-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
john levin wrote:
> John Vivirito wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> This is an anouncment of a new Ubuntu team that is rising. We are the
>> Ubuntu-mozillateam. We are here to triage mozilla bugs, and just all
>> around l
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Arwyn Hainsworth wrote:
> On 10/03/07, Alec Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Is Creative Commons an acceptable lisence? Or is it incompatible with the
>> GPL because you have to give credit to the original authour?
>
> The FSF has a list of GPL co
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Wagner wrote:
> Furthermore, a more formal mechanism would allow for Ubuntu to give a
> big, fat warning for unknown/untrusted third party repositories. What I
> mean is, Ubuntu could store a list of known and trusted repositories,
> which might
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Scott Ritchie wrote:
> But what about the GPG key? Do they still need to add that with a
> terminal command?
Not in Gutsy at least, there's an authentication tab in
software-properties-gtk, you can press the "import key file" and browse
to a key file
Tim Hull wrote:
> Hi,
> I've noticed with Debian that the development is mostly done out in the
> open on the mailing lists and the bug tracking system with direct
> contact between developers and users. However, I haven't noticed this
> so much with Ubuntu. I know that the "Core Development
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Scott (angrykeyboarder) wrote:
> How does one convey the message that a bug is severe?
Including a bug number in your mail would get more eyes looking at it.
Thanks,
Dean
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHAW+Ke
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Greg K Nicholson wrote:
> Toby Smithe:
>> There seems to be some confusion here: regardless of the content of the
>> version string, bug fixes from upstream will have been ported back to
>> the current Ubuntu package. The two releases are functionally
Christofer C. Bell wrote:
> He's indicating that the name is confusing.
>
> I'm not sure what the solution is other than to perhaps indicate in
> parenthesis what each is for.
>
> Remote Desktop Viewer (VNC Client)
> Terminal Server Client (Microsoft Windows RDC)
>
Terminal Server Client does
