[Bug 420513] Re: [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
Thanks for the FFe. I'll take care of uploading it shortly, if somebody have modification to include. ** Changed in: ubuntu Assignee: David Sugar (dyfet) = Julien Lavergne (gilir) -- [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 420513] Re: [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
Un-subscribing universe-sponsors as Julien is on it, and he no longer needs a sponsor. =) -- [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 420513] Re: [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
version 0.4 uploaded, waiting in NEW. -- [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 420513] Re: [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
Through New as well and in the archive. ** Changed in: ubuntu Status: In Progress = Fix Released -- [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 420513] Re: [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
Hi, sorry for not having made it clear yet. As I asked ogra and he gave a +1 I certainly do second this position. FFe granted hence, please go ahead. Cheers, and sorry again for the delay, Stefan. -- [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 420513] Re: [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
** Changed in: ubuntu Status: New = In Progress ** Changed in: ubuntu Assignee: (unassigned) = David Sugar (dyfet) -- [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 420513] Re: [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
Just to have a clarification, is the open-team a blocker for MOTU-Release ACK ? Even if it could generate some problems in Lubuntu team itself, a MOTU sponsorship is still needed to modify the seed package in the archive. This open-team issue is still under discussion in the Lubuntu team. -- [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 420513] Re: [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
I don't see it as a blocker. -- [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 420513] Re: [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
i'm definately for adding the metapackage to universe (even though requesting it early enough pre FF would have been a lot nicer) but i fully agree with scotts suggestion here, having an open and completely uncontrolled team anyone can subscribe to in control of the seeds seems very dangerous (anyone of that team can just add or remove apps from your seeds), it is like crying for problems or bzr commit wars where packages are added/removed back and forth out of disagreement ... my suggestion would be to create a lubunbtu-developers team with a kind of developer council or other form of governance and keep the lubuntu team open as it is atm. then people wanting to join lubuntu-developers would have to go through a staging process through the open lubuntu team, prove they are trustable for some time and be added to lubuntu-developers by an admin/council/dictator (or whatever form you pick for governance) lubuntu-developers in the end should own all code centric branches then -- [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Lubuntu-desktop] [Bug 420513] Re: [needs packaging]lubuntu desktop meta
Mario wrote I suggest to meet on IRC freenode #lubuntu on Sep. 6, 15.00 GMT http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?day=5month=9year=2009hour=15min=0sec=0p1=0 Mario you wrote to meet on IRC freenode #lubuntu on Sep. 6, 15.00 GMT But the link you gave is for today the 5th of Sept @ 15.00 UTC. Great Britain/United Kingdom is one hour ahead of UTC during summer. Which gives us a meeting time of 14.00 local time here in the UK Could you please clarify which day the meeting is on Mario , today or tomorrow ? -- [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Lubuntu-desktop] [Bug 420513] Re: [needs packaging]lubuntu desktop meta
Mario you wrote to meet on IRC freenode #lubuntu on Sep. 6, 15.00 GMT But the link you gave is for today the 5th of Sept @ 15.00 UTC. Great Britain/United Kingdom is one hour ahead of UTC during summer. Which gives us a meeting time of 14.00 local time here in the UK Could you please clarify which day the meeting is on Mario , today or tomorrow ? sorry, yes the meeting is on 6th - tomorrow. We should let people know about the meeting, including the Taiwan folks in advance. So, I think it is best tomorrow. The link should be correct on the wiki: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Lubuntu/IRC_Meeting_September_6%2C_2009 For people participating, please also go through the logs of older meet ups in order to avoid double discussions: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Lubuntu/IRC_Meeting - Mario -- [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Lubuntu-desktop] [Bug 420513] Re: [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 7:23 AM, David Sugar wrote: Second, I suggest given that UDS for Karmic +1 is likely going to be in two months, that we draft a new spec for that UDS for/from and most especially WITH the Lubuntu team and community. Indeed, it is the approach of UDS is one reason I think it would be good to establish some things like governance now rather than to do so later. Given how late in the game we are, what if we focused on helping Andrew polish his LXDE packages with nicer default settings than it currently has, possibly with an Ubuntu theme from the background image, GTK2 theme and OpenBox theme for Karmic? Then we could meet at the upcoming UDS to properly plan this and enjoy the whole Karmic+1 cycle to produce a superb Lubuntu release for the next Ubuntu LTS. Personally, I feel that this is necessary, especially from the perspective that FF is already in place and we suddenly get a dozen of ideas as to what would constitute a good default selection of applications and a good Lbuntu theme. How does that sound? Martin-Éric -- [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Lubuntu-desktop] [Bug 420513] Re: [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 2:49 AM, hagisbasheruk wrote: I suggest that you try to minimize any use of gnome libs as possible, use slim instead of gdm, use Wicd for network as lxnw is too limited right now, aumix-gtk for mixer and a program to add menu entries. 