Re: Need for launchpad

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 20:34:33 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
said: 

> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I can't agree.  From the sound of this and other threads, there are
>> a number of folks who are unlikely to be satisfied with any
>> behavior on the part of the Ubuntu project or its members.
>> Fortunately, there are others who are actively cooperating to the
>> mutual benefit of the two projects.

> Really, it's very easy.  I would be satisfied if both of the
> following were done:

> Every time you find a bug in an Ubuntu package, make some effort to
> determine if it is Ubuntu-specific or might rather affect all Debian
> users.  If it is not Ubuntu-specific, then file a bug report, and
> optionally, a patch, in the Debian BTS.

I am with this.

I would also like to get a bug report if there is a new
 feature in the ubuntu package, separated out from other changes.

> Every Ubuntu package should have a different Maintainer unless the
> Debian maintainer has agreed to be the Maintainer of the Ubuntu
> package as well.  The Ubuntu package should, of course, continue to
> give credit to the upstream Debian maintainer, but not by
> designating that individual as the Maintainer in the Ubuntu package.

I really don't care, unless the package has been heavily
 modified, in which case I don't want my reputation to hang off
 a package that I no longer control.

None of this is any different from how I work with my
 upstreams, so this is not unreasonable modus operandi.

manoj
-- 
It is up to us to produce better-quality movies. Lloyd Kaufman,
producer of "Stuff Stephanie in the Incinerator"
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 22:27:31 -0800, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 01:26:25AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 11:35:24PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>> > I believe Ubuntu fills an important gap in the Debian world and
>> > as such

>> Ubuntu is not part of the Debian world, because it does not share
>> the values that found Debian.

> That's kind of a strange position to take, isn't it?  Does this mean
> that the many users who use Debian directly sheerly on technical
> excellence alone, without sharing Debian's "founding values", are
> not part of the "Debian world"?  For that matter, I don't know of
> any derivative Debian distributions that require their developers to
> agree to the social contract; so by that standard, are *any* of them
> part of the "Debian world"?


The context here is whether announcements from such groups
 are on topic on d-d-a. I have a local LUG where lots of people use
 Debian -- and there are debian based install fests and so on (and
 talks, and BOF meetings over beer and pizza). I am not sure I think
 gating the announcements from my LUG to the d-d-a list is
 appropriate.

In this context, we have a low volume lists that all
 developers are supposed to subscribe to, and keeping the noise in the
 mailing list down is probably best.

manoj
-- 
You seek to shield those you love and you like the role of the
provider.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 09:57:15 +0100, Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> Hello,
> On Sat, 14 Jan 2006, Bill Allombert wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 11:35:24PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>> > I believe Ubuntu fills an important gap in the Debian world and
>> > as such
>> 
>> Ubuntu is not part of the Debian world,

> That's simply wrong given the many people who use both and who cares
> about both. You're only one inside Debian and you can't generalize
> your personal opinion on the whole project.

Err, there are about a hundred distributions based on
 Debian. Do you think polluting d-d-a with announcements from these
 100 or so distributions is appropriate? (I can easily patch in
 Xandors and mepis announcements to d-d-a, really, and others should
 not be hard to pick up).

The Debian development announcements mailing list is for
 *DEBIAN* development announcements -- everything else os off topic.

> Furthermore we heard several times that some DD were unhappy about
> the version of their packages in Ubuntu which was integrated without
> their opinion and this mail is an opportunity for people like those
> who care to voice their opinion about their packages in Ubuntu.

Err, we distribute free software. How downstream users use
 free software is up to them. This is the freedoms we are striving
 for. I don't really want to hear announcements from gazillions of
 people about how they are planning to integrate software I work on
 into proprietary distributions of Linux.

> If you don't care about Ubuntu, just don't collaborate but please do
> not fight other Debian developers who are intested in working
> together with Ubuntu.

Then take such off topic stuff off the debian development
 announcements list.

manoj
-- 
heavy, adj.: Seduced by the chocolate side of the force.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about lesbians

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 16:40:41 +, Roger Leigh
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:  

> Andrew, do you understand just how inappropriate and offensive your
> mail was?  Nothing justifies abuse of our lists like that.  d-d-a is
> a widely-read list both inside and outside the project, and you have
> done harm to our reputation.

Actually, I don't. Can you please explain to me why the image
 is offensive? I see such actions outside every airport and greyhound
 station I have been to.

manoj
-- 
I think it's a new feature.  Don't tell anyone it was an accident.
:-) --Larry Wall on s/foo/bar/eieio in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about lesbians

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 01:44:06 +0100, Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> On Sunday 15 January 2006 00:47, Adam Heath wrote:
>> In fact, both of the last 2 emails to d-d-a go against the AUP.
>> Procedures should be started to punish the offenders.

> They are of a completely different order. One is an error of
> judgement and "merely" off-topic, the other is intentionally
> offensive and therefore unacceptable.

I am not sure I follow. What was "intentionally offensive"
 about the second post? It did not seem pornographic to me. Both posts
 were off topic, and the second one much more so than the other -- but
 it was deliberately off topic. I don't get the bit about deliberately
 offensive and "Debian's reputation is damaged" posts.

manoj
 hoping he s not detecting homophobia, which is also offensive
-- 
"Psychoanalysis??  I thought this was a nude rap session!!!" Zippy
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about lesbians

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 17:51:03 +, Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> Mike Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Sat, 2006-01-14 at 08:40, Roger Leigh wrote:
>>> Andrew, do you understand just how inappropriate and offensive
>>> your mail was?  Nothing justifies abuse of our lists like that.
>>> d-d-a is a widely-read list both inside and outside the project,
>>> and you have done harm to our reputation.
>> 
>> There was nothing offensive about Andrew's message.

> It is offensive to many people, myself included.

Err, that is a poor criteria. Some people are offended by
 others wishing them a merry Christmas, preferring happy holidays
 instead. And others are offended by the dilution of Christmas by
 happy holidays.

You are offended by the reference to sexcual preference. I am
 disgusted by the implication you are offended by other peoples sexual
 preference.

Indeed, I think the thinly veiled homophobia I seem to detect
 in some posts and reactions around here does more to damage Debian
 than that initial email to d-d-a.

manoj
-- 
We're all going down the same road in different directions.  -- Dave
Farber
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: A standard location to find 'vmlinux' to use for oprofile

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:39:55 +0900, Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> The remaining problem is that we don't really have a standard
> location for 'vmlinux'.

How about /boot/vmlinux-$version ?

> It would be nice if it's possible to obtain the location information
> somewhere, in a distribution-agnostic manner.

Since everyone dumps kernel iamges to /boot, it could also
 serve as a location for the debugging version.

manoj
-- 
You can't hug a child with nuclear arms.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about lesbians

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 11:19:37 -0800, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> Mike Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> There was nothing offensive about Andrew's message.  Since you do
>> not offer any reasons for your melodramatic conclusion, I suspect
>> that you are merely trolling.

>> I *hope* you are not using this list to engage in discrimination
>> against those whose sexual orientation may be different from your
>> own.

> Er, I thought it was offensive because it was sexist, not because
> there's anything wrong with being lesbian.

Umm, the fact that the phrase "You like looking at
 hetrosexuals"  is sexist just flew below my radar.

> Regardless, I think this was pretty much the poster child for "two
> wrongs don't make a right."

This I tend to agree with.

manoj
-- 
"Luke, I'm yer father, eh.  Come over to the dark side, you hoser."
Dave Thomas, "Strange Brew"
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Steve Langasek]

On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 02:26:36AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:

> > That's kind of a strange position to take, isn't it?  Does this mean
> > that the many users who use Debian directly sheerly on technical
> > excellence alone, without sharing Debian's "founding values", are
> > not part of the "Debian world"?  For that matter, I don't know of
> > any derivative Debian distributions that require their developers to
> > agree to the social contract; so by that standard, are *any* of them
> > part of the "Debian world"?

> The context here is whether announcements from such groups
>  are on topic on d-d-a. I have a local LUG where lots of people use
>  Debian -- and there are debian based install fests and so on (and
>  talks, and BOF meetings over beer and pizza). I am not sure I think
>  gating the announcements from my LUG to the d-d-a list is
>  appropriate.

> In this context, we have a low volume lists that all
>  developers are supposed to subscribe to, and keeping the noise in the
>  mailing list down is probably best.

I wasn't defending the post to d-d-a, which I agree was pretty
inappropriate; I'm just trying to figure out this odd attempt at
excommunication.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.debian.org/


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Anthony Towns: What I did today

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 08:34:20PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> Hi Anthony,
> 
> On Saturday, 14 Jan 2006, you wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 04:22:50PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> > > On Friday, 13 Jan 2006, you wrote:
> > > > Things I did today:
> > > > 2. Removed the empty SuperH architecture from the archive (binary-sh).
> > > > Coincidence? You decide.
> > > > URL: http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/blog/2006/01/13#2006-01-13-sh-irts
> > > Nice you have done this, but Planet is definitely not the correct place
> > > to document changes like this. I would find it more appropriate to
> > > inform fellow DDs either via debian-devel@ or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Not all
> > > developers read planet.debian.org.
> > 
> > I think you'll find the correct place is the -sh list, which was notified:
> > 
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-superh/2002/04/msg00010.html
> > 
> > The "sh" arch in unstable has consisted of "Architecture: all" packages only
> > since then.
> 
> Even so you informed the porters it would have been nice to just drop a
> mail on -devel? Where is the problem in writing a mail to -devel? Going
> this way everybody would be informed and noone can complain afterwards.

I don't see what your problems is, really. the SuperH Packages.gz inside
Debian has been useless since many years. The real-life impact of the
change Anthony did is zero. Well, not zero -- it removes some megs from
every mirror that don't do any good anyway.

If you remove cruft from one of your packages, do you start notifying
developers on d-d-a?

This is exactly the same thing.

-- 
.../ -/ ---/ .--./ / .--/ .-/ .../ -/ ../ -./ --./ / -.--/ ---/ ..-/ .-./ / -/
../ --/ ./ / .--/ ../ -/ / / -../ ./ -.-./ ---/ -../ ../ -./ --./ / --/
-.--/ / .../ ../ --./ -./ .-/ -/ ..-/ .-./ ./ .-.-.-/ / --/ ---/ .-./ .../ ./ /
../ .../ / ---/ ..-/ -/ -../ .-/ -/ ./ -../ / -/ ./ -.-./ / -./ ---/ .-../
---/ --./ -.--/ / .-/ -./ -.--/ .--/ .-/ -.--/ .-.-.-/ / ...-.-/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about lesbians

[Christoph Haas]

On Sunday 15 January 2006 09:33, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 16:40:41 +, Roger Leigh said:
> > Andrew, do you understand just how inappropriate and offensive your
> > mail was?  Nothing justifies abuse of our lists like that.  d-d-a is
> > a widely-read list both inside and outside the project, and you have
> > done harm to our reputation.
>
> Actually, I don't. Can you please explain to me why the image
>  is offensive? I see such actions outside every airport and greyhound
>  station I have been to.

Roger didn't state that the "image" was offensive. Rather the "deliberate 
off-topicness" was. It could have dealt with any other 
not-even-remotely-connected-to-Debian topic and would have been equally 
inappropriate there.

 Christoph
-- 
Never trust a system administrator who wears a tie and suit.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Need for launchpad

[Hamish Moffatt]

On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 01:05:11PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 12:59:23AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 09:42:22AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > > On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > > > Um, I have said nothing against crediting maintainers in the
> > > > packages.  I have only said that I would like Ubuntu to clearly label
> > > > which is the Debian maintainer and which is the Ubuntu maintainer.
> > > There's no "Ubuntu maintainer" for a specific package... packages in
> > > Universe are sometimes uploaded by several different person. [...]
> > OK, but is listing the Debian maintainer as the only contact person
> > appropriate?
> > I've seem some forks of my packages in universe that I don't want
> > responsibility for, thanks.
> 
> Changing the Maintainer: field to be the MOTU list in that case seems pretty
> straightforward, no?

Indeed.


cheers,
Hamish
-- 
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Anthony Towns: What I did today

[Andreas Barth]

* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060115 10:00]:
> If you remove cruft from one of your packages, do you start notifying
> developers on d-d-a?

In case of the developers reference, I did.


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]

[Sami Haahtinen]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
>  It's also about false statements like "We sync our packages to Debian
> regularly," because that simply doesn't happen for quite a lot of us,
> otherwise all these heated discussions wouldn't happen.

