Kevin Mark:
Also, I was checking packages.ubuntu.com - dapper - base
utils-bash-view Debian changelog and it was a dead link.
If you change the 'packages' in the URL to 'changelogs'
it works. I mailed Frank Lichtenheld about this yesterday.
-- Shot
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
I wrote:
Suppose Ubuntu were to cease claiming[0] that it gives back to Debian.
Would everyone be happy then? I doubt it.
[0] Here: http://ubuntu.com/ubuntu/relationship?highlight=%28debian%29
there's a claim that they send their bugfixes to the Debian developers
responsible for that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 03:47:15PM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On 1/17/06, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As it is, to me, Ubuntu is just a group of people, some of which might
have names[1]. I find it hard to work with such a thing;
On 1/19/06, Kevin Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
you could check changelogs.ubuntu.com which holds changelog and
copyright files of the packages.
Hi Reinhard,
are the changelogs on changelogs.ubuntu.com only from stable releases or
do they include testing/dapper? Also, I was checking
On 1/17/06, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As it is, to me, Ubuntu is just a group of people, some of which might
have names[1]. I find it hard to work with such a thing; while I would
love to work more closely with Ubuntu, the lack of personality is what's
holding me back---and I'm
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes (Re: Need for launchpad):
Actually, upstream maintainers have no voice before the technical
committee, which exists to resolve disputes between Debian developers,
not between Debian developers and outsiders.
This is not true. Constitution s6 defines the powers
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 appreciate it if people responsible downstream
for my packages would
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 10:34:57AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 06:52:10PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
It'd probably be great if Ubuntu would set up (or, if it already exists,
advertise) some way to have a canonical way (no pun intended) to contact
the Ubuntu
On 1/16/06, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
Theodore Ts'o [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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.
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
I can give a couple of examples; one is way back when, before I took
over the maintenance of the e2fsprogs package, and was merely the
upstream author. The then maintainer of e2fsprogs attempted to add
support for filesystems 2GB, but botched the job, and the result was
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 12:44:01AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
I think this is not quite true. In any case, my recollection was that
the bad cooperation was a two-way street, with you being extremely
reluctant to acknowledge the concerns and needs of distributions, and
on the other
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 12:06:29PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
I can give a couple of examples; one is way back when, before I took
over the maintenance of the e2fsprogs package, and was merely the
upstream author. The then maintainer of e2fsprogs attempted to add
Theodore Ts'o [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 12:44:01AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
I think this is not quite true. In any case, my recollection was that
the bad cooperation was a two-way street, with you being extremely
reluctant to acknowledge the concerns and
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
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
Only Debian developers can push changes into Debian, and indeed only
particular Debian developers can push particular changes into Debian.
Routing patches through this mesh involves a lot of overhead, especially in
the form of latency. It's commonplace in Debian to wait
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
in the introduction of the MOTU group.
The MOTU team was formed
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
in the
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The ratio of Debian developers to upstream developers is *much* closer to
1:1 than the ratio of Ubuntu developers to Debian developers, but even so,
my guess (based on at least some empirical observation of packages I'm
familiar with) is that many of
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
I think that you're looking for justification for your position after the
fact, rather than making judgements based on observations.
I've written at length in my blog before about the mess that Ubuntu
made of packages that I maintain in Debian. This mess seemed to become
I have replied to the implied ad-hominem in Matt's mail privately, but I
would like the state here that I didn't appreciate it.
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
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
in the
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 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
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
[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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Christian Perrier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
While I'm sure there'll be some people who'll complain no matter what,
I don't see what the problem with mailing patches directly to the BTS
is. As far as tracking is concerned, making use of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
usertags or similar would seem
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 Ubuntu maintainer.
There's no Ubuntu maintainer for a specific
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
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 developer is obviously impractical.
Could you elaborate on this? It's not
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
There's no Ubuntu maintainer for a specific package... packages in
Universe are sometimes uploaded by several different person. [...]
OK, but is listing the Debian maintainer as the only contact person
appropriate?
