Kevin Mark:
> Also, I was checking packages.ubuntu.com -> dapper -> base
> utils->bash->view Debian changelog and it was a dead link.
If you change the 'packages' in the URL to 'changelogs'
it works. I mailed Frank Lichtenheld about this yesterday.
-- Shot
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL P
I wrote:
> Suppose Ubuntu were to cease claiming[0] that it gives back to Debian.
> Would everyone be happy then? I doubt it.
>
> [0] Here: http://ubuntu.com/ubuntu/relationship?highlight=%28debian%29
> there's a claim that "they send their bugfixes to the Debian developers
> responsible for that
On 1/19/06, Kevin Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > you could check changelogs.ubuntu.com which holds changelog and
> > copyright files of the packages.
> Hi Reinhard,
> are the changelogs on changelogs.ubuntu.com only from stable releases or
> do they include testing/dapper? Also, I was checking
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 03:47:15PM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On 1/17/06, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As it is, to me, Ubuntu is just a group of people, some of which might
> > have names[1]. I find it hard to work with such a
On 1/17/06, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As it is, to me, Ubuntu is just a group of people, some of which might
> have names[1]. I find it hard to work with such a thing; while I would
> love to work more closely with Ubuntu, the lack of personality is what's
> holding me back---and
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 10:34:57AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 06:52:10PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > It'd probably be great if Ubuntu would set up (or, if it already exists,
> > advertise) some way to have a canonical way (no pun intended) to contact
> > the Ubuntu
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 06:52:10PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 04:04:09PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > The ratio of Debian developers to upstream developers is *much* closer to
> > 1:1 than the ratio of Ubuntu developers to Debian developers,
>
> Obviously; but stil
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 04:04:09PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> The ratio of Debian developers to upstream developers is *much* closer to
> 1:1 than the ratio of Ubuntu developers to Debian developers,
Obviously; but still, I'd appreciate it if people responsible downstream
for my packages would
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes ("Re: Need for launchpad"):
> Actually, upstream maintainers have no voice before the technical
> committee, which exists to resolve disputes between Debian developers,
> not between Debian developers and outsiders.
This is not true. Constitution s6
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 06:58:47PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > 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
>
I have replied to the implied ad-hominem in Matt's mail privately, but I
would like the state here that I didn't appreciate it.
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> I think that you're looking for justification for your position after the
> fact, rather than making judgements based on observations.
I've written at length in my blog before about the mess that Ubuntu
made of packages that I maintain in Debian. This mess seemed to become
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The ratio of Debian developers to upstream developers is *much* closer to
> 1:1 than the ratio of Ubuntu developers to Debian developers, but even so,
> my guess (based on at least some empirical observation of packages I'm
> familiar with) is that many
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 06:58:47PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > 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
>
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 06:44:42PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> It's amazing how the Debian project manages to communicate fixes to
> an even more diverse set of upstream authors, isn't it.
I would be interested to know how you've measured this, because it sounds
hard. It's only because Ubuntu publ
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> 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 for
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> Only Debian developers can push changes into Debian, and indeed only
> particular Debian developers can push particular changes into Debian.
> Routing patches through this mesh involves a lot of overhead, especially in
> the form of latency. It's commonplace in Debian to wa
On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 01:08:41AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 12:34:51PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > can easily spot the holes in it. Likewise, a proposal that Ubuntu
> > developers should put their changes into Debian instead sounds simple, but
> > to an Ubuntu de
Theodore Ts'o <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 12:44:01AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> I think this is not quite true. In any case, my recollection was that
>> the bad cooperation was a two-way street, with you being extremely
>> reluctant to acknowledge the concerns
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 12:06:29PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > 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
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 12:44:01AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> I think this is not quite true. In any case, my recollection was that
> the bad cooperation was a two-way street, with you being extremely
> reluctant to acknowledge the concerns and needs of distributions, and
> on the other s
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> 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
Theodore Ts'o <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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 outsi
On 1/16/06, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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"
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",
> >
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
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 t
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
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 r
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
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 f
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 t
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 roug
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
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 i
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 irrel
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
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
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 "mainta
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
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 Ub
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 pat
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
[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 Mai
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 modif
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 crediti
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 Ubun
Heya Hamish,
On 1/14/06, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On a related note, it seems to me that the existence of the "MOTU" team,
> as non-core Ubuntu developers who are also not Debian developers,
> encourages more packages to be forked. Those developers can't make
> direct Debian upl
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 li
Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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 maintaine
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 03:53:51PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 05:49:40PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> > I don't buy this. The impression that just about everyone has of this
> > didn't come from nowhere.
>
> Not from nowhere, no. The statements that Ubuntu "steals use
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > 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 fork
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 12:34:51PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> can easily spot the holes in it. Likewise, a proposal that Ubuntu
> developers should put their changes into Debian instead sounds simple, but
> to an Ubuntu developer is obviously impractical.
Could you elaborate on this? It's not
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
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
Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> While I'm sure there'll be some people who'll complain no matter what,
>> I don't see what the problem with mailing patches directly to the BTS
>> is. As far as tracking is concerned, making use of "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
>> usertags or similar would se
> While I'm sure there'll be some people who'll complain no matter what,
> I don't see what the problem with mailing patches directly to the BTS
> is. As far as tracking is concerned, making use of "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
> usertags or similar would seem sensible.
Silly question, probably, but wouldn
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 03:53:51PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > "First, Ubuntu contributes patches directly to Debian"
> The word "directly" is somewhat misleading here; in general, Ubuntu
> developers are not allowed (by Debian) to make any change "directly" to
> Debian. I will suggest that
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 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.
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 o
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It doesn't say that Ubuntu fixes ALL Debian bugs, or any other absolute. It
> does say that Ubuntu submits bug fixes to Debian through the BTS, and there
> are in fact hundreds of such fixes in debbugs today.
Does Ubuntu do so for every bug it fixes,
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
David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> http://www.ubuntulinux.org/ubuntu/relationship
>
> "Sponsored by Canonical, the Ubuntu project attempts to work with
> Debian to address the issues that keep many users from using Debian."
> ...
> "When Ubuntu developers fix bugs that are also pr
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 07:19:53PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Which group, pray, do you categorize me into?
You, Manoj, are in a category all your own.
--
- mdz
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:53:51 -0800, Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 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 o
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ubuntu, while its license policy is somewhat less strict than the DFSG,
> is not drifting into closed-source software. It's virtually unchanged
> since the project's inception.
The policy and development may be virtually unchanged since the project's
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 05:49:40PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> I don't buy this. The impression that just about everyone has of this
> didn't come from nowhere.
Not from nowhere, no. The statements that Ubuntu "steals users from
Debian", "wants to kill Debian", etc. came from somewhere, too, bu
On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 10:19:50AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 01:14:18PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > Some things that it does say:
>
> [...]
>
> > - Ubuntu submits fixes for Debian bugs to the Debian BTS including a patch
> > URL
>
> If that said "sometimes" or
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 01:14:18PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> Some things that it does say:
[...]
> - Ubuntu submits fixes for Debian bugs to the Debian BTS including a patch
> URL
If that said "sometimes" or "some people within Ubuntu", it would be
correct. Not every relevant patch ends
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 03:41:08PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I'm not at all surprised that Ubuntu is drifting into closed-source
> software, as this is a standard development path for a company based
> around free software. I'm not upset. I'm simply not interested, and
> consider that path to
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 01:14:18PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> The trouble is that those expressing this opinion seem to have
> misunderstandings about what has actually been said. They talk about what
> is said "proudly", that Ubuntu is "crowing" or "bragging" about "giving
> back", that it co
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 03:19:09PM +0100, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
> But at the moment I've seen lots of comments by maintainers saying that in
> most cases it's currently more work to find out if there's any usefull
> bits in the diffs between debian-ubuntu packages, then to do the work
>
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 05:08:33PM +0100, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
> as documented experience by maintainers who've tried that shows, this is
> inefficient enough that reimplementing is mostly faster (and definately
> more attractive, as it involves less drudgework)
This is at best an e
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 07:48:56AM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> Why? Don't we expect users to decide which of their local changes are
> suitable for Debian? I sometimes make local changes to Debian packages.
> Sometimes I send patches to the BTS and sometimes I decide that the change
> is only rel
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 12:41:29AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Now, it may be that this is an unrealistic pipe dream on my part that's
> incompatible with Ubuntu's goals/release schedule, but it seems to me that
> everyone involved would get more mileage out of the "giving-back" process if
> the
...
> Suppose Ubuntu were to cease claiming[0] that it gives back to Debian.
> Would everyone be happy then? I doubt it.
Is your goal to make everybody happy or be truthful?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Friday 13 January 2006 16:27, Thomas Hood wrote:
> John Hasler wrote:
> > I can't see how putting up patches on a Web site is better than
> > (or even as good as) filing bug reports.
>
> The web site requires less labor to maintain than hundreds of bug
> reports.
for Ubuntu that's true, for the
John Hasler wrote:
> I can't see how putting up patches on a Web site is better than
> (or even as good as) filing bug reports.
The web site requires less labor to maintain than hundreds of bug reports.
> Again, why should Ubuntu's patches be handled any differently than
> those of other users?
On Friday 13 January 2006 12:04, Thomas Hood wrote:
> I agree that it would be nice if Ubuntu developers tried to get their
> changes into sid. It is certainly not their responsibility to do so,
It isn't? Presumably they're that ones that want to remain close to Debian
(as any divergence means m
Thomas Hood writes:
> 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.
That's exactly how I want to handle m
Steve Langasek wrote:
> FWIW, here's what I see in practice. We have Ubuntu saying that they
> give back to Debian; and then we have a fairly large divergence
> between what Debian has in unstable and what's going into the next
> Ubuntu release, with IME very little patch submission to the Debian
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 07:36:06AM +, Martin Meredith wrote:
> But, also - and I've had this experience myself - there are some DD's who
> just plain and simple dont want the stuff from ubuntu. I've had a couple
> of times where I've had an issue with a package - and realised it was a
> problem
Please read my first couple of lines in the email - as quoted below
>>Ok - I'm going to reply to the first post i found on this whole -
>>thing, so apologies if it shows up in some weird place in threaded
>>view.
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> OK. Since you selected my post to reply to -- are
On 1/12/06, Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't know if you read my other mail, but I do find it hard to
> cooperate with Ubuntu for my own package, because each time it has
> been uploaded to Ubuntu it was done my a different person, so I don't
> know who I should be cooperating /wit
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 07:36:06 +, Martin Meredith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Ok - I'm going to reply to the first post i found on this whole -
> thing, so apologies if it shows up in some weird place in threaded
> view.
> Basically - I dont think the brand should be put on ubuntu as a
> whole
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Meredith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I can definately understand some DD's views here - they seem to get
> nothing from ubuntu - have to wade through patches or whatever to try
> and find the useful stuff - have to do all this work to get all
It has come to my attention that this last email could have been construed as a
personal attack
against a certain ubuntu developer. It is not meant that way.
What I don't seem to have put across properly are the following points.
1) the blog post mentioned that made me irate was because of the w
Ok - I'm going to reply to the first post i found on this whole - thing, so
apologies if it shows up
in some weird place in threaded view.
Basically the way I see it isnt the fact that ubuntu isn't giving back to
debian - or debian isn't
willing to have the stuff from ubuntu. The way i see it is
Benjamin Seidenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Oh, it gets even better. The fun part is that the one who wants to
> receive the list may not be the one who actually transmits the signal
> (and hence would be at fault). That'd be the transmitting station. for
> those who are having trouble follo
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Stephan Hermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
- Do not use foul language; besides, some people receive the lists
via packet radio, where swearing is illegal.
Are you saying some people are transmitting the lists via radio
without taking personal responsiblit
Stephan Hermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> - Do not use foul language; besides, some people receive the lists
> via packet radio, where swearing is illegal.
Are you saying some people are transmitting the lists via radio
without taking personal responsiblity for their transmissions? Shame
on
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Russ Allbery:
>> Debian isn't perfect at this. There are portions of the Debian
>> infrastructure where the exact version that Debian is running are not
>> necessarily available. However, these are generally considered within
>> the project to be an
* Russ Allbery:
> Debian isn't perfect at this. There are portions of the Debian
> infrastructure where the exact version that Debian is running are not
> necessarily available. However, these are generally considered within the
> project to be anomolies and Debian *does* have a general committm
Il giorno lun, 09/01/2006 alle 16.02 -0800, Matt Zimmerman ha scritto:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 12:32:32AM +0100, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
> > What really I don't understand is how a proprietary tool can promote
> > more efficient collaboration on the development of _free software_.
> > Sounds
Federico Di Gregorio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Right. Everybody just think about BitKeeper and the Linux kernel. Now,
> who still wants to use proprietary tools provided by a company that
> first or later will need to find a way to make money?
Er, I'm no great fan of Ubuntu, and don't use any
Federico Di Gregorio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What really I don't understand is how a proprietary tool can promote
> more efficient collaboration on the development of _free software_.
> Sounds like an ossimoron to me.
I think it's hard to argue against the fact that Sourceforge has
encourage
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 12:32:32AM +0100, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
> Il giorno lun, 09/01/2006 alle 15.09 -0800, Matt Zimmerman ha scritto:
>
> > The reality of the situation is much less controversial. If a Debian
> > maintainer finds it useful to manage their translations in Rosetta, then
>
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Do you mean to say that you have been discouraged from contributing to
> Ubuntu because the Launchpad source code is not available to you?
It's far broader than just Launchpad. I am discouraged from contributing
to Ubuntu because Ubuntu is not *fully*
Il giorno lun, 09/01/2006 alle 15.09 -0800, Matt Zimmerman ha scritto:
> The reality of the situation is much less controversial. If a Debian
> maintainer finds it useful to manage their translations in Rosetta, then
> they can do that today, as a matter of individual choice. If they or a
> futu
On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 11:17:10AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Stephan Hermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Well, we can't change the world totally, but avoiding a tool, because
> > it's free, but non-free source, it's more a joke then anything else,
> > because I had to avoid many of the se
1 - 100 of 150 matches
Mail list logo
