Op maandag 15-10-2007 om 17:46 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef Ian
Jackson:
I too find the programmable completion very annoying.
And I find them very useful, except where they have bugs (e.g. sudo
-e, which should work like 'sudoedit'). IMHO tab-completion should
complete to what's supposed to
What's wrong with this picture?
Easy:
#1. Developers release untested crap and expect the community to find
the bugs. Bugs are too boring for developers to be bothered with.
#2. Developers working on parallel development threads manage to
resurrect old bugs that were killed long ago by
Hello!
We will soon be pushing out updates to Firefox in three stable Ubuntu
releases: Dapper, Edgy and Feisty and would appreciate help in testing
the packages.
The candidate packages can be found in the new Mozilla section of the QA
website:
https://mozilla.qa.stgraber.org/
Please test and
On Oct 16, 2007, at 2:06 AM, Scott (angrykeyboarder) wrote:
...
I've been running Gutsy for a little over two months now. In part
because I wanted to help out. But it's quite disheartening to file bug
reports (some of which are seemly serious) only to find that they don't
merit any kind of
Hello ,
getdeb packages requirements do not meet ubuntu backports requirements,
ubuntu backports are based on versions available on the development
version, getdeb packages are based on the latest upstream version, some of
the software is not even available at the development version.
If you are
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 10:40:46PM +1300, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
On Oct 16, 2007, at 6:08 AM, Alexander Sack wrote:
how about using a captcha-like mechanism to trigger this decisionmaking
process?
...
For example, have the computer specify that the user must type
either twice
On Tuesday 16 October 2007 06:02, João Pinto wrote:
Hello ,
getdeb packages requirements do not meet ubuntu backports requirements,
ubuntu backports are based on versions available on the development
version, getdeb packages are based on the latest upstream version, some of
the software is
Le mardi 16 octobre 2007 à 11:02 +0100, João Pinto a écrit :
GetDeb is an user friendly UI to the latest software, that was our
starting point, I am not sure that after overcoming the current
technical APT adoption blockers we will be able to merge with
backports at some point, that will be a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
And here's your Please ignore all my bugs pass. Consider it taped to
your forehead.
When we have users like this, i wonder at the point of looking to fix
bugs at all. They clearly don't care, and whatever we do will never be
good enough for them.
Scott,
besides myself there other debian/ubuntu contributors which also contribute
to getdeb, when they do it for an official project you classify them as
insiders, and on other project, outsiders ?
What part of our work is not available to the Ubuntu community from both
users an developer's
Sebastien,
yes, the site engine uses a mysql db, with app/version/release/distro
information.
Our users are informed that they should not keep ~getdeb~ packages during
dist-upgrades.
We do not support distribution release upgrades.
We have sent a note last week about preparing for upgrades,
On Tuesday 16 October 2007 10:22, João Pinto wrote:
top posting reformatted
2007/10/16, Scott Kitterman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tuesday 16 October 2007 06:02, João Pinto wrote:
Hello ,
getdeb packages requirements do not meet ubuntu backports
requirements, ubuntu backports are
Alexander Sack writes (Re: Untrusted software and security click-through
warnings):
how about using a captcha-like mechanism to trigger this decisionmaking
process?
I assume this is some kind of joke but I'm afraid I don't get it.
Ian.
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Alexander Sack writes (Re: Untrusted software and security click-through
warnings):
I completely agree. My point is: if captchas don't help then why would
pasting commands from the net help to get the user think about the
risk their actions imply?
The point is pasting random commands from the
Am Dienstag, den 16.10.2007, 11:02 +0100 schrieb João Pinto:
* getdeb packages requirements do not meet ubuntu backports
requirements, ubuntu backports are based on versions available
on the development version, getdeb packages are based on the
latest upstream
I completely agree with Ian: let's just get rid of GDebi Co. installed
by default, thus requiring the users to copy/paste commands to a
console. This is IMHO the best warning we can provide, and daring/being
able to start a console and do this is already a check of the user will
and capacity at
Sebastien Bacher wrote:
As mentioned on the bug already that's not an Ubuntu specific issue and
should be worked upstream. There is no easy workaround known at the
moment but if you know one you are welcome to describe it on the bug
You know I'm not the kind of guy to damn Ubuntu because of
I'm writing in response to some recent emails on this list that may have
had a discouraging effect on the developers and other community members.
While Some constructive criticism is needed, I would like to remind
people that the developers are essentially volunteers who put a LOT of
hard work
On Tuesday 16 October 2007 11:51, João Pinto wrote:
fixed top posting (again).
Ubuntu has official repositories. Getdeb isn't one of them. I don't
know what can be clearer than that. If you want to be Official talk to
the Ubuntu Tech Board. That's what Backports did.
You provide
It's a fresh relief to see positive comments once in a while :)
Thanks for your kind words.
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 09:40:04AM -0700, Dane Mutters wrote:
I'm writing in response to some recent emails on this list that may have
had a discouraging effect on the developers and other community
Onno Benschop wrote:
My point is this, an fsck is an 'out of band' check, that is, a check
that doesn't rely on other things. It means that while theoretically a
file-system maintains its integrity, in practice it cannot. fsck is a
useful tool that needs to run regularly and every 30 mounts is
Hi,
first off thanks for conacting us (again). You've certainly put a lot of
effort into the GetDeb project, and are obviously (taken from your bandwith
estimations) providing a well accepted and wanted service. So thanks for your
work improving the Ubuntu distribution!
