* Russ Allbery:
Unfortunately, this then generates a whole pile of web pages supposedly
for you that then show up in Google searches and the like despite having
no information on them. I think that's one of the things that's turned
DDs off on Launchpad; I know that it gave me a bad initial
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Russ Allbery:
Unfortunately, this then generates a whole pile of web pages
supposedly for you that then show up in Google searches and the
like despite having no information on them. I think that's one of
the things that's turned DDs off on
On Mon, 2008-07-28 at 23:18 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
No, if the pages exist and other pages tend to treat them as
interesting (i.e. interesting pages link to those pages), Google is
working as advertised if it indexes and reports them.
On unactivated account pages launchpad now sets
meta
* Ben Finney:
I guess it's more of a Google QA issue
No, if the pages exist and other pages tend to treat them as
interesting (i.e. interesting pages link to those pages), Google is
working as advertised if it indexes and reports them.
Sorry, but this is just wrong. If the page is not
James Westby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On unactivated account pages launchpad now sets
meta name=robots content=noindex,nofollow /
so these pages should not show up in results from well behaved
search engines.
Ah, excellent, thank you.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Ben Finney:
I guess it's more of a Google QA issue
No, if the pages exist and other pages tend to treat them as
interesting (i.e. interesting pages link to those pages), Google
is working as advertised if it indexes and reports them.
#include hallo.h
* Reinhard Tartler [Wed, Jul 23 2008, 04:36:39PM]:
How about activating it the first time they send a gpg-signed mail to
the mail interface?
My point is that I don't have the impression that Debian Developers want
Fine. And mine tends to differ.
to have an LP account
Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
#include hallo.h
* Reinhard Tartler [Wed, Jul 23 2008, 04:36:39PM]:
How about activating it the first time they send a gpg-signed mail to
the mail interface?
My point is that I don't have the impression that Debian Developers want
Fine. And mine
Hi,
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 12:30:21PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Osamu Aoki wrote:
I think we should encourage packager to contact upstream with simple
hello! message and he (or myself) should be part of active upstream ML.
When I had upstreams, I always used to do this.
Often though,
On Sun, 2008-07-27 at 15:36 +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
#include hallo.h
* Reinhard Tartler [Wed, Jul 23 2008, 04:36:39PM]:
How about activating it the first time they send a gpg-signed mail to
the mail interface?
How about simply allowing
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 15:58:57 +0100 Neil Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Why force activation in the first place? All the information needed to
activate a DD account already exists - our GnuPG fingerprints, our DD
email addresses and full names. If an email is received that is signed
by a known
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 03:58:57PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
On Sun, 2008-07-27 at 15:36 +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
#include hallo.h
* Reinhard Tartler [Wed, Jul 23 2008, 04:36:39PM]:
How about activating it the first time they send a
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 14:33:17 -0700 Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 03:58:57PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
On Sun, 2008-07-27 at 15:36 +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
#include hallo.h
* Reinhard Tartler [Wed, Jul 23
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 05:53:28PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
That requires LP to know who is or isn't a DD. Currently it has no such
knowledge, and I think it would require a fair amount of discussion to
decide how best to get such information, with a none-too-elegant outcome
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 15:01:46 -0700 Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 05:53:28PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
That requires LP to know who is or isn't a DD. Currently it has no such
knowledge, and I think it would require a fair amount of discussion to
decide how
]] Andrei Popescu
| IMHO (IANADD) this is too much black-white. What if a DD would be
| interested in Ubuntu bugs, but doesn't have enough time to read the
| docs? As seen in this thread some are not even aware that Launchpad
| can be used via mail.
Then they probably don't have time to
On Mon Jul 21 14:07, Steve Langasek wrote:
I do feed info upstream (via yet more website logins), I really can't
add yet another one.
I guess OpenID support will come to the rescue here.
