Hi all,
while wondering about missing ulimits for an interactive session
scheduled by SGE (SUN GridEngine) to a node in a cluster running on
Debian (which is working fine with other Linux distributions), I also
found, that each user can increase his limits again by a simple su to
his own
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 11:05:55PM -0600, Ken Bloom wrote:
> Here is the corresponding patch for that possibility. I hope the dpkg
> maintainers will pick up one of these patches quickly.
You should submit them to the proper channels, then, i.e. either
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or a bug report.
Michael
[..]
> Future A:
>
> There are now 10,000 DD's and over 100,000 packages, most nobody uses, they
> are just there because they were needed by people who wanted to become DD's.
> Now that they are, those unused packages are ignored. A major upload
> occures and now there are 30,000 bugs on th
Dear webmaster,
I would like to introduce myself, T Damarla and my company, Louis
Technologies (www.louistechnologies.net ). My company is a Software
Development based in New Jersey. We recently launched a Web site named
www.eazyrentals.com, which, as you'll see, provides rental information
o
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
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Steve Langasek wrote:
> horrible, horrible kludge! No, the correct solution is to introduce two new
> variables and deprecate the old one, instead of further re-defining
> "Source-Version" in ways that have even less to do with the source version.
Agreed.
> And why is this o
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
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, Robert Collins wrote:
> And yet most upstreams can get pretty much arbitrary code into Debian,
> just by committing it?. How many DD's read the -entire- diff on major
> version upgrades from upstream. And not just read, audit.
Not all, but it might be quite a few more than wha
* 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
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
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Francesco Paolo Lovergine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: autodir
Version : 0.99.0
Upstream Author : Venkata Ramana Enaganti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.intraperson.com/autodir/
* License : Creative Commons
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 09:45:29PM -0500, Eric Cooper wrote:
I saw today that the python-minimal package in unstable is tagged as
Essential (and currently pulls in python2.3). According to policy,
this is supposed to happen only after discussion on debi
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/
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 01:28:07PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Anthony Towns wrote:
> >I've changed the override to Priority: standard; I can't say I'm remotely
> >impressed by how this has been handled.
>
> Could this be stopped, please?
I am not sure why you are replyin
Am 2005-12-28 22:33:10, schrieb Benjamin Seidenberg:
> Seriously? Where? I live in the states, and we pay approx. $50/month
> (600 USD/year) for residential DSL (I think, parents pay the bill).
> That's a 1.5m down/512k up pipe, with horrible reliability (alltel
> sucks). Where can I get the fi
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 01:28:07PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> A quick comparison of fresh unconfigured i386 chroots:
> 94420 woody
> 146140 sarge
That's a bit more than I would've expected; though the sarge chroots
are notably be more functional than woody ones.
> 160264 etch
I get 131140
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Michael Banck wrote:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 01:28:07PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Anthony Towns wrote:
I've changed the override to Priority: standard; I can't say I'm remotely
impressed by how this has been handled.
Could this be stopped, please?
Hello, beauty,
Bolden
See you
Bolden
Bolden
Bolden
Bolden
Bolden
Bolden
Bolden
Bolden
Bolden
Bolden
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Canonical's business model"):
> What would I *like* to see? Well, that they treat me like I
> treat my upstreams; I triage bug reports, I keep feature specific
> patches separate, I submit these feature requests to upstream BTS,
> or upstream author, depend
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 09:45:29PM -0500, Eric Cooper wrote:
> > I saw today that the python-minimal package in unstable is tagged as
> > Essential (and currently pulls in python2.3). According to policy,
> > this is supposed to happen only after discussion on debian-devel
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 defines the powers o
Dear Debian contributors,
The Hypermedia lab at the University of Tampere, Finland is doing a
survey on free/open source software (FOSS) communities. We ask Debian
contributors, including developers, bug fixers, documentation writers,
testers, packagers and coordinators to participate in the s
I wrote a script on the train this morning to determine
the "complete" reverse dependencies for a
specified set of packages, for both RPM and DEB.
http://www.pixelbeat.org/scripts/whatrequires
It works as expected on my fedora core 3 laptop.
However when trying it on my ubuntu breezy desktop,
I no
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 02:31:47PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> You're underestimating the grave consequences of losing 25MB off every
> memory stick and virtual machine.
python-minimal is about two megabytes installed, with no non-Essential
dependencies.
(strictly an observation of fact; I'm n
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, 2006-01-17 at 09:32 -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 02:31:47PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > You're underestimating the grave consequences of losing 25MB off every
> > memory stick and virtual machine.
>
> python-minimal is about two megabytes installed, with no n
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 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
* Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-16 15:39]:
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 02:59:58AM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
>> It's not about succeeding. It's about false statements all the time,
>> like "Every Debian developer is also an Ubuntu developer." If I were I
>> would know. And they are
Pádraig Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> However when trying it on my ubuntu breezy desktop,
> I noticed some missing dependencies.
> For e.g. imagemagick isn't reported to depend on libc6 ?
