Re: Need for launchpad

[Martin Meredith]

Ok - I'm going to reply to the first post i found on this whole - thing, so 
apologies if it shows up
in some weird place in threaded view.

Basically the way I see it isnt the fact that ubuntu isn't giving back to 
debian - or debian isn't
willing to have the stuff from ubuntu. The way i see it is that there are a few 
people - who - for
some reason or another - just don't do the right thing.

I can definately understand some DD's views here - they seem to get nothing 
from ubuntu - have to
wade through patches or whatever to try and find the useful stuff - have to do 
all this work to get
all the stuff from ubuntu, because whatever ubuntu dev is doing things isn't 
contributing back to
debian. This definately happens. There's no doubt about it.

But, also - and I've had this experience myself - there are some DD's who just 
plain and simple dont
want the stuff from ubuntu. I've had a couple of times where I've had an issue 
with a package - and
realised it was a problem in debian and upstream too. Usually - I've contacted 
both upstream and the
DD via Email about this - and have had various responses - for example, for one 
package - I sent
about 7 emails over the space of a month, emailed upstream, tried to contact 
the DD on IRC - many a
thing - but well - no response - and I've tried a couple of times with 
different issues to contact
that developer regarding those issues - but have never had any awknowledgement, 
reply etc etc.

I eventually gave up trying contacting that maintainer - and just carried on 
with the work in ubuntu
- and worked with upstream. It's people like that that are spoiling it, as I've 
had experiences with
other DD's who've been very helpful indeed.

Recently, a certain member of the MOTU team in ubuntu posted a blog post 
basically saying (from the
way it came across to me) that contributing back up to debian was a waste of 
our meagre resources. I
can't express how ... and this is a very mild way of me putting it (Code of 
Conduct and all - darn
it!)... annoyed that made me - I was infuriated, espescially seeing as I'd been 
one of those people
who'd raised the issue of contributing back to debian.

I, personally - see contributing to debian as a vital part of the ubuntu 
development process - after
all - debian is our upstream - and I'm sure none of the DD's would think that 
contributing to
upstream for the packages they maintain is a waste of the time that they could 
be putting back into
debian.

To me though - and i will stress this highly - I don't think that it's a fact 
that ubuntu isnt
contributing to debian - because it is. But I believe that some people (maybe a 
lot of people) for
whatever issue aren't willing to work either way - as Ubuntu can't do all the 
work - and nor can
debian - but - when one side isnt willing to work (I'm not on about projects as 
a whole - I'm on
about individual people/maintainers) then it spoils the whole thing.

Basically - I dont think the brand should be put on ubuntu as a whole - feel 
free to target those
people specifically you see not contributing - but remember - it's a two way 
thing - and there are
people not willing to cooperate on both sides.

*dons asbestos underwear and waits for replies*




Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 15:19:42 -0500, Frans Jessop
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:  
> 
> 
>>Ubuntu's launchpad is amazing.  Do you think it would be helpful if
>>all DD's worked through it on their projects?
> 
> 
> Sure, as long as they change lauchpad to meet my workflow
>  requirements. This would mean letting me have a local repo, signed
>  remote repos, arch, email only interfaces, and not getting into my
>  way.  If they make changes to meet these requirements, I'll have
>  absolutely no problem throwing away tools I have worked on honing for
>  a decade or so and switching to launchpad. Oh, and release launchpad
>  under a free license, of course, so I don't make Debian development
>  rely on a non-free toolset, of course.
> 
> 
>>Wouldn't that keep things more organized and efficient?  Or perhaps
>>Debian could build its own version of launchpad which is better.
>>Again, I think it would do a good job keeping everything organized
>>an efficient.
> 
> 
> Yup. Having all humans speak just a single language (and none
>  of these darned wide charset junk) would be way more efficient too.
>  And just have one model of a car -- I mean, who needs all these
>  different companies, so much inefficiency.
> 
> BTW, thanks for the laugh.
> 
> manoj


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

Re: Packet radio and foul language

[Ron Johnson]

On Thu, 2006-01-12 at 02:00 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 03:41:09PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 12:43:16PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > Manners/politeness is social lubricant.  It makes society run 
> > > smoother and less violently.
> > I'm pretty sure that people who always take the path of least
> > resistance are *precisely* how the world got so fucked up in the first
> > place.
> 
> Being polite on this list is hardly the path of least resistance.

I think he's referring to people who "go along to get along".  
AKA "don't do anything to break the rice bowl".

-- 
-
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson, LA USA

"Never hate your enemies...it will cloud your thinking."
Michael Corleon, Godfather III


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

Re: Dissection of an Ubuntu PR message

[Christian Perrier]

Quoting Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):

> I don't intend to participate in this type of email argument with you; I've
> yet to see it pay off for anyone involved.  However, I will be in London
> later this month and would be willing to use that opportunity to civilly
> discuss your concerns face-to-face.


Which is probably what is missing a lot in such controversial issues:
email has always proven to be the worst communication media ever for
controversial discussions.

...which mostly explains why I refrained my self to participate in
these threads while my feeling is quite widely shared with Frans Pop's
feeling.

/me...who expects tons of Ubuntu/Debian discussions at Solutions Linux
in Paris (Jan 31-Feb 2) with both fellow French developers,
users...and Ubuntu users as well. No chance that people from Canonical
show up over there? I can even host (Perrier's bed and breakfast,
including cheese)...:)





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

Re: Packet radio and foul language

[Anthony Towns]

On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 03:41:09PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 12:43:16PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > Manners/politeness is social lubricant.  It makes society run 
> > smoother and less violently.
> I'm pretty sure that people who always take the path of least
> resistance are *precisely* how the world got so fucked up in the first
> place.

Being polite on this list is hardly the path of least resistance.

Cheers,
aj



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Canonical's business model

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 06:09:25PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > As you know, most bugs are reported by users, not discovered by developers
> > We direct users to report those bugs to us, rather than Debian, for obvious
> > reasons.
> 
> Really?  I get not infrequent mail from Ubuntu users, about Debian
> packages I maintain, in the Ubuntu distribution.  Problems with, say,
> installation, and whatnot, sometimes caused *by Ubuntu*.  And yet, the
> poor users look at the unmodified Maintainer: field, and conclude I
> must be the maintainer of what they are looking at, even though, in
> fact, I am not.

Yes, we do.  The Ubuntu version of reportbug, for example, submits bugs to
an Ubuntu address rather than the Debian BTS, and all of our documentation
instructs users to report bugs to us.

I know that sometimes users do the wrong thing in spite of this, and that's
unfortunate.  However, given that I've never received an inappropriate
message from an Ubuntu user about one of my packages in Debian at my
Maintainer: email address, it seems to me that the volume is probably low
enough to be no more than an occasional nuisance.

Additionally, if the issue is not Ubuntu-specific (and Debian and Ubuntu
have far more in common than they do uniquely), contacting the Debian
maintainer is not an unreasonable thing for a user to do.  The fact that the
user happens to be using a Debian derivative, and not Debian directly, does
not mean that they cannot meaningfully interact with the Debian maintainer.
I have received messages at debian.org from Ubuntu users which were equally
applicable to Debian, and I don't consider those to be inappropriate.

> > I don't see the connection between these two behaviors.  Ubuntu
> > developers do triage a huge volume of bugs from our user community, and
> > the maintainer field issue was thoroughly discussed in an older thread.
> 
> Thoroughly?  To whose satisfaction?  Not mine.  You still think
> mislabeling the package is a great thing.

http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html

I outlined the existing situation, the problems with it, based on prior
discussion in the thread.  I asked two questions that I thought went to the
heart of the issue, which would help to decide the most appropriate course of
action.  I closed the mail with "I am interested in responses to these two
questions from the Debian community."

I received *zero* responses to those questions.

You didn't bother to respond then, or ever, and now eight months later, you
tell me that I don't recognize the problems, and that it wasn't discussed to
your satisfaction?  As soon as these concerns were raised, I was there,
participating in the discussion, trying to find the best way to address
them.  I spend a lot of time doing this, both as part of my job and in my
free time, on mailing lists and on IRC and in person, and frankly I find it
very discouraging when people like yourself ignore that effort and pretend
that Ubuntu doesn't care.  The fact that we're having this conversation at
all means that we *do* care, and that *I* care, so please do Ubuntu (and me)
the courtesy of acknowledging that.

-- 
 - mdz


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

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 3

[Joey Hess]

Bill Allombert wrote:
> Is it a request I report one ? I will if you want.

Shrug, I can ignore useless bug reports and/or orphan packages when
things get too annoying with the best of them.

(Hmm, didn't I already do that?)

> I cannot point you exactly why _this_ circular dependency is going to 
> be a problem, no.
> However I can point you to bug #310490 which show a woody system that
> could not be upgraded to sarge without removing most of KDE.

I've read that bug before and I appreciate the time you've spent in
chasing down these upgrade issues but I think you're generalising too
far from that bug to a conclusion that any given trivial dependency loop
will cause similar problems.

> and that apt was not able to deal with that optimally.  In the end we 
> were not able to fix the problem, because we could not fix woody and
> sarge apt did not fare better anyway.

Although sarge's aptitude did..

