also sprach Wouter Verhelst [2009.08.08.1500 +0200]:
> They are sticking to that promise. Of all the derivative
> distributions out there, Ubuntu is the only one that actively, as
> a matter of policy, does contribute back bugreports and patches.
They contribute, but they're far from the only one
Mark Shuttleworth dijo [Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 07:37:04AM +0100]:
> (...)
> It would be substantially easier to collaborate on RC (and non-RC) bug
> fixes where the base versions of major components were the same.
Umm... Real, hard RC bugs will be present on more than one release of
the same upstrea
On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 09:34:39PM +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 20:07, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 06:40:06PM +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> >> THEY STEAL our packages
> >
> > Uarg. That sentence let me discard everything sensible/intelligent
Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
..
Instead of saying "there's a bug that was badly handled, so we should
never collaborate better on anything", let's look for opportunities to
make things better. We have a good opportunity to make a profound
change in the way upstreams and distributions engage.
On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 07:46:51AM +0100, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
> When you have two large, complex, passionate organisations there will
> always be plenty of opportunities to find fault with one another. Do you
> not believe that it would be possible to find a long list of cases where
> Debian d
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Does that mean you don't think Ubuntu developers contribute fixes
> > back to Debian today?
As security, contributing fixes back to Debian is not a product nor
a state, it's a process. We should all be interested in optimizing this
process further.
http://patches.ubun
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 10:29:11AM +0100, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
>> I'm sorry that you have a negative impression of Ubuntu's relationship
>> with Debian, but there's plenty of data available that contradicts
>> your conclusion (including BTS reports that have been post
Werner Baumann wrote:
> The two models as I can see them from the discussion so far:
>
> Model 1:
> Debian freezes in December
> Debian developers concentrate on fixing RC bugs
> Ubuntu developers concentrate on including newer versions of major
> software packages
> When the number of RC bugs in D
On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 09:04:46AM +0100, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I'm not sure whether this subthread is really going anywhere, given that it
> seems to have devolved into a complaint about the handling of a particular
> bug, and playing whack-a-mole on a public mailing list in response to
> indivi
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 11:49:09AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Perhaps Ubuntu should correct it's web page, then, in light of
> the apparent fact that automatic feeding of patches upstream is
> not in fact reality?
Yes, I've forwarded this bug to the attention of the Ubuntu webmaste
I'm not sure whether this subthread is really going anywhere, given that it
seems to have devolved into a complaint about the handling of a particular
bug, and playing whack-a-mole on a public mailing list in response to
individual interactions seems a thoroughly ineffective way to change
anything
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 10:29:11AM +0100, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I'm sorry that you have a negative impression of Ubuntu's relationship
> with Debian, but there's plenty of data available that contradicts
> your conclusion (including BTS reports that have been posted to this
> very thread).
The p
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 09:28:18PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 09:15:03PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > Bernd Zeimetz (03/08/2009):
> > > Ack ack ack. I even have the impression that the Canonical employees
> > > want to ensure that Debian gets important things much
On Tue, Aug 04 2009, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I'm a little bothered by the lack of release team involvement in
> the discussion, but I wonder if the reason isn't simply that it's
> probably pretty hard for them to pick a way of responding that won't
> be misinterpreted to fit folks predisposition t
On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 09:15:03PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Bernd Zeimetz (03/08/2009):
> > Ack ack ack. I even have the impression that the Canonical employees
> > want to ensure that Debian gets important things much much later than
> > Ubuntu.
>
> Obviously false, see how (e)glibc maint
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 11:49:09AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 04 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > If you prefer to be automatically notified about all changes in Ubuntu, I
> > believe the PTS gives you an option to do this by subscribing to the
> > 'derivatives' keyword. For my p
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 05:44:58PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:51:35AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > Also in many cases, Ubuntu and Debian teams can't fully collaborate
> > because they do not target the same upstream version, freezing at the same
> > time should make
On Tue, Aug 04 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 08:57:50AM +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
>> Of course it would be nicer if patches were reported automatically to us.
