Re: ubuntu-tweak in new
Sorry, but people also need to be careful taking out an nuclear option in how they describe others when they bring legitimate arguments. Everything that I have seen so far in the thread is a discussion if certain features of a software are a good solution for the general population of users or not. This has nothing to do with tribalism. Open source is an open concept that allows different options. The core of a distro is defined by this distro. However, in difference to Apple's iPhone and iPad, nobody must jailbreak in order to install something outside the normal software archives. Nothing excludes anybody to use ubuntu-tweak regardless if it is in the official archives or not. If ubuntu-tweak fixes some temporary issues that in order to do it right should be fixed in other places then this is recommendable, but does not create an automatic need of inclusion. It would be better if those issue are fixed in the right place. In the meantime, it is available in a ppa. If it bring real long-term benefit for users that is not met in other ways, or is a good alternative to what already exists, then it should be included. All of this is a matter of proper and civil discussion. There is no need to undermined anybodies reputation by insinuating ulterior motives. The beauty of our community is the empowerment of everybody. This means not everybody has to have or do the same thing. Diversity is strength! Having different perspectives and arguments is part of this strength. On 08/06/2010 04:04 AM, Joao Pinto wrote: > The approach that some people take on application reviews seems to fit > the description from Mark: 'Tribalism is when one group of people > start to think people from another group are “wrong by default” - > http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/439 . > > I hope that the seek for reasons to reject the package will turn into > reasonable suggestions to the author in order to improve the > application to make sure it becomes acceptable. > > Best regards > > -- > João Luís Marques Pinto > GetDeb Team Leader > http://www.getdeb.net > http://blog.getdeb.net -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: Please do not tell people interested in working on Qt/KDE?apps?in Universe #ubuntu-motu is the wrong channel
On 06/18/2010 09:46 AM, Michael Bienia wrote: > On 2010-06-18 09:07:36 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: > >> I looked it up and it was >> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ChristianMangold/MOTUDeveloperApplication >> >> http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2010/04/27/%23ubuntu-meeting.html >> >> Specifically, he was told by a DMB member that MOTU is for generalists and he >> should apply to kubuntu-dev instead. This is exactly what lead to the move >> to >> create a separate package set for Qt/KDE Universe packages. Since it >> appeared >> at the time that working on those packages was not considered appropriate >> experience for MOTU, the only way to gain upload rights (short of >> kubuntu-dev, >> which being at the core of a distro has more requirements than MOTU) for >> those >> packages would be to split them out. >> >> I was against it at the time, but now I'm not so sure. There are multiple >> people who work on Qt/KDE stuff who see a problem, but no one else does. It >> may be that the only solution is to just split them out. >> > Re-reading this again, I seem to have an misunderstanding what the kubuntu > package set really is and where its "limits" are (is there some verbal > description of it (and the other package sets too)?). From a look at the > related packages on Christian's LP page I assumed that most of them > belong to the kubuntu package set. Isn't this the case? Given that we > all are pretty new to delegated teams, I see it appropiate to ask if an > other delegated team suites one owns interests better. Provided that the > understanding of the purpose of a package set and the packages the > applicant prefers to work on matches. > > To get to a better common understanding: is someone working mostly on > KDE packages better suited for MOTU or kubuntu-dev? And where would you > draw the line? > > Michael > > As far as I understand, kubuntu-dev only gives access to Kubuntu packages in main, there is no separate package set for Kubuntu packages in universe, nor would a kubuntu-dev have access to these packages in universe without being MOTU. Ralph -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: Please do not tell people interested in working on Qt/KDE apps in Universe #ubuntu-motu is the wrong channel
On 06/16/2010 02:52 PM, Soren Hansen wrote: > > This is not isolated to people working on KDE stuff. With the advent of > more and more package sets, people are more likely to get granted upload > privs to those rather than getting full MOTU or core-dev, since (at > least I'm reasonably sure this is the case) being interested in working > on a limited set of more or less related packages is more common than > being interested in working on all sorts of completely random stuff. > > This is exactly what the discussion at UDS tried to avoid. Furthermore, does that also mean that people that work primarily on Gnome packages will have the same of similar restrictions? This discussion shows exactly why people are turned off. It is not about enhancing the abilities of talents in conjunction with optimizing QA, it sound rather like privilege, exclusivity and control. Ralph (txwikinger) -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: Please do not tell people interested in working on Qt/KDE apps in Universe #ubuntu-motu is the wrong channel
