On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Daniel Holbach
wrote:
> Would it be possible to remove these packages?
>
> Packages I found in the sponsoring queue were: sugar-0.84, sugar-0.88,
> sugar-base-0.86, sugar-datastore-0.86, sugar-toolkit-0.86 but I assume
> there are more.
This proposal sounds reason
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 14:09, Dan Chen wrote:
> Ah, now I see that "Socket" is proper. Previously I saw an ArchLinux
^ Meaning "Source," of course. Sigh.
--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubun
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 13:03, Steve Langasek wrote:
> "Source". Verified empirically in the drafting of that page.
>
> Where do you see documentation referring to "Socket"?
Ah, now I see that "Socket" is proper. Previously I saw an ArchLinux
wiki entry[0] and a Gentoo bug report[1] with an attac
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 12:22, Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Jorge O. Castro wrote:
>> Hi everyone, I'm posting this here since it's fresh in my mind and I'd
>> like to see if I can put this on someone's radar for 12.10's UDS.
>
> Why "for 12.10's UDS"? Let's se
On Nov 13, 2011 6:03 PM, "Dotan Cohen" wrote:
> that the point was made, though: Ubuntu is
> often/sometimes/occasionally used to breathe new life into working
> hardware. Please do not take that benefit away.
Given the points in this discussion, I think that it's reasonable to
propose that a non
On Sep 13, 2011 7:25 AM, "Barry Warsaw" wrote:
>
> I'm not sure what the moral of the story is, except that one difficult
package
> can kill your hopes of fixing five ftbfs per day.
>
Perhaps a few developers could add further refined tags so that we have a
better sense of which source packages t
On Sep 12, 2011 8:37 AM, "Emilien Klein" wrote:
>
> Hi ubuntu-devel,
>
> I originally sent this message to ubuntu-archive, but I've been told
> to send it to you instead and that this issue would need a "no change
> re-upload" for
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/nautilus-image-manipulato
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 16:04, Chase Douglas wrote:
> True, but progress sometimes means change. I think this system would
> work better, and if proven right it could be a model for other boards to
> adopt. If it's worse, then the DMB can easily switch back. I would also
> be happy to be a guinea p
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 13:52, Scott Moser wrote:
> - lp:~vanvugt/ubuntu/natty/bcmwl/fix-793890
> https://code.launchpad.net/~vanvugt/ubuntu/natty/bcmwl/fix-793890/+merge/67294
>
> This trivial fix needs merging and uploading to natty-proposed. The fix
> for bug 776439 was merged and uploaded
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 12:00, Daniel Holbach wrote:
> When I did my shift last week I noticed that a couple of merge proposals
> had their last comment saying "Would you mind forwarding the patch to
> Debian/Upstream?" with no activity since. I guess many of us check the
> bug or merge proposal l
On Jul 14, 2011 7:00 AM, "Lorenzo De Liso" wrote:
> Because of some stuff in the real life, and other things, I'm afraid I
> won't be able to still contribute to Ubuntu. I'm writing this mail
> reluctantly, I will however remain in the MOTU team and an Ubuntu member
> with the hope to come back on
11 matches
Mail list logo