They have their own timetable. They do their stabilization differently
than debian does. Ubuntu freezes the packages at a certain point in time
and only does manual syncs after that. "Regularly" could be once a year
and still be regular.

What do you want? decide which packages get to certain ubuntu release?
Didn't they just offer you that chance?

>>They are really investing time on the co-operation,
> 
>  If they were, why would there be so much fuss about it? Again, speaking
> for myself, I haven't noticed such a thing for myself, and there
> wouldn't be the need for utnubu if there were, don't you think so?

As i see it utnubu is the middle ground for debian and ubuntu people.
It's something that debian people want to do to keep up with Ubuntu. I
see utnubu as a good thing, it solves problems that the people behind
utnubu want to get solved. They decided to do the work instead of
throwing it back to Ubuntu and saying "It's your problem to make me
agree with you". As utnubu page says:
"We are about cooperation, not confrontation, with Ubuntu."

co-operation needs co-operation from both parties!

>>they are creating tools to help this. What are the Debian people
>>doing, they are bitching about Ubuntu people not putting their backs
>>in to it.
> 
>  Why should I pull something from Ubuntu? And find most of the time that
> there isn't anything to pull? Why does it work for Debian that Debian
> notifies its Upstream Developers, but not for Ubuntu to notify its
> Upstream Developers, which in this case is Debian?

You are not forced to pull anything from Ubuntu. But you should remember
that the packages that are being worked on outside of the ubuntu main
are maintained by a small group (when compared to the people in debian)
of people. They have limited time to push all changes to upstream and
usually the changes are just for the packaging anyway.

Also, you should remember that there are people that have said that they
don't want to be in contact with ubuntu. So it's not an easy thing to
notify debian people about the changes in their packages when some
people get offended by the notification itself. If you have a solution
for this, let me know. Or better yet, let the Ubuntu people know.

>>It takes less effort to bitch and moan than to work together, maybe
>>that's the reason.
> 
>  I ask you: Why should I try to work together with someone who didn't
> had at least the sign of coursey to notify people they base their work
> on about what they are doing, or at least _that_ they are doing it? If I
> don't know that they are doing it, why should I get the idea about that
> it might be a good idea to work with them? I know what of my packages
> are in Debian, and everyone can get a list quite easily through several
> different interfaces. In the mail this fuss is all about there is only
> one huge list which does have only package names, no maintainer, no
> nothing that allowes for easy usage of that list. It might be useful for
> people maintaining one single package, but for people with 10 or more
> it's getting annoying to have to pull the data out from there

You do realize that your work is out there for anyone to take and to
modify. I agree that for the modified packages it should be more clear
that the package has been modified by ubuntu and the maintainer or some
other field should reflect that. But again, some people are offended if
the maintainer field is changed to something ubuntu specific for the
modified packages. As before it's not an easy task, you get burnt if you
go either way.

And about pulling the changes, did you notice these:

Debian side:
http://packages.qa.debian.org/libm/libmetakit2.4.9.3.html
http://utnubu.alioth.debian.org/scottish/by_maint/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/large/

Ubuntu side:
https://launchpad.net/people/alfie/+packages

I had a hard time finding your packages that were modified in ubuntu, so
maybe that's something ubuntu people should work on. Other htan that,
you should easily be able to pull changes to your packages from there,
if you feel like it. A good indicator that your package has been
modifies in ubuntu is the string ubuntu in the package version.

- - S
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDyhVvqbb3MLg9dhwRAvL8AJ9vzE0ty0xoYyL4AIwfXbOMNenDygCeJK+R
SJQ1rFsd+05NYBbQmk3heao=
=kqhs
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Anthony Towns: What I did today

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 10:20:33AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060115 10:00]:
> > If you remove cruft from one of your packages, do you start notifying
> > developers on d-d-a?
> 
> In case of the developers reference, I did.

That's a bit of a special case, no?

-- 
.../ -/ ---/ .--./ / .--/ .-/ .../ -/ ../ -./ --./ / -.--/ ---/ ..-/ .-./ / -/
../ --/ ./ / .--/ ../ -/ / / -../ ./ -.-./ ---/ -../ ../ -./ --./ / --/
-.--/ / .../ ../ --./ -./ .-/ -/ ..-/ .-./ ./ .-.-.-/ / --/ ---/ .-./ .../ ./ /
../ .../ / ---/ ..-/ -/ -../ .-/ -/ ./ -../ / -/ ./ -.-./ / -./ ---/ .-../
---/ --./ -.--/ / .-/ -./ -.--/ .--/ .-/ -.--/ .-.-.-/ / ...-.-/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about lesbians

[Russ Allbery]

Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 11:19:37 -0800, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

>> Er, I thought it was offensive because it was sexist, not because
>> there's anything wrong with being lesbian.

> Umm, the fact that the phrase "You like looking at
>  hetrosexuals"  is sexist just flew below my radar.

I'm not sure this is the place, but, well, since several people have said
they didn't understand

The message that started all this is sexist because it ties into and
reinforces a presentation of women as sexual objects for men to stare at
in a context where this is entirely inappropriate.  It plays into the
conception of lesbians as eye-candy for men, thereby demeaning and
belittling a sexual choice in a way that isn't done to gay men.  It's
sexist because it specifically uses women in a sexual situation to make
its point, thus addressing readers differently depending on their gender
in a forum where gender should be irrelevant.  It's sexist because it
brings gender and sexual orientation into a context where there was
absolutely no reason to discuss it, in exactly the same way as making
jokes about lesbians in a professional workplace environment would.

That it wasn't intended as sexist, but rather was being used to make a
completely different point, actually makes it worse.  That such a message
would be considered appropriate to make that sort of point is an
expression of casual, subconscious sexism, rather than anything conscious.
It's exactly the sort of behavior that, in sum, across many such
supposedly "harmless" individual instances, makes professional technical
environments uncomfortable for women.

I don't mean to make a huge deal about this.  I'm only posting this
because you essentially asked, and because I think other people honestly
didn't get it and maybe someone will understand.  It is, by itself, not
particularly overwhelmingly horrible, and I expect pretty much everyone
who read it went "wow, that was stupid" and went on with their lives, but
it *is* the sort of thing that sets the wrong tone and over time, with
repetition, creates a more hostile environment.

(If you don't agree with me, please, please, *please* don't argue about it
here.  It's really not at all relevant to this mailing list, and talking
about it at length just makes it worse.  I promise I won't post any more
on the topic; I'm sure that we would all like to put the whole stupid
thing behind us and get back to doing the technical work that this mailing
list is actually for.)

-- 
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Preparing the m68k port for the future.

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 05:35:58PM +0100, Daniel Widenfalk wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> >On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 03:24:42AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> >
> >>On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 06:04:00PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> >>
> >>The fact you don't have anyone able to make a working cross-compiler
> >>speaks somewhat poorly of the support available for the m68k toolchain,
> >>too.
> >
> >
> >The issues with producing a working cross-compiler that I hit against
> >were not m68k-specific. Also, they may or may not have been fixed in the
> >mean time; I know for a fact that there is no updated toolchain-source
> >package available, but there've been a few upstream updates in the mean
> >time, and I didn't go out and check them anymore (since my previous
> >attempts failed)
> 
> Toolchain-source is currently being worked on and should soon be
> ready for testing and policy compiliance.

I know, I've seen your mails to -gcc (and other places). I'll add that
I'm grateful for that; the toolchain-source package really is helpful if
you need a cross-compiler, and I hate it that my cross-compilers have
been pushed off my laptop by a recent gcc update. Thanks for working on
this :-)

Just for clarity however, because there seems to be a significant amount
of confusion around this:

The recent changes to release policy have moved the responsibility of
making sure the toolchain works on every architecture from the toolchain
packages' maintainers to the porters. That's fine; it's only fair that
porters make sure the toolchain works on their port, but on the other
hand it does introduce work for us porters.

Starting to use a cross-compiler would, additionally, require us to make
sure the upstream cross-build system works, and keeps working; if at
some point it does not when there's a major gcc upgrade, we'll be in
deep trouble. This is a serious additional burden, one I don't agree
would be fair to expect of us; if our port would die because someone
upstream thought it would be better to release now with a broken build
system than to wait another five months to fix it, well.

See my problem?

-- 
.../ -/ ---/ .--./ / .--/ .-/ .../ -/ ../ -./ --./ / -.--/ ---/ ..-/ .-./ / -/
../ --/ ./ / .--/ ../ -/ / / -../ ./ -.-./ ---/ -../ ../ -./ --./ / --/
-.--/ / .../ ../ --./ -./ .-/ -/ ..-/ .-./ ./ .-.-.-/ / --/ ---/ .-./ .../ ./ /
../ .../ / ---/ ..-/ -/ -../ .-/ -/ ./ -../ / -/ ./ -.-./ / -./ ---/ .-../
---/ --./ -.--/ / .-/ -./ -.--/ .--/ .-/ -.--/ .-.-.-/ / ...-.-/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Need for launchpad

[Martin Meredith]

Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> I have only said that I would like Ubuntu to clearly label
> which is the Debian maintainer and which is the Ubuntu maintainer.

Thing is, in ubuntu - we don't neccesarily have "maintainers" for packages.

We use a collaborative process - anyone who had access can modify the
package. Basically - many many people can change a package, which can be
confusing for people.

Usually, there is someone you can contact regarding a specific package, and
it will either be dealt with by that person, or passed on to the relevant
person.

Personally, I used to use the ubuntu bugzilla to see who to contact
regarding a specific package, whoever the bug was assigned to was the
person to contact - but I'm not sure how to get that information now.

It's basically a fact that most people outside of ubuntu don't know the
structure within ubuntu of wo to contact about certain packages etc etc - I
know I've had problems myself, but usually, you will have a specific person
taking care of a package in main.

I think that this is a big problem, and could easily be solved by having
either proper QA contacts for packages, or at least having a list somewhere
of who to contact for what package.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: A standard location to find 'vmlinux' to use for oprofile

[Al Stone]

On Sun, 2006-01-15 at 02:47 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:39:55 +0900, Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 
> 
> > The remaining problem is that we don't really have a standard
> > location for 'vmlinux'.
> 
> How about /boot/vmlinux-$version ?

This feels like the right answer to me.  It's consistent with
the naming and using of the rest of the kernel's bits and pieces
(/boot/config-$version and so on).

> > It would be nice if it's possible to obtain the location information
> > somewhere, in a distribution-agnostic manner.
> 
> Since everyone dumps kernel iamges to /boot, it could also
>  serve as a location for the debugging version.
> 
> manoj
> -- 
> You can't hug a child with nuclear arms.
> Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
> 
> 
-- 
Ciao,
al
--
Al Stone  Alter Ego:
Open Source and Linux R&D Debian Developer
Hewlett-Packard Company   http://www.debian.org
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
--


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Andrew Suffield

[Adrian von Bidder]

Do you think your constant bitching is funny?  Do you think it achieves 
anything?

There are other DDs who are also involved in intense debates and flamewars 
very often, but you're the only one  where I constantly get the impression 
that you're just being childish, insulting and annoying for the sake of it.


pgpM5hcpfWdBg.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]

[Adrian von Bidder]

On Sunday 15 January 2006 10:27, Sami Haahtinen wrote:
> What do you want?

Bugs filed in Debian's bts, with the patches attached and the rationale why 
this patch is done.

Just like many DD work with upstream, by pushing non-Debian changes back 
actively, and not just saying 'all are changes are in debian/patches in the 
source package, grab them if you want'.

See also the recent thread about that interaction between some Debian user, 
some KDE upstream people and the KDE Debian maintainers, where things went 
not as smoothly as they could.  Exactly the same problem.

cheers
-- vbi

-- 
Could this mail be a fake? (Answer: No! - http://fortytwo.ch/gpg/intro)


pgpsj2ATaikVK.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]

[Michael Meskes]

> You do realize that your work is out there for anyone to take and to
> modify. I agree that for the modified packages it should be more clear
> that the package has been modified by ubuntu and the maintainer or some

And why isn't this done? It's so simple to do. I would prefer to know about MY 
package in ubuntu before some user contacts me.

> other field should reflect that. But again, some people are offended if
> the maintainer field is changed to something ubuntu specific for the
> modified packages. As before it's not an easy task, you get burnt if you
> go either way.

