On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 11:41:09PM +0200, Magnus Therning wrote:
> Well, they can't go into /usr/bin, they are part of the library.
> However, for some reason upstream decided to put the python equivalent
> of a main() in some of the files that make up the library.
That's a reasonable thing to do
On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 05:42:23PM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> Testing is by design all-or-nothing. As long as a single architecture
> hasn't buildd support for t-p-u, the buildd support for t-p-u is as
> good as missing.
This isn't "by design", it's simply the policy which is current
On Sat, Oct 30, 2004 at 07:05:12PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> If we can get individually-signed .debs, you won't even need to worry so
> much about getting the torrent files off a trusted mirror...
You don't need individually-signed .debs for that; the existing
(experimental) archive signing
On Sun, Oct 31, 2004 at 12:01:30AM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
> BT doesn't make too much sense here. It is only useful for large files
> that do not change often, like woody iso images.
I think there are ways that the bittorrent model can be applied
successfully.
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bug
(CCing the BTS, where this feature request is already tracked)
On Sat, Oct 30, 2004 at 10:35:53AM +0200, Arnaud Kyheng wrote:
> I love the Debian project, and I have worked on a new development for
> it: Apt-Torrent :)
>
> Apt-Torrent is an apt proxy to the Bittorrent network. For security, the
On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 05:59:18PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Note that new sarge installs should be basically /media compliant,
> although I don't know if we have every subdir the FHS may require in
> there. And we still have a /cdrom link to /media since some programs
> (like apt) have not transi
On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 04:53:29PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> "Marcelo E. Magallon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * bash reads and writes a number of files in ~/ (.bash_profile,
> > .bashrc, .bash_history)
> > * there are several directories related to GNOME (at least ~/.gnome2
>
On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 04:10:16PM +0100, Martin Pitt wrote:
> libsysfs is small (about 39 KB), does not have any dependencies other
> than libc6, and tools querying /sys during bootup (when /usr/ is not
> yet available) are reasonable, so I'm not opposed to doing this.
>
> Is there any opposing
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 11:42:13AM +, Jon Dowland wrote:
> I am emailing to ask your opinion on the likely hood of UML packages
> making it into sarge/stable.
>
> We (the University of Newcastle upon Tyne) are experimenting with using
> UML to manage multiple secure web servers on a single
On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 02:04:17AM -0400, Maykel Moya wrote:
> I'd recently adquire a little laptop (p3 900, 256 MB RAM). I'm been
> thinking to install Ubuntu in it cause Ubuntu is optimized for desktop,
> but I'd like to package some stuff for Debian.
>
> Is it advisable to use a pure Debian in
On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 11:30:54AM -0600, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> Ok, so I just did the following
>
> 1) Run 'wajig reconfigure apt-listchanges' to ensure apt-listchanges shows
>everything, even on versions we've seen before
> 2) 'wajig purge r-gnome'
> 3) 'wajig install r-gnome' and verif
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:51:30PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:41:16 +, Scott James Remnant
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Are you thinking of any particular developers here?
>
> For example, it suspiciously looks like the Security Team only has one
> public active mem
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:17:55AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Like said, since ubuntu has mplayer, there is really no reason to stale it for
> debian now.
I cannot speak for anyone regarding the specific case of mplayer, but the
above is not a valid inference for any package. Ubuntu and Debian
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 07:06:15PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Yeah, ok, but mplayer was rejected, and is now in many-year-NEW-limbo, for
> licencing reasons, which i believe are the same for ubuntu and debian, maybe
> worse for ubuntu evem.
No, Ubuntu has quite different licensing criteria than
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:50:42PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:40:01AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > I don't know who rejected mplayer, so I can't answer this directly, but I am
> > confident that "many" is exagerrated FUD
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:02:40PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Ok, so why doesn't mplayer get's accepted in debian now ?
I have no idea, nor is it my responsibility to know. I can only say that
your claims so far are all either extremely implausible, or demonstrably
false.
--
- mdz
--
To
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:42:10PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There's no particular reason for Ubuntu developers to try and impose
> > Canonical's agenda on Debian; we have our own distro for (and because we
> > have) our own agenda.
>
> How c
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 01:14:30AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 06:10:30PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> > Yes, I would like to reiterate that coordination between Martin Pitt, the
> > Ubuntu kernel team, and the Debian kernel team has been an invaluable
> > resource for De
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 09:50:22AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:51:55PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 01:14:30AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 06:10:30PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
>
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:04:09AM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Details about Ubuntu and its goals can be found on the website. In many
> > respects there is more information available about Ubuntu activity, and the
> &
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 09:18:40PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Use 2: I have this Ubuntu CD and want to know which debs are from
>debian and which got recompiled
>
> Look for all debs that have a deb signature of the debian archive
> (to be added to dinstall at some point).
I
On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 08:48:45AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 03:13:58PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > > You're correct.
> > And he is also wrong.
> > That would result in debs with the same name and version but different
> > md5sums. Something that easily confus
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 01:22:50AM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>
> [Michael Vogt]
> > Sorry for the delay. I'm preparing a new upload that adds the 2006
> > archive key to the default keyring.
