Re: debian.org e-mail address and SPF/SRS

.com/faq.html#churn http://spf.pobox.com/faq.html#howworks FYI, there are some different approaches that check different headers, like Sender-ID but the 'publish the (spf) records' step is always there. Hope that helps, Gustavo Franco -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: Happy new year 2003

re but i hope it' s enough to anyone sleeping for two years see that Debian isn't `too late`. It' s far away from state of art but the majority of work is being done by volunteers and without it you wouldn't be booting knoppix, ubuntu and others! -- Gustavo Franco -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: Canonical's business model

aste" time and money thinking about it for us. It's going to far, after all some people here and there are just criticizing old time friends before asking them if they can share resources and workload for the better of both projects. -- Gustavo Franco

Re: Canonical's business model

On 1/10/06, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 12:22:03AM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote: > > I don't[sic] the same rant over others Debian related companies > > Have you ever actually subscribed to any Debian mailing lists? > Hi And

Re: Canonical's business model

its own resources. Please note that i'm not saying that there's one side right and other wrong, i just reported the current status. [0] = http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/01/msg00118.html [1] = http://alioth.debian.org/projects/utnubu/ -- Gustavo Franco

Re: Canonical's business model

On 1/11/06, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 11:07:43AM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote: > > On 1/10/06, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 12:22:03AM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote: > > > &

Re: Canonical's business model

On 1/11/06, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 02:56:35PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote: > > On 1/11/06, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 11:07:43AM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote: > > >

Re: Canonical's business model

I repeatedly say "I'd like to receive any change you make to > my packages, in any form you find convenient" they could actually do > it... I'm tired of begging for patches. > http://utnubu.alioth.debian.org/scottish/by_maint/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ -- Gustavo Franco

Re: Canonical's business model

people.ubuntu.com/~scott/patches/ [2] = http://utnubu.alioth.debian.org/scottish/ [3] = http://utnubu.alioth.debian.org/ [4] = https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ContributingToDebian -- Gustavo Franco

Re: Canonical's business model

On 1/11/06, Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 11, Gustavo Franco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > E.g. when I repeatedly say "I'd like to receive any change you make to > > > my packages, in any form you find convenient" the

Re: Canonical's business model

On 1/11/06, Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 11, Gustavo Franco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > You said *in any form you find convenient* but which one do you > > prefer: bug reports through Debian BTS, just email, ... ? Please, read > >

Re: Canonical's business model

On 1/11/06, Daniel Ruoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Em Qua, 2006-01-11 às 14:36 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG escreveu: > > Gustavo Franco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > It was already discussed[0], and there's no consensus on this idea of > > > &q

Re: Canonical's business model

On 1/11/06, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gustavo Franco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > (...) > > > I don't > > remember Linspire, Progeny, ... employees doing the same thing so it > > makes no sense rant against Canonical only.

Re: Canonical's business model

On 1/11/06, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 03:25:01PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote: > (...) > > Are you saying that they're spending more money with PR than really > > contributing back ? > > I don't know about money,

Re: Canonical's business model

On 1/11/06, Gustavo Noronha Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Em Qua, 2006-01-11 às 19:54 -0300, Daniel Ruoso escreveu: > > Em Qua, 2006-01-11 às 14:36 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG escreveu: > > > Gustavo Franco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > I

Re: Canonical's business model

On 1/11/06, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 05:48:22PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote: > > On 1/11/06, Daniel Ruoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Em Qua, 2006-01-11 às 16:48 +0100, martin f krafft escreveu: > > > > W

Re: Canonical's business model

On 1/12/06, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gustavo Franco wrote: > > I agree with "similar things being said" but i'm yet to hear about the > > lack of collaboration and give Debian something back. For example: I > > don't remember too m

Re: Dissection of an Ubuntu PR message

and even a talk in person with you. You missed a chance to provide (yet another) sane feedback from Debian perspective to him, and give us something back. Thanks, Gustavo Franco

Re: Dissection of an Ubuntu PR message

On 1/12/06, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 05:31:40PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote: > > On 1/12/06, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 03:41:16PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > > >

Re: Dissection of an Ubuntu PR message

On 1/12/06, Daniel Ruoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Em Qui, 2006-01-12 às 18:08 -0200, Gustavo Franco escreveu: > > - Scott's url with patches isn't part of the "give something back" > > approach that we want. We need to be well informed about p

Re: Dissection of an Ubuntu PR message

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 d

Re: Dissection of an Ubuntu PR message

, I don't know. > Exactly my point Matthew, and calm down David, i wrote: "e.g.: David said that Daniel helped him, but if he did that in his workhours it's under Canonical bless.". Do you see ? I just pointed out that there's a possibility that he was helping you in his workhours, but i won't cite you as a reference anymore. -- Gustavo Franco

Re: Dissection of an Ubuntu PR message

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: > > > > > > &g

Re: Dissection of an Ubuntu PR message

On 1/14/06, Kevin Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 03:03:14PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote: > (...) > > Exactly my point Matthew, and calm down David, i wrote: "e.g.: David > > said that Daniel helped him, but if he did that in his workhours i

Re: For those who care about lesbians

> slowly? Are you sure? I disagree with "into the Overfiend" sentence, it should be replaced with "into *the* Debian troll". Are we going to list this position in our Organizational Structure[0] ? [0] = http://www.debian.org/intro/organization -- Gustavo Franco

Re: Andrew Suffield

> I imagine that the ubuntu people, which include those on canonicals > payroll that are posting to this list, are really finding this kind of discord > within the Debian community quite comical and amusing. > You ignore that a lot of them are part of the Debian community. This project would be better if people like you applied part of the imagination to contribute (at least) with useful comments. -- Gustavo Franco -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: Andrew Suffield

On 1/18/06, Dallam Wych <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:57:13PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote: > > You ignore that a lot of them are part of the Debian community. This > > project would be better if people like you applied part of the > > imaginat

Re: A great weekend for Debian

ep your packages without RC bugs as much as you can, or for you that look into the RC bug list and feel that you should help. Sometimes, it's really good feel that i'm less than 1/1000 of all this and while i'm busy helping with something that i think is important there are others working in others not less interesting tasks. Etch is coming. :) Thanks, Gustavo Franco

ITP: gtimelog -- minimal timelogging system

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist * Package name: gtimelog Version : 0.0+svn65-1 Upstream Author : Marius Gedminas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://mg.pov.lt/gtimelog/ * License : GPL Description : minimal timelogging system gtimelog provides a time tr

Re: Automatic testing of .deb's

e or not with automatic filling whislist bugs (containing the patches) against Debian packages. Since Ubuntu Dapper is actually on freeze, what's your timeline to these patches? Will you include this stuff just on Dapper+1, in the end of the year? Thanks, Gustavo Franco

Re: Automatic testing of .deb's

On 2/6/06, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gustavo Franco writes ("Re: Automatic testing of .deb's"): > > On 2/2/06, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I would like to have some idea what people think I should do with the &

Re: Problems found by piuparts

On 2/20/06, Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In the past six months, I've filed about 260 bug reports based on what > piuparts has found. About 40% of those have been fixed so far. Below is > a summary of the common problems, hopefully the list will help everyone > to find and especially

Re: Problems found by piuparts

On 2/24/06, Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [Gustavo Franco] > > I think some of these problems can be detected by lintian, adding > > some more checks there. It could bring more visibility to so common > > errors. Comments ? > > A better way t

Re: Problems found by piuparts

On 2/24/06, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gustavo Franco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On 2/20/06, Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> In the past six months, I've filed about 260 bug reports based on what > >> piup

Re: For those who care about stable updates

What's wrong with us ? I just read some messages with a "no Martin, can we revert it?", it seems that the default reply is "ok Martin, see you, thanks.". It's volunteer work, he's free to do whatever he wants and spend his time with more pleasant tasks, but when will we try to solve some of the re

Re: For those who care about stable updates

On 3/9/06, Amaya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gustavo Franco wrote: > (...) > > Don't you care ? > > We do. But asking him to go back to doing something that was such a > source of pain? No way. > > (...) Hi Amaya, I agree with you, i wasn't simple ask

