Re: State of Sugar packages in Ubuntu
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Daniel Holbach wrote: > Would it be possible to remove these packages? > > Packages I found in the sponsoring queue were: sugar-0.84, sugar-0.88, > sugar-base-0.86, sugar-datastore-0.86, sugar-toolkit-0.86 but I assume > there are more. This proposal sounds reasonable. Last I chatted with Luke F, the "development platform" had migrated to Fedora. Best, -Dan -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Bluetooth audio user experience.
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 14:09, Dan Chen wrote: > Ah, now I see that "Socket" is proper. Previously I saw an ArchLinux ^ Meaning "Source," of course. Sigh. -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Bluetooth audio user experience.
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 13:03, Steve Langasek wrote: > "Source". Verified empirically in the drafting of that page. > > Where do you see documentation referring to "Socket"? Ah, now I see that "Socket" is proper. Previously I saw an ArchLinux wiki entry[0] and a Gentoo bug report[1] with an attached patch, but those apparently are specific to their bluez configurations. [0] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Bluetooth [2] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=401065 -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Bluetooth audio user experience.
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 12:22, Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre wrote: > On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Jorge O. Castro wrote: >> Hi everyone, I'm posting this here since it's fresh in my mind and I'd >> like to see if I can put this on someone's radar for 12.10's UDS. > > Why "for 12.10's UDS"? Let's see if this flies for a Freeze exception, > since it's basically enabling a feature (although it was already > available). I do think we can safely set Enable=Source in audio.conf > without adverse effects ;) Is it "Source" or "Socket"? I don't have machines locally to verify, and there is conflicting documentation. Cheers. -Dan -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Dropping i386 non-PAE as a supported kernel flavour in Precise Pangolin
On Nov 13, 2011 6:03 PM, "Dotan Cohen" wrote: > that the point was made, though: Ubuntu is > often/sometimes/occasionally used to breathe new life into working > hardware. Please do not take that benefit away. Given the points in this discussion, I think that it's reasonable to propose that a non-PAE kernel remain supported for 12.04 LTS. At some point the maintenance burden on the Canonical kernel team far outweighs the common use case of current minus three years of computing hardware. Cheers, -Dan -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Five build fixes a day
On Sep 13, 2011 7:25 AM, "Barry Warsaw" wrote: > > I'm not sure what the moral of the story is, except that one difficult package > can kill your hopes of fixing five ftbfs per day. > Perhaps a few developers could add further refined tags so that we have a better sense of which source packages to prioritize? I feel we've been doing as much anyhow. Cheers, -Dan -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Oneiric package built against old Gnome2 libraries, package unusable - Request for no change re-upload
On Sep 12, 2011 8:37 AM, "Emilien Klein" wrote: > > Hi ubuntu-devel, > > I originally sent this message to ubuntu-archive, but I've been told > to send it to you instead and that this issue would need a "no change > re-upload" for https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/nautilus-image-manipulator/+bug/836601 > Can someone help me perform this? > Done. Cheers, -Dan -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: DMB: Proposal for a different review process
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 16:04, Chase Douglas wrote: > True, but progress sometimes means change. I think this system would > work better, and if proven right it could be a model for other boards to > adopt. If it's worse, then the DMB can easily switch back. I would also > be happy to be a guinea pig for any process changes. I echo Chase's opinion in this regard; we should remain flexible in adapting our approval processes. The only thing I add is that we should be cognizant of building a timeout into the process using Launchpad so that applications don't "spin indefinitely," e.g., "the stale five-digit Launchpad bug report." Cheers, -Dan -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch Pilot Report 2011-07-22
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 13:52, Scott Moser wrote: > - lp:~vanvugt/ubuntu/natty/bcmwl/fix-793890 > https://code.launchpad.net/~vanvugt/ubuntu/natty/bcmwl/fix-793890/+merge/67294 > > This trivial fix needs merging and uploading to natty-proposed. The fix > for bug 776439 was merged and uploaded to natty-proposed, but was broken > on install, causing this bug. > > Please someone upload. Uploaded, waiting for accept -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch Piloting: how much of the extra mile do you go?
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 12:00, Daniel Holbach wrote: > When I did my shift last week I noticed that a couple of merge proposals > had their last comment saying "Would you mind forwarding the patch to > Debian/Upstream?" with no activity since. I guess many of us check the > bug or merge proposal later on again and dismiss it as something that > was already looked at. The problem is obvious: if the contributor has no > interest in doing this (or does not know how), it might sit there for a > very long time. I've always approached reviewing (and/or sponsoring) as taking on any additional burden, because I interpret reviewing to mean "gathering as many contributors to FOSS as possible." Once the bug report is filed, hopefully with a patch (if not, I generate the patch), I use submittodebian as necessary. > * It would be nice if submitting a fix would be easy. Because I have sponsoring privileges, I interpret the above as "make it as simple as possible for a FOSS contributor"... > * What can we do to improve things? For those with sponsoring privileges, it helps to have a standard. Thanks for initiating this conversation. Cheers, -Dan -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Leaving the project
On Jul 14, 2011 7:00 AM, "Lorenzo De Liso" wrote: > Because of some stuff in the real life, and other things, I'm afraid I > won't be able to still contribute to Ubuntu. I'm writing this mail > reluctantly, I will however remain in the MOTU team and an Ubuntu member > with the hope to come back one day. But I will still be around when I > can and I won't totally go. Thank you for your contributions to free software. Cheers, -Dan -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