>
> Sounds good. Will this automatically take care of the key update and
> make sure no manual i
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 08:23:13PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 03:19:42PM -0500, Frans Jessop wrote:
> > Ubuntu's launchpad is amazing. Do you think it would be helpful if all
> > DD's worked through it on their projects? Wouldn't that keep things more
> > organized an
On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 04:34:48PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 04:32:29PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 01:22:50AM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> > > Isn't Ubuntu using the signed apt stuff? How are they handling the
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 08:45:02AM +0100, Romain Francoise wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Developers will choose to use them when and where it makes sense for
> > them to do so.
>
> Ironically enough, it looks like all Debian Developers a
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 01:28:00AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 11:25:28AM +0100, Stephan Hermann wrote:
> > Everything what is on https://wiki.launchpad.canonical.com/ is free to use.
> > Read and think again. Or use another example: Amazons code is not free to
> > see
On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 11:17:10AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Stephan Hermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Well, we can't change the world totally, but avoiding a tool, because
> > it's free, but non-free source, it's more a joke then anything else,
> > because I had to avoid many of the se
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 12:32:32AM +0100, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
> Il giorno lun, 09/01/2006 alle 15.09 -0800, Matt Zimmerman ha scritto:
>
> > The reality of the situation is much less controversial. If a Debian
> > maintainer finds it useful to manage their translation
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 11:52:43AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> As such, I think getting upset at them is fundamentally missing the
> point. Companies act like companies, sooner or later. Companies are
> fundamentally economic. I don't mind them buying goodwill -- the only
> actions a company *
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 02:44:28PM +0100, jeremiah foster wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-01-11 at 10:25 +0100, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
>
> > Thomas Bushnell writes:
> >
> > > No, I think it's because Ubuntu doesn't cooperate well with Debian,
> > > while pretending to cooperate.
>
> Could you be more e
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 02:34:31PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Ubuntu could report in the BTS all the bugs it finds, and submit patches
> via the BTS.
As you know, most bugs are reported by users, not discovered by developers
We direct users to report those bugs to us, rather than Debian,
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 07:54:10PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> This is exactly the point, what can I do with a patch if I don't know
> why it's there? Which problem is it trying to address (I know, I can
> read the patch and guess, but WTF), and why such solution was adopted...
> Everytime I submi
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 11:09:12PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Let's take this one apart and see what it is that pisses people off so
> much.
Hello, Andrew.
I don't intend to participate in this type of email argument with you; I've
yet to see it pay off for anyone involved. However, I will
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 06:09:25PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > As you know, most bugs are reported by users, not discovered by developers
> > We direct users to report those bugs to us, rather than Debian, for obvious
>
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 07:26:50AM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
> /me...who expects tons of Ubuntu/Debian discussions at Solutions Linux
> in Paris (Jan 31-Feb 2) with both fellow French developers,
> users...and Ubuntu users as well. No chance that people from Canonical
> show up over there? I
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
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 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 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
> > UR
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 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
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
is in the exact same area that he was employed by
> > Canonical to do? Would this apply to Progeny and Debian, Progeny and
> > Canonical, Linspire and ...
>
> Hi Kevin,
>
> I think that Matt Zimmerman (mdz) knows the answer.
I'm not sure I understand the question, but
On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 05:09:44PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Hmm, it seems to me that Ubuntu has recently changed its practices
> regarding what degree of divergence from Debian is appropriate, notably
> in the introduction of the MOTU group.
The MOTU team was formed about a week after the first r
On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 01:08:41AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 12:34:51PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > can easily spot the holes in it. Likewise, a proposal that Ubuntu
> > developers should put their changes into Debian instead sounds simple, but
&
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 recompiling all my packages, so you can't even
> say that they
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 06:44:42PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> It's amazing how the Debian project manages to communicate fixes to
> an even more diverse set of upstream authors, isn't it.
I would be interested to know how you've measured this, because it sounds
hard. It's only because Ubuntu publ
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 06:58:47PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 05:09:44PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> > > Hmm, it seems to me that Ubuntu has recently changed its practices
> > > regarding what degree of divergence from Deb
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, 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 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,
>
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:/
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 differentl
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 of
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 t
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 De
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
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 ment
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
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 bein
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 amoun
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 ab
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 trivia
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 09:41:58AM +0100, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 January 2006 00:39, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > The full quote is "We sync our packages to Debian regularly, because that
> > introduces the latest work, the latest upstream code, and the
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 05:29:40PM -0800, 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 re
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:01:31AM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> * Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-17 11:36]:
> > I'm saying that you should pause and consider that you're looking at a
> > world-writable resource before treating its contents as a posi
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:57:51PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> 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 n
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:21:32AM +0100, Thomas Hood wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Given that python-minimal is Essential: yes in Ubuntu, the *only*
> > use for this package in Debian (given that there would be no
> > packages in the wild that depend on it -- the definition of Essential
> > i
> > rebuilt in ubuntu on buildds, including arch: all packages. The output
> > of apt-cache shows the field 'Origin' to indicate that this is not a
> > package built on debian systems.