> The situation is too complex to
> expect the software to make the optimal solution of what should be
> removed to allow upgrade.

I'm not so sure, have you seen the work that's been done recently on
aptitude's problem resolver?

> So maybe it is not a bug in the uqm package specifically, but it is still 
> a problem for Debian in the big picture. 

Filing scattershot but reports with no useful justifications might
result in enough people going ahead and making changes to make it seem
worth your time to do so, on the presumption that one of the changes
will avoid some real problem, but please realize that you run the risk
of annoying people when you do it.

-- 
see shy jo


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Canonical's business model

[Joey Hess]

Gustavo Franco wrote:
> I agree with "similar things being said" but i'm yet to hear about the
> lack of collaboration and give Debian something back. For example: I
> don't remember too much people caring about PGI (Progeny) and after
> that anaconda "port" to say that they weren't contributing the
> installer efforts to us, even when d-i was already there.

FWIW, progeny uploaded pgi to Debian (I forget if it ever made it out of
incoming) and have contributed back other tools like pickaxe too (pity
we haven't tried to use it and are still stuck with the Evil that is
debian-cd). I think it was pretty clear by the time their anaonda port
came around that Debian was not very interested it it except possibly as
a fallback if d-i failed to materialize.

-- 
see shy jo


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Canonical's business model

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On 1/11/06, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> No, I think it's because Ubuntu doesn't cooperate well with Debian,
>> >> while pretending to cooperate.
>> >
>> > Does Debian want to cooperate with Ubuntu, and how well does Debian
>> > do?  What steps could Ubuntu and Debian reasonably take to improve
>> > cooperation?
>>
>> Ubuntu could report in the BTS all the bugs it finds, and submit
>> patches via the BTS.
>
> What about bugs which are only applicable in ubuntu due to different
> depending packages? Do you really want to track all problems of a
> package in ubuntu within the debian bts? I assume not.

No.  I want the Ubuntu maintainer to make a judgment about whether the
bug applies or not.

> For bugs applicable to both debian and ubuntu, I usually do file bugs
> are in the debian bts, as many other ubuntu users and developers also
> do. What do you expect more?

I want Ubuntu to promise to do so.  That would constitute cooperation.

>> Ubuntu could find a way to do its own bug triage on packages for its
>> users, rather than leaving Debian maintainer fields unmodified.
>
> This is an old discussion with no real result. If the Maintainer field
> was changed, then ubuntu would be blamed for stealing credits from the
> original maintainer, something we don't want either.

Yeah, because the only way to document credit is in the Maintainer:
field.  It's a shame there are no other files anywhere in the package
which could be modified.  Heck, Ubuntu could even add a
"X-Debian-Maintainer:" field.  But no, that isn't done. 

Feh.


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

Re: Canonical's business model

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 02:34:31PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Ubuntu could report in the BTS all the bugs it finds, and submit patches
>> via the BTS.
>
> As you know, most bugs are reported by users, not discovered by developers
> We direct users to report those bugs to us, rather than Debian, for obvious
> reasons.

Really?  I get not infrequent mail from Ubuntu users, about Debian
packages I maintain, in the Ubuntu distribution.  Problems with, say,
installation, and whatnot, sometimes caused *by Ubuntu*.  And yet, the
poor users look at the unmodified Maintainer: field, and conclude I
must be the maintainer of what they are looking at, even though, in
fact, I am not.

> Many patches are submitted via the BTS, though not every patch published in
> the patch archive is submitted this way, for reasons which have been
> discussed to death in previous threads.

The fact that you have reasons is irrelevant.  The fact is, you're not
cooperating.  Saying "it's too expensive to cooperate properly!" may
be true, but doesn't somehow turn non-cooperation into cooperation.

>> Ubuntu could find a way to do its own bug triage on packages for its
>> users, rather than leaving Debian maintainer fields unmodified.
>
> I don't see the connection between these two behaviors.  Ubuntu developers
> do triage a huge volume of bugs from our user community, and the maintainer
> field issue was thoroughly discussed in an older thread.

Thoroughly?  To whose satisfaction?  Not mine.  You still think
mislabeling the package is a great thing.


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

Re: Dissection of an Ubuntu PR message

[Joey Hess]

For what it's worth, I largely agree with Andrew. Please, show some fire
and some honesty or STFU.

-- 
see shy jo


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Canonical's business model

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Daniel Ruoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Em Qua, 2006-01-11 às 14:36 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG escreveu:
>> Gustavo Franco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > It was already discussed[0], and there's no consensus on this idea of
>> > "every Ubuntu changeset, a patch in Debian BTS" between DDs. 
>> Right.  I want Ubuntu to exercise judgment, and not just give a big
>> pile of patches, some of which are Debian-relevant and some of which
>> are not.  Think, for example, of the normal way a Debian developer
>> should interact with upstream.
>
> This is exactly the point, what can I do with a patch if I don't know
> why it's there? Which problem is it trying to address (I know, I can
> read the patch and guess, but WTF), and why such solution was adopted...
> Everytime I submit a patch, I also submit this reasoning...

Of course, but Ubuntu doesn't submit patches.

Re: Dissection of an Ubuntu PR message

[Joey Hess]

Frans Pop wrote:
> My observations:
> - almost all development effort that may help narrow the gap is done on
>   the Ubuntu side, not on the Debian side;

I'm sorry, but I've spent quite a lot of time digging usefull things out
of the dross in Ubuntu patchsets (to the point of exhaustion and extreme
frustration), doing enormous redesigns based on needs synthesised from
observations of how Ubuntu and other CDDs changed things, etc; and I've
observed other DDs doing the same. So I don't really understand where
you're coming from with that statement.

> - I expect things to get better over time, not worse.

Still in wait and see mode here.

-- 
see shy jo


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Canonical's business model

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 16:48:21 +0100, martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> What would you like to see? 

What would I *like* to see? Well, that they treat me like I
 treat my upstreams; I triage bug reports, I keep feature specific
 patches separate, I submit these feature requests to  upstream BTS,
 or upstream author, depending on their preference. I triage, confirm,
 and pass along bug reports to upstream BTS, with any additional data
 that can serve to shine a light on the actual problem.

In other words, I would like to see people downstream treat me
 like I treat my upstream.

   Not that I am demanding, or even expecting, such a treatment.

manoj
-- 
If a thing's worth having, it's worth cheating for. W.C. Fields
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: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=265920

[Felipe Sateler]

On Wednesday 11 January 2006 21:51, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>  that's why one of my recommendations was to consider putting, into
>  certain key very popular packages, a means to either transfer the bug
>  to upstream (via some mad notional XMLeey are pee cee-ey common API) or
>  to simply put into reportbug a list of packages for which reporting
>  should be given special messages:
>
>  if reporting on package "kde, libkonq  long list " then
>  report "if this is a bug in KDE itself, please DO NOT report the
>  bug here, go to http://bugs.kde.org whatever.  if you have a
>  debian-specific packaging issue (installation problem, missing
>  files, conflict etc.), please continue".
This seems like a nice idea. File a whishlist bug against reportbug ;)

-- 


 Felipe Sateler


pgp4c5syhD22Q.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=265920

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 09:29:12AM +0100, Dirk Mueller wrote:

> Relax, nobody is being pissed. You just have to realize that if you tell 
> person A about a problem, person B doesn't magically get notified about it. 
> This is not different than in other situations in real life. 
 
 heya dirk,

 thank goodness you noticed that i'd gone overboard on the "raving"
 front.

 h... where's the bug tracker for bugzilla itself? hmmm...


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

Re: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=265920

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 02:04:45PM +0100, Adeodato Sim?? wrote:
> * Matthew Garrett [Tue, 10 Jan 2006 02:50:56 +]:
> 
> > Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > i've thought for a long time about how to reply to your message.
> 
> > Let's quickly outline what's happened here:
> 
> > 1) Luke files a bug agains Debian. So far, so good.

 yep.

> > 2) Some time later, 

 a year to 18 months later.

> > Luke contacts a KDE developer and asks if the bug
> > has been fixed.

 yep.

> > 3) The response is, approximately, "This is the first I've heard of it".
 
 nooo, the response was, approximately, "bugger off and report
 it via upstream".
 
 no indication of intent to take care of it was given.


 i _was_ prepared to be all nice and tactful, and i spent quite a lot of
 time (on and off, but mostly off) over a period of several weeks as to
 how i was going to respond.

 then i re-read the message and went nuts, then tried to temper and
 channel some of my anger by going overboard and into the ridiculous.

 as i calmed down i began to think of _sensible_ ways forward.


> > We (Debian) have a bug tracking system in order to keep track of bugs in
> > our distribution. 

 i didn't know that.  and neither will a hell of a lot of other people.
 i just found reportbug about 2 years ago and thought "cool, i can
 run a program on debian and i can report bugs.  via the commandline.
 great!"
 
 it never occurred to me that i shouldn't be reporting bugs,
 and nothing i encountered in reportbug told me that i was
 doing anything i shouldn't be.