1) slim has not been packaged. Additionally, we have to entertain the possibility that someone might have both GNOME and LXDE installed, in which case they need the latest GDM. 2) wicd has been packaged, but is not in-line with Ubuntu's approach of relying upon Network-Manager for everything, hence why we need nm-applet. 3) aumix-gtk could be usable, but would need a major load of package dependency backflips to work around the fact that Ubuntu has become a PulseAudio-enabled distribution, because a PA-enabled distribution avoids touching ALSA directly. -- [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Lubuntu-desktop] [Bug 420513] Re: [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
Just as a general suggestion, the needs packaging bug probably isn't the best venue for these meta Lubuntu discussions. -- [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 420513] Re: [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
** Changed in: pam (Debian) Status: New = Invalid -- [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 420513] Re: [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
This really did not get handled correctly at the start of the week as we were requested to have this in a hurry and then learned after it could not be sponsored prior to the ffe process. I have put it in revu to correct any outstanding issue so that it can at least be properly evaluated. http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/lubuntu-meta The basis of the ffe itself is simply that it is an approved karmic spec and effects no other packages. -- [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 420513] Re: [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
Hi, just subscribed ogra and StevenK. ogra: you've registered the spec in the first place, how do you feel about adding that meta package at this point in the release cycle? I assume this mainly impacts MID? @StevenK: If this mainly impacts MID, then I guess it's your domain ;). Cheers, Stefan. -- [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 420513] Re: [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
In principle adding a metapackage is not a big deal. Do you expect ISO images for lubuntu to be built on Launchpad? Do you have a governance process for deciding what should be in the package? -- [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 420513] Re: [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
Scott, it was not anticipated there would be spins hosted on Launchpad for Lubuntu for Karmic, just the meta package. What happens Karmic +X though may become a different question. There is a launchpad team for Lubuntu, and there is a process for community input through the wiki, but not a formal governance process as yet, at least in terms of how this is done in other parts of Ubuntu, and I think it is necessary to do given that there is a clearly expressed desire in the community to try to have an official Lubuntu distro at some point in the future. -- [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 420513] Re: [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
OK. My concern is that there be some agreement on what goes in this metapackage before it gets approved to go in, so we don't have a lot of contention afterwards (I'm not saying adjustments won't be needed). -- [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 420513] Re: [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
Additionally, the seeds are currently controlled by an open team with 118 members. I do not see this as a recipe for success. -- [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Lubuntu-desktop] [Bug 420513] Re: [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
Scott , We are all grown folks and we also understand that David Sugar is more or less the boss here , There will be no foul play. Now let's be positive and congratulate everyone on a job well done and wish everyone a Fantastic week end of whatever tickles your fancy! Cheers folks! It's POETS. On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.comwrote: Additionally, the seeds are currently controlled by an open team with 118 members. I do not see this as a recipe for success. -- [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Lubuntu, which is a direct subscriber. Status in Ubuntu: New Bug description: I have a preliminary seed and meta for this related to Karmic blueprint https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/mobile-karmic-lxde-ubuntu-desktopand this should get uploaded to revu later today. ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~lubuntu-desktophttps://launchpad.net/%7Elubuntu-desktop Post to : lubuntu-desk...@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~lubuntu-desktophttps://launchpad.net/%7Elubuntu-desktop More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp -- [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 420513] Re: [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