It will help, if one wants to use the web interface. However,
Launchpad accepting bug
Matthew Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Given that Ubuntu takes things directly from Debian, and hence all
Debian Developers have a vested interest in Ubuntu packages, would it
make sense to (provide|ask ubuntu to provide) a way for bug reports to
be manipulated by users with keys in the
On Wed Jul 23 16:13, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
Matthew Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Given that Ubuntu takes things directly from Debian, and hence all
Debian Developers have a vested interest in Ubuntu packages, would it
make sense to (provide|ask ubuntu to provide) a way for bug
Matthew Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed Jul 23 16:13, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
Matthew Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Given that Ubuntu takes things directly from Debian, and hence all
Debian Developers have a vested interest in Ubuntu packages, would it
make sense to
On Wed,23.Jul.08, 16:36:39, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
My point is that I don't have the impression that Debian Developers want
to have an LP account activated at all, so IMO it doesn't really matter
if the account is activated implicitly via some (authenticated) action
or exlicitly by clicking
Steve Langasek wrote:
And even if LP accepted other openid providers, one would still have to log
in to LP the first time in order to configure which openid provider to use,
which I guess is still going to be more effort than some are interested in
doing. :)
I've seen websites get openid
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 12:15:20PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
And even if LP accepted other openid providers, one would still have to log
in to LP the first time in order to configure which openid provider to use,
which I guess is still going to be more effort than some
Reinhard Tartler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This would effectivly mean activating the respective LP account [1] and
associating the respective gpg key with that account. This would be of
course doable, but given from this and previous discussions, I do not
have the impression that this is
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 12:15:20PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
I've seen websites get openid wrong in a variety of amusing ways,
but on reasonable implementations, you generally indicate your
openid provider by trying your openid into the openid login
Charles Plessy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Le Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 01:43:13PM -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
You can close Launchpad bugs in Ubuntu packages from Debian. The LP:
##
syntax lets bugs get autoclosed when your package is synced to Debian, or
when it's merged by an Ubuntu
On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 12:58 +0200, Loïc Minier wrote:
It is a bootstrapping problem - to build packages, you need the
dependencies. Ubuntu does not have any ARM packages and the packages
that we need to use are the ones with the most changes between Debian
and Ubuntu. The patches that we
On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 08:17 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 12:58:39PM +0200, Loïc Minier wrote:
Allow me to come back to your blog post now if you don't mind:
1) you're saying Launchpad is another web-login to carry; I'm happy to
report that Launchpad is moving to
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 21:59:37 +0200
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Stephan Hermann:
What's the correct way to get it out of Unbuntu (universe)? I
don't want to relicense it, but if asking politely does not work,
it seems to be my only choice.
What needs to be done to make
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 05:32:31PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
I ask because emdebian-tools isn't intended for Ubuntu either. See [0] -
emdebian-tools also depends on server resources provided only by Debian
(in this case, the package repositories containing compatible packages
which I can use
On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 19:53 +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 05:32:31PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
I ask because emdebian-tools isn't intended for Ubuntu either. See [0] -
emdebian-tools also depends on server resources provided only by Debian
(in this case, the package
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 02:46:01PM +1000, Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
Steve Langasek wrote:
And even if LP accepted other openid providers, one would still have to log
in to LP the first time in order to configure which openid provider to use,
which I guess is still going to
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
Launchpad can already be used as an openid /provider/ today, but I haven't
heard anything to indicate it will allow logins via other openid providers;
is more information available about this somewhere?
(I don't have more information; like you I
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008, Neil Williams wrote:
Equally, I am upstream for various projects that have packages in Debian
- I am happy to use the BTS for upstream issues with those packages but
I know of many upstreams who would not consider scanning the BTS and
expect Debian to forward bugs to
On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 17:43 +0200, Loïc Minier wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008, Neil Williams wrote:
Consider debootstrapping Debian
from Ubuntu or vice versa, pbuilding in the same combinations, or
creating virtual machines. The same could apply to emdebian tools; of
course there's
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 12:06:08PM +0200, Stephan Hermann wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 21:59:37 +0200
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Stephan Hermann:
What's the correct way to get it out of Unbuntu (universe)? I
don't want to relicense it, but if asking politely does not
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 01:43:13PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
You can close Launchpad bugs in Ubuntu packages from Debian. The LP: ##
syntax lets bugs get autoclosed when your package is synced to Debian, or
when it's merged by an Ubuntu developer.
Very interesting, is it documented
ma, 2008-07-21 kello 09:26 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli kirjoitti:
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 01:43:13PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
You can close Launchpad bugs in Ubuntu packages from Debian. The LP:
##
syntax lets bugs get autoclosed when your package is synced to Debian, or
when it's
I found Osamu's original post to be very uplifting. Whilst
your Ubuntu issue is something of importance and worth
discussing, given the more pessimistic nature of the
problem (and suggested solutions); it's a shame you've both
hijacked Osamu's thread with it :(
--
Jon Dowland
--
To
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 09:26:30AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 01:43:13PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
You can close Launchpad bugs in Ubuntu packages from Debian. The LP:
##
syntax lets bugs get autoclosed when your package is synced to Debian, or
when
Steve Langasek wrote:
Launchpad can already be used as an openid /provider/ today, but I haven't
heard anything to indicate it will allow logins via other openid providers;
is more information available about this somewhere?
And even if LP accepted other openid providers, one would still
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 09:38:01AM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
What is the problem with closing the Debian bugs in the Debian
changelog, and letting the Ubuntu MOTU (I hope I am using the right
terminology here) handle the Ubuntu bug tracking?
No one is saying that Debian developers
On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 09:38 -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
Launchpad can already be used as an openid /provider/ today, but I haven't
heard anything to indicate it will allow logins via other openid providers;
is more information available about this somewhere?
* Stephan Hermann:
What's the correct way to get it out of Unbuntu (universe)? I don't
want to relicense it, but if asking politely does not work, it seems
to be my only choice.
What needs to be done to make it work on Ubuntu, too?
debsecan needs to be patched to download CVE meta-data
Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008, Neil Williams wrote:
Which cannot be done without
yet-another-website-login-combo-to-use-once-and-lose-forevermore -
useless Ubuntu bug tracker. :-(
I do feed info upstream (via yet more website logins), I really can't
add
Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008, Ben Finney wrote:
However, the above bug in the Debian BTS has been archived. Must
we open another bug to ask for the change to be reverted?