> > It's the job of either the bug submitter or (more
> > usually) the Debian maintainer to contact upstream to make sure that
> > they're aware of the bug. It is *not* the upstream maintainer's job to
> > examine Debian's bug database.

 that distinction isn't made clear: it's only if people think about it
 that they will realise that they are supposed to report debian-specific
 packaging bugs to the debian bugs database and package-specific bugs
 to whatever upstream thingy they can find.  _if_ they can find it.

 and even if some people do think, there's lots that won't.

 for the _really_ popular packages, this becomes a serious problem:
 the percentage of people reporting bugs into what effectively becomes
 a black hole starts to get quite serious.


> > Which is, uh, pretty much what Dirk said. Luke, what the christ are you
> > upset about? 

 
 
> Nobody's said "Don't report this bug to us", they've said
> > "If you report a bug to Debian and nobody forwards it, we know nothing
> > about it".
> 
>   All correct. Thanks, Matthew. I'll just note that the Debian KDE
>   packages receive an incredible amount of bug reports, and that we're
>   understaffed to forward all of them to KDE upstream. 

 that's why one of my recommendations was to consider putting, into
 certain key very popular packages, a means to either transfer the bug
 to upstream (via some mad notional XMLeey are pee cee-ey common API) or
 to simply put into reportbug a list of packages for which reporting
 should be given special messages:

 if reporting on package "kde, libkonq  long list " then
 report "if this is a bug in KDE itself, please DO NOT report the
 bug here, go to http://bugs.kde.org whatever.  if you have a
 debian-specific packaging issue (installation problem, missing
 files, conflict etc.), please continue".

 and likewise for mozilla.

 and openoffice.

 and possibly even the linux kernel, although that's probably the
 exception.

 other possibilities:

 1) add into the dpkg thingy an upstream URL where bugs can be reported:

UpstreamBugs: http://bugs.kde.org/enter_bug.cgi (whatever)
 if you encounter a bug in kde.
 please report it here because otherwise nobody.
 will fix it, thank you.
.

   this would be _great_ because it could be automatically looked at by
   reportbug and filed.

   it would also be great because you could have, in dpkg-buildpackage,
   the UpstreamBugs thingy of one "control" file added to dozens or
   hundreds of individual packages.

   this would save maintainers a boat-load of time.

 2) against the list of "UpstreamBugs", on bugs.debian.org, email
received automatically notifies the sender of the above info.

just to make absolutely damn sure they know about it, plus
not _everybody_ uses reportbug - they sometimes (?) send in
messages direct.



> In particular, we
>   directly almost never do it for wishlist bugs. My response in [1]
>   explicitly included the sentence:
> 
> you or some other SE/Linux user may consider reporting the problem
> to upstream KDE, with a good reasoning too.
> 
>   I know this is suboptimal, but it's how things are now.
> 
> [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=265920;msg=25
> 
>   Cheers,
> 
> -- 
> Adeodato Sim?? dato at net.com.org.es
> Debian Developer  adeodato at

Re: Canonical's business model

[Steve Langasek]

On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 05:48:22PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> On 1/11/06, Daniel Ruoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Em Qua, 2006-01-11 às 16:48 +0100, martin f krafft escreveu:
> > > What would you like to see?

> > I think submitting bugs and patches to the BTS would already be enough.

> It was already discussed[0], and there's no consensus on this idea of
> "every Ubuntu changeset, a patch in Debian BTS" between DDs. I don't
> remember Linspire, Progeny, ... employees doing the same thing so it
> makes no sense rant against Canonical only. There's scott's patches
> list[1] that sucks IMHO,  and utnubu one[2]. AFAIK, some PTS work was
> already done too so we (probably) are listing if there's a ubuntu
> patch in every Debian package from qa.d.o. After all, do you still
> want annoying automatic bug reports?

> We've a lot more volunteers than Canonical, if you want to change the
> scenario (and i'm not writing to Daniel only) you should join
> utnubu[3] and help,

Of course people can do this, but this is so very much not the point.  The
point is that publishing source packages on a website that people have to
poll is not "giving back to Debian", and AFAICT the majority of changes
Ubuntu makes to packages are only made available to Debian in this format.
This includes many changes in Ubuntu's universe section[1] which I think it's
bad strategy to be making externally to Debian in the first place if
they're serious about limiting divergence from Debian.

I've also seen Canonical employees make comments in the past to the effect
that Debian has an obligation to meet Ubuntu part-way (read: monitor
Ubuntu's changes) on the question of integrating their changes back into
sid.  This is either a wholly unrealistic assessment of the scalability
issues with coordinating between the many CDDs and Debian derivatives in
existence, or simply hubris regarding Ubuntu's privileged position within
the Debian cosmos; but in either case, it does not support the thesis that
Canonical systematically "gives back to Debian" or that they have
succeeded in structuring Ubuntu's culture in a way that promotes such giving
back.

All of which is fine, and the right of anyone working off of Debian (hurray
Free Software!), up until the point where one starts claiming to be giving
back to Debian when by and large they are not; and I'm afraid this does seem
to be the case with Ubuntu today.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.debian.org/

[1] which, it should be said, is primarily the responsibility of the Ubuntu
MOTUs and not the work of Canonical employees


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 3

[Jeroen van Wolffelaar]

On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 11:15:35AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mercredi 11 janvier 2006 à 10:10 +0100, Henning Glawe a écrit :
> > a) explicitely forbid circular dependencies in policy
> 
> At the very least, I think they should be treated like pre-depends, with
> a request on this list being mandatory before adding a circular
> dependency. Until now, all circular dependencies cases I have met were
> fixable. At first, some of them looked necessary and they required quite
> some work, but they were fixable.

You know when you're adding a pre-depends. You're typing the word
"Pre-Depends" in a debian/control file.

You don't know when you're introducing a circular depends that easily,
and it could be either of the packages in the circle that shouldn't have
such a depends, not necessarily the last one that closed the circle
should change.

Now, I agree they should be avoided where possible. But I'm afraid that
needs to happen by having skilled people having dealt with similar
issues before detecting them by running repository-wide dependency
analysis on a regular basis, and then advising how to fix it. This
happens to be what's happing now, actually. It'd be nice if QA's
debcheck could be extended to detect circular dependencies and list
them. Let's start by filing a wishlist bug on qa.debian.org for that :).

#347676

--Jeroen

-- 
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357)
http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl


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

Re: Packet radio and foul language

[Ron Johnson]

On Thu, 2006-01-12 at 10:30 +1100, Terry Dawson wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
> 
> > With beliefs like that, no wonder this world is going to hell in a
> > hand basket.
> > 
> > Manners/politeness is social lubricant.  It makes society run 
> > smoother and less violently.
> 
> I'd have thought the most polite action in the scenario you present is
> to acknowledge 

I've already been reminded that my own reply lacked politeness...

>that others are different and to judge the person
> delivering the message on the semantic of the message rather than the
> appearance of the deliverer or delivery method of the message.

That *is* the ideal which I strive for.

-- 
-
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson, LA USA

"I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals, I'm a vegetarian
because I hate vegetables!"
unknown


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

Re: Dissection of an Ubuntu PR message

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 11:09:12PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Let's take this one apart and see what it is that pisses people off so
> much.

Hello, Andrew.

I don't intend to participate in this type of email argument with you; I've
yet to see it pay off for anyone involved.  However, I will be in London
later this month and would be willing to use that opportunity to civilly
discuss your concerns face-to-face.

Cheers,

-- 
 - mdz


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

Re: Canonical's business model

[Reinhard Tartler]

On 1/11/06, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> No, I think it's because Ubuntu doesn't cooperate well with Debian,
> >> while pretending to cooperate.
> >
> > Does Debian want to cooperate with Ubuntu, and how well does Debian
> > do?  What steps could Ubuntu and Debian reasonably take to improve
> > cooperation?
>
> Ubuntu could report in the BTS all the bugs it finds, and submit
> patches via the BTS.

What about bugs which are only applicable in ubuntu due to different
depending packages? Do you really want to track all problems of a
package in ubuntu within the debian bts? I assume not.

For bugs applicable to both debian and ubuntu, I usually do file bugs
are in the debian bts, as many other ubuntu users and developers also
do. What do you expect more?

> Ubuntu could find a way to do its own bug triage on packages for its
> users, rather than leaving Debian maintainer fields unmodified.

This is an old discussion with no real result. If the Maintainer field
was changed, then ubuntu would be blamed for stealing credits from the
original maintainer, something we don't want either.

--
regards,
Reinhard

Re: Packet radio and foul language

[Terry Dawson]

Ron Johnson wrote:

> With beliefs like that, no wonder this world is going to hell in a
> hand basket.
> 
> Manners/politeness is social lubricant.  It makes society run 
> smoother and less violently.

I'd have thought the most polite action in the scenario you present is
to acknowledge that others are different and to judge the person
delivering the message on the semantic of the message rather than the
appearance of the deliverer or delivery method of the message.

Terry


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

Re: Canonical's business model

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 07:54:10PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> This is exactly the point, what can I do with a patch if I don't know
> why it's there? Which problem is it trying to address (I know, I can
> read the patch and guess, but WTF), and why such solution was adopted...
> Everytime I submit a patch, I also submit this reasoning...

The relevant context is generally available in the changelog (which is in
the patch archive, adjacent to the patches themselves) and in the bug
reports referenced therein, in very similar fashion to changes implemented
in Debian.

