On 25/03/2010, at 10.32, natalya hutagalung wrote:
i have a problem dpkg --configure -a
dpkg: parse error, in file `/var/lib/dpkg/updates/0012' near line 16:
missing package name
it make me can run apt-get install
can you help me ?
The error message is trying to tell you what the
On 23/03/2010, at 10.02, jdetaeye wrote:
The tools and the intention of the REVU process are right. But if
there aren't any reviewers working on the list, the process will
remain broken.
One problem is that we have no active REVU-coordinator for the time
being, and that REVU-days have not
On 23/03/2010, at 22.32, Benjamin Drung wrote:
How many people working on that task and how many Ubuntu packages
needs
to be ported to Debian? Can we rely on the folks who port Ubuntu
packages back into Debian or is this more only a wish?
Porting is not the problem, it's getting the
On Tuesday 02 March 2010 16:27:36 Morten Kjeldgaard wrote:
I my opinion, REVU is a hugely useful tool. A lot of work has quietly been
done on the software lately, in large part thanks to RainCT, and I now
think it is quite close to ideal: easy to use, and robust.
Uhm, well OK, it still needs
On 07/02/2010, at 19.37, Scott Howard wrote:
With the archive reorganization currently going on [1], I'd like to
gauge the team's interest (especially William Grant and Morten) in
becoming an official development team [2] for science packages.
I am afraid the team is too small and scattered
mario yoddlerboy wrote:
I am unable to force the package (from the synaptic manager) to upgrade the
only version 1.8 (?) to the most current release. note there is no listing
for versions other than the original jaunty version 1.8.my current ubuntu
OS is 9.04.
I cannot reproduce any
On 02/11/2009, at 17.23, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
quote who=Stefan Potyra date=Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 12:43:22PM
+0100
Let's not bog ourselves down in procedural pedantry. If the CC
need to,
we can make direct appointments and replacements on any structure in
Ubuntu, and will do so.
--
Morten Kjeldgaard m...@ubuntu.com
Ubuntu MOTU Developer
GPG Key ID: 404825E7
--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
On 28/10/2009, at 15.06, Stefan Ebner wrote:
So go, hug them (or yourself, or both xD)
Did you just say go hug yourself??! :-)
-- Morten
--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
On 27/10/2009, at 20.05, Chow Loong Jin wrote:
Thanks Scott! =)
Karmic is poised to be the greatest Ubuntu release ever! Let me join
the universe-wide hugfest! Thanks ScottK :-)
-- Morten
--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
of patches, make a note on the bugs.
Cheers,
Morten
--
Morten Kjeldgaard m...@ubuntu.com
Ubuntu MOTU Developer
GPG Key ID: 404825E7
--
ubuntu-motu-science mailing list
ubuntu-motu-science@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
On 02/10/2009, at 21.10, Stefan Potyra wrote:
Hi,
Hi Stefan,
ahem, shame on me, as I scheduled the meeting in conflict with a
Kubuntu
meeting. So no meeting for us right now.
Phew. I was the only one replying to this thread and then I @'!!#%!!
forgot about the meeting. Shame on ME.
so and if the normal requirements for backporting are fulfilled.
Cheers,
Morten
--
Morten Kjeldgaard m...@ubuntu.com
Ubuntu MOTU Developer
GPG Key ID: 404825E7
--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo
I volunteer.
Cheers,
Morten
--
Morten Kjeldgaard m...@ubuntu.com
Ubuntu MOTU Developer
GPG Key ID: 404825E7
--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
On 25/09/2009, at 15.03, Stefan Potyra wrote:
we haven't had a motu-meeting for quite some time. Let's do one
again, shall
we?
I propose next Friday (Oct 2nd), 19.00h UTC at #ubuntu-meeting.
What do you think?
+1
I'll be there.
-- Morten
--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
interest in Ubuntu,
Morten
--
Morten Kjeldgaard m...@ubuntu.com
Ubuntu MOTU Developer
GPG Key ID: 404825E7
--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
On 22/09/2009, at 16.39, Michael Bienia wrote:
On 2009-09-20 08:36:11 +1000, William Grant wrote:
It also appears that we now have three wishes for Launchpad Bugs.
I've
been asked to give both on Wednesday, so get any opinions in soon!
- Better support to see which Ubuntu releases are
such a tool?
Any thoughts on this?
Cheers,
Morten
--
Morten Kjeldgaard m...@ubuntu.com
Ubuntu MOTU Developer
GPG Key ID: 404825E7
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https
On 12/06/2009, at 23.05, Luca Falavigna wrote:
Morten Kjeldgaard m...@bioxray.au.dk ha scritto:
Maintainer: Morten Kjeldgaard (https://launchpad.net/~mok0)
Soyuz would complain about wrong email address format and reject
upload.
I realize that Soyuz at the moment probably would
-Maintainer: field, and put something else in the
Maintainer field.