Lol! While I appreciate the vote of confidence, the goal was NEVER to have a dictatorship, benevolent or otherwise! I think what Scott says about some form of formalizing governance is actually very correct. However, the meta package (any meta-package instance) has a snapshot instance of the seed; it does not pull or re- germinate it when it builds. Hence, as long as it is safe at the time of submission, a given update of the package will be safe, well, at least for the current one. Also, we could setup a separate release subteam that is not open commit, and have it moved to there. I think we should hold a quick IRC meeting in any case to ratify some basic governance... -- [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Lubuntu-desktop] [Bug 420513] Re: [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
2009/9/4 David Sugar david.su...@canonical.com There is a launchpad team for Lubuntu, and there is a process for community input through the wiki, but not a formal governance process as yet, What precisely is required, and how could the LXDE Foundation provide assistance? -- A -- [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 420513] Re: [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
gah - sorry, wrong bug... ** Bug watch added: Debian Bug tracker #545086 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=545086 ** Also affects: pam (Debian) via http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=545086 Importance: Unknown Status: Unknown ** Changed in: pam (Debian) Importance: Unknown = Undecided ** Changed in: pam (Debian) Status: Unknown = New ** Changed in: pam (Debian) Remote watch: Debian Bug tracker #545086 = None -- [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 420513] Re: [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
Sounds to me like you are moving in the right direction. +1. I'll volunteer to do the archive admin review after it's uploaded. -- [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 420513] Re: [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
i have been running LXDE from a cli install on my Tatung / RM – RTABB12D using both a genkernel and a custom built onefor quite some time now. I suggest that you try to minimize any use of gnome libs as possible, use slim instead of gdm, use Wicd for network as lxnw is too limited right now,aumix-gtk for mixer and a program to add menu entries. I am currently testing ubuntuone (we could bug them for a non gnome lib version, i am sure the xfce guys would like that too) on my setup and can assure you its working very well with pcman and lxpanel within Jaunty,be sure to set applet icon to always show in prefs menu.Sorry if i am too late with my recommendations but i only found out about Lubuntu today and downloaded the iso that was posted instead of what i had planned to do, a re-master of my own setup,unfortunately the kernel never booted for me.Anyway i would love to help with testing and am free most nights after 6pm GMT catch me on #ubuntu-uk if you require me -- [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Lubuntu-desktop] [Bug 420513] Re: [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
Thank you for the input about the ISO that was tested. As stated the ISO is not a final release. Some of the changes you suggested have already been incorporated. Others will be as we go on. We will soon be uploading a new test iso. All the best, Mario On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 1:49 AM, hagisbasherukhag...@kuki.me wrote: i have been running LXDE from a cli install on my Tatung / RM – RTABB12D using both a genkernel and a custom built onefor quite some time now. I suggest that you try to minimize any use of gnome libs as possible, use slim instead of gdm, use Wicd for network as lxnw is too limited right now,aumix-gtk for mixer and a program to add menu entries. I am currently testing ubuntuone (we could bug them for a non gnome lib version, i am sure the xfce guys would like that too) on my setup and can assure you its working very well with pcman and lxpanel within Jaunty,be sure to set applet icon to always show in prefs menu.Sorry if i am too late with my recommendations but i only found out about Lubuntu today and downloaded the iso that was posted instead of what i had planned to do, a re-master of my own setup,unfortunately the kernel never booted for me.Anyway i would love to help with testing and am free most nights after 6pm GMT catch me on #ubuntu-uk if you require me -- [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Lubuntu, which is a direct subscriber. Status in Ubuntu: New Status in “pam” package in Debian: New Bug description: I have a preliminary seed and meta for this related to Karmic blueprint https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/mobile-karmic-lxde-ubuntu-desktop and this should get uploaded to revu later today. -- [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Lubuntu-desktop] [Bug 420513] Re: [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