>
> This is by no means a universally held view within Debian. The current
> approach of only pushing patch
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:51:35AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Marc Haber wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:37:46AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > > What we're speaking of is synergy between both distributions. You know the
> > > it's the principle behind “the combin
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 08:04:12AM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> Yes, but OTOH we strongly support copyleft softwares versus the BSD-
> like softwares, because we expect to have back the works and
> because we expect to behave as a big community.
No we don't.
Michael
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 11:17:01AM +0100, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 08:57:50AM +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> > Of course it would be nicer if patches were reported automatically to us.
>
> This is by no means a universally held view within Debian. The current
> approach
[Sandro Tosi, 2009-08-03]
> Hey, but we give back (patches, improvements, bug reports) to upstreams :)
IIRC, I never used a patch from Ubuntu (let's be honest: their patches
are usually not that good, at least the ones for packages in universe,
see latest python2.6 transition for examples), but if
Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 04:13:03PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>
>> I rarely hear anything positive from Ubuntu, except that more and more people
>> who are active in Ubuntu realized that it is much better to do things in
>> Debian
>> directly.
>
> IME the quality of interact
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 11:17:01AM +0100, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 08:57:50AM +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> > Of course it would be nicer if patches were reported automatically to us.
>
> This is by no means a universally held view within Debian. The current
> approach
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 08:57:50AM +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> Of course it would be nicer if patches were reported automatically to us.
This is by no means a universally held view within Debian. The current
approach of only pushing patches to Debian maintainers as manual bug
reports is a
On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 04:13:03PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> I rarely hear anything positive from Ubuntu, except that more and more people
> who are active in Ubuntu realized that it is much better to do things in
> Debian
> directly.
IME the quality of interaction from Ubuntu is very variab
On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 04:13:03PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> > There seems to be an assumption here that Ubuntu would benefit from bugfixes
> > from Debian developers, but that the reverse would not be true. Is this
> > what you believe? Does that mean you don't think Ubuntu developers
> > co
On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 09:15:03PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Bernd Zeimetz (03/08/2009):
> > Ack ack ack. I even have the impression that the Canonical employees
> > want to ensure that Debian gets important things much much later than
> > Ubuntu.
>
> Obviously false, see how (e)glibc maint
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 08:04:12AM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> Yes, but OTOH we strongly support copyleft softwares versus the BSD-
> like softwares, because we expect to have back the works and
> because we expect to behave as a big community.
>
> I agree with you, it is not thiefs,
* Moritz Muehlenhoff [2009-08-03 19:30]:
> Aligning our releases with RHEL rather than with Ubuntu seems more
> worthwhile to me. They have similar stabilisation lengths as we did
> for previous releases and they're investing a lot of work into the
> kernel, from which we could profit immensely.
Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 06:40:06PM +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote:
>> THEY STEAL our packages
>
> Uarg. That sentence let me discard everything sensible/intelligent
> you might have said in your mail. I often read sentences like that
> in the discussion. It makes me
Patrick Schoenfeld (03/08/2009):
> That is simply not true. It might be that Ubuntu doesn't give back as
> much as Debian would like.
Or “as they pretend to” [1]:
| When a bug is reported in the Debian bug tracking system and then later
| fixed in Ubuntu, the fixes are often automatically communi
On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 09:34:39PM +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 06:40:06PM +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> >> THEY STEAL our packages
> >
> > Uarg. That sentence let me discard everything sensible/intelligent
> > you might have said in your mail. I often read sentences like tha
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 20:07, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 06:40:06PM +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote:
>> THEY STEAL our packages
>
> Uarg. That sentence let me discard everything sensible/intelligent
> you might have said in your mail. I often read sentences like that
> in
Bernd Zeimetz (03/08/2009):
> Ack ack ack. I even have the impression that the Canonical employees
> want to ensure that Debian gets important things much much later than
> Ubuntu.
