On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> I disagree. A new software version can bring new features, but also a
> lot of new bugs. There are even examples of new version that reduces the
> functionality to simplify the program.
True. Nautilus 3.6 is a notable example. The whole GNOM
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> This is covered by point four of the "When" section: "Bugs which do not
> fit under above categories, but (1) have an obviously safe patch and (2)
> affect an application rather than critical infrastructure packages (like
> X.org or the kerne
Am Samstag, den 03.11.2012, 02:28 -0500 schrieb Ma Xiaojun:
> Though newer software is generally better
I disagree. A new software version can bring new features, but also a
lot of new bugs. There are even examples of new version that reduces the
functionality to simplify the program.
> [...] and
Am Samstag, den 27.10.2012, 14:36 +0200 schrieb Chris Müller:
> Hi,
>
> We have some problems with the current cmake version on the Ubuntu 12.04
> LTS Distribution that can't find ruby1.9 libraries.
> A simple "find_package(Ruby)" in a CMakeLists.txt throws the follow
> error (Though ruby1.9-dev
Am Sonntag, den 28.10.2012, 21:48 -0500 schrieb Ma Xiaojun:
> SRU stands for Stable Release Updates:
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates
>
> I think the When list may need some additions.
>
> Probably everyone wants latest version if she happens to notice the
> difference between ups
Hi folks,
I could use some little assistance in packaging and version dependencies.
My remdine source package creates a bunch of binary packages:
* 'redmine': metapackage pulling in redmine-core and one redmine-pgsql,
redmine-mysql or redmine-sql
* 'redmine-core': the actual redmine code
* 'red
Le 07/11/2012 17:16, J Fernyhough a écrit :
On 7 November 2012 15:23, Colin Watson wrote:
On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 03:28:44PM +, J Fernyhough wrote:
I'm currently looking into how Ubuntu meets the provisions of the Data
Protection Act 1998, and more crucially what would need to be done to
m
On 7 November 2012 15:23, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 03:28:44PM +, J Fernyhough wrote:
>> I'm currently looking into how Ubuntu meets the provisions of the Data
>> Protection Act 1998, and more crucially what would need to be done to
>> meet the requirements, so that I have
On 5 November 2012 15:35, Martin Albisetti wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 12:28 PM, J Fernyhough wrote:
>> (As an aside, it appears that being only enthusiastic
>> about Ubuntu and all decisions, or at least getting in line, is a
>> requisite for employment there.)
>
> It is not.
>
On 7 November
On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 03:28:44PM +, J Fernyhough wrote:
> I'm currently looking into how Ubuntu meets the provisions of the Data
> Protection Act 1998, and more crucially what would need to be done to
> meet the requirements, so that I have some base of evidence and legal
> reasoning to put f
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 4:28 PM, C de-Avillez wrote:
> On 05/11/12 09:08, Jordon Bedwell wrote:
> > This is from my perspective though
> > and I have not really followed all too closely since I am the type of
> > person to remove what I don't want and block stuff like Canonical's
> > NTP and other
11 matches
Mail list logo
