On Sunday 22 January 2006 03:16, David Weinehall wrote:
Since all Ubuntu packages are recompiled against a different set of
libraries, the bug might not even affect the Debian package, even though
they share the same source. Hence having Ubuntu developers triage the
bugs to rule out such
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 05:33:33PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Sunday 22 January 2006 03:16, David Weinehall wrote:
Since all Ubuntu packages are recompiled against a different set of
libraries, the bug might not even affect the Debian package, even though
they share the same source.
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 05:33:33PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Sunday 22 January 2006 03:16, David Weinehall wrote:
Since all Ubuntu packages are recompiled against a different set of
libraries, the bug might not even affect the Debian package, even though
they share the same source.
Paul Johnson writes:
Given Ubuntu hopelessly complicates everything, pretends there is
cooperation where there is none, and merely duplicates the effort of the
debian-desktop project, and contributes nothing to the community or
society...
Do you have evidence to support this, or is it just
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 05:33:33PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Sunday 22 January 2006 03:16, David Weinehall wrote:
Since all Ubuntu packages are recompiled against a different set of
libraries, the bug might not even affect the Debian package, even though
they share the same source.
On Sat, 2006-01-21 at 01:53 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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
propagated unmodified into Ubuntu.
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 02:26:57AM -0800, Scott Ritchie wrote:
[snip]
In the case of such a package, the same fixes by the Debian maintainer
to the Debian package do end up in the contents of the Ubuntu package
when it gets resynched.
Now, before I confuse myself with word games and
[David Weinehall]
Since all Ubuntu packages are recompiled against a different set of
libraries, the bug might not even affect the Debian package, even though
they share the same source.
The same can be said about Debian architectures, when the autobuilder
build the packages at different
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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
propagated unmodified into Ubuntu. It is only when there is a specific
motive to change the package
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And unsurprisingly, it, too, doesn't have a straightforward answer. If a
user reports such a bug to Ubuntu, it is approximately the domain of the
MOTU team, in that they triage those bugs (on a time-available prioritized
basis, across the entire set
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 01:53:26AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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
propagated unmodified into
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 01:53:26AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 03:44:12AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 01:53:26AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same thing, however.
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 12:10:54AM +0100, JanC wrote:
On 1/17/06, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about renaming Maintainer to Debian-Maintainer in Ubuntu's binary
packages, and having a specific Ubuntu-Maintainer?
This should probably happen in a way that all (or most)
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 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 An individual or group of people primarily responsible for the
on-going well being
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 is
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:
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
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 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 An individual or group of people primarily responsible for the
on-going well being
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 An
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 12:41:49PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
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:
By way of example, the Debian maintainer is equipped to answer questions
like why is the package
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 01:40:11PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
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.
It will just
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 10:54:40AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
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
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 10:46:51AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
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
[Thomas Bushnell BSG]
Since you don't do bin-NMU's, you could simply alter the version of
every package to add an ubuntu tag, and then be done with it,
right? That would work well and be very easy to implement.
You are so hung up on this point, it's not even funny.
Do you really think users
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 02:21:06AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Thomas Bushnell BSG]
Since you don't do bin-NMU's, you could simply alter the version of
every package to add an ubuntu tag, and then be done with it,
right? That would work well and be very easy to implement.
You are so
Peter Samuelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Do you really think users who fail to notice an Origin tag from
apt-cache, and believe they're above using reportbug, will notice an
-ubuntuN suffix in the version number?
Actually it seems fairly likely that they would -- version numbers are
_far_
It is the great danger of this thread that Matt et al. will feel
sufficiently put upon that they *don't* take to heart the legitimate
suggestions that could improve cooperation between Debian and Ubuntu (and
distinguishing version numbers for binaries being by far the least of
these). If
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Christian Perrier wrote:
It is the great danger of this thread that Matt et al. will feel
sufficiently put upon that they *don't* take to heart the legitimate
suggestions that could improve cooperation between Debian and Ubuntu (and
distinguishing version numbers for
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 03:00:53PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
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
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 02:21:06AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
Do you really think users who fail to notice an Origin tag from
apt-cache, and believe they're above using reportbug, will notice an
-ubuntuN suffix in the version number? I don't. I think you are
arguing on abstract
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 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 1/17/06, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about renaming Maintainer to Debian-Maintainer in Ubuntu's binary
packages, and having a specific Ubuntu-Maintainer?
This should probably happen in a way that all (or most) Debian-derived
distro's agree on then.
