Re: where should the library go?

[Steve Langasek]

On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 08:42:29AM +0200, Andreas Fester wrote:
> kamaraju kusumanchi wrote:
> >I am trying to package fortranposix as a debian package. The upstream is 
> >available at http://sourceforge.net/projects/fortranposix/

> >After compiling it, I get a file called libfortranposix.so. I am 
> >wondering whether this library should go into /usr/lib or 
> >/usr/lib/fortranposix directory?

> The library should go in /usr/lib.

Only shared libraries that declare an SONAME and use ABI versioning
belong in /usr/lib.  A library named /usr/lib/libfortranposix.so doesn't
belong in /usr/lib unless it's a symlink to libfortranposix.so..

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Tollef Fog Heen]

* Matthew Palmer 

| On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 08:07:33AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
| > * John Goerzen 
| > 
| > | If it matters, I'll add my voice to the chorus on that.  Anything that
| > | requires me to go off to the net to fix takes longer to fix and is
| > | more annoying to deal with.
| > 
| > Well, some people like just having a link to a patch.  Me for
| > instance.
| 
| Does http://bugs.debian.org/nn not work for you?  

My experience is patch(1) is generally not happy about applying
patches which are just inlined in the web page due to changes in
white-space.

(And bugs.d.o is way, way slower than most other servers on the net
for me.)

-- 
Tollef Fog Heen,''`.
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are  : :' :
  `. `' 
`-  


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

dhcp-client package in sarge

[Nicolas Kreft]

Hi List!


Is it for a special reason that the default dhcp-client
in sarge is ancient (version 2.0pl5)?

This client does not follow the RFC correctly. When
it does a dhcpdiscover and the interface has been
previously configured with some ip address it is still
using that ip for the dhcpdiscover. This causes the
dhcp server (3.0.2) on my network to abandon that ip address.

The 3.x series has been released nearly 4 years ago,
why not make it the default?



regards,
Nicolas


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Eduard Bloch]

#include 
* Tollef Fog Heen [Tue, May 31 2005, 06:06:28PM]:
> * Stephen Birch 
> 
> | The project seems to have established a mechanism for putting new
> | packeges directly into Ubuntu.  Are new Ubuntu packages also put in
> | Debian by the Ubuntu team members?
> 
> Yes.

And I think it is a fair demand asking all Ubuntu Developers to wear the
Ubuntu hats when Ubuntu specific questions are beeing discussed.

Read: I expect you to specify [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the From:
field, otherwise reading the mail discussions and understanding people's
position becomes hard.

Regards,
Eduard.

PS: Please don't say "I am completely unbiased, I _just_ have another
real-life employer, there is no need to know whom I am working for". I
won't buy that.
-- 
 23 bans ... die Illuminaten waren hier
 .oO( /kb ace lueg nicht, 24 )


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: where should the library go?

[Andreas Fester]

Hi,

kamaraju kusumanchi wrote:
I am trying to package fortranposix as a debian package. The upstream is 
available at http://sourceforge.net/projects/fortranposix/


After compiling it, I get a file called libfortranposix.so. I am 
wondering whether this library should go into /usr/lib or 
/usr/lib/fortranposix directory?


The library should go in /usr/lib.

I read the FHS standard and even then I am unable to figure out which is 
a better place.


Make also sure that you read

The Debian New Maintainers Guide 
http://www.debian.org/doc/devel-manuals#maint-guide


The Debian Developers Reference
http://www.debian.org/doc/devel-manuals#devref

And, especially important for your situation since you are building
a library:
The Debian Library Packaging guide
http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html

I have collected these and some additional links at
http://littletux.homelinux.org//links.php?cat=621

Some additional hints:
- You have to divide the package in a library package and a -dev
  package.
- You said you get a file called libfortranposix.so; this is usually
  only a link provided by the -dev package which points to the actual
  library. The -dev package also contains the header files, for example.
- The actual library must have a SONAME prefix (e.g.
  libfortranposix.so.1). This file is contained in the actual
  library package.

Best Regards,

Andreas


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Matthew Palmer]

On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 08:07:33AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * John Goerzen 
> 
> | If it matters, I'll add my voice to the chorus on that.  Anything that
> | requires me to go off to the net to fix takes longer to fix and is
> | more annoying to deal with.
> 
> Well, some people like just having a link to a patch.  Me for
> instance.

Does http://bugs.debian.org/nn not work for you?  

- Matt


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Tollef Fog Heen]

* John Goerzen 

| If it matters, I'll add my voice to the chorus on that.  Anything that
| requires me to go off to the net to fix takes longer to fix and is
| more annoying to deal with.

Well, some people like just having a link to a patch.  Me for
instance.

-- 
Tollef Fog Heen,''`.
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are  : :' :
  `. `' 
`-  


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Keysigning without physically meeting ... thoughts?

[Paul TBBle Hampson]

On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 01:36:26AM +0300, Jaakko Niemi wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Jun 2005, Paul TBBle Hampson wrote:
> > I was told to get a notarised form for a domain transfer before the domain
> > registrar would release it. I ended up losing the domain (>_<) because I
> > discovered that to find a notary in Australia, you have to go to a US 
> > Embassy.

>  Huh? I've delivered documents to Verisign, NSI and Thawte verified by
>  the local public notary without any issues. 

I actually ended up taking a moral stand on the grounds that they were trying
to hijack my domain by demanding extra proof that I am who I said I was beyond
controlling the email address and password I used to create the domain. (I'm
not sure what they planned on comparing my documentation _to_. They were also
talking about charging me something like three years of registration as an
'exit' fee. Luckily for the rest of my domains, the changes which mean 'no
denial' == 'transfer' came through before I had any other domains expire.)

This all started because their ecommerce system started rejecting my visa
card, and their support stopped responding for nearly a full year after
replying with "try it again, works fine here".

-- 
---
Paul "TBBle" Hampson, MCSE
8th year CompSci/Asian Studies student, ANU
The Boss, Bubblesworth Pty Ltd (ABN: 51 095 284 361)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

"No survivors? Then where do the stories come from I wonder?"
-- Capt. Jack Sparrow, "Pirates of the Caribbean"

This email is licensed to the recipient for non-commercial
use, duplication and distribution.
---


pgpKOl3pSphuA.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Matthew Palmer]

On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 03:56:18PM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 07:49:39AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 12:47:30AM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > > proposals, but we have very limited developer resources compared to 
> > > Debian.
> > 
> > I keep hearing this from Ubuntu, and yet the obvious solution to the problem
> > ("stop doing so damn much") has apparently never been considered.  It seems,
> > from my perspective, that doing a good job on a smaller subset of the free
> > software universe would be better than the current attempts.  Scale over
> > time, don't try to do everything at once and then say "we didn't have enough
> > resources to do it properly".
> 
> You're not suggesting "stop doing so damn much" so much as "spend more
> resources on Debian and fewer resources on Ubuntu".

No, I'm suggesting "stop doing so damn much".  Really.

Ubuntu has committed to being a good community player and sending patches
back upstream.  It's one of it's big selling points in the geek sphere.  But
on several occasions now, I've heard "we can't give back to Debian because
we're too busy trying to Ubuntuise the entireity of Debian main + a bunch of
other stuff with only a few people".

I wouldn't be in the slightest bit worried about Ubuntu not contributing
back to Debian if it was Yet Another Derivative.  There's over a hundred
Debian derived distributions, and most of them probably contribute little or
nothing back to Debian.  I don't mind that, it's a nice thing about free
software.  But Ubuntu is making lots of noise about it being a good
community member and giving back -- but the noises from the trenches are
"too busy, sorry".

In effect, you're asking Debian to do what you said you'd do -- contribute
back -- by chasing patches out of p.u.c/~scott/patches/ or wherever you're
going to stick them in launchpad.

> This is a difficult balance to strike, and one side will be displeased
> with the result regardless.  A "good job" to you means that Ubuntu
> developers do a larger share of the work of getting their changes into
> Debian.  A "good job" to Ubuntu means that the work is more complete and
> correct.

I would imagine that a "good job" to everyone would be matching words with
actions.  Not just "when Malone gets finished" or "when hct is finished" or
whatever, but now.  And if you can't do all of the work you've said you'll
do due to lack of resources, then pick something that you can live without,
and stop doing it.

- Matt


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bullet-Proof dedicated server - 103935

[Barry]

To debian-curiosa@lists.debian.org:

Stable offshore resources:

-  Direct Mailing Dedicated Server
-  Offshore web Hosting

-  Supply email list according to your order


Rudy
Server Dept

Do not reply to this email. Please contact us by
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]

remove me from call wave

[Heyer Family]

Please remove me from call wave.
Thanks

Re: Keysigning without physically meeting ... thoughts?

[Ron Johnson]

On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 01:36:26 +0300
Jaakko Niemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Thu, 02 Jun 2005, Paul TBBle Hampson wrote:
> > I was told to get a notarised form for a domain transfer before the domain
> > registrar would release it. I ended up losing the domain (>_<) because I
> > discovered that to find a notary in Australia, you have to go to a US 
> > Embassy.
> 
>  Huh? I've delivered documents to Verisign, NSI and Thawte verified by
>  the local public notary without any issues. 

Finland and Oz have different laws regarding NPs?



-- 
-
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson, LA  USA
PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail.

"They ginned up a war with an empty gun."
Chris Matthews, regarding Saddam Hussein & Iraq


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Marco d'Itri]

On Jun 03, John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Having said that, even a link in a bug report is better than trying to
> find all my packages in a huge list.
It has been clearly shown that different people have different opinion
on this issue, e.g. I do not want to receive patches in bug reports so 
if I cannot get them automatically by mail (but usually the Ubuntu
people mail me the important ones anyway) looking in the repository
when I'm working on a new upload is the next best thing.

-- 
ciao,
Marco


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

where should the library go?

