Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:58:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > >> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > I'm quickly losing interest in discussing this with you at all, to be > >> > honest. > >> > >> Then, um, don't. Doesn't affect me either way. > > > > Thomas, if you don't care about a topic please don't waste all of our time > > while you browbeat your opposition (and in this case, fellow Debian > > developer) in to the ground. Some of us who do care might want to see > > something positive come out of this long and painful thread. > > I do care about the topic. I do not care about Matt's ego. I'm in line with David. Thomas, if you care about the topic, you must be interested in convincing the one who can make a change on Ubuntu's policy. And the person in question is Matt. If you scare your only interlocutor with Ubuntu, then you can be sure that you won't get what you want. And what's interesting is the actual result, not the discussion itself ! (Or reworded: avoid flames if you want a positive outcome, otherwise it would look like you're only interesed in the confrontation) Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mailbox clogging, need daily "digests" of the list
Madana Prathap wrote: > On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 03:12:42 +0530, Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On Tuesday 17 January 2006 13:33, Madana Prathap wrote: > >>I've been subscribed to 12 debian mailing-lists. As you could imagine, > >>my mailbox is simply over-flowing now, with the number of mails & the > >>frequency. To avoid the struggle, I would like to subscribe to a "daily > >>digest" of mails on the lists. > > > >I imagine having to only worry about checking after the digests have > >been sent reduces the odds of an embarassingly small mailbox from > >clogging. > > > > > As my "from:" indicates, Gmail doesn't exactly suffer from a lack of space > as such. What I did mean by clogging, is visual - a few hundred list mails > a day, are enough to make your inbox look messy. As far as I know, Gmail has automatic filtering/tagging capabilities, which will probably help you. Regards, Joey -- Every use of Linux is a proper use of Linux. -- Jon 'maddog' Hall -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mailbox clogging, need daily "digests" of the list
Madana Prathap wrote: > Hi, > I've been subscribed to 12 debian mailing-lists. As you could imagine, my > mailbox is simply over-flowing now, with the number of mails & the Have you tried to use a threading-capable mail reader yet? With such a program you can easily determine which thread a mail belongs to and if you consider the entire thread of not enough interest for you you could delete all mails in that thread. This helps a lot when dealing with lots of mail and different discussion threads. Another idea to help you would be to split the mail you are receiving into several different mailboxes. This is described with examples in the procmail-lib package. A third idea would be to use the web interface for reading so that you don't have everything in your local mailbox. > How come only a few lists (like -devel, & -users) are offering digest-mode > (on the web interface) ? The others (like -project, -release, -amd64, etc) > offer plain subscribe/unsubscribe - I see no way of getting digests. The traffic is not high enough to warrant a digest. Regards, Joey -- Every use of Linux is a proper use of Linux. -- Jon 'maddog' Hall -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:54:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Besides which, do you honestly know which packages other Debian derivatives > > rebuild? As a rule, they are far less communicative about their practices > > than Ubuntu. > > How does the behavior of other Debian derivatives matter? > > As a rule, those other derivatives do not cooperate with Debian. If > Ubuntu wants to be like them, fine, but don't say you cooperate with > Debian if that's what you want to do. To be fair, co-operation and attribution are really separate issues. We do need to be consistent about each. Any complaint we have about co-operation with Ubuntu should not mean we have special requirements with regard to attribution. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Tuesday 17 January 2006 16:54, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > You have not ever shown a serious interest in what Debian would like. > > This is, again, insulting, and nonsensical in the face of the repeated > dialogues I have initiated and participated in with Debian developers > regarding Ubuntu practices. > > Debian deserves better than to be represented by this kind of behavior. What BSG writes is the feeling I'm getting from you as well. This is not Planet Ubuntu, Debian doesn't exist purely to source Ubuntu. I'm personally tired of the attitude from Ubuntu users and developers alike that this is Planet Ubuntu. -- Paul Johnson Email and IM (XMPP & Google Talk): [EMAIL PROTECTED] Got Jabber? http://ursine.ca/Ursine:Jabber pgpJOBKFvNCWw.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: mailbox clogging, need daily "digests" of the list
On Tuesday 17 January 2006 15:42, Bas Zoetekouw wrote: > Hi Ben! > > You wrote: > > > I've been subscribed to 12 debian mailing-lists. As you could imagine, > > > my mailbox is simply over-flowing now, with the number of mails & the > > > frequency. To avoid the struggle, I would like to subscribe to a "daily > > > digest" of mails on the lists. > > > > Have you considered reading the lists through a news server, such > > as the one at gmane.org, which conveniently never expires > > articles? > > Or automatic sorting of messages in sub-boxes? This violates gmail's philosophy of "search, don't sort." Gmail isn't really suited for mailing list reading in general, between the really underpowered sorting and lack of Reply to List. -- Paul Johnson Email and IM (XMPP & Google Talk): [EMAIL PROTECTED] Got Jabber? http://ursine.ca/Ursine:Jabber pgpNDcErd1rEW.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: mailbox clogging, need daily "digests" of the list
On Tuesday 17 January 2006 15:19, Madana Prathap wrote: > On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 03:12:42 +0530, Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tuesday 17 January 2006 13:33, Madana Prathap wrote: > >> I've been subscribed to 12 debian mailing-lists. As you could imagine, > >> my mailbox is simply over-flowing now, with the number of mails & the > >> frequency. To avoid the struggle, I would like to subscribe to a "daily > >> digest" of mails on the lists. > > > > I imagine having to only worry about checking after the digests have > > been sent reduces the odds of an embarassingly small mailbox from > > clogging. > > As my "from:" indicates, Gmail doesn't exactly suffer from a lack of space > as such. What I did mean by clogging, is visual - a few hundred list mails > a day, are enough to make your inbox look messy. Well, there's not a good way to solve this problem without breaking threads when replying, since you can't reply to a digest without splitting it into it's component messages. > Many more lists are now getting a lot of traffic, the situation has > probably changed since the time when lists were reviewed to identify the > high-traffic ones. If these did get officially recognized as high-traffic, > then possibly my wish of digest-mode for them, would be fulfilled. Generally speaking, traffic is measured by the megabyte, not the message, since the latter tends to come into play when it comes to expenses and mail quotas. -- Paul Johnson Email and IM (XMPP & Google Talk): [EMAIL PROTECTED] Got Jabber? http://ursine.ca/Ursine:Jabber pgpDtjT914n0I.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:38:29PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:09:50PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > Notice that what you say, in response to what has been asked over and > > over, is "my opinion is that changing the Maintainer field on > > otherwise-unmodified source packages is too costly for derivatives in > > general." > > But you say nothing about why. You already have suitable automated > > tools. > I don't think you can speak to what tools we do or do not have. The fact > is, we import most Debian source packages unmodified, and do not have any > such tool for modifying them. Huh? Of course you do -- it's called "make". > > Since you are rebuilding the package, you *must* change the version number > > *anyway*. It is not correct to recompile, and leave the version number > > alone. > I don't agree. This isn't even the case within Debian. Binary-only NMUs > don't modify the source package, even though the binaries are recompiled. However if a binNMU screws up a maintainer's package, the maintainer can easily fix it, and doing so is just part of contributing to Debian. The same thing applies when an autobuild on another architecture happens. That's not the case if an Ubuntu rebuild screws things up. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:58:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > If that were true, you wouldn't be having this conversation with me. It is >> > costing me an unreasonable amount of time to deal with this trivial issue, >> > and I've spent a disproportionate amount of it going in circles with you. >> > I'm quickly losing interest in discussing this with you at all, to be >> > honest. >> >> Then, um, don't. Doesn't affect me either way. > > Thomas, if you don't care about a topic please don't waste all of our time > while you browbeat your opposition (and in this case, fellow Debian > developer) in to the ground. Some of us who do care might want to see > something positive come out of this long and painful thread. I do care about the topic. I do not care about Matt's ego. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