-- 
 - mdz


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

Re: Dissection of an Ubuntu PR message

[Frans Pop]

On Thursday 12 January 2006 00:09, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Let's take this one apart and see what it is that pisses people off so
> much.

What pisses me off is ppl keeping this thread alive without adding new 
arguments with as their main goal to widen the gap that is definitely 
there, but is also not as wide as they want others to believe.

This discussion has been repeated at least three times here and in this 
thread I have so far seen no significant new arguments.

My observations:
- almost all development effort that may help narrow the gap is done on
  the Ubuntu side, not on the Debian side;
- the paid Ubuntu developers all work very hard (sometimes somewhat
  resulting in less attention to their Debian responsibilities than
  we'd like, but hey, real live (i.e. making money to live on) comes
  first;
- there are plenty of Debian developers who take little or no trouble to
  see how Ubuntu might help them; there are also plenty Ubuntu developers
  who maybe could make more of an effort to give back; at least Ubuntu
  has a policy of giving back; never seen policy not (fully) implemented
  in practice?
- I expect things to get better over time, not worse.

Note: I am on the Debian side but am happy with any of my work also being 
used in Ubuntu as I see plenty coming back personally. And even if not: 
Ubuntu is doing great things for the promotion of free software.

Cheers,
FJP


pgpXmOgvzGXoK.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Canonical's business model

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 02:34:31PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Ubuntu could report in the BTS all the bugs it finds, and submit patches
> via the BTS.

As you know, most bugs are reported by users, not discovered by developers
We direct users to report those bugs to us, rather than Debian, for obvious
reasons.

Many patches are submitted via the BTS, though not every patch published in
the patch archive is submitted this way, for reasons which have been
discussed to death in previous threads.

Just today, Martin Pitt submitted a batch of bug reports, some with patches,
for the libsysfs2 transition we just carried out in Ubuntu.

During the C++ ABI transition associated with g++-4.0, we did not push every
patch into the BTS, but the relevant Debian instructions included pointers
to the patch archive, and those patches were merged by Debian maintainers
very successfully this way.

> Ubuntu could find a way to do its own bug triage on packages for its
> users, rather than leaving Debian maintainer fields unmodified.

I don't see the connection between these two behaviors.  Ubuntu developers
do triage a huge volume of bugs from our user community, and the maintainer
field issue was thoroughly discussed in an older thread.

-- 
 - mdz


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

Re: Packet radio and foul language

[Terry Dawson]

Hamish Moffatt wrote:

> FWIW, there's no such restriction in the Australian regulations,
> as far as I can see.

I concur, that's generally correct. The ACA has relaxed the profane
language requirements somewhat since they were tested in court (by a
commercial broadcast radio operator) some time back.. my recollection is
that a judge declared some of the most profane  of words to be in common
use and therefore unreasonable to prohibit.

> I would say that it's up to the packet radio gateway to edit/discard
> posts that don't meet the regulations, since their requirements are
> stricter than the Internet's.

In Australia it has always been the case that the responsibility for
traffic transmitted by an amateur station lies with the operator of the
transmitting station, not with the original source of the content.

I operated an Internet/packet radio gateway in Australia for many years
and we became finely tuned to the sensibilities of the legal
requirements balanced against a sense of the reasonable.

In my opinion given the mixed legal requirements the appropriate action
is people to decide on an individual basis whether to gateway internet
mailing lists over radio or not. I believe that, generally, it is
unreasonable to have a majority constrained by the requirements of a
minority.

regards
Terry


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

Re: Canonical's business model

[Gustavo Noronha Silva]

Em Qua, 2006-01-11 às 19:54 -0300, Daniel Ruoso escreveu:
> Em Qua, 2006-01-11 às 14:36 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG escreveu:
> > Gustavo Franco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > It was already discussed[0], and there's no consensus on this idea of
> > > "every Ubuntu changeset, a patch in Debian BTS" between DDs. 
> > Right.  I want Ubuntu to exercise judgment, and not just give a big
> > pile of patches, some of which are Debian-relevant and some of which
> > are not.  Think, for example, of the normal way a Debian developer
> > should interact with upstream.
> 
> This is exactly the point, what can I do with a patch if I don't know
> why it's there? Which problem is it trying to address (I know, I can
> read the patch and guess, but WTF), and why such solution was adopted...
> Everytime I submit a patch, I also submit this reasoning...

That's sometimes documented in the changelog. I benefited quite a lot
from the ubuntu patches for gksu, and I've worked quite nicely with
seb128 and mvo on issues like this one and update-manager.

Now, I cannot tell if Canonical is claiming more than it is doing, and I
do have my concerns about some of their decisions and ways of working;
I'd just like to point out that cooperation with an 'external' entity
has never been as intense and helpful as it is being with
Canonical/Ubuntu.

I mostly agree with Gustavo Franco on this issue: we should try to reach
them and tell them what our needs and wishes are, and estabilish links
where possible.

See you,

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Gustavo Noronha 
Debian:    *  



signature.asc
Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem	assinada digitalmente

Dissection of an Ubuntu PR message

[Andrew Suffield]

Let's take this one apart and see what it is that pisses people off so
much.

On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 09:57:35AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> There are still rather intense emotional responses to Ubuntu within the
> Debian community, as evidenced in this thread and others.

First a dismissal of dissenters as 'emotional' (deliberate flame,
thinly veiled so as to pay lip service to their 'code of conduct').

> However, there
> seems to be a trend toward more effective collaboration at the individual
> level, as many Debian maintainers now recognize that Ubuntu developers are,
> by and large, standing by and willing to work with them, and that such
> collaboration requires active participation from both sides.

This is a statement that "some people who work for Ubuntu also work on
Debian, or assist people who are working on Debian", which is what
we'd expect of any company that employs people interested in Debian -
not much of a claim really. It also takes the opportunity to blame the
Debian maintainers for failing to cooperate with Ubuntu ones, in those
cases where such 'collaboration' does not occur.

> In comparison with other Debian derivatives, past and present, the fact that
> this kind of discussion has been happening at all, with both parties
> involved, is a significant step forward.

And this is just insulting Progeny (and the rest) while promoting the
superiority of Ubuntu. It's also wrong.


I don't think it's any real surprise that people dislike this sort of
behaviour.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Canonical's business model

[Daniel Ruoso]

Em Qua, 2006-01-11 às 14:36 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG escreveu:
> Gustavo Franco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It was already discussed[0], and there's no consensus on this idea of
> > "every Ubuntu changeset, a patch in Debian BTS" between DDs. 
> Right.  I want Ubuntu to exercise judgment, and not just give a big
> pile of patches, some of which are Debian-relevant and some of which
> are not.  Think, for example, of the normal way a Debian developer
> should interact with upstream.

This is exactly the point, what can I do with a patch if I don't know
why it's there? Which problem is it trying to address (I know, I can
read the patch and guess, but WTF), and why such solution was adopted...
Everytime I submit a patch, I also submit this reasoning...

daniel


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

Re: Canonical's business model

[Andrew Suffield]

On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 03:25:01PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> On 1/11/06, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 02:56:35PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> > > On 1/11/06, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 11:07:43AM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> > > > > On 1/10/06, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 12:22:03AM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> > > > > > > I don't[sic] the same rant over others Debian related companies
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Have you ever actually subscribed to any Debian mailing lists?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't be fooled by From mail headers.
> > > >
> > > > Well, I've sure seen similar things being said about nearly every
> > > > Debian-related company I've ever heard of (Progeny, Linspire, Nexenta,
> > > > etc). I find it hard to see how else you could have missed them.
> > >
> > > I agree with "similar things being said" but i'm yet to hear about the
> > > lack of collaboration and give Debian something back.
> >
> > None of the other companies ran around pronouncing how great they were
> > at 'giving things back' and how 'committed' they were to free
> > software, etcetera. That appears to be the relevant point.
> >
> > I don't think anybody seriously objects to the existence of companies
> > who *don't* do these things.
> 
> Are you saying that they're spending more money with PR than really
> contributing back ?

I don't know about money, but I'm pretty sure their claims exceed
their actions. I think that a sufficient response is to point this out
whenever people start worshipping Canonical in public.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Need for launchpad

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Benjamin Seidenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Oh, it gets even better. The fun part is that the one who wants to
> receive the list may not be the one who actually transmits the signal
> (and hence would be at fault). That'd be the transmitting station. for
> those who are having trouble following, think of this analogy. I
> (client send a request to another station (server) asking for the
> list. It (server) sends back the message, with the bad language. Thus,
> the transmitting station (server) is at fault, even though it's most
> likely automated.
>
>
> Isn't it all so fun?

I think it means that Ham operators are responsible for their content,
and are not common carriers.  Nor is it the idea of Ham Radio to turn
Ham operators into common carriers.  

Thomas


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

Re: Canonical's business model

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Gustavo Franco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> It was already discussed[0], and there's no consensus on this idea of
> "every Ubuntu changeset, a patch in Debian BTS" between DDs. 

Right.  I want Ubuntu to exercise judgment, and not just give a big
pile of patches, some of which are Debian-relevant and some of which
are not.  Think, for example, of the normal way a Debian developer
should interact with upstream.

