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
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 07:13:31AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:20:33AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > 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 Deb
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 08:31:44AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> All you'll get is the loud minority having a whinge then, no matter what the
> outcome.
It will certainly beat the hell out of continuing this thread.
--
- mdz
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "u
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 02:05:40PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > 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 h
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 01:48:11AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > One example is .config maintainer scripts, some of which are quite complex
> > and worth writing in a higher-level language than shell.
>
> This
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 01:04:25PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> Granted if it is a real issue, then why not use perl? Yes, I hate
> >> perl too, but really, the argument "hey, people like Python too&
On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 04:16:20PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Matt Zimmerman:
>
> > One of the appealing things about the Python language is their "batteries
> > included" philosophy: users can assume that the standard library is
> > available, documentati
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 06:20:47PM +0100, Sergio Callegari wrote:
> As far as I know, it should exist in Debian too.
No, it doesn't.
--
- mdz
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 07:26:07PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 05:56:10PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > I hadn't replied to the bug report because I wasn't involved in the
> > Ubuntu kernel at the point when it was filed, so I didn't reply there.
> > When you brought m
> This version should be close to good enough. The major change since
> the last one that was posted is the ability to upgrade from files in
> the current dir instead of a local mirror requirement.
>
> This script still needs testing.
> # upgrade a libc5 (bo) machine to libc6 (hamm).
> [...]
> #
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 12:36:42PM +0100, Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
> That helps a lot, thanks Scott! What about offering a way to subscribe
> to packages, so you'll get informed by mail if a package in Ubuntu is
> changed, maybe with an interdiff applied to that mail?
This isn't possible yet, bu
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 12:28:36AM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> One suggestion: if any Ubuntu patches were CC'd to the Debian
> maintainer, or filed in the BTS, they would get applied quicker. I've
> now put your gimp-print changes back into my packages, but I would
> have been happy to do this la
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 06:43:45PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Many Debian maintainers would consider this unwelcome noise. In cases where
> > we can be certain that this is welcome (i.e., a bug is open in debbugs), th
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 07:04:04PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> So can you explain what I'm misunderstanding? What sort of patches
> are we talking about, and what is the publishing you're talking about?
The only distinction here is between merely publishing the patches on our
website, an
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 11:31:01PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> These seem like excellent fodder for a FAQ/wiki, if there isn't one
> already (a quick scan around Ubuntu's official and wiki FAQs didn't turn
> up anything). Perhaps "How Ubuntu relates to Debian", or "How Ubuntu
> changes find the
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 03:02:32AM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Then I'm having trouble parsing what you are saying, too. Like
> Thomas, the only sense I can make of your description is that
> you are are describing an algorithm that goes roughly like
>
> 0 Bug is discovered
> 1 Patch
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 07:55:38AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> If you ask me I would immediately subscribe to all of my packages and
> I would not consider it as noise if any patch Ububtu is doing would be
> sended automatically as wishlist bug to the Debian BTS.
If you browse through the patch
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 05:41:40PM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 10:08:51AM -0300, Andre Filipe de Assuncao e Brito
> wrote:
> > >Sorry, 404 here.
> > Yes. Recently, Michiel has changed his website, and the update-manager
> > website has go down, but I ta
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 10:31:19AM +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> martin f. krafft writes:
>
> > also sprach Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.03.31.0906 +0200]:
> >> DISTRIB := $(shell something-that-prints-DEBIAN-or-UBUNTU)
> >
> > Rene told me about lsb-release.
>
> Sounds cool.
On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 09:36:57PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> Actually, I don't think that the packages.*-code is part of the problem.
