These email conversations don't sound cooperative or constructive. Are
we loosing ubuntu spirit?
People might disagree, but why not use cooperative discussions instead
of defensive argumentation?
Ubuntu is all about cooperation. Mistakes can be fixed, problems can be
discussed! From ubuntu dev.
Hi,
First, Some background on Ruby/rubygems and Debian:
In the past (before sarge), the controversial decision to split the ruby
stdlib into several different packages was taken. This made the
installation of non-packaged ruby apps very hard, and was very unpopular
in the Ruby community. This
Hi,
On Thursday 28 August 2008 02:33:52 Scott Kitterman wrote:
[..]
I've filed Bug #262063. One clear solution would be to simply revert this
change.
[..]
just to make it clear: motu-release is currently considering to revert this
upload, so please don't touch libgems-ruby until we came to
On Thursday 28 August 2008 16:43, Mathias Gug wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 10:14:06AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Besides the minor packaging strangeness in Neil's version (change of
packaging system, use of a git snapshot without saying it, copyright
problems, etc),
Agreed.
* If the Debian package uses a patch system, change the patch system.
You get bonus points if you switch from dpatch to anything else,
and rename all the patches during the process, since this increases
the diff size significantly.
* Upstream doesn't release often enough? And marking an svn
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 02:02:05 +0200 Lucas Nussbaum
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
And I'll add not particularly distinguish yourself with your fellow Ubuntu
developers. This particular change was also the subject of some
considerable discussion on Ubuntu mailing lists (IIRC ubuntu-server and
Scott Kitterman wrote:
... Gems, as
has been the subject of recent discussion on Ubuntu ML about why this was
NOT a good idea, pretty thoroughly ignore the entire package management
systems. Putting them in the path so random versions not installed by the
package management system get
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I added comments to the Launchpad bug explaining the FHS violation the
modification causes, and why its a problem is greater detail.
I generally think that something which is this invasive should have
been talked about on ubuntu-devel recently before
On Wednesday 27 August 2008 21:41, Steve Langasek wrote:
That said, having had the details brought to our attention, I do share many
of your concerns about the contents of this upload. I gather from other
comments Mathiaz made today on IRC that there was some pressure to get at
least a
On Wednesday 27 August 2008 21:41, Steve Langasek wrote:
That said, having had the details brought to our attention, I do share many
of your concerns about the contents of this upload. I gather from other
comments Mathiaz made today on IRC that there was some pressure to get at
least a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
+1 on reverting this upload until a consensus among -motu and -devel
can be reached.
Michael
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: http://getfiregpg.org
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 10:22 PM, Michael Casadevall
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1 on reverting this upload until a consensus among -motu and -devel
can be reached.
Even putting aside the rookie packaging errors, there appears to be a
serious technical problem here (and a bit of pathology from
Yes, I agree, we need to work with Debian to find the proper
resolution. We need someone who knows Ruby, and knows the issues to be
a liaison between the two groups. That being said, the current patch
in the archive is potentially dangerous and is the wrong way to do
things, and thus should be
On Thursday 28 August 2008 00:04, Justin Dugger wrote:
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 10:22 PM, Michael Casadevall
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1 on reverting this upload until a consensus among -motu and -devel
can be reached.
Even putting aside the rookie packaging errors, there appears to be a
14 matches
Mail list logo