I've seem some forks of my
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 03:53:51PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
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
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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 Ubuntu maintainer.
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 maintainers in the
packages. I have only said that I would like
Heya Hamish,
On 1/14/06, Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On a related note, it seems to me that the existence of the MOTU team,
as non-core Ubuntu developers who are also not Debian developers,
encourages more packages to be forked. Those developers can't make
direct Debian uploads
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 07:36:06AM +, Martin Meredith wrote:
But, also - and I've had this experience myself - there are some DD's who
just plain and simple dont want the stuff from ubuntu. I've had a couple
of times where I've had an issue with a package - and realised it was a
problem in
Steve Langasek wrote:
FWIW, here's what I see in practice. We have Ubuntu saying that they
give back to Debian; and then we have a fairly large divergence
between what Debian has in unstable and what's going into the next
Ubuntu release, with IME very little patch submission to the Debian
Thomas Hood writes:
If they were submitted to the BTS then that would just create more work
for the Debian maintainer as well as for the Ubuntu maintainer, since the
former would have to tag the report and ensure it gets closed on the next
upload, etc.
That's exactly how I want to handle my
On Friday 13 January 2006 12:04, Thomas Hood wrote:
I agree that it would be nice if Ubuntu developers tried to get their
changes into sid. It is certainly not their responsibility to do so,
It isn't? Presumably they're that ones that want to remain close to Debian
(as any divergence means
John Hasler wrote:
I can't see how putting up patches on a Web site is better than
(or even as good as) filing bug reports.
The web site requires less labor to maintain than hundreds of bug reports.
Again, why should Ubuntu's patches be handled any differently than
those of other users?
On Friday 13 January 2006 16:27, Thomas Hood wrote:
John Hasler wrote:
I can't see how putting up patches on a Web site is better than
(or even as good as) filing bug reports.
The web site requires less labor to maintain than hundreds of bug
reports.
for Ubuntu that's true, for the Debian
...
Suppose Ubuntu were to cease claiming[0] that it gives back to Debian.
Would everyone be happy then? I doubt it.
Is your goal to make everybody happy or be truthful?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 01:14:18PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
The trouble is that those expressing this opinion seem to have
misunderstandings about what has actually been said. They talk about what
is said proudly, that Ubuntu is crowing or bragging about giving
back, that it conceals its
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 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 within Ubuntu, it would be
correct. Not every relevant patch ends up in
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
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ubuntu, while its license policy is somewhat less strict than the DFSG,
is not drifting into closed-source software. It's virtually unchanged
since the project's inception.
The policy and development may be virtually unchanged since the project's
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:53:51 -0800, Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
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 members. Fortunately,
there are others
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 07:19:53PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Which group, pray, do you categorize me into?
You, Manoj, are in a category all your own.
--
- mdz
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
http://www.ubuntulinux.org/ubuntu/relationship
Sponsored by Canonical, the Ubuntu project attempts to work with
Debian to address the issues that keep many users from using Debian.
...
When Ubuntu developers fix bugs that are also present in
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 members. Fortunately, there are others who are
actively cooperating to
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It doesn't say that Ubuntu fixes ALL Debian bugs, or any other absolute. It
does say that Ubuntu submits bug fixes to Debian through the BTS, and there
are in fact hundreds of such fixes in debbugs today.
Does Ubuntu do so for every bug it fixes, or
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
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Every time you find a bug in an Ubuntu package, make some effort to
determine if it is Ubuntu-specific or might rather affect all Debian
users. If it is not Ubuntu-specific, then file a bug report, and
optionally, a patch, in the Debian BTS.
Which
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 03:53:51PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
First, Ubuntu contributes patches directly to Debian
The word directly is somewhat misleading here; in general, Ubuntu
developers are not allowed (by Debian) to make any change directly to
Debian. I will suggest that it be
While I'm sure there'll be some people who'll complain no matter what,
I don't see what the problem with mailing patches directly to the BTS
is. As far as tracking is concerned, making use of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
usertags or similar would seem sensible.