Mike Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 17:29, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > I don't agree. This isn't even the case within Debian. Binary-only NMUs >> > don't modify the source package, even though the binaries are recompiled. >> >> Actually, binary-only NMUs, after the first compilation, *do* get new >> version numbers. > > In Debian yes. Ubuntu recompiles the Debian source, in a > different environment and with different dependencies, then > uploads with exactly the same version as Debian. Right. I was contradicting Matt's statement that "This isn't even the case within Debian." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Debian deserves better than to be represented by this kind of behavior. Ubuntu deserves better than to be represented by toys out of the pram when three yes/no questions to -devel don't bring consensus. Shame we don't always get what's deserved, isn't it? (-devel dropped because this is not technical) -- MJ Ray - personal email, see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Work: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ irc.oftc.net/slef Jabber/SIP ask -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 17:29, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I don't agree. This isn't even the case within Debian. Binary-only NMUs > > don't modify the source package, even though the binaries are recompiled. > > Actually, binary-only NMUs, after the first compilation, *do* get new > version numbers. In Debian yes. Ubuntu recompiles the Debian source, in a different environment and with different dependencies, then uploads with exactly the same version as Debian. Having two different package files with the exactly the same name and different content and dependencies drove me crazy for a while until we made our migration scripts smarter. --Mike Bird -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:58:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > If that were true, you wouldn't be having this conversation with me. It is > > costing me an unreasonable amount of time to deal with this trivial issue, > > and I've spent a disproportionate amount of it going in circles with you. > > I'm quickly losing interest in discussing this with you at all, to be > > honest. > > Then, um, don't. Doesn't affect me either way. Thomas, if you don't care about a topic please don't waste all of our time while you browbeat your opposition (and in this case, fellow Debian developer) in to the ground. Some of us who do care might want to see something positive come out of this long and painful thread. - David Nusinow -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I don't think you can speak to what tools we do or do not have. The fact > is, we import most Debian source packages unmodified, and do not have any > such tool for modifying them. It's really a very short perl script, or a simple modification in C to the dpkg-building tools. Indeed, if you said, "hey, we would like to do this, but need someone to write the tool for us" you might well find volunteers. >> Since you are rebuilding the package, you *must* change the version number >> *anyway*. It is not correct to recompile, and leave the version number >> alone. > > I don't agree. This isn't even the case within Debian. Binary-only NMUs > don't modify the source package, even though the binaries are recompiled. Actually, binary-only NMUs, after the first compilation, *do* get new version numbers. > I do expect, however, for this decision to be taken with regard to all > Debian derivatives, and not to single out Ubuntu with a different set of > criteria. No other Debian derivative, as far as I'm aware, says that it cooperates fully with Debian. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:58:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > If that were true, you wouldn't be having this conversation with me. It is > > costing me an unreasonable amount of time to deal with this trivial issue, > > and I've spent a disproportionate amount of it going in circles with you. > > I'm quickly losing interest in discussing this with you at all, to be > > honest. > > Then, um, don't. Doesn't affect me either way. Done. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 09:25:40AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > Personally, I'd suggest: > > * for unmodified debs (including ones that have been rebuilt, possibly > >with different versions of libraries), keep the Maintainer: field the > >same > Joey Hess and others in this thread have said that this is not acceptable to > them. What I need from Debian is either a clear consensus resulting from > discussion among developers, Well, you're not going to get one when you're too busy telling us everything we suggest is wrong. All I can imagine you doing is encouraging people to even more firmly want nothing to do with Ubuntu. > or an official decision from a position of > authority. Otherwise, we'd just be chasing our tail trying to please > individuals with conflicting opinions. If you're trying to do the right and best thing, we've got something to talk about. But asking for "official decisions from a position of authority" looks more like a way of finding someone else for people to blame. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:05:35PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > That simply isn't true, and taken at face value, it's insulting, because you > > attribute malicious intent. > > Um, I have said nothing about your intent. > > I think you are desperate to do whatever minimizes your costs. If that were true, you wouldn't be having this conversation with me. It is costing me an unreasonable amount of time to deal with this trivial issue, and I've spent a disproportionate amount of it going in circles with you. I'm quickly losing interest in discussing this with you at all, to be honest. > You have not ever shown a serious interest in what Debian would like. This is, again, insulting, and nonsensical in the face of the repeated dialogues I have initiated and participated in with Debian developers regarding Ubuntu practices. Debian deserves better than to be represented by this kind of behavior. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 06:19:32PM -0600, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 11:44:48AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > It is important, in particular, to account for the fact that Ubuntu is not > > the only Debian derivative, and that proposals like yours would amount to > > Debian derivatives being obliged to fork *every source package in Debian* > > for the sake of changing a few lines of text. > > Ubuntu is different in that they rebuild all packages, not just the one > they changes. The matter at hand above was source packages, not binary packages. Besides which, do you honestly know which packages other Debian derivatives rebuild? As a rule, they are far less communicative about their practices than Ubuntu. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:09:50PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Notice that what you say, in response to what has been asked over and > over, is "my opinion is that changing the Maintainer field on > otherwise-unmodified source packages is too costly for derivatives in > general." > > But you say nothing about why. You already have suitable automated > tools. I don't think you can speak to what tools we do or do not have. The fact is, we import most Debian source packages unmodified, and do not have any such tool for modifying them. > Since you are rebuilding the package, you *must* change the version number > *anyway*. It is not correct to recompile, and leave the version number > alone. I don't agree. This isn't even the case within Debian. Binary-only NMUs don't modify the source package, even though the binaries are recompiled. > Moreover, what about category (2), packages which are modified? Since you > are making a new source package *anyway*, why is it so expensive? If you re-read your own quote above, you'll see that I was talking about otherwise-unmodified source packages, not source packages which were modified anyway, and if you re-read http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html, you'll see that my second question simply asked whether this would be appropriate. > In response to your questions, as if they haven't been answered: So far I've received two clear responses in this thread. I do like jvw's idea of setting up a poll, and that will be a much more effective way to collect opinions on this. I've sent him my proposed options for the poll. I do expect, however, for this decision to be taken with regard to all Debian derivatives, and not to single out Ubuntu with a different set of criteria. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If that were true, you wouldn't be having this conversation with me. It is > costing me an unreasonable amount of time to deal with this trivial issue, > and I've spent a disproportionate amount of it going in circles with you. > I'm quickly losing interest in discussing this with you at all, to be > honest. Then, um, don't. Doesn't affect me either way. >> You have not ever shown a serious interest in what Debian would like. > > This is, again, insulting, and nonsensical in the face of the repeated > dialogues I have initiated and participated in with Debian developers > regarding Ubuntu practices. Can you describe the cases in which you have altered your practices in response to the views of Debian developers? I refer not to technical decisions or particular patches, but rather, things on the level of policy and overall structure. As far as I can tell, you have not done any such. This makes it seem unlikely that you really are willing to entertain such changes. Perhaps, though, I have missed. You have attempted to convince Debian that what you are doing is already cooperation, but that is not the same thing as a serious interest in what Debian would like. Instead, you have tried to convince us that what you are providing is what we should like. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Besides which, do you honestly know which packages other Debian derivatives > rebuild? As a rule, they are far less communicative about their practices > than Ubuntu. How does the behavior of other Debian derivatives matter? As a rule, those other derivatives do not cooperate with Debian. If Ubuntu wants to be like them, fine, but don't say you cooperate with Debian if that's what you want to do. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 08:15:42AM -0600, Joe Wreschnig wrote: >"Modify" is a tricky word. Most of my packages go into Ubuntu >unmodified, in that the diff.gz is the same. However, they use an >entirely different infrastructure -- new minor GTK and Python versions. Which leads to the following slightly odd situation: 031b93c587b6ec6affd0f4f713e50189 debian/pool/main/d/debsums/debsums_2.0.24_all.deb f1d470a0dea2fdaf9342e32aa08b7e79 ubuntu/pool/universe/d/debsums/debsums_2.0.24_all.deb While Ubuntu is not, as you say, concerned with binary compatability it does make me vaguely uneasy to see such binaryNMUs with the same path name... although I guess this is no different to the zillions of RPMs out there from different distributions. --bod -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 11:44:48AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > It is important, in particular, to account for the fact that Ubuntu is not > the only Debian derivative, and that proposals like yours would amount to > Debian derivatives being obliged to fork *every source package in Debian* > for the sake of changing a few lines of text. Ubuntu is different in that they rebuild all packages, not just the one they changes. 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: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 12:34:33AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Matt Zimmerman: > > > It is important, in particular, to account for the fact that Ubuntu is not > > the only Debian derivative, and that proposals like yours would amount to > > Debian derivatives being obliged to fork *every source package in Debian* > > for the sake of changing a few lines of text. > > Such a change could be implemented in the toolchain. IIRC, you > rebuild everything anyway, so this wouldn't be such a terrible thing > to do. We don't rebuild every source package, which is what the proposal was about (modifying source packages). I outlined the options and their costs as I saw them here: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html > FWIW, I think your implied assumption that all Debian derivatives should > be treated the same is flawed. Ubuntu is just not like any other > derivative, it's a significant operation on its own. Its commercial > backer is apparently able to pay quite a few Debian developers, several of > them among the core team. There is a significant user base, and so on. > Like it or not, Ubuntu is a bit special. I can't accept this; if there is no principle here which should be applied consistently, then it's entirely unfair to attack Ubuntu. Certainly, there are things about Ubuntu which are unique, but none of them change the issues at hand. Do you realize that Xandros, who maintains a Debian derivative which they box and sell for US$50-$129 per copy, leaves the Maintainer field unmodified, and as far as I'm aware, was doing so for a period of *years* before Ubuntu even existed? This never seemed to bother anyone, and personally, I don't think it's a big deal either. Seriously, it's entirely unreasonable to single out Ubuntu on this issue. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > You quite obviously haven't read > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html yet, where I > wrote (among other important things), "it would be fairly straightforward > for Ubuntu to override the Maintainer field in binary packages". I > explained exactly what is and isn't difficult and for whom. Notice that what you say, in response to what has been asked over and over, is "my opinion is that changing the Maintainer field on otherwise-unmodified source packages is too costly for derivatives in general." But you say nothing about why. You already have suitable automated tools. Since you are rebuilding the package, you *must* change the version number *anyway*. It is not correct to recompile, and leave the version number alone. If you were not recompiling, then no modification would be necessary. Moreover, what about category (2), packages which are modified? Since you are making a new source package *anyway*, why is it so expensive? In response to your questions, as if they haven't been answered: If a binary package is built by a third party from unmodified Debian sources, should its Maintainer field be kept the same as the source package, or set to the name and address of the third party? If the third party has their own bug-tracking system, then the Maintainer field should probably be changed. The original Debian Maintainer should still be acknowledged. Should Debian-derived distributions change the Maintainer field in source packages which are modified relative to Debian? If so, should this be done in all cases, or only if the modifications are non-trivial? In absolutely every case, the Maintainer field should be changed if you have altered the source in any respect. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 12:37:15PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > In my opinion, it's much more practical and reasonable for there to be an >> > agreement on consistent treatment of all packages, than for each Debian >> > derivative to try to please individual maintainers with differing tastes on >> > this subject. >> >> Your strategy seems to be to do something which pisses off almost >> everyone who has been near it, with your excuse being that there is >> not absolute unanimity on the alternative. > > That simply isn't true, and taken at face value, it's insulting, because you > attribute malicious intent. Um, I have said nothing about your intent. I think you are desperate to do whatever minimizes your costs. > What I am doing is asking the Debian community for opinions on the > appropriate thing for Debian derivatives to do. Right, because you are now interested in scalability. If you were *really* interested in scalability, then you wouldn't adopt the wonderful "hey, all the patches are on our website, come and get 'em!" approach. You have not ever shown a serious interest in what Debian would like. Which is *fine*, you don't need to. But then, geez, stop pretending you are a great cooperator with Debian. > In response, you've been unnecessarily hostile, argumentative and > accusatory. There's simply no cause for it. The most productive > thing you could do in this situation would be to read my mail from > last May and (politely and thoughtfully) answer the questions > therein. Do what has *already been suggested*. You need to be using different version numbers *anyway* if you are recompiling the packages. So given that you are doing that (right?!) it is no trouble to adjust the fields. > Don't you realize how much easier it would be to ignore these issues > entirely, rather than endure these harangues just for the sake of trying to > collect information? Why do you think I would bother if I just wanted to > piss you off? I didn't say you want to piss anyone off. What I said was that what you are doing is having that effect. I think it's a reaction you wish didn't happen, but not so much that you are willing to change Ubuntu's practices. >> Notice that there is no agreement that what you are doing now is >> right, and to boot, it's contrary to the Debian policy manual too. > > Nonsense. What we are doing now amounts basically to inaction, is > consistent with how Debian derivatives have worked in the past, and has no > relevance whatsoever to the Debian policy manual. Please read the previous > threads on this subject. No, you are distributing packages with incorrect Maintainer fields. That's not "inaction", it's a specific action. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mailbox clogging, need daily "digests" of the list
Hi Ben! You wrote: > > I've been subscribed to 12 debian mailing-lists. As you could imagine, my > > mailbox is simply over-flowing now, with the number of mails & the > > frequency. To avoid the struggle, I would like to subscribe to a "daily > > digest" of mails on the lists. > > Have you considered reading the lists through a news server, such > as the one at gmane.org, which conveniently never expires > articles? Or automatic sorting of messages in sub-boxes? -- Kind regards, ++ | Bas Zoetekouw | GPG key: 0644fab7 | || Fingerprint: c1f5 f24c d514 3fec 8bf6 | | [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] | a2b1 2bae e41f 0644 fab7 | ++ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