The issue is not that any term that was used is offensive, it is deeper subtlety that needs to be addressed. As Scott has said, we had discussions about that before and at the UDS to the point that there was the question if there should be a second "MOTU" group for the KDE packages in universe. However, we have decided, and I believe correctly, that this would not be the ideal outcome and hence there should not be a distinction between people working on KDE packages and other people. I have also never heard anybody in the motu channel or the motu ML that someone working mostly on Gnome packages should go to a special Gnome channel when they asked for mentorship to be a MOTU. Let remember what we stand for in Ubuntu. Respect and diversity. We are all working on a diverse set of packages. In some areas it makes sense that certain groups focus on a certain set of packages, however, this does not mean that those people are isolated from the larger community. I believe MOTU's purpose is to work on high quality packages in the universe repo. Nothing excludes people working a majority of time on KDE packages to do that. Hence the suggestion not to be welcomed in MOTU because of a preference or experience to a certain set of packages is inappropriate and counter-productive. How should someone get a broader horizon when he is sent away in the try to do so? Remember, it was asked for mentorship for MOTU, not particular questions for a Kubuntu package! So please let's be mindful, that we are one big family and that we are all following the same goal. We support each other, we are inclusive, not exclusive! Just my 2c! Ralph (txwikinger) On 06/16/2010 08:04 AM, Soren Hansen wrote: > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 10:03:52PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: > >> Today in my backscroll I see: >> >> [15:13:58] shadeslayer, what do you want? >> > [...] > >> [15:29:16] fabrice_sp: that package was sponsored by maco in >> #kubuntu-devel :P >> >> This is completely inappropriate. Let me know when #ubuntu-motu is open for >> everyone in the Ubuntu community. >> > Sorry, maybe I'm being dense, but which part exactly is offensive? > > -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: PWC file deleted (UBUNTU)
As you can see from http://packages.ubuntu.com/search?searchon=contents&keywords=PWC.ko&mode=exactfilename&suite=hardy&arch=any the file is in the kernel package. Just make sure you sure the correct version, the .deb file should actually still be in /var/cache/apt/archives You can can open the .deb file through your filemanager and extract the file from there. Hope this helps, - Ralph (txwikinger) Nicolas Champetier wrote: > Hy ! > > I just deleted the PWC.ko under UBUNTU ... what is the way to get it > back ? > Thanks a lot for your help. > > > -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: Request for Bibletime 1.6.5
Hi Nigel, I have prepared Bibletime 1.6.5 already for debian, but wait for some clarification on change of copyright for the study howto. When I have solved those issues I will try to get it into debian unstable and also provide it for hardy via ppa for testing purposes at first. Hope this helps, Ralph Janke (txwikinger) P.S. I also work on the 1.7 version for KDE4 Nigel Ridley wrote: > Hi, > > I sent this message already but it is awaiting moderator approval - so I > joined the list :-) > > When will Bibletime 1.6.5 be available for Hardy i386? > > I am running Bibletime 1.6.4 but there are some annoying bugs that make it > difficult to use. > > I did try to install Bibletime 1.6.5 from > ftp://ftp.mepis.com/mepis/dists/mepis-7.0/main/binary-i386/ > but there were dependency problems: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/Downloads$ sudo dpkg -i bibletime_1.6.5_i386.deb > (Reading database ... 181784 files and directories currently installed.) > Preparing to replace bibletime 1.6.4.dfsg-0ubuntu3 (using > bibletime_1.6.5_i386.deb) ... > Unpacking replacement bibletime ... > dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of bibletime: > bibletime depends on libclucene0 (>= 0.9.16a-1); however: >Package libclucene0 is not installed. > dpkg: error processing bibletime (--install): > dependency problems - leaving unconfigured > Errors were encountered while processing: > bibletime > > So, I tried the obvious (install libclucene0) but also got dependency > problems: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/Downloads$ sudo dpkg -i libclucene0_0.9.16a-1_i386.deb > [sudo] password for nigel: > Selecting previously deselected package libclucene0. > dpkg: regarding libclucene0_0.9.16a-1_i386.deb containing libclucene0: > libclucene0ldbl conflicts with libclucene0 (<< 0.9.16a-3) >libclucene0 (version 0.9.16a-1) is to be installed. > dpkg: error processing libclucene0_0.9.16a-1_i386.deb (--install): > conflicting packages - not installing libclucene0 > Errors were encountered while processing: > libclucene0_0.9.16a-1_i386.deb > > Blessings, > > Nigel > > > > -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