Silly question, probably, but wouldn't
It has come to my attention that this last email could have been construed as a
personal attack
against a certain ubuntu developer. It is not meant that way.
What I don't seem to have put across properly are the following points.
1) the blog post mentioned that made me irate was because of the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Meredith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I can definately understand some DD's views here - they seem to get
nothing from ubuntu - have to wade through patches or whatever to try
and find the useful stuff - have to do all this work to get all the
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 07:36:06 +, Martin Meredith [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Ok - I'm going to reply to the first post i found on this whole -
thing, so apologies if it shows up in some weird place in threaded
view.
Basically - I dont think the brand should be put on ubuntu as a
whole -
On 1/12/06, Roger Leigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know if you read my other mail, but I do find it hard to
cooperate with Ubuntu for my own package, because each time it has
been uploaded to Ubuntu it was done my a different person, so I don't
know who I should be cooperating /with/.
Please read my first couple of lines in the email - as quoted below
Ok - I'm going to reply to the first post i found on this whole -
thing, so apologies if it shows up in some weird place in threaded
view.
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
OK. Since you selected my post to reply to -- are you
Benjamin Seidenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Oh, it gets even better. The fun part is that the one who wants to
receive the list may not be the one who actually transmits the signal
(and hence would be at fault). That'd be the transmitting station. for
those who are having trouble following,
Ok - I'm going to reply to the first post i found on this whole - thing, so
apologies if it shows up
in some weird place in threaded view.
Basically the way I see it isnt the fact that ubuntu isn't giving back to
debian - or debian isn't
willing to have the stuff from ubuntu. The way i see it
Il giorno lun, 09/01/2006 alle 16.02 -0800, Matt Zimmerman ha scritto:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 12:32:32AM +0100, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
What really I don't understand is how a proprietary tool can promote
more efficient collaboration on the development of _free software_.
Sounds like
* Russ Allbery:
Debian isn't perfect at this. There are portions of the Debian
infrastructure where the exact version that Debian is running are not
necessarily available. However, these are generally considered within the
project to be anomolies and Debian *does* have a general committment
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Russ Allbery:
Debian isn't perfect at this. There are portions of the Debian
infrastructure where the exact version that Debian is running are not
necessarily available. However, these are generally considered within
the project to be anomolies
Stephan Hermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- Do not use foul language; besides, some people receive the lists
via packet radio, where swearing is illegal.
Are you saying some people are transmitting the lists via radio
without taking personal responsiblity for their transmissions? Shame
on
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Stephan Hermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- Do not use foul language; besides, some people receive the lists
via packet radio, where swearing is illegal.
Are you saying some people are transmitting the lists via radio
without taking personal responsiblity
Romain Francoise wrote:
Automatic import of the Debian LDAP data?
I don't think Debian'd give the data away.
Also, the accounts correspond to package maintainers rather then Debian
developers (I don't use my @d.o address for packages). If it was the
latter, surely they could have done better with
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 08:45:02AM +0100, Romain Francoise wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Developers will choose to use them when and where it makes sense for
them to do so.
Ironically enough, it looks like all Debian Developers already have an
account there... because
Thomas Viehmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't think Debian'd give the data away.
Hmm? The data is was referring to is public (login and full name).
I wasn't implying that Launchpad had data from the private part of our
LDAP db (it doesn't).
--
,''`.
: :' :Romain Francoise
* Roland Mas
| I don't see why the poor oppressed non-elite should have tools
| they find easy to use and the arrogant elite shouldn't. If my
| not-quite-geek sister wants to use her web browser to translate stuff,
| I don't see why she should be prevented from doing that, but then if
| I, as
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 08:45:02AM +0100, Romain Francoise wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Developers will choose to use them when and where it makes sense for
them to do so.
Ironically enough, it looks like all Debian Developers already have an
account there... because
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 01:28:00AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 11:25:28AM +0100, Stephan Hermann wrote:
Everything what is on https://wiki.launchpad.canonical.com/ is free to use.
Read and think again. Or use another example: Amazons code is not free to
see, but
1 - 100 of 151 matches
Mail list logo
