Scripsit Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Which other derivative has made available all of the changes they've made,
more-or-less as they make them?
Which other derivative doesn't? At least for GPL code, making
available the changes one makes is a legal requirement (assuming that
one wants to
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 01:01:32PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Which other derivative has made available all of the changes they've made,
more-or-less as they make them?
Which other derivative doesn't? At least for GPL code, making
available
Scripsit Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 01:01:32PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Which other derivative doesn't? At least for GPL code, making
available the changes one makes is a legal requirement (assuming that
one wants to distribute binaries).
A number of
Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
And Ubuntu is doing far more for us than most other derivatives that we
ever had.
Provide evidence, please.
X.org, d-i, Gnome.
[Still, communication of changes for smaller packages REALLY sucks]
Marc
--
Fachbegriffe der Informatik - Einfach
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Paul Johnson wrote:
FWIW, what you say is false and *many* developers are interested in
cooperation, not in war.
And Ubuntu is doing far more for us than most other derivatives that we
ever had.
Provide evidence, please.
Please don't reply to private emails on
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 00:08, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Le lundi 23 janvier 2006, Paul Johnson a écrit :
On Sunday 22 January 2006 03:16, David Weinehall wrote:
Since all Ubuntu packages are recompiled against a different set of
libraries, the bug might not even affect the Debian
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 06:49:37AM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 00:08, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Le lundi 23 janvier 2006, Paul Johnson a écrit :
On Sunday 22 January 2006 03:16, David Weinehall wrote:
Since all Ubuntu packages are recompiled against a different set
JW == Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
JW Since binary-level compatibility is not a goal of Ubuntu
JW (nor IMO should it be; down that path lies madness), they
JW modify every package in a very important sense.
Even if binary compatibility were a goal, that doesn't mean that
the
On Sunday 22 January 2006 03:16, David Weinehall wrote:
Since all Ubuntu packages are recompiled against a different set of
libraries, the bug might not even affect the Debian package, even though
they share the same source. Hence having Ubuntu developers triage the
bugs to rule out such
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 05:33:33PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Sunday 22 January 2006 03:16, David Weinehall wrote:
Since all Ubuntu packages are recompiled against a different set of
libraries, the bug might not even affect the Debian package, even though
they share the same source.
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 05:33:33PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Sunday 22 January 2006 03:16, David Weinehall wrote:
Since all Ubuntu packages are recompiled against a different set of
libraries, the bug might not even affect the Debian package, even though
they share the same source.
Paul Johnson writes:
Given Ubuntu hopelessly complicates everything, pretends there is
cooperation where there is none, and merely duplicates the effort of the
debian-desktop project, and contributes nothing to the community or
society...
Do you have evidence to support this, or is it just
On Sat, 2006-01-21 at 01:53 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same thing, however. Most of
the packages in universe are maintained only by the Debian maintainer, and
propagated unmodified into Ubuntu.
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 02:26:57AM -0800, Scott Ritchie wrote:
[snip]
In the case of such a package, the same fixes by the Debian maintainer
to the Debian package do end up in the contents of the Ubuntu package
when it gets resynched.
Now, before I confuse myself with word games and
[David Weinehall]
Since all Ubuntu packages are recompiled against a different set of
libraries, the bug might not even affect the Debian package, even though
they share the same source.
The same can be said about Debian architectures, when the autobuilder
build the packages at different
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same thing, however. Most of
the packages in universe are maintained only by the Debian maintainer, and
propagated unmodified into Ubuntu. It is only when there is a specific
motive to change the package
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And unsurprisingly, it, too, doesn't have a straightforward answer. If a
user reports such a bug to Ubuntu, it is approximately the domain of the
MOTU team, in that they triage those bugs (on a time-available prioritized
basis, across the entire set
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 01:53:26AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same thing, however. Most of
the packages in universe are maintained only by the Debian maintainer, and
propagated unmodified into
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 01:53:26AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same thing, however. Most of
the packages in universe are maintained only by the Debian
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 03:44:12AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 01:53:26AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same thing, however.
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 12:10:54AM +0100, JanC wrote:
On 1/17/06, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about renaming Maintainer to Debian-Maintainer in Ubuntu's binary
packages, and having a specific Ubuntu-Maintainer?
This should probably happen in a way that all (or most)
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:08:38PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
I keep hearing this, but I really don't believe it. In Debian, Maintainer
means An individual or group of people primarily responsible for the
on-going well being of a package. As I understand it, in Ubuntu, the MOTUs
have
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:20:33AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:08:38PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
I keep hearing this, but I really don't believe it. In Debian, Maintainer
means An individual or group of people primarily responsible for the
on-going well being
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:24:57PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:20:33AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:08:38PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
I keep hearing this, but I really don't believe it. In Debian,
Maintainer
means An individual
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:24:57PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:20:33AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same thing, however. Most of
the packages in universe are maintained only by the Debian maintainer, and
The thing is
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:35:55PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Arg, and to make matters worse, this discussion is CCed to a
closed-moderated-list, Matt, this is really not a friendly way to have a
conversation.
I didn't add the CC to ubuntu-motu, nor the one to debian-project. I've
merely
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:20:33AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:08:38PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
I keep hearing this, but I really don't believe it. In Debian, Maintainer
means An individual or group of people primarily responsible for the
on-going well being
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 07:13:31AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:20:33AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:08:38PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
I keep hearing this, but I really don't believe it. In Debian,
Maintainer
means An
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 12:41:49PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 07:13:31AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:20:33AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
By way of example, the Debian maintainer is equipped to answer questions
like why is the package
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 08:31:44AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
All you'll get is the loud minority having a whinge then, no matter what the
outcome.
It will certainly beat the hell out of continuing this thread.
--
- mdz
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 01:40:11PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 08:31:44AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
All you'll get is the loud minority having a whinge then, no matter what the
outcome.
It will certainly beat the hell out of continuing this thread.
It will just
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 10:54:40AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:35:55PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Arg, and to make matters worse, this discussion is CCed to a
closed-moderated-list, Matt, this is really not a friendly way to have a
conversation.
I didn't add
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 10:46:51AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:24:57PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:20:33AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same thing, however. Most of
the packages in universe
On 1/17/06, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about renaming Maintainer to Debian-Maintainer in Ubuntu's binary
packages, and having a specific Ubuntu-Maintainer?
This should probably happen in a way that all (or most) Debian-derived
distro's agree on then.
And one more problem:
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 in with
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 be
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
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
* 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 luck:
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:
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
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
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:
* 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. What I
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
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
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 all my
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
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 please
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,
please don't
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 you.
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:
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, than for each
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
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 interest
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 desperate
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 have said
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
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
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?
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
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
honest.
64 matches
Mail list logo