Hi Matt, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > It is important, in particular, to account for the fact that Ubuntu is not > the only Debian derivative, and that proposals like yours would amount to > Debian derivatives being obliged to fork *every source package in Debian* > for the sake of changing a few lines of text. Yeah, and it seems unreasonable to suggest that anyone should be hindered to ship unmodified source packages as just that. In fact, Debian does try to ship unmodified upstream source tarballs, why shouldn't other people ship unmodified Debian source packages? Kind regards T. -- Thomas Viehmann, http://thomas.viehmann.net/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mailbox clogging, need daily "digests" of the list
"Madana Prathap" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I've been subscribed to 12 debian mailing-lists. As you could imagine, my > mailbox is simply over-flowing now, with the number of mails & the > frequency. To avoid the struggle, I would like to subscribe to a "daily > digest" of mails on the lists. Have you considered reading the lists through a news server, such as the one at gmane.org, which conveniently never expires articles? -- Ben Pfaff email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://benpfaff.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
* Matt Zimmerman: > It is important, in particular, to account for the fact that Ubuntu is not > the only Debian derivative, and that proposals like yours would amount to > Debian derivatives being obliged to fork *every source package in Debian* > for the sake of changing a few lines of text. Such a change could be implemented in the toolchain. IIRC, you rebuild everything anyway, so this wouldn't be such a terrible thing to do. FWIW, I think your implied assumption that all Debian derivatives should be treated the same is flawed. Ubuntu is just not like any other derivative, it's a significant operation on its own. Its commercial backer is apparently able to pay quite a few Debian developers, several of them among the core team. There is a significant user base, and so on. Like it or not, Ubuntu is a bit special. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
Le mardi 17 janvier 2006 à 12:46 -0600, Adam Heath a écrit : > On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > > What I find very dissapointing is that mdz asked on debian-devel twice > > > for a decision from debian how ubuntu should handle the maintainer Field > > > without any luck: > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/01/msg00678.html > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html > > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/01/msg00966.html > > Debian developers set the Maintainer field to themselves(or a team), when they > upload to Debian. The upstream author is only mentioned in the copyright > file. > > Ubuntu should do something similiar. Set the Maintainer field to someone from > their group, and mention debian in the copyright(or other appropriate place). Even better, they could stop crediting themselves for changes initiated by Debian developers. http://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-news/2005-December/33.html -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 11:36:51PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > Sounds like an excellent opportunity to hold a poll about: > http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2005/12/msg00216.html > > Please send proposed ballot(-items) to me personally, and I'll set it up > tomorrow or so. Thank you. I've sent you my proposals. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
MJ Ray wrote: >>This isn't too original, but how about just having a Debian wiki page >>where people who don't want their name as Maintainer can sign up and for >>them rename the field to "Debian-Maintainer" or something. > That seems backwards. If they're not maintaining the ubuntu package, > please don't fib and say that they are. Opt-in, not opt-out. My guess is that there are some 30 people that do mind, so it's just to have something to point to when people are complaining.[1] I don't really offer that as a suggestion to please anyone, just as an option to shut down the discussion. If hundreds of people sign up there, they might want to consider to make that the default, if it's ten, hey, they could even handle that manually. Kind regards T. 1. And, in fact, this derives from my view that Ubuntu's idea of package maintenance is far different from Debian's, resulting in the Debian packager branding the package much more than the Ubuntu changes in the vast majority of cases. But then my views are far too expensive to share with others. -- Thomas Viehmann, http://thomas.viehmann.net/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mailbox clogging, need daily "digests" of the list
On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 04:49 +0530, Madana Prathap wrote: > On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 03:12:42 +0530, Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tuesday 17 January 2006 13:33, Madana Prathap wrote: > >> I've been subscribed to 12 debian mailing-lists. As you could imagine, > >> my mailbox is simply over-flowing now, with the number of mails & the > >> frequency. To avoid the struggle, I would like to subscribe to a "daily > >> digest" of mails on the lists. > > > > I imagine having to only worry about checking after the digests have > > been sent reduces the odds of an embarassingly small mailbox from > > clogging. > > > > > As my "from:" indicates, Gmail doesn't exactly suffer from a lack of space > as such. What I did mean by clogging, is visual - a few hundred list mails > a day, are enough to make your inbox look messy. Heh. The 2005 list archives are 780 Mb (gziped) > Also, I sent mail to the list-bot with "help" and all I got, was > instructions how to subscribe or unsubscribe. The Debian Listmaster did > inform me though, that digest-mode is offered only for the high-traffic > lists. Thank you! :) > Hence this thread could be considered closed. > > > PS: > Many more lists are now getting a lot of traffic, the situation has > probably changed since the time when lists were reviewed to identify the > high-traffic ones. If these did get officially recognized as high-traffic, > then possibly my wish of digest-mode for them, would be fulfilled. The long term plan is to architect something that will use the lessons we've learnt over the last few years. That's still in the vapourware stage though. Cheers, Pasc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 03:50:09PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote: > On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > > > Debian developers set the Maintainer field to themselves(or a team), when > > > they > > > upload to Debian. The upstream author is only mentioned in the copyright > > > file. > > > > > > Ubuntu should do something similiar. Set the Maintainer field to someone > > > from > > > their group, and mention debian in the copyright(or other appropriate > > > place). > > > > I would very much appreciate if folks would review > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html and consider the > > points that I raise there. I put some effort into collating the issues > > which came up the last time and presenting them. > > > > It is important, in particular, to account for the fact that Ubuntu is not > > the only Debian derivative, and that proposals like yours would amount to > > Debian derivatives being obliged to fork *every source package in Debian* > > for the sake of changing a few lines of text. > > Modify the incoming processor, so that the Packages and Sources files get the > correct info. The .dsc and .diff.gz would still have the original values, and the copyright file can't be modified this way. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 12:37:47PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > It is important, in particular, to account for the fact that Ubuntu is not > > the only Debian derivative, and that proposals like yours would amount to > > Debian derivatives being obliged to fork *every source package in Debian* > > for the sake of changing a few lines of text. > > Yes. Being a downstream modifier imposes costs. Debian meets those > costs, how about you? We really don't need a stand-in for Andrew Suffield while he's away. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 03:07:25PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > You're already rebuilding the package, which I expect entails possible > Depends: line changes and other things which would pretty clearly > 'normally' entail different Debian package revision numbers; changing > the Maintainer field at the same time is just not that hard, > *especially* when you're rebuilding the package. > > You're implying that this is alot of work and it's just not. It's also > not 'forking' in any real sense of the word. You don't even have to > change the version number if you don't want to. When done in Debian, > it's also not even a new source package (in general anyway) as the thing > which has the Maintainer field is actually the patch. You quite obviously haven't read http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html yet, where I wrote (among other important things), "it would be fairly straightforward for Ubuntu to override the Maintainer field in binary packages". I explained exactly what is and isn't difficult and for whom. If you're going to attack me, please do it on the basis of what I've actually said. Honestly, I expected better from you, give that you've acted like a human being toward me on IRC on several occasions in the past. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 12:37:15PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > In my opinion, it's much more practical and reasonable for there to be an > > agreement on consistent treatment of all packages, than for each Debian > > derivative to try to please individual maintainers with differing tastes on > > this subject. > > Your strategy seems to be to do something which pisses off almost > everyone who has been near it, with your excuse being that there is > not absolute unanimity on the alternative. That simply isn't true, and taken at face value, it's insulting, because you attribute malicious intent. What I am doing is asking the Debian community for opinions on the appropriate thing for Debian derivatives to do. In response, you've been unnecessarily hostile, argumentative and accusatory. There's simply no cause for it. The most productive thing you could do in this situation would be to read my mail from last May and (politely and thoughtfully) answer the questions therein. Don't you realize how much easier it would be to ignore these issues entirely, rather than endure these harangues just for the sake of trying to collect information? Why do you think I would bother if I just wanted to piss you off? > Notice that there is no agreement that what you are doing now is > right, and to boot, it's contrary to the Debian policy manual too. Nonsense. What we are doing now amounts basically to inaction, is consistent with how Debian derivatives have worked in the past, and has no relevance whatsoever to the Debian policy manual. Please read the previous threads on this subject. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mailbox clogging, need daily "digests" of the list
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 03:12:42 +0530, Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Tuesday 17 January 2006 13:33, Madana Prathap wrote: I've been subscribed to 12 debian mailing-lists. As you could imagine, my mailbox is simply over-flowing now, with the number of mails & the frequency. To avoid the struggle, I would like to subscribe to a "daily digest" of mails on the lists. I imagine having to only worry about checking after the digests have been sent reduces the odds of an embarassingly small mailbox from clogging. As my "from:" indicates, Gmail doesn't exactly suffer from a lack of space as such. What I did mean by clogging, is visual - a few hundred list mails a day, are enough to make your inbox look messy. Also, I sent mail to the list-bot with "help" and all I got, was instructions how to subscribe or unsubscribe. The Debian Listmaster did inform me though, that digest-mode is offered only for the high-traffic lists. Thank you! :) Hence this thread could be considered closed. PS: Many more lists are now getting a lot of traffic, the situation has probably changed since the time when lists were reviewed to identify the high-traffic ones. If these did get officially recognized as high-traffic, then possibly my wish of digest-mode for them, would be fulfilled. Hope reigns supreme! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mailbox clogging, need daily "digests" of the list
Hallo! Du (Madana Prathap) hast geschrieben: >How come only a few lists (like -devel, & -users) are offering digest-mode >(on the web interface) ? The others (like -project, -release, -amd64, etc) >offer plain subscribe/unsubscribe - I see no way of getting digests. >AFAIK, the recent versions of mailman (the mailing list manager) offers >digests as an option when subscribing from the web itself. What I want to >know is how to modify my existing subscription for all these lists, to >receive daily digests instead of individual mails. We only run digests on those lists you see. You can't have digests for the other lists mentioned. (and we don't run mailman) Yours, Cord, Debian Listmaster of the day -- http://lists.debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I think the silence is due to the fact that people give it low priority. > You have all my sympathy for the uncomfortable position that puts you > (well, your position) in. It's probably a reflection of how many emails to debian lists are deleted unread for discussing Ubuntu. Maybe it's because much Ubuntu stuff gets posted to inappropriate mailing lists (for example, using -devel for non-technical questions like http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html or posting ubuntu PR to -devel-announce). > This isn't too original, but how about just having a Debian wiki page > where people who don't want their name as Maintainer can sign up and for > them rename the field to "Debian-Maintainer" or something. That seems backwards. If they're not maintaining the ubuntu package, please don't fib and say that they are. Opt-in, not opt-out. -- MJ Ray - personal email, see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Work: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ irc.oftc.net/slef Jabber/SIP ask -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 11:18:35PM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote: > Hi Matt, > > Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > I cannot recall any time when differing opinions have resulted in silence on > > a Debian mailing list. > I think the silence is due to the fact that people give it low priority. > You have all my sympathy for the uncomfortable position that puts you > (well, your position) in. > > This isn't too original, but how about just having a Debian wiki page > where people who don't want their name as Maintainer can sign up and for > them rename the field to "Debian-Maintainer" or something. Sounds like an excellent opportunity to hold a poll about: http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2005/12/msg00216.html Please send proposed ballot(-items) to me personally, and I'll set it up tomorrow or so. --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: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
Hi Matt, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > I cannot recall any time when differing opinions have resulted in silence on > a Debian mailing list. I think the silence is due to the fact that people give it low priority. You have all my sympathy for the uncomfortable position that puts you (well, your position) in. This isn't too original, but how about just having a Debian wiki page where people who don't want their name as Maintainer can sign up and for them rename the field to "Debian-Maintainer" or something. I don't think that people will reach a consensus here and that probably it's more time-efficient to implement two simple solutions for people to choose than to discuss that to death. If the developers split 99:1 on it, you might then argue with data for dropping the unpopular choice. Speaking of it, one example where people can opt in to a scheme worth considering is the Low Threshold NMU page[1]. I don't think that a policy change for relaxation of the time requirements for NMUs would be concensus, but it's cool to be able to opt into some more progressive procedure, maybe it would be nice if it weren't so few maintainers. Kind regards T. 1. http://wiki.debian.org/LowThresholdNmu -- Thomas Viehmann, http://thomas.viehmann.net/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Otavio Salvador wrote: > In my point of view, maintainer field just need to be change when > Ubuntu does a non-trivial change on it. Otherwise, at least to me, is > OK to leave the maintainer field unchanged. Directly imported source > (that will be just recompiled by Ubuntu) doesn't need to be change > since it's the same source code that runs on Debian. But linked against other libraries. The binary is downloaded from another location(or installed from a different cd set). The program used to do the download may be different. While the above list may not be all inclusive, it's enough to warrant changing the Maintainer field to something ubuntu specific. Debian doesn't set the upstream author in the Maintainer field, when the changes only amount to adding a debian directory to the upstream source. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > Debian developers set the Maintainer field to themselves(or a team), when > > they > > upload to Debian. The upstream author is only mentioned in the copyright > > file. > > > > Ubuntu should do something similiar. Set the Maintainer field to someone > > from > > their group, and mention debian in the copyright(or other appropriate > > place). > > I would very much appreciate if folks would review > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html and consider the > points that I raise there. I put some effort into collating the issues > which came up the last time and presenting them. > > It is important, in particular, to account for the fact that Ubuntu is not > the only Debian derivative, and that proposals like yours would amount to > Debian derivatives being obliged to fork *every source package in Debian* > for the sake of changing a few lines of text. Actually, ignore my last mail. I actually considered that you(ubuntu) would respond thusly. But, it doesn't fly. We don't allow J. Random Upstream to upload unchanged source into Debian. We add meta-data, and set the Maintainer field appropriately. This is so that Debian becomes the contact for the software, when it exists in Debian. Debian derivaties need to do the same. There really is no other way. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > Debian developers set the Maintainer field to themselves(or a team), when > > they > > upload to Debian. The upstream author is only mentioned in the copyright > > file. > > > > Ubuntu should do something similiar. Set the Maintainer field to someone > > from > > their group, and mention debian in the copyright(or other appropriate > > place). > > I would very much appreciate if folks would review > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html and consider the > points that I raise there. I put some effort into collating the issues > which came up the last time and presenting them. > > It is important, in particular, to account for the fact that Ubuntu is not > the only Debian derivative, and that proposals like yours would amount to > Debian derivatives being obliged to fork *every source package in Debian* > for the sake of changing a few lines of text. Modify the incoming processor, so that the Packages and Sources files get the correct info. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mailbox clogging, need daily "digests" of the list