And one more problem:
Peter Samuelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Do you really think users who fail to notice an Origin tag from
apt-cache, and believe they're above using reportbug, will notice an
-ubuntuN suffix in the version number? I don't. I think you are
arguing on abstract philosophical grounds rather
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why is it now important to you that the version numbers be changed,
though? This is only an issue when mixing packages between different
derivatives, which already breaks in other subtle ways, so I'm not very
much inclined to try to un-break it in
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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
On 1/17/06, Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) No changes rebuild-only upload should still be versionned so that we
do not end up with two .deb with the same version but different
contents. Rebuilding a package with a newer toolchain can cause
different dependencies and bugs.
In
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:47:35AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On 1/17/06, Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) No changes rebuild-only upload should still be versionned so that we
do not end up with two .deb with the same version but different
contents. Rebuilding a package with a
On 1/18/06, Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:47:35AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On 1/17/06, Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) No changes rebuild-only upload should still be versionned so that we
do not end up with two .deb with the same
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 12:06:19PM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On 1/18/06, Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:47:35AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On 1/17/06, Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) No changes rebuild-only upload should still be
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 12:06:19PM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On 1/18/06, Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:47:35AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On 1/17/06, Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) No changes rebuild-only upload should still be
On 1/18/06, Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As pointed out several times, the source package in the ubuntu archive
is NOT different to the source package in the debian archive. The
binary package have been rebuilt in an different environment, which
can caus different dependencies
On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 05:29, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
Oh. There might be a misunderstanding: No binary package is taken from
debian, only source packages. This means that EVERY package is being
rebuilt in ubuntu on buildds, including arch: all packages. The output
of apt-cache shows the field
Reinhard Tartler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 1/18/06, Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As pointed out several times, the source package in the ubuntu archive
is NOT different to the source package in the debian archive. The
binary package have been rebuilt in an different
Reinhard Tartler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Oh. There might be a misunderstanding: No binary package is taken from
debian, only source packages. This means that EVERY package is being
rebuilt in ubuntu on buildds, including arch: all packages. The output
of apt-cache shows the field 'Origin'
Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm in line with David. Thomas, if you care about the topic, you must be
interested in convincing the one who can make a change on Ubuntu's policy.
And the person in question is Matt. If you scare your only interlocutor
with Ubuntu, then you can be
On 1/18/06, Mike Bird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 05:29, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
Oh. There might be a misunderstanding: No binary package is taken from
debian, only source packages. This means that EVERY package is being
rebuilt in ubuntu on buildds, including arch: all
On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 11:04, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On 1/18/06, Mike Bird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What please is the difference between a buildX package and all the
other packages that were rebuilt without the buildX annotation?
It is quite similar to what debian calls a binary NMU, but
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:18:22AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Reinhard Tartler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Oh. There might be a misunderstanding: No binary package is taken from
debian, only source packages. This means that EVERY package is being
rebuilt in ubuntu on buildds,
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:18:22AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Reinhard Tartler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Oh. There might be a misunderstanding: No binary package is taken from
debian, only source packages. This means that EVERY package is
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
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 package you would be able to tell whether or not
the bug is likely to
On 1/18/06, Mike Bird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 11:04, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On 1/18/06, Mike Bird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What please is the difference between a buildX package and all the
other packages that were rebuilt without the buildX annotation?
It is
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
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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 them (Ubuntu doesn't do bin-NMUs).
That's correct. These are bugs, and should be
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:47:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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 them (Ubuntu
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:47:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I believe there are still packages which break when bin-NMU'd (e.g.,
Depends: = ${Source-Version}), and there are parts of our
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
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
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
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
* 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 luck:
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 name on
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 09:45:13PM +1000, Anthony Towns
aj@azure.humbug.org.au 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
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 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
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
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
* 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. What I
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
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 now.
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
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 strategy
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
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
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:
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, than for each
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
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 interest
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
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 have said
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
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 with this
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
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
honest.
Hello Joey,
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006, Joey Hess wrote:
Leaving ubuntu out of this, what puzzles me about your message, Raphael,
is this:
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
If you have some uploads pending, and would like to see those packages
included [...]
If for whatever reason you don't want to
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 08:51:12AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Hello Joey,
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006, Joey Hess wrote:
Leaving ubuntu out of this, what puzzles me about your message, Raphael,
is this:
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
If you have some uploads pending, and would like to see those
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Not really... it happens quite often that I plan on working on a new
upstream version (or whatever) but for various reasons, I do not prioritze
it much because I know I will do it in time for etch...
I think that nearly anyone on the release team will tell you that this
Matthew Palmer wrote:
It's a hell of a lot better than having useless crap with your
name on it in a stable release of something as high profile as Ubuntu,
though.
FYI, I refuse to allow the fact that my code happens to be present in
a currently perceived as high profile distribution to hold
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Not really... it happens quite often that I plan on working on a new
upstream version (or whatever) but for various reasons, I do not prioritze
it much because I know I will do it in time for etch... however I may be
interested to have that better version in Ubuntu as
On 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 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
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 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
1 - 100 of 115 matches
Mail list logo