Wait a moment, just to clarify this, you mean if you take a Debian package 
change it for Ubuntu and let's say add your name to the maintainer field but 
also add an additional X-Debian-Mantainer field (for example) that lists the 
original maintainer, this will offend some fellow Debian maintainers? Anyone 
care to tell me why?

But still, I have no problem with my name in the Ubuntu packages, but I'd 
expect to know about this BEFORE it gets published. 

> And about pulling the changes, did you notice these:
> ...
> Ubuntu side:
> https://launchpad.net/people/alfie/+packages

Whow! No, noone ever told me that I have an entry there that looks like it is 
my entry but instead is created and kept up-to-date by someone else without 
even caring to tell me. Sorry, but this is not the way I would treat anyone.

> you should easily be able to pull changes to your packages from there,
> if you feel like it. A good indicator that your package has been
> modifies in ubuntu is the string ubuntu in the package version.

Right I just tried this, but found that I have to diff the diffs to find the 
changes. Or did I miss something.

Again, this is not against Ubuntu, the distribution, but I would expect a 
different treatment of upstream authors. I wrote some pieces of software that 
are available with all/most Linux distributions. Noone told me about this 
either, but I'm fine with it because they all tell people that I am the 
upstream and they did the packaging.

Michael
-- 
Michael Meskes
Email: Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org)
ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about lesbians

[Adrian von Bidder]

On Saturday 14 January 2006 18:16, Mike Bird wrote:

> There was nothing offensive about Andrew's message.

Context.

This debate is not at all about the content of Andrew's message.  Somebody 
tried to increase the cooperation between Debian and Ubunut in a well-meant 
effort (personally, while I found the message to be off-topic, Raphael gave 
justification why *he* did think it was appropriate.)  Instead of trying to 
discuss this reasonably (which some other people did), Andrew responded in 
the most provocative way he could find.  This is offensive.

cheers
-- vbi

-- 
featured link: http://www.pool.ntp.org


pgpqhpsuOUbgo.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: For those who care about lesbians

[Adrian von Bidder]

On Sunday 15 January 2006 09:31, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 01:44:06 +0100, Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > On Sunday 15 January 2006 00:47, Adam Heath wrote:
> >> In fact, both of the last 2 emails to d-d-a go against the AUP.
> >> Procedures should be started to punish the offenders.
> >
> > They are of a completely different order. One is an error of
> > judgement and "merely" off-topic, the other is intentionally
> > offensive and therefore unacceptable.

AOL.

> I am not sure I follow. What was "intentionally offensive"
>  about the second post? It did not seem pornographic to me.

Offensive not by its content, but from the context - that somebody can't 
just debate a point sensibly but has to take the most provocative way to 
react is what offends me here.

-- vbi

-- 
Today is Setting Orange, the 15th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3172


pgp7T0lmoRgw4.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Bug#348156: ITP: cableswig -- Generates Python and Tcl wrappers for C++ code (part of ITK)

[Gavin Baker]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Gavin Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1


* Package name: cableswig
  Version : 2.4.0
  Upstream Author : Brad King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.itk.org/HTML/CableSwig.html
* License : BSD-style, GPL
  Description : Generates Python and Tcl wrappers for C++ code (part of ITK)

CableSwig is used to create interfaces (ie. "wrappers") to interpreted
languages such as Python and Tcl.  It was created to produce wrappers
for ITK because the toolkit uses C++ structures that SWIG cannot parse
(deeply nested template instantiations).  CableSwig is a combination
tool that uses GCC_XML as the C++ parser.  The input files are Cable
style input files.  The XML files produced from Cable/GCC_XML input
files are then parsed and fed into a modified version of SWIG.  SWIG is
a software development tool that connects programs written in C and C++
with a variety of high-level programming languages.  It is used to
generate the language bindings to the target language.  Currently, Tcl
and Python are supported.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDyiGYgMaYJRCPYLsRAuCUAJ0WihmfVXFPVS689y3yQJ7TaazfCgCgs56M
4dcXrjvHokt3fQ7URtogOps=
=7O9P
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Apology for MIA, Retiring, RFA: x-symbol, xmix, oneko

[Adrian von Bidder]

[ retiring ]

Just in case you missed that part: if you want your account to be closed 
etc, please inform the keyring maintainer as per 

 
(and with a gpg-signed email, bug on dev-reference being filed.)

cheers
-- vbi

-- 
Available for key signing in Zürich and Basel, Switzerland
(what's this? Look at http://fortytwo.ch/gpg/intro)


pgpj4albFhCGu.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Andrew Suffield

[sean finney]

On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 11:58:51AM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> Do you think your constant bitching is funny?  Do you think it achieves 
> anything?
> 
> There are other DDs who are also involved in intense debates and flamewars 
> very often, but you're the only one  where I constantly get the impression 
> that you're just being childish, insulting and annoying for the sake of it.

...says someone who just publicly ostracized a fellow dd
on a public mailing list.  personal opinions of the matter aside,
debian-devel is not the place for ridiculing other developers, no
matter how justified you feel you may be. 

please post follow-ups to -private.

sean

-- 


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Need for launchpad

[Peter Samuelson]

[Martin Meredith]
> Thing is, in ubuntu - we don't neccesarily have "maintainers" for
> packages.
> 
> We use a collaborative process - anyone who had access can modify the
> package. Basically - many many people can change a package, which can
> be confusing for people.

Here's the thing: the Maintainer field in the package control file is
going to be the target of occasional support requests and related email
traffic, whether we like it or not.  Not everyone uses reportbug or
knows to email the appropriate BTS.  So if the Ubuntu package isn't
identical to the Debian package (or perhaps even if it is, since it's
meant to be run in a different environment that could cause or trigger
different bugs), ye Ubunts had best think of an appropriate address to
put in that field.  Even if it has to be something as general as
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

> Usually, there is someone you can contact regarding a specific
> package, and it will either be dealt with by that person, or passed
> on to the relevant person.

Even better.

> I think that this is a big problem, and could easily be solved by
> having either proper QA contacts for packages, or at least having a
> list somewhere of who to contact for what package.

Yeh, the "list somewhere" should be the Maintainer field of each
control file.  That's what it's there for.

And by the way, don't get hung up on whether "maintainer" is the right
noun for what I'm asking you to use it for.  We already have misnamed
fields in Debian control files, particularly "Uploaders", which really
means "Co-maintainers".


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Better communication between projects [Was: ad-hominem construct deleted]

[Sami Haahtinen]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Michael Meskes wrote:
>>other field should reflect that. But again, some people are offended if
>>the maintainer field is changed to something ubuntu specific for the
>>modified packages. As before it's not an easy task, you get burnt if you
>>go either way.
> 
> Wait a moment, just to clarify this, you mean if you take a Debian package 
> change it for Ubuntu and let's say add your name to the maintainer field but 
> also add an additional X-Debian-Mantainer field (for example) that lists the 
> original maintainer, this will offend some fellow Debian maintainers? Anyone 
> care to tell me why?

As far i understand, some people get offended by this too. Someone
suggested this in some earlier thread and AFAIR it got shot down too. I
agree that this would be the way to go. Or better yet, add a
Modified-By: field that tells us who modified the package.. No wait.. we
already have that! Is this a problem with the tools after all. Maybe we
should modify the tools to contact the person who last modified the package.

This doesn't fix the problem that the user might not know about this and
while looking at the description gets misguided. Maybe we need something
like 'dpkg --show-primary-contact ' That way we could even add
a separate field Preferred-Contact: (or something alike) that could
override the maintainer and modifier.

What do you think?

> But still, I have no problem with my name in the Ubuntu packages, but I'd 
> expect to know about this BEFORE it gets published. 

Yeah well, the damage has been done. Now it's time for damage control
and rebuilding.

Hopefully we and the next people who do this know better.

>>And about pulling the changes, did you notice these:
>>...
>>Ubuntu side:
>>https://launchpad.net/people/alfie/+packages
> 
> Whow! No, noone ever told me that I have an entry there that looks like it is 
> my entry but instead is created and kept up-to-date by someone else without 
> even caring to tell me. Sorry, but this is not the way I would treat anyone.

yeah, that page should mention that it's autogenerated. But basically
it's just indexing other data. I would assume that later on it will
index the debian archive too.

>>you should easily be able to pull changes to your packages from there,
>>if you feel like it. A good indicator that your package has been
>>modifies in ubuntu is the string ubuntu in the package version.
> 
> Right I just tried this, but found that I have to diff the diffs to find the 
> changes. Or did I miss something.

Atleast in the ubuntu version of the patch repo, they try to separate
packaging, changelog and other fixes. I wish they separated the
autotools modifications too (filtered out updated autotools and so on)
so that the rest of the changes would reflect the actual changes to the
package itself.

And apparently the utnubu repo uses the same logic :(

- - S
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDyjV8qbb3MLg9dhwRAm21AKDhkjE3SiijYO4DagrWa3hUTFoddwCeLaKe
gpblzezEAJYQuSbZ1RfJoCc=
=ukzQ
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about lesbians

[Brett Parker]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 11:03:37PM +, Brett Parker wrote:
> > Of course, the post to d-d-a about lesbians that then goes on state
>  
> > """
> > Don't post irrelevant stuff here. It would be a real shame if the list
> > had to be moderated because people can't exercise good judgement.
> > """
> > 
> > Seems to me that you really hadn't thought about what you were posting,
> > or where. That was not an appropriate place for the post, and you should
> > know better.
> 
> It looks to me rather like you missed the point of that mail, despite
> quoting it. What did you think the point was? Alternatively, what do
> you think is the correct mailing list for contacting (all of) the
> developers about appropriate use of d-d-a?

I didn't miss the point of the mail, the way the point was put across
however was wrong and unprofessional, or can you not see that? As others
have stated, d-d-a is not just read by debian developers, it has a
rather wider scope, it being an announcement list and all.

It would be rather good to see you behave a little more professionally
and a little less rashly in the future.

- -- 
Brett Parker
web:   http://www.sommitrealweird.co.uk/
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDyjihEh8oWxevnjQRAqzsAKCl1Bemy1UWv7NaFTArXpLL3WKkUQCfXaim
spUxnWCkay84maAW2+lwS2E=
=9cG3
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]

[Willi Mann]

But Windows security advisories don't contain debian packages. Ubuntu 
does contain close to all debian packages, and (I hope) most DDs have an 
interest to include improvements of other distributions in their 
packages (at least I do).



Maemo (from the Nokia 770 fame) contains Debian packages. But d-d-a is no
place to talk about it.


I don't think many packages can profit from Maemo. But I do think that 
many packages can profit from Ubuntu improvements.



d-d-a is the list where information that concers to and MUST be known by all
DDs is sent. It might be of more or less relevance for some of us, but is
definitely not a place for "if you are interested" stuff.


True, but Andrew Suffield's approach is destructive and his "Windows 
security advisories .." argument is not appropriate. The constructive 
approach is to point out on d-d, not d-d-a that the message does not 
really fit in the description of d-d-a, and to propose an alternative 
way to publish that kind information.



The change of experimental, the h0x3r that we got in out machines, changes on
infrastructure... those are the things. Ah! and of course, the release of
etch.


I just wanted to point out that the "completly irrelevant" argument is 
not really true. And if you try it the way round, by finding an 
appropriate mailing-list to post such information, you will probably end 
up @lists.debian.org anyway. AFAIK there's nothing like a 
debian-ubuntu-collaboration-announce list.


Willi


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Andrew Suffield

[Joerg Jaspert]

On 10535 March 1977, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> Do you think your constant bitching is funny?  Do you think it achieves 
> anything?

Do you think a constandt flaming on public lists is funny? Do you think
it achieves anything?

> There are other DDs who are also involved in intense debates and flamewars 
> very often, but you're the only one  where I constantly get the impression 
> that you're just being childish, insulting and annoying for the sake of it.

There are other DDs who want to go on with live and think this is
childisch, insulting and annoying.
Please take that to private mail, not public ones, it wont help anything
anywhere anyone.

-- 
bye Joerg
[Talking about Social Contract]:
We will not discriminate noone[...]
[So we discriminate anyone?]


pgpCGze4H9eRd.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Need for launchpad

[Hamish Moffatt]

On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 10:42:20AM +, Martin Meredith wrote:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > I have only said that I would like Ubuntu to clearly label
> > which is the Debian maintainer and which is the Ubuntu maintainer.
> 
> Thing is, in ubuntu - we don't neccesarily have "maintainers" for packages.