On Tuesday 17 January 2006 13:33, Madana Prathap wrote: > I've been subscribed to 12 debian mailing-lists. As you could imagine, my > mailbox is simply over-flowing now, with the number of mails & the > frequency. To avoid the struggle, I would like to subscribe to a "daily > digest" of mails on the lists. I imagine having to only worry about checking after the digests have been sent reduces the odds of an embarassingly small mailbox from clogging. Fortunately, even the procmail examples that ship in the documentation show how to split a digest back into it's component messages for use on local mail spools. > How come only a few lists (like -devel, & -users) are offering digest-mode > (on the web interface) ? The others (like -project, -release, -amd64, etc) > offer plain subscribe/unsubscribe - I see no way of getting digests. Only the higher traffic lists. > AFAIK, the recent versions of mailman (the mailing list manager) offers > digests as an option when subscribing from the web itself. What I want to > know is how to modify my existing subscription for all these lists, to > receive daily digests instead of individual mails. Send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the subject help should tell you if it's possible. -- Paul Johnson Email and Instant Messenger (Jabber): [EMAIL PROTECTED] Got jabber? http://ursine.ca/Ursine:Jabber pgpfK9GlsymZc.pgp Description: PGP signature
mailbox clogging, need daily "digests" of the list
Hi, I've been subscribed to 12 debian mailing-lists. As you could imagine, my mailbox is simply over-flowing now, with the number of mails & the frequency. To avoid the struggle, I would like to subscribe to a "daily digest" of mails on the lists. How come only a few lists (like -devel, & -users) are offering digest-mode (on the web interface) ? The others (like -project, -release, -amd64, etc) offer plain subscribe/unsubscribe - I see no way of getting digests. AFAIK, the recent versions of mailman (the mailing list manager) offers digests as an option when subscribing from the web itself. What I want to know is how to modify my existing subscription for all these lists, to receive daily digests instead of individual mails. I dont want to unsubscribe, so please dont point me in that direction. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I would very much appreciate if folks would review > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html and consider the > points that I raise there. I put some effort into collating the issues > which came up the last time and presenting them. In my point of view, maintainer field just need to be change when Ubuntu does a non-trivial change on it. Otherwise, at least to me, is OK to leave the maintainer field unchanged. Directly imported source (that will be just recompiled by Ubuntu) doesn't need to be change since it's the same source code that runs on Debian. -- O T A V I OS A L V A D O R - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] UIN: 5906116 GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855 Home Page: http://www.freedom.ind.br/otavio - "Microsoft gives you Windows ... Linux gives you the whole house." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It is important, in particular, to account for the fact that Ubuntu is not > the only Debian derivative, and that proposals like yours would amount to > Debian derivatives being obliged to fork *every source package in Debian* > for the sake of changing a few lines of text. Yes. Being a downstream modifier imposes costs. Debian meets those costs, how about you? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > In my opinion, it's much more practical and reasonable for there to be an > agreement on consistent treatment of all packages, than for each Debian > derivative to try to please individual maintainers with differing tastes on > this subject. Your strategy seems to be to do something which pisses off almost everyone who has been near it, with your excuse being that there is not absolute unanimity on the alternative. Notice that there is no agreement that what you are doing now is right, and to boot, it's contrary to the Debian policy manual too. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 12:46:52PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote: > On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > > What I find very dissapointing is that mdz asked on debian-devel twice > > > for a decision from debian how ubuntu should handle the maintainer Field > > > without any luck: > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/01/msg00678.html > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html > > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/01/msg00966.html > > Debian developers set the Maintainer field to themselves(or a team), when they > upload to Debian. The upstream author is only mentioned in the copyright > file. > > Ubuntu should do something similiar. Set the Maintainer field to someone from > their group, and mention debian in the copyright(or other appropriate place). I would very much appreciate if folks would review http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html and consider the points that I raise there. I put some effort into collating the issues which came up the last time and presenting them. It is important, in particular, to account for the fact that Ubuntu is not the only Debian derivative, and that proposals like yours would amount to Debian derivatives being obliged to fork *every source package in Debian* for the sake of changing a few lines of text. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 07:01:42PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 09:25:40AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > [snip] > > There will always be differing personal preferences, but in spite of these, > > there are times when an organization needs to take an official position on > > behalf of its members, even if they don't all agree, so that other > > organizations can respond to it with confidence. If a consensus can't be > > reached informally, that's what I think we will need. > > Why would Debian need to take an official position on behalf of its > members? Yes, I can see that it would be in Ubuntu's best interest > for Debian to do so, but since it's obvious from this discussion that > different Debian developers have different opinions on this issue, > it's clearly not in Debian's best interest. In my opinion, it's much more practical and reasonable for there to be an agreement on consistent treatment of all packages, than for each Debian derivative to try to please individual maintainers with differing tastes on this subject. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
* Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > I would very much appreciate if folks would review > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html and consider the > points that I raise there. I put some effort into collating the issues > which came up the last time and presenting them. > > It is important, in particular, to account for the fact that Ubuntu is not > the only Debian derivative, and that proposals like yours would amount to > Debian derivatives being obliged to fork *every source package in Debian* > for the sake of changing a few lines of text. You're already rebuilding the package, which I expect entails possible Depends: line changes and other things which would pretty clearly 'normally' entail different Debian package revision numbers; changing the Maintainer field at the same time is just not that hard, *especially* when you're rebuilding the package. You're implying that this is alot of work and it's just not. It's also not 'forking' in any real sense of the word. You don't even have to change the version number if you don't want to. When done in Debian, it's also not even a new source package (in general anyway) as the thing which has the Maintainer field is actually the patch. As I've pointed out before, this also just plain isn't Debian's problem. You keep asking for Debian to tell you what 'should' be in the Maintainer field but then you're ignoring the answer because you think it's hard. It's pretty clear what 'Debian' thinks *should* be in the field, or at least what most people would agree with; sorry that it's not the simple answer you want but you asked. Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Anthony Towns wrote: > > What I find very dissapointing is that mdz asked on debian-devel twice > > for a decision from debian how ubuntu should handle the maintainer Field > > without any luck: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/01/msg00678.html > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/01/msg00966.html Debian developers set the Maintainer field to themselves(or a team), when they upload to Debian. The upstream author is only mentioned in the copyright file. Ubuntu should do something similiar. Set the Maintainer field to someone from their group, and mention debian in the copyright(or other appropriate place). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
* Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > * for unmodified debs (including ones that have been rebuilt, possibly > >with different versions of libraries), keep the Maintainer: field the > >same > > Joey Hess and others in this thread have said that this is not acceptable to > them. What I need from Debian is either a clear consensus resulting from > discussion among developers, or an official decision from a position of > authority. Otherwise, we'd just be chasing our tail trying to please > individuals with conflicting opinions. Maybe I missed something, but has someone actually said they'd be unhappy if the Maintainer: field was an appropriate Ubuntu person? Some might be alright with leaving Maintainer alone if the package hasn't been changed, some might be alright with leaving it the same even if the package has been changed and some might always want it changed, I don't expect you'll get a concensus on that. I'd be suprised if someone was actually unhappy with the Maintainer field changing though. Of course, don't submit a patch back to Debian which includes changing the Maintainer field. > > * for maintainers who want to keep their name in the maintainer field, even > >when modified by Ubuntu, invite them to join Ubuntu in the usual manner > > I don't see how this would help. If we were to institute a policy (or more > likely, an automated process) to change the maintainer field, inviting the > maintainer to become an Ubuntu developer wouldn't have any obvious effect on > the process. What did you have in mind here? It's similar to my comment above- set the maintainer to an appropriate Ubuntu person, which would naturally be the Ubuntu package maintainer, who might also be the Debian package maintainer. Really, though, this isn't a Debian concern or problem- if the Ubuntu developers are complaining about an automated Maintainer-changing script then that's an issue Ubuntu needs to deal with and figure a way around, or just ignore. It's certainly not an excuse to leave the Maintainer field alone. Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 11:07:40AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > What I find very dissapointing is that mdz asked on debian-devel twice > for a decision from debian how ubuntu should handle the maintainer Field > without any luck: [...] > This is a call for discussion: What does debian actually want? Do we > really need to include a white or black list (and what exactly?) in > apt-get, apt-cache and co to disable/mangling the Maintainer field of > packages just imported from Debian? Or can we live with an less > intrusive approach? How about renaming Maintainer to Debian-Maintainer in Ubuntu's binary packages, and having a specific Ubuntu-Maintainer? As Ubuntu recompiles all Debian packages anyway, this would only require a (fairly minor) patch to dpkg-gencontrol. This would make it crystal clear that Debian's packages in Ubuntu are maintained by Ubuntu people, while you're not dropping the credit for the Debian maintainer who's put in a lot of work; and for packages that have not seen any Ubuntu-specific patches, you could leave out the Ubuntu-Maintainer field (while still renaming the Maintainer field to Debian-Maintainer). -- .../ -/ ---/ .--./ / .--/ .-/ .../ -/ ../ -./ --./ / -.--/ ---/ ..-/ .-./ / -/ ../ --/ ./ / .--/ ../ -/ / / -../ ./ -.-./ ---/ -../ ../ -./ --./ / --/ -.--/ / .../ ../ --./ -./ .-/ -/ ..-/ .-./ ./ .-.-.-/ / --/ ---/ .-./ .../ ./ / ../ .../ / ---/ ..-/ -/ -../ .-/ -/ ./ -../ / -/ ./ -.-./ / -./ ---/ .-../ ---/ --./ -.--/ / .-/ -./ -.--/ .--/ .-/ -.--/ .-.-.-/ / ...-.-/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 09:25:40AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: [snip] > There will always be differing personal preferences, but in spite of these, > there are times when an organization needs to take an official position on > behalf of its members, even if they don't all agree, so that other > organizations can respond to it with confidence. If a consensus can't be > reached informally, that's what I think we will need. Why would Debian need to take an official position on behalf of its members? Yes, I can see that it would be in Ubuntu's best interest for Debian to do so, but since it's obvious from this discussion that different Debian developers have different opinions on this issue, it's clearly not in Debian's best interest. Regards: David Weinehall -- /) David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> /) Rime on my window (\ // ~ // Diamond-white roses of fire // \) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/(/ Beautiful hoar-frost (/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 09:58:28AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > > What I find very dissapointing is that mdz asked on debian-devel twice > > for a decision from debian how ubuntu should handle the maintainer Field > > without any luck: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/01/msg00678.html > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html > > That's probably because different maintainers will have different opinions > on this matter. I cannot recall any time when differing opinions have resulted in silence on a Debian mailing list. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 09:45:13PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 11:07:40AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > > There have been no responses which would indicate what we should do. > > Actually, there've been lots, some of them are just contradictory. There was a lot of discussion, much of which took place without a clear understanding of the technical issues involved. I attempted to summarize those and present the questions in a clear and unequivocally answerable fashion, and I did not in fact receive a single answer. Now, eight months later, some of the same discussions are being rehashed without considering the issues and questions that I put forth in that summary message. > Personally, I'd suggest: > > * for unmodified debs (including ones that have been rebuilt, possibly >with different versions of libraries), keep the Maintainer: field the >same Joey Hess and others in this thread have said that this is not acceptable to them. What I need from Debian is either a clear consensus resulting from discussion among developers, or an official decision from a position of authority. Otherwise, we'd just be chasing our tail trying to please individuals with conflicting opinions. > * for debs in main that are modified, set the maintainer: field to the >appropriate point of contact, and add a note to the copyright file as >to the source you pulled from > > * for debs in universe that are modified, set the maintainer: field to the >MOTU list or similar point of contact, and add a note to the copyright file These two are equivalent, so we don't need to treat main and universe separately. > * for maintainers who want to keep their name in the maintainer field, even >when modified by Ubuntu, invite them to join Ubuntu in the usual manner I don't see how this would help. If we were to institute a policy (or more likely, an automated process) to change the maintainer field, inviting the maintainer to become an Ubuntu developer wouldn't have any obvious effect on the process. What did you have in mind here? > * for changes that are likely to be useful in Debian or generally, submit >the change upstream, by filing a bug with a minimal patch included to >bugs.debian.org, or by the appropriate mechanism further upstream. Let's not conflate these entirely separate issues. > > I'd prefer a solution which can be implemented in a reasonable time > > frame, and which ends this annoyingly heated discussion once and for > > all. > > It's rare that heated discussions are ever done with "once and for all" > IME. Though the emacs/vi wars are cooler now than they were a decade ago. There will always be differing personal preferences, but in spite of these, there are times when an organization needs to take an official position on behalf of its members, even if they don't all agree, so that other organizations can respond to it with confidence. If a consensus can't be reached informally, that's what I think we will need. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: msgid.php
