On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 09:47:15PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 03:57:16PM +1100, Martin Pool wrote:
On 22 February 2011 13:59, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com wrote:
The alternative of adding a specialized field in debian/control for
packages
that
I'm just a lurker here, I'm just a user and I don't tend to say a lot. But
remember that:
1) Not everyone uses laptops. Desktop PCs do not have a battery and losing
power during a suspend is a no-no.
2) Not everyone has a long running battery. Suspend does eat a little bit of
your battery
On 02/20/2011 11:16 PM, Robert Collins wrote:
I think you need an upstream status field, for instance for
python-testtools which is single-source python 3.2+ compatible, but
may not be packaged thusly.
Ah, thanks, yes the field needs a clearer name. I've changed Notes to
Upstream Python 3
On Feb 19, 2011, at 08:21 PM, Loïc Minier wrote:
(We usually don't but lp:ubuntu URLs in Vcs-Bzr because it's kind of
implicit that we have this branch in every package, but there is not
way to tell whether the UDD branch is in use or not; listing it
explicitly when it's used solves this)
On Feb 21, 2011, at 11:14 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
For that matter, if DEBCHANGE_RELEASE_HEURISTIC=changelog were the default,
there would be an explicit mark this ready for upload step that typically
consists of 'dch -r debcommit -r', which creates exactly the same tag as
'bzr mark-uploaded'.
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 09:18:31AM +, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
Regarding where it is done, I see no problem with doing it in
debian/control. If it's configured in the package itself we would
have the option to give a warning at the time people run dput rather
than later sending mail
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 11:14:56AM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
One point I don't understand is why people insist they need to leave work
in progress on the official branch? bzr is a DVCS, so why don't people
make their own branch and then only push to the official branch when it
is, in
On Wednesday 23,February,2011 12:26 AM, Phillip Susi wrote:
On 2/22/2011 10:44 AM, Chow Loong Jin wrote:
My previously mentioned point still stands though. Many people close the lid
of
the laptop, stick it into a bag, and start walking. Considering the I/O
intensive nature of the hibernation
On Tuesday, February 22, 2011 11:51:02 am Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 11:14:56AM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
One point I don't understand is why people insist they need to leave work
in progress on the official branch? bzr is a DVCS, so why don't people
make their own
On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 10:41 -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Feb 19, 2011, at 08:21 PM, Loïc Minier wrote:
(We usually don't but lp:ubuntu URLs in Vcs-Bzr because it's kind of
implicit that we have this branch in every package, but there is not
way to tell whether the UDD branch is in use or
On Wednesday 23,February,2011 01:22 AM, Phillip Susi wrote:
On 2/22/2011 11:51 AM, Chow Loong Jin wrote:
If a good calibration cycle is equivalent to letting the battery completely
burn out, then yes, I've done that.
You have to run it all the way down _from full_. Leave it charge over
= Meeting Minutes =
[[http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2011/02/22/%23ubuntu-meeting.txt|IRC Log of the
meeting.]]
BR
[[http://voices.canonical.com/kernelteam|Meeting minutes.]]
== Agenda ==
[[https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam/Meeting#Tues, 22 Feb, 2011|20110222
Meeting Agenda]]
=== Release Metrics
On Feb 22, 2011, at 11:14 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
One point I don't understand is why people insist they need to leave work in
progress on the official branch? bzr is a DVCS, so why don't people make
their own branch and then only push to the official branch when it is, in
fact, ready for
On Feb 22, 2011, at 09:23 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:
Cool! I didn't know about that.
There's also debian-lp: prefix for Debian series branches in Launchpad (for
various reasons, we can't use just debian:). Note however, that the series
must be spelled out for debian-lp: -- there are no
Martin Pool [2011-02-21 16:17 +1100]:
It seems like 'mark-uploaded' is causing a certain amount of friction
at the moment: cases where it's not run and the branch therefore gets
out of sync with the upload, and also just that it's an additional
step that weighs people down.
Right now,
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 09:57:35PM +0100, Martin Pitt wrote:
Andy Whitcroft [2011-02-22 9:18 +]:
Someone would have to make sure they point to the right place though.
I'd say about 80% of the packages I've looked at they are plain wrong.
Really? I found maybe two in the last half year,
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011, Barry Warsaw wrote:
I work that way, but independent dputs are still a problem. In a recent
computer-janitor case, the changelog entry for the dput didn't show up in the
source branch. So I see 2.1.0-0ubuntu1 but no 2.1.0-0ubuntu2. I had to merge
the actual change
On Feb 22, 2011, at 10:29 PM, Loïc Minier wrote:
But this was actually a case of me not being able to commit to the Vcs
branch! :-)
That's definitely a problem. :) Because of the team nature of Ubuntu
development, I think in general uploaders should have push rights to the UDD
branches.
Hi,
While I'd like to just not compile debugfs into the Ubuntu kernels at all,
it seems that there is a fair bit of push-back on this idea. Instead, the
dangerous /sys/kernel/debug/acpi/custom_method interface has been removed
as the most problematic of all the interfaces (it allows writing
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 03:16:39PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
Hi,
While I'd like to just not compile debugfs into the Ubuntu kernels at all,
it seems that there is a fair bit of push-back on this idea. Instead, the
dangerous /sys/kernel/debug/acpi/custom_method interface has been removed
as
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 03:37:27PM -0800, Bryce Harrington wrote:
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 03:16:39PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
While I'd like to just not compile debugfs into the Ubuntu kernels at all,
it seems that there is a fair bit of push-back on this idea. Instead, the
dangerous
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 03:46:36PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 03:37:27PM -0800, Bryce Harrington wrote:
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 03:16:39PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
While I'd like to just not compile debugfs into the Ubuntu kernels at all,
it seems that there is a fair
Barry Warsaw [2011-02-22 17:22 -0500]:
That's definitely a problem. :) Because of the team nature of Ubuntu
development, I think in general uploaders should have push rights to the UDD
branches.
They do already. computer-janitor uses a custom branch, though, which
is owned by
On 02/22/2011 02:20 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Feb 22, 2011, at 11:14 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
One point I don't understand is why people insist they need to leave work in
progress on the official branch? bzr is a DVCS, so why don't people make
their own branch and then only push to the
Hello
On 10 February 2011 13:41, Prof. Román H. Gelbort
elprofero...@openoffice.org wrote:
Hi folks.
I'm an Ubuntu user and supporter for years, in Argentina. And I'm the
marketing contact of OpenOffice.org in my country too.
Now, with the becoming of LibO to Ubuntu... ¿Is there the
On 02/22/2011 06:00 AM, Martin Pitt martin.p...@ubuntu.com wrote:
Patrick Goetz [2011-02-21 14:41 -0600]:
Does the feature freeze include updating binary drivers?
In principle yes, but as the current nvidia/fglrx drivers in Natty are
totally broken (they are currently not available for the
26 matches
Mail list logo
