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.
In
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 binaries are
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 16:03:05 -0800, Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Do you realize that Xandros, who maintains a Debian derivative which they
box and sell for US$50-$129 per copy, leaves the Maintainer field
unmodified, and as far as I'm aware, was doing so for a period of *years*
before
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 02:15:15PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 16:03:05 -0800, Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Do you realize that Xandros, who maintains a Debian derivative which they
box and sell for US$50-$129 per copy, leaves the Maintainer field
unmodified, and
(dropping debian-devel, this is really not a technical issue)
Matt Zimmerman wrote on 17/01/2006 20:44:
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
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 12:36:18AM +0100, Sven Mueller wrote:
(dropping debian-devel, this is really not a technical issue)
Matt Zimmerman wrote on 17/01/2006 20:44:
1. Most of the source packages in Ubuntu are inherited from Debian
unchanged (example: tetex-base).
False. They are
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 unchanged.
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
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
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
* 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 package
* 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 operation on
-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 *every
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 communicative about
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 I OS A
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 costly
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.
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
* 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 field
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 binaries are
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 unmodified, and do
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 NMUs,
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 binaries are
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!
Please show me
-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
Well,
* 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 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:
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 a
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.
In
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 someone
from
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)
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 at
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 being
* 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.
Such
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 of
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 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 source
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 the
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
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 you say
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
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.
How does the
42 matches
Mail list logo