> I don't
> remember Linspire, Progeny, ... employees doing the same thing so it
> makes no sense rant against Canonical only. 

On the other hand, Linspire and Progeny do not pretend to be
cooperating with Debian.

Thomas


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

Re: Canonical's business model

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Jan Nieuwenhuizen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Thomas Bushnell writes:
>
>> No, I think it's because Ubuntu doesn't cooperate well with Debian,
>> while pretending to cooperate.
>
> Does Debian want to cooperate with Ubuntu, and how well does Debian
> do?  What steps could Ubuntu and Debian reasonably take to improve
> cooperation?

Ubuntu could report in the BTS all the bugs it finds, and submit
patches via the BTS.

Ubuntu could find a way to do its own bug triage on packages for its
users, rather than leaving Debian maintainer fields unmodified.


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

Re: Powerfulness

[Adam Heath]

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006, Frank Küster wrote:

> > So vim is in the simple, for newbies class?
>
> No, there's actually three classes:  "Simple editors for newbies",
> "not-so-simple but, er, powerful editors", and "religions".

ae is the religion variety.

Re: How to debug - apachetop

[Steve Kemp]

On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 11:10:51AM -0600, Alejandro Bonilla wrote:

> After the actual error I got with apachetop:
> debian:~# apachetop -f /var/log/apache/access.log
> *** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer: 0xb7da08c8 ***
> Aborted
> 
> I want to learn how to debug and see what went wrong. How can I learn to debug
> this kind of things or how can I enable some debugging for this kind of 
> things?

  Mostly this invokes recompiling the application to make sure it
 has debugging symbols.

  As the package maintainer I took a look at this, and found a possible
 bug.  Here's how I did it.

  (I just noticed there is a bug report showing the same error reported
 a few days ago.  I posted a followup asking for more information,  as
 I hadn't seen it myself until now.)

  OK.  So we get the application and run it under gdb:

[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# gdb apachetop
GNU gdb 6.4-debian
Copyright 2005 Free Software
...

  Type "r" to run the application:

(gdb)  r
Starting program: /usr/sbin/apachetop 
(no debugging symbols found)
*** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer: 0xb7e448c0 ***

Program received signal SIGABRT, Aborted.
0xb7d397a7 in raise () from /lib/tls/libc.so.6


  Here we see two things:  There are no debugging symbols and we managed
 to see the crash.

  Rebuilding with debugging enabled we can try again:

[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# gdb ./debian/sid/apachetop/apachetop-0.12.5/src/apachetop
GNU gdb 6.4-debian
...
(gdb) r
Starting program:
/home/skx/debian/sid/apachetop/apachetop-0.12.5/src/apachetop 
*** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer: 0xb7e448c0 ***

Program received signal SIGABRT, Aborted.
0xb7d397a7 in raise () from /lib/tls/libc.so.6


   Type "up" a few times to move up the call stack and see if we
  can see where it dies:

(gdb) up
#1  0xb7d3b04b in abort () from /lib/tls/libc.so.6
(gdb) up
#2  0xb7d70015 in __fsetlocking () from /lib/tls/libc.so.6
(gdb) up
#3  0xb7d76667 in malloc_usable_size () from /lib/tls/libc.so.6
(gdb) up
#4  0xb7d76b02 in free () from /lib/tls/libc.so.6
(gdb) up
#5  0x0804a15f in new_file (filename=0x804f5b9
"/var/log/apache2/access.log", 
do_seek_to_end=true) at apachetop.cc:1029
1029if (this_file->filename)
free(this_file->filename);

  Ahah!

  We see there is an error in free, and it was caused by the line 
 "if (this_file->filename) free (this_file->filename)".

  Comment that line of the program out, and rebuild it.

  No more crash!

  That's Steve's patented introduction to solving an Apachetop crash
 with gdb ;)

  Seriously using the application under the debugger is the most obvious
 way to look for bugs for me.  Valgrind, strace, etc, are very good
 at what they do.  But if you can rebuild your application to use 
 debugging symbols then using gdb is simple enough.  There are tutorials
 on getting started which google will help you find.

  I'll try to see where the filename is getting setup and what is
 wrong with it.  Might take me a day or two, but as a quick fix you
 can safely comment out/delete the free line and just suffer a small
 memory leak for the moment.

Steve
--


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

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 3

[Bill Allombert]

On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 10:15:58PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Bill Allombert wrote:
> > Here the lists of packages involved in circular dependencies listed by
> > maintainers.
> 
> > Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > debconf
> > debconf-english
> > debconf-i18n
> 
> These are all necessary, and debconf is an essential package which is
> not subject to the circular dependency postinst ordering problems afaik.
> 
> (You also never filed any bugs on these.)

Is it a request I report one ? I will if you want.

> > uqm
> > uqm-content
> 
> The bug report for these does not give any concrete reasons why a
> circular dependency is a problem in this particular case.

I cannot point you exactly why _this_ circular dependency is going to 
be a problem, no.
However I can point you to bug #310490 which show a woody system that
could not be upgraded to sarge without removing most of KDE.
This could be reproduced by install the following package on clean
woody chroot:
konqueror aptitude libqt3 libhtml-tree-perl libapt-pkg-perl libft-perl

The analysis show that the problem was that in _woody_:
1) libqt3 has a circular dependency with libqt3-mt.
2) libhtml-tree-perl has a circular dependency with libwww-perl.

and that apt was not able to deal with that optimally.  In the end we 
were not able to fix the problem, because we could not fix woody and
sarge apt did not fare better anyway. The situation is too complex to
expect the software to make the optimal solution of what should be
removed to allow upgrade.

As the woody-to-sarge has shown we do not have enough time to fix the
upgrade problem during the freeze and testing is too much in a flux to 
track them outside a freeze. The solution I propose is to do upgrade 
tests regularly and simplify the dependencies. Some of the most severe
issues in the woody-to-sarge upgrade were due to circular dependencies
in _woody_. The fact we cannot fix problems in stable imply we have to
be careful to not introduce potential issues that will come back to
hit us.

So maybe it is not a bug in the uqm package specifically, but it is still 
a problem for Debian in the big picture. 

If you have better suggestions how we can provide smooth upgrade between 
stable releases without a six month freeze, I will be happy to work on
them. I am running a large scale upgrade test just now.

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: Canonical's business model

[Gustavo Franco]

On 1/11/06, Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 11, Gustavo Franco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > You said *in any form you find convenient* but which one do you
> > prefer: bug reports through Debian BTS, just email, ... ? Please, read
> > my reply to Daniel's message.
> Uploading the diffs on a web server is nice, but it's not much more
> different from just downloading the .diff.gz files from their archive.
> I still need to do it from time to time and then hunt for changes since
> the last time.

I see, i would like to see the utnubu patch list[0] integrated in PTS
(scott's already is[1]), with that everyone subscribed to the package
could receive a mail after a patch shows up there. I'm sure that
Rafael or someone else said something about it, but not the entire
idea. Is it possible, Rafael?

[0] = http://utnubu.alioth.debian.org/scottish/
[1] = look at Patches - http://packages.qa.debian.org/u/udev.html

--
Gustavo Franco

Re: Canonical's business model

[Marco d'Itri]

On Jan 11, Gustavo Franco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> You said *in any form you find convenient* but which one do you
> prefer: bug reports through Debian BTS, just email, ... ? Please, read
> my reply to Daniel's message.
Uploading the diffs on a web server is nice, but it's not much more
different from just downloading the .diff.gz files from their archive.
I still need to do it from time to time and then hunt for changes since
the last time.

-- 
ciao,
Marco


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Canonical's business model

[Gustavo Franco]

On 1/11/06, Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 11, Gustavo Franco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > E.g. when I repeatedly say "I'd like to receive any change you make to
> > > my packages, in any form you find convenient" they could actually do
> > > it... I'm tired of begging for patches.
> > http://utnubu.alioth.debian.org/scottish/by_maint/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
> You are totally missing my point.
>

You said *in any form you find convenient* but which one do you
prefer: bug reports through Debian BTS, just email, ... ? Please, read
my reply to Daniel's message.

--
Gustavo Franco

Re: Canonical's business model

[Gustavo Franco]

On 1/11/06, Daniel Ruoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Em Qua, 2006-01-11 às 16:48 +0100, martin f krafft escreveu:
> > What would you like to see?
>
> I think submitting bugs and patches to the BTS would already be enough.
>

It was already discussed[0], and there's no consensus on this idea of
"every Ubuntu changeset, a patch in Debian BTS" between DDs. I don't
remember Linspire, Progeny, ... employees doing the same thing so it
makes no sense rant against Canonical only. There's scott's patches
list[1] that sucks IMHO,  and utnubu one[2]. AFAIK, some PTS work was
already done too so we (probably) are listing if there's a ubuntu
patch in every Debian package from qa.d.o. After all, do you still
want annoying automatic bug reports?

We've a lot more volunteers than Canonical, if you want to change the
scenario (and i'm not writing to Daniel only) you should join
utnubu[3] and help, but i think that the "patch" argument is over.
FYI, there's a MOTU effort into Ubuntu to package universe stuff back
to Debian too[4].