Re: For those who care about stable updates

On 3/9/06, Amaya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gustavo Franco wrote: > > I agree with you, i wasn't simple asking him to go back. My point was > > that if we just let somebody or a team take over that task the problem > > will still be there, maybe not all the pro

Re: For those who care about stable updates

On 3/9/06, Amaya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gustavo Franco wrote: > > Sure Amaya, "what we've got here is failure to communicate...". Btw, i > > hope we don't end in a civil war. :-) > > > Civil? Not as long as we focus on attacking U

Re: For those who care about stable updates

On 3/9/06, Amaya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gustavo Franco wrote: > > hehe, i think you missed my joke first. > > Maybe, I just saw a GnR quote. > That's what i mean with the civil war thing, not a real war against anyone or a project. :-) -- stratus

Re: For those who care about stable updates

On 3/9/06, Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > to, 2006-03-09 kello 19:21 +0100, Amaya kirjoitti: > > 1 - lobby (all of them) > > 2 - get promises in exchange of votes > > That reminds me of something I meant to propose some time ago: someone > with a bit of time on their hands could make a

Re: For those who care about stable updates

On 3/10/06, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 10:38:51AM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote: > > What's wrong with us ? I just read some messages with a "no Martin, > > can we revert it?", it seems that the default reply is "ok

Re: NEW queue backing up again -- ftpmasters, any explanation or comment?

On 3/13/06, Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ma, 2006-03-13 kello 08:57 +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst kirjoitti: > > I don't think it's useful to second-guess what they're doing, so my > > question to Nathanael: when did you post this question to them directly > > and what was their answer? > >

Re: NEW queue backing up again -- ftpmasters, any explanation or comment?

On 3/13/06, Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 03:23:29PM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote: > > Martin Michlmayr wrote: > > > 20:38 < Ganneff> the archive grow too fast too big. so i should not > > > process > > > NEW so fast to not grow much more in a short t

Re: NEW queue backing up again -- ftpmasters, any explanation or comment?

On 3/13/06, Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 02:39:11PM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote: > > On 3/13/06, Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > ma, 2006-03-13 kello 08:57 +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst kirjoitti: > > > > I do

Re: NEW queue backing up again -- ftpmasters, any explanation or comment?

On 3/13/06, Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10592 March 1977, Gustavo Franco wrote: > > > If the ftpmasters are going to stop NEW processing for a while with or > > without a special criteria, they should inform us through d-d-a or the > > DPL if they t

Re: removal of svenl from the project

On 3/14/06, Andres Salomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > I am going through the expulsion process to have Sven Luther removed > from the project. The process is outlined here: > , > and I have already completed step 1. >

Re: Minimizing ld dependencies with --as-needed

on these issues before etch came closer. I'm interested in put online a web page containing some things suggested to be investigated post-sarge (technical stuff only), anyone too? -- Gustavo Franco -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Minimizing ld dependencies with --as-needed

On Apr 1, 2005 1:58 PM, Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Gustavo Franco > > | I agree, but are we tracking all these post-sarge issues that are > | coming on d-d and others lists? I hope that after sarge we start > | working on these issues before etch came clo

Re: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?

On 7/28/06, Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Jul 28, Amaya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Huge Troll Warning It's sad that many people replied this way when it's obvious that Debian has stopped innovating long ago. But I suppose that this is part of the problem. Debian stopped innovat

Re: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?

On 7/28/06, Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 10:46:57AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > Debian is a project of volunteers. I am a Debian volunteer. I'm not > going to write something just because you gripe at me about it. I have > no obligation to you. I will wor

Re: package ownership in Debian (was: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?)

On 7/28/06, martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Please reply to -project only! also sprach Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.07.28.1737 +0100]: > If Debian had slightly less of a culture of "Keep your hands off > my package", I'd do it here instead. I've been thinking about this

Re: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?

On 7/28/06, John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 07:22:11PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Jul 28, Gustavo Franco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Debian stopped innovating? > Yes. This should be obvious to people who joined the project

Re: package ownership in Debian (was: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?)