Cheers,
Morten
--
Morten Kjeldgaard m...@ubuntu.com
Ubuntu MOTU Developer
GPG Key ID: 404825E7
--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman
Reinhard Tartler wrote:
I disagree here a bit. Some of the package I maintain are being
maintained in a team on alioth. Most prominent teams here are pkg-wpa
and pkg-multimedia. I leave the alioth mailing list in the maintainer
field to indicate where the maintainers can be reached.
I am not
. Example of what it
would look inventedlike:
Maintainer: Morten Kjeldgaard (https://launchpad.net/~mok0)
The last resort is always a removal of this package in question, if
it's not already in debian...
Not having an active maintainer is not the same as the package not being
interesting
On 12/06/2009, at 19.11, Charlie Smotherman wrote:
[snip}
As of today we have 861 universe packages that are maintained in
Ubuntu
(*). We _can_ use some help with those!
So where can someone find a list of these 861 packages that need love
and affection?
I used the number from
Charlie Smotherman wrote:
sync'd to karmic. I have some bugs that are on the BTS and I have some
LP bugs that I would like to close with this upload to debian.
Charlie, you rock! If only more developers were like you! :-)
-- Morten
--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
On 22/02/2009, at 12.47, Michael Bienia wrote:
On 2009-02-21 20:52:47 +0100, Morten Kjeldgaard wrote:
Oh, I didn't make it quite clear: I imagine that packages uploaded to
the PPA would be the ones that passed reviewing with 2 advocates. So
essentially, these package would be in a state
On 22/02/2009, at 04.45, Stefan Potyra wrote:
hm... not too sure: Just adding *all* packages on revu to my pbuilder
environment is something which I feel uncomfortable with.
Personally, I use
mini-dinstall for this task, because it lets me explicitely select
which
package I want to be
Hi MOTUs,
I propose that we establish a PPA staging area for certain packages in
REVU.
There are several reasons why this could be practical:
* At times, uploaders submit library packages, and also have other
packages that depend on that library package uploaded for review. With
the
On 21/02/2009, at 19.51, Mario Limonciello wrote:
What happens when someone needs to make changes without modifying
the build number? REVU allows this, but PPAs explicitly wouldn't
unless you deleted the old build, waited for the publisher to see
the deletion, and reran it. You'd then
Nathan Handler wrote:
However, the more I think about this issue, the more I
feel that more lists are not the correct solution. Your philosophy
behind adding more lists was to not have packages that already had one
advocate but received a non-advocating comment from a MOTU be sent to
the
!
Cheers,
Morten
--
Morten Kjeldgaard m...@ubuntu.com
Ubuntu MOTU Developer
GPG Key ID: 404825E7
--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Hi,
== Discussion about REVU ==
Morten Kjeldgaard raised a proposal to improve REVU workflow [1]. With
this new approach, packages uploaded to REVU would fall into four
categories depending on reviewers' actions (need-work comments or
advocations). It could also be possible to inhibit new
j...@marvec.org wrote:
I'd like to ask whether there are any plans to update Widelands in Ubuntu
8.10 to version 13 which is already out for a while...
You have to request a sync at Launchpad. I did it for you this time:
https://edge.launchpad.net/bugs/327557
Cheers,
Morten
--
On 03/02/2009, at 01.02, Scott Kitterman wrote:
Now that I've read the input, I find that in many significant
respects it
does not reflect my interests as a MOTU. As an example, Do an
emergent
heat on PPA's, which would quietly factor in downloads, subscribers,
karma of uploaders etc.
Hi MOTUs,
Due to lack of time, Reinhard Tartler (siretart) has chosen to resign
as the MOTU Launchpad Liason. William Grant (wgrant) and Morten
Kjeldgaard (mok0) have stepped forward and will share these duties.
The Launchpad Liason provides Launchpad developers with prioritized
bugs
On 02/02/2009, at 22.15, Scott Kitterman wrote:
However good this list may be, it has no legitimate basis to be
considered
a MOTU input.
Part of our process for role transfer includes a chance for community
review of such delegations. Until this has happened (I guess we now
have
that
On 02/02/2009, at 23.40, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
I'm with Scott here. There should have been a call for volunteers as
in the past.
On 03/02/2009, at 01.02, Scott Kitterman wrote:
I do not think this can be considered a MOTU input.
Fair enough.
Personally, I will then take the
On 25/01/2009, at 05.39, charliej wrote:
Two quick questions
1. Would anyone be able to review and leave comments on packages
(as it is now), or would reviewing packages be a MOTU only activity?
The reviewing and commenting procedures would not be changed. I think
that REVU generally is
I have written up a proposal for an updated workflow for our REVU,
please see:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/REVUWorkflowProposal .
The proposal is not wildly different from what we have now, it is more
of a re-structuring. I think it can be implemented with quite few
modfications to the
:-)).
