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. > > H

Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)

Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * 1 FETCH (BODY[TEXT] {1008} > 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 un

Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)

On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Otavio Salvador wrote: 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. Using this as rule, then all Debian CDD distributions would need to reco

Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)

Hamish writes: > ...special requirements with regard to attribution. The only _requirements_ we can have with respect to attribution are fully satsified by compliance with copyright law and the terms of the relevant licenses. Anything else is a request. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email

Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)

Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> In case of CDDs, the only exception is it isn't build against other >> libraries but it is installed by different cd set and downloaded from >> another location in many cases. > > If it is a CDD than it is installed from a Debian mirror and nothing else

Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)

On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Otavio Salvador wrote: Debian-EDU is available in Debian but also outside of it since they Well, that's a "temporary" hack until we have implemented solutions which makes this superfluous. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email

Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)

* Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > 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 packag

Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)

* Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 12:34:33AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > > 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 operati

Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Thomas Viehmann wrote: > 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 *ever

You have been successfully unsubscribed from "Small Cap Reports"

Dear, [EMAIL PROTECTED] You have been successfully unsubscribed from Small Cap Reports. We are sorry to see you go! Visit our Ezine Directory for more newsletters! http://subs.zinester.com Fill in our questionnaire and receive a bonus: no ads in newsletters! To fill in the questionnaire please

Re: For those who care about debian-devel-announce

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:44:32PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Sorry to feed again the troll, but I would like to know what is the > rationale behind removing the permissions for Andrew and not for > Raphaël. This has nothing to do with the technical aspects of Debian development (too bad th

Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)

Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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 communic

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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

Re: For those who care about debian-devel-announce

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:25:07PM +, Dave Holland wrote: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:44:32PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > Raphaël has also harmed the project by implicitly > > linking it to Ubuntu. > > Don't be ridiculous. Ubuntu explicitly acknowledge that they build on > Debian - see

Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)

Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Otavio Salvador wrote: > >> Debian-EDU is available in Debian but also outside of it since they > > Well, that's a "temporary" hack until we have implemented solutions which > makes this superfluous. But exist! -- O T A V

Re: For those who care about debian-devel-announce

* Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006:01:18 20:23 +0100]: > Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Joerg Jaspert writes: > >> On 10538 March 1977, Martin Schulze wrote: > >>> Since this mail also mentions Andrews sarcastic posting > >>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-anno

Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)

Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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

Re: For those who care about debian-devel-announce

This thread is a huge waste of bandwidth. Can't you boys compare pickles somewhere else? This gets, (what's the expression?) a big ole fat PLONK. -- 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

Deu no Jornal

Deu em O Debate. Janeiro de 2003. www.pesquisadigital.com Óleo de fritura do McDonald's vira combustível O combustível está sendo obtido a partir do óleo usado nas frituras da rede de lanchonetes. Caminhões da Companhia Municipal de Limpeza Urbana (Comlurb) vão

Idea's for documentation (that I supply!)

Greetings! long time debian lover, first time emailer! I had a thought on how to share debian with anyone wanting to check it out. I have installed debian on my laptop via VMWare Workstation and have captured the install to a 8meg 10minute avi file. If people wanted to see the install, they cou

Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)

On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Otavio Salvador wrote: Well, that's a "temporary" hack until we have implemented solutions which makes this superfluous. But exist! Sure they exist, but the statement you made about the maintainer field was simply wrong, because it makes no sense to change the maintainer

Re: For those who care about debian-devel-announce

Erinn Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > It's not possible for those of us not on -private to figure out what's > going on, really, but is it possible that it wasn't made public in an > effort to protect Andrew's privacy? It's possible. If so, I would have expected a short notice to -private rather than

Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)

* Kevin B. McCarty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > I think this explains my preference for the package maintainer listed in > Debian-derivative distributions to be changed even for otherwise > unmodified source packages. To avoid forking source packages, maybe > Ubuntu could cause the maintainer fiel

Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)

Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 05:29:40PM -0800, 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 binar

Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)

Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:57:51PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: >> 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 unmodif

Re: For those who care about debian-devel-announce

* MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006:01:18 21:22 +]: > Erinn Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Were I a listmaster, that would've > > been one of my considerations, regardless of what he'd done to justify > > the ban. I think it's potentially important that the rest of us know > > some disciplinary

Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)

On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 05:29:40PM -0800, 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 NM

Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:57:51PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > 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 modifyi

Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:57:51PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow 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. > > They obviously do. The

Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 01:28:17PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:57:51PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > >> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > >> > I don't think you can speak to what tools we do

Re: For those who care about debian-devel-announce

Erinn Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...] > I suspect the listmasters are the only ones who actually know why > it was done the way it was. [...] Aye, unless they explain, that's probably right. > > Religious intolerance reflects more badly on debian than the minority. > > Help stop it, please. > >

Re: For those who care about debian-devel-announce

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:17:07PM +, MJ Ray wrote: > It's hard to expand, but the basic details of the event are > already public in > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/01/msg00968.html - > at least one reasonably common view about death was vilified > on -private last year. If a DD i

Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)

Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:57:51PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow 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 bin

Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)

Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> Don't you run wanna-build, buildd and sbuild? It is easy enough to >> >> change the maintainer field with that. >> > >> > Not in the source package, which is what was being discussed in that >> > context. >> >> Huh? Actually, you'll find, they do!

Re: For those who care about debian-devel-announce

David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Attributing this incident to a single clash with the majority of the > project is absurd. I disagree. I think Roger Leigh was honest about what incident most motivated the heavy-booting of his complaint. I think some other DDs are also flaming because of who did

Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 16:54:22 -0200 Otavio Salvador <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Otavio Salvador wrote: > > > >> Debian-EDU is available in Debian but also outside of it since they >