But that's a detail of your implementation, which isn't Debian's
concern. The important part is that you provide a contact address
(individual or mailing list etc) at Ubuntu, rather than simply falling
through to the Debian maintainer.


Thanks,

Hamish
-- 
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Canonical's business model

[Petter Reinholdtsen]

[David Nusinow]
> As far as I know this wasn't any corporate decision by Canonical to
> give back to Debian, but it was a personal decision by Daniel to
> help me (for which I'm immensely grateful).

I do not really understand this kind of reasoning.  I get the
impression that you see a difference in the people in organizations
cooperating and the organizations cooperating.  I'm not sure how you
imagine organizations cooperating, but as far as I know, they do so by
hiring people capable and willing to cooperate, and not prohibiting
them to do so.  And as far as I can see, that is what is happening
between Debian and Ubuntu.

We can and should (and obviously is) discuss the form the cooperation
takes, but claiming that Ubuntu and Debian isn't cooperating while the
people in those organizations are do not make sense to me.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Better communication between projects [Was: ad-hominem construct deleted]

[Peter Samuelson]

[Sami Haahtinen]
> like 'dpkg --show-primary-contact ' That way we could even
> add a separate field Preferred-Contact: (or something alike) that
> could override the maintainer and modifier.

"Preferred contact" is *exactly* what the Maintainer field means.
[Well, and the co-maintainers ("Uploaders") field, as a supplement.]

Debian people who have a problem with downstream changing the
Maintainer field need to get over themselves and think about whether
debian/changelog gives them all the credit they are owed.  (It
certainly does, unless it's been abridged.)


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Canonical's business model

[Hamish Moffatt]

On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 01:28:26PM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [David Nusinow]
> > As far as I know this wasn't any corporate decision by Canonical to
> > give back to Debian, but it was a personal decision by Daniel to
> > help me (for which I'm immensely grateful).
> 
> I do not really understand this kind of reasoning.  I get the
> impression that you see a difference in the people in organizations
> cooperating and the organizations cooperating.  I'm not sure how you
> imagine organizations cooperating, but as far as I know, they do so by
> hiring people capable and willing to cooperate, and not prohibiting
> them to do so.  And as far as I can see, that is what is happening
> between Debian and Ubuntu.

The difference, IMHO, is in whether the project has specifically
directed its members to co-operate (and whether it's paying for those
hours in the case of employees).

I might help people out with stuff relating to my day job (FPGA/VHDL
design fwiw), or even sneak some Debian work on company time, but that's
not the same as MyEmployer co-operating with Debian or whoever else.


Hamish
-- 
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Better communication between projects

[Roger Leigh]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> [Sami Haahtinen]
>> like 'dpkg --show-primary-contact ' That way we could even
>> add a separate field Preferred-Contact: (or something alike) that
>> could override the maintainer and modifier.
>
> "Preferred contact" is *exactly* what the Maintainer field means.
> [Well, and the co-maintainers ("Uploaders") field, as a supplement.]
>
> Debian people who have a problem with downstream changing the
> Maintainer field need to get over themselves and think about whether
> debian/changelog gives them all the credit they are owed.  (It
> certainly does, unless it's been abridged.)

Completely agreed.  While I don't object to occasional mails from
Ubuntu users, I don't generally have a proper Ubuntu contact (or list)
to point them to.  This would help a lot there, as well as preventing
the problem in the first place.

Another related problem I noticed the other day is that the Ubuntu
change history is lost when merging new packages from Debian unstable,
which makes it next to impossible for me to find out who last changed
it on the Ubuntu side.  This is because any changes to the Ubuntu
changelog are discarded, rather than being merged back into the Debian
changelog (though I can appreciate this is not an easy problem to
solve in an automated fashion).


Regards,
Roger

- -- 
Roger Leigh
Printing on GNU/Linux?  http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/
Debian GNU/Linuxhttp://www.debian.org/
GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848.  Please sign and encrypt your mail.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8+ 

iD8DBQFDykj3VcFcaSW/uEgRAgpmAJ46JgOU0QUZvaJVxUysEsnbswHtQwCcCiXj
D5q30j4oQpTi/sqrrQLm5vM=
=WOh2
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Need for launchpad

[Theodore Ts'o]

On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 12:04:46PM +0100, Thomas Hood wrote:
> I don't think that patches-submitted-to-the-BTS is a good way to
> measure how much Ubuntu is contributing to Debian.  Ubuntu's patches
> are readily available:
> 
> http://people.ubuntulinux.org/~scott/patches/

I looked at the patches for e2fsprogs, and I have to conclude that
unfortunately, they patches are worse than useless.  It's not clear
exactly what is being diffed against what, but if I had to guess it's
a diff of Debian stable or Debian testing versus the latest in Ubuntu
unstable --- or whatever is their development branch.  

Why do that say that?  Because the vast majority of the patch is my
own latest changes made to the Debian unstable package.  i.e., just to
show you a diff from changelog file:

diff -pruN e2fsprogs_1.38-1.1/debian/changelog 
e2fsprogs_1.38-2ubuntu1/debian/changelog
--- e2fsprogs_1.38-1.1/debian/changelog 2005-12-06 13:39:00.0 +
+++ e2fsprogs_1.38-2ubuntu1/debian/changelog2005-11-09 01:11:17.0 
+
@@ -1,3 +1,32 @@
+e2fsprogs (1.38-2ubuntu1) breezy; urgency=low
+
+  * Merge with Debian.  (Ubuntu #13757)
+  * Remove tests/f_bad_disconnected_inode/image.gz to be able to build the
+package.  This will (hopefully) be in the next upstream version and is
+just used for testing.
+
+ -- Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  Tue, 23 Aug 2005 10:42:10 +0200
+
+e2fsprogs (1.38-2) unstable; urgency=low
+
+  * Previous NMU acknowledged (Closes: #317862, #320389)
+  * Fix debugfs's set_inode_fields command so it doesn't silently fail
+when setting certain inode fields.
+  * Fix e2fsck from segfaulting on disconnected inodes that contain one or
+more extended attributes.  (Closes: #316736, #318463)
+  * Allow mke2fs and tune2fs to take fractional percentages to the -m
+option in mke2fs and tune2fs.  (Closes: #80205)
+  * Fix a compile_et bug which miscount the number of error messages if
+continuations are used in the .et file, and fix compatibility problems
+with MIT Kerberos 1.4
+  * Add extra sanity checks to protect users from unusual cirucmstances
+where /etc/mtab may not be sane, by checking to see if the device is
+reported busy (works on Linux 2.6) kernels.  (Closes: #319002)
+  * Fix use-after-free bug in e2fsck when finishing up the use of the
+e2fsck context structure.
+
+ -- Theodore Y. Ts'o <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  Sun, 21 Aug 2005 23:35:29 -0400
+



And on _top_ of that, we have all sorts of gratuitous autotools
changes.

This is roughly equivalent to submitting a patch to LKML with all
sorts of gratuitous whitespace cleanups mixed in with real,
substantive changes in a garguantuan monolithic patch, _and_ including
all of the changes between 2.6.14 and 2.6.15 in the patch that you
submit expecting the kernel developers to review it.  Go ahead, try
it.  I dare you.  :-)

> If they were submitted to the BTS then that would just create more work
> for the Debian maintainer as well as for the Ubuntu maintainer, since
> the former would have to tag the report and ensure it gets closed on
> the next upload, etc.  

I would much prefer that; at worse I can always close out the BTS
entry if I disagree with the patch with a wontfix.  But at least I
would see it.

- Ted


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Better communication between projects

[Reinhard Tartler]

On 1/15/06, Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Completely agreed.  While I don't object to occasional mails from
> Ubuntu users, I don't generally have a proper Ubuntu contact (or list)
> to point them to.  This would help a lot there, as well as preventing
> the problem in the first place.

Please tell them to use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for general
support questions. The developers of the 'main' component can be
reached at [EMAIL PROTECTED], for 'universe' packages the
developers can be reached at [EMAIL PROTECTED]

> Another related problem I noticed the other day is that the Ubuntu
> change history is lost when merging new packages from Debian unstable,
> which makes it next to impossible for me to find out who last changed
> it on the Ubuntu side.  This is because any changes to the Ubuntu
> changelog are discarded, rather than being merged back into the Debian
> changelog (though I can appreciate this is not an easy problem to
> solve in an automated fashion).
This is right. We are in general happy if we can reduce divergence,
and from time to time, ubuntu developers find that a introduced
divergence has become or is unneeded. In that case, we request syncing
over the new debian source package, overriding all ubuntu changes,
including the changelog for practical reasons.

So the best chance to see who uploaded a package and why seems to me
to be the maillinglist 'dapper-changes@lists.ubuntu.com' which works
similar to 'debian-devel-changes@lists.debian.org'.

I hope this mail was not too annoying for debian-devel.

--
regards,
Reinhard

Re: Better communication between projects

[Michael Meskes]

On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 01:07:05PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Completely agreed.  While I don't object to occasional mails from
> Ubuntu users, I don't generally have a proper Ubuntu contact (or list)
> to point them to.  This would help a lot there, as well as preventing
> the problem in the first place.

Right. I should also note that I got some very positive emails and
feedback from Ubuntu users. So, no, this is not neccessarily negative.

Michael
-- 
Michael Meskes
Email: Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org)
ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Better communication between projects

[Sami Haahtinen]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On 1/15/06, Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Completely agreed.  While I don't object to occasional mails from
>>Ubuntu users, I don't generally have a proper Ubuntu contact (or list)
>>to point them to.  This would help a lot there, as well as preventing
>>the problem in the first place.
> 
> Please tell them to use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for general
> support questions. The developers of the 'main' component can be
> reached at [EMAIL PROTECTED], for 'universe' packages the
> developers can be reached at [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Maybe we should gather this info in a wiki page (either on debian or
ubuntu wiki), that would make it easier to debian people to find this
information.

- - S
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDylniqbb3MLg9dhwRAnTgAJ9PhG0VMK3pQbot36hHxW/8M1KT3wCcCs9L
BDqchSp7CfdYZeWVMAHtFKo=
=YOOd
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: A standard location to find 'vmlinux' to use for oprofile

[Junichi Uekawa]

Hi,

> > > The remaining problem is that we don't really have a standard
> > > location for 'vmlinux'.
> > 
> > How about /boot/vmlinux-$version ?
> 
> This feels like the right answer to me.  It's consistent with
> the naming and using of the rest of the kernel's bits and pieces
> (/boot/config-$version and so on).

That would be fine by me.

It would be nice if Debian standard kernels also distribute the debug
symbols so that we can profile/debug.

regards,
junichi
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED],netfort.gr.jp}   Debian Project


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about lesbians

[Wesley J. Landaker]

On Sunday 15 January 2006 01:36, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 17:51:03 +, Roger Leigh 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Mike Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> On Sat, 2006-01-14 at 08:40, Roger Leigh wrote:
> >>> Andrew, do you understand just how inappropriate and offensive
> >>> your mail was?  Nothing justifies abuse of our lists like that.
> >>> d-d-a is a widely-read list both inside and outside the project,
> >>> and you have done harm to our reputation.
> >>
> >> There was nothing offensive about Andrew's message.
> >
> > It is offensive to many people, myself included.
>
> Err, that is a poor criteria. Some people are offended by
>  others wishing them a merry Christmas, preferring happy holidays
>  instead. And others are offended by the dilution of Christmas by
>  happy holidays.

Whether or not any particular individual is offended by the content of 
Andrew's post is less important than how it was INTENDED to be offensive 
and off-topic.

-- 
Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094  0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2


pgpIeJsGokdsd.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Need for launchpad

[Thomas Hood]

Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> I looked at the patches for e2fsprogs, and I have to conclude that
> unfortunately, they patches are worse than useless.  It's not clear
> exactly what is being diffed against what, but if I had to guess it's
> a diff of Debian stable or Debian testing versus the latest in Ubuntu
> unstable --- or whatever is their development branch.  


I have encountered that problem too---sometimes the patches are diffs
against the wrong version.


> And on _top_ of that, we have all sorts of gratuitous autotools changes.