Obviously false, see how (e)glibc maintainers are pushed by Ubuntu
people to get the next release ready, ignoring th
On Mon, Aug 03 2009, Philipp Kern wrote:
> [ Please note that I'm taking all my hats off for this post, especially ]
> [ debian-release ones. ]
>
> On 2009-08-03, Sandro Tosi wrote:
>> What I'm wondering is: why should *we* adapt to ubuntu? why was
On Mon, Aug 03 2009, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> Aligning our releases with RHEL rather than with Ubuntu seems more
> worthwhile to me. They have similar stabilisation lengths as we did
> for previous releases and they're investing a lot of work into the
> kernel, from which we could profit immens
Philipp Kern wrote:
> But of course it could be more. Especially contributions from Canonical
> employees doing stuff in main. (Some a tad neglecting their packages
> in Debian IMHO...)
Ack ack ack. I even have the impression that the Canonical employees want to
ensure that Debian gets importan
Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> On 2009-07-30, Teemu Likonen wrote:
>> On 2009-07-30 13:12 (+0200), Sven Joachim wrote:
>>
>>> On 2009-07-30 11:36 +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
Oh, and Debian got hundreds of active developers, and I doubt they'll
be running to Shuttleworth anytime soon.
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 06:40:06PM +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> THEY STEAL our packages
Uarg. That sentence let me discard everything sensible/intelligent
you might have said in your mail. I often read sentences like that
in the discussion. It makes me sick and wonder if I do invest my time in
On 2009-07-30, Teemu Likonen wrote:
> On 2009-07-30 13:12 (+0200), Sven Joachim wrote:
>
>> On 2009-07-30 11:36 +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
>>> Oh, and Debian got hundreds of active developers, and I doubt they'll
>>> be running to Shuttleworth anytime soon.
>>
>> Probably not, but the rele
[ Please note that I'm taking all my hats off for this post, especially ]
[ debian-release ones. ]
On 2009-08-03, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> What I'm wondering is: why should *we* adapt to ubuntu? why was not
> ubuntu in the first place to accommodate ou
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 17:55, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Given the freeze-timeline proposed it could/should be. Ubuntu has its
> "DebianImportFreeze" for karmic scheduled for June 25th; which should
> translate for an LTS import freeze on December 25th-ish, shortly after
> the Debian freeze begins. At
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 05:17:57PM +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 01:07:39PM +, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > [...] The tradeoffs to me seem to be:
> >
> > Debian stable Ubuntu LTS
> >
> > 2 year rel cycle 2 year rel cycle
> > 3 years security
Steve Langasek wrote:
> There seems to be an assumption here that Ubuntu would benefit from bugfixes
> from Debian developers, but that the reverse would not be true. Is this
> what you believe? Does that mean you don't think Ubuntu developers
> contribute fixes back to Debian today?
>
> While
Teemu Likonen wrote:
> On 2009-07-30 13:12 (+0200), Sven Joachim wrote:
>
>> On 2009-07-30 11:36 +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
>>> Oh, and Debian got hundreds of active developers, and I doubt they'll
>>> be running to Shuttleworth anytime soon.
>> Probably not, but the release synchronizatio
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 08:42:54AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Friday 31 July 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I don't believe the kind of coarse synchronization that's been proposed
> > for the releases would make Debian<->Ubuntu crossgrades significantly
> > easier. Most of the local changes that
> On Wed, Jul 29 2009, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Sune Vuorela (nos...@vuorela.dk) wrote:
> >> I'm hoping that we can convince the release team to change their mind.
> >
> > I doubt you can, and I hope you don't. It could have been announced
> > better, but in general I think it's a good thing for
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 04:31:56PM +, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On 2009-07-30, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > You seem to have been operating under a misconception that the *majority* of
> > packages in Ubuntu have been touched wrt Debian. They have not - the vast
> > majority of packages in Ubuntu ar
There seem to be two quite different models about how synchronisation
of Debian and Ubuntu LTS is intended to work. I believe it would be
very helpful to know if there is any agreement with Ubuntu about this.
