Bug#1074793: ITP: git-ubuntu -- maintain an Ubuntu source package in a git tree

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Benjamin Drung X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, bdr...@debian.org * Package name: git-ubuntu Version : 1.1 Upstream Contact: ubuntu-devel-disc...@lists.ubuntu.com * URL : https://launchpad.net/git-ubuntu * License

Re: Q: Ubuntu PPA induced version ordering mess.

hi Alec, please stop mailing this thread and just use an epoch. Before adding^wintroducing an epoch one should consult debian-devel@l.d.o, you have done this, arguments were exchanged and (IMNSHO) no better solution was found, so please do what has done to >1000 source packages in the archive alr

Re: Q: Ubuntu PPA induced version ordering mess.

s at least as well) that there's no need to bother with the PPA, and then people will do the work to remove the PPA from their configs, at a time of their choosing. The truth is rather that the rumour will be the current: "Don't use the heavily outdated official package, at least

Re: Q: Ubuntu PPA induced version ordering mess.

On Wed, Jul 03, 2024 at 09:27:03AM +0200, Philip Hands wrote: > IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian GNU|Linux) writes: > > > anyhow here's my 2¢: > > according to you¹, upstream have simply botched their package > > versioning, which i would consider *a bug*. > > bugs cause pain. > > AIUI the botching w

Re: Q: Ubuntu PPA induced version ordering mess.

e package, it can "Conflict: >> opencpn". Then, you get a blank slate from which you can work your >> versioning as you deem adequate. >> >> It does, yes, introduce some confusion, but I think is the least evil >> option. > > opencpn is part of De

Re: Q: Ubuntu PPA induced version ordering mess.

s the same as upstream, fair enough, but it seemed to me (having glanced at the repo) that upstream has been using sane versions throughout. FWIW I'd say that people that installed from a PPA probably know they did that, so can be left to sort themselves out -- especially if they've been p

Re: Q: Ubuntu PPA induced version ordering mess.

hannes ¹ i looked up <https://launchpad.net/~opencpn/+archive/ubuntu/opencpn/+packages> and did not see any problematic package versions (i probably did not look long enough). so which (actual) package/version is this about? OpenPGP_0xB65019C47F7A36F8.asc Description: OpenPGP pu

Re: Q: Ubuntu PPA induced version ordering mess.

Hi Milan, On 02/07/2024 23:54, Milan Kupcevic wrote: On 7/1/24 14:48, Alec Leamas wrote: [...] Hi Alec, opencpn is currently in a beta phase targeting a 5.10.1 release. The beta versions are like "5.9.2-beta2+dfsg-1ubuntu1~bpo2204.1". The upstream policy is to use 5.9.2-beta2, 5.9.3-bet

Re: Q: Ubuntu PPA induced version ordering mess.

On 7/1/24 14:48, Alec Leamas wrote: [...] Hi Alec, opencpn is currently in a beta phase targeting a 5.10.1 release. The beta versions are like "5.9.2-beta2+dfsg-1ubuntu1~bpo2204.1". The upstream policy is to use 5.9.2-beta2, 5.9.3-beta3 so this ordering is, although a bit strange, still

Re: Q: Ubuntu PPA induced version ordering mess.

evil option. opencpn is part of Debian since many years. However, the major distribution is through an Ubuntu PPA, the official Debian package is not that visible and of course outdated in Ubuntu. opencpn users are counted in at least thousands. We are trying to convince the developer commun

Re: Q: Ubuntu PPA induced version ordering mess.

Alec Leamas dijo [Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 01:59:26AM +0200]: > So, at least three possible paths: > > 1. Persuade users to uninstall PPA packages before installing official > packages and also generation 2 PPA packages with sane versions like 5.10.x > > 2. Use versions like 9000.5.10, 9000.5.12. etc

Re: Q: Ubuntu PPA induced version ordering mess.

Hi! On Tue, 2024-07-02 at 03:32:53 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > On Tue, 2024-07-02 at 00:54:13 +0100, Wookey wrote: > > Quite. People are quite resistant to spoiling neat version numbers > > with epochs, and no-one likes them, but they don't do any actual harm > > (except sometimes break scripts

Re: Q: Ubuntu PPA induced version ordering mess.