On 7/28/06, martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: also sprach Gustavo Franco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.07.28.1838 +0100]: > * Promote NMU LowThreshold wiki list giving it some official status. > The developer needs to be logged and mark if all his packages (where > he

Re: package ownership in Debian (was: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?)

On 7/28/06, Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, and we could start by really enforcing co-maintainership. Make it 100% > mandatory for all essential, required and base packages at first. Are there packages which are particularly well co-maintained right now? What about debian-insta

Re: package ownership in Debian (was: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?)

On 7/28/06, Fabio Tranchitella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi Pierre, please don't Cc me, I read this list. :) Il giorno ven, 28/07/2006 alle 19.28 +0200, Pierre Habouzit ha scritto: > and that won't happen because I'm not very keen on leraning yet another > VCS, and that other's think the same

Re: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?

On 7/28/06, Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 07:22:11PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: >> On Jul 28, Gustavo Franco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > Debian stopped innovatin

Re: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?

On 7/28/06, Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Debian is all about not making assumptions like this. If you want this > feature, you are free to install it. And, while this makes Debian a wonderful choice for all sorts of things, it means that

Re: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?

On 7/28/06, Amaya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: martin f krafft wrote: > I am finding lots of interesting points in other people's replies. Yes, I am also surprised about the civil tone (on most of the replies). I've the same feeling, best thread in Debian mailing lists for me after years and yea

Re: wotomae? (was: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?)

On 7/28/06, martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: also sprach Gustavo Franco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.07.28.1901 +0100]: > This kind of task takes time and isn't well documented on how to > do from scratch, but hopefully we will have another web tool > (wotomae

Re: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?

On 7/28/06, Tyler MacDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Personally, I have no problem with this. But if Debian is unwilling to > fill these (not terribly niche) requirements itself, it's not reasonable > to complain when people build on Debian in order

Re: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?

On 7/28/06, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: John Goerzen wrote: > Think about it -- if you manage dozens, hundreds, or thousands of Debian > machines -- few of which even have a monitor -- how useful is this? > > Debian is all about not making assumptions like this. If you want this > featu

Re: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?

On 7/28/06, Katrina Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I keep seeing your arguments about how some people want on;y a 100 MB system by default. But you do give an option to have a Desktop, even Laptop install. What not make those installs have better support for Desktop and Laptop Users. For e

Re: package ownership in Debian (was: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?)

On 7/28/06, Mario Iseli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi there, (...) I imagine if we would have a big CVS tree like Gentoo or some BSD's, i wouldn't know where to begin with my work or what I sould do. The forest is so large and you don't see the tree! I don't think we need a central approach,

Re: package ownership in Debian (was: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?)

On 7/28/06, Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: * Gustavo Franco [Fri, 28 Jul 2006 14:38:52 -0300]: > * Promote NMU LowThreshold wiki list giving it some official status. And remember that (well done) NMUs are not only for bugs of RC severity. For example, I'm going to uploa

Re: package ownership in Debian (was: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?)

On 7/28/06, Katrina Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Okay here is another honest question: Do you really honestly think not having co-maintainers for base packages is ever a good idea? What if someone is busy? You don't really feel safe noticing your base packages aren't being co-maintain

Re: package ownership in Debian

On 7/28/06, Daniel Baumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Gustavo Franco wrote: > For existing packages: > > * The package that contains only the Maintainer field with the name of > a person and not a group can be uploaded by any DD. ping the current > maintainer is good but

Re: package ownership in Debian

On 7/28/06, Simon Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hello, Gustavo Franco wrote: > * The package that contains only the Maintainer field with the name of > a person and not a group can be uploaded by any DD. ping the current > maintainer is good but not required; I propose

Re: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?

On 7/28/06, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Le vendredi 28 juillet 2006 à 23:10 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit : > On Jul 28, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Happily you are here to innovate. For example, I love that kernel/udev > > breakage in sarge to etch upgrades. T

Re: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?