Am Dienstag 16 Oktober
Le mardi 16 octobre 2007 à 18:38 +0200, Milan a écrit :
Please, could somebody have a look to confirm this? Now it's quite
late but this fix is *essential*. If there are drawbacks (and I could
find none), they can hardly be worse than now.
Gutsy is frozen now and new updates will not be
Hello developers,
There's the decision to ship with a kernel that breaks
suspend/resume on any machine using ATI proprietary drivers (and
Nvidia I think, but by that point we'd rolled a custom kernel to fix
the Ubuntu breakage).
This bug, or this group of bugs, will be a source of annoyance
Hello,
For updates to existing packages when the repositories are open for it,
the
backports timeline can be similar if users are motivated.
Is the timeline similar ? Are the users motivated ? Do backports reach a
broad audience ?
Getdeb/Backports/Ubuntu/Debian/insert your preferred option here
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 04:51:52PM +0100, João Pinto wrote:
We provide packages which are new/not in the official repositories, because,
we
want them to become available for the users. If your question, is, why don't
we
follow the MOTU processes to make them available, then we go into
Hello,
we are interested in working closely with the Ubuntu project, otherwise I
would not be here providing a detailed description of the project and
clarifying how it does not duplicate the existing official projects. (I
already knew this position from a few members on #ubuntu-motu).
Official
Le mardi 16 octobre 2007 à 22:03 +0200, Milan a écrit :
- cosmetic may be high priority if we consider that the proper sense
of the word should be forbidden. The default theme has no problems, but
gnome-themes are installed *by default* and is simple to use, so it's
like it was default. We
On Tuesday 16 October 2007 16:19, João Pinto wrote:
Once we skip that phase of the dialog, we will get into the, How can we
collaborate?, which I was trying to get into on my previous mail,
regarding the ability to upload packages to a backports automated building
process.
By policy (given
Hello,
You can get a snapshot of the current app tables:
http://www.getdeb.net/tmp/getdeb_db_16_Oct_2007.sql.gz
I don't have a detailed data model documentation, here is a quick guide for
the apps info:
gd_app - Application info entry
gd_app_version - Version record
gd_app_release - Release of a
On Tue, 2007-10-16 at 22:03 +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
No, that's not something we can know from a summary mail, we would need
to look at the packages you are distributing. Do you have a bug tracker
where users can send issue they have using the getdeb versions?
Hello,
That policy is development oriented. Our target is the current release.
A backport may be complex or not, it may even be impossible (it may depend
on core library upgrades), making sure a package can be successfully build
and successfully runs on both development and current, requires
On Tuesday 16 October 2007 16:52, João Pinto wrote:
top posting fixed.
2007/10/16, Scott Kitterman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
By policy (given out by the Ubuntu Tech Board) backports only come from
the
developmental repository. I don't understand why you keep wanting to
bypass
that step.
Hello Michael,
we had this conversation at that time, I was a single person working on
getdeb.
I had no time to MOTIfy and keep Getdeb. Getdeb is not just about software
packaging, it is a software portal a PHP/MySQL custom engine, with
registered users which require attention, is is about
Hello,
I am not going to touch the gnucash package because the Feisty getdeb
archive is frozen.
When a new release arrives, we also get a frozen archive, on our case, for
the past release.
Still, you can request it's removal by reporting is as a bug at:
https://launchpad.net/getdeb.net/
If we
I too find the programmable completion very annoying.
And I find them very useful, except where they have bugs (e.g. sudo
-e, which should work like 'sudoedit'). IMHO tab-completion should
complete to what's supposed to be there in most cases, maybe even giving
hints if there is a choice
This has been the best release cycle so far for me. I have found the
developers more responsive than ever and a good number of the bugs I'm
most interested in have been fixed.
There are also some lovely nuggets of joy in the 7.10 release like
finally having a GUI method for installing a
On Tuesday 16 October 2007 17:27, João Pinto wrote:
Hello,
I am not going to touch the gnucash package because the Feisty getdeb
archive is frozen.
When a new release arrives, we also get a frozen archive, on our case, for
the past release.
Still, you can request it's removal by reporting
On Tuesday 16 October 2007 19:06, Krzysztof Lichota wrote:
João Pinto napisał(a):
I note that you are distributing gnucash 2.2.1 for Feisty:
Possible causes:
- We have packaged it before it was available on backports
- We missed to verify that it was on backports, or for some odd reason
Scott Kitterman napisał(a):
Generally I enable backports, install what I want, and the disable it again.
That I think most people can do.
Maybe they can, but:
a) they have to know about it
b) it is very inconvenient
c) you do not get updates to installed app (i.e. security fixes)
It doesn't
On 17/10/07 01:33, Phillip Susi wrote:
Onno Benschop wrote:
My point is this, an fsck is an 'out of band' check, that is, a check
that doesn't rely on other things. It means that while theoretically a
file-system maintains its integrity, in practice it cannot. fsck is a
useful tool that needs
Steve,
Pretty major bug, yet seemingly simple fix, affects a fair number of people.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/hal/+bug/127773
Booting 2.6.20-16-generic gives me a regular, working battery.
2.6.22-14-generic is the problem.
Matt
On 10/5/07, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 10/16/07, Scott Kitterman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pretty major bug, yet seemingly simple fix, affects a fair number of
people.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/hal/+bug/127773
Booting 2.6.20-16-generic gives me a regular, working battery.
2.6.22-14-generic is the
On Tuesday 16 October 2007 21:58, Conrad Knauer wrote:
On 10/16/07, Scott Kitterman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pretty major bug, yet seemingly simple fix, affects a fair number of
people.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/hal/+bug/127773
Booting 2.6.20-16-generic gives me
44 matches
Mail list logo