On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 05:17:09PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > I would use an epoch. yes. [...] > Basically, you'd be burning a lot of social capital with upstream for no > really good reason and you probably still wouldn't be able to convince > them. I don't think it's worth it. yes. > I wo

Re: Q: Ubuntu PPA induced version ordering mess.

Hi Jens, On 02/07/2024 06:38, Jens Reyer wrote: You may avoid the epoch if upstream is willing to provide a separate package for about 2 years. (I did something similar to get rid of an epoch in Ubuntu's wine packages a few years ago, replacing them with our Debian packages): package 9000.5

Re: Q: Ubuntu PPA induced version ordering mess.

unifying the Debian, Ubuntu, and PPA version numbers in such a way that packages from those repositories can be used interchangeably. I would suggest that you work with upstream on how they will version things in the future, so you aren't bumping the epoch every year. Agreed. I have many

Re: Q: Ubuntu PPA induced version ordering mess.

Am 2. Juli 2024 01:59:26 MESZ schrieb Alec Leamas : >Soren et. al., > >On 02/07/2024 01:31, Soren Stoutner wrote: >> Alec, >> >> >> If upstream wants to fix this problem, they could just make their next >> release >> version 9000, with the one after that either being 9001 or 9000.1. >> >> Or, p

Re: Q: Ubuntu PPA induced version ordering mess.

(sorry, I replied thinking I've read the entire thread, I didn't notice that there is a second thread broken off of this one) -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: Q: Ubuntu PPA induced version ordering mess.

Is this a case where using a epoch is justified? If > > > not, > > > why? > > > > Adding epochs to work around 3rd-party repo version problems sounds quite > > wrong. > > We don't even add epochs that Ubuntu itself adds. > > > > But th

Re: Q: Ubuntu PPA induced version ordering mess.

pstream that messed up > not us/you, but we have the technology and you can make user's lives > easier by just adding an epoch. I guess the first question that pops in my mind is whether users who have installed the packages from the PPA, because the Debian/Ubuntu packages were n

Re: Q: Ubuntu PPA induced version ordering mess.

On July 2, 2024 12:26:49 AM UTC, Soren Stoutner wrote: >Alec, > >On Monday, July 1, 2024 5:19:37 PM MST Alec Leamas wrote: >> For Debian users we backport opencpn which works well. However, the >> Ubuntu backport process is, well, interesting (been there, done that). >

Re: Q: Ubuntu PPA induced version ordering mess.

Alec, On Monday, July 1, 2024 5:19:37 PM MST Alec Leamas wrote: > For Debian users we backport opencpn which works well. However, the > Ubuntu backport process is, well, interesting (been there, done that). > > The PPA represents a much better way to publish backports to curr

Re: Q: Ubuntu PPA induced version ordering mess.

is not about replacing the PPA with the official packages. For various reasons opencpn tends be released just after a Debian release in summertime, and the Debian version thus quite outdated when it hits the Ubuntu repos. For Debian users we backport opencpn which works well. However, the

Re: Q: Ubuntu PPA induced version ordering mess.

Alec Leamas writes: > So, at least three possible paths: > 1. Persuade users to uninstall PPA packages before installing official > packages and also generation 2 PPA packages with sane versions like > 5.10.x > 2. Use versions like 9000.5.10, 9000.5.12. etc. > 3. Use an epoch. > Of these I wo

Re: Q: Ubuntu PPA induced version ordering mess.

, 2024 5:06:54 PM MST Alec Leamas wrote: > So have I also understood it. > > And this is more or less the situation. For all practical purposes the > PPA is the current upstream packages, it's not some random packaging of > opencpn. I have some control over both the PPA and the debi

Re: Q: Ubuntu PPA induced version ordering mess.

Alec, On Monday, July 1, 2024 4:59:26 PM MST Alec Leamas wrote: > 1. Persuade users to uninstall PPA packages before installing official > packages and also generation 2 PPA packages with sane versions like 5.10.x [...] > Of these I would say that 1. is a **very** hard sell upstream. Users are >

Re: Q: Ubuntu PPA induced version ordering mess.

ating that version 1.0 is newer than 2024.01.05. So have I also understood it. And this is more or less the situation. For all practical purposes the PPA is the current upstream packages, it's not some random packaging of opencpn. I have some control over both the PPA and the debian/ubuntu

Re: Q: Ubuntu PPA induced version ordering mess.