I can't comment on your package.  I have seen changes in some packages
that looked gratuitious, but then I have been comforted by the thought
that the perpetrators of gratuitous changes are the ones who have to pay
the price for it, because they have to carry such changes forward.
-- 
Thomas Hood


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Apology for MIA, Retiring, RFA: x-symbol, xmix, oneko

[Steve McIntyre]

Steve Dunham wrote:
>
>I haven't had time for Debian in a long while - I've held on for a  
>while because I've enjoyed working for Debian, but I don't think I'll  
>find time again. Now I'm renovating a house and have switched to OSX,  
>so it's time I move on.
>
>I'm truly sorry that I have neglected my packages for so long.
>
>I'd like to offer these three packages for adoption: x-symbol, xmix,  
>and oneko.

I'll happily take xmix, as I use it myself...

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"I've only once written 'SQL is my bitch' in a comment. But that code 
 is in use on a military site..." -- Simon Booth


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#348206: ITP: ieee80211softmac -- IEEE 802.11 SoftMAC kernel module

[Rene Engelhard]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Rene Engelhard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

* Package name: ieee80211softmac
  Version : 20060114
  Upstream Authors:
 * Copyright (c) 2005 Johannes Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 *Joseph Jezak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 *Larry Finger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 *Danny van Dyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 *Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
* URL : http://softmac.sipsolutions.net
* License : GPL
  Description : IEEE 802.11 SoftMAC kernel module
 This package contains the kernel module for the IEEE 802.11 SoftMAC
 Wireless LAN stack.

[ of course it will be -source, -modules-x-y.z-a-blah like normal kernel
module packages ]
 
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: powerpc (ppc)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.15-1-powerpc
Locale: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (charmap=ISO-8859-15)


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#348207: ITP: bcm43xx -- Broadcom 43xx Wireless LAN driver module

[Rene Engelhard]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Rene Engelhard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

* Package name: bcm43xx
  Version : 20060108
  Upstream Authors:
  Copyright (c) 2005 Martin Langer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
 Stefano Brivio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 Danny van Dyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 Andreas Jaggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
* URL : http://bcm43xx.berlios.de
* License : GPL
  Description : Broadcom 43xx Wireless LAN driver module

 This package contains the kernel module for the Broadcom 43xx Wireless LAN
 driver

[ of course it will be -source, -modules-x-y.z-a-blah like normal kernel
module packages ]

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: powerpc (ppc)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.15-1-powerpc
Locale: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (charmap=ISO-8859-15)


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Trivial bug on apt-file (Was : Re: Development standards for unstable)

[Daniel Burrows]

On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 02:34:32PM +0900, Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
was heard to say:
> As stated by the Debian Policy Manual :
> 
> "The Depends field should be used if the depended-on package is required
> for the depending package to provide a significant amount of
> functionality."
> 
> and 
> 
> "The Recommends field should list packages that would be found together
> with this one in all but unusual installations."

  Something that may have been lost earlier in this thread is that apt-file
*does* Recommend curl.  The apt-file maintainer believes that it is useful
enough to install apt-file without curl to justify weaking that to a
Recommendation.  Unless you are going to discuss that point specifically,
the proper place to send your complaints is bug #42266.

  Daniel


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Aptitude question

[Daniel Burrows]

On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 11:41:25AM +0900, Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was 
heard to say:
> Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >   [0] alert readers will note that the caveat "if the user waits for a
> > sufficient amount of time" has to be added here; however, this is typically
> > much less than one second per solution on my hardware.
> 
> Er, what _is_ your hardware anyway?  Though I love the aptitude interface
> and functionality, I've noticed that on my home machine (not so fast, but
> not too bad with average software), normal aptitude operation has been
> getting more and more slothlike in recent times, to the point where I often
> just hit ^C to exit after upgrading, instead of waiting ages for all the
> "updating random stuff #11, very slowly... 2%" stuff to finish before I can
> type "q"

  At the moment I'm using a laptop with a Pentium 4 chip.  When you say that
normal operation is getting slower, do you mean just the load time or its
overall performance?  The time required to load in all the state files is
a bit long, but once they're loaded the program seems to run reasonably
quickly to me.

  The main thing that changed recently that would impact the program's speed
under normal use is the switch to using Unicode internally, which means that
many string manipulations take 4x as long, and input strings (e.g., from
package descriptions) have to be decoded before they're used.

  Daniel


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Apology for MIA, Retiring, RFA: x-symbol, xmix, oneko

[Steve Dunham]

On Jan 15, 2006, at 8:58 AM, Steve McIntyre wrote:


Steve Dunham wrote:


I haven't had time for Debian in a long while - I've held on for a
while because I've enjoyed working for Debian, but I don't think I'll
find time again. Now I'm renovating a house and have switched to OSX,
so it's time I move on.

I'm truly sorry that I have neglected my packages for so long.

I'd like to offer these three packages for adoption: x-symbol, xmix,
and oneko.


I'll happily take xmix, as I use it myself...



It's yours. I've already filed a wnpp bug (#348196) to orphan it.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: New experimental sysvinit

[Thomas Hood]

sysvinit 2.86.ds1-10 is now in incoming.  Along with udev 0.080-1 this
should fix the problem (/dev/pts not mounted early enough) that kept some
people from using bootlogd.  Beyond that, it is the latest of a string of
experimental releases.  The sysvinit team is hoping that it is not too
far off base in regarding this to be a candidate for release to unstable.
Again, TIA for testing it.
-- 
Thomas Hood


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Re: Canonical's business model

[Martin-Éric Racine]

Hi Matt,

Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 02:34:31PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Ubuntu could report in the BTS all the bugs it finds, and submit patches
> > via the BTS.

[...]

> Many patches are submitted via the BTS, though not every patch published in
> the patch archive is submitted this way, for reasons which have been
> discussed to death in previous threads.

I personally appreciate the excellent work done by Ubuntu. Just looking
at major GNOME improvements that directly resulted from Ubuntu efforts
(by Debian Developers such as Sébastien Bacher) clearly shows how Ubuntu
helps the free desktop evolve by leaps and bounds. 

What I think could be done in a significantly better way is for Ubuntu
to have an explicit commitment to always discuss with the "upstream"
Debian maintainer of a package before introducing an Ubuntu-specific
diff, especially in cases where the patch would likely benefit Debian. 

This could take the form of an extra paragraph in the Ubuntu community
pledge (I forgot exactly how it's called, sorry) that people must sign
before being allowed to contribute packages to Ubuntu. That paragraph
would state that:

1) diffs should be avoided unless absolutely necessary and 

2) such divergences from the Debian package must always be discussed
with the Debian maintainer and submitted as a patch to the BTS, before a
decision is made to fork. 

3) Debian should be treated as upstream, meaning that the Ubuntu
developer that decided to fork must track the Debian package and
contribute patches on a regular basis, just like the Debian maintainer
would with the upstream developer of software he packaged for Debian.

The explicit goal, in both cases, is to reduce diffs and streamline the
task of merging useful patches from Ubuntu.

Here's two examples of where such a course of action could have been
useful, taking two of my own packages as an example:

1) rus-ispell

Patched by doko to introduce a new upstream release. Never submitted to
the BTS and required asking #ubuntu-motu to manually sync to my recent
uploaded of an even newer upstream release, after repeated attempts to
contact doko failed to produce results.

2) numlockx

Patched by Reinhard Tartler to adjust compile paths for X.org 7.0 libs.
Never submitted to the BTS and unnecessary since, as pointed out by a
recent message from the X Task Force, the proper way to do this is to
relibtoolize against autoconf version greater than 2.59a-4.

Thus, I think that if Ubuntu placed an obligation upon its developers to
always try discussing with the Debian maintainer before patching, a lot
of unnecessary diffs could be avoided, just like in the above two cases.

Just my two bits.

Best Regards,
-- 
Martin-Éric Racine
http://q-funk.iki.fi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#348209: ITP: smbnetfs -- User-space filesystem for SMB/NMB (Windows) network servers and shares

[Sam Morris]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Sam Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

  Package name: smbnetfs
  Version : 0.3.2
  Upstream Author : Mikhail Kshevetskiy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  URL : http://smbnetfs.airm.net/
  License : GPL
  Description : User-space filesystem for SMB/NMB (Windows) network servers 
and shares

A user-space filesystem that contains an entire SMB/NMB network under a single
mount point. Workgroups, servers and shares can be browsed much like the
Network Neighbourhood in Microsoft Windows. If mounted at /mnt, files would
appear as /mnt/$workgroup/$server/$share/$file.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (530, 'testing'), (520, 'unstable'), (510, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.15-1-k7
Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Need for launchpad

[Russ Allbery]

Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I can't comment on your package.  I have seen changes in some packages
> that looked gratuitious, but then I have been comforted by the thought
> that the perpetrators of gratuitous changes are the ones who have to pay
> the price for it, because they have to carry such changes forward.

However, to the degree that the Ubuntu patches have these sorts of
gratuitous changes that shouldn't be merged with Debian, the patch
database quickly becomes useless.  The current patch system is only useful
if a maintainer can easily review it for changes that should be
incorporated in Debian, and nothing makes that impossible faster than
changes like autotools modifications.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Emphasize teams, not packages

[Frans Jessop]

	When somebody wants to become a DD he is told “Go find a package to 
maintain, one that you can be the maintainer for.”  I see serious problems 
with this approach as Debian increases in DD's.  I will how this is in a 
second.  What I think should be emphasized is “Go find a package team and 
join it and contribute and show your stuff.”


I think Debian needs to emphasize teams packaging, not just individuals for 
many reasons.


First, as the announcement just came a few days ago some are ignoring their 
bugs for months.  If a team was on the project that is less likely to 
happen.


Second, collaboration on ideas for individual packages, by those who are 
directly involved with the package, can occur making the future of the 
package better.


Third, Instead of always having the hard process of trying to get someone to 
adopt will go away for team members can take over.


Fourth, MIA's will not be as big a problem.

Fifth, more heads on a package are better than one

Sixth, those applying to be a DD will have worked along side a Developer who 
will better see “how this one contributes and fixes bugs.”


Seventh, It will increase teamwork. :)

Now for my hypothetical situation:

Future A:

There are now 10,000 DD's and over 100,000 packages, most nobody uses, they 
are just there because they were needed by people who wanted to become DD's. 
 Now that they are, those unused packages are ignored.  A major upload 
occures and now there are 30,000 bugs on the BTS.  Over 10,000 remain for 
months on these packages nobody cares about.  The media speculates Debian 
will never again be stable, look at the bugs!!!  Those who want to be DD's 
scramble for even more pointless packages, even more future bugs that will 
be ignored.  People that do wan to fix some bugs won't know how and will 
apply for help from those who know nothing about their package and could 
care less.  The bugs remain.  This DD goes MIA in frustration.


Future B.

There are now 10,000 DD's and 40,000 packages in Debian.  With that there 
are over 30,000 well established teams that collaborate on their package, 
with most DD's being a member of more than one team..  The 30,000 packages 
in Debian are the most requested in the Linux community.  New packages are 
added as RFP's come in.  Those who want to become DD's start by joining a 
team, especially being encouraged to join teams for existing packages where 
only 1-2 people are on that team.  They start attacking bugs on those 
packages. A major Upload happens, and there are 10,000 RC bugs!  Some team 
members are very busy that week but the other team members step in.  Others 
are confused how to fix the bug, but collaboration with other team members 
comes to the rescue.  Instead of taking several months to fix RC bugs it 
takes just over a month.  People aw as Debian releases a new stable so 
quickly with more packages than any other disto by far.  Team members have 
great ideas for the future of a package that couldn't have come to one man 
alone.  A person now applys to become a DD with the backing of multiple 
members from multiple teams.  Instead of Adoption lists and Orphaned 
packages we have lists of teams requesting more members.


Anyways I think you get the point,
   Cheers,
Frans

_
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® 
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Emphasize teams, not packages

[Bastian Venthur]

Frans Jessop wrote:

> First, as the announcement just came a few days ago some are ignoring
> their
> bugs for months.  If a team was on the project that is less likely to
> happen.

Hmm this already happens today with packages who *are* maintained by teams.

> Second, collaboration on ideas for individual packages, by those who are
> directly involved with the package, can occur making the future of the
> package better.

Hmm might be true for really big packages.
 
> Third, Instead of always having the hard process of trying to get someone
> to adopt will go away for team members can take over.
> 
> Fourth, MIA's will not be as big a problem.

The problem is, that not every tiny little package requires a team to
maintain it. And the big packages. like kernel, xorg, kde, ... already are
maintained by teams.
 
> Fifth, more heads on a package are better than one
> 
> Sixth, those applying to be a DD will have worked along side a Developer
> who will better see �how this one contributes and fixes bugs.�

But others can't be sure, that *all* New Maintainers meet the same
requirements and standards. Some NM might be lucky to find a DD who is
rather sloppy and might become a DD without much effort while others have
to work much harder (and learn much more) to become a DD.
 
