On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
We've been recently talking about creating a group to maintain games in Debian
in a collaborative way.
Are you aware of the Debian-Junior project. While quite inactive in the last
time a certain effort was done in classifying games by building some inte
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 02:34:32PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 04:47:33AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote :
> > On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 06:48:38PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> > > > But if you read this bug (#307833), you'd see that the maintainer
> > > > doesn't
> > > > conside
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
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 09:03:24PM -0200, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
> Having said that, I'd also like to have non-ubuntu-specific patches be
> fed to our BTS; that would really make me feel there's a strong policy
> of giving back. While my relationship with people at ubuntu working on
> gksu is
Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That said, I do believe that if a package is unpopular enough that
> nobody picks up maintaining it, even while it's orphaned, what the
> prospects of the package are, and how much use it has to prolong its
> life extraordinary. If you're sufficie
--- Eddy Petriºor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> Can ome packaging can be done for non-free games? (I am thinking about
> a wrapper over the pristine installers/data/ to make the games
> installable through apt-get).
To be honest, I'm not particulary interested in non-free software at all,
inc
Chris Peterman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Package: wnpp
> Severity: wishlist
>
> * Package name: easychem
> Version : 0.6
> Upstream Author : Francois-Xavier Coudert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * URL or Web page : http://easychem.sourceforge.net
> * License : GPL
> Descripti
Am Donnerstag, 12. Januar 2006 23:31 schrieb Norbert Tretkowski:
> It was just uploaded.
Great! Thanks!
regards,
Jörg
--
Dipl.-Ing. Jörg Platte
Institut für Roboterforschung - Abteilung Informationstechnik
Universitaet Dortmund | phone: +49 231-755-6165
Otto-Hahn-Str. 4 (P1-01-116) |
Frank Küster wrote:
> Hm, well, no. I do particularly care for one orphaned package,
> lmodern. But since it currently doesn't have any (real) RC bugs, I have
> more important things to do than adopt it on behalf of the
> debian-tetex-maint list (or talking Norbert Preining into creating it
> fro
On 13-Jan-2006, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> --- Eddy Petriºor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> > Can ome packaging can be done for non-free games?
>
> To be honest, I'm not particulary interested in non-free software at
> all, including games, but I have nothing against it if we decide as
> a group to do
Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, maybe the actual situation would be better reflected if one of the
> interested parties adopted the package and retitled the O bug to RFA?
Sounds right...
>> Therefore I don't think that merely being orphaned is a good criterion
>> for removal;
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: r-cran-eco
Version : 2.2-1
Upstream Author : Kosuke Imai and Ying Lu
* URL : http://imai.princeton.edu/research/eco.html
* License : GPL
Description : GNU R routines
Ben Finney wrote:
> On 13-Jan-2006, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
>
>> --- Eddy Petriºor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
>>
>>>Can ome packaging can be done for non-free games?
>>
>>To be honest, I'm not particulary interested in non-free software at
>>all, including games, but I have nothing against it if w
Le jeudi 12 janvier 2006 à 21:12 +0400, Stepan Golosunov a écrit :
> > Looking at them, I fail to see why debconf-i18n has to depend on
> > debconf.
>
> Because /usr/share/doc/debconf-i18n is a symlink?
Then this is something that can easily be fixed. Not as easily as with
the classical foo -> fo
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 1/13/06, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Can ome packaging can be done for non-free games?
> Seconded. This Debian user would be much better pleased by Debian's
> efforts going to improving the packaging and coordination of free
> software games.
I agree that free software is the pr
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "Jesús Espino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: cnet
Version : 2.0.9
Upstream Author : Chris McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.csse.uwa.edu.au/cnet/
* License : GPL
Description : A X11 TclTK based
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Charles Plessy wrote:
> dependancy on curl. However, declaring proper dependancies for the
> package is a "should", not a "must", so if a debian developper is free
> to creating uninstallable packages if he fancies this.
Disclaimer: I am not talking about apt-file.
I sure ho
On 1/13/06, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 06:08:52PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> > We can't decide how they need to "give us something MORE back" and
> > it's their problem?
>
> Whoever said they need to do that? They just need to stop bragging
> about shit
Hi,
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 01:21:18PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 07:17:48PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Yes, 'm68k' and 'future' in one sentence. Amazing, isn't it? Surely we
> > must be joking?
>
> Hey, I haven't seen any activity wrt m68k archive (re)qualificia
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 02:09:19PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 01:21:18PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 07:17:48PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > Yes, 'm68k' and 'future' in one sentence. Amazing, isn't it? Surely we
> > > must be
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "Krzysztof Krzyzaniak (eloy)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: libobject-signature-perl
Version : 1.03
Upstream Author : Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL :
http://mirrors.kernel.org/cpan/modules/by-module/Object/Object-S
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
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 02:09:19PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Additionally, Ingo told me when the mail about that meeting had come out
> that he'd already tried such a setup in the past (I didn't know that
> when we were in Helsinki, but it was before that), and that his setup,
> IIRC, was in
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 02:38:02PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 02:09:19PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Additionally, Ingo told me when the mail about that meeting had come out
> > that he'd already tried such a setup in the past (I didn't know that
> > when we wer
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
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 02:09:19PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> The main showblocker with that is that package building doesn't support "make
> -jX" yet. I think other archs with SMP support might benefit as well when
> there would be a way to supp
I also would be interested in getting involved in this project. I
believe there is much room to grow in the area of gaming, and since I
am an avid gamer myself using both "Free" and "Non-Free" games on my
Debian systems I would love to help out where I can.
Regards,
Brian PowellOn 1/13/06, Miriam
Hi AJ,
On Friday, 13 Jan 2006, you wrote:
> Things I did today:
>
> 2. Removed the empty SuperH architecture from the archive (binary-sh).
>
> Coincidence? You decide.
>
> URL: http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/blog/2006/01/13#2006-01-13-sh-irts
Nice you have done this, but Planet is definitely n
Scripsit Miriam Ruiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'm not sure if it's license (
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=293346 ) can be considered
> free enough to be in main:
[...]
> ii) When modifications to the Software are released under this license, a
> non-exclusive royalty-free ri
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?
Adrian von Bidder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> From a graph algorithm point of view, if I'm not very mistaken,
> dependencies being guaranteed to be a directed graph instead of a
> generic graph should allow some simplifications/efficiency
> improvements in apt and other tools, too.
For the reco
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 10:45:48AM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> We can't say that Canonical/Ubuntu isn't contributing back. They're,
> as pointed out by some of us. e.g.: David said that Daniel helped him,
> but if he did that in his workhours it's under Canonical bless.
Please stop trying to tw
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
On Fri, 2006-01-13 at 09:15 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
>
> > We've been recently talking about creating a group to maintain games in
> > Debian
> > in a collaborative way.
>
> Are you aware of the Debian-Junior project.
Thanks for bringing this thread
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 10:39:01AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > dependancy on curl. However, declaring proper dependancies for the
> > package is a "should", not a "must", so if a debian developper is free
> > to creating uninstallable p
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 02:09:19PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 01:21:18PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 07:17:48PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > Yes, 'm68k' and 'future' in one sentence. Amazing, isn't it? Surely we
> > > must be joking?
>
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 04:22:50PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> On Friday, 13 Jan 2006, you wrote:
> > Things I did today:
> > 2. Removed the empty SuperH architecture from the archive (binary-sh).
> > Coincidence? You decide.
> > URL: http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/blog/2006/01/13#2006-01-13
David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please stop trying to twist my words around. Canonical didn't contribute
> back. An individual who happened to work for Canonical did. If someone
> employed by the US government contributes to Debian of his own volition do
> we say that the US government
...
> 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 1/13/06, Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Please stop trying to twist my words around. Canonical didn't contribute
> > back. An individual who happened to work for Canonical did. If someone
> > employed by the US government contributes t
On Thursday, January 12, 2006 11:59 PM, Junichi Uekawa
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've dug out some information from IRC logs:
>
> saens was overloaded around 5 Jan 2006, with load average of 140 or
> something, and eventually apache stopped. Since saens is one of
> ftp.debian.org, it h
On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 01:42:32AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 02:09:19PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 01:21:18PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 07:17:48PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > > Yes, 'm68k' and 'future
On 1/13/06, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> First, the executive summary for mirror operators reading this: we'll be
> switching the primary mirror stuff for Debian to be for a small number
> of architectures rather than all of them; initially this will just be
> i386, but will probably expand
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 03:05:10PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Enabling `-j' will probably expose concurrency problems in the build
> system for lots of packages.
>
> What about building different packages in parallel instead?
Isn't that what is done currently?
--
gram
--
To UNSUBSCRI
On Friday 13 January 2006 16:53, you wrote:
> Adrian von Bidder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > From a graph algorithm point of view, if I'm not very mistaken,
> > dependencies being guaranteed to be a directed graph instead of a
> > generic graph should allow some simplifications/efficiency
> > im
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 06:04:00PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > > Given m68k's dropped back below the 95% cutoff (and has spent about
> > > > 1/3rd of the last 90 days beneath it) and has a number of red squares
> > > > still on the release arch qualification page it seems certain at this
>
Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 06:48:38PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
>
>>>But if you read this bug (#307833), you'd see that the maintainer doesn't
>>>consider it a bug, and has documented why in the README file.
>>
>>It is a bug as the package is not usable without curl or wget insta
Quoting Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Unfortunately, this conflicts with a development sprint we're having in
> London, so that won't be possible at that time.
>
> My heart breaks at the prospect of a missed opportunity to gorge myself on
> cheese...
Well, it's just a matter of jumping
Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> Hi,
Hi Miriam
> We've been recently talking about creating a group to maintain games in Debian
> in a collaborative way. As a starting point, I've created a mailing list in
> alioth for coordination, and also for create discussion threads about the main
> problems related to
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006, Andreas Barth wrote:
> One can try to come up with some metric, yes.
>
> However, on the other hand feel free to create a "common maintained
> packages team" that adopts such packages :)
This may happen sooner that one may think.
The project "collab-maint" on alioth is actua
On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 03:24:42AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 06:04:00PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > The point of my previous mail was to demonstrate that I am, in fact,
> > trying to be proactive about getting the qualification done.
>
> The way you demonstrate a
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 12:07:02PM -0600, Bill Allombert wrote:
>
> There are technical ways to solve the problem (e.g. to depend on
> wget|curl and to detect which one is available at start up).
>
> If the mainatiner is willing to give more input than 'it is not a bug'
> on what behaviour he w
Jesus Climent wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 12:07:02PM -0600, Bill Allombert wrote:
>
>>There are technical ways to solve the problem (e.g. to depend on
>>wget|curl and to detect which one is available at start up).
>>
>>If the mainatiner is willing to give more input than 'it is not a bug'
>
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 03:03:14PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> On 1/13/06, Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Please stop trying to twist my words around. Canonical didn't contribute
> > > back. An individual who happened to work for
On 1/13/06, Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 03:03:14PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> > On 1/13/06, Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Please stop trying to twist my words around. Canonical didn
Hi Anthony,
On Saturday, 14 Jan 2006, you wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 04:22:50PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> > On Friday, 13 Jan 2006, you wrote:
> > > Things I did today:
> > > 2. Removed the empty SuperH architecture from the archive (binary-sh).
> > > Coincidence? You decide.
> > >
Hi,
Initially I packaged pistachio because it was supposed to be the next
microkernel to be used by the Hurd. That's questionable now. Also the
package suffers some problems that I don't want to spend time fixing,
like it not building on all supposedly supported arches, upstream not
being much act
Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Can you elaborate on this? I'm not sure how the existence of more
> packages that should be orphaned invalidates dealing with those that
> presently are.
> There's 169 orphaned packages today, why not do something about them?
The thing is... most of
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
Bill Allombert wrote:
> > Although sarge's aptitude did..
>
> I don't know, there were no ways to upgrade to sarge's aptitude.
The bug log contains a log of astronut doing the upgrade with sarge's
aptitude..
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Henning Glawe wrote:
> To illustrate the scenario:
> - Package A depends on package B, which in turn depends on A
> 0) User calls 'apt-get install A B
> ':
> 1) apt splits the whole list into smaller parts after sorting by dependency
> where, in case this bug occurs:
>=" A"
>
* Martin Zobel-Helas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-13 20:34:20]:
> ...and no one can complain afterwards.
you underestimate your fellow nagg^Wdevelopers.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
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 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 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, 13 Jan 2006, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
* Martin Zobel-Helas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-13 20:34:20]:
...and no one can complain afterwards.
you underestimate your fellow nagg^Wdevelopers.
Well, there are always people who complain. But posting development
related mails to debian-de
On 10533 March 1977, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Hello fellow Debian developers,
> let me explain shortly why I'll speak of Ubuntu on a Debian announce
[lalala]
Whatever one may think about Ubuntu, d-d-a is the wrong list for an
announcement about Ubuntu plans.
"Announcements of development issues
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "Nelson A. de Oliveira" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: optipng
Version : 0.4.8
Upstream Author : Cosmin Truta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~cosmin/pngtech/optipng/
* License : zlib/libpng
D
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 03:57:57PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > Although sarge's aptitude did..
> >
> > I don't know, there were no ways to upgrade to sarge's aptitude.
>
> The bug log contains a log of astronut doing the upgrade with sarge's
> aptitude..
Yes, but only a
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:
> 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 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 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 Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 11:35:24PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> I believe Ubuntu fills an important gap in the Debian world and as such
Ubuntu is not part of the Debian world, because it does not share the
values that found Debian. The Ubuntu people are certainly free to use our
softwares, that
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 06:15:16PM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
> Quoting Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> > Unfortunately, this conflicts with a development sprint we're having in
> > London, so that won't be possible at that time.
> >
> > My heart breaks at the prospect of a missed op
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
* Raphael Hertzog:
> I believe Ubuntu fills an important gap in the Debian world and as such
> I'm not satisfied when Ubuntu is diverging too much from Debian, and the
> only way to avoid divergence is to merge back what's useful and to provide
> better solution for derivatives when there's a need
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 Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 02:54:30AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Raphael Hertzog:
>
> > I believe Ubuntu fills an important gap in the Debian world and as such
> > I'm not satisfied when Ubuntu is diverging too much from Debian, and the
> > only way to avoid divergence is to merge back what's u
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 03:03:14PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> On 1/13/06, Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Please stop trying to twist my words around. Canonical didn't contribute
> > > back. An individual who happened to work for
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
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
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,
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
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.
Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> > I'm not sure if it's license (
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=293346 ) can be considered
> > free enough to be in main:
Some feedback from upstream is in this thread:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-grass-general/2005-August/thread.html#1
On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 01:26:25AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 11:35:24PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > I believe Ubuntu fills an important gap in the Debian world and as such
> Ubuntu is not part of the Debian world, because it does not share the
> values that found
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 03:41:09PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 12:43:16PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > Manners/politeness is social lubricant. It makes society run
> > smoother and less violently.
>
> I'm pretty sure that people who always take the path of least
> re
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
> 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
93 matches
Mail list logo