The two models as I can see them from the discussion so far:
Model 1:
Debian freezes in
On 2009-07-30, Steve Langasek wrote:
> You seem to have been operating under a misconception that the *majority* of
> packages in Ubuntu have been touched wrt Debian. They have not - the vast
> majority of packages in Ubuntu are unmodified Debian packages, as shown by
> the graphs on the bottom o
On 2009-07-29, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> So the developers are then within their rights to ignore the
> short first freeze, and work to release whenever the packages are
> really ready.
Uh, that's what a subset of them always did, no? Like starting transitions
during freezes with no co
On Friday 31 July 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I don't believe the kind of coarse synchronization that's been proposed
> for the releases would make Debian<->Ubuntu crossgrades significantly
> easier. Most of the local changes that Ubuntu has today would still
> apply, and there are rebuilt binari
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 01:07:39PM +, Anthony Towns wrote:
> At the moment I could recommend Debian stable over Ubuntu LTS because
> it has more recent packages (2009/02 release versus 2008/04 release),
> or because it's an easier upgrade for people with existing Debian systems.
> With synchro
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 07:05:13PM +0200, Norbert Preining wrote:
> On Mi, 29 Jul 2009, Luk Claes wrote:
> > The developers have had the opportunity and still have the opportunity
> > to get stuff done before the release. It's true that developers should
> > probably consider to already be care
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:17:46AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I spend a log of time with my upstreams, and I am trying to
> implement the philosophy that any change in my packages be trated as a
> bug (whether or not it is in the bts), and sent upstream. I use
> upstream bug tracke
On Mi, 29 Jul 2009, Luk Claes wrote:
> The developers have had the opportunity and still have the opportunity
> to get stuff done before the release. It's true that developers should
> probably consider to already be careful about what to upload, but there
> is still opportunity to do changes
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 17:20:28 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 05:10:29PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:34:05 -0430, Muammar El Khatib wrote:
> > > I think if Debian has worked more than 13 years as it is right now
> >
> > It has not.
>
> How do
On Thu, Jul 30 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:07:58AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
>> > We'll keep our user base
>
>> That's what I doubt. Ubuntu LTS will be better than Debian stable in
>> all aspects, why should anybody continue using Debian stable?
>
> You believe that Deb
On, 07/30/2009 10:50 AM, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 05:10:29PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:34:05 -0430, Muammar El Khatib wrote:
>>> I think if Debian has worked more than 13 years as it is right now
>> It has not.
>
> How do you call what we have do
On Thu, Jul 30 2009, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Marc Haber wrote:
>> In fact, I would prefer if Ubuntu had to change _their_ scheduled to
>> accomodate us, if they want to have the advantage of being in sync
>> with us. It's _their_ advantage after all, not ours.
>
> I don't min
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 05:10:29PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:34:05 -0430, Muammar El Khatib wrote:
> > I think if Debian has worked more than 13 years as it is right now
>
> It has not.
How do you call what we have done since then if not "working"? I mean,
we have
Hi,
Teemu Likonen schrieb:
Debian
==
> [...]
+ [Please invent more concrete benefits for Debian developers and
users.]
+ Settling on the same upstream versions will help maintaining them
over the long period of time, so freeing valuable developer time
from debian members
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 01:07:39PM +, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I'm not aware of any apples-to-apples comparisons of Debian's and Ubuntu's
> "quality"; but personally I haven't seen much evidence that Debian's
> is significantly superior (NB: I haven't used Ubuntu LTS personally,
> though). T
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:34:05 -0430, Muammar El Khatib wrote:
> I think if Debian has worked more than 13 years as it is right now
It has not.