Perhaps you can use a GreaseMonkey script to remove it for you, or
request a cookie /
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 06:58:10AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008, Neil Williams wrote:
Which cannot be done without
yet-another-website-login-combo-to-use-once-and-lose-forevermore -
useless Ubuntu bug tracker. :-(
I do feed
Package: qa.debian.org
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 08:55:40AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
In the Ubuntu wiki, there's
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuForDebianDevelopers which is intended to
provide practical information about Ubuntu specifically for Debian
developers. I've just added a new
Steve Langasek wrote:
And even if LP accepted other openid providers, one would still have to log
in to LP the first time in order to configure which openid provider to use,
which I guess is still going to be more effort than some are interested in
doing. :)
It would certainly address the
Hi,
I found some of my packages are offered as a part of Ubuntu archive.
(Practically copied with minor adjustment.) That is good but I felt a
bit strange since I needed to use my time to find it out.
Then, I realized I am no better than the Ubuntu MOTU developers on how to
deal with upstream as
* Osamu Aoki:
I found some of my packages are offered as a part of Ubuntu archive.
Same here. In my case (debsecan), it's a bit irresponsible because the
package doesn't really work on Ubuntu--but it's not readily apparent to
potential users. Furthermore, it uses server resources provided to
On Sunday 20 July 2008 12:05, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Osamu Aoki:
I found some of my packages are offered as a part of Ubuntu archive.
Same here. In my case (debsecan), it's a bit irresponsible because the
package doesn't really work on Ubuntu--but it's not readily apparent to
potential
Osamu Aoki wrote:
I think we should encourage packager to contact upstream with simple
hello! message and he (or myself) should be part of active upstream ML.
When I had upstreams, I always used to do this.
Often though, I'd wait until I had some patches to go with the hello,
to make the
On Sun, 2008-07-20 at 18:05 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Osamu Aoki:
I found some of my packages are offered as a part of Ubuntu archive.
Have you found any that are not?
Same here. In my case (debsecan), it's a bit irresponsible because the
package doesn't really work on Ubuntu--but
2008/7/20 Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
* Osamu Aoki:
I found some of my packages are offered as a part of Ubuntu archive.
Same here. In my case (debsecan), it's a bit irresponsible because the
package doesn't really work on Ubuntu--but it's not readily apparent to
potential users.
* Neil Williams:
What's the correct way to get it out of Unbuntu (universe)? I don't
want to relicense it, but if asking politely does not work, it seems to
be my only choice.
How would you relicence it in a manner that prevents use in Ubuntu but
retains DFSG compatibility to remain in
* Osamu Aoki [EMAIL PROTECTED] [080720 14:57]:
I think we should encourage packager to contact upstream with simple
hello! message and he (or myself) should be part of active upstream ML.
After all, we all are human. Friendly hello always helps people.
I know this is not something we need
On Sun, 2008-07-20 at 18:42 +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* Osamu Aoki [EMAIL PROTECTED] [080720 14:57]:
I think we should encourage packager to contact upstream with simple
hello! message and he (or myself) should be part of active upstream ML.
After all, we all are human. Friendly
On Sun, 2008-07-20 at 12:16 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Sunday 20 July 2008 12:05, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Osamu Aoki:
I found some of my packages are offered as a part of Ubuntu archive.
Same here. In my case (debsecan), it's a bit irresponsible because the
package doesn't
Hi,
On Sunday 20 July 2008 18:42, Florian Weimer wrote:
Relicensing would involve moving the package to non-free, that's
correct.
Ui, I dint expect you really would want that. Why not detect if the system is
really Debian and if not output system type unsupported?
regards,
Holger
On Sunday 20 July 2008 13:33, Neil Williams wrote:
On Sun, 2008-07-20 at 12:16 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Sunday 20 July 2008 12:05, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Osamu Aoki:
I found some of my packages are offered as a part of Ubuntu archive.
Same here. In my case (debsecan),
On Sun, 2008-07-20 at 19:57 +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
Hi,
On Sunday 20 July 2008 18:42, Florian Weimer wrote:
Relicensing would involve moving the package to non-free, that's
correct.
Ui, I dint expect you really would want that. Why not detect if the system is
really Debian and if
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What's the correct way to get it out of Unbuntu (universe)?
I'd suggest filing a bug, and perhaps advertise it on the relevant
developer mailing lists.
I don't want to relicense it, but if asking politely does not work, it
seems to be my only
Hi Neil,
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 05:32:31PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
I ask because emdebian-tools isn't intended for Ubuntu either. See [0] -
emdebian-tools also depends on server resources provided only by Debian
(in this case, the package repositories containing compatible packages
which
Neil Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 2008-07-20 at 19:57 +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
Why not detect if the system is really Debian and if not output
system type unsupported?
I tried that - it generates a bug report within Ubuntu that I can't
close from within Debian but which
On Sun, 2008-07-20 at 13:43 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Hi Neil,
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 05:32:31PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
I ask because emdebian-tools isn't intended for Ubuntu either. See [0] -
emdebian-tools also depends on server resources provided only by Debian
(in this case,
66 matches
Mail list logo
