On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 05:33:33PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Sunday 22 January 2006 03:16, David Weinehall wrote:
>
> > Since all Ubuntu packages are recompiled against a different set of
> > libraries, the bug might not even affect the Debian package, even though
> > they share the same sou
Paul Johnson writes:
> Given Ubuntu hopelessly complicates everything, pretends there is
> cooperation where there is none, and merely duplicates the effort of the
> debian-desktop project, and contributes nothing to the community or
> society...
Do you have evidence to support this, or is it just
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 05:33:33PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Sunday 22 January 2006 03:16, David Weinehall wrote:
> > Since all Ubuntu packages are recompiled against a different set of
> > libraries, the bug might not even affect the Debian package, even though
> > they share the same sourc
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 05:33:33PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Sunday 22 January 2006 03:16, David Weinehall wrote:
>
> > Since all Ubuntu packages are recompiled against a different set of
> > libraries, the bug might not even affect the Debian package, even though
> > they share the same sou
On Sunday 22 January 2006 03:16, David Weinehall wrote:
> Since all Ubuntu packages are recompiled against a different set of
> libraries, the bug might not even affect the Debian package, even though
> they share the same source. Hence having Ubuntu developers triage the
> bugs to rule out such
[David Weinehall]
> Since all Ubuntu packages are recompiled against a different set of
> libraries, the bug might not even affect the Debian package, even though
> they share the same source.
The same can be said about Debian architectures, when the autobuilder
build the packages at different ti
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 02:26:57AM -0800, Scott Ritchie wrote:
[snip]
> In the case of such a package, the same fixes by the Debian maintainer
> to the Debian package do end up in the contents of the Ubuntu package
> when it gets resynched.
>
> Now, before I confuse myself with word games and cont
On Sat, 2006-01-21 at 01:53 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same thing, however. Most of
> > the packages in universe are maintained only by the Debian maintainer, and
> > propagated unmodified into
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 03:44:12AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 01:53:26AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same t
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 01:53:26AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same thing, however. Most of
>> > the packages in universe are maintained only by the
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 01:53:26AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same thing, however. Most of
> > the packages in universe are maintained only by the Debian maintainer, and
> > propagated unmodifie
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And unsurprisingly, it, too, doesn't have a straightforward answer. If a
> user reports such a bug to Ubuntu, it is approximately the domain of the
> MOTU team, in that they triage those bugs (on a time-available prioritized
> basis, across the entire
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same thing, however. Most of
> the packages in universe are maintained only by the Debian maintainer, and
> propagated unmodified into Ubuntu. It is only when there is a specific
> motive to change the pack
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 10:46:51AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:24:57PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:20:33AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > > In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same thing, however. Most of
> > > the packages in u
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 10:54:40AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:35:55PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Arg, and to make matters worse, this discussion is CCed to a
> > closed-moderated-list, Matt, this is really not a friendly way to have a
> > conversation.
>
> I didn'
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 01:40:11PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 08:31:44AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > All you'll get is the loud minority having a whinge then, no matter what the
> > outcome.
>
> It will certainly beat the hell out of continuing this thread.
It wil
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 08:31:44AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> All you'll get is the loud minority having a whinge then, no matter what the
> outcome.
It will certainly beat the hell out of continuing this thread.
--
- mdz
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "u
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 12:41:49PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 07:13:31AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:20:33AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > > By way of example, the Debian maintainer is equipped to answer questions
> > > like "why is the
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 07:13:31AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:20:33AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:08:38PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > I keep hearing this, but I really don't believe it. In Debian,
> > > "Maintainer"
> > > means
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:20:33AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:08:38PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > I keep hearing this, but I really don't believe it. In Debian, "Maintainer"
> > means "An individual or group of people primarily responsible for the
> > on-going w
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:35:55PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Arg, and to make matters worse, this discussion is CCed to a
> closed-moderated-list, Matt, this is really not a friendly way to have a
> conversation.
I didn't add the CC to ubuntu-motu, nor the one to debian-project. I've
merely par
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:24:57PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:20:33AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:08:38PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > I keep hearing this, but I really don't believe it. In Debian,
> > > "Maintainer"
> > > means "A
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:24:57PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:20:33AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same thing, however. Most of
> > the packages in universe are maintained only by the Debian maintainer, and
>
> The thing
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:20:33AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:08:38PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > I keep hearing this, but I really don't believe it. In Debian, "Maintainer"
> > means "An individual or group of people primarily responsible for the
> > on-going w
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:08:38PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> I keep hearing this, but I really don't believe it. In Debian, "Maintainer"
> means "An individual or group of people primarily responsible for the
> on-going well being of a package". As I understand it, in Ubuntu, the MOTUs
> hav
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 12:10:54AM +0100, JanC wrote:
> On 1/17/06, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > How about renaming Maintainer to Debian-Maintainer in Ubuntu's binary
> > packages, and having a specific Ubuntu-Maintainer?
>
> This should probably happen in a way that all (or most
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:47:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> In any case, I want to note what has just happened here. You received
>> a clear, easily implemented, request about what would be a wonderful
>> contribution, and which is (from th
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Why is it now important to you that the version numbers be changed,
>> > though? This is only an issue when mixing packages between different
>> > derivatives, which already breaks in other subtle ways, so I'm not very
>> > much inclined to try to u
Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Do you really think users who fail to notice an "Origin" tag from
> apt-cache, and believe they're above using reportbug, will notice an
> "-ubuntuN" suffix in the version number? I don't. I think you are
> arguing on abstract philosophical grounds r
On 1/17/06, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How about renaming Maintainer to Debian-Maintainer in Ubuntu's binary
> packages, and having a specific Ubuntu-Maintainer?
This should probably happen in a way that all (or most) Debian-derived
distro's agree on then.
And one more problem:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:47:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> In any case, I want to note what has just happened here. You received
> a clear, easily implemented, request about what would be a wonderful
> contribution, and which is (from the Debian perspective) entirely
> non-controversia
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:08:32PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 03:00:53PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > I believe there are still packages which break when bin-NMU'd (e.g.,
> > Depends: = ${Source-Version}), and there are parts of our infrastructure
> > which do not su
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 02:21:06AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> Do you really think users who fail to notice an "Origin" tag from
> apt-cache, and believe they're above using reportbug, will notice an
> "-ubuntuN" suffix in the version number? I don't. I think you are
> arguing on abstract phi
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 03:00:53PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 02:47:05PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Ok, then I must have misunderstood something. So it is clear then
> > that Ubuntu does recompile every package.
>
> To clarify explicitly:
>
> - Ubuntu does
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Christian Perrier wrote:
>
> > It is the great danger of this thread that Matt et al. will feel
> > sufficiently put upon that they *don't* take to heart the legitimate
> > suggestions that could improve cooperation between Debian and Ubuntu (and
> > "distinguishing version nu
> It is the great danger of this thread that Matt et al. will feel
> sufficiently put upon that they *don't* take to heart the legitimate
> suggestions that could improve cooperation between Debian and Ubuntu (and
> "distinguishing version numbers for binaries" being by far the least of
> these).
Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Do you really think users who fail to notice an "Origin" tag from
> apt-cache, and believe they're above using reportbug, will notice an
> "-ubuntuN" suffix in the version number?
Actually it seems fairly likely that they would -- version numbers are
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 02:21:06AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> [Thomas Bushnell BSG]
> > Since you don't do bin-NMU's, you could simply alter the version of
> > every package to add an "ubuntu" tag, and then be done with it,
> > right? That would work well and be very easy to implement.
> Yo
[Thomas Bushnell BSG]
> Since you don't do bin-NMU's, you could simply alter the version of
> every package to add an "ubuntu" tag, and then be done with it,
> right? That would work well and be very easy to implement.
You are so hung up on this point, it's not even funny.
Do you really think u
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 05:57:49PM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> mdz writes:
> > It is considered to be in poor taste to report bugs to bugs.debian.org
> > which have not been verified on Debian...
>
> I should think that in most cases by the time you've produced a patch that
> fixes a bug in an Ubu
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:47:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> > I believe there are still packages which break when bin-NMU'd (e.g.,
>> > Depends: = ${Source-Version}), and there are parts of our
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:47:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I believe there are still packages which break when bin-NMU'd (e.g.,
> > Depends: = ${Source-Version}), and there are parts of our infrastructure
> > which do not support them (Ubu
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I believe there are still packages which break when bin-NMU'd (e.g.,
> Depends: = ${Source-Version}), and there are parts of our infrastructure
> which do not support them (Ubuntu doesn't do bin-NMUs).
That's correct. These are bugs, and should be r
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 05:57:49PM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> mdz writes:
> > It is considered to be in poor taste to report bugs to bugs.debian.org
> > which have not been verified on Debian...
> I should think that in most cases by the time you've produced a patch that
> fixes a bug in an Ubuntu
On 1/18/06, Mike Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 11:04, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > On 1/18/06, Mike Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > What please is the difference between a buildX package and all the
> > > other packages that were rebuilt without the buildX annotation?
mdz writes:
> It is considered to be in poor taste to report bugs to bugs.debian.org
> which have not been verified on Debian...
I should think that in most cases by the time you've produced a patch that
fixes a bug in an Ubuntu package you would be able to tell whether or not
the bug is likely to
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 02:47:05PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Ok, then I must have misunderstood something. So it is clear then
> that Ubuntu does recompile every package.
To clarify explicitly:
- Ubuntu does not use any binary packages from Debian
- Most Ubuntu source packages are iden
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:18:22AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Oh. There might be a misunderstanding: No binary package is taken from
>> > debian, only source packages. This means that EVERY
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:18:22AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Oh. There might be a misunderstanding: No binary package is taken from
> > debian, only source packages. This means that EVERY package is being
> > rebuilt in ubuntu on buildds
On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 11:04, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On 1/18/06, Mike Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What please is the difference between a buildX package and all the
> > other packages that were rebuilt without the buildX annotation?
>
> It is quite similar to what debian calls a binary N
On 1/18/06, Mike Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 05:29, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > Oh. There might be a misunderstanding: No binary package is taken from
> > debian, only source packages. This means that EVERY package is being
> > rebuilt in ubuntu on buildds, including arc
Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm in line with David. Thomas, if you care about the topic, you must be
> interested in convincing the one who can make a change on Ubuntu's policy.
> And the person in question is Matt. If you scare your only interlocutor
> with Ubuntu, then you can
Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tuesday 17 January 2006 16:54, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>> > You have not ever shown a serious interest in what Debian would like.
>>
>> This is, again, insulting, and nonsensical in the face of the repeated
>> dialogues I have initiated and participated
Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Oh. There might be a misunderstanding: No binary package is taken from
> debian, only source packages. This means that EVERY package is being
> rebuilt in ubuntu on buildds, including arch: all packages. The output
> of apt-cache shows the field 'Orig
Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 1/18/06, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > As pointed out several times, the source package in the ubuntu archive
>> > is NOT different to the source package in the debian archive. The
>> > binary package have been rebuilt in an differ
On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 05:29, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Oh. There might be a misunderstanding: No binary package is taken from
> debian, only source packages. This means that EVERY package is being
> rebuilt in ubuntu on buildds, including arch: all packages. The output
> of apt-cache shows the fiel
On 1/18/06, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As pointed out several times, the source package in the ubuntu archive
> > is NOT different to the source package in the debian archive. The
> > binary package have been rebuilt in an different environment, which
> > can caus different depen
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 12:06:19PM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On 1/18/06, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:47:35AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > > On 1/17/06, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > 1) No changes rebuild-only upload shoul
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 12:06:19PM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On 1/18/06, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:47:35AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > > On 1/17/06, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > 1) No changes rebuild-only upload shoul
On 1/18/06, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:47:35AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > On 1/17/06, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 1) No changes rebuild-only upload should still be versionned so that we
> > > do not end up with two .deb with th
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:47:35AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On 1/17/06, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 1) No changes rebuild-only upload should still be versionned so that we
> > do not end up with two .deb with the same version but different
> > contents. Rebuilding a packag
On 1/17/06, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1) No changes rebuild-only upload should still be versionned so that we
> do not end up with two .deb with the same version but different
> contents. Rebuilding a package with a newer toolchain can cause
> different dependencies and bugs.
In
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:58:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> > I'm quickly losing interest in discussing this with you at all, to be
> >> >
On Tuesday 17 January 2006 16:54, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > You have not ever shown a serious interest in what Debian would like.
>
> This is, again, insulting, and nonsensical in the face of the repeated
> dialogues I have initiated and participated in with Debian developers
> regarding Ubuntu pra
David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:58:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > If that were true, you wouldn't be having this conversation with me. It is
>> > costing me an unreasonable amount of time to deal
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:58:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > If that were true, you wouldn't be having this conversation with me. It is
> > costing me an unreasonable amount of time to deal with this trivial issue,
> > and I've spent a di
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 09:25:40AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > Personally, I'd suggest:
> > * for unmodified debs (including ones that have been rebuilt, possibly
> >with different versions of libraries), keep the Maintainer: field the
> >same
> Joey Hess and others in this thread hav
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:58:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > If that were true, you wouldn't be having this conversation with me. It is
> > costing me an unreasonable amount of time to deal with this trivial issue,
> > and I've spent a di
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If that were true, you wouldn't be having this conversation with me. It is
> costing me an unreasonable amount of time to deal with this trivial issue,
> and I've spent a disproportionate amount of it going in circles with you.
> I'm quickly losing int
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:05:35PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > That simply isn't true, and taken at face value, it's insulting, because you
> > attribute malicious intent.
>
> Um, I have said nothing about your intent.
>
> I think you are d
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 12:37:15PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > In my opinion, it's much more practical and reasonable for there to be an
>> > agreement on consistent treatment of all packages,
Le mardi 17 janvier 2006 à 12:46 -0600, Adam Heath a écrit :
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> > > What I find very dissapointing is that mdz asked on debian-devel twice
> > > for a decision from debian how ubuntu should handle the maintainer Field
> > > without any luck:
> > > http:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 12:37:15PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > In my opinion, it's much more practical and reasonable for there to be an
> > agreement on consistent treatment of all packages, than for each Debian
> > derivative to try to ple
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 11:07:40AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> CC:ing -project because this is a project wide call for discussion.
>
> Am Montag, den 16.01.2006, 18:36 -0500 schrieb Joey Hess:
> > Please consider ALL code written/maintained by me that is present in
> > Ubuntu and is not bit-i
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In my opinion, it's much more practical and reasonable for there to be an
> agreement on consistent treatment of all packages, than for each Debian
> derivative to try to please individual maintainers with differing tastes on
> this subject.
Your strat
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 07:01:42PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 09:25:40AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> [snip]
> > There will always be differing personal preferences, but in spite of these,
> > there are times when an organization needs to take an official position on
Joey Hess wrote:
> FYI, I refuse to allow the fact that my code happens to be present in
> a currently perceived as high profile distribution to hold my time
> hostage. I've never done it before with other high profile distributions
> (Corel's mangling of alien comes to mind), and I won't start no
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > What I find very dissapointing is that mdz asked on debian-devel twice
> > for a decision from debian how ubuntu should handle the maintainer Field
> > without any luck:
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/01/msg00678.html
> > http://lists.de
* Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > * for unmodified debs (including ones that have been rebuilt, possibly
> >with different versions of libraries), keep the Maintainer: field the
> >same
>
> Joey Hess and others in this thread have said that this is not acceptable to
> them.
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Joey Hess wrote:
> Please consider ALL code written/maintained by me that is present in
> Ubuntu and is not bit-identical to code/binaries in Debian to be not
> suitable for release with my name on it.
Then how would d-i+debconf have gotten some of the enhancments that you
yo
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 09:25:40AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
[snip]
> There will always be differing personal preferences, but in spite of these,
> there are times when an organization needs to take an official position on
> behalf of its members, even if they don't all agree, so that other
> or
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 11:07:40AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> What I find very dissapointing is that mdz asked on debian-devel twice
> for a decision from debian how ubuntu should handle the maintainer Field
> without any luck:
[...]
> This is a call for discussion: What does debian actually
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 09:58:28AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > What I find very dissapointing is that mdz asked on debian-devel twice
> > for a decision from debian how ubuntu should handle the maintainer Field
> > without any luck:
>
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 09:45:13PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 11:07:40AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > There have been no responses which would indicate what we should do.
>
> Actually, there've been lots, some of them are just contradictory.
There was a lot of dis
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 09:45:13PM +1000, Anthony Towns
wrote:
> * for changes that are likely to be useful in Debian or generally, submit
>the change upstream, by filing a bug with a minimal patch included to
>bugs.debian.org, or by the appropriate mechanism further upstream.
s/or/and/
Am Dienstag 17 Januar 2006 11:07 schrieb Reinhard Tartler:
> Am Montag, den 16.01.2006, 18:36 -0500 schrieb Joey Hess:
> > Please consider ALL code written/maintained by me that is present in
> > Ubuntu and is not bit-identical to code/binaries in Debian to be not
> > suitable for release with my n
* Reinhard Tartler [Tue, 17 Jan 2006 11:07:40 +0100]:
> What I find very dissapointing is that mdz asked on debian-devel twice
> for a decision from debian how ubuntu should handle the maintainer Field
> without any luck:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html
Yah, zero lu
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 11:07:40AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> CC:ing -project because this is a project wide call for discussion.
(-project is for discussion about the project, not for "project wide"
stuff; dunno if this fits that)
> What I find very dissapointing is that mdz asked on debia
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> What I find very dissapointing is that mdz asked on debian-devel twice
> for a decision from debian how ubuntu should handle the maintainer Field
> without any luck:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/01/msg00678.html
> http://lists.debian.org
CC:ing -project because this is a project wide call for discussion.
Am Montag, den 16.01.2006, 18:36 -0500 schrieb Joey Hess:
> Please consider ALL code written/maintained by me that is present in
> Ubuntu and is not bit-identical to code/binaries in Debian to be not
> suitable for release with my
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Not really... it happens quite often that I plan on working on a new
> upstream version (or whatever) but for various reasons, I do not prioritze
> it much because I know I will do it in time for etch... however I may be
> interested to have that better version in Ubuntu as
Matthew Palmer wrote:
> It's a hell of a lot better than having useless crap with your
> name on it in a stable release of something as high profile as Ubuntu,
> though.
FYI, I refuse to allow the fact that my code happens to be present in
a currently perceived as high profile distribution to hol
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Not really... it happens quite often that I plan on working on a new
> upstream version (or whatever) but for various reasons, I do not prioritze
> it much because I know I will do it in time for etch...
I think that nearly anyone on the release team will tell you that thi
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 08:51:12AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Hello Joey,
>
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2006, Joey Hess wrote:
> > 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
Hello Joey,
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006, Joey Hess wrote:
> 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
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 p
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 see
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
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 i
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
>>
1 - 100 of 115 matches
Mail list logo