Cheers,
Julien
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lis
Hi *,
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 2:46 AM, Marc Haber
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 08:45:41AM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
>> Why not freeze in June 2010 instead of December 2009 and then freeze
>> again in December 2011*? Mark Shuttleworth seems (at least seemed) to
>> be fine with delayin
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 03:24:03PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> That said, I do not think that this concern alone is enough for us to rush
> a squeeze release and I agree that it would also be reasonable to just
> target a freeze somewhere in the middle of next year and leave an
> opportunity to
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 01:07:39PM +, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Debian stable Ubuntu LTS
>
> 2 year rel cycle 2 year rel cycle
> 3 years security 3 years desktop security, 5 years server
> guaranteed freeze dateguaranteed release date
> support for all
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 03:24:03PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Modestas Vainius wrote:
> > So let's just freeze late in the early/middle spring of 2010 this time and
> > aim
> > for Dec 2011 freeze next time. If you disagree with that, please enlighten
> > me
> > why De
On Thursday 30 July 2009, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Frans Pop wrote:
> > Both the Etch and Lenny releases did clearly show this, and the
> > success of both releases (Etch more than Lenny IMO) is largely thanks
> > to flexible starts of the incremental freeze stages.
>
> The sta
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Frans Pop wrote:
> Both the Etch and Lenny releases did clearly show this, and the success of
> both releases (Etch more than Lenny IMO) is largely thanks to flexible
> starts of the incremental freeze stages.
The staged freeze has been a major pain for anyone working on the
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Modestas Vainius wrote:
> So let's just freeze late in the early/middle spring of 2010 this time and
> aim
> for Dec 2011 freeze next time. If you disagree with that, please enlighten me
> why Debian needs to rush _this time_. If synchronization is so badly wanted
> for the
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:49:48AM +0200, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Doesn't this imply that everyone who continues using Debian today does so
> merely as an accident of the release schedule and the particular set of
> packages that land in a given Debian release?
That and the fact that upgrades betw
On 2009-07-30, Marc Haber wrote:
> I don't see the advantage for Debian short of probable ease of work
> for the security team (which doesn't seem to have commented yet).
The synergy is negligable, since the most time-consuming elements (testing,
handling the buildds and the release) need to be d
On Thursday 30 July 2009, Teemu Likonen wrote:
> Debian
> ==
- The completely voluntary nature of the project does not really lend
itself to hard timelines. If it turns out on the planned date of the
freeze that there are still major issues open, we need to be flexible
enough to delay th
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> + Security fixes prepared for Ubuntu will be (sometimes ?) applicable
> directly to Debian, which would be a reduction in workload for the
> Debian Security team. (Or phrased differently: Debian and Ubuntu
> security teams will be able to prepare
Teemu Likonen wrote:
> On 2009-07-30 13:12 (+0200), Sven Joachim wrote:
> >> Probably not, but the release synchronization with Ubuntu may make
>> them feel that they are working for him, which can be a great
>> demotivation.
>
> That's why it would be interesting to hear some concrete ideas how
On 2009-07-30 13:12 (+0200), Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2009-07-30 11:36 +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
>> Oh, and Debian got hundreds of active developers, and I doubt they'll
>> be running to Shuttleworth anytime soon.
>
> Probably not, but the release synchronization with Ubuntu may make
> th
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 01:09:35PM +, Anthony Towns wrote:
> For three, what happened to getting the firmware issue resolved early in
> squeeze's cycle [1]? It's evidently no longer early in squeeze's cycle,
> so maybe I just somehow missed the decision on that...
> [1] http://lists.debian.org
On 2009-07-30 11:36 +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> Oh, and Debian got hundreds of active developers, and I doubt they'll
> be running to Shuttleworth anytime soon.
Probably not, but the release synchronization with Ubuntu may make them
feel that they are working for him, which can be a grea
Hello,
On ketvirtadienis 30 Liepa 2009 11:37:46 Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> I don't mind who changes the date for the other but I really don't agree
> that doing it is only for Ubuntu's advantage. Nobody in Debian would have
> taken such a decision, we are Debian developers and have no interest in
>
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:27, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> Marc Haber wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> I don't think that we shouldn't time our releases according to what
>> Mark Shuttleworth says. We are not Ubuntu's slave even if they try
>> hard to make it look like that.
>>
>> In fact, I would prefer if Ubuntu
Marc Haber wrote:
Hi,
> I don't think that we shouldn't time our releases according to what
> Mark Shuttleworth says. We are not Ubuntu's slave even if they try
> hard to make it look like that.