Hi, On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 11:13 PM, David Sugardavid.su...@canonical.com wrote: Lol! While I appreciate the vote of confidence, the goal was NEVER to have a dictatorship, benevolent or otherwise! Thanks for making this clear. The goal for lubuntu was from the start to build a strong and broad community, that can take care of tasks. For example Debian packages that have been made available during recent months by Andrew Lee and others were also planned and released to lay the groundwork for lubuntu. I think what Scott says about some form of formalizing governance is actually very correct. How should a formalizing governance look like? Is it necessary at this stage? However, the meta package (any meta-package instance) has a snapshot instance of the seed; it does not pull or re- germinate it when it builds. Hence, as long as it is safe at the time of submission, a given update of the package will be safe, well, at least for the current one. Also, we could setup a separate release subteam that is not open commit, and have it moved to there. I think we should hold a quick IRC meeting in any case to ratify some basic governance... I suggest to meet on IRC freenode #lubuntu on Sep. 6, 15.00 GMT http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?day=5month=9year=2009hour=15min=0sec=0p1=0 Please help to set up an agenda: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Lubuntu/IRC_Meeting_September_6, 2009 Please also have a look at existing IRC meet ups to understand decisions that have been made for reasons stated in previous meet up logs: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Lubuntu/IRC_Meetings - Mario -- [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 420513] Re: [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
Thanks for making this clear. The goal for lubuntu was from the start to build a strong and broad community, that can take care of tasks. For example Debian packages that have been made available during recent months by Andrew Lee and others were also planned and released to lay the groundwork for lubuntu. How should a formalizing governance look like? Is it necessary at this stage? With respect to governance, Scott notes we do have a LOT of new faces in this team, indeed more than I realized. Yet, and he correctly points out, we do not have a real procedure for resolving questions or disputes like what should be in the seed other than discussing (or shouting ;) on the list. I also note there is a desire to have Lubuntu eventually become an Ubuntu disto in the sense of things like Xubuntu and Kubuntu. These goals suggest there should be some governance, and it should resemble where it exists what other teams do. I really have only a few suggestions. First, there should be a separate release team or if you will something like a Lubuntu Council that does manage the seed and meta branches and hence can resolve what should be in it or any other issues should disputes actually arise. I suggest myself, you, Martin Eric, Maybe Oliver, and Rebentisch initially, at least provisionally to get through the remainder of the Karmic cycle, and this also gives the project as a whole some stability going into UDS as well as a little time for the rest of the community to decide what we really wish to use for governance going forward and whether this was correct to do or not :). Second, I suggest given that UDS for Karmic +1 is likely going to be in two months, that we draft a new spec for that UDS for/from and most especially WITH the Lubuntu team and community. Indeed, it is the approach of UDS is one reason I think it would be good to establish some things like governance now rather than to do so later. Third, I suggest for now a monthly irc schedule we could put up on Fridge. -- [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 420513] Re: [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
Just to put some wording for the FFe request for MOTU Release : This a new meta-package to build a new flavor for Ubuntu, base on LXDE. Please consider the FFe as it blocks the work on official ISO and standard installation, and also progress on this new flavor. You can see more information about this seed on https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/mobile-karmic-lxde-ubuntu-desktop ** Changed in: ubuntu Status: In Progress = New ** Changed in: ubuntu Assignee: David Sugar (dyfet) = (unassigned) -- [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 420513] Re: [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
Why do we need both Mirage and GPicView at the same time? GPicView has a much better user interface. Why not stick to that? -- [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Lubuntu-desktop] [Bug 420513] Re: [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
I suggest putting the LXDE icon in the centre of the circle much like Xubuntu puts the XFCE mouse in te logo. 2009/9/1 Martin-Éric Racine q-f...@iki.fi The blue theme doesn't differentiate enough from KDE. We need to use other colors. How about these? (attachment) ** Attachment added: lubuntu-logo.png http://launchpadlibrarian.net/31098584/lubuntu-logo.png -- [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Lubuntu, which is a direct subscriber. Status in Ubuntu: In Progress Bug description: I have a preliminary seed and meta for this related to Karmic blueprint https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/mobile-karmic-lxde-ubuntu-desktopand this should get uploaded to revu later today. ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~lubuntu-desktophttps://launchpad.net/%7Elubuntu-desktop Post to : lubuntu-desk...@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~lubuntu-desktophttps://launchpad.net/%7Elubuntu-desktop More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp -- [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 420513] Re: [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
This had to be in this morning, so I only had time to incorporate Martin-Éric Racine's changes to the meta and seed. The tarball has the source, dsc, and changes files needed to build. ** Attachment added: lubuntu-meta-srcbld.tar.gz http://launchpadlibrarian.net/31123466/lubuntu-meta-srcbld.tar.gz -- [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Lubuntu-desktop] [Bug 420513] Re: [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 11:09 PM, Julien Lavergnejulien.laver...@gmail.com wrote: @Martin-Éric An exception is only necessary for the first inclusion of the package. Adjusting dependencies (default applications) can be made without exceptions (unless most of applications changed). Ah, that's good to hear. IMO, another lubuntu package is not necessary, because there is already lxde meta-packages which pull LXDE components (see lxde-common source package). If we are not happy with this, we could modify it to include packages we want, instead of splitting the seed. Actually, we at least need a separate theme package. Personally, I don't care for most of the default applications currently included, so I'd rather install some meta-package that pulls a theme and sets it as the default, in addition to pulling core LXDE packages. Is there any way I could branch the seed and propose changes to that via a branch, before the team agrees on what the meta-package will be and makes a first upload? -- [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Lubuntu-desktop] [Bug 420513] Re: [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
Dear all, lynxis has put together a lubuntu-iso to test: http://lynxis.crew.c-base.org All the best, Mario 2009/8/31 Martin-Éric Racine q-f...@iki.fi: On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 11:09 PM, Julien Lavergnejulien.laver...@gmail.com wrote: @Martin-Éric An exception is only necessary for the first inclusion of the package. Adjusting dependencies (default applications) can be made without exceptions (unless most of applications changed). Ah, that's good to hear. IMO, another lubuntu package is not necessary, because there is already lxde meta-packages which pull LXDE components (see lxde-common source package). If we are not happy with this, we could modify it to include packages we want, instead of splitting the seed. Actually, we at least need a separate theme package. Personally, I don't care for most of the default applications currently included, so I'd rather install some meta-package that pulls a theme and sets it as the default, in addition to pulling core LXDE packages. Is there any way I could branch the seed and propose changes to that via a branch, before the team agrees on what the meta-package will be and makes a first upload? -- [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Lubuntu-desktop] [Bug 420513] Re: [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
Dear all, enclosed a few desktop backgrounds and images I collected from the lubuntu designer forum at the lxde website. Please include. Best, Mario ** Attachment added: lubuntu-design.zip http://launchpadlibrarian.net/31051972/lubuntu-design.zip -- [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Lubuntu-desktop] [Bug 420513] Re: [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
I like them, especially logo 2 Glen On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 8:41 AM, Mario Behlingm...@mariobehling.de wrote: Dear all, enclosed a few desktop backgrounds and images I collected from the lubuntu designer forum at the lxde website. Please include. Best, Mario ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~lubuntu-desktop Post to : lubuntu-desk...@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~lubuntu-desktop More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp -- [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Lubuntu-desktop] [Bug 420513] Re: [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Mario Behlingm...@mariobehling.de wrote: Dear all, enclosed a few desktop backgrounds and images I collected from the lubuntu designer forum at the lxde website. Please include. I personally like the all-blue background with the bubbly logo best. I'd however omit the LXDE logo from the Ubuntu circle, since it looks like some creepy insect. Instead, I'd focus on this nearly translucent bubbly Ubuntu circle and adopt that as our logo, for the boot splash, desktop background and Start menu icon. FWIW, here, I've been using an orange and grey theme on my desktop. If you look at the default themes that come with OpenBox, there's one with orangeish window title bars that look very Ubuntu-Human friendly. Combining this with some greyscale version of the bubbly Ubuntu circle, we'd have ourselves some really cool Lubuntu style: Ubuntu orange with LXDE grey and blue. We could use those 3 colors as our primaries for our version of the Ubuntu circle logo and as our colors for the default desktop theme, in combination with the Ubuntu Human icon theme. How does that sound? -- [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Lubuntu-desktop] [Bug 420513] Re: [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
Hi, I like those designs, but I am not decided which way I like most. I think we can also gather more design suggestions and it is always easier to see, than to hear how something looks like. Fedora created an adapted them for the LXDE spin. Openbox is just one part, we also need to create athe theme in LXAppearance. There is no general config file - it is actual designed this way currently, as there is no other lightweight solution yet. Generally would be good to get closer to the LXDE blue. Lets also try to find something that looks light. UbuntuHuman looks somewhat heavy I feel. The forum for lubuntu designs is open here: http://forum.lxde.org/viewtopic.php?f=13t=437 Best, - Mario 2009/8/31 Martin-Éric Racine q-f...@iki.fi: On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Mario Behlingm...@mariobehling.de wrote: Dear all, enclosed a few desktop backgrounds and images I collected from the lubuntu designer forum at the lxde website. Please include. I personally like the all-blue background with the bubbly logo best. I'd however omit the LXDE logo from the Ubuntu circle, since it looks like some creepy insect. Instead, I'd focus on this nearly translucent bubbly Ubuntu circle and adopt that as our logo, for the boot splash, desktop background and Start menu icon. FWIW, here, I've been using an orange and grey theme on my desktop. If you look at the default themes that come with OpenBox, there's one with orangeish window title bars that look very Ubuntu-Human friendly. Combining this with some greyscale version of the bubbly Ubuntu circle, we'd have ourselves some really cool Lubuntu style: Ubuntu orange with LXDE grey and blue. We could use those 3 colors as our primaries for our version of the Ubuntu circle logo and as our colors for the default desktop theme, in combination with the Ubuntu Human icon theme. How does that sound? -- [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 420513] Re: [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
@Martin-Éric You can found some details about bzr here : https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bzr . Basically, you just need to branch the lubuntu-meta branch (https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~lubuntu-desktop/+junk/lubuntu-meta), make your modifications, push your branch somewhere, and propose to merge your branch into the main lubuntu-meta branch. @Mario It's very nice :) A possible icon theme to go with this blue theme could be the Gnome-brave icon theme for GNOME-Colors icon theme. But it's easier to judge with some examples of real desktop with different themes. -- [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 420513] Re: [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
The blue theme doesn't differentiate enough from KDE. We need to use other colors. How about these? (attachment) ** Attachment added: lubuntu-logo.png http://launchpadlibrarian.net/31098584/lubuntu-logo.png -- [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 420513] Re: [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
Lintian also reports the following: Now running lintian... W: lubuntu-meta source: package-uses-deprecated-debhelper-compat-version 4 W: lubuntu-meta source: diff-contains-bzr-control-dir .bzr W: lubuntu-desktop: old-fsf-address-in-copyright-file W: lubuntu-desktop: unknown-section metapackages E: lubuntu-desktop: depends-on-metapackage depends: xorg Fixing these requires: 1) a) echo 5 debian/compat b) bump the debhelper version to 5 in debian/control 2) in debian/rules: also delete .bzr in the clean rule and right after the make invocation. 3) Remove the address section completely; instead add a reference to the inclusion of the GPL text in the distro: Copyright: (C) 2009, Canonical Ltd. License: This package is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. This package is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details. On Ubuntu systems, the complete text of the GNU General Public License can be found in /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL. 4) Is that an Ubuntu-specific section? 5) Requires adding a Lintian override. -- [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 420513] Re: [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
Here's a patch with the resulting changes. ** Attachment added: lubuntu-meta_02_to_03.diff http://launchpadlibrarian.net/31004713/lubuntu-meta_02_to_03.diff -- [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 420513] Re: [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
Looking at what the resulting lubuntu-desktop package tries to pull: 1) sysinfo -- As this pulls the whole MONO framework along, I contend that the inclusion of this is contrary to the goal of keeping Lubuntu lightweight, so I'd recommend its removal. 2) gstreamer0.10-alsa -- We already depend on alsa-base, alsa-utils, gstreamer0.10-pulseaudio so depending upon this is unnecessary. 3) language-pack-en -- Why not let the use choose their language packs using existing tools? 4) bluez-gnome -- this is actually replaced by gnome-bluetooth starting with Karmic. Outdated seed? 5) mirage -- Why not use gthumb instead? Similar features, plus camera import via libgphoto2. -- [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Lubuntu-desktop] [Bug 420513] Re: [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