> $ whatrequires libc6 | grep imagemagick
> $ ldd /usr/bin/convert | grep libc
>libc.so.6 =
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 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
* 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.
Hi,
Am Dienstag, den 17.01.2006, 18:20 +0200 schrieb Niklas Vainio:
> Please take a few minutes to answer the survey at
> http://hiisi.fi/survey/debian
Some suggestions:
Surveys from a university should have a place on the university's
webserver -- they look official.
Question 11 (income):
Is t
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
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 Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 12:46:52PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> 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:/
* Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I would very much appreciate if folks would review
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html and consider the
> points that I raise there. I put some effort into collating the issues
> which came up the last time and presenting them.
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
Andrew Suffield wrote on 15/01/2006 05:20:
[I know the below quote has been directly linked to the 2005/08 incident
of which I know no details - not being a DD yet myself - but I assume
you would hold the same opinion with respect to your recent d-d-a post]
> I fail to see how expressing a simple
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 06:46:26PM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> * Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-16 15:39]:
> > Is the meaning of this statement truly unclear to you, or is this purely a
> > rhetorical point? Under the assumption that you read it differently than I
> > do, I'll atte
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
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
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It is important, in particular, to account for the fact that Ubuntu is not
> the only Debian derivative, and that proposals like yours would amount to
> Debian derivatives being obliged to fork *every source package in Debian*
> for the sake of changing
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
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would very much appreciate if folks would review
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html and consider the
> points that I raise there. I put some effort into collating the issues
> which came up the last time and presenting them.
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
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > Debian developers set the Maintainer field to themselves(or a team), when
> > they
> > upload to Debian. The upstream author is only mentioned in the copyright
> > file.
> >
> > Ubuntu should do something similiar. Set the Maintainer field to someo
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > Debian developers set the Maintainer field to themselves(or a team), when
> > they
> > upload to Debian. The upstream author is only mentioned in the copyright
> > file.
> >
> > Ubuntu should do something similiar. Set the Maintainer field to someo
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> In my point of view, maintainer field just need to be change when
> Ubuntu does a non-trivial change on it. Otherwise, at least to me, is
> OK to leave the maintainer field unchanged. Directly imported source
> (that will be just recompiled by Ubuntu)
* Steve Dunham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd like to offer these three packages for adoption: x-symbol, xmix,
> and oneko.
> x-symbol is probably the most used of these and needs someone who knows
> emacsen and a little TeX.
I would also love to see a recent version of x-symbol in
Debian. Ho
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 12:37:47PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > It is important, in particular, to account for the fact that Ubuntu is not
> > the only Debian derivative, and that proposals like yours would amount to
> > Debian derivatives be
* Thomas Viehmann:
> I think that not shipping unmaintained and unsupported packages is a
> benefit. Packages need a maintainer to enter, I think they should need
> one to stay.
A real problem is that willingness to maintain a package in unstable
is not as good a predictor as you might think for
Le dimanche 15 janvier 2006 à 19:55 +0200, Martin-Éric Racine a écrit :
> I personally appreciate the excellent work done by Ubuntu. Just looking
> at major GNOME improvements that directly resulted from Ubuntu efforts
> (by Debian Developers such as Sébastien Bacher) clearly shows how Ubuntu
> hel
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 03:07:25PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> You're already rebuilding the package, which I expect entails possible
> Depends: line changes and other things which would pretty clearly
> 'normally' entail different Debian package revision numbers; changing
> the Maintainer field
Joe Wreschnig writes:
> On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 09:32 -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 02:31:47PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > > You're underestimating the grave consequences of losing 25MB off every
> > > memory stick and virtual machine.
> >
> > python-minimal is about
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 03:50:09PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>
> > > Debian developers set the Maintainer field to themselves(or a team), when
> > > they
> > > upload to Debian. The upstream author is only mentioned in the copyright
> > > file.
> > >
>
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:
* Matt Zimmerman:
> It is important, in particular, to account for the fact that Ubuntu is not
> the only Debian derivative, and that proposals like yours would amount to
> Debian derivatives being obliged to fork *every source package in Debian*
> for the sake of changing a few lines of text.
Su
Le samedi 14 janvier 2006 à 21:26 +0100, Sune Vuorela a écrit :
> * Package name: kde-icons-gorilla
> Version : 1.4
> Upstream Author : Patrick Yavitz
> * URL : http://kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=6927
> * License : GPL
> Description : Yellowish g
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 06:39:37PM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman writes:
> > Is the meaning of this statement truly unclear to you...