[0] = http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2005/12/msg00120.html
[1] = http://people.ubuntu.com/~scott/patches/
[2] = http://utnubu.alioth.debian.org/scottish/
[3] = http://utnubu.alioth.debian.org/
[4] = https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ContributingToDebian

--
Gustavo Franco

Re: Canonical's business model

[Marco d'Itri]

On Jan 11, Gustavo Franco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> > E.g. when I repeatedly say "I'd like to receive any change you make to
> > my packages, in any form you find convenient" they could actually do
> > it... I'm tired of begging for patches.
> http://utnubu.alioth.debian.org/scottish/by_maint/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
You are totally missing my point.

-- 
ciao,
Marco


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Canonical's business model

[Gustavo Franco]

On 1/11/06, Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 11, martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > How do you think Canonical could *better* work with Debian, ignoring
> > whether they meet up to their promises at the moment or not.
> E.g. when I repeatedly say "I'd like to receive any change you make to
> my packages, in any form you find convenient" they could actually do
> it... I'm tired of begging for patches.
>

http://utnubu.alioth.debian.org/scottish/by_maint/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/

--
Gustavo Franco

Re: Canonical's business model

[Marco d'Itri]

On Jan 11, martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> How do you think Canonical could *better* work with Debian, ignoring
> whether they meet up to their promises at the moment or not.
E.g. when I repeatedly say "I'd like to receive any change you make to
my packages, in any form you find convenient" they could actually do
it... I'm tired of begging for patches.

-- 
ciao,
Marco


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Canonical's business model

[Daniel Ruoso]

Em Qua, 2006-01-11 às 16:48 +0100, martin f krafft escreveu:
> What would you like to see?

I think submitting bugs and patches to the BTS would already be enough.

daniel


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

Bug#347617: ITP: itrans -- Converts romanised Indic text to LaTeX, HTML & Postscript

[Baishampayan Ghose]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Baishampayan Ghose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


* Package name: itrans
  Version : 5.3
  Upstream Author : Avinash Chopde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.aczoom.com/itrans/
* License : BSD
  Description : Converts romanised Indic text to LaTeX, HTML & Postscript

ITRANS is a system for printing Indic scripts.
.
It accepts a Roman transliteration of the Indian languages Bengali,
Gujarati, Hindi, Kannada, Marathi, Punjabi, Tamil, Telugu or Sanskrit
and outputs LaTeX, HTML or Postscript.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.8-2-686-smp
Locale: LANG=en_IN, LC_CTYPE=en_IN (charmap=UTF-8)


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

Re: Canonical's business model

[martin f krafft]

also sprach Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.01.11.1644 +0100]:
> > Could you be more explicit? I know there has been concern about Ubuntu
> > amongst debian developers, and that Mark Shuttleworth has some doubts
> > about working with DCC, although he is rather vague in my opinion. But
> > what are the problems with Ubuntu? Is it an unecessary fork? Or is it
> > not contributing back its changes to debian software? 
> 
> I think it's the pretending that pisses people off.

IMHO, the border between contributing and employing people who also
work on Debian is not entirely clear.

How do you think Canonical could *better* work with Debian, ignoring
whether they meet up to their promises at the moment or not.

What would you like to see? And before you say: integrate stuff into
Debian directly, not into Ubuntu and then expect others to
backport, consider that we surely don't want everything in Debian
that the Canonical folks stuff into Ubuntu...

-- 
Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list!
 
 .''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: :'  :proud Debian developer and author: http://debiansystem.info
`. `'`
  `-  Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system
 
Invalid/expired PGP (sub)keys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver!
 
"in diving to the bottom of pleasure
 we bring up more gravel than pearls."
   -- honoré de balzac


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)

Re: How to debug - apachetop

[Nico Golde]

Hi,
* Alejandro Bonilla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-11 19:03]:
> After the actual error I got with apachetop:
> debian:~# apachetop -f /var/log/apache/access.log
> *** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer: 0xb7da08c8 ***
> Aborted
> 
> I want to learn how to debug and see what went wrong. How can I learn to debug
> this kind of things or how can I enable some debugging for this kind of 
> things?

If you dont know how to debug this (for example with gdb) 
please write a bug report using `reportbug apachetop` and 
hopefully the maintainer will tell you how to assemble more 
information.
Kind regards
Nico Golde
-- 
Nico Golde - JAB: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GPG: 0x73647CFF
http://www.ngolde.de | http://www.muttng.org | http://grml.org
Forget about that mouse with 3/4/5 buttons -
gimme a keyboard with 103/104/105 keys!


pgpLdr2pMwg68.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Heimdal and openssh

[Aaron M. Ucko]

Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Juha Jäykkä <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>>   * Interoperate with ssh-krb5 << 3.8.1p1-1 servers, which used a
>>>   slightly
>>> different version of the gssapi authentication method (thanks, Aaron
>>> M. Ucko; closes: #328388).
>
>> Perhaps this is THE patch which makes them all work together while
>> openssh folks claim they don't? This is a side-issue, but it would be
>> nice to know.
>
> That may very well be the case, yeah.  I've not done a lot of
> experimentation.

As I recall, that patch (which I lifted from ssh-krb5) just addresses
interoperation with old (3.5-era) versions of the "unofficial" patch,
which is otherwise stabler than the upstream-blessed gssapi support.

-- 
Aaron M. Ucko, KB1CJC (amu at alum.mit.edu, ucko at debian.org)
Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] (NOT a valid e-mail address) for more info.


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

New Paid Search Engine Offer

[josh3]

Software in the Public Interest,

We have a very good source of web traffic for the Keyword Gaming Server. Like 
to offer you $100 in matching funds via our 
Pay Per Click product to try it out.

Let me know if interested or who I might speak to?

Regards,

Joshua Lee
Manager of Business Development
NetVisibility, Inc
949-855-2700 ext 118



This email has been sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To be removed from our list please reply to this email with "Remove Me" in the 
subject line.


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

Re: How to debug - apachetop

[Florian Weimer]

* Alejandro Bonilla:

> I want to learn how to debug and see what went wrong. How can I
> learn to debug this kind of things or how can I enable some
> debugging for this kind of things?

valgrind is quite helpful for debugging such problems related to
memory-management.  You could also have a look at mtrace.


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

Re: Canonical's business model

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 02:44:28PM +0100, jeremiah foster wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-01-11 at 10:25 +0100, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> 
> > Thomas Bushnell writes:
> > 
> > > No, I think it's because Ubuntu doesn't cooperate well with Debian,
> > > while pretending to cooperate. 
> 
> Could you be more explicit? I know there has been concern about Ubuntu
> amongst debian developers, and that Mark Shuttleworth has some doubts
> about working with DCC, although he is rather vague in my opinion. But
> what are the problems with Ubuntu? Is it an unecessary fork? Or is it
> not contributing back its changes to debian software? 

Most of the complaints that have surfaced here seem to relate to the
handling of patches to be fed back to Debian, for example, how maintainers
should be notified of them, how much personal attention can be expected from
an Ubuntu developer regarding a patch, etc.  There isn't much argument
(anymore) about whether Ubuntu has a right to exist.

There are still rather intense emotional responses to Ubuntu within the
Debian community, as evidenced in this thread and others.  However, there
seems to be a trend toward more effective collaboration at the individual
level, as many Debian maintainers now recognize that Ubuntu developers are,
by and large, standing by and willing to work with them, and that such
collaboration requires active participation from both sides.

In comparison with other Debian derivatives, past and present, the fact that
this kind of discussion has been happening at all, with both parties
involved, is a significant step forward.

The DCC is of course an entirely unrelated issue, as the DCC neither
represents nor includes Debian.

-- 
 - mdz


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

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 3

[Adrian von Bidder]

On Monday 09 January 2006 19:20, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Here the lists of packages involved in circular dependencies listed by
> maintainers.

Just wondering why this wasn't mentioned yet:  aren't circular dependencies 
causing more work for RM's, too, because the testing migration script can't 
handle dependencies loops autmatically in some/most/all cases?

From a graph algorithm point of view, if I'm not very mistaken, dependencies 
being guaranteed to be a directed graph instead of a generic graph should 
allow some simplifications/efficiency improvements in apt and other tools, 
too.

cheers
-- vbi

-- 
Computers can never replace human stupidity.


pgpSlYEBvlopx.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Canonical's business model

[Gustavo Franco]

On 1/11/06, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 02:56:35PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> > On 1/11/06, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 11:07:43AM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> > > > On 1/10/06, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 12:22:03AM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> > > > > > I don't[sic] the same rant over others Debian related companies
> > > > >
> > > > > Have you ever actually subscribed to any Debian mailing lists?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Don't be fooled by From mail headers.
> > >
> > > Well, I've sure seen similar things being said about nearly every
> > > Debian-related company I've ever heard of (Progeny, Linspire, Nexenta,
> > > etc). I find it hard to see how else you could have missed them.
> >
> > I agree with "similar things being said" but i'm yet to hear about the
> > lack of collaboration and give Debian something back.
>
> None of the other companies ran around pronouncing how great they were
> at 'giving things back' and how 'committed' they were to free
> software, etcetera. That appears to be the relevant point.
>
> I don't think anybody seriously objects to the existence of companies
> who *don't* do these things.