> Seventh, It will increase teamwork. :)
> 
> Now for my hypothetical situation:
> 
> Future A:

Don't forget, that becoming a DD today takes at least a year -- and the
average DD contributes ~7years before leaving the project -- I don't think
that we will see 10.000 DDs in the near future. But what's more important:
I don't see a problem with *too much* packages, since unused packages
sooner or later disappear from the archive.

> 
> Future B.

Again, I think teams are not allways necessary, espeacially when we speak
about small packages. On the other side the big ones are usually already
maintained by teams.

But I agree that more teams in general would be a good idea since it happens
quite often that a bug gets not fixed because the only maintainer is on
vacation.


Kind regards

Bastian


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Need for launchpad

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 10:42:20 +, Martin Meredith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> I have only said that I would like Ubuntu to clearly label which is
>> the Debian maintainer and which is the Ubuntu maintainer.

> Thing is, in ubuntu - we don't neccesarily have "maintainers" for
> packages.

> We use a collaborative process - anyone who had access can modify
> the package. Basically - many many people can change a package,
> which can be confusing for people.

Could you then take my name off as being reponsible for
 software that this diverse group of people have modified, if the
 modifications are more than cosmetic?  Also, I would like the bug
 reports to be triaged and forwarded to me, so I know of problems in
 my work.

On the internet all you have is your reputation. Keeping my
 name on software that is different from what I have produced, and not
 telling me of problems people may have found in my product, harms my
 reputation.


manoj

-- 
A sine curve goes off to infinity, or at least the end of the
blackboard. Prof. Steiner
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Need for launchpad

[Mark Brown]

On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 11:03:06AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:

> However, to the degree that the Ubuntu patches have these sorts of
> gratuitous changes that shouldn't be merged with Debian, the patch
> database quickly becomes useless.  The current patch system is only useful
> if a maintainer can easily review it for changes that should be
> incorporated in Debian, and nothing makes that impossible faster than
> changes like autotools modifications.

I'd hope that when Ubuntu start using HCT[1] we will be able to get a
more useful unpacking of the changes Ubuntu have made.  Right now it
appears that what is published is a lightly processed diff between the
original package and the current Ubuntu version.  The lack of any
native ability to logically organise changes in Debian source pacakges
makes this a lot less useful than it might otherwise be - RPMs are a lot
more straightforward to cherry pick changes from.

Deploying Wig & Pen would also help, of course.

[1] https://wiki.launchpad.canonical.com/HCT

-- 
"You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever."


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Wig & Pen -- new source format roadmap?

[Lars Wirzenius]

su, 2006-01-15 kello 20:21 +, Mark Brown kirjoitti:
> Deploying Wig & Pen would also help, of course.

Speaking of which: what needs to happen for Wig & Pen (the new source
format) to be usable? Is it possible to get it to happen within etch?
What can we do to help with this?

-- 
Those who do, decide.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Joey Hess]

Leaving ubuntu out of this, what puzzles me about your message, Raphael,
is this:

Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> If you have some uploads pending, and would like to see those packages
> included [...]

> If for whatever reason you don't want to upload the new package to Debian
> directly [...]

This seems to assume that 

a) There might be a lot of Debian developers who have some upload ready
   to go but are sitting on them for some reason.
b) There might be a lot of Debian developers who are more interested in
   contributing to other distributions rather than Debian, or who don't
   know how to upload to experimental or something.

What I don't understand is why you'd think that either group is large
enough to warrant a post to d-d-a. Do Debian developers habitually delay
uploading packages that are ready to go? Is there some reason why Debian
developers who are no longer interested in contributing to Debian
shouldn't be shown the door?

-- 
see shy jo


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Need for launchpad

[Kevin Mark]

On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 08:34:33PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > I can't agree.  From the sound of this and other threads, there are a number
> > of folks who are unlikely to be satisfied with any behavior on the part of
> > the Ubuntu project or its members.  Fortunately, there are others who are
> > actively cooperating to the mutual benefit of the two projects.
> 
> Really, it's very easy.  I would be satisfied if both of the following
> were done:
> 
> Every time you find a bug in an Ubuntu package, make some effort to
> determine if it is Ubuntu-specific or might rather affect all Debian
> users.  If it is not Ubuntu-specific, then file a bug report, and
> optionally, a patch, in the Debian BTS.

Hi Thomas,
would it be usefull if the Ubuntu Maintainer would add a
'ubuntu-specific' usertag to those bugs in the Ubuntu BTS as a way of
telling Debian folks (as well as others) that they should not address
this bugs. 
Cheers,
Kev
-- 
counter.li.org #238656 -- goto counter.li.org and be counted!
  `$' $' 
   $  $  _
 ,d$$$g$  ,d$$$b. $,d$$$b`$' g$b $,d$$b
,$P'  `$ ,$P' `Y$ $$'  `$ $  "'   `$ $$' `$
$$ $ $$g$ $ $ $ ,$P""  $ $$
`$g. ,$$ `$$._ _. $ _,g$P $ `$b. ,$$ $$
 `Y$$P'$. `YP $$$P"' ,$. `Y$$P'$ $.  ,$.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Need for launchpad

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Kevin Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> would it be usefull if the Ubuntu Maintainer would add a
> 'ubuntu-specific' usertag to those bugs in the Ubuntu BTS as a way of
> telling Debian folks (as well as others) that they should not address
> this bugs. 

You aren't listening. Do not submit irrelevant bugs to the BTS.

DO submit all known bugs to the BTS which *are* relevant.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Need for launchpad

[Joey Hess]

Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> I looked at the patches for e2fsprogs, and I have to conclude that
> unfortunately, they patches are worse than useless.

Unfortunatly, it doesn't seem to help the situation in general to tell
Ubuntu this, although in specific cases raising a large enough stink
might result in some personal attention that results in some useful
patch for you.

> And on _top_ of that, we have all sorts of gratuitous autotools
> changes.

Be glad they didn't convert your package to use dbs, apply thousands on
lines of changes that were apparently taken from someone's diverging cvs
repository, but without any pointer to where the changes came from, or
file the resulting useless lump patch in the Debian BTS. All things that
Ubuntu has done for my packages.

-- 
see shy jo


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Need for launchpad

[Kevin Mark]

On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 09:42:22AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Um, I have said nothing against crediting maintainers in the
> > packages.  I have only said that I would like Ubuntu to clearly label
> > which is the Debian maintainer and which is the Ubuntu maintainer.
> 
> There's no "Ubuntu maintainer" for a specific package... packages in
> Universe are sometimes uploaded by several different person.

Hi Rapael,
So WHO exactly would you expect Ubuntu folks to think to email with
requests? The result by experience is Debian maintainers who for various
reasons don't wan't/expect/are confused by this. Maybe create an
'[EMAIL PROTECTED]' for the Maintainer: and
have a similar mailing list for bugs and then have any Ubuntu person
monitor and help on that list?

> Packages in
> Ubuntu main usually have the same set of maintainer however.
> 

Maybe create an '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' for the
Maintainer: and have a similar mailing list for bugs and then have any
Ubuntu person monitor and help on that list?
Cheers,
Kev
-- 
counter.li.org #238656 -- goto counter.li.org and be counted!
  `$' $' 
   $  $  _
 ,d$$$g$  ,d$$$b. $,d$$$b`$' g$b $,d$$b
,$P'  `$ ,$P' `Y$ $$'  `$ $  "'   `$ $$' `$
$$ $ $$g$ $ $ $ ,$P""  $ $$
`$g. ,$$ `$$._ _. $ _,g$P $ `$b. ,$$ $$
 `Y$$P'$. `YP $$$P"' ,$. `Y$$P'$ $.  ,$.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Bug#345091: ITP: checkgmail -- Alternative Gmail Notifier for Linux via Atom feeds

[Sandro Tosi]

> I looked at the homepage, and while this does appear useful, is it really
> nescessary to be packaged all by itself?
>
> Think about a collection package; I don't think debian should be overloaded
> with tons of single-program packages.

I'm getting used to package software for debian, and this seems an
easy one, so I'd like to package it anyway (at least will be in my
repository and not in debian ones).

But, what are collection package? how could I create one? (just curious).

Regards.

--
Sandro Tosi (aka Morpheus, matrixhasu)
My (little) site: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/

Re: Apology for MIA, Retiring, RFA: x-symbol, xmix, oneko

[Joey Hess]

Steve Dunham wrote:
> I haven't had time for Debian in a long while - I've held on for a  
> while because I've enjoyed working for Debian, but I don't think I'll  
> find time again. Now I'm renovating a house and have switched to OSX,  
> so it's time I move on.
> 
> I'm truly sorry that I have neglected my packages for so long.
> 
> I'd like to offer these three packages for adoption: x-symbol, xmix,  
> and oneko.

As the original maintainer of oneko, I'll be happy to take it back over
if noone else does.

-- 
see shy jo


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Need for launchpad

[Matthew Palmer]

On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 08:21:20AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> And on _top_ of that, we have all sorts of gratuitous autotools
> changes.

Let's not forget the random conversion of build systems -- dpatch seems to
be a favourite to rewrite perfectly functioning build systems into.

> This is roughly equivalent to submitting a patch to LKML with all
> sorts of gratuitous whitespace cleanups mixed in with real,
> substantive changes in a garguantuan monolithic patch, _and_ including
> all of the changes between 2.6.14 and 2.6.15 in the patch that you
> submit expecting the kernel developers to review it.  Go ahead, try
> it.  I dare you.  :-)

And please let me know if you try this, so I can watch from a safe distance.

- Matt


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Need for launchpad

[Joey Hess]

Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> This is only the latest expression of the same general discontent which has
> been rehashed again and again on this list.  A year ago it was "Ubuntu
> aren't contributing", then "Ubuntu aren't contributing in the right way",
> and now "Ubuntu aren't contributing in the way that they say that they are".
> Ubuntu hasn't significantly changed its practices; it is only the
> accusation which has changed over time.

Hmm, it seems to me that Ubuntu has recently changed its practices
regarding what degree of divergence from Debian is appropriate, notably
in the introduction of the MOTU group.

-- 
see shy jo


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: A standard location to find 'vmlinux' to use for oprofile

[Junichi Uekawa]

Hi,

> > > The remaining problem is that we don't really have a standard
> > > location for 'vmlinux'.
> > 
> > How about /boot/vmlinux-$version ?
> 
> This feels like the right answer to me.  It's consistent with
> the naming and using of the rest of the kernel's bits and pieces
> (/boot/config-$version and so on).

On thinking about it a bit more, however, it does also sound
reasonable to have it under /usr/lib/debug, along with other debug
symbols.  RedHat seems to have kernel-debuginfo package which places
the kernel in /usr/lib/debug/lib/modules/$(uname -r)/vmlinux, and
considering that many systems have a separate /boot with limited
partition size, it might be more ideal.

It is also possible to delete the whole /usr/lib/debug tree if it's
not needed.


regards,
junichi
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED],netfort.gr.jp}   Debian Project


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Re: Canonical's business model

[Reinhard Tartler]

On 1/15/06, Martin-Éric Racine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Many patches are submitted via the BTS, though not every patch published in
> > the patch archive is submitted this way, for reasons which have been
> > discussed to death in previous threads.
>
> What I think could be done in a significantly better way is for Ubuntu
> to have an explicit commitment to always discuss with the "upstream"
> Debian maintainer of a package before introducing an Ubuntu-specific
> diff, especially in cases where the patch would likely benefit Debian.
>
> This could take the form of an extra paragraph in the Ubuntu community
> pledge (I forgot exactly how it's called, sorry) that people must sign
> before being allowed to contribute packages to Ubuntu. That paragraph
> would state that:

I think you mean the ubuntu code of conduct. I think it is  out of its
scope, but I nevertheless really think they are good ideas.

> 1) diffs should be avoided unless absolutely necessary and

I completley agree with this.

> 2) such divergences from the Debian package must always be discussed
> with the Debian maintainer and submitted as a patch to the BTS, before a
> decision is made to fork.

This has been problematic in the past with some (unresponsive)
maintainers in the past. This, and the fact that ubuntu has strict
deadlines which are not easy break lead to the necessity, to introduce
hopfully temporary divergence. This is what I call 'unneeded
divergence', which should be avoided or even better fixed, where
possible.