>
> In fact, I would prefer if Ubuntu had to change _their_ scheduled to
> accomodate us, if they wan
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:51, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Marc Haber wrote:
>> That's what I doubt. Ubuntu LTS will be better than Debian stable in
>> all aspects, why should anybody continue using Debian stable?
>
> Why are you using Debian and not Ubuntu?
>
> For me:
> - Debian
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:19:58AM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> The problem of lenny's long freeze was in part that there was so few
> people working on the release and on fixing RC bugs. And that
> deficit also shows in the quality of lenny. If people feel that
> flamewars are needed to keep De
On Thursday 30 July 2009, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> After the talk Bdale commented about the length of the freeze and the
> made observation (actually had a "complaint") that the length of the
> freeze is something were not the release team, but the project at large
> should ask itself what to do be
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:37:46AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > What we're speaking of is synergy between both distributions. You know the
> > it's the principle behind “the combination of both is worth more that the
> > sum of individual parts”.
>
> W
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:07:58AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> > We'll keep our user base
> That's what I doubt. Ubuntu LTS will be better than Debian stable in
> all aspects, why should anybody continue using Debian stable?
You believe that Debian, releasing with approximately the same set of
pac
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:17, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
>>
>> There's some (many) of us who feel that the great Debian culture is
>> irreplaceable, and therefore won't use Ubuntu as their primary OS. So
>> why worry about losing relevance.
>
> Because if you lose re
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:28:01AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:11:12AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> > google, debian site:ubuntu.com delivers _one_ hit that is actually
> > inside ubuntu.com.
>
> Search better: http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/debian .
T
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:28:09AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 30/07/09 at 11:17 +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> > It *might* be that losing relevance on the desktop side is of little
> > importance (which I believe it is _not_), but if corporate entities turn to
> > use Ubuntu LTS bec
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:11:12AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> google, debian site:ubuntu.com delivers _one_ hit that is actually
> inside ubuntu.com.
Search better: http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/debian .
The page is one link away from the main Ubuntu site (follow
"philosophy").
FWIW
On 30/07/09 at 11:17 +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> >
> > There's some (many) of us who feel that the great Debian culture is
> > irreplaceable, and therefore won't use Ubuntu as their primary OS. So
> > why worry about losing relevance.
>
> Because if you lose
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:18:31AM +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:11, Marc Haber
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:59:05AM +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> >> so if they keep honouring publicly stating and recognizing
> >> Debian as their upstream,
> >
>
Hi,
Marc Haber wrote:
Our 18-to-24-month release cycle was a nice vehicle to stay
asynchronous with Ubuntu, which _I_ consider a desireable feature to
prevent Debian from perishing.
It's easy to say stuff like this, but really, the Debian project at
large has done *no* introspection of what w
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:17:34AM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> It *might* be that losing relevance on the desktop side is of little
> importance (which I believe it is _not_), but if corporate entities turn to
> use Ubuntu LTS because instead of
> Debian stable, I fail to see how devel
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:11, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:59:05AM +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
>> so if they keep honouring publicly stating and recognizing
>> Debian as their upstream,
>
> google, debian site:ubuntu.com delivers _one_ hit that is actually
> inside ubuntu.
Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
>
> There's some (many) of us who feel that the great Debian culture is
> irreplaceable, and therefore won't use Ubuntu as their primary OS. So
> why worry about losing relevance.
Because if you lose relevance, you lose users (might them be individuals on
the desktop
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 09:16:26AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> I don't think that we shouldn't time our releases according to what
> Mark Shuttleworth says. We are not Ubuntu's slave even if they try
> hard to make it look like that.
>
> In fact, I would prefer if Ubuntu had to change _their_ sched
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:59:05AM +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> so if they keep honouring publicly stating and recognizing
> Debian as their upstream,
google, debian site:ubuntu.com delivers _one_ hit that is actually
inside ubuntu.com.
Greetings
Marc
--
1 - 100 of 201 matches
Mail list logo
