05:57:49PM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
mdz writes:
It is considered to be in poor taste to report bugs to bugs.debian.org
which have not been verified on Debian...
I should think that in most cases by the time you've produced a patch that
fixes a bug in an Ubuntu
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:16:32PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 12:12:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Some reasons:
* compatability with Ubuntu -- so that packages can be easily ported back
and forth between us and them; I expect most of the work ubuntu
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 12:12:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
* allowing us to easily use python (as well as C, C++ and perl) for programs
in the base system
* allowing us to provide python early on installs to make users happier
Please note that it is against upstream's explicit
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
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
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, 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 still, I'd
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:
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 attempt
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 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 being
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 please
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 at
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.
Ubuntu should
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
privilege
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 source
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
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 desperate
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 you say
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
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
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 are
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
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
to contribute code to
Debian that is under the his copyright and not Canonical's? And
especially since it is in the exact same area that he was employed by
Canonical to do? Would this apply to Progeny and Debian, Progeny and
Canonical, Linspire and ...
Hi Kevin,
I think that Matt
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 Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 12:41:29AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Now, it may be that this is an unrealistic pipe dream on my part that's
incompatible with Ubuntu's goals/release schedule, but it seems to me that
everyone involved would get more mileage out of the giving-back process if
there
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 07:48:56AM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
Why? Don't we expect users to decide which of their local changes are
suitable for Debian? I sometimes make local changes to Debian packages.
Sometimes I send patches to the BTS and sometimes I decide that the change
is only
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 05:08:33PM +0100, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
as documented experience by maintainers who've tried that shows, this is
inefficient enough that reimplementing is mostly faster (and definately
more attractive, as it involves less drudgework)
This is at best an
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 03:19:09PM +0100, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
But at the moment I've seen lots of comments by maintainers saying that in
most cases it's currently more work to find out if there's any usefull
bits in the diffs between debian-ubuntu packages, then to do the work
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 03:41:08PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
I'm not at all surprised that Ubuntu is drifting into closed-source
software, as this is a standard development path for a company based
around free software. I'm not upset. I'm simply not interested, and
consider that path to be
On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 10:19:50AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 01:14:18PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
Some things that it does say:
[...]
- Ubuntu submits fixes for Debian bugs to the Debian BTS including a patch
URL
If that said sometimes or some people
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 05:49:40PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
I don't buy this. The impression that just about everyone has of this
didn't come from nowhere.
Not from nowhere, no. The statements that Ubuntu steals users from
Debian, wants to kill Debian, etc. came from somewhere, too, but
1 - 100 of 1219 matches
Mail list logo