Are you saying that they're spending more money with PR than really
contributing back ? I don't have the same feel, but if it's the
reality it's grave. We just need to avoid measure these things by
emotion and point out facts, and i'm not talking about you and your
opinions but being more general.

--
Gustavo Franco

How to debug - apachetop

[Alejandro Bonilla]

Hi,

After the actual error I got with apachetop:
debian:~# apachetop -f /var/log/apache/access.log
*** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer: 0xb7da08c8 ***
Aborted

I want to learn how to debug and see what went wrong. How can I learn to debug
this kind of things or how can I enable some debugging for this kind of things?

Thanks,

.Alejandro


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

Re: Canonical's business model

[Andrew Suffield]

On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 02:56:35PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> On 1/11/06, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 11:07:43AM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> > > On 1/10/06, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 12:22:03AM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> > > > > I don't[sic] the same rant over others Debian related companies
> > > >
> > > > Have you ever actually subscribed to any Debian mailing lists?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Don't be fooled by From mail headers.
> >
> > Well, I've sure seen similar things being said about nearly every
> > Debian-related company I've ever heard of (Progeny, Linspire, Nexenta,
> > etc). I find it hard to see how else you could have missed them.
> 
> I agree with "similar things being said" but i'm yet to hear about the
> lack of collaboration and give Debian something back.

None of the other companies ran around pronouncing how great they were
at 'giving things back' and how 'committed' they were to free
software, etcetera. That appears to be the relevant point.

I don't think anybody seriously objects to the existence of companies
who *don't* do these things.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Canonical's business model

[Gustavo Franco]

On 1/11/06, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 11:07:43AM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> > On 1/10/06, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 12:22:03AM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> > > > I don't[sic] the same rant over others Debian related companies
> > >
> > > Have you ever actually subscribed to any Debian mailing lists?
> > >
> >
> > Don't be fooled by From mail headers.
>
> Well, I've sure seen similar things being said about nearly every
> Debian-related company I've ever heard of (Progeny, Linspire, Nexenta,
> etc). I find it hard to see how else you could have missed them.

I agree with "similar things being said" but i'm yet to hear about the
lack of collaboration and give Debian something back. For example: I
don't remember too much people caring about PGI (Progeny) and after
that anaconda "port" to say that they weren't contributing the
installer efforts to us, even when d-i was already there. I remember
talking with Ian Murdock about "anaconda x d-i" during a dinner
(debconf 4), it was clear there that Progeny wasn't doing nothing
evil. It seems that some people is considering Canonical as the evil
itself.

I don't want to say that Canonical is a perfect company and that all
its employees and contributors are commited to free software and care
about the Debian project "health". The point is that they aren't white
or black, they're like others companies helping us. We're in a
position that some volunteers helping them (and they're less than us)
started asking themselves if it was ethical contribute to Ubuntu and
ignore Debian. It won't take too much time to they realize that
contributing to Debian is contribute to Ubuntu but the reverse isn't
always true. We just need to clarify it and brought mentors, utnubu
and similar projects in a new level of visibility and we're doing it
right now, IMHO.

--
Gustavo Franco

Bug#347581: debian-policy: Explicitly permit *-headers binary package created from library source package

[Kevin B. McCarty]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
Version: 3.6.2.2

Hi,

Could Policy be amended slightly to explicitly permit library source
packages to create a -headers package containing include files?

I am thinking that something like the following could be added between
the existing first and second paragraphs of Section 8.4, "Development
files",
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-sharedlibs.html#s-sharedlibs-dev

[begin suggested text]
If your library source package includes a large number of header files
that are to be installed in /usr/include or subdirectories thereof, it
may place them in a binary package called librarynamesoversion-headers
or (if you prefer only to support one development version at a time, or
if the library API is preserved across different soversions)
libraryname-headers.  If you do this, the development package must
Depend upon the headers package.  If the development package is
architecture-dependent and the headers package is not, the development
package should not require exactly the same version of the headers
package in order to prevent problems arising from binary NMUs.
[end suggested text]

Without this or a similar text, it is not clear to me that source
packages creating -headers binary packages are in compliance
with Policy, which currently says "The development files associated to a
shared library need to be placed in a package called
librarynamesoversion-dev, or if you prefer only to support one
development version at a time, libraryname-dev."

The following library source packages of which I am aware create
- -headers packages that are in compliance with the suggested amendment
above:

. affix-kernel
. atlas3
. qt-x11-free (Qt3)
. wxwindows2.4
. wxwidgets2.6

The following library source package creates a -headers package that is
not quite in compliance:

. newlib (has exact version dependency of arch:any -dev package on
arch:all -headers package)

Some other source packages creating -headers packages to which this
suggested policy amendment would not apply:

. *-kernel-headers (not created from a library source package)
. em8300-headers (ditto)
. octave2.1 (the shared libs aren't in /usr/lib, nor does the package
tweak ld.so.conf so that they're visible to the runtime linker, so I
don't believe this counts as a library source package)
. octave2.9 (ditto)


CC'ed to debian-devel in case anyone wants to add to or disagree with
this suggestion.

regards,

- --
Kevin B. McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   Physics Department
WWW: http://www.princeton.edu/~kmccarty/Princeton University
GPG: public key ID 4F83C751 Princeton, NJ 08544
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDxS/5fYxAIk+Dx1ERAnK+AKC9+FmXe/NiDmtpuUU/T7kLcX2SogCgqrQr
CQp3MCVPmgLqq6loQfnccwg=
=eVUJ
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


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

Re: Packet radio and foul language

[Andrew Suffield]

On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 09:49:25AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-01-11 at 15:41 +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 12:43:16PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > Manners/politeness is social lubricant.  It makes society run 
> > > smoother and less violently.
> > 
> > I'm pretty sure that people who always take the path of least
> > resistance are *precisely* how the world got so fucked up in the first
> > place.
> 
> "Being polite" and "standing up for your beliefs" are not mutually
> exclusive.

That would depend on your beliefs. 'Honesty', for example.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Packet radio and foul language

[Ron Johnson]

On Wed, 2006-01-11 at 15:41 +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 12:43:16PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > Manners/politeness is social lubricant.  It makes society run 
> > smoother and less violently.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that people who always take the path of least
> resistance are *precisely* how the world got so fucked up in the first
> place.

"Being polite" and "standing up for your beliefs" are not mutually
exclusive.

-- 
-
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson, LA USA

"HELP: The feature that assists in generating more questions.
When the Help feature is used correctly, users are able to
navigate through a series of Help screens and end up where they
started from without learning a damn thing."
Computer Definitions


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

Re: Canonical's business model

[Andrew Suffield]

On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 11:07:43AM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> On 1/10/06, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 12:22:03AM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> > > I don't[sic] the same rant over others Debian related companies
> >
> > Have you ever actually subscribed to any Debian mailing lists?
> >
> 
> Don't be fooled by From mail headers.

Well, I've sure seen similar things being said about nearly every
Debian-related company I've ever heard of (Progeny, Linspire, Nexenta,
etc). I find it hard to see how else you could have missed them.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Canonical's business model

[Andrew Suffield]

On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 02:44:28PM +0100, jeremiah foster wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-01-11 at 10:25 +0100, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> 
> > Thomas Bushnell writes:
> > 
> > > No, I think it's because Ubuntu doesn't cooperate well with Debian,
> > > while pretending to cooperate. 
> 
> 
> Could you be more explicit? I know there has been concern about Ubuntu
> amongst debian developers, and that Mark Shuttleworth has some doubts
> about working with DCC, although he is rather vague in my opinion. But
> what are the problems with Ubuntu? Is it an unecessary fork? Or is it
> not contributing back its changes to debian software? 

I think it's the pretending that pisses people off.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Packet radio and foul language

[Andrew Suffield]

On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 12:43:16PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> Manners/politeness is social lubricant.  It makes society run 
> smoother and less violently.

I'm pretty sure that people who always take the path of least
resistance are *precisely* how the world got so fucked up in the first
place.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: D8915

[Dorogi, Roger]

Other than 48 D8915 
monitors that I have in stock...any other Hp or SUN 21" monitors needed 
?
 
Please 
reply.
 
Thanks,
 
Roger
Nova 
Star

Re: Packet radio and foul language

[Ron Johnson]

On Wed, 2006-01-11 at 10:49 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 12:43:16PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > Dishonesty is *not* an equivalent substitute for respect. If you're
> > > being nice to somebody even though you don't like them, that doesn't
> > > make you a better person, it just makes you a liar.
> > With beliefs like that, no wonder this world is going to hell in a
> > hand basket.
> > Manners/politeness is social lubricant.  It makes society run 
> > smoother and less violently.
> 
> Isn't it also a social lubricant to avoid blaming the people you're
> trying to communicate with for dooming the entire world, merely by how
> they act on some random mailing list?

You are *absolutely* correct.  Mea culpa.  I'll go flagellate
myself now... 

> Cheers,
> aj, wondering if good grammar helps the world run more smoothly too

Sure, since it *assists* clarity of communication, which helps to
transmit information clearly and diminish misunderstandings.