Perhaps everybody should be required to have triaged a certain number of
bugs successfully before being allowed to move on in the training process.
I volunteer to draft a new GettingStarted page, and I will collect with
gratitude any contributions from this list or otherwise.
Cheers,
Morten
--
Morten
Scott Kitterman wrote:
using a debhelper 7 feature and having a backport fail, but as a general
rule overspecifying the required version is frowned upon as it complicates
backports and is just not correct.
That makes sense. If you are using a basic set of debhelper scripts,
there is no
On 20/11/2008, at 13.26, Sarah Hobbs wrote:
The harm has already been done by letting monodevelop into the
distribution. Although I would advocate a removal, the next-best
thing
is to leave monodevelop at version 1.0
Morten, this is a packaging list. This is a list for getting stuff
to
finalize the proposal. It mentions the use of interdiff, which is
deprecated?
I propose as an agenda item for the next MOTU meeting that this issue
be resolved, and the policy finalized.
Cheers,
Morten
--
Morten Kjeldgaard
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Key fingerprint = FC53 53B2 81D1 27CA 45D5 F864
On 17/08/2008, at 13.06, Jose Luis Blanco wrote:
Firstly, sorry if this is not the mailing list for asking these
questions. I've been packaging a new set of libraries of programs for
Ubuntu and uploaded them to REVU:
http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/details.py?package=mrpt
Normally, you'd want to
Some time ago, dholbach and mok0 were talking on IRC, and came to the
agreement that it would be useful to have a blog for the MOTU, like
the server team has one. A blog would be orthogonal to the other means
of communication that we use:
- Mailing list
- Wiki
- IRC
- Launchpad bugs
Each
ScottK wrote:
This would help with preventing duplicate work, but I do see how that
would address my concern about having to wait to get a bug number?
AFAICS there is no reason why the claim-merge.py script should not be
able to return the bug number right away.
-- Morten
--
Ubuntu-motu
On Friday 16 May 2008 06:34:38 Jason (spot) Brower wrote:
There is a program that I and some friends have been working on that
makes Avatars that can be used in mnay ways. One of the most common
ways is for your chat login picture.
If anyone is willing to help package memaker please
Rogério Brito wrote:
I have updated the package hfsprogs with a new upload to Debian (which
has not been incorporated in intrepid yet), but the package has a catch:
it is not 64-bit clean and I have to resort to some hacks for
compilation under my amd64 system (actually, a Pentium D with
It seems the main concern of many of the posters in this thread is
that you may have a package you care about and would like to
maintain, and you do not want a random contributor grabbing it in
front of your nose.
I am a big believer in letting computers solve as many problems as
Jordan Mantha wrote:
My feeling is that the best way to help make sure this kind of thing
doesn't happen is to have *one*, canonical place to track merges.
Launchpad
bugs seems to be the best way we have of doing that currently.
Basically,
file a merge bug if you're going to be working
IMHO there are many good reasons to maintain the 2 ACK requirement for new
packages.
As someone who has contributed several packages through the REVU system, I
admit that I was initially frustrated with the slow and circumstantial
reviewing procedure. However, the advantage of the system
Just becoming MOTU, I've found myself often checking the bugs tab of u-u-s,
perhaps in the hope to catch a bitesized upload :-)
I appears to me that a lot of the bugs in the u-u-s list shouldn't be there,
because they are not ready for sponsorship/upload. A lot of them are sync
requests
Hey,
Hewlett-Packard has launched [1] a very cool open source tracking
tool called FOSSology. If you check out the FOSSology website [2],
there is a short video showing how the tool can be used for example
to analyse licenses of open source projects.
This tool is something that would be
Emmet wrote:
With only four weeks to go to Feature Freeze, it would be nice to
make a call on the packages on REVU before feature freeze. I'd like
to ask for more reviewers to take a look at a package or two, and
either point out some problems or advocate it for inclusion in Ubuntu.
In
Scott Kitterman wrote:
My suggestion is to call your package falconpl as you've said you would and
then conflict against falcon. After that, we can let the market decide. If
one of these packages gets popular enough to cause the other difficulty with
the conflicts, then the less popular
Emmet Hikory wrote:
I'd like something a little more complex:
First:
Oldest-first list of packages where there is at least one
advocation, and any comments after the advocation are by the uploader.
Second:
Oldest-first list of packages where any comments since the last
upload are
. Remove universe/ from Section:
I would suggest a procedure that would allow for such issues. (AFAIK, In
Debian, they encourage you to record all packaging changes in changelog).
Cheers,
Morten (mok0)
--
Morten Kjeldgaard, Asc. professor, Ph.D.
Department of Molecular Biology, Aarhus University
Is there a consensus on what to do when you are adding files to a package? I
am thinking for example on a situation where I am authoring a complete
autotools system to a software package, and upstream is, say, dead or
unresponsive ;-)
Of course, I can add these as patches against /dev/null,
57 matches
Mail list logo