On 7/28/06, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Le vendredi 28 juillet 2006 à 18:53 -0300, Gustavo Franco a écrit : > Let us calm down and think twice before replying, please. > > Btw, it happened with a co-worker yesterday, i asked him to open a > bug. I think you c

Re: package ownership in Debian

On 7/29/06, Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: * Thomas Viehmann [Fri, 28 Jul 2006 23:40:19 +0200]: > If that is wanted, I'd consider it important enough information to have > it in debian/control. A couple packages of mine ship already with an X-VCS-Bzr header in the source. Example:

Re: package ownership in Debian

On 7/29/06, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 14:38:52 -0300, Gustavo Franco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > * Promote NMU LowThreshold wiki list giving it some official status. What does this mean? That you're out of date on what'

Re: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?

On 7/29/06, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 12:23:33 -0500, John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 05:44:38PM +0100, Steve Kemp wrote: >> > If Debian had slightly less of a culture of "Keep your hands off >> > my package", I'd do it here

Re: package ownership in Debian

On 7/29/06, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 16:27:26 +, Gustavo Franco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On 7/29/06, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 14:38:52 -0300, Gustavo Franco >> <[EMAIL PRO

Re: package ownership in Debian

On 7/29/06, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 20:00:21 +, Gustavo Franco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On 7/29/06, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 16:27:26 +, Gustavo Franco >> <[EMAIL PR

Re: package ownership in Debian

On 7/29/06, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 21:20:35 +, Gustavo Franco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > I'm not here for push "new upstream releases" into your packages, > for example. We're talking about bug fixing and bet

Re: Etch artwork (was: Re: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?)

On 7/31/06, Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 10:37:54AM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote: > At 1154196833 past the epoch, Michael Banck wrote: > > It makes no sense to complain about this until we have a > > good default artwork. So let's fix that first, then > > convince

Re: package ownership in Debian

On 7/31/06, Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 20:00:21 +0000, "Gustavo Franco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: [...] > The packages that aren't under group maintenance and will never be, > needs more not so strict NMU rules. Why? Due t

Re: Etch artwork (was: Re: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?)

Message sent to the related projects mailing lists and maintainers. Time to deal with the goodies, pressure, critics and work... regards, -- stratus -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian should have a weekly debate

On 7/31/06, martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: also sprach alfredo diega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.07.31.1616 +0100]: > I really believe Debian would benefit if they had a weekly debate. > I understand you debate on things you are voting on, but I think > it could be better if you debated

Re: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?

On 8/1/06, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Le dimanche 30 juillet 2006 à 08:36 +0200, Christian Perrier a écrit : > To be fair with Ryan here, I seem to remember that he mentioned (maybe > not in the bug report) that he would consider making a Debian theme > the default...if one gets

Re: Thanks for the work

On 9/3/06, David Barker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm writing this mail to you the developers to say thanks for the work you put into Debian. I am really impressed at how polished etch as a desktop OS is. Apart from the few odd things (mostly because I'm on 64bit and its still testing) its reall

Re: Desktop task(sel) in Etch? (Bug #389092)

On 9/26/06, Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [Christoph Haas] > Currently the way to install KDE is to provide the option > "tasksel/first=kde-desktop" when booting the Etch installer CD. No > user will guess that. Ah, is that how it is done. Thank you for the clue. It should be

Re: Desktop task(sel) in Etch? (Bug #389092)

On 9/26/06, Christoph Haas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, devs... I have tried the new Etch installer last weekend and I'm impressed. The installation works perfectly well and the graphical installer - while it doesn't add much value IMHO to the dialog based installer - looks nice and will surel

Re: Is something wrong to XGL, Compiz, Cgwd be packaged?

On 10/28/06, David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 11:23:27PM +1000, Paul TBBle Hampson wrote: > Given you're talking about cgwd, you prolly mean beryl (nee > compiz-quinnstorm) rather than the original compiz which is > in Debian. > > The beryl packaging is being unde

Re: Is something wrong to XGL, Compiz, Cgwd be packaged?

On 10/28/06, David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sat, Oct 28, 2006 at 02:30:19PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote: > If we're going to ship xorg with aiglx and composite enabled by > default (actually i dunno really), beryl in etch and in default > desktop environment (jus

Re: Is something wrong to XGL, Compiz, Cgwd be packaged?