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 01:43:14PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 02:05:27PM +0100, Adeodato Sim? wrote: > > Ai, any chance of getting a copy of msgid.php et al. so that > > somebody can run it elsewhere? > Here. It still needs some work - the php frontend does not handle > duplicate msgids (which exist) because writing php makes me want to > vomit, and update-index is too slow. You can access messages by message-id easily at places like gmane: lynx news://news.gmane.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED] for instance Simon. -- UK based domain, email and web hosting ***/"Clear?" - Holly. "No." - /* http://www.blackcatnetworks.co.uk/ **/Lister. "Tough." - Holly. /** [EMAIL PROTECTED] */ /*** Black Cat Networks / / signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 09:58 -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > > What I find very dissapointing is that mdz asked on debian-devel twice > > for a decision from debian how ubuntu should handle the maintainer Field > > without any luck: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/01/msg00678.html > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html > > That's probably because different maintainers will have different opinions > on this matter. > > > packages just imported from Debian? Or can we live with an less > > intrusive approach? > > IMHO a "if, and only if we modify it, we upload it with our name in > changelog and uploaders field" rule would be quite a good compromise. But > that's my personal opinion, of course. "Modify" is a tricky word. Most of my packages go into Ubuntu unmodified, in that the diff.gz is the same. However, they use an entirely different infrastructure -- new minor GTK and Python versions. Since binary-level compatibility is not a goal of Ubuntu (nor IMO should it be; down that path lies madness), they modify every package in a very important sense. -- Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: msgid.php
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 01:43:14PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Sim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Well, obviously mutt sucks, why did it put a comma there? Unencoded non-ASCII characters are invalid in mail headers though. -- Andrew Suffield signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: msgid.php
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 02:05:27PM +0100, Adeodato Sim? wrote: > Ai, any chance of getting a copy of msgid.php et al. so that > somebody can run it elsewhere? Here. It still needs some work - the php frontend does not handle duplicate msgids (which exist) because writing php makes me want to vomit, and update-index is too slow. The biggest problem is that it's looking in every 'month' directory (like debian-devel/2005/debian-devel-200510) instead of just the current one, so it stats thousands of files every time, which makes DSA bitch about disk IO time and cache consumed on master. It can't run anywhere else, it needs a copy of the *actual* HTML archives - the process used to generate them (and therefore the URLs to the mails) is non-deterministic, so you have to process the results, and they aren't mirrored anywhere. Solving this isn't hugely difficult but it is subtle: you have to record the last month you looked at, so that you can check no new mails have been added since then. Originally I had it running every 5 minutes, but I reduced it to every 30 to get neuro off my back - it takes about 20 to 30 seconds for each sweep of the lists, at those intervals, most of which is spent waiting for the kernel to come back from stat() calls (because master's disks are usually busy). It would make sense to run rapid sweeps over -devel and other high-traffic lists, and less frequent ones over the rest, but I never got around to that either. There's a subtle correctness issue in that it fails to notice when listmasters delete spam from the archives, and in doing so change all the URLs to mails after that point. I'm not sure what to do about that; the root problem is that what the listmasters are doing is crazy. Oh, and it's fucking ugly. I meant to rewrite it ages ago. I threw the thing together in an hour or two. Conceptually it's simple but subtle. Except for the php bit, which is a blunt instrument in homage to the fact that master supports php but not perl. (Initially building the index database takes something like 10 hours, running at nice +20, and that's got to be on master too. I seem to have accidentally killed off all my copies of it, thought I still had one, oh well) -- Andrew Suffield mindx.tar.gz Description: Binary data signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Francis
Hi, Sheridan Good Bye Sheridan Sheridan Sheridan Sheridan Sheridan Sheridan Sheridan Sheridan Sheridan Sheridan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
* Reinhard Tartler [Tue, 17 Jan 2006 11:07:40 +0100]: > What I find very dissapointing is that mdz asked on debian-devel twice > for a decision from debian how ubuntu should handle the maintainer Field > without any luck: > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html Yah, zero luck: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00077.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00080.html -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org And don't get me wrong - I don't mind getting proven wrong. I change my opinions the way some people change underwear. And I think that's ok. -- Linus Torvalds -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 11:07:40AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > CC:ing -project because this is a project wide call for discussion. (-project is for discussion about the project, not for "project wide" stuff; dunno if this fits that) > What I find very dissapointing is that mdz asked on debian-devel twice > for a decision from debian how ubuntu should handle the maintainer Field > without any luck: > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/01/msg00678.html > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/01/msg00966.html > There have been no responses which would indicate what we should do. Actually, there've been lots, some of them are just contradictory. > There are clearly some Maintainers in Debian, who want their name in the > maintainer field and some who don't want that. FWIW, I haven't seen the ones who do want their name in the maintainer field. > This is a call for discussion: What does debian actually want? Do we > really need to include a white or black list (and what exactly?) Personally, I'd suggest: * for unmodified debs (including ones that have been rebuilt, possibly with different versions of libraries), keep the Maintainer: field the same * for debs in main that are modified, set the maintainer: field to the appropriate point of contact, and add a note to the copyright file as to the source you pulled from * for debs in universe that are modified, set the maintainer: field to the MOTU list or similar point of contact, and add a note to the copyright file * for maintainers who want to keep their name in the maintainer field, even when modified by Ubuntu, invite them to join Ubuntu in the usual manner * for changes that are likely to be useful in Debian or generally, submit the change upstream, by filing a bug with a minimal patch included to bugs.debian.org, or by the appropriate mechanism further upstream. That seems like it makes things fairly simple for you guys (no changes in the normal case, tweaking debian/control and debian/copyright when changes are needed), provides appropriate credit to debian maintainers, and provides a fairly simple and effective way of getting changes incorporated back in. > I'd prefer a solution which can be implemented in a reasonable time > frame, and which ends this annoyingly heated discussion once and for > all. It's rare that heated discussions are ever done with "once and for all" IME. Though the emacs/vi wars are cooler now than they were a decade ago. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > What I find very dissapointing is that mdz asked on debian-devel twice > for a decision from debian how ubuntu should handle the maintainer Field > without any luck: > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/01/msg00678.html > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html That's probably because different maintainers will have different opinions on this matter. > packages just imported from Debian? Or can we live with an less > intrusive approach? IMHO a "if, and only if we modify it, we upload it with our name in changelog and uploaders field" rule would be quite a good compromise. But that's my personal opinion, of course. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
CC:ing -project because this is a project wide call for discussion. Am Montag, den 16.01.2006, 18:36 -0500 schrieb Joey Hess: > Please consider ALL code written/maintained by me that is present in > Ubuntu and is not bit-identical to code/binaries in Debian to be not > suitable for release with my name on it. What I find very dissapointing is that mdz asked on debian-devel twice for a decision from debian how ubuntu should handle the maintainer Field without any luck: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/01/msg00678.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html There have been no responses which would indicate what we should do. There are clearly some Maintainers in Debian, who want their name in the maintainer field and some who don't want that. You are now making a request to not release binary packages with your name on it. I assume this does not include source packages as well, just binary packages. This is a call for discussion: What does debian actually want? Do we really need to include a white or black list (and what exactly?) in apt-get, apt-cache and co to disable/mangling the Maintainer field of packages just imported from Debian? Or can we live with an less intrusive approach? I'd prefer a solution which can be implemented in a reasonable time frame, and which ends this annoyingly heated discussion once and for all. -- Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