[kamaraju kusumanchi]

I am trying to package fortranposix as a debian package. The upstream is 
available at http://sourceforge.net/projects/fortranposix/


After compiling it, I get a file called libfortranposix.so. I am 
wondering whether this library should go into /usr/lib or 
/usr/lib/fortranposix directory?


I read the FHS standard and even then I am unable to figure out which is 
a better place.


any advice would be appreciated
raju


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 07:49:39AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 12:47:30AM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > The same logic applies to many bugs as well.  Would it really be better to
> > have an open bug report in debbugs, than a patch on people.ubuntu.com?
> 
> I'd prefer an open bug report in debbugs with the patch included.
> 
> > I know of no reason to mass-file bug reports, except that some people insist
> > that the best place to publish Ubuntu's patches is in debbugs.  I disagree
> > with that position, myself.
> 
> Why?  It's a commonly held belief that the best place to publish Debian's
> (relevant) patches is in the upstream BTS.
> 
> > proposals, but we have very limited developer resources compared to Debian.
> 
> I keep hearing this from Ubuntu, and yet the obvious solution to the problem
> ("stop doing so damn much") has apparently never been considered.  It seems,
> from my perspective, that doing a good job on a smaller subset of the free
> software universe would be better than the current attempts.  Scale over
> time, don't try to do everything at once and then say "we didn't have enough
> resources to do it properly".

You're not suggesting "stop doing so damn much" so much as "spend more
resources on Debian and fewer resources on Ubuntu".  This is a difficult
balance to strike, and one side will be displeased with the result
regardless.  A "good job" to you means that Ubuntu developers do a larger
share of the work of getting their changes into Debian.  A "good job" to
Ubuntu means that the work is more complete and correct.

Since sharing code is to the benefit of both projects, it makes sense to try
to find ways to share the burden of convergence.  Quite a bit of code has
already been submitted by Ubuntu developers in the ideal manner you
described, but doing this for every change isn't feasible.

-- 
 - mdz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Keysigning without physically meeting ... thoughts?

[Jaakko Niemi]

On Thu, 02 Jun 2005, Paul TBBle Hampson wrote:
> I was told to get a notarised form for a domain transfer before the domain
> registrar would release it. I ended up losing the domain (>_<) because I
> discovered that to find a notary in Australia, you have to go to a US Embassy.

 Huh? I've delivered documents to Verisign, NSI and Thawte verified by
 the local public notary without any issues. 

--j


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Linux / Debian / Ubuntu

[Roger Lynn]

On Tue, 31 May 2005 21:37:28 -0700, Stephen Birch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Darren Salt([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2005-05-31 21:49:
> > For those who've missed the first three broadcasts today, there's one more 
> > at
> > 01:05 GMT; also see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/1478157.stm>.
> 
> Why on earth does the BBC force its listeners to all hit its servers
> at the same time.  Doesn't make sense at all, why not ogg the program
> up and put it on its servers so the audience can listen when they
> want.

Huh? You can listen to the programme any time you like. (Admittedly you're
restricted to RealPlayer or Windows Media Player, but at least there are
cross-platform players available for RealPlayer.)

> Okay, so I know the answer.  The BBC is still coming to grips with the
> idea that "boradcasting" is dead.  The tech generation wants to time
> and space shift programming to a convenient time/location.

You can do exactly that. The vast majority of the BBC's radio output is
available to listen to whenever you want, up to a week after broadcast,
and has been for some time.

Roger


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[John Goerzen]

On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 12:32:14AM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-06-03 08:58]:

> I, as well as others, have pointed out to Canonical on several
> occasions that their patch policy is less than optimal.  While some
> personally agree with me, it's their policy and unfortunately it won't
> change... however, maybe there's still hope, now that more people are
> expressing that they'd like to receive patches and not just links to
> patches.

If it matters, I'll add my voice to the chorus on that.  Anything that
requires me to go off to the net to fix takes longer to fix and is
more annoying to deal with.

Having said that, even a link in a bug report is better than trying to
find all my packages in a huge list.

-- John


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Martin Michlmayr]

* Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-06-03 08:58]:
> > That said, I was informed today that there's a policy that when
> > bugs are submitted the patch has to be put on people.ubuntu.com
> > and linked to in the report rather than being included in the
> > report, which did strike me as rather strange.
> 
> Ugh.  I *like* having all the necessary stuff in an e-mail; it means
> there's a nicely indexed copy of the info sitting on my local
> laptop, and considering the fact that almost all of my personal time
> on the laptop these days is spent disconnected from the 'net,
> something that I have to wget is going to have to take a much lower
> priority.

I, as well as others, have pointed out to Canonical on several
occasions that their patch policy is less than optimal.  While some
personally agree with me, it's their policy and unfortunately it won't
change... however, maybe there's still hope, now that more people are
expressing that they'd like to receive patches and not just links to
patches.
-- 
Martin Michlmayr
http://www.cyrius.com/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Matthew Palmer]

On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 11:26:58PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> That said, I was informed today that there's a policy that when bugs are
> submitted the patch has to be put on people.ubuntu.com and linked to in
> the report rather than being included in the report, which did strike me
> as rather strange.

Ugh.  I *like* having all the necessary stuff in an e-mail; it means there's
a nicely indexed copy of the info sitting on my local laptop, and
considering the fact that almost all of my personal time on the laptop these
days is spent disconnected from the 'net, something that I have to wget is
going to have to take a much lower priority.

- Matt


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Debian as "Google summer of code" mentor?

[Adam Heath]

On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Matthijs Kooijman wrote:

> Hey,
>
> as you've probably heard, Google has a "summer of code" initiative to
> stimulate open source coding. They are looking for mentors to support the
> coders. Shouldn't Debian be on that list?
>
> Matthijs

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/summer-discuss/browse_thread/thread/279642a09050c7f2/a667a3122c21bdc2#a667a3122c21bdc2

Basically a screw you kind of reply.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Mark Brown]

On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 07:49:39AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 12:47:30AM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:

> > The same logic applies to many bugs as well.  Would it really be better to
> > have an open bug report in debbugs, than a patch on people.ubuntu.com?

> I'd prefer an open bug report in debbugs with the patch included.

Me too, and to be fair at least some Ubuntu developers are putting
things into the Debian BTS like this.  I've generally had pretty good
experiences with this myself.

That said, I was informed today that there's a policy that when bugs are
submitted the patch has to be put on people.ubuntu.com and linked to in
the report rather than being included in the report, which did strike me
as rather strange.

-- 
"You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever."


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Matthew Palmer]

On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 12:47:30AM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> The same logic applies to many bugs as well.  Would it really be better to
> have an open bug report in debbugs, than a patch on people.ubuntu.com?

I'd prefer an open bug report in debbugs with the patch included.

> I know of no reason to mass-file bug reports, except that some people insist
> that the best place to publish Ubuntu's patches is in debbugs.  I disagree
> with that position, myself.

Why?  It's a commonly held belief that the best place to publish Debian's
(relevant) patches is in the upstream BTS.

> proposals, but we have very limited developer resources compared to Debian.

I keep hearing this from Ubuntu, and yet the obvious solution to the problem
("stop doing so damn much") has apparently never been considered.  It seems,
from my perspective, that doing a good job on a smaller subset of the free
software universe would be better than the current attempts.  Scale over
time, don't try to do everything at once and then say "we didn't have enough
resources to do it properly".

- Matt


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Keysigning without physically meeting ... thoughts?

[Marc Haber]

On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 02:17:50 +0200, Bernd Eckenfels
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In germany the post offices offer a service where you hand the clerk your id
>and he will check it, enter the details into a letter which he sends to the
>receipient. This is called "postident".
>
>That way you can do age checks and idendity proofs. However you have to
>trust a random person to do the job right. PGP has (undefined) assurance
>levels to express this.

And judging by the "service" the german post office usually provides,
I won't trust postident zilch.

Greetings
Marc

-- 
-- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -
Marc Haber |   " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany  | Beginning of Wisdom " | http://www.zugschlus.de/
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834

Re: Bits from GNU/kFreeBSD maintainer

[Robert Millan]

On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 04:39:25PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> >   - Maintaining the kernel package (kfreebsd5-source [3] and kfreebsd5 [4]).
> > This basicaly involves packaging new upstream releases and appliing
> > security patches from upstream when due to.
> 
> I am interested in this two packages. BTW, do you have some tips to give
> concerning the packaging of the FreeBSD kernel.

They're yours, then.

I can't think of any tips right now, but if you have questions feel free to
ask.

> > Well, that's all.  Thanks for reading.  Feel free to contact me if you need
> > assistance with adopting stuff related to GNU/kFreeBSD or my packages.
> Are you planning to follow a little the development of the port?

I might follow it, but I don't plan to be involved in the development.  I will,
however, try to be helpful with you or anyone who wants to work on it, and
answer the necessary questions or the like.

> If it
> is not the case, it would be nice to provide us the necessary
> information to continue developping the port. I am thinking of:
> - Access to the alioth project as administrator

Done.

> - Way to contact the gnuab administrator

Our contact is Guillem Jover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


Good luck, and thanks for your interest!

-- 
 .''`.   Proudly running Debian GNU/kFreeBSD unstable/unreleased (on UFS2+S)
: :' :
`. `'http://www.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu
  `-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

unsubscribe

[Art Edwards]

-- 
Art Edwards
Senior Research Physicist
Air Force Research Laboratory
Electronics Foundations Branch
KAFB, New Mexico

(505) 853-6042 (v)
(505) 846-2290 (f)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Buyer beware - Penis patches!

[Austin]

Now, it's finally possible for you to enlarge your penis
http://www.renonu.com/ss/





Don't live in a town where there are no doctors.   
Don't be humble, you're not that great.  
I don't mind a little praise - as long as it's fulsome. 
Everybody likes a kidder, but nobody lends him money.
MULATTO, n. A child of two races, ashamed of both.   