I agree with Martin-Éric Racine and thanks for the patch as well , Cheers. 2009/8/30 Martin-Éric Racine q-f...@iki.fi Looking at what the resulting lubuntu-desktop package tries to pull: 1) sysinfo -- As this pulls the whole MONO framework along, I contend that the inclusion of this is contrary to the goal of keeping Lubuntu lightweight, so I'd recommend its removal. 2) gstreamer0.10-alsa -- We already depend on alsa-base, alsa-utils, gstreamer0.10-pulseaudio so depending upon this is unnecessary. 3) language-pack-en -- Why not let the use choose their language packs using existing tools? 4) bluez-gnome -- this is actually replaced by gnome-bluetooth starting with Karmic. Outdated seed? 5) mirage -- Why not use gthumb instead? Similar features, plus camera import via libgphoto2. -- [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Lubuntu, which is a direct subscriber. Status in Ubuntu: In Progress Bug description: I have a preliminary seed and meta for this related to Karmic blueprint https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/mobile-karmic-lxde-ubuntu-desktopand this should get uploaded to revu later today. ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~lubuntu-desktop Post to : lubuntu-desk...@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~lubuntu-desktop More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp -- [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 420513] Re: [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
@Martin-Eric you should publish a bzr branch and propose to merge with the current one for all the fixes you done. It should be easier than a patch. Also, the choice of defaults applications should be discuss separately, the more important for now is to add the package itself to the repository. It's easier to made adjustments after. Just a remember, we are in Feature Freeze, so it needs a Freeze Exception (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/FreezeExceptionProcess) -- [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 420513] Re: [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
Julien, I know that we are in Feature Freeze. Since this package hasn't yet entered KArmic, we must therefore do it right the first time, because there won't be many exceptions to get it in. -- [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Lubuntu-desktop] [Bug 420513] Re: [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
I had wanted to get feedback sooner and hence see this done earlier. Most if not all of these changes noted are certainly valid. Where we touch upon what the default apps should be, my only concern is that we do not have a lot of revs. If we are going to split the seed to produce variants of default apps, we should do so now. If not, I think we should accept that it will be resolved as a post-Karmic issue and simply come together to make the best choices we can for this first release. Julien Lavergne wrote: @Martin-Eric you should publish a bzr branch and propose to merge with the current one for all the fixes you done. It should be easier than a patch. Also, the choice of defaults applications should be discuss separately, the more important for now is to add the package itself to the repository. It's easier to made adjustments after. Just a remember, we are in Feature Freeze, so it needs a Freeze Exception (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/FreezeExceptionProcess) -- [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 420513] Re: [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
@Martin-Éric An exception is only necessary for the first inclusion of the package. Adjusting dependencies (default applications) can be made without exceptions (unless most of applications changed). The main point, like David said, is the split or not of the seed because it will probably need another exception if the package is uploaded before. IMO, another lubuntu package is not necessary, because there is already lxde meta-packages which pull LXDE components (see lxde-common source package). If we are not happy with this, we could modify it to include packages we want, instead of splitting the seed. -- [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 420513] Re: [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
Under which package name can we see those packages? -- [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Lubuntu-desktop] [Bug 420513] Re: [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
Hi, lubuntu and lubuntu karmic seeds are here: https://code.launchpad.net/~lubuntu-desktop Best, Mario 2009/8/29 Martin-Éric Racine q-f...@iki.fi: Under which package name can we see those packages? -- [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Lubuntu, which is a direct subscriber. Status in Ubuntu: In Progress Bug description: I have a preliminary seed and meta for this related to Karmic blueprint https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/mobile-karmic-lxde-ubuntu-desktop and this should get uploaded to revu later today. -- [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 420513] Re: [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
Two bugs in the debian/rules file: 1) Typo: make: *** build-stamp-kohteen tarvitseman kohteen lubutu-i386 tuottamiseen ei ole sääntöä. Seis. dpkg-buildpackage: failure: debian/rules build gave error exit status 2 The build-stamp should be called lubuntu, not lubutu (missing N). 2) Misses the 'make' invocation, right after dh_clean: build-stamp: lubuntu-$(DEB_BUILD_ARCH) dh_clean $(MAKE) for seed in lubuntu; do \ -- [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 420513] Re: [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
*** This is an automated message *** This bug is tagged needs-packaging which identifies it as a request for a new package in Ubuntu. As a part of the managing needs-packaging bug reports specification, https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/Specs/NeedsPackagingBugs, all needs- packaging bug reports have Wishlist importance. Subsequently, I'm setting this bug's status to Wishlist. ** Changed in: ubuntu Importance: Undecided = Wishlist -- [needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