> Ubuntu treats the Debian maintainers at many places as "their"
> maintainers, e.g. at apt-cache show $package. The packages.*-code just
> displays that wrong
On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 08:34:09PM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
> I just search Google for me and I found this,
>
> https://launchpad.ubuntu.com/people/adamm/
>
> Now, I never signed up to be a maintainer for Ubuntu. I don't understand
> why I am part of "people of Ubuntu" or why I am listed as a ma
On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 04:19:03PM -0500, Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
> Besides that, I didn't see anyone from Ubuntu ever make a general
> announcement to Debian developers about who they should contact if they
> have concerns about things like this
I sent several of the early Ubuntu announcements
On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 05:25:41PM -0500, Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
> On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 03:00:54PM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > I sent several of the early Ubuntu announcements to debian-devel, so that
> > everyone knew what was happening and would have a point of contact
On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 05:08:04PM +1000, Ben Burton wrote:
> On the other hand, I've had packages for which ubuntu has moved to a
> newer upstream version without properly updating the debian/ files,
> resulting in packages that are severely broken (some to the point of
> unusability), with my na
On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 08:46:44PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > Every Debian derivative I have seen does this the same way. There is some
> > inaccuracy in either case, but I think this is the lesser of the evils:
> >
> > - Changing the ma
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 05:41:18PM +0200, Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
> By the way... what about updating apt 0.6 in experimental? Matt, any
> plans? Ubuntu ships apt 0.6.35, but Debian still has 0.6.25.
I have tried in the past to keep an updated apt in experimental, but it's
non-triv
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 03:28:08PM -0400, sean finney wrote:
> On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 12:05:26PM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > One way around this would be for all of the maintainers of packages
> > depending on apt to agree to a significant version number increment when
> &
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 10:01:38PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I have tried in the past to keep an updated apt in experimental, but it's
> > non-trivial because of the dependent packages.
>
> So how is the
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 05:54:53PM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> On Wednesday 04 May 2005 03:05 pm, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > That is, I would upload apt to experimental, along with
> > python-apt+aptitude+synaptic+libapt-pkg-perl+etc. (versioned as NMUs).
> > Then,
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 11:51:21PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > In mainline, there is a facility for adding new keys to the keyring by
> > updating the apt package.
>
> Which can't be done (savely) if t
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 06:26:30PM -0400, sean finney wrote:
> istr discussing (or at least thinking to myself) a method of "rolling"
> keys, where one key was used to sign another key, which would then
> ideally be kept somewhere Safe for the case of unexpected expiration.
> this second key could
On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 02:22:48AM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> Personally, when I rebuild a package that might get handed to someone
> else -- even if I didn't touch the source, but am rebuilding in a
> known environment so I can reproduce it later -- I change the
> Maintainer field to an e
On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 11:56:45AM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> >The question of whether modified source should have the Maintainer field
> >changed is a reasonable subject for discussion, but in your particular
> >case, both of the source packag
On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 11:56:45AM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
> I think all other distributions based on Debian do change the Maintainer
> field. If someone wishes to be a maintainer for Ubuntu (or Kubuntu, or
> Gentoo, or Linspire, or RedHat, or ...), then they can apply with a
> given distribution.
Perhaps it would help if I explained the current mode of operation for
Ubuntu, as compared with other Debian derivatives. At the end of this
message, I'll restate the questions at hand in this context.
Ubuntu is a distribution based on Debian.
1. Most of the source packages in Ubuntu are inherit
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 12:35:21AM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> While this sounds like a very useful tool, AFAIK it is a proprietary
> service (for now?), and I wonder whether this clashes with part two of
> our social contract, at least with the spirit of it (as Debian obviously
> did not write
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 11:06:31PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 01:45:52PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Why, in this case, isn't the package released for the other
> > architectures? There's nothing wrong with sending an update later for
> > architectures that wer
On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 11:07:24AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 11:54:20AM +0300, Jani wrote:
> >
> > > This gpg key belongs to Jani Monoses (Cc'ed).
> > >
> > > Perhaps he can tell what happened (looks like an accidental upload to
> > > Debian instead of Ubuntu).
> >
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 01:34:51PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> I may do that too, but its architecture support is abysmal compared to
> Debian, so I have no choice in the matter at this point (and lack the time
> to port ubuntu to all my archs).
