Scripsit Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 01:01:32PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> Which other derivative doesn't? At least for GPL code, making
>> available the changes one makes is a legal requirement (assuming that
>> one wants to distribute binaries).
> A number
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 01:01:32PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Which other derivative has made available all of the changes they've made,
> > more-or-less as they make them?
>
> Which other derivative doesn't? At least for GPL code, making
> a
Scripsit Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Which other derivative has made available all of the changes they've made,
> more-or-less as they make them?
Which other derivative doesn't? At least for GPL code, making
available the changes one makes is a legal requirement (assuming that
one wants
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > FWIW, what you say is false and *many* developers are interested in
> > cooperation, not in war.
> >
> > And Ubuntu is doing far more for us than most other derivatives that we
> > ever had.
>
> Provide evidence, please.
Please don't reply to private e
Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
>> And Ubuntu is doing far more for us than most other derivatives that we
>> ever had.
> Provide evidence, please.
X.org, d-i, Gnome.
[Still, communication of changes for smaller packages REALLY sucks]
Marc
--
Fachbegriffe der Informatik - Einfach
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 06:49:37AM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 January 2006 00:08, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > Le lundi 23 janvier 2006, Paul Johnson a écrit :
> > > On Sunday 22 January 2006 03:16, David Weinehall wrote:
> > > > Since all Ubuntu packages are recompiled against a diff
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 00:08, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Le lundi 23 janvier 2006, Paul Johnson a écrit :
> > On Sunday 22 January 2006 03:16, David Weinehall wrote:
> > > Since all Ubuntu packages are recompiled against a different set of
> > > libraries, the bug might not even affect the Debian
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 05:33:33PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Sunday 22 January 2006 03:16, David Weinehall wrote:
>
> > Since all Ubuntu packages are recompiled against a different set of
> > libraries, the bug might not even affect the Debian package, even though
> > they share the same sou
Paul Johnson writes:
> Given Ubuntu hopelessly complicates everything, pretends there is
> cooperation where there is none, and merely duplicates the effort of the
> debian-desktop project, and contributes nothing to the community or
> society...
Do you have evidence to support this, or is it just
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 05:33:33PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Sunday 22 January 2006 03:16, David Weinehall wrote:
> > Since all Ubuntu packages are recompiled against a different set of
> > libraries, the bug might not even affect the Debian package, even though
> > they share the same sourc
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 05:33:33PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Sunday 22 January 2006 03:16, David Weinehall wrote:
>
> > Since all Ubuntu packages are recompiled against a different set of
> > libraries, the bug might not even affect the Debian package, even though
> > they share the same sou
On Sunday 22 January 2006 03:16, David Weinehall wrote:
> Since all Ubuntu packages are recompiled against a different set of
> libraries, the bug might not even affect the Debian package, even though
> they share the same source. Hence having Ubuntu developers triage the
> bugs to rule out such
"JW" == Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
JW> Since binary-level compatibility is not a goal of Ubuntu
JW> (nor IMO should it be; down that path lies madness), they
JW> modify every package in a very important sense.
Even if binary compatibility were a goal, that doesn't mean that
th
[David Weinehall]
> Since all Ubuntu packages are recompiled against a different set of
> libraries, the bug might not even affect the Debian package, even though
> they share the same source.
The same can be said about Debian architectures, when the autobuilder
build the packages at different ti
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 02:26:57AM -0800, Scott Ritchie wrote:
[snip]
> In the case of such a package, the same fixes by the Debian maintainer
> to the Debian package do end up in the contents of the Ubuntu package
> when it gets resynched.
>
> Now, before I confuse myself with word games and cont
On Sat, 2006-01-21 at 01:53 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 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 maintainer, and
> > propagated unmodified into
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 03:44:12AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 01:53:26AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same t
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 01:53:26AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same thing, however. Most of
>> > the packages in universe are maintained only by the
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 01:53:26AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 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 maintainer, and
> > propagated unmodifie
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And unsurprisingly, it, too, doesn't have a straightforward answer. If a
> user reports such a bug to Ubuntu, it is approximately the domain of the
> MOTU team, in that they triage those bugs (on a time-available prioritized
> basis, across the entire
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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 maintainer, and
> propagated unmodified into Ubuntu. It is only when there is a specific
> motive to change the pack
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 10:46:51AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> 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 u
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 10:54:40AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> 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'
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 01:40:11PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> 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.
It wil
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 12:41:49PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> 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:
> > > By way of example, the Debian maintainer is equipped to answer questions
> > > like "why is the
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 Debian,
> > > "Maintainer"
> > > means
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 Debian, "Maintainer"
> > means "An individual or group of people primarily responsible for the
> > on-going w
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
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 maintainer, and
>
> The thing
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:
> > 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 "A
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 Debian, "Maintainer"
> > means "An individual or group of people primarily responsible for the
> > on-going w
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 12:10:54AM +0100, JanC wrote:
> On 1/17/06, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > How about renaming Maintainer to Debian-Maintainer in Ubuntu's binary
> > packages, and having a specific Ubuntu-Maintainer?
>
> This should probably happen in a way that all (or most
On 1/17/06, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How about renaming Maintainer to Debian-Maintainer in Ubuntu's binary
> packages, and having a specific Ubuntu-Maintainer?
This should probably happen in a way that all (or most) Debian-derived
distro's agree on then.
And one more problem:
Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm in line with David. Thomas, if you care about the topic, you must be
> interested in convincing the one who can make a change on Ubuntu's policy.
> And the person in question is Matt. If you scare your only interlocutor
> with Ubuntu, then you can
Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:58:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> > I'm quickly losing interest in discussing this with you at all, to be
> >> >
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
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
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Debian deserves better than to be represented by this kind of behavior.
Ubuntu deserves better than to be represented by toys out of the pram
when three yes/no questions to -devel don't bring consensus.
Shame we don't always get what's deserved, isn't it?
(-d
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 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
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
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 08:15:42AM -0600, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
>"Modify" is a tricky word. Most of my packages go into Ubuntu
>unmodified, in that the diff.gz is the same. However, they use an
>entirely different infrastructure -- new minor GTK and Python versions.
Which leads to the following sli
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,
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:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 11:36:51PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> Sounds like an excellent opportunity to hold a poll about:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2005/12/msg00216.html
>
> Please send proposed ballot(-items) to me personally, and I'll set it up
> tomorrow or so.
Thank y
MJ Ray wrote:
>>This isn't too original, but how about just having a Debian wiki page
>>where people who don't want their name as Maintainer can sign up and for
>>them rename the field to "Debian-Maintainer" or something.
> That seems backwards. If they're not maintaining the ubuntu package,
> ple
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
Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I think the silence is due to the fact that people give it low priority.
> You have all my sympathy for the uncomfortable position that puts you
> (well, your position) in.
It's probably a reflection of how many emails to debian lists
are deleted unread for di
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 11:18:35PM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Hi Matt,
>
> Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > I cannot recall any time when differing opinions have resulted in silence on
> > a Debian mailing list.
> I think the silence is due to the fact that people give it low priority.
> You have al
Hi Matt,
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> I cannot recall any time when differing opinions have resulted in silence on
> a Debian mailing list.
I think the silence is due to the fact that people give it low priority.
You have all my sympathy for the uncomfortable position that puts you
(well, your position
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
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
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
* 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.
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 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 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 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 09:58 -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:
> > http
* 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
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, 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
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
68 matches
Mail list logo