-- 
-
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson, LA USA

"You don't lead by hitting people over the head--that's assault,
not leadership."
Dwight David Eisenhower


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

Re: Canonical's business model

[jeremiah foster]

On Wed, 2006-01-11 at 10:25 +0100, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:

Thomas Bushnell writes:

> No, I think it's because Ubuntu doesn't cooperate well with Debian,
> while pretending to cooperate. 


Could you be more explicit? I know there has been concern about Ubuntu amongst debian developers, and that Mark Shuttleworth has some doubts about working with DCC, although he is rather vague in my opinion. But what are the problems with Ubuntu? Is it an unecessary fork? Or is it not contributing back its changes to debian software? 

Thanks,

Jeremiah

Re: Canonical's business model

[Gustavo Franco]

On 1/11/06, Jan Nieuwenhuizen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thomas Bushnell writes:
>
> > No, I think it's because Ubuntu doesn't cooperate well with Debian,
> > while pretending to cooperate.
>
> Does Debian want to cooperate with Ubuntu, and how well does Debian
> do?  What steps could Ubuntu and Debian reasonably take to improve
> cooperation?
>

Debian is cooperating with Ubuntu as it's cooperating with each Custom
Debian Distribution (no, Ubuntu isn't one). I don't think that Ubuntu
is unsatisfied with Debian volunteers, e.g: d-i merging base-config
package stuff[0], Ubuntu will benefit of this in April (Dapper
release), we will just see the impact late this year after releasing
Etch and the CDDs that are building based on our stable release, right
after.

Ubuntu runs a tool to merge Debian changes into its "unstable"
archive, and it's (almost) smart enough to not override Ubuntu changes
when necessary. Is that tool available to Debian (utnubu[1] to be
specific) do the same in a not automatic way but generate a report ?
No and i don't think that we asked for that tool, utnubu is running
with its own resources.

Please note that i'm not saying that there's one side right and other
wrong, i just reported the current status.

[0] = http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/01/msg00118.html
[1] = http://alioth.debian.org/projects/utnubu/

--
Gustavo Franco

Re: hppa dependency problems on build of pdns

[Matthijs Mohlmann]

Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 02:37:53PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> 
>>Matthijs Mohlmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>I don't know where to send this else, so forgive me if this is the wrong
>>>mailinglist.
> 
> 
>>>See:
>>>http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=pdns&ver=2.9.19-2&arch=hppa&stamp=1135294848&file=log&as=raw
> 
> 
>>>[..]
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>As you can see, tetex-base depends on tex-common (>= 0.12). But the hppa
>>>build daemon doesn't install tex-common.
> 
> 
>>>So can somebody tell me what's going on here ?
> 
> 
>>The same happened to the planner package, and has been reported as
>>#344538.  It seems that hppa buildd is broken, don't know yet whether
>>the buildd admin (Lamont) or anybody of the debian-admin (responsible
>>for the hardware) is at it.
> 
> 
> Hasn't the problem on the hppa buildd been fixed for a while?  The pdns
> package (both versions 2.9.19-2 and 2.9.19-3) has built fine on that arch
> now.
> 
I haven't fixed anything on this issue, so I'm still wondering why it's
now working in a sudden.

> If the buildd wasn't installing a package that was part of the dependencies,
> then it surely thought for some reason it was already installed.  If this
> wasn't actually the case, it points to a buildd problem or a bug in some
> maintainer script or other; either way, it seems to be corrected now.
> 
The maintainer scripts are not changed as of 2.9.18-3, then it's
actually a buildd problem. If the package was already installed then it
shouldn't fail with a "command not found".

Regards,

Matthijs Mohlmann


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

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 3

[Henning Glawe]

On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 11:15:35AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mercredi 11 janvier 2006 à 10:10 +0100, Henning Glawe a écrit :
> > a) explicitely forbid circular dependencies in policy
> 
> At the very least, I think they should be treated like pre-depends, with
> a request on this list being mandatory before adding a circular
> dependency. Until now, all circular dependencies cases I have met were

we should _only_ allow circular deps when apt handles them. otherwise they
should be forbidden.
the problems caused by this breakage are of cause fixable if you are running
apt interactively and you know how to work around this problems (i.e. running
apt with manually splitted package lists). but this causes a lot of trouble
and is unusable in the non-interactive case.

a simple fix for apt would be to run 'dpkg --configure --pending' to catch
all the unpacked-but-not-configured packages instead of
'dpkg --configure ' explicitely.

-- 
c u
henning


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 3

[Josselin Mouette]

Le mercredi 11 janvier 2006 à 10:10 +0100, Henning Glawe a écrit :
> a) explicitely forbid circular dependencies in policy

At the very least, I think they should be treated like pre-depends, with
a request on this list being mandatory before adding a circular
dependency. Until now, all circular dependencies cases I have met were
fixable. At first, some of them looked necessary and they required quite
some work, but they were fixable.

Regards,
-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom

Re: Canonical's business model

[Jan Nieuwenhuizen]

Thomas Bushnell writes:

> No, I think it's because Ubuntu doesn't cooperate well with Debian,
> while pretending to cooperate.

Does Debian want to cooperate with Ubuntu, and how well does Debian
do?  What steps could Ubuntu and Debian reasonably take to improve
cooperation?

Jan.

-- 
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien   | http://www.lilypond.org


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

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 3

[Henning Glawe]

On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 10:15:58PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> These are all necessary, and debconf is an essential package which is
> not subject to the circular dependency postinst ordering problems afaik.
> [...]
> The bug report for these does not give any concrete reasons why a
> circular dependency is a problem in this particular case.

every circular dependency is a problem: the apt-dpkg-combo blows up as soon
as apt splits the to-be-configured list for dpkg between the elements of a
circular dependency.
this happens, if apt is processing many packages at the same time, e.g. when
run from an automatic installer like FAI (whose install_packages script has
been equipped with a only-feed-N-packages-at-the-same-time-into-apt
workarouns) or when doing a dist-upgrade between two debian releases on a
machine with 'many' packages installed.

conclusion: we have two possibilities
a) explicitely forbid circular dependencies in policy
b) explicitely allow them and enhance APT. a long time ago, O(2years), I
   wrote a hack to let apt and dpkg communicate via a pipe using 
   dpkg's command-fd option; it was rejected at that time because the apt
   maintainers wanted to switch to a kind of libdpkg.
   Any news on this solution?

-- 
c u
henning


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Bug#344538: hppa dependency problems on build of pdns

[Frank Küster]

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 12:24:47PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
>> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > Historically such
>> > problems were unpleasantly frequent on buildds due to a combination of 
>> > buggy
>> > postrm scripts, and a bug in dpkg's rollback support when calling dpkg
>> > --purge for a package in the "installed" state.  I believe the dpkg bug is
>> > fixed now, but a) I could be wrong, and b) there may be other bugs in the
>> > world.
>
>> Ah - can you point me to something to read about this?
>
> The dpkg changelog, maybe.

Thanks, it's #296026.

>> How can it be architecture-specific, or host-specific?
>
> It almost certainly wouldn't be.  But it's quite possible for a different
> combination of package versions (with different maintainer script bugs) to
> be used on different autobuilders at a given moment.

Hm.  But that doesn't explain why only a couple of formats failed to
build in tetex-bin's postinst in 

http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=mysql-dfsg-5.0&ver=5.0.16-1&arch=hppa&stamp=1132626014&file=log&as=raw

and an other build try at the same time.  If some formats build fine,
this means most parts of tetex-base must be installed properly; if
others fail, this means either a misconfiguration (rather unlikely on a
buildd) or missing files.  Of course it was also on sarti.

Regards, Frank
-- 
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer

Re: Powerfulness

[Frank Küster]

Adrian von Bidder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Tuesday 10 January 2006 03:44, Miles Bader wrote:
>> Juergen Salk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > According to their package descriptions, we seem to have exactly
>> > six powerful text editors in Debian. These are elvis, jove,
>> > mined, ne, nedit and zed. Emacs, vim and many others do not
>> > belong to them. Does that mean these are less powerful than the
>> > powerful ones?
>>
>> You're right in general, but there actually seems to be a fairly
>> distinct divide in editors, between "simple editors for newbs" and
>> "not-so-simple but, er, powerful editors"
>
> So vim is in the simple, for newbies class?

No, there's actually three classes:  "Simple editors for newbies",
"not-so-simple but, er, powerful editors", and "religions".

HTH, Frank
-- 
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer

Bug#347509: ITP: kdnssd-avahi -- Zeroconf library for KDE using Avahi as backend

[Isaac Clerencia]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Isaac Clerencia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


* Package name: kdnssd-avahi
  Version : 0.1.2
  Upstream Author : Jakub Stachowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://helios.et.put.poznan.pl/~jstachow/pub/
* License : LGPL
  Description : Zeroconf library for KDE using Avahi as backend

 This is a working replacement for the libkdnssd supplied by kdelibs
 which works with avahi.

 You can browse zeroconf services using the zeroconf:/ ioslave from
 the kdnssd package. The kicker applet kpf and other KDE applications
 will publish zeroconf records.

 Development files for this library are in kdelibs4-dev

(descriptions taken from package created by Jakub and Jonathan Riddell
for Ubuntu)

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.14-1-686
Locale: LANG=es_ES.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=es_ES.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)


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