>
> Good grief, and Matt Zimmerman said the exact opposite recently,
> saying that
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 01:28:17PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:57:51PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 01:43:53PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This is something that Python upstream explicitly does not want; the only
> > reason for creating python-minimal was so that it could be Essential:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 02:47:05PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Ok, then I must have misunderstood something. So it is clear then
> that Ubuntu does recompile every package.
To clarify explicitly:
- Ubuntu does not use any binary packages from Debian
- Most Ubuntu source packages are iden
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 05:57:49PM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> mdz writes:
> > It is considered to be in poor taste to report bugs to bugs.debian.org
> > which have not been verified on Debian...
>
> I should think that in most cases by the time you've produced a patch that
> fixes a bug in an Ubu
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:16:32PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 12:12:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Some reasons:
>
> > * compatability with Ubuntu -- so that packages can be easily ported back
> > and forth between us and them; I expect most of the work ubun
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 12:12:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> * allowing us to easily use python (as well as C, C++ and perl) for programs
> in the base system
>
> * allowing us to provide python early on installs to make users happier
Please note that it is against upstream's explicit
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:25:45AM -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
> I was unable to locate the quote, but it seems that the quote is/could
> be taken liteally. Why not modify the quote to state that it is
> metaphorical by using something like 'Every Debian developer is an
> Ubuntu developer in the same
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 02:15:15PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 16:03:05 -0800, Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >Do you realize that Xandros, who maintains a Debian derivative which they
> >box and sell for US$50-$129 per copy, lea
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 01:14:17PM +0100, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> you are able to do init.d scripts, pre- and postinsts etc in
> python. That is a "ease of development" helper for ubuntu.
All of those can be done today using dependencies.
.config scripts, for example, cannot.
--
- mdz
--
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:08:32PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 03:00:53PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > I believe there are still packages which break when bin-NMU'd (e.g.,
> > Depends: = ${Source-Version}), and there are parts of our infrastruct
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 07:21:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 09:56:59PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 12:12:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > * allowing us to easily use python (as well as C, C++ and perl) f
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:34:58PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> If we followed the same method for python-base, then we would
>
> a) instroduce python-base iff we had some package(s) written in python
>that we wanted in the base system (apt-listchanges comes to mind)
> b) include only the modules
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:47:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> In any case, I want to note what has just happened here. You received
> a clear, easily implemented, request about what would be a wonderful
> contribution, and which is (from the Debian perspective) entirely
> non-controversia
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 09:23:30PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-19 12:45]:
> > Please don't do this; it implies that python-minimal would be part
> > of base, but not full python, and this is something that python
> >
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 05:58:20PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> That said, I don't really understand why it's Ok for Ubuntu to do this but
> not us.
Ubuntu never installs python-minimal without python, even in base.
--
- mdz
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "u
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 06:38:55PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:18:48PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 05:58:20PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> > > That said, I don't really understand why it's Ok for Ubuntu
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 08:42:57PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Programs that want to use python can assume that python-minimal is
> there (since it's Essential), and since python-minimal is never
> installed without python also installed, they can also now assume that
> all of python, inclu
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 12:16:55AM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> Just to clarify, because I'm also confused and genuinely curious... you
> guys use the minimal package during bootstrapping or something and then by
> the end of the installation process you will necessarily have the full
> python som
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 10:38:08PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Ok, but now I'm confused: why is python-minimal needed in Essential?
> Why not simply depend on it straightforwardly?
Because there are parts of the packaging system where there is no way to
express such a dependency relationsh
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 10:32:06AM +0100, Thomas Hood wrote:
> I'll assume that python2.4-minimal Recommending: python2.4 won't be
> enough.
I'd imagine not.
> How about this? The current python2.4-minimal package contains
> /usr/bin/python2.4. We would move this to /usr/lib/python2.4/interpret
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 12:12:39PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >You seem to require a standard of attribution in the Maintainer field
> >that Debian does not itself follow in our default procedures. To wit:
> >NMUs _within_ Debian keep the Maintain
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:40:55AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I asked this question earlier, and no one answered. Are there .config
> scripts being written in python today in Ubuntu? (Hmm, where are the python
> bindings for debconf, and what ensures that they're installed?)
No, not yet. Th
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:08:38PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> I keep hearing this, but I really don't believe it. In Debian, "Maintainer"
> means "An individual or group of people primarily responsible for the
> on-going well being of a package". As I understand it, in Ubuntu, the MOTUs
> hav
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:24:57PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:20:33AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same thing, however. Most of
> > the packages in universe are maintained only by the Debian main
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:35:55PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Arg, and to make matters worse, this discussion is CCed to a
> closed-moderated-list, Matt, this is really not a friendly way to have a
> conversation.
I didn't add the CC to ubuntu-motu, nor the one to debian-project. I've
merely par
1 - 100 of 865 matches
Mail list logo