Ubuntu currently has first-class ports for i386, a
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 10:17:38AM -0700, Stephen Birch wrote:
> Normal debian etiquette identifies the maintainer of a new package as
> the first person to file an ITP. So how is this coordinated with
> Ubuntu?
In some cases, Ubuntu maintainers are not also Debian maintainers, and as
such would
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 11:14:53PM +0200, Ante Karamatić wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-05-31 at 11:54 -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>
> > I don't see a wifi-radar package in Ubuntu, so unless I've missed something,
> > yours is the most authoritative package.
>
> wif
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 09:00:33PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> In the ubuntu case in particular, I wish that they would be more
> proactive in sending their patches to the Debian maintainers. Asking
> us Debian folk to go to an obscure site somewhere, wade through
> listings of thousands of diff
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 12:06:39AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 07:47:19PM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > After Sarge, releases, it should be pretty straightforward for someone to
> > set up a script to mass-mail Debian maintainers copies of the Python
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 10:10:09AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> This is a non-courtesy that quite some Debian Developers extend
> towards their users, but it is not a practice that is especially
> targeted at Ubuntu.
There was nothing in my comments which was specific to Ubuntu; this is the
way it
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 05:00:31PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * Stephen Birch
>
> | John Goerzen([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2005-06-01 00:06:
> | > Out of curiousity, do you have a rough estimate of the percentage that
> | > actually make it into Debian? Or the percentage that are held back
> | >
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 09:38:40AM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Matt Zimmerman]
> > I don't have any hard statistics, but here are some random examples of
> > patches whose development was sponsored by Canonical, were tested and proven
> > in Ubuntu, were proac
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 06:17:48AM -0700, Stephen Birch wrote:
> No .. it wasn't intended to be sarcastic. Both the Ubuntu supporters
> and the opponents will be watching to see what takes place.
Firstly, please don't divide the community by implying that they must choose
sides. There are plent
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 08:08:02AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> If there are inactive maintainers in Debian why not starting group
> maintainance? The Ubuntu maintainer might be listed in the Uploaders
> field and find a sponsor to upload the package (in the best case the other
> maintainer).
T
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 10:52:48AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> And I guess it is not by chance that packages which fit into this
> category often accumulate more and more very old, simply to fix
> and boring bugs. I hope this can be solved since I heard several
> positive voices to make group m
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 08:20:39AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, John Goerzen wrote:
>
> >On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 07:47:19PM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> >>After Sarge, releases, it should be pretty straightforward for someone
> >>to set u
like cmucl?
> [...]
> About the "source only" question, I have to pass the question to someone
> more experienced, I'm not quite sure, how we handle this. Matt Zimmerman
> maybe can answer this.
I'm not sure what you mean by this; do you mean packages with circular
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 11:23:23PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=298064
>
> I don't think the second one is a very good example either as it seems to
> assume udeb support and Debian is not there yet.
I have no idea what you mean. What does runnin
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 03:08:51PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> I think it is high time we revisit the traditional Debian maintainer
> model. We have been aware of its weaknesses for years, and are most
> biting in the areas of nonresponsive maintainers. I think we should
> devote some thought t
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 11:06:18PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 12:18:13PM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > I'm not sure what you mean by this; do you mean packages with circular
> > dependencies which must be bootstrapped manually? If so, this is g
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 11:28:44PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Wednesday 01 June 2005 19:25, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > > You mean http://people.ubuntu.com/~scott/ongoing-merge/ which has
> > > been there for at least half a year?