> 3) Debian should be treated as upstream, meaning that the Ubuntu
> developer that decided to fork must track the Debian package and
> contribute patches on a regular basis, just like the Debian maintainer
> would with the upstream developer of software he packaged for Debian.
>
> The explicit goal, in both cases, is to reduce diffs and streamline the
> task of merging useful patches from Ubuntu.

This is what I'd also like to establish. There are practical reason,
why this is not acheivable in the near future: First, the line if a
patch is worth submitting is not sharp. Often, it is not clear if a
patch is really worth submitting to debian, or if the DD would be
rather annoyed. Second, many of us do not have the same training,
skill and experience as Debian Developers. So a misestimation about
the situation is not that unlikley. Third, the deadlines about freezes
do create in noticable abount of pressure to get a somehow working
package in the archive, even though it is technically not the best
solution. Forth, MOTUs are notorously understaffed.

That said, I completley agree that the universe team should make
'reducing divergence from debian' one of the top objectives. There are
indeed people (including me) working on improving workflows in order
to reduce divergence for the profit of both projects.

One first step could be indentifying the types of divergence we
introduced. After that, we (as in the motu team) can systematically go
through the package lists and work on reducing divergence.

> Here's two examples of where such a course of action could have been
> useful, taking two of my own packages as an example:
>
> 1) rus-ispell
>
> Patched by doko to introduce a new upstream release. Never submitted to
> the BTS and required asking #ubuntu-motu to manually sync to my recent
> uploaded of an even newer upstream release, after repeated attempts to
> contact doko failed to produce results.
>

The current procedure of syncing packages is via requesting them via
email or irc. As I understand this is going to change with the switch
of our infrastructure from katie to soyuz. This can faciliate issues
like this.

> 2) numlockx
>
> Patched by Reinhard Tartler to adjust compile paths for X.org 7.0 libs.
> Never submitted to the BTS and unnecessary since, as pointed out by a
> recent message from the X Task Force, the proper way to do this is to
> relibtoolize against autoconf version greater than 2.59a-4.

Right, I have to apoligize. That time, I didn't know about the
necesity about the autoconf/libtool issue, now I know better. In the
mean time, according to the changelog, the package looks to me
unnecessarily diverged. I think it should be synced on the next upload
to sid.

> Thus, I think that if Ubuntu placed an obligation upon its developers to
> always try discussing with the Debian maintainer before patching, a lot
> of unnecessary diffs could be avoided, just like in the above two cases.

(most) ubuntu developers are just like debian developers volunteers.
The code of conduct seems to be out of scope for such an obligation,
since it applies to all ubuntu members, not just developers. It should
be actively encouraged, though.

> Just my two bits.
Thank you for your analysis and suggestions, I found them very encouraging.

--
regards,
Reinhard

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Bill Allombert]

On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 10:27:31PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 01:26:25AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 11:35:24PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > > I believe Ubuntu fills an important gap in the Debian world and as such
> 
> > Ubuntu is not part of the Debian world, because it does not share the
> > values that found Debian.
> 
> That's kind of a strange position to take, isn't it?  Does this mean that

Why ? Ubuntu never claimed to be part of the Debian world.

> the many users who use Debian directly sheerly on technical excellence
> alone, without sharing Debian's "founding values", are not part of the
> "Debian world"? 

I would be surprised to see such users claiming to be part of the Debian
world, and anyway our standards are only relevant to distributions.

>   For that matter, I don't know of any derivative Debian
> distributions that require their developers to agree to the social contract;
> so by that standard, are *any* of them part of the "Debian world"?

I think at least the Custom Debian distributions qualify at least in intent.

Anyway, this question would be better answered by Raphael, since he is the
one who invented very publicly the expression 'part of the Debian world'. 

Cheers,
Bill.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Andrew Suffield

[Joe Wreschnig]

On Sun, 2006-01-15 at 06:28 -0500, sean finney wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 11:58:51AM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> > Do you think your constant bitching is funny?  Do you think it achieves 
> > anything?
> > 
> > There are other DDs who are also involved in intense debates and flamewars 
> > very often, but you're the only one  where I constantly get the impression 
> > that you're just being childish, insulting and annoying for the sake of it.
> 
> ...says someone who just publicly ostracized a fellow dd
> on a public mailing list.  personal opinions of the matter aside,
> debian-devel is not the place for ridiculing other developers, no
> matter how justified you feel you may be. 
> 
> please post follow-ups to -private.

I said this on -private, and I'll say it here -- why is it appropriate
to be an ass on -private, but not on -devel? It's not appropriate
anywhere. That goes for Adrian, and Andrew, and everyone. It also leads
to situations like the present, where it looks like we're doing nothing
to reprimand offensive behavior, because most conversation is happening
on -private, while the original, offensive message is sitting on d-d-a.

If you are upset by how Andrew acted, talk to him rationally, regardless
of whether it's public or private.

If you are *very* upset by how Andrew acted, there is an appropriate and
agreed-to policy for expelling developers. Roger Leigh has mentioned his
interest in seeing this through; contact him.
-- 
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Need for launchpad

[Theodore Ts'o]

On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 01:54:09PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Could you then take my name off as being reponsible for
>  software that this diverse group of people have modified, if the
>  modifications are more than cosmetic?  Also, I would like the bug
>  reports to be triaged and forwarded to me, so I know of problems in
>  my work.
> 
> On the internet all you have is your reputation. Keeping my
>  name on software that is different from what I have produced, and not
>  telling me of problems people may have found in my product, harms my
>  reputation.

While I don't disagree with this sentiment, keep in mind that Debian
itself is sometimes guilty of adding changes to packages when the
upstream may or may not approve.  Of course, we'll justify by saying
that "users want it", or that it is in "the best interests of the
users", but isn't that exactly the same excuse used by Ubuntu?

I can give a couple of examples; one is way back when, before I took
over the maintenance of the e2fsprogs package, and was merely the
upstream author.  The then maintainer of e2fsprogs attempted to add
support for filesystems > 2GB, but botched the job, and the result was
people with filesystems > 2GB would in some circumstances, get their
filesystems trashed.  Of course, those people complained directly to
me, and the reputation of e2fsprogs took a hit as a result.  I was
pissed, but I was informed there was nothing I could do; the
maintainer of the package can do whatever they want, upstream wishes
be d*mned, unless you try to go through a rather painful appeal
process via a then-relatively inactive technical committeee.

More recently, Fedora attempted to add on-line resizing, but botched
the job, so that if you attempted to use resize2fs (the off-line
resizing tool) on any filesystems created by Fedora, the result was a
corrupted filesystem.  Again, people complained directly to me, not to
Fedora, and I was upset, but there wasn't much I could do other than
clean up after the mess made by Fedora.

Of course, you can claim that the users should have complined directly
to their distribution, just as Ubuntu users should have complained to
Ubuntu, and not to the Debian maintainer --- but users are users, and
they tend not do that.  More generally, as long as distributions make
any changes to upstream code --- which is inevitable --- there is
always the risk of sullying the reputation of upstream.  We do when we
make changes to the upstream sources of our packages, so it's probably
fair to be a bit understanding when the roles are reserved and we are
the upstream and Ubuntu is the downstream.  After all, the stick in
one's own eye is always harder to see than the spec in another's

- Ted

P.S.  That doesn't change the fact that the I think the Ubuntu patches
are useless, and I'd generally much rather be trying to merge
distro-specific patches from Red Hat's RPM's than from Ubuntu's diff
files.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Need for launchpad

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Theodore Ts'o <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> While I don't disagree with this sentiment, keep in mind that Debian
> itself is sometimes guilty of adding changes to packages when the
> upstream may or may not approve.  Of course, we'll justify by saying
> that "users want it", or that it is in "the best interests of the
> users", but isn't that exactly the same excuse used by Ubuntu?

That's right.  

The objection is not to changes in Ubuntu.  The objection is to a
refusal to submit patches back.

> I can give a couple of examples; one is way back when, before I took
> over the maintenance of the e2fsprogs package, and was merely the
> upstream author.  The then maintainer of e2fsprogs attempted to add
> support for filesystems > 2GB, but botched the job, and the result was
> people with filesystems > 2GB would in some circumstances, get their
> filesystems trashed.  Of course, those people complained directly to
> me, and the reputation of e2fsprogs took a hit as a result.  I was
> pissed, but I was informed there was nothing I could do; the
> maintainer of the package can do whatever they want, upstream wishes
> be d*mned, unless you try to go through a rather painful appeal
> process via a then-relatively inactive technical committeee.

Actually, upstream maintainers have no voice before the technical
committee, which exists to resolve disputes between Debian developers,
not between Debian developers and outsiders.

The question here is *NOT* whether Ubuntu has good patches, but
whether they contribute back, via the BTS, patches which are relevant
to the Debian upstream.

Thomas


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]

[Gerfried Fuchs]

* Sami Haahtinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-15 11:27]:
> Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
>>  It's also about false statements like "We sync our packages to Debian
>> regularly," because that simply doesn't happen for quite a lot of us,
>> otherwise all these heated discussions wouldn't happen.
> 
> They have their own timetable. They do their stabilization differently
> than debian does. Ubuntu freezes the packages at a certain point in time
> and only does manual syncs after that. "Regularly" could be once a year
> and still be regular.
> 
> What do you want? decide which packages get to certain ubuntu release?
> Didn't they just offer you that chance?

 I want that they inform their upstream about changes they do to their
releases. This is what this whole fuzz is about. And I'm not the only
one. Why should some upstream developers who don't even know that they
are forked look around the net to find things that might be useful to
them? Shouldn't rather the people that fork try to get the changes back
into their upstream, to _ease their own work_? I mean... if they want to
keep their patches forever and want to stumble into problems every now
and then for taking a look why the patch doesn't apply anymore it's fine
with me. But, they are saying that "they" sync it back, not that I would
have to run around to most of the time find nothing That's not the
way it's supposed to work.

 What I want: If someone changes something, they are on the call anyway.
They know already that they changed something, what's so difficult to
inform the involved parties? Especially as long as they keep the
Maintainer field intact and let it look like the changes were done by
me? Yes, it's in the changelog, but keeping the Maintainer means that I
am still maintaining their fork, which I simply don't do since I have no
access to upload there.

> As i see it utnubu is the middle ground for debian and ubuntu people.
> It's something that debian people want to do to keep up with Ubuntu.

 Yes, because Ubuntu isn't able or willing or whatever to keep up with
Debian. It's still working the wrong way round, it's sort of
reverse-engineering for hardware, because they know what they changed
already, we have to work it out at first, just to find most of the
time... nothing.

> I see utnubu as a good thing, it solves problems that the people behind
> utnubu want to get solved. They decided to do the work instead of
> throwing it back to Ubuntu and saying "It's your problem to make me
> agree with you". As utnubu page says:
> "We are about cooperation, not confrontation, with Ubuntu."

 It's not about agreeing. It's about working on stuff that is unique in
the Free Software community: The people who are confronted with changed
things have to actively pull the changes back, not the way around it
works like everywhere else: That people who change something push it
back.

> co-operation needs co-operation from both parties!

 Again, like I mentioned, I never was addressed about cooperation, so I
never had the chance to turn it down. And I am very sure I'm not the
only one in that state.

> You are not forced to pull anything from Ubuntu.

 Uh? But this is what it is all about. I _am_ sort of forced because
they don't push their changes, like it would rather be expected.

> But you should remember that the packages that are being worked on
> outside of the ubuntu main are maintained by a small group (when
> compared to the people in debian) of people. They have limited time to
> push all changes to upstream and usually the changes are just for the
> packaging anyway.

 If they have limited time it should be in _their own_ interest to push
the changes back. Hell, have you never stumbled upon a patch that simply
doesn't apply anymore? It's a lot of work to take a look what's going
wrong now again, whereas it is next to no work sending a small mail with
"I changed this or that, maybe you'd like to take a look at it." It's
about investing into the future, but some people only seem to work only
for today. That's also the reason why we have so many duplicated
security advisories because people don't think about the future but only
copy stuff because it's the easier approach for now

> Also, you should remember that there are people that have said that they
> don't want to be in contact with ubuntu.

 So this counts for everyone now? I don't think that the people that
have said that they don't want to be in contact with ubuntu are the ones
complaining about not hearing from them. This would be very strange,
don't you think so?

> So it's not an easy thing to notify debian people about the changes in
> their packages when some people get offended by the notification
> itself.