On 10/28/06, Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Saturday 28 October 2006 23:11, Gustavo Franco wrote: > If there will be no regressions, please add the composite bit in the > xorg.conf by default. Is that really a good idea for something that is so young and untested, so shortl

Re: Is something wrong to XGL, Compiz, Cgwd be packaged?

On 10/29/06, David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sat, Oct 28, 2006 at 08:43:07PM +0200, Hendrik Sattler wrote: > Am Samstag 28 Oktober 2006 20:30 schrieb David Nusinow: > > For etch+1, I'm planning on making it enabled by default and doing away > > with most of the debconf stuff anyway th

Re: Bits from the debian-cd team; more CD/DVDs being built regularly

On 12/20/06, Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (...) Gnome vs. KDE vs. XFCE == The KDE and XFCE variants of CD#1 are now being produced to give more choice to people for initial installation. By default, CD#1 has always meant to be enough to install a fully-functioni

Re: Bits from the debian-cd team; more CD/DVDs being built regularly

On 12/20/06, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Gustavo Franco wrote: > Unfortunately, even the GNOME desktop environment doesn't fit on the > CD#1. True, but enough does fit to have a basically useable gnome desktop. Right, but we need to make it clear for the users and

Re: Bits from the debian-cd team; more CD/DVDs being built regularly

On 12/20/06, Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 05:04:28PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote: (...) >>In case it's not obvious, the 3 arches picked for these discs are >>simply the most common end-user systems out there. There is scope for >

for those who care about GNOME^w glib applications.

Well, if you're running your favourite glib application and it seems to be broken with the output like: (...) *** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer: 0x08ced388 *** It's probably due to the new glib (GSlice) memory allocator[0], but it's an application bug. Please first check if it's reall

Re: for those who care about GNOME^w glib applications.

On 3/21/06, David Pashley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mar 21, 2006 at 14:42, Gustavo Franco praised the llamas by saying: > > Well, if you're running your favourite glib application and it seems > > to be broken with the output like: > > (...) > > *** glib

Re: for those who care about GNOME^w glib applications.

On 3/22/06, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Gustavo, > > On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 11:42:49AM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote: > > Well, if you're running your favourite glib application and it seems > > to be broken with the output like: > >

Re: for those who care about GNOME^w glib applications.

On 3/22/06, Gabor Gombas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 11:29:01AM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote: > > > FYI, GMemChunk (old and deprecated by the upstream) was reimplemented to > > use GSlice, so no need to change or rebuild code to be affected due to

Re: for those who care about GNOME^w glib applications.

On 3/22/06, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 11:29:01AM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote: > > > > There's a workaround that is run the application as follows: > > > > $ G_SLICE=always-malloc application > > > > Thanks

Re: glibc_2.3.6-6_i386.changes REJECTED

Aurelien, with the feedback provided by aj and your own. After the small changes, i think you should upload it for experimental and ask for tests. If you think it's ok for tests "as is", just drop the package in experimental soon and let us see. I think the experimental upload (or just a people.d.

Re: utnubu-desktop for the masses

On 4/23/06, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gustavo Franco blogged: > > In Ubuntu there' s ubuntu-meta source package that results in > > [ubuntu-minimal][1], [ubuntu-standard][2] and [ubuntu-desktop][3]. They're > > metapackages and the list of

Re: Intent to hijack Bacula

On 5/9/06, John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hello, I intend to take over the Bacula package. I would first like to say thanks to Jose Luis Tallon for initially packaging it for Debian and maintaining it for these years. (...) Hi John, Thanks for this. I'm using backuppc at work and wa

Re: gcc 4.1 or not

On 5/11/06, Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: * Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-11 10:00]: > > One: What's the easiest way to extract the list of gcc-4.1 related bugs > > from the BTS? > > There is none I know - I asked Martin already yesterday on IRC to > provide such a way.

Re: gcc 4.1 or not

On 5/11/06, Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: * Gustavo Franco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-11 11:20]: > Why you did this metabug thing, and not just usertagged the bugs ? The > results seems to be similar, but i don't think that a metabug can be > managed by

  1   2   >