> >
> > Or rather http://people
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 12:27:38AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Oh, I forgot to mention that if Ubuntu continues to ignore Ian Murdock's
> warnings about breaking compatability with debs, it will end up a fork
> in my book even if most of the underlying code is substantially the
> same, and this will
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 12:25:01AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > I see no need to argue about whether Ubuntu should push; the patches
> > are all there in an easily accessible tree, and it would be trivial to
> > pull the patches and push them som
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 09:25:01AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>
> >Personally, I agree, but this is something which needs to be addressed by
> >Debian itself. It is not the responsibility of derivatives, nor is there
> >anyt
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 01:59:18AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Obviously, I have no control over how derived distributions
> conduct their business, or where they allocate resources. But I would
> not consider doing development in a public repo an adequate
> substitute for not pushi
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 09:04:47AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> IMHO a "saner" method would be to allow pple to easily hook into the SCM
> used by the Ubuntu developpers in order to receive the patches done
> *incrementaly* + the logs that are with them [2].
Part of the issue is that we curr
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 09:17:46AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> In your first mail you wrote about "mass-mail Debian maintainers" in the
> second mail you turned my request to file wishlist bug reports against
> single packages into "mass-filing bugs in the BTS".
If all of the patches were to be
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 08:49:34AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> *Especially* with their "everything is in Arch" philosophy. There are
> good reasons that people may choose Subversion or Darcs instead. Every
> VC I've ever used falls flat on its face in certain common scenarios,
> and Arch is no
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 11:52:51AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> >It has been said that it is too much of a
> >burden for Debian maintainers to process the patches, and Ubuntu currently
> >has a miniscule number of developers co
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 10:17:08AM -0500, Bill Allombert wrote:
> As far as popularity-contest is involved, Ubuntu users are not Debian
> users since they cannot report to popcon.debian.org because the
> popularity-contest package provided by Ubuntu report to popcon.ubuntu.com,
Do you see this,
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 11:20:33AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>
> >There isn't much that I can do about packages that I don't maintain; we
> >have some tools for this, but it is primarily a matter of personal
> >pre
On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 07:49:39AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 12:47:30AM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > The same logic applies to many bugs as well. Would it really be better to
> > have an open bug report in debbugs, than a patch on people.ubunt
On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 08:49:31AM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> And I think it is a fair demand asking all Ubuntu Developers to wear the
> Ubuntu hats when Ubuntu specific questions are beeing discussed.
When speaking on behalf of Ubuntu, yes, this is certainly appropriate.
However, where they we
On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 11:29:02AM -0400, Dale C. Scheetz wrote:
> >From the first CD I installed, I realized it was a fork...and a disapointing
> one at that. (Pretty desktop on live CD didn't install from installation CD,
Can you explain what you mean by this statement about the CD? Did the
i
On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 06:38:54PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Ante Karamati?]
> > All new Ubuntu packages should have ITP on Debian lists. For
> > example, if I package app that isn't in Debian, and I package it for
> > Ubuntu, I will fill ITP for that package on Debian list.
>
> This i
On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 08:13:35PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Bill Allombert]
> > Should Ubuntu encourage such behaviour ?
>
> Is it? I doubt they do.
Certainly not. Quite the opposite, in fact.
> Not all package maintainers in Ubuntu are paid by Canonical, and thus
> fairly out of
On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 09:24:54PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Matt Zimmerman]
> > Is this judgement based on some experience you had with an Ubuntu
> > developer?
>
> The observation (judgement is stretching it too far) is based on my
> very limited experience
On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 09:17:26AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> I have to admit that I was not aware that there is something in parallel
> in this universe that the Debian mirrors which is providing *.deb packages
> of free software.
This seems incredible to me. What did you mean by this? You
On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 10:49:27AM +0100, Stephen Birch wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-06-04 at 20:38 +0200, Daniel Holbach wrote:
>
> > * The handling of NEW packages and in which cases to file an ITP.
> > * How to retrieve patches in the easiest way.
> > * How to start group maintenance
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 07:22:08PM +0200, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> That sounds retarded in an age where a 200GB HD cost less then 100 Euro...
> Anyway you can always decide to mirror only part of the archive if you
> want to, even today.
Those who followed the dozens of earlier discussion
On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 07:45:58AM +0100, Stephen Birch wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 00:53 -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>
> > There isn't much that I can do about packages that I don't maintain; we have
> > some tools for this, but it is primarily a matter of pers
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 08:28:26AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Jun 2005, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>
> >This seems incredible to me. What did you mean by this? You have never
> >heard of Knoppix, Morphix,
> They do not provide an apt-get - able Debian mirror.
They
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 02:13:50AM -0700, Stephen Birch wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2005-06-05 12:55:
> > I don't think there exists a bug tracking system which meets this need
> > today, which is why Canonical is developing a bug tracking system which is
>
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 11:21:35PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>
> >>>heard of Knoppix, Morphix,
> >>They do not provide an apt-get - able Debian mirror.
> >
> >They provide free software in .deb format.
> Not
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 09:53:40PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > Debian does, in fact, treat most of its upstreams precisely this way.
> > Debian publishes a large portion of its changes primarily in the form of
> > monolithic diffs relative to upstr
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 10:06:05PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Personal communication is how development works in the entire rest of
> the free software world, I really don't see why Ubuntu is different.
This strikes me as ironic, considering that you are attempting to hold
Ubuntu to a standard whi
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 08:50:35PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Please provide an URL to the place where Knoppix and Morphix
>"provide free software in .deb format"
> in a comparable amount to Ubuntus universe.
This is the first time that you have mentioned the amount as a criteria in
this d
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 10:25:53PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> You seem to try to pick up every little bit of my mails which is able
> to drift us away from the main point:
>
>Lets minimize the amount of work by beeing as compatible as
>possible. The best way is to have a diff of zero
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 04:03:24PM -0700, Stephen Birch wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2005-06-07 13:35:
> > If the diff were zero bytes, Debian and Ubuntu would be identical. I hope
> > that you can understand my hesitation to accept a definition of success
>
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 07:57:31PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> Because Ubuntu makes a lot of noise about being a good community member
> and contributing back as much as possible, while most other derivatives
> just take what they want quietly and disappear into the mist.
>
> Between some sligh
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 03:12:02AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > Without any clarification on your part, my interpretation remains unchanged.
> > Ubuntu routinely imports all of the new code in the Debian archive, sorts
> > out any necessary merging,
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 10:36:25AM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> I'm sorry, this turned out to be very long-winded, but since many people
> are interested in what's going on with X.Org, I may as well explain to a
> larger audience than debian-x what's in store.
Thanks for bringing concrete inform
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 01:55:57PM -0500, Ian Murdock wrote:
> I don't doubt there were changes, even some worthwhile changes,
> between the version of libc in sarge and the versions in
> hoary/breezy. My question is: Are the changes worth breaking
> compatibility? It's a cost/benefit thing. And i
On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 11:35:21AM -0500, Ian Murdock wrote:
> Please don't be dramatic. I'm not demanding anything. I'm expressing a
> concern, and a legitimate one.
I'm not the only one who isn't convinced of the accuracy of the predictions
which form the basis of your concerns. First, they're
On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 10:33:06PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Except unstable is capable of running packages built on stable
Trivial packages which only link against libc, yes. In general, no. And
many packages from unstable won't build correctly (or at all) on stable
during most of the release
On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 11:13:31AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > I can think of several ways that this could happen, but I haven't
> > actually seen any of them yet. Would you mind adducing some examples?
>
> I haven't bothered to find them, but given what I'm hearing a
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 05:44:33AM -0500, Ian Murdock wrote:
> I don't know if you release this, but this is exactly what Red Hat
> says too. "RHEL is free, because we provide the source code.
> Binaries aren't important to free software." Well, they're pretty
> damned important to Red Hat, to the
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 12:58:15PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> When Ubuntu leads to users having ideas like the one in the parent post,
> this is manifestly false.
Similar comments have been made by the uninformed in the past, before Ubuntu
even existed, with Red Hat, SuSE, Linspire, etc. in its pla
101 - 200 of 1069 matches
Mail list logo