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Marc Haber]

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 15:08:51 -0500, John Goerzen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I think we should
>devote some thought to declaring a permanent bug-squashing party and
>relaxing the rules for NMUs (for instance, let them happen for any
>documented bug of any severity so long as they are uploaded to the 5-day
>delayed queue and patches are posted to the BTS at the time of the
>upload).

Agreed. Additionally, I think that the delay for bugs of serverity <
important should be much longer, like 30 days, for example.

IMO, we need some reproducible rules about when a package can be taken
over by somebody else, like, for example, when an NMU stays unACKed or
unreverted for more than half a year.

Greetings
Marc

-- 
-- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -
Marc Haber |   " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany  | Beginning of Wisdom " | http://www.zugschlus.de/
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Roger Leigh]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 09:17:46AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
>
>> In your first mail you wrote about "mass-mail Debian maintainers" in the
>> second mail you turned my request to file wishlist bug reports against
>> single packages into "mass-filing bugs in the BTS".
>
> If all of the patches were to be filed in the BTS, automation would be the
> only feasible way to do it.  It has been said that it is too much of a
> burden for Debian maintainers to process the patches, and Ubuntu currently
> has a miniscule number of developers compared to Debian.

Given the length of time it takes to make and test a change to a
package, it doesn't take much effort to run 'diff -urN' and fire a
mail at the Debian maintainer or run reportbug.  We're talking
minutes for each diff.

Just as an example, there have been a number of patches to my
gimp-print package made by ubuntu over the last year, mostly trivial.
If they had been filed as wishlist bugs, they would have been
reviewed, applied and uploaded within a week (or whenever I next
intended to uploaded), rather than being sat on for eight months.
Digging through the ubuntu patch collection to find them shouldn't
have been necessary.

Martin Pitt did mail me the last changes he made: they were applied an
uploaded within two days.

My point is simply that I personally would like to see ubuntu patches
filed directly as wishlist bugs against my packages, and wouldn't
consider it mass bug filing (they are mostly separate issues, to be
dealt with separately).  The worst I can do is disagree with the
change and close it, but the norm would be reviewing and applying the
patch ASAP.


Regards,
Roger

- -- 
Roger Leigh
Printing on GNU/Linux?  http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/
Debian GNU/Linuxhttp://www.debian.org/
GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848.  Please sign and encrypt your mail.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 

iD8DBQFCn10VVcFcaSW/uEgRAhyvAJ9DVu1VX1i/5xzlA440mlyIEnuhhACgw5lv
DUuzJG3DkrgM0y2G1Jstdkk=
=5hno
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Bill Allombert]

On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 10:44:33AM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 10:17:08AM -0500, Bill Allombert wrote:
> 
> > As far as popularity-contest is involved, Ubuntu users are not Debian
> > users since they cannot report to popcon.debian.org because the 
> > popularity-contest package provided by Ubuntu report to popcon.ubuntu.com,

Hmm, you forgot to quote the line about popcon.debian.org support being
removed.

> Do you see this, in itself, as a problem?  It seemed obvious to me that it
> would be inappropriate for Ubuntu systems to submit their data to the same
> repository as Debian users, since the data would be heavily skewed by our
> default package selections, and difficult to filter.
> 
> reportbug submits to Ubuntu, instead of Debian, for similar reasons.

and I forgot to answer this one:

reportbug submits to Ubuntu by default, but can be easily configured
to report to Debian (by changing bts ubuntu by bts debian in
/etc/reportbug.conf) and use the same codebase, so it is not a fork.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Imagine a large red swirl here. 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 11:20:33AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:

> On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> 
> >There isn't much that I can do about packages that I don't maintain; we
> >have some tools for this, but it is primarily a matter of personal
> >preference (and not Debian dogma) how packages are maintained in Debian.
> We have certain ways to change things: There is a technical commitee,
> there is the general resolution, etc.

I think it would be foolish to try to force something like this on Debian
developers by decree.  We might as well try to require the use of a
particular text editor or revision control system.  I think this kind of
change is better made one developer at a time.

> >If there is some concrete way that you feel that we can help encourage
> >team-oriented maintenance of packages, I'd like to hear it.
> What about taking part in discussions of the relevant development lists.
> I just noticed that there is a zope-debhelper in Ubuntu.  The idea for this
> came up a long time ago in Debian (before Ubuntu even existed).  Why
> not announcing this at the relevant list? Just in case the list is unknown:
> 
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-zope-developers

I didn't know about this list; I'm not sure whether Matthias Klose (who
wrote zope-debhelper) was aware of it or not.  However, very soon after it
was released, an ITP was filed to add it to Debian:

http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/03/msg00482.html

so clearly some people were aware of its existence.

-- 
 - mdz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Quick question about your site.

[Mailing Lists HQ]

Hi,

I took a look at your site a couple of hours ago...
and I want to tell you that I'd really love to trade links with you. I think
your site has some really good stuff related to my site's topic of mailing lists
and would be a great resource for my visitors.

In fact, I went ahead and added your site to my Mailing Lists Directory at 
the http://www.mailinglistshq.com under 
http://www.mailinglistshq.com/mailinglist

Is that OK with you?

Can I ask a favor? Will you give me a link back on your site? I'd really
appreciate you returning the favor.

I have created a list of all the sites i've visited but if you have recieved 
this
email in error then please let me know and i will remove you from my list and 
apologies
for any inconvenience this has caused.

Thanks and feel free to drop me an email if you'd like to chat more about
this.

Best wishes,

Steve

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
//

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 10:17:08AM -0500, Bill Allombert wrote:

> As far as popularity-contest is involved, Ubuntu users are not Debian
> users since they cannot report to popcon.debian.org because the 
> popularity-contest package provided by Ubuntu report to popcon.ubuntu.com,

Do you see this, in itself, as a problem?  It seemed obvious to me that it
would be inappropriate for Ubuntu systems to submit their data to the same
repository as Debian users, since the data would be heavily skewed by our
default package selections, and difficult to filter.

reportbug submits to Ubuntu, instead of Debian, for similar reasons.

> Basically we have two packages that share the same name but include
> unrelated softwares.

They are different, but certainly they are closely related, no?

-- 
 - mdz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 11:52:51AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:

> On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> >It has been said that it is too much of a
> >burden for Debian maintainers to process the patches, and Ubuntu currently
> >has a miniscule number of developers compared to Debian.
> I wonder why the statement
>   "We are much less people than you."
> should lead to the consequence:
>   "That's why we refuse to work together with you in an effective way."

That is a gross mischaracterization of my position.

> >It makes more sense to make the changes, and make the patches available
> >to Debian, than to ask the Debian maintainer to do the work for us by
> >filing a bug report.
> Obviousely not.  If you see that this way does not work why not trying it
> on a different way, I repeat to save the time of the "miniscule number of
> developers".  Why not joining the Debian-Python list and make some noise
> about the things which should be done.  Why not having even a single list
> debian-ubuntu-python list.  I guess we have exactly the same problems in
> Python transition (well, we will have them later, but they will have to be
> solved anyway).

The 2.3-2.4 transition is a simple analogue of the 2.2-2.3 transition.  All
of the issues are well known in the debian-python community.  What do you
feel there is to talk about?

A more interesting example would be the C++ ABI transition, in which case
this is exactly what we did:

http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2005/04/msg00146.html

> If you do not agree here with me than I wonder why you are denying that
> Ubuntu is a fork (which I did not stated but which would become obvious to
> me if you would say that Python transition of Ubuntu is something
> different than of Debian).

I have no idea what you mean; the standard for Python transitions in Debian
has been established for some time now, and Ubuntu follows the same policy.

-- 
 - mdz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 08:49:34AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:

> *Especially* with their "everything is in Arch" philosophy.  There are
> good reasons that people may choose Subversion or Darcs instead.  Every
> VC I've ever used falls flat on its face in certain common scenarios,
> and Arch is no more a silver bullet than Darcs, Subversion, or CVS.

Certainly not, and I haven't claimed as such.  I mentioned which system we
would be using, for informational purposes, in response to a comment about
using revision control to aid collaboration.

> I would be very pleased to have Ubuntu folks track my Darcs
> repositories.  But at the same time, I don't *expect* them to.  Sending
> me diffs as wishlist bugs is still fine.

I expect that integrating with darcs will be a lower priority than with more
popular revision control systems.

> Just don't expect me to dig out arch and try to apply Arch diffs to my
> darcs repos.  Isn't going to happen.

I don't expect any particular involvement on the part of any individual
developer, just sharing a bit about how we intend to attack the problem of
managing all of these source code branches.

-- 
 - mdz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Bill Allombert]

On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 10:44:33AM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 10:17:08AM -0500, Bill Allombert wrote:
> 
> > As far as popularity-contest is involved, Ubuntu users are not Debian
> > users since they cannot report to popcon.debian.org because the 
> > popularity-contest package provided by Ubuntu report to popcon.ubuntu.com,
> 
> Do you see this, in itself, as a problem?  It seemed obvious to me that it
> would be inappropriate for Ubuntu systems to submit their data to the same
> repository as Debian users, since the data would be heavily skewed by our
> default package selections, and difficult to filter.

I don't see it as a problem, but just as a hint that Ubuntu is a fork.
But there nothing wrong with forking Debian.

You have a point, though, that the Ubuntu package selection might skew the
popcon results. If the sole purpose of popcon is to generate a ranking for
generating Debian CD-ROM, then Ubuntu users are unlikely use Debian
CD-ROM, so their preference is not relevant.

However if the purpose is to know if a package is useful to the
community (for a QA purpose, etc.), then whether the package is used
on Ubuntu, Knoppix, etc. or on regular Debian is not very important.

> reportbug submits to Ubuntu, instead of Debian, for similar reasons.
> 
> > Basically we have two packages that share the same name but include
> > unrelated softwares.
> 
> They are different, but certainly they are closely related, no?

Not really. The popularity-contest script is the same, but the client
and server scripts are quite different, because Ubuntu use http instead
of sendmail to report and for some reason the Ubuntu patch remove the
client-side sendmail support.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Imagine a large red swirl here. 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

unsubscribe

[Art Edwards]

-- 
Art Edwards
Senior Research Physicist
Air Force Research Laboratory
Electronics Foundations Branch
KAFB, New Mexico

(505) 853-6042 (v)
(505) 846-2290 (f)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Colin Watson]

On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 12:25:01AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > I see no need to argue about whether Ubuntu should push; the patches
> > are all there in an easily accessible tree, and it would be trivial to
> > pull the patches and push them someplace else if that's desirable.
> 
> Please take a look at the current Ubuntu 1.6 MB diff for base-config

For the record, about 93.5% (by byte count) of that consists of largely
autogenerated debian/po/ changes that are almost certainly best ignored,
apart from the odd new translation that can be picked out and submitted
to translation teams for review after merging the corresponding strings.
The parts of that that aren't s/Debian/Ubuntu/ branding would mostly go
away if I could even figure out where to start on making apt-setup not
quite so hardcoded to a single distribution. I would love to get that
sorted out.

> (the split diffs are useless in this case), and tell me how you consider
> this to be "easily accessible". There are some base-config improvements
> in here that could benefit others, or at least other derived distros,
> such as making it only expect one CD, but not done in a generic or
> reusable way and they're all mashed up with tons of Ubuntu specific
> hacks.
> 
> For what it's worth, I've completly given up on separating the parts
> that are applicable to Debian from the parts that aren't. I have some
> hope that Colin will manage to merge some of it into the Debian package,
> since he's been doing a lot of work on merging in Ubuntu's changes to
> d-i, but if that doesn't happen soon, Ubuntu will be left with this
> massive patch to forward port as I make huge planned changes to
> base-config post-sarge.

base-config is bad, yes; it is probably my biggest headache. I've
already had to merge significant changes from Debian multiple times, and
I know exactly how painful it is.

I've been making a start on the merge today, but I need help if I want
to have a hope of ever doing anything with apt-setup.

> If Debian treated our upstreams this way, I'd be suprised if we ever got
> any patches accepted upstream.

I'm sorry that base-config has been handled poorly, and I'll try to make
more time for it. I think it's a particularly harsh example, though,
since most upstreams don't have a huge script full of code almost
entirely hardwired to the repository layout and policy (e.g. contrib,
non-free) of a single organisation. In cases where they do, we tend to
make huge changes to them or just disable them entirely, depending on
how much time we have available to make the code better and more generic
versus just making it work so that we can ship something.

Yes, fixing that situation could be very useful for other derivative
distributions too.

Cheers,

-- 
Colin Watson   [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Bill Allombert]

On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 08:56:15AM -0700, Stephen Birch wrote:
> The Ubuntu literature indicates that Ubuntu is a derivative of debian
> but it looks more like a fork to me.

One question that can hep deciding that issue is whether Ubuntu users
are also Debian users. 

As far as popularity-contest is involved, Ubuntu users are not Debian
users since they cannot report to popcon.debian.org because the 
popularity-contest package provided by Ubuntu report to popcon.ubuntu.com,
and does not include the support to report to popcon.debian.org even by
manually tweaking the configuration file.

Basically we have two packages that share the same name but include
unrelated softwares.

Is it a bug or a feature ?

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Imagine a large red swirl here.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Colin Watson]

On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 12:34:02AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> George Danchev wrote:
> > Out of curiousity, is there real examples of DD's and UD's sharing common 
> > revison control repo for their packaging, e.g. on alioth or at the relevant 
> > ubuntu service if there is any like alioth ?
> 
> Certian Ubuntu developers have commit access to the entire d-i repo, as
> well as the associated base-config and tasksel repos. If they wanted to
> do their Ubuntu-specific changes in those repos (in a branch), they
> could.

I may start doing so for at least some things, as it would make merging
easier; /people/cjwatson/automount/ is there as a start (though that's
more experimental than Ubuntu-specific). I'm not convinced about the
sanity of doing template changes that way, though; we have some
relatively clever tools for doing those merges at the moment and I'd
lose a lot of time if I had to go back to 'svn merge'. (As I've said on
debian-boot, I would rather just make translated templates not differ at
all if possible.)

I suspect that once we've got to the point where the Ubuntu-specific
changes are on average more along the lines of handling different
archive layouts than insanely voluminous translation changes, I'll feel
less like I'm bloating the d-i repository up with stuff that doesn't
benefit Debian by committing it there.

-- 
Colin Watson   [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#311666: ITP: boo -- OO, statically typed programming language for the CLI

[Federico Di Gregorio]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Federico Di Gregorio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


* Package name: boo
  Version : 0.5.5.1651
  Upstream Author : Rodrigo B. de Oliveira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://boo.codehaus.org/
* License : free, see below
  Description : OO, statically typed programming language for the CLI

Boo is a new object oriented statically typed programming language for the
 Common Language Infrastructure with a python inspired syntax and a special
  focus on language and compiler extensibility.
  
License:

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification,are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice,
this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice,
this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation
and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
* Neither the name of Rodrigo B. de Oliveira nor the names of its
contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this
software without specific prior written permission.

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS"
AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE
DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL
DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR
SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER
CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY,
OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE
OFTHIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.8-2-686
Locale: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (charmap=UTF-8)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reach new customers on the internet and grow your business... with dynamic software, you can!

[Jake]

We guarantee 100% authentic software.
http://hcvsiem.4t81p3mf1e4bjnm.deservedlyma.com




Good place to put things--cellars.
The modern rule is that every woman should be her own chaperon. 




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bits from GNU/kFreeBSD maintainer

[Aurelien Jarno]

On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 04:15:59PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> > - the architecture must be able to run a buildd 24/7 sustained
> >   (without crashing)
> > - the architecture must have an actual, running, working buildd

I am running a "manualbuilder", I mean sbuild fed up with the output of
quinn-diff, so that the packages are not to much out-dated.

> OTOH, this port needs some basic maintainance work that I'm no longer going to
> do.  If no person or group of people volunteers to do the tasks below, it'll 
> be
> obvious to me the community is not interested in Debian GNU/kFreeBSD and thus
> it was condemned to disappear anyway.  They're listed in order of relevance,
> taking in account that this system is being used in production environments,
> where security support is essential:
> 
>   - Maintaining the kernel package (kfreebsd5-source [3] and kfreebsd5 [4]).
> This basicaly involves packaging new upstream releases and appliing
> security patches from upstream when due to.

I am interested in this two packages. BTW, do you have some tips to give
concerning the packaging of the FreeBSD kernel.

>   - Run an autobuilder.
I plan to convert my "manualbuilder" to an autobuilder, but I don't have
a lot of time by now. However I'll try to do that before the end of June.

> Well, that's all.  Thanks for reading.  Feel free to contact me if you need
> assistance with adopting stuff related to GNU/kFreeBSD or my packages.
Are you planning to follow a little the development of the port? If it
is not the case, it would be nice to provide us the necessary
information to continue developping the port. I am thinking of:
- Access to the alioth project as administrator
- Way to contact the gnuab administrator
- ...

> So long, and thanks for all the fl^W^W^W^W^W^W
Thanks for your great job on this port.

Bye,
Aurelien

-- 
  .''`.  Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
 : :' :  Debian GNU/Linux developer | Electrical Engineer
 `. `'   [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   `-people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[John Goerzen]

On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 01:59:18AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 31 May 2005 19:47:19 -0700, Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 
> 
> Obviously, I have no control over how derived distributions
>  conduct their business, or where they allocate resources. But I would
>  not consider doing development in a public repo an adequate
>  substitute for not pushing bug reports and fixes upstream, using
>  their BTS, for any of the packages I maintain.

*Especially* with their "everything is in Arch" philosophy.  There are
good reasons that people may choose Subversion or Darcs instead.  Every
VC I've ever used falls flat on its face in certain common scenarios,
and Arch is no more a silver bullet than Darcs, Subversion, or CVS.

I would be very pleased to have Ubuntu folks track my Darcs
repositories.  But at the same time, I don't *expect* them to.  Sending
me diffs as wishlist bugs is still fine.

Just don't expect me to dig out arch and try to apply Arch diffs to my
darcs repos.  Isn't going to happen.

-- John


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[John Goerzen]

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 10:40:04PM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> Debian does, in fact, treat most of its upstreams precisely this way.
> Debian publishes a large portion of its changes primarily in the form of
> monolithic diffs relative to upstream source.  The last time I saw figures,
> the usage of dpatch, cdbs, etc. was rising, but not yet the standard
> operating procedure.

That doesn't necessarily mean much; see cvs-buildpackage,
tla-buildpackage, darcs-buildpackage, svn-buildpackage, etc.  Plus I
suspect there are plenty of packages out there that are maintained in
some sort of VC environment without using these specific maintenance
scripts.

-- John


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Will Newton]

On Thursday 02 June 2005 06:40, Matt Zimmerman wrote:

> > If Debian treated our upstreams this way, I'd be suprised if we ever got
> > any patches accepted upstream.
>
> Debian does, in fact, treat most of its upstreams precisely this way.
> Debian publishes a large portion of its changes primarily in the form of
> monolithic diffs relative to upstream source.  The last time I saw figures,
> the usage of dpatch, cdbs, etc. was rising, but not yet the standard
> operating procedure.

Speaking only for myself, I never do this. IME monolithic diffs are almost 
always not applied by upstream, splitting diffs into the smallest possible 
functional units with a full explanation of what they do is the best way to 
make sure the patch is applied by upstream. I do not use dpatch or cdbs, just 
patchutils and a text editor.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Andreas Tille]

On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Daniel Holbach wrote:


I thought very highly of you, when you (as one voice of many) said
"group maintenance". I want to highlight, underline, whatever it: "group
maintenance", "collaboration"!

Exactly.


We should all stop arguing, but make it finally happen.

I did in parallel if you look at the time stamps at

   
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-zope-developers/2005-June/thread.html

To prove what I said I can tell you that I CCed doko when I contact
the upstream author of the package in question about a versioning
problem which surely doko would have as well.

Hope this clarifies my intention to do what I'm able to do in my field of action

   Andreas.

--
http://fam-tille.de


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Release update: minor delay; no non-RC fixes; upgrade reports

[Adrian Bunk]

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 02:45:21PM +0100, Simon Huggins wrote:
>...
> You're a native German speaker right Adrian?  Perhaps you could help
> Debian instead by pointing out the journalist's mistake(s).
>...

OK, I can try to send them a message that Debian developers have asked 
me to point them to some corrections in their news message.

What exactly is wrong in the news message I quoted [1]?

I found two points:


Debian installer RC3 was not yet sarge RC3.

They didn't mention that the first release date announced by your 
release management [2] is already missed by 18 months.


Wouter said the article was "full of factual errors".
Could someone point me to more errors?


TIA
Adrian

[1] http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/60089
[2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/08/msg00010.html

-- 

   "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
   "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
   Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Daniel Holbach]

Dear Andreas

Am Donnerstag, den 02.06.2005, 12:05 +0200 schrieb Andreas Tille:
> Somebody might find the appropriate term for "we do not try
> hard to search more effective ways".

I thought very highly of you, when you (as one voice of many) said
"group maintenance". I want to highlight, underline, whatever it: "group
maintenance", "collaboration"! 

There's always at least two in a group...

We should all stop arguing, but make it finally happen.

Have a nice day,
 Daniel






signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: how to write Build-depends argument for gfortran

[Daniel Kobras]

On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 02:52:41AM -0400, kamaraju kusumanchi wrote:
> I want to build debian package for a library called fortranposix. The 
> upstream source can be found at
> 
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/fortranposix
> 
> This library depends on some kind of fortran 90 compiler being installed 
> on the system. gfortran is the Fortran 90 compiler available in latest 
> versions of gcc. Currently gfortran is available (on sid atleast) only 
> through gcc-snapshot. However the description of gcc-snapshot 
> specifically asks not to build packages against it.
> 
> So now my questions are
> 
> 1) How can I make sure that the user has gfortran installed on his system.
> 
> 2) From reading 
> http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/ch-dreq.en.html , I know 
> that only package names can be listed as arguments to Build-Depends 
> command. Is there any way I can list binary name (gfortran) instead of 
> package name (gcc-snapshot) as dependency?

A proper gfortran package is available in experimental already and will
move to sid once sarge is released. Therefore, you can either hold back
your upload to sid, or consider uploading your package to experimental.
I'd suggest a Build-Depends line like 'gfortran-4.0 | fortran95-compiler',
unless your code has strict requirements on the compiler version used.

Regards,

Daniel.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Release update: minor delay; no non-RC fixes; upgrade reports

[Steve Langasek]

On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 10:57:44AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> > It's not Steve's, or any other RM's fault if the media can't read in
> > context!  If a media organization wishes to post articles, they should
> > only do that if they have read "official" sources, using the "real"
> > English language, reporting what the sources *say* not what they think
> > they say...

> No, just use explicite language and dont exect anybody to be able to
> understand the true meaning of your euphemisms. A deadline is a deadline, no
> matter what qualifiers you add to it. There is really no difference in
> saying "we will ship at x" or "we hope and plan to ship at x".

These are not euphemisms, FFS.  They're *projections*.  A deadline may be a
deadline, but the release team has *no power* to set deadlines of the
form "X must be fixed by date Y".  So we *don't*.  What we *do* is make
every effort to inform developers ASAP once we know we aren't going to be
able to meet a projected schedule.  I'm not going to stop informing
developers about release progress and planning via d-d-a just because
journalists (and apparently some of our own developers) refuse to engage
their brains and read all the words that are written, instead of just the
ones they want to hear.

Yes, we fell way short of some of our projections.  That happens sometimes,
particularly in an organization built on volunteer efforts; but they were
still based on the best information we had at the time, and they were still
important to share with the project because releases *don't* happen without
first setting goals for ourselves.

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Mark Brown]

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 10:40:04PM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 12:25:01AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:

> > If Debian treated our upstreams this way, I'd be suprised if we ever got
> > any patches accepted upstream.

> Debian does, in fact, treat most of its upstreams precisely this way.
> Debian publishes a large portion of its changes primarily in the form of
> monolithic diffs relative to upstream source.  The last time I saw figures,
> the usage of dpatch, cdbs, etc. was rising, but not yet the standard
> operating procedure.

If upstream is having to find and trawl through source packages in order
to pick up changes then that's already a sign that there has been a
failure in communication.

-- 
"You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever."


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Keysigning without physically meeting ... thoughts?

[Florian Weimer]

* Wouter Verhelst:

> Well, in Belgium it's not /that/ bad (a notary is required by law to
> give you free advice), but the moment he uses his stamp, it indeed is a
> three digit bill (around ¤900 last time I required the use of a notary's
> services)

The fee depends in part on the value of the transaction that is being
certified.

Notaries and their lobbyists fight very hard to stop the proliferation
of state-approved digital signatures.  After all, you wouldn't consult
them anymore if you could get the same level of service using two $30
smartcards.

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Andreas Tille]

On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Daniel Holbach wrote:


It has been said that it is too much of a
burden for Debian maintainers to process the patches, and Ubuntu currently
has a miniscule number of developers compared to Debian.

I wonder why the statement
   "We are much less people than you."
should lead to the consequence:
   "That's why we refuse to work together with you in an effective way."


Please, where did you read that? Can you please calm down and state
questions or solutions in a rational way?

Thanks for the reminder to calm down.  I though reading it inbetween
the lines - but I might have been wrong.  The "refuse" is definitely
wrong.  Somebody might find the appropriate term for "we do not try
hard to search more effective ways".

Thanks

   Andreas.

--
http://fam-tille.de


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Daniel Holbach]

Dear Andreas,

Am Donnerstag, den 02.06.2005, 11:52 +0200 schrieb Andreas Tille:
> > It has been said that it is too much of a
> > burden for Debian maintainers to process the patches, and Ubuntu currently
> > has a miniscule number of developers compared to Debian.
> I wonder why the statement
>"We are much less people than you."
> should lead to the consequence:
>"That's why we refuse to work together with you in an effective way."

Please, where did you read that? Can you please calm down and state
questions or solutions in a rational way?

Thanks a lot,
 Daniel



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Release update: minor delay; no non-RC fixes; upgrade reports

[Bernd Eckenfels]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> It's not Steve's, or any other RM's fault if the media can't read in
> context!  If a media organization wishes to post articles, they should
> only do that if they have read "official" sources, using the "real"
> English language, reporting what the sources *say* not what they think
> they say...

No, just use explicite language and dont exect anybody to be able to
understand the true meaning of your euphemisms. A deadline is a deadline, no
matter what qualifiers you add to it. There is really no difference in
saying "we will ship at x" or "we hope and plan to ship at x".

You could write "we know we will not ship before x"  is most likely more
honest :)

Greetings
Bernd


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Andreas Tille]

On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Matt Zimmerman wrote:


If all of the patches were to be filed in the BTS, automation would be the
only feasible way to do it.

?
This is a quite strange statement to me.  Could you please comment on this
more detailed.


It has been said that it is too much of a
burden for Debian maintainers to process the patches, and Ubuntu currently
has a miniscule number of developers compared to Debian.

I wonder why the statement
  "We are much less people than you."
should lead to the consequence:
  "That's why we refuse to work together with you in an effective way."


Not every change is an indication of a problem.  Consider, for example, the
hundreds of Python transition patches.

I guess each patch has a certain sense.  Everything which makes sense is worth
a bugreport "wishlist".  The term "problem" is not really appropriate but I
the lack of a missing enhancement is also something I would love to be solved.


It makes more sense to make the
changes, and make the patches available to Debian, than to ask the Debian
maintainer to do the work for us by filing a bug report.

Obviousely not.  If you see that this way does not work why not trying it
on a different way, I repeat to save the time of the "miniscule number
of developers".  Why not joining the Debian-Python list and make some
noise about the things which should be done.  Why not having even a single
list debian-ubuntu-python list.  I guess we have exactly the same problems
in Python transition (well, we will have them later, but they will have to be
solved anyway).  If you do not agree here with me than I wonder why
you are denying that Ubuntu is a fork (which I did not stated but which
would become obvious to me if you would say that Python transition of
Ubuntu is something different than of Debian).


The same logic applies to many bugs as well.

I'm sorry I'm missing the logic behind your arguments.


Would it really be better to
have an open bug report in debbugs, than a patch on people.ubuntu.com?

Yes.  A closed bug would be even better and I told you ways how to
accomplish that.


Debian uses python2.3 by default.  This isn't broken; it's just the way
things must be in order to release Sarge.  Meanwhile, Ubuntu has made a
release with 2.3, and is preparing for the next release with python2.4 as
default.  When Debian makes the same transition, hopefully the patches from
Ubuntu will save some time and effort on the part of Debian maintainers.

Yes - I really hope we could profit from this and that's why I would love to
see a set of well documented patches.  If you think that the BTS is not
appropriate for this kind of stuff, do you see any other ways to have
patches or say solution (=patches of a size a developer could handle including
documentation which might be an open discussion list or whatever).


I don't think that I've made such an assumption, though there are several
unequivocally critical voices in this thread.

I admit there are and sometimes there are hard facts for the reasons of
the critics.  But I consider myself as completely neutral and just try
to make the lowest effort for both to get the maximum profit for both.
I hand out Ubuntu-CDs to random people I meet and do not tell something
bad about Ubuntu at exhibition boothes.  But once I was asked by a visitor
of the booth why we Debian people are fighting so hard against Ubuntu.
I hate this kind of strange preconception because I for myself do not
fight against anybody but want to enhance cooperation.


We are doing what we can, with the resources available to us, to make our
work available to Debian, through the patch publishing mechanism, and
cooperation with Debian teams.  If there is a different approach which could
be implemented using the same resources, I am willing to listen to such
proposals, but we have very limited developer resources compared to Debian.

What about using common lists for things like Zope or Python development.
They are quite low volume lists and the communication could be drastically
enhanced.

And I repeat: Group maintainance.

Kind regards

Andreas.

--
http://fam-tille.de


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[George Danchev]

On Thursday 02 June 2005 10:47, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
--cut--
> We are doing what we can, with the resources available to us, to make our
> work available to Debian, through the patch publishing mechanism, and
> cooperation with Debian teams.  If there is a different approach which
> could be implemented using the same resources, I am willing to listen to
> such proposals, but we have very limited developer resources compared to
> Debian.

Well, it's visible that Ubuntu developers try to cooperate with DD according 
to their resources, which is something really nice to see. There are some 
technical or communication details which need to be resolved, like which 
SCM's have to be used for packaging and/or development, where, how to branch 
certain specific derivations if any, and the like. If a consensus point of 
these is reached, which could be resolved on a per-team basis (e.g. like 
gnome, d-i teams) I see no big obstacles for DD's and other children 
distributons developers (I don't mean Ubuntu's ones only here) to cooperate 
on alioth svn, arch, darcs and so on repos. Branch distro-specific stuff as 
well, and upload packages in your own archive. Yes, I understand that 
sometimes it is hard to reach the consensus point, but needs to be tried. 
Certainly "howto team" hint document is needed here.

-- 
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 
fingerprint1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Keysigning without physically meeting ... thoughts?

[Ron Johnson]

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 11:52:03 +0100
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 02:13:54PM -0600, Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
> > On Tuesday 31 May 2005 14:11, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 09:03:12AM -0600, Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
[snip]
> 
> A notary doesn't certify that the document you hand them is
> correct. All they certify is that you handed them this particular
> document on this particular date.

And how is it any more trustworthy that I look at you and your
possibly-fake government ID card, and say, "Yep, that looks like 
your picture."

> > Regardless, how is this different from meeting someone in person?
> 
> The difference would be the deterrent effect. Without it, there's
> absolutely no reason why anybody wouldn't generate throwaway
> identities at whim.

If someone is determined to pass himself off as someone else, I 
don't see how eyeballing him serves as a deterrent.  Minors do it
(use fake IDs in public) "all the time".

A web of trust is based on how well an already-trusted person can
determine whether a candidate is who he says he is.  The point of
using (in the US, at least) a Notary Public, is that the NP is 
presumed to be trustworthy (there's a background check, etc, etc).

So, why shouldn't the web of trust be extended to NPs, for the 
task of "initial authentication"?

-- 
-
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson, LA  USA
PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail.

"Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody
stands around reloading."
Unknown


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[OT] Notaty Publics (taking off list now...)

[Ron Johnson]

On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 03:09:16 +1000
Paul TBBle Hampson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 05:48:46AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 10:14:43 +0200
> > Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > > On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 07:54:51AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 31 May 2005 14:13:54 -0600, "Wesley J. Landaker"
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >Right, but they have to get it notarized (or forge a notary's seal, 
> > > > >which is 
> > > > >a criminal offense, at least in the US) which requires government ID 
> > > > >(again, at least in the US). 
> 
> > > > The entire procedure is quite US centric. I don't understand why you
> > > > US guys are so fond of your notaries.
> 
> > > A while ago, in an IRC discussion, it was revealed that a notary in the
> > > US doesn't mean as much as it does in Europe.
> 
> > > AIUI, in the US, a notary is just some extra title a lot of secretaries
> > > have, so that they can make some documents more official.
> 
> > That's wrong.  You take a non-trivial test, and be background checked.
> 
> > The secretaries you are referring to are 99.9% of the time in law
> > offices and title-transfer companies.
> 
> > For example, why see a lawyer, when all you need is an unbiased 
> > 3rd party to certify that it was actually you who signed that 
> > document?
> 
> Oh! That explains so much.
> 
> I was told to get a notarised form for a domain transfer before the domain
> registrar would release it. I ended up losing the domain (>_<) because I
> discovered that to find a notary in Australia, you have to go to a US Embassy.
> 
> What you describe above sounds like what we call a Justice of the Peace...
> (Although we don't just get them in law offices, you find them all over the
> place. I think most states here have an online list of JPs who can witness
> things for you.)

I've always wondered what all the duties of the JP are.  Obviously
it varies from state to state.

Here (in Louisiana), the JP is part-time, can marry you, is a Really
Small Claims Court, and that's all I know.  And, it is an elected
office!

I bet they are more important out in rural areas, where there's not
a 1000 lawyers and title-transfer companies in the phone book.


-- 
-
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson, LA  USA
PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail.

"In order to become the master, the politician poses as the
servant."
Charles de Gaulle


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Andreas Tille]

On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Matt Zimmerman wrote:


There isn't much that I can do about packages that I don't maintain; we have
some tools for this, but it is primarily a matter of personal preference
(and not Debian dogma) how packages are maintained in Debian.

We have certain ways to change things: There is a technical commitee, there
is the general resolution, etc.


If there is
some concrete way that you feel that we can help encourage team-oriented
maintenance of packages, I'd like to hear it.

What about taking part in discussions of the relevant development lists.
I just noticed that there is a zope-debhelper in Ubuntu.  The idea for this
came up a long time ago in Debian (before Ubuntu even existed).  Why
not announcing this at the relevant list? Just in case the list is unknown:

http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-zope-developers

So now I did what IMHO the Ubuntu maintainer of zope-epoz (a package maintained
by me in Debian) should have done: Offered group maintainance to him and
informed the list about this.  The measurable profit that Ubuntu would have
deserved if they would have moved zope-debhelper to Debian would have been
that they could have zope-epoz in a more recent version than they have
now (and we could go through the jungle of the new versioning together).
This might be true for other packages as well.

I do not want you to tell you that cooperation does not work in every
field of packaging.  But there are examples which simply suck and I hope
this can be solved in the future.

Kind regards

  Andreas.

--
http://fam-tille.de


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 09:17:46AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:

> In your first mail you wrote about "mass-mail Debian maintainers" in the
> second mail you turned my request to file wishlist bug reports against
> single packages into "mass-filing bugs in the BTS".

If all of the patches were to be filed in the BTS, automation would be the
only feasible way to do it.  It has been said that it is too much of a
burden for Debian maintainers to process the patches, and Ubuntu currently
has a miniscule number of developers compared to Debian.

> I guess it is a problem of my bad English but I mean if there is a problem
> in a package file a bug report against this package.

Not every change is an indication of a problem.  Consider, for example, the
hundreds of Python transition patches.  It makes more sense to make the
changes, and make the patches available to Debian, than to ask the Debian
maintainer to do the work for us by filing a bug report.

The same logic applies to many bugs as well.  Would it really be better to
have an open bug report in debbugs, than a patch on people.ubuntu.com?

> BTW, there is a debian-python list
>  http://lists.debian.org/debian-python/
> where transitions oy Python packages can be discussed, if something is
> broken in the current Debian packages.

Debian uses python2.3 by default.  This isn't broken; it's just the way
things must be in order to release Sarge.  Meanwhile, Ubuntu has made a
release with 2.3, and is preparing for the next release with python2.4 as
default.  When Debian makes the same transition, hopefully the patches from
Ubuntu will save some time and effort on the part of Debian maintainers.

> I see no reason to even mass-file bug reports if there is something wrong
> in a set of Debian packages.  I would be happy if people would stop
> assuming that DDs who are not involved in Ubuntu personally per definition
> are criticising Ubuntu.

I don't think that I've made such an assumption, though there are several
unequivocally critical voices in this thread.

> This is at least not the case for me personally and I just try to enhance
> the situation for both sides.  If there is a reason to mass-file bug
> reports than I see no excuse for not doing it.  It might be that I'm
> simplifying things but often simple solutions are these who are hidden
> very hard.  I just think that filing a megabyte patch to some Debian
> maintainer via a script is not really the solution.  There is something
> wrong *before* this patch was created.  This *something* might be caused
> technical or social (or both) reasons.

I know of no reason to mass-file bug reports, except that some people insist
that the best place to publish Ubuntu's patches is in debbugs.  I disagree
with that position, myself.

We are doing what we can, with the resources available to us, to make our
work available to Debian, through the patch publishing mechanism, and
cooperation with Debian teams.  If there is a different approach which could
be implemented using the same resources, I am willing to listen to such
proposals, but we have very limited developer resources compared to Debian.

-- 
 - mdz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 09:04:47AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:

> IMHO a "saner" method would be to allow pple to easily hook into the SCM 
> used by the Ubuntu developpers in order to receive the patches done 
> *incrementaly* + the logs that are with them [2].

Part of the issue is that we currently aren't using an SCM for this
development, but that's changing, and the capability you suggest will become
available.

-- 
 - mdz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Pierre Habouzit]

> Sorry, Pierre, for hijacking your post into this direction, this
> rather affects all the projects involved, not only KDE-QT.

you have not to be sorry. it's only that every time someone says ubuntu 
does not collaborate "enough" there is someboty to shout : 
http://people.ubuntu.com/~scott/patches/. I used example from my 
experience (and also QT-KDE), but I didn't want my mail be only about 
KDE/QT packaging.

I only wanted to say that this url isn't usable at all as soon as the 
packages are big, which OTOH are often the package that would benefit 
the most of any form of cooperation.

If you want my personnal opinion wrt debian<->ubuntu :
 * there are some DD with pride that won't go themselves to Ubuntu ones
   because .. you know ubuntu crew "is just a bunch of nasty forkers" or
   just because they think that since unbuntu inherits so much work from
   debian, it's up to the ubuntu crew to take the first step (and maybe
   those are not completely wrong )

 * OTOH, some ubuntu developper are not very talkative, and as DDs we
   never hear from their work, and when you go talk to them, the answer
   is "if I do sth important for your debs, you'll know it" and then,
   it's the total radio silence. And I won't talk about those that
   believe that because the DD that maintain the debs in Debian needs 3
   days to answer a mail he is MIA ...
   (ok, that paragraph is exaggerated, but I guess you see the idea
   behind)

The point is, to me, it feels like both "worlds" are waiting for the 
other to make the things be smooth.

I really believe in full cooperation too. Not that long ago, the KDE 
team had nearly less DD's than non-DD in it (part of the team was in NM 
queue). I don't see why Ubuntu people would'nt be part of the debian 
teams, help to the packaging and BTS BSP, and maintain their ubuntu 
diffs in the same structure (alioth svn/arch/cvs repo) talking with the 
same tools (alioth maillist), ...

The thing is, I just read on kubuntu.org that they already have 3.4.1 
packages ready and uploaded, that they are preparing the gcc-4.0 
transition, ... nice... I never saw anything like this on our lists, 
and we will have to go through the same road... but this has not been 
discussed ... I'm even not sure the migration will be 
debian-gcc-4-compatible.

<:bitterness:>

-- 
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OOOhttp://www.madism.org


pgpWwCiO4fEzg.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 01:59:18AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Obviously, I have no control over how derived distributions
>  conduct their business, or where they allocate resources. But I would
>  not consider doing development in a public repo an adequate
>  substitute for not pushing bug reports and fixes upstream, using
>  their BTS, for any of the packages I maintain.

Nor did I claim that it would be a substitute.  I was responding to a
specific comment about revision control, which is only one piece of the
collaboration puzzle.

-- 
 - mdz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 09:25:01AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:

> On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> 
> >Personally, I agree, but this is something which needs to be addressed by
> >Debian itself.  It is not the responsibility of derivatives, nor is there
> >anything that they can do to improve that situation.  Only Debian
> >maintainers can effect a change here.
> Come on, take your Debian hat and move on for this change.  You are
> completely right and many people are on your side.

apt and dhcp3 are already maintained in a team format.

A group of developers started the process of setting up team maintenance for
UML, though I haven't seen much activity on that front since then (I no
longer use UML and am trying to hand it off).

For most of my other packages, I haven't been able to justify the effort of
setting up proper distributed collaboration tools, but I always welcome NMUs
if someone else has a contribution to make.

There isn't much that I can do about packages that I don't maintain; we have
some tools for this, but it is primarily a matter of personal preference
(and not Debian dogma) how packages are maintained in Debian.  If there is
some concrete way that you feel that we can help encourage team-oriented
maintenance of packages, I'd like to hear it.

-- 
 - mdz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)]

On Wednesday 01 June 2005 07:06, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 07:47:19PM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 09:00:33PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:

> I'm aware of that.  There are cases, though, where people tend to
> create a difference when it's not necessary.  A common place is graphics
> on the default desktop.  I don't know if Ubuntu changes those, but I know 
some derivatives do, 

> and thus have to fork some packages.  I figure it would be easier to
> use /etc/alternatives to manage those defaults, but that's just me.

does not follow, it's unnecesary to fork packages in order to change the 
default desktop setup (and has been for forever):
- you can always add a configuration-set by putting it in a directory, and 
adding that to the search path variable for your DE (note: for gnome you 
need to adjust the gconf path file instead)
- desktop-profiles now provides a standard way to set up extra 
configuration-sets, allowing the admin to control the activation of them in 
1 place regardless of the DE used (but even before that you could always 
set the environment variable in , skolelinux does)
-- 
Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
  
1. Encrypted mail preferred (GPG KeyID: 0x86624ABB)
2. Plain-text mail recommended since I move html and double
format mails to a low priority folder (they're mainly spam)


pgp9POFMGqqoY.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Andreas Tille]

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Matt Zimmerman wrote:


Debian does, in fact, treat most of its upstreams precisely this way.

If you say "most" can you get a raw percentage of packages / maintainers
which do so?


Debian publishes a large portion of its changes primarily in the form of
monolithic diffs relative to upstream source.

I can here only speak for myself: I foreward any bug report which concerns
upstream directly and file small patches to upstream if I detect problems
personally.  I admit that I so not maintain packages like X, Gnome or KDE,
but I soubt that this "most" is the right term here.

Moreover even if Debian would do so as you state: I see no reason for
others (including Ubuntu) to proceede in this manner if they see that
this is wrong.


Regarding your specific example, I know of no reason why Debian couldn't use
Ubuntu's X.org packages when Debian is ready to make the transition, but in
the end that will be the XSF's decision, not Ubuntu's.

I personally (I'm no XSF member) would surely have a close look at work which
is just done before I would start from scratch.

Kind regards

   Andreas.

--
http://fam-tille.de


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Daniel Holbach]

Hey Pierre, hey everybody else,

I now quote some lines I found pretty important for the whole
discussion:

Am Donnerstag, den 02.06.2005, 09:04 +0200 schrieb Pierre Habouzit:
>  A push method (wrt us) would be better than a pull (from us) one.
>  We have not time to pull.

> we have bloated diffs, without *any* comments, and for packages like 
> ours, it's simply unusable.

> Other methods are 
> nice, but really unusable when the package is a bit big, and that is 
> those package that often need the more help and need always more 
> manpower.

I don't want to force my views on anybody else, but if I knew of a set
of patches for my packages, I'd have a look every now and then (I might
even script it) and in case of bigger changes, I'd try to get together
with the maintainer to hear their views on it. Maybe his/her problem is
mine and I didn't know yet.

Ubuntu and other derivative maintainers _may_ have good reasons why they
did things the way they did. And if time and manpower is the limiting
factor, I see only one conclusion: collaboration! They are devoting
their time on the same software - so why not call for a meeting and
discuss the roadmap?

The problem is absolutely no pull vs. push one. If you read the thread,
you will see that mails, bugs, whatever are not the solution that suits
everybody. Although there will hopefully be a solution that suits most
of the people, if there can be an agreement.

The only way to take the most out of this will be through collaboration
and collaborate planning.

Sorry, Pierre, for hijacking your post into this direction, this rather
affects all the projects involved, not only KDE-QT.

Have a nice day, 
 Daniel



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Andreas Tille]

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Matt Zimmerman wrote:


Personally, I agree, but this is something which needs to be addressed by
Debian itself.  It is not the responsibility of derivatives, nor is there
anything that they can do to improve that situation.  Only Debian
maintainers can effect a change here.

Come on, take your Debian hat and move on for this change.  You are
completely right and many people are on your side.

Kind regards

Andreas.

--
http://fam-tille.de


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Russ Allbery]

Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Debian does, in fact, treat most of its upstreams precisely this way.
> Debian publishes a large portion of its changes primarily in the form of
> monolithic diffs relative to upstream source.  The last time I saw
> figures, the usage of dpatch, cdbs, etc. was rising, but not yet the
> standard operating procedure.

I know you already know this, but just for the record:  Lack of separated
patches in the package source tree is not necessarily a sign that upstream
has not received separated patches.  For example, I use Subversion and
svn-buildpackage for some packages, and my changes may appear from a
packaging standpoint as a monolithic .diff file, but I would feed
individual patches upstream into their bug tracking system or mailing list
as appropriate.

I agree that dpatch is rather nice (I'm not as fond of dbs), but it is an
additional level of complexity that isn't necessary to communicate with
upstream properly.  It mostly becomes worth it when one is juggling quite
a few separate patches or pulling individual fixes from somewhere and
versioning the patches themselves becomes useful.

> Regarding your specific example, I know of no reason why Debian couldn't
> use Ubuntu's X.org packages when Debian is ready to make the transition,
> but in the end that will be the XSF's decision, not Ubuntu's.

There appears to be a bunch of work going on around this right now,
without a ton of fanfare.  (Pretty much the ideal situation, as far as I'm
concerned.  It's usually a good sign when matters get to the point that
people are committing things rather than talking about what to commit.)

-- 
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Andreas Tille]

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Matt Zimmerman wrote:



On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 08:20:39AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:


On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, John Goerzen wrote:


On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 07:47:19PM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:

  

After Sarge, releases, it should be pretty straightforward for someone
to set up a script to mass-mail Debian maintainers copies of the Python

   

transition patches from Ubuntu (or all of the patches, if that's really
what they believe that Debian maintainers want).

I'd prefer wishlist bugs tagged patch when there is a patch relevant for
Debian, personally.

The idea of filing wishlist bug reports against something a user wanted to
have changed is so straightforeward that I never expected that experienced
Debian users (= I expect DDs to be experienced users) would come up with
the idea of mass-mailing patches.


I assume this is meant only as flamebait, since it is fairly obvious that
there are often good reasons to prefer other means of contacting
maintainers, over mass-filing bugs in the BTS.

^^^
In your first mail you wrote about "mass-mail Debian maintainers" in the
second mail you turned my request to file wishlist bug reports against
single packages into "mass-filing bugs in the BTS".  I guess it is a
problem of my bad English but I mean if there is a problem in a package
file a bug report against this package.  A script which forewards diffs
is surely not what Debian maintainers want - you guessed it yourself.
BTW, there is a debian-python list
 http://lists.debian.org/debian-python/
where transitions oy Python packages can be discussed, if something is
broken in the current Debian packages.


This is an extreme oversimplification of the situation, but if you are
convinced that the correct approach is to mass-file Ubuntu patches as bugs
in the BTS, feel free to propose it clearly on debian-devel, as is
customary.  It should be a simple matter to script the submission process.

I see no reason to even mass-file bug reports if there is something wrong
in a set of Debian packages.  I would be happy if people would stop assuming
that DDs who are not involved in Ubuntu personally per definition are
criticising Ubuntu.  This is at least not the case for me personally and
I just try to enhance the situation for both sides.  If there is a reason
to mass-file bug reports than I see no excuse for not doing it.  It might
be that I'm simplifying things but often simple solutions are these who
are hidden very hard.  I just think that filing a megabyte patch to some
Debian maintainer via a script is not really the solution.  There is
something wrong *before* this patch was created.  This *something* might
be caused technical or social (or both) reasons.

Kind regards

Andreas.

--
http://fam-tille.de


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Debian as "Google summer of code" mentor?

[Matthijs Kooijman]

Hey,

as you've probably heard, Google has a "summer of code" initiative to
stimulate open source coding. They are looking for mentors to support the
coders. Shouldn't Debian be on that list?

Matthijs

(My aplogies if this has already been brought up, or if I'm posting this to
the wrong list, I'm in a hurry right now...)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Bernd Eckenfels]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> Oh, I forgot to mention that if Ubuntu continues to ignore Ian Murdock's
> warnings about breaking compatability with debs, it will end up a fork

It is a fork, if it wont change things it wont have differences.

Of course this depends on the definition of fork. however ubuntu can still
cooperate and upstream and dd are still able to reuse ubuntus work
(patches).

Greetings
Bernd


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Pierre Habouzit]

Le Mer 1 Juin 2005 19:25, Matt Zimmerman a écrit :
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 05:00:31PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> > * Stephen Birch
> >
> > | John Goerzen([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2005-06-01 00:06:
> > | > Out of curiousity, do you have a rough estimate of the
> > | > percentage that actually make it into Debian?  Or the
> > | > percentage that are held back with no good reason?
> > |
> > | I wonder if it would be an idea to write a tool that compares
> > | Debian and Ubuntu packages and provides a web based view of the
> > | delta so we can track divergence.
> >
> > You mean http://people.ubuntu.com/~scott/ongoing-merge/ which has
> > been there for at least half a year?
>
> Or rather http://people.ubuntu.com/~scott/patches/ which even
> provides separated patches.

well, this is really nice on the paper (and I really think it). though I 
have many concerns with that page :

 (1) this is yet-another-page-to-look-at for packaging.
 for most of the packages, this make this number go from 2 (BTS +
 upstream) to 3. so it's not a big deal.

 But now consider it from my point of view : I'm a member of the
 QT-KDE packaging team, and we have very very hard work in splitting
 the package, make them FHS-compliant, follow the bloated
 bugs.kde.org page, the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list , our own BTS
 that grows at least exponentially, and yet-another-page-to-look-at
 just make it too many.

 A push method (wrt us) would be better than a pull (from us) one.
 We have not time to pull.

 (2) moreover, when I see patches like [1] I wonder what I can do and
 extract from a bloated 18M patch !

 Note that this is not a "fork" from ubuntu pple, it's just that
 they have made a kde branch pull + some libtool bloating. But lost
 in the middle of those 10-15Mo patches, if there was something
 else, well, I believe everybody understand it's lost

 So it's not only a pull vs. push problem.


I believe, we are in front of the same situation (in some points, not 
all) than the khtml developpers vs apple : yes ubuntu gives feedback, 
since they give their diffs. but like apple does with the khtml crew, 
we have bloated diffs, without *any* comments, and for packages like 
ours, it's simply unusable.


IMHO a "saner" method would be to allow pple to easily hook into the SCM 
used by the Ubuntu developpers in order to receive the patches done 
*incrementaly* + the logs that are with them [2]. Other methods are 
nice, but really unusable when the package is a bit big, and that is 
those package that often need the more help and need always more 
manpower.


  [1] http://people.ubuntu.com/~scott/patches/kdelibs/
  [2] there is a lot of ways to do that : rss feeds, ML's, ...
-- 
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OOOhttp://www.madism.org


pgpciUXFXKG1k.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Andreas Tille]

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Matt Zimmerman wrote:


What problem do you feel would be addressed by such a scheme?

  1. Getting a problem fixed in Debian.
  2. Do not force the Ubuntu maintainer to apply his patch for
 new versions of Debian packages
  3. Prevent that packaging drifts away heavily.


If we were to
ignore all of the obstacles which stand in the way of instituting it across
a huge number of packages, snap our fingers and say that Ubuntu developers
can now upload these packages in Debian, what problem would we have solved?

This is kind of simplifying the words I wrote.  I was not talking about just
every Ubuntu developer should automagically be putted into the Uploaders list.
But I see no reason to ignore this possibility which would help both
parties in the case of the problematic packages you were talking about.


If your assumption is that Ubuntu (which has orders of magnitude fewer
developers than Debian) could solve Debian's problem of inactive maintainers
by taking over maintenance of these packages, this is far from the truth.

Did I assumed this really?
If I would be an Ubuntu developer I would try to fix the root of the problem
to safe my own time.  This is what I was talking about.

Kind regards

 Andreas.

--
http://fam-tille.de


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Tue, 31 May 2005 19:47:19 -0700, Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 09:00:33PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
>> In the ubuntu case in particular, I wish that they would be more
>> proactive in sending their patches to the Debian maintainers.
>> Asking us Debian folk to go to an obscure site somewhere, wade
>> through listings of thousands of diffs, and find changes is
>> difficult.  For example, Python 2.4 is in sid, and I don't mind
>> making my packages use it now.  I'd appreciate any and all diffs
>> from ubuntu folks.

> I don't want to repeat the discussion about pushing patches; there's
> a perfectly reasonable one already in the list archives.  There are
> good reasons why we do this the way that we do.

Well, while this may well be OK for how Ubuntu treats
 upstream, Debian has long had a tradition of actively pushing
 patches upstream. I collect, and test patches, I jump whatever hoops
 upstream bug tracking makes me jump through, in order to push triaged
 bug reports and fixes upstream.

I would hope Ubuntu is as proactive with its upstream as I
 expect Debian to be.

> In the not-so-distant future, a huge proportion of Ubuntu
> development will take place in Arch branches, with the intent of
> promoting more efficient collaboration both within Ubuntu and with
> Debian.

All my development already happens in arch archives, and yet
 I do not expect my upstreams to come trawling through my arch
 repositories looking for fixes that my users have, and their other
 users do not.

Indeed, with the number of Debian derived distributions
 inching ever closer to the triple digit mark, it would  be a
 significant drain on my resources to have to discover where, if at
 all, these 90+ distributions provide patches for my system, and try
 to fish out relevant patches, determine what problem the patch was
 trying to solve, and then go on to the next 30 source package X 90+
 distribution repo on the list.

Obviously, I have no control over how derived distributions
 conduct their business, or where they allocate resources. But I would
 not consider doing development in a public repo an adequate
 substitute for not pushing bug reports and fixes upstream, using
 their BTS, for any of the packages I maintain.

manoj
-- 
Your good nature will bring unbounded happiness.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 12:25:01AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:

> Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > I see no need to argue about whether Ubuntu should push; the patches
> > are all there in an easily accessible tree, and it would be trivial to
> > pull the patches and push them someplace else if that's desirable.
> 
> Please take a look at the current Ubuntu 1.6 MB diff for base-config
> (the split diffs are useless in this case), and tell me how you consider
> this to be "easily accessible". There are some base-config improvements
> in here that could benefit others, or at least other derived distros,
> such as making it only expect one CD, but not done in a generic or
> reusable way and they're all mashed up with tons of Ubuntu specific
> hacks.

That's an unfortunate mess, I agree, and it's just as bad for Ubuntu as it
is for Debian.  We're working to rectify it by getting the lot into Arch.
This is definitely one of the worst examples, given that base-config is
perhaps _the_ most divergent package in Ubuntu relative to Debian.

Given our scheduling requirements, it hasn't always been possible to
implement divergent changes in the cleanest possible way, and this is only
one of the reasons why "file everything in debbugs" isn't a very good
solution.

> For what it's worth, I've completly given up on separating the parts that
> are applicable to Debian from the parts that aren't. I have some hope that
> Colin will manage to merge some of it into the Debian package, since he's
> been doing a lot of work on merging in Ubuntu's changes to d-i, but if
> that doesn't happen soon, Ubuntu will be left with this massive patch to
> forward port as I make huge planned changes to base-config post-sarge.

This would, of course, be Ubuntu's problem, and not Debian's.  Either we'll
get it cleaned up, or we'll be left behind.

> If Debian treated our upstreams this way, I'd be suprised if we ever got
> any patches accepted upstream.

Debian does, in fact, treat most of its upstreams precisely this way.
Debian publishes a large portion of its changes primarily in the form of
monolithic diffs relative to upstream source.  The last time I saw figures,
the usage of dpatch, cdbs, etc. was rising, but not yet the standard
operating procedure.

> (To answer the thread leader, I consider Ubuntu to be more and more of a
> fork and less and less a derivative distribution. If Ubuntu doesn't
> start to re-converge with Debian significantly after sarge is released,
> and we end up with two sets of X.org packaging, etc, then I will give up
> and just consider it purely a fork.)

Ubuntu re-converges with Debian very regularly.  I think what you meant to
say is that you want Debian to re-converge with Ubuntu.

Regarding your specific example, I know of no reason why Debian couldn't use
Ubuntu's X.org packages when Debian is ready to make the transition, but in
the end that will be the XSF's decision, not Ubuntu's.

-- 
 - mdz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]