 Why not? Either maintainer a list of bad-DDs or don't take it personal.
I also don't take it personal if my upstreams sort-of ignore me most of
the time. That doesn't mean that I don't contact them from time to time,
because I care about the users of those packages. If ubuntu rath

Re: Emphasize teams, not packages

[John Gee]

This must constitute the perfect post.  I too care about Debian's future.

_
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]

[Martin Langhoff]

On 1/15/06, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you can't understand sarcasm, why didn't you read the part for
> people who can't understand sarcasm?

debian-announce is not meant to play games. Someone made a (perhaps
honest) mistake, and were duly criticised. But you know the rules.

regards,


martin

Re: Aptitude question

[Miles Bader]

Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When you say that normal operation is getting slower, do you mean just
> the load time or its overall performance?  The time required to load
> in all the state files is a bit long, but once they're loaded the
> program seems to run reasonably quickly to me.

The really problematic thing is indeed the state-file loading time; it
seems to take 30 - 40 seconds on my machine (with no disk I/O as the
files are already cached by the kernel).

Normal operation is generally OK, though some searches (e.g. "~dfoo")
are so slow as to be almost useless -- especially given that it's
"i-search", so a super-slow search gets repeated for every key as you
type the search string!

>   The main thing that changed recently that would impact the program's speed
> under normal use is the switch to using Unicode internally, which means that
> many string manipulations take 4x as long, and input strings (e.g., from
> package descriptions) have to be decoded before they're used.

Do you know if the package/state files so large that it's really running
against fundamental memory bandwidth problems?  I've noticed (in my own
programs) that some standard C++ library code, e.g. reading from
io-streams, seems suspiciously slow (though I've not confirmed this with
measurements)...

Thanks,

-Miles

-- 
o The existentialist, not having a pillow, goes everywhere with the book by
  Sullivan, _I am going to spit on your graves_.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Dissection of an Ubuntu PR message

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 12:23:51PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> On 1/14/06, Kevin Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 03:03:14PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> > (...)
> > > Exactly my point Matthew, and calm down David, i wrote: "e.g.: David
> > > said that Daniel helped him, but if he did that in his workhours it's
> > > under Canonical bless.". Do you see ? I just pointed out that there's
> > > a possibility that he was helping you in his workhours, but i won't
> > > cite you as a reference anymore.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Gustavo Franco
> > Hi Gustavo,
> > Is it within the scope of Canonical employees to contribute code to
> > Debian that is under the his copyright and not Canonical's? And
> > especially since it is in the exact same area that he was employed by
> > Canonical to do?  Would this apply to Progeny and Debian, Progeny and
> > Canonical, Linspire and ...
> 
> Hi Kevin,
> 
> I think that Matt Zimmerman (mdz) knows the answer.

I'm not sure I understand the question, but if Kevin is asking whether code
contributions to Debian by Canonical employees are copyrighted by Canonical?
If so, the answer is "sometimes".

-- 
 - mdz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Need for launchpad

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 05:09:44PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Hmm, it seems to me that Ubuntu has recently changed its practices
> regarding what degree of divergence from Debian is appropriate, notably
> in the introduction of the MOTU group.

The MOTU team was formed about a week after the first release of Ubuntu, in
October 2004.

-- 
 - mdz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Need for launchpad

[Theodore Ts'o]

On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 03:12:33PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Actually, upstream maintainers have no voice before the technical
> committee, which exists to resolve disputes between Debian developers,
> not between Debian developers and outsiders.

Indeed.  And likewise, we have absolutely no control over what Ubuntu
chooses to distribute, either.

> The question here is *NOT* whether Ubuntu has good patches, but
> whether they contribute back, via the BTS, patches which are relevant
> to the Debian upstream.

Actually, Manoj raised the issue of not wanting his name on packages
being modified by a committee since bugs may harm his reputation.  I
have in the past had my reputation harmed by people who screwed up
e2fsprogs at various distributions.  And there was absolutely nothing
I could do about it.  As you pointed out, before I became a DD
developer, I had absolutely no standing whatsoever to protest someone
who screwed up my package and damaged my reputation.  

So if that's our formal distribution of power between our upstreams
and our Debian Developers, why are we complaining about how Ubuntu
treats us?

- Ted


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

making more packages binary NMU safe

[Ken Bloom]

I noticed that glabels is broken on i386 because it's not binary NMU
safe, and someone did a binary NMU.

After poking around a bit, I found
http://lists.debian.org/debian-dpkg/2005/11/msg0.html, which
discussed a possible solution to this problem. Since then, we have
changed the version number format for binary NMUs, so I wanted to submit
a patch (based on the one mentioned previously) to allow the creation
more binNMU safe packages.

This patch should patch /usr/lib/dpkg/controllib.pl in dpkg-dev.

--- controllib.pl.old   2006-01-15 22:50:55.0 -0600
+++ controllib.pl   2006-01-15 22:55:33.0 -0600
@@ -241,6 +241,11 @@
 &parsecdata('L',0,"parsed version of changelog");
 close(CDATA); $? && &subprocerr("parse changelog");
 $substvar{'Source-Version'}= $fi{"L Version"};
+#Indep-Version is for supporting binary NMUs when a strict
+#version dependancy is required against an arch independant package
+$substvar{'Indep-Version'}= $fi{"L Version"};
+#strip out the +bN format binary NMU version suffix
+$substvar{'Indep-Version'} =~ s/\+b[0-9]+$//;
 }

This patch adds the Indep-Version substitution variable, which will be
the version number on the arch-independant packages corresponding to the
current verision of the other binary packages.

I'm not sure where to submit this, or whether there's a bug open for it
already, so I'm submitting this here.

--Ken Bloom

-- 
I usually have a GPG digital signature included as an attachment.
See http://www.gnupg.org/ for info about these digital signatures.


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Need for launchpad

[Kevin Mark]

On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 01:36:43PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Kevin Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > would it be usefull if the Ubuntu Maintainer would add a
> > 'ubuntu-specific' usertag to those bugs in the Ubuntu BTS as a way of
> > telling Debian folks (as well as others) that they should not address
> > this bugs. 
> 
> You aren't listening. Do not submit irrelevant bugs to the BTS.
> 
> DO submit all known bugs to the BTS which *are* relevant.
Hi Thomas,
I think you mis-read my mail, I was asking Ubuntu folks to label the
Ubuntu-specific bugs in the Ubuntu BTS, not in the Debian BTS.
Cheers,
Kev
-- 
counter.li.org #238656 -- goto counter.li.org and be counted!
  `$' $' 
   $  $  _
 ,d$$$g$  ,d$$$b. $,d$$$b`$' g$b $,d$$b
,$P'  `$ ,$P' `Y$ $$'  `$ $  "'   `$ $$' `$
$$ $ $$g$ $ $ $ ,$P""  $ $$
`$g. ,$$ `$$._ _. $ _,g$P $ `$b. ,$$ $$
 `Y$$P'$. `YP $$$P"' ,$. `Y$$P'$ $.  ,$.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Does it sometimes happen that people send mails before NMU ?

[Mike Hommey]

There have been 2 NMUs on libxml2 in a week and I never got a message
beforehand. Now I wonder if that practice has disappeared somehow.

I admit I've not spent enough time for libxml2 recently, but still, I
wouldn't have been bothered by some poking beforehand.

Moreover, I'm not exactly sure the second NMU has indeed removed all
problematic content but the bug is closed, so the NMUer may be happy.
Ah, by the way, the bug was not even a problem for package propagation
to testing, so that doesn't make the propagation an argument for a quick
upload.

No thanks

Mike


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#348300: ITP: pywireless -- basic wireless connection monitor with DCOP support

[Marcela Tiznado]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Marcela Tiznado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


* Package name: pywireless
  Version : 3.2 
  Upstream Author : S.Çaglar Onur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://svn.uludag.org.tr/viewcvs/PyWireless/
* License : GPL
  Description : basic wireless connection monitor for KDE

A nice wireless connection monitor for KDE.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.12-1-686
Locale: LANG=en_US, LC_CTYPE=en_US (charmap=ISO-8859-1)

Re: Need for launchpad

[Raphael Hertzog]

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006, Kevin Mark wrote:
> > There's no "Ubuntu maintainer" for a specific package... packages in
> > Universe are sometimes uploaded by several different person.
> 
> Hi Rapael,
> So WHO exactly would you expect Ubuntu folks to think to email with
> requests? The result by experience is Debian maintainers who for various
> reasons don't wan't/expect/are confused by this. Maybe create an
> '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' for the Maintainer: and
> have a similar mailing list for bugs and then have any Ubuntu person
> monitor and help on that list?

Hi,

Packages from Universe are maintained by the MOTU and they have a mailing
list: ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com

If the decision to override the Maintainer field is taken, it should
probably be replaced with that list.

Cheers,
-- 
Raphaël Hertzog

Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Does it sometimes happen that people send mails before NMU ?

[Eric Dorland]

* Mike Hommey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> There have been 2 NMUs on libxml2 in a week and I never got a message
> beforehand. Now I wonder if that practice has disappeared somehow.
> 
> I admit I've not spent enough time for libxml2 recently, but still, I
> wouldn't have been bothered by some poking beforehand.
> 
> Moreover, I'm not exactly sure the second NMU has indeed removed all
> problematic content but the bug is closed, so the NMUer may be happy.
> Ah, by the way, the bug was not even a problem for package propagation
> to testing, so that doesn't make the propagation an argument for a quick
> upload.
> 
> No thanks
> 
> Mike
> 
> 

To quote Andreas Barth:

> However, we need to start *now* to give the RC-bug count some more
> attention.  This means also that we're going to start again an
> everlasting BSP: For RC-bugs, you can upload 0-days NMUs for RC-bugs
> open for more than one week.  However, you are still required to
> notify the maintainer via BTS before uploading.  And of course, you
> need to take care of anything you broke by your NMU.

So if they didn't notify you through the BTS and/or the bugs were open
for less than a week, then let the chastisement commence!

-- 
Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C  2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6

-BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ 
O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ 
G e h! r- y+ 
--END GEEK CODE BLOCK--


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Need for launchpad

[Raphael Hertzog]

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006, Joey Hess wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > This is only the latest expression of the same general discontent which has
> > been rehashed again and again on this list.  A year ago it was "Ubuntu
> > aren't contributing", then "Ubuntu aren't contributing in the right way",
> > and now "Ubuntu aren't contributing in the way that they say that they are".
> > Ubuntu hasn't significantly changed its practices; it is only the
> > accusation which has changed over time.
> 
> Hmm, it seems to me that Ubuntu has recently changed its practices
> regarding what degree of divergence from Debian is appropriate, notably
> in the introduction of the MOTU group.

But this evolves constantly... for me it looks like it's evolving again in
the other direction as the MOTU discover how difficult it is to maintain so
many diverged packages. Of course, not every MOTU share that opinion but I
see a growing number who are concerned by this.  

Nobody is perfect.

Cheers,
-- 
Raphaël Hertzog

Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Does it sometimes happen that people send mails before NMU ?

[Steve Langasek]

Hi Mike,

On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 07:47:52AM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> There have been 2 NMUs on libxml2 in a week and I never got a message
> beforehand. Now I wonder if that practice has disappeared somehow.

> I admit I've not spent enough time for libxml2 recently, but still, I
> wouldn't have been bothered by some poking beforehand.

> Moreover, I'm not exactly sure the second NMU has indeed removed all
> problematic content but the bug is closed, so the NMUer may be happy.
> Ah, by the way, the bug was not even a problem for package propagation
> to testing, so that doesn't make the propagation an argument for a quick
> upload.

The first bug shows a message from the NMUer apologizing for not sending his
patch beforehand.  The second bug shows a patch sent by the NMUer prior to
the NMU.  Did you not receive these mails?

> Moreover, I'm not exactly sure the second NMU has indeed removed all
> problematic content but the bug is closed, so the NMUer may be happy.
> Ah, by the way, the bug was not even a problem for package propagation
> to testing, so that doesn't make the propagation an argument for a quick
> upload.

Well, no, but the fact that it's a longstanding release-critical bug, with
no maintainer response, means that it does warrant NMUer attention.  If some
non-free files have been missed in the process, that would be bad, but that
doesn't seem to be a reason to not try?  Of course, it's your prerogative as
maintainer to review the contents of the NMU for correctness before
acknowledging the bug closure.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.debian.org/


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature