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
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
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 debia
* 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 lu
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]
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
v
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 si
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
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 hand
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 dis
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
> or
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:
>
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
* 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.
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.de
* 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.
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
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:/
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 strat
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
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.
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, &
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 th
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 someo
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 someo
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)
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
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 al
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 di
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
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 t
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 ple
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
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 be
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.
> > >
>
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
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,
> ple
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 y
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:
* 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.
Su
"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 li
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
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 yo
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,
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
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 sli
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 sou
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
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
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 int
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 y
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 d
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 d
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 hav
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 di
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
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 di
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
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?
(-d
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
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
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
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 ove
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
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 pra
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.
>
> H
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 m
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 m
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
> >> >
69 matches
Mail list logo
