> Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> You seem to require a standard of attribution in the Maintainer field
> >> that Debian does not itself follow in our default procedures. To wit:
> >> NMUs _within_ Debian keep the Maintainer field unchanged.
> >
> >
However, if you were to request it - either through a member of core-dev -
or through the person who last updated the package, then as long as
yourdebian package worked exactly as it is intended to in ubuntu - I'm sure
they'd not have a problem with syncing and using your package from debian.
The
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scripsit Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> If they are also compiled with a toolchain unchanged from Debian,
>> the binaries can legitimately have the same Maintainer: field as in
>> Debian, because they are essentially the same package.
>
>> I
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 12:12:39PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >You seem to require a standard of attribution in the Maintainer field
> >that Debian does not itself follow in our default procedures. To wit:
> >NMUs _within_ Debian keep the Maintain
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You seem to require a standard of attribution in the Maintainer field
>that Debian does not itself follow in our default procedures. To wit:
>NMUs _within_ Debian keep the Maintainer field unchanged
Good point. If Ubuntu wishes to keep the Maintainer f
Scripsit Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> If they are also compiled with a toolchain unchanged from Debian,
> the binaries can legitimately have the same Maintainer: field as in
> Debian, because they are essentially the same package.
> If not, the binary packages should have different Main
Nathanael Nerode writes:
> Then the *source* packages can legitimately use the same Maintainer: field.
> If they are also compiled with a toolchain unchanged from Debian, the
> binaries
> can legitimately have the same Maintainer: field as in Debian, because they
> are essentially the same pack
In response to your request for replies to
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html:
>1. Most of the source packages in Ubuntu are inherited from Debian
> unchanged (example: tetex-base).
Then the *source* packages can legitimately use the same Maintainer: field.
If they are
On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 05:54:01PM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> 1. Most of the source packages in Ubuntu are inherited from Debian
>unchanged (example: tetex-base).
>
> 2. Some source packages in Ubuntu are modified relative to Debian. These
>are assigned a version number of the form
>
On Friday 06 May 2005 02:54, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
[ thanks for this summary ]
> Given the above, the relevant questions would seem to be:
>
> If a binary package is built by a third party from unmodified Debian
> sources, should its Maintainer field be kept the same as the source
> package,
Perhaps it would help if I explained the current mode of operation for
Ubuntu, as compared with other Debian derivatives. At the end of this
message, I'll restate the questions at hand in this context.
Ubuntu is a distribution based on Debian.
1. Most of the source packages in Ubuntu are inherit
On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 11:56:45AM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> >The question of whether modified source should have the Maintainer field
> >changed is a reasonable subject for discussion, but in your particular
> >case, both of the source packages listed at
> >https://launch
12 matches
Mail list logo