>
> "Every Debian developer is also an Ubuntu developer" implies to me that I
> can make uploads to Ubuntu. I can't (not that I'm asking for that
> pr
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,
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You quite obviously haven't read
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html yet, where I
> wrote (among other important things), "it would be fairly straightforward
> for Ubuntu to override the Maintainer field in binary packages". I
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 12:34:33AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Matt Zimmerman:
>
> > It is important, in particular, to account for the fact that Ubuntu is not
> > the only Debian derivative, and that proposals like yours would amount to
> > Debian derivatives being obliged to fork *every sou
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: gtkedit
Version : 0.1/b1
Upstream Author : Daniel Guerrero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL or Web page : http://gtkedit1.sourceforge.net
* License : MIT
Description : Notepad clone based on GTK+
GTKEdit is a lightw
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 11:44:48AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> It is important, in particular, to account for the fact that Ubuntu is not
> the only Debian derivative, and that proposals like yours would amount to
> Debian derivatives being obliged to fork *every source package in Debian*
> for
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 06:19:32PM -0600, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 11:44:48AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > It is important, in particular, to account for the fact that Ubuntu is not
> > the only Debian derivative, and that proposals like yours would amount to
> > Debian d
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Besides which, do you honestly know which packages other Debian derivatives
> rebuild? As a rule, they are far less communicative about their practices
> than Ubuntu.
How does the behavior of other Debian derivatives matter?
As a rule, those other
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:
> 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
I wrote:
> I am pleased when downstream distributions notify me that they are using
> my packages.
mdz writes:
> Have you ever received such a notification?
Yes.
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:09:50PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Notice that what you say, in response to what has been asked over and
> over, is "my opinion is that changing the Maintainer field on
> otherwise-unmodified source packages is too costly for derivatives in
> general."
>
> But y
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
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't think you can speak to what tools we do or do not have. The fact
> is, we import most Debian source packages unmodified, and do not have any
> such tool for modifying them.
It's really a very short perl script, or a simple modification in C to
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, 2006-01-17 at 17:29, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I don't agree. This isn't even the case within Debian. Binary-only NMUs
> > don't modify the source package, even though the binaries are recompiled.
>
> Actually, binary-only NMUs, after the
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 10:53:04PM -0600, Adam M. wrote:
>
>>Ken Bloom wrote:
>>
>>>I noticed that glabels is broken on i386 because it's not binary NMU
>>>safe, and someone did a binary NMU.
>
>
>>>After poking around a bit, I found
>>>http://lists.debian.org/debian-dpkg
Adam Borowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Extra bloat doesn't noticeably hurt Ubuntu because Ubuntu doesn't try
> to support memory sticks, old hardware, embedded things or farms of
> tiny virtual machines; Debian does. No one cares about wasting some
> memory and disk space on a modern desktop.
Mike Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 17:29, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > I don't agree. This isn't even the case within Debian. Binary-only NMUs
>> > don't modify the source package, even though the binaries are recompiled
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 04:38:29PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:09:50PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Notice that what you say, in response to what has been asked over and
> > over, is "my opinion is that changing the Maintainer field on
> > otherwise-unmodified
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No other Debian derivative, as far as I'm aware, says that it
> cooperates fully with Debian.
Other than, say, the DCC Alliance?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscri
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> mdz writes:
>> Have you ever received such a notification?
>
> Yes.
I haven't. I'm going to cry now :-(((
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAI
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> No other Debian derivative, as far as I'm aware, says that it
>> cooperates fully with Debian.
>
> Other than, say, the DCC Alliance?
I wasn't aware of them until just now. :)
Interestingly, the D
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Other than, say, the DCC Alliance?
>
> I wasn't aware of them until just now. :)
Wow!
> Interestingly, the DCC Alliance says that it wants to become part of
> Debian.
>
> Do you have information on
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Patch clauses only prohibit code reuse if your build system is
>> insufficiently complicated.
>
> And you are willing to contain an entire copy of the codebase from
> which you are extracting. [Unless the pat
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Interestingly, the DCC Alliance says that it wants to become part of
>> Debian.
>>
>> Do you have information on their plans with respect to the issues
>> discussed in this thread?
>
> The DCCA distribution is a mixture of packages from Sarge plus
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 07:23:41PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The DCCA distribution is a mixture of packages from Sarge plus some
> > backports. In all cases, the Maintainer: field appears to be the same as
> > in Debian. Several derived dist
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Have they modified these packages?
>
> Some of them, yes. Mostly the backports.
What happens to the maintainer field in these cases?
Certainly, if they are modifying the packages, I would think the same
there here applies as in the case of Ubuntu: t
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 07:32:20PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> Have they modified these packages?
> >
> > Some of them, yes. Mostly the backports.
>
> What happens to the maintainer field in these cases?
I haven't seen any that have been
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Jamie Wilkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: puppet
Version : 0.11.1
Upstream Author : Luke Kanies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://reductivelabs.com/projects/puppet/
* License : GPL
Description : centralise
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 03:21:14AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> I'm not going to defend patch clauses. I think they're massively
>> horrible things, and the world would be a better place without them. But
>> deciding that they're not free any more woul
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
I do apologise. These should plainly have been on -legal.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:54:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Besides which, do you honestly know which packages other Debian derivatives
> > rebuild? As a rule, they are far less communicative about their practices
> > than Ubuntu.
>
> H
unsubscribe
Send instant messages to your online friends http://in.messenger.yahoo.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