Soren et. al., On 02/07/2024 01:31, Soren Stoutner wrote: Alec, If upstream wants to fix this problem, they could just make their next release version 9000, with the one after that either being 9001 or 9000.1. Or, possibly, they could encourage everyone to uninstall the PPA package before ins

Re: Q: Ubuntu PPA induced version ordering mess.

ally fairly new and there aren't really that many users with the duff versions, but maybe in the future there will be 100 times more getting their packages from us, ubuntu and upstream PPA, then that's a reasonable argument to make them have to deal with it manually in exchange for 

Re: Q: Ubuntu PPA induced version ordering mess.

Alec, On Monday, July 1, 2024 4:25:59 PM MST Alec Leamas wrote: > On 02/07/2024 01:19, Alec Leamas wrote: > > Let's drop this subthread, keeping eyes on the ball: what is a sane > > version? > > Looking at this from another point of view: is there any situation where > an epoch is appropriate? >

Re: Q: Ubuntu PPA induced version ordering mess.

On July 1, 2024 11:25:59 PM UTC, Alec Leamas wrote: >On 02/07/2024 01:19, Alec Leamas wrote: > >> Let's drop this subthread, keeping eyes on the ball: what is a sane version? > >Looking at this from another point of view: is there any situation where an >epoch is appropriate? Yes. I don't th

Re: Q: Ubuntu PPA induced version ordering mess.

Alec, On Monday, July 1, 2024 4:19:22 PM MST Alec Leamas wrote: > Hi again > > On 02/07/2024 01:13, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > On Monday, July 1, 2024 7:07:16 PM EDT Alec Leamas wrote: > >> On 02/07/2024 00:54, Scott Kitterman wrote: > >>> On Monday, July 1, 2024 6:46:06 PM EDT Alec Leamas wrote:

Re: Q: Ubuntu PPA induced version ordering mess.

On 02/07/2024 01:19, Alec Leamas wrote: Let's drop this subthread, keeping eyes on the ball: what is a sane version? Looking at this from another point of view: is there any situation where an epoch is appropriate? --alec

Re: Q: Ubuntu PPA induced version ordering mess.

Hi again On 02/07/2024 01:13, Scott Kitterman wrote: On Monday, July 1, 2024 7:07:16 PM EDT Alec Leamas wrote: On 02/07/2024 00:54, Scott Kitterman wrote: On Monday, July 1, 2024 6:46:06 PM EDT Alec Leamas wrote: If you switch hats for a moment: have you any advice for upstream in this situat

Re: Q: Ubuntu PPA induced version ordering mess.

On Monday, July 1, 2024 7:07:16 PM EDT Alec Leamas wrote: > On 02/07/2024 00:54, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > On Monday, July 1, 2024 6:46:06 PM EDT Alec Leamas wrote: > >> If you switch hats for a moment: have you any advice for upstream in > >> this situation? > > > > 8763.5.10 > > Yes, I have ha

Re: Q: Ubuntu PPA induced version ordering mess.

On 02/07/2024 00:54, Scott Kitterman wrote: On Monday, July 1, 2024 6:46:06 PM EDT Alec Leamas wrote: If you switch hats for a moment: have you any advice for upstream in this situation? 8763.5.10 Yes, I have had a similar idea using 1 instead of 8763 to make it stand out less. In m

Re: Q: Ubuntu PPA induced version ordering mess.

On Monday, July 1, 2024 6:46:06 PM EDT Alec Leamas wrote: > On 02/07/2024 00:31, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > HI again > > > On July 1, 2024 10:18:07 PM UTC, Alec Leamas wrote: > >> But here the situation is that upstream do care and wants to fix it. But > >> they need our help (an epoch) to acco

Re: Q: Ubuntu PPA induced version ordering mess.

On 02/07/2024 00:31, Scott Kitterman wrote: HI again On July 1, 2024 10:18:07 PM UTC, Alec Leamas wrote: But here the situation is that upstream do care and wants to fix it. But they need our help (an epoch) to accomplish this to handle the legacy. We could be helpful, or not. Why not giv

Re: Q: Ubuntu PPA induced version ordering mess.

On July 1, 2024 10:18:07 PM UTC, Alec Leamas wrote: >On 02/07/2024 00:10, Scott Kitterman wrote: > >Hi Scott, > >> Upstream can change the versioning however they want. They are upstream. If >> they don't care to fix it, then I think we assume they are fine with it and >> leave it as is. > >

Q: Ubuntu PPA induced version ordering mess.

On 02/07/2024 00:10, Scott Kitterman wrote: Hi Scott, Upstream can change the versioning however they want. They are upstream. If they don't care to fix it, then I think we assume they are fine with it and leave it as is. But here the situation is that upstream do care and wants to fix it.

Re: Q: Ubuntu PPA induced version ordering mess.

in > >> experimental, without getting consensus on debian-devel first. > >> --- > >> > >> With all this said: Is this a case where using a epoch is justified? If > >> not, why? > > > > Adding epochs to work around 3rd-party repo versi

Re: Q: Ubuntu PPA induced version ordering mess.

version problems sounds quite wrong. We don't even add epochs that Ubuntu itself adds. But this is not about third parties, it's about upstream which publishes PPA packages. So far these are by far the most used Linux packages. I also hesitate to add an epoch, after all they are basically

Re: Q: Ubuntu PPA induced version ordering mess.

On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 09:46:11PM +0200, Alec Leamas wrote: > On 01/07/2024 20:48, Alec Leamas wrote: > > Dear list, > > > > Still working with the opencpn package. Now trying to normalize the > > Ubuntu PPA builds so they can are based on the same debian/ directory &g

Re: Q: Ubuntu PPA induced version ordering mess.

On 01/07/2024 20:48, Alec Leamas wrote: Dear list, Still working with the opencpn package. Now trying to normalize the Ubuntu PPA builds so they can are based on the same debian/ directory and tools as the existing Debian opencpn package. opencpn is currently in a beta phase targeting a

Q: Ubuntu PPA induced version ordering mess.

Dear list, Still working with the opencpn package. Now trying to normalize the Ubuntu PPA builds so they can are based on the same debian/ directory and tools as the existing Debian opencpn package. opencpn is currently in a beta phase targeting a 5.10.1 release. The beta versions are like

Bug#998798: ITP: golang-github-juju-usso -- Ubuntu single sign-on library

: LGPL-3.0-with-exception Programming Lang: Go Description : Ubuntu single sign-on library Provides an interface to Ubuntu's single sign-on service. This package is a dependency of golang-github-canonical-candid (ITP #998752), which is needed for packaging LXD (ITP #768073). F

Re: CentOS and Debian/Ubuntu release cycles

* Stephan Lachnit: > The more I started thinking about it, the more I wondered about why > Debian Stable and Ubuntu LTS are *not* binary-compatible. They have different branching points from Debian unstable/upstream, so they end up with different versions of the toolchain and core lib

Re: CentOS and Debian/Ubuntu release cycles

On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 08:28:33AM +0100, pvane...@debian.org wrote: > > Working at a vendor supporting FC, for a time in the FC support > group, I can only agree with Marco. > > It's a whole different world. The compatibility matrix is king, > anything on there is tested to work, anything not 'i

Re: CentOS and Debian/Ubuntu release cycles

to pay for it. > These use cases now don't work anymore, forcing them into either paying for > RHEL, or moving to a different ecosystem. >... You miss that Ubuntu is already both RHEL and CentOS. The reason why CentOS existed at all is explained at Wikipedia: RHEL is available only

Re: CentOS and Debian/Ubuntu release cycles

On 12/10/20 9:06 PM, Joel Wirāmu Pauling wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 8:51 AM Geert Stappers > wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 05:16:28PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > > On Dec 10, Paul Wise mailto:p...@debian.org>> wrote: > > > Both of these s

Re: CentOS and Debian/Ubuntu release cycles

Hi, > On 10 Dec 2020, at 22:25, Marco d'Itri wrote: > > On Dec 10, Geert Stappers wrote: > >>> Obviously, but I am not aware of any such FC/FCoE hardware (not just the >>> network adapters, but also the storages). >> Acknowledge on that problem. >> Do know that it can and must be solved by w

Re: CentOS and Debian/Ubuntu release cycles

On Dec 10, Geert Stappers wrote: > > Obviously, but I am not aware of any such FC/FCoE hardware (not just the > > network adapters, but also the storages). > Acknowledge on that problem. > Do know that it can and must be solved by wallet. > So do talk with your purchase department. No, this is b

Re: CentOS and Debian/Ubuntu release cycles

While all of these details of the RHEL and CentOS kernel driver support model are doubtless fascinating, they seem off-topic on debian-devel, which is for the development of an entirely different distribution. Maybe this branch of the thread can be taken to some CentOS mailing list? -- Russ Allb

Re: CentOS and Debian/Ubuntu release cycles

On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 8:51 AM Geert Stappers wrote: > On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 05:16:28PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > > On Dec 10, Paul Wise wrote: > > > Both of these situations sound like things that should get solved by > > > rewriting the vendor/O-O-T code and including it in mainline > >

Re: CentOS and Debian/Ubuntu release cycles

On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 6:44 AM Enrico Zini wrote: > On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 05:08:36PM +1300, Joel Wirāmu Pauling wrote: > > > Streams is currently being used by several very large orgs, and it makes > > sense to make it really a RHEL-next+ project, which is effectively what > it > > > Halfway t

Re: CentOS and Debian/Ubuntu release cycles

On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 05:16:28PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Dec 10, Paul Wise wrote: > > Both of these situations sound like things that should get solved by > > rewriting the vendor/O-O-T code and including it in mainline > > Linux/etc, is there any chance of that happening? Or alternative

Re: CentOS and Debian/Ubuntu release cycles

On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 05:08:36PM +1300, Joel Wirāmu Pauling wrote: > Streams is currently being used by several very large orgs, and it makes > sense to make it really a RHEL-next+ project, which is effectively what it I wish you didn't speak in absolutes, because I find it, in view of my curre

Re: CentOS and Debian/Ubuntu release cycles

On Dec 10, Paul Wise wrote: > Both of these situations sound like things that should get solved by > rewriting the vendor/O-O-T code and including it in mainline > Linux/etc, is there any chance of that happening? Or alternatively, The Fibre Channel drivers ARE all upstreamed, it's just that the

Re: CentOS and Debian/Ubuntu release cycles

On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 8:22 AM Adrien CLERC wrote: > Le 10/12/2020 à 08:05, Marco d'Itri a écrit : > > Cool narrative, but the reality is a bit more complex than that. > > Fibre Channel users need very specific kernels or else the hardware > > vendors will refuse support (and their vendor drivers

Re: CentOS and Debian/Ubuntu release cycles

Le 10/12/2020 à 08:05, Marco d'Itri a écrit : On Dec 10, Joel Wirāmu Pauling wrote: is. Binary compat is mostly a thing of the past in modern Rhel due to containerization. Container tooling in userspace is one of the reasons RH Cool narrative, but the reality is a bit more complex than that.

Re: CentOS and Debian/Ubuntu release cycles

On Dec 10, Joel Wirāmu Pauling wrote: > is. Binary compat is mostly a thing of the past in modern Rhel due to > containerization. Container tooling in userspace is one of the reasons RH Cool narrative, but the reality is a bit more complex than that. Fibre Channel users need very specific kernels

Re: CentOS and Debian/Ubuntu release cycles

On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 5:42 AM Stephan Lachnit < stephanlach...@protonmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > maybe you already have heard it, CentOS is basically dead now. It used to > be an exact RHEL clone, but now it's kind of an RHEL beta [1]. > > Red Hat'er here. CentOS is certainly not dead. This i

Re: CentOS and Debian/Ubuntu release cycles

On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 7:17 PM Marc Haber wrote: > Ubuntu never cared about Debian. That is probably not entirely correct, there are parts of the Ubuntu community, including Canonical employees, that definitely care about Debian, to the point that they are Debian members and fairly c

Re: CentOS and Debian/Ubuntu release cycles

On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 05:02:50PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: > Two different distributions: two different approaches. Ubuntu support a > small subset of packages in their main distribution (as opposed to > multiverse/universe). Ubuntu packages are often pulled from Debian sta

Re: CentOS and Debian/Ubuntu release cycles

it, the more I wondered about why Debian >Stable and Ubuntu LTS are *not* binary-compatible. >It just doesn't make sense to me. Both Debian Stable and Ubuntu LTS provide a >more "long term" approach than let's say Fedora. >And while Ubuntu LTS is based on Debian, it is

Re: CentOS and Debian/Ubuntu release cycles

to pay for it. > These use cases now don't work anymore, forcing them into either paying for > RHEL, or moving to a different ecosystem. > > The more I started thinking about it, the more I wondered about why Debian > Stable and Ubuntu LTS are *not* binary-compatible. > I

Re: CentOS and Debian/Ubuntu release cycles

On 2020-12-09 16:25:54 + (+), Stephan Lachnit wrote: [...] > The more I started thinking about it, the more I wondered about > why Debian Stable and Ubuntu LTS are *not* binary-compatible. It > just doesn't make sense to me. Both Debian Stable and Ubuntu LTS > provide

Re: CentOS and Debian/Ubuntu release cycles

ay for it. > These use cases now don't work anymore, forcing them into either paying for > RHEL, or moving to a different ecosystem. > > The more I started thinking about it, the more I wondered about why Debian > Stable and Ubuntu LTS are *not* binary-compatible. > I

CentOS and Debian/Ubuntu release cycles

erent ecosystem. The more I started thinking about it, the more I wondered about why Debian Stable and Ubuntu LTS are *not* binary-compatible. It just doesn't make sense to me. Both Debian Stable and Ubuntu LTS provide a more "long term" approach than let's say Fedora. And

Re: How to cleanup Ubuntu bugs for my Debian packages?

On Sun, Nov 29, 2020 at 11:59 AM Iustin Pop wrote: > Asking for people who have experience as Debian developers and who are > annoyed by the Ubuntu bug count in the QA (debian) page. BTW, the #debian-ubuntu OFTC IRC channel is useful for this sort of question. -- bye, pabs

Re: How to cleanup Ubuntu bugs for my Debian packages?

On 2020-11-29 14:06:31, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > Hello all, > > For the sake of disclosure, I'm also an Ubuntu Developer. > > On Sun, Nov 29, 2020 at 12:58:53PM +0100, Iustin Pop wrote: > > I have a Launchpad account, and the project itself lists my Launchpad > >

Re: How to cleanup Ubuntu bugs for my Debian packages?

Hello all, For the sake of disclosure, I'm also an Ubuntu Developer. On Sun, Nov 29, 2020 at 12:58:53PM +0100, Iustin Pop wrote: > I have a Launchpad account, and the project itself lists my Launchpad > account as "maintainer", but on the bug itself I can't mark it

How to cleanup Ubuntu bugs for my Debian packages?

Hi all, Asking for people who have experience as Debian developers and who are annoyed by the Ubuntu bug count in the QA (debian) page. These bugs are trivial/minor, but still, I'd like to clean up. Let's take for example https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/python-pylibacl/+bug/

Re: Help with contacting Ubuntu devs for updating critically broken packages

releases Obviously, upstream getting bug reports due to distro respins shipping *outdated* and broken beta code is one of those "non-ideal" situations... > The upload needs to be confirmed that it fixes the problem by someone > else than you before it gets into Ubuntu proper. I

Re: Help with contacting Ubuntu devs for updating critically broken packages

Hi Scott, hi Andreas, thanks for your answers. On Tue, 13 Oct 2020, Scott Talbert wrote: > better discussed on an Ubuntu mailing list, rather than Debian. I have sent an email to ubuntu-devel with detailed explanations. I hoped for some contact here of a Debian *and* Ubuntu developer w

Re: Help with contacting Ubuntu devs for updating critically broken packages

On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 07:23:58 +0900, Norbert Preining wrote: >Hi all > >(please Cc) > >is there a way to update hopelessly broken packages in Ubuntu Focal >LTS? > >(packages in question are onedrive and in particular calibre - I >refrain from commenting on the reason

Re: Help with contacting Ubuntu devs for updating critically broken packages

On Wed, 14 Oct 2020, Norbert Preining wrote: Hi all (please Cc) is there a way to update hopelessly broken packages in Ubuntu Focal LTS? (packages in question are onedrive and in particular calibre - I refrain from commenting on the reasons behind calibre) Ubuntu seems to pull at arbitrary

Help with contacting Ubuntu devs for updating critically broken packages

Hi all (please Cc) is there a way to update hopelessly broken packages in Ubuntu Focal LTS? (packages in question are onedrive and in particular calibre - I refrain from commenting on the reasons behind calibre) Ubuntu seems to pull at arbitrary intervals rather incomplete packages that end up

Re: Ubuntu font in debian repository

On Tue, 8 Aug 2017, Garrett R. wrote: > Ubuntu font ... requires proprietary software to build > (https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=603157). > Can a change be made ... ? debian-devel: "Can Ubuntu font be added to a Debian repository?" https://lists.debian.or

Re: Can Ubuntu font be added to a Debian repository?

Steve Langasek" To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 1:39:16 PM Subject: Re: Can Ubuntu font be added to a Debian repository? On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 10:38:32AM -0400, Paul Wise wrote: > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 9:40 AM, Garrett R. wrote: > > Is there a good rea

Re: Can Ubuntu font be added to a Debian repository?

On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 10:38:32AM -0400, Paul Wise wrote: > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 9:40 AM, Garrett R. wrote: > > Is there a good reason why Ubuntu font is not found in Debian repositories? > Looks like it requires proprietary software to build the font from sour

Re: Can Ubuntu font be added to a Debian repository?

On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 9:40 AM, Garrett R. wrote: > Is there a good reason why Ubuntu font is not found in Debian repositories? Looks like it requires proprietary software to build the font from source: https://bazaar.launchpad.net/~sladen/ubuntu-font-family/midstream/view/head:/midstr

Re: Can Ubuntu font be added to a Debian repository?

On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 01:40:27PM +, Garrett R. wrote: > Is there a good reason why Ubuntu font is not found in Debian repositories? > Is there a formal way to request that it be added to a repository? There is a formal way, and it was already done: https://bugs.debian.org/c

Can Ubuntu font be added to a Debian repository?

Is there a good reason why Ubuntu font is not found in Debian repositories? Is there a formal way to request that it be added to a repository? http://font.ubuntu.com/

Re: "Ask HN: What do you want to see in Ubuntu 17.10?"

Oh, regarding the Ubuntu installer: please configure the keyboard layout _before _prompting for the LUKS passphrase! and don't prompt for eCryptfs-protected /home, when LUKS is already configured. (Or remove support for this completely). If the user configured a network connection alread

Re: "Ask HN: What do you want to see in Ubuntu 17.10?"

On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 10:50:58AM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote: > [*] Ubuntu doesn't bump the ABI on *every* new version, just the ones > changing the ABI. In reality this is still very frequently and hence you > achieve a rollback mechanism through it. Actually, on account of t

Re: "Ask HN: What do you want to see in Ubuntu 17.10?"

On 08.06.2017 20:52, Steven Chamberlain wrote: > Some versions of Ubuntu (at least trusty, xenial) have the added > "feature" to keep older kernel versions when installing new ones. It > kind of makes sense to keep at least the previous one (in case of a > regression), but k

Re: "Ask HN: What do you want to see in Ubuntu 17.10?"

On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 01:25:33AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Thu, 2017-06-08 at 19:52 +0100, Steven Chamberlain wrote: > > I would certainly reiterate this: > > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14003253 > > > > Some versions of Ubuntu (at least tru

Re: "Ask HN: What do you want to see in Ubuntu 17.10?"

On Thu, 2017-06-08 at 19:52 +0100, Steven Chamberlain wrote: > I would certainly reiterate this: > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14003253 > > Some versions of Ubuntu (at least trusty, xenial) have the added > "feature" to keep older kernel versions when installin

Re: "Ask HN: What do you want to see in Ubuntu 17.10?"

I would certainly reiterate this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14003253 Some versions of Ubuntu (at least trusty, xenial) have the added "feature" to keep older kernel versions when installing new ones. It kind of makes sense to keep at least the previous one (in case of a

Re: "Ask HN: What do you want to see in Ubuntu 17.10?"

On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 7:22 AM, Russell Stuart wrote: > Anyway, this discussion prompted me to get off my bum and look at why > unattended-upgrades wasn't working. Turns out the default install has > "label=Debian-Security", and all these laptops are running testing. I > guess the assumption tha

Re: "Ask HN: What do you want to see in Ubuntu 17.10?"

On Apr 08 2017, Wouter Verhelst wrote: >> - Airplane-mode Hotkey (especially hard apparently) >> - Volume Hotkeys >> - Brightness Hotkeys >> - Suspend/hibernate hotkeys > > These are all implemented by ACPI on modern hardware. You need to have > something that turns the ACPI events into something

Re: "Ask HN: What do you want to see in Ubuntu 17.10?"

On Thu, 2017-04-06 at 16:07 -0700, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > > FWIW it's been a long time since I had any problems in this regard, > > and I'm surprised it's still an issue among knowledgeable people by > > 2017! > > Maybe I'm just exceedingly unlucky, but I have yet to find a laptop > where all of t

Re: "Ask HN: What do you want to see in Ubuntu 17.10?"

On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 04:07:54PM -0700, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > On Apr 06 2017, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > > Nikolaus Rath dijo [Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 03:18:57PM -0700]: > >> >> I have a very different perception > >> > > >> > Me too. I guess it depends very much on whether one can afford to buy > >> >

Re: "Ask HN: What do you want to see in Ubuntu 17.10?"

Recently bought the newest Dell inspiron. Everything works out of the box. Didn't play much with HDMI. Know fo sure that video works. With recent kernel update (Debian testing) even screen rotation works. I am personally very happy. -Pavlo Solntsev On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Florian Lohoff

Re: "Ask HN: What do you want to see in Ubuntu 17.10?"

On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 04:07:54PM -0700, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > Maybe I'm just exceedingly unlucky, but I have yet to find a laptop > where all of the following works: > > - Suspend > - Hibernate > - Airplane-mode Hotkey (especially hard apparently) > - Volume Hotkeys > - Brightness Hotkeys > - S

Re: "Ask HN: What do you want to see in Ubuntu 17.10?"

days ago, with the previous versions, the 4.9 and 4.10 were freezing at nearly each resume. Two days ago, I ran the Ubuntu firmware tests on this laptop: Test |Pass |Fail |Abort|Warn |Skip |Info | ---+-+-+-+-+-+-+ [...] Total: | 981| 1

Re: "Ask HN: What do you want to see in Ubuntu 17.10?"

keys > - Suspend/hibernate hotkeys > - Hot-plug of external monitor I'm pretty happy with my Tuxedo (tuxedocomputers.com) XC17xx. Those are based on Clevo BareBones which you can find at multiple notebook sellers (Sanger is a pretty well known one too). Tuxedo gets them to you with a Linux p

Re: "Ask HN: What do you want to see in Ubuntu 17.10?"

On Thu, 2017-04-06 at 09:22 +1000, Russell Stuart wrote: > Anyway, this discussion prompted me to get off my bum and look at why > unattended-upgrades wasn't working.  Turns out the default install > has "label=Debian-Security", and all these laptops are running > testing.  I guess the assumption t

Re: "Ask HN: What do you want to see in Ubuntu 17.10?"

On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 4:48 AM, Chris Lamb wrote: > There's a very active conversation happening on Hacker News right > now entitled «What do you want to see in Ubuntu 17.10?»: > > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14002821 There is a followup and some analysis of the t

Re: "Ask HN: What do you want to see in Ubuntu 17.10?"

Hi, On 07.04.2017 01:58, Michael Biebl wrote: >> - Suspend >> - Hibernate >> - Airplane-mode Hotkey (especially hard apparently) >> - Volume Hotkeys >> - Brightness Hotkeys >> - Suspend/hibernate hotkeys >> - Hot-plug of external monitor > All of the above works flawlessly on my Thinkpad X220 ru

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >