[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> There seems to be a fairly good amount of Debian Sarge packages
> available via http://klik.atekon.de/.
You know, I almost didn't bother to visit the web site, since you're
unwilling to even sign your name to your message, and you didn't say
anything about what klik is or why
On Wednesday 18 January 2006 18:07, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Posting permissions to debian-devel-announce revoked after making a
> point.
[public announcmement of the above on d-d-a]
Thank you very much. Very well written.
-- vbi
--
The early bird gets the coffee left over from the night befor
> Is there anyone from Debian who thinks that changing the Maintainer
> field is a bad idea in these cases (remember that this isn't about
> credit, because we would certainly request that the Debian maintainer
> still be mentioned as such in a suitable fashion)?
So deep in a thread that certainl
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:54:00PM -0600, Ken Bloom wrote:
> > There's also no documentation of this numbering scheme: does it differ when
> > applied to a {native, non-native} package? A {maintainer upload, NMU}?
> > So actually I can't write a fix, period.
> How did bin-NMU numbers work for t
>I'd like to offer these three packages for adoption: x-symbol, xmix, and
oneko.
I'll take oneko if Joey Hess doesn't want it. (But frankly he'll probably do
a better job at maintaining it than me.) (On third thought, I'd be happy to
be a co-maintainer for it.)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 12:12:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> * allowing us to easily use python (as well as C, C++ and perl) for programs
> in the base system
>
> * allowing us to provide python early on installs to make users happier
Please note that it is against upstream's explicit
Where did the rest of this discussion come from? I can't find it here on
debian-devel, but I assume it has something to the patch that I posted
to debian-devel, and later to debian-dpkg at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-dpkg/2006/01/msg00045.html
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
>
On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 12:12 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> debian-python Cc'ed
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 07:02:32PM -0600, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > > This is something that Python upstream explicitly does not want; the only
> > > reason for creating python-minimal was so that it could be Essentia
Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>This has probably been covered ad nauseum, but where do we stand in
>respect to getting mplayer in Debian?
IIRC, the copyright issues were carefully worked out and solved after several
years, finally reaching the approval of debian-legal. At which point i
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:16:32PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 12:12:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Some reasons:
>
> > * compatability with Ubuntu -- so that packages can be easily ported back
> > and forth between us and them; I expect most of the work ubun
Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Which would be totally pointless until dpkg itself is fixed to give
> > packagers an alternative to ${Source-Version}.
>
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> I thought we had a fix-strategy in place for addressing these cases.
> I'm sorry if we don't; then of course this strategy
In response to your request for replies to
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html:
>1. Most of the source packages in Ubuntu are inherited from Debian
> unchanged (example: tetex-base).
Then the *source* packages can legitimately use the same Maintainer: field.
If they are
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 05:57:49PM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> mdz writes:
> > It is considered to be in poor taste to report bugs to bugs.debian.org
> > which have not been verified on Debian...
>
> I should think that in most cases by the time you've produced a patch that
> fixes a bug in an Ubu
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: libfeed-find-perl
Version : 0.06
Upstream Author : Benjamin Trott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/dist/Feed-Find/
* License : GPL/Artistic
Descrip
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 12:12:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> debian-python Cc'ed
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 07:02:32PM -0600, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > > This is something that Python upstream explicitly does not want; the only
> > > reason for creating python-minimal was so that it could be E
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: libdatetime-format-w3cdtf-perl
Version : 0.04
Upstream Author : Kellan Elliott-McCrea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://datetime.perl.org/
* License : GPL/Artistic
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: libdatetime-format-mail-perl
Version : 0.2901
Upstream Author : Dave Rolsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://datetime.perl.org/
* License : GPL/Artistic
Descriptio
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:47:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> > I believe there are still packages which break when bin-NMU'd (e.g.,
>> > Depends: = ${Source-Version}), and there are parts of our
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:47:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I believe there are still packages which break when bin-NMU'd (e.g.,
> > Depends: = ${Source-Version}), and there are parts of our infrastructure
> > which do not support them (Ubu
There seems to be a fairly good amount of Debian Sarge packages available via
http://klik.atekon.de/. However, most of them are having unmaintained recipes
and therefore some of them do not work properly. I think it would be an easy
task for Debian maintainers to check the working of the kliked
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 12:36:12PM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> * Thijs Kinkhorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-18 10:26]:
> > Mr Zimmerman's reference to Kennedy is an excellent example of such a
> > metaphorical construct. When Kennedy said that, there will undoubtedly
> > have been people who u
Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Fact is, the potential for confusion here never even occurred to
> me when we started doing this at Progeny. Quite the contrary to what
> Matthew suggests, it seems to me that changing the Maintainer
> field is a perfectly reasonable thing to do now that I
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I believe there are still packages which break when bin-NMU'd (e.g.,
> Depends: = ${Source-Version}), and there are parts of our infrastructure
> which do not support them (Ubuntu doesn't do bin-NMUs).
That's correct. These are bugs, and should be r
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 16:54:22 -0200
Otavio Salvador <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> >
> >> Debian-EDU is available in Debian but also outside of it since they
>
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 05:57:49PM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> mdz writes:
> > It is considered to be in poor taste to report bugs to bugs.debian.org
> > which have not been verified on Debian...
> I should think that in most cases by the time you've produced a patch that
> fixes a bug in an Ubuntu
debian-python Cc'ed
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 07:02:32PM -0600, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > This is something that Python upstream explicitly does not want; the only
> > reason for creating python-minimal was so that it could be Essential: yes,
> > not to support stripped-down Python installations.
> S
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:43:48PM -0500, Ian Murdock wrote:
> Fact is, the potential for confusion here never even occurred to
> me when we started doing this at Progeny. Quite the contrary to what
> Matthew suggests, it seems to me that changing the Maintainer
> field is a perfectly reasonable t
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Certainly, if they are modifying the packages, I would think the same
there here applies as in the case of Ubuntu: they should reset the
Maintainer field to point to themselves, and continue to give credit
to the Debian developer in a suitable fashion.
The founder of Debi
On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 13:27 -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:21:32AM +0100, Thomas Hood wrote:
> > Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > Given that python-minimal is Essential: yes in Ubuntu, the *only*
> > > use for this package in Debian (given that there would be no
> > > packages
On 1/18/06, Mike Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 11:04, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > On 1/18/06, Mike Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > What please is the difference between a buildX package and all the
> > > other packages that were rebuilt without the buildX annotation?
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Alejandro Bonilla Beeche wrote:
> >What does /bin/sh point to?
> >
> >
> >
> Could you please explain what is exactly what you need to check?
ls -l /bin/sh
In other words, what does /bin/sh point to?
What shell is /bin/sh? bash? zsh(gods no)? posh? dash?
--
To UNSUBS
mdz writes:
> It is considered to be in poor taste to report bugs to bugs.debian.org
> which have not been verified on Debian...
I should think that in most cases by the time you've produced a patch that
fixes a bug in an Ubuntu package you would be able to tell whether or not
the bug is likely to
Op do, 19-01-2006 te 00:11 +0100, schreef Davide Natalini:
> Marco, this is useful indeed, but the problem remains: in the debian
> standard kernel the 8138too and 3c59x drivers are both modules, and both
> are present in the initramfs.
> If they are loaded and get the kernel name before udev sta
On Jan 19, Davide Natalini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> maybe modifying mkinitramfs script to include udev in the initramfs
> could help?
udev is already part of the initramfs, but its presence is not relevant.
The options are:
- use names which cannot be used by the kernel, or
- help me cleaning
Philipp Matthias Hahn wrote:
udevd uses ioctl(SIOCSIFNAME) to rename the devices. If you drivers are
compiled in, the get assigned eth[01] during init, but udev is called
much later. Renaming eth0 to eth1 will fail, because there already is an
eth1 and vis versa. Consider using another name syste
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 02:47:05PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Ok, then I must have misunderstood something. So it is clear then
> that Ubuntu does recompile every package.
To clarify explicitly:
- Ubuntu does not use any binary packages from Debian
- Most Ubuntu source packages are iden
Package: general
Severity: normal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
The problem at hand is the proposed (and implemented) solution for
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=332223 .
I'm unconvinced that bumping the priority on the other terminal
emulators is an adequa
Adam Heath wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Alejandro Bonilla Beeche wrote:
Hi,
I just did an upgrade on Sid and an upgrade on Linus tree. Since
then, I can't create a kernel-image.
gcc version 4.0.3 20060115 (prerelease) (Debian 4.0.2-7)
Package: kernel-package
Version: 10.032
I just would
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >> Don't you run wanna-build, buildd and sbuild? It is easy enough to
>> >> change the maintainer field with that.
>> >
>> > Not in the source package, which is what was being discussed in that
>> > context.
>>
>> Huh? Actually, you'll find, they do!
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:57:51PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > I don't agree. This isn't even the case within Debian. Binary-only NMUs
>> > don't modify the source package, even though the bin
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:18:22AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Oh. There might be a misunderstanding: No binary package is taken from
>> > debian, only source packages. This means that EVERY
> The monthly Debian Installer team meeting which was initially
> scheduled for January 14th is reported to January 21st, as several D-I
> developers will attend the "Extremadura session" about the graphical
> installer development
> (http://wiki.debian.org/WorkSessionsExtremadura).
And, sorry, t
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> You can't stop that; you can't say "here's the package, but nobody
>> should use it".
>
> Fortunately, no one attempted to do that. What we did do was discuss our
> plan with Python upstream and ensure that our treatment of the package
> satisfied the
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 12:30:22PM +0200, Riku Voipio wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 January 2006 11:01, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> > So you are saying it's the Debian Developer's job to pull changes from
> > ubuntu back? If that is an official statement, then that would be useful
> > for a d-d-a mail so w
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 01:43:53PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This is something that Python upstream explicitly does not want; the only
> > reason for creating python-minimal was so that it could be Essential: yes,
> > not to support stripp
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 07:19:55PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> I'm glad that you contribute to Debian, you're part of the Debian
> community as some people that you're pointing that changed sides for a
> dollar. I'm sure that you don't know none of them, to say for sure.
> Please, stop the troll
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 01:28:17PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:57:51PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > I don't think you can speak to what tools we do
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:21:32AM +0100, Thomas Hood wrote:
>> Steve Langasek wrote:
>> > Given that python-minimal is Essential: yes in Ubuntu, the *only*
>> > use for this package in Debian (given that there would be no
>> > packages in the wild that
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:57:51PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I don't agree. This isn't even the case within Debian. Binary-only NMUs
> > don't modify the source package, even though the binaries are recompiled.
>
> They obviously do. The
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:18:22AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Oh. There might be a misunderstanding: No binary package is taken from
> > debian, only source packages. This means that EVERY package is being
> > rebuilt in ubuntu on buildds
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:57:51PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > I don't think you can speak to what tools we do or do not have. The fact
>> > is, we import most Debian source packages unmodif
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 05:29:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > I don't agree. This isn't even the case within Debian. Binary-only NMUs
>> > don't modify the source package, even though the binar
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:21:32AM +0100, Thomas Hood wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Given that python-minimal is Essential: yes in Ubuntu, the *only*
> > use for this package in Debian (given that there would be no
> > packages in the wild that depend on it -- the definition of Essential
> > i
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:57:51PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I don't think you can speak to what tools we do or do not have. The fact
> > is, we import most Debian source packages unmodified, and do not have any
> > such tool for modifyi
On 1/18/06, Dallam Wych <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:57:13PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> > You ignore that a lot of them are part of the Debian community. This
> > project would be better if people like you applied part of the
> > imagination to contribute (at least) w
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:01:31AM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> * Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-17 11:36]:
> > I'm saying that you should pause and consider that you're looking at a
> > world-writable resource before treating its contents as a position statement
> > on behalf of the
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 05:29:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I don't agree. This isn't even the case within Debian. Binary-only NMUs
> > don't modify the source package, even though the binaries are recompiled.
>
> Actually, binary-only NM
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:57:13PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> You ignore that a lot of them are part of the Debian community. This
> project would be better if people like you applied part of the
> imagination to contribute (at least) with useful comments.
Rather, I think *you* missed my point
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 09:41:58AM +0100, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 January 2006 00:39, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > The full quote is "We sync our packages to Debian regularly, because that
> > introduces the latest work, the latest upstream code, and the newest
> > packaging
On 1/18/06, Dallam Wych <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 05:09:03PM -0600, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > On Sun, 2006-01-15 at 06:28 -0500, sean finney wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 11:58:51AM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> > > > Do you think your constant bitching is funny
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Otavio Salvador wrote:
Well, that's a "temporary" hack until we have implemented solutions which
makes this superfluous.
But exist!
Sure they exist, but the statement you made about the maintainer field
was simply wrong, because it makes no sense to change the maintainer
On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 05:09:03PM -0600, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-01-15 at 06:28 -0500, sean finney wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 11:58:51AM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> > > Do you think your constant bitching is funny? Do you think it achieves
> > > anything?
> > >
> > > T
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Alejandro Bonilla Beeche wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just did an upgrade on Sid and an upgrade on Linus tree. Since
> then, I can't create a kernel-image.
> gcc version 4.0.3 20060115 (prerelease) (Debian 4.0.2-7)
> Package: kernel-package
> Version: 10.032
>
> I just would love to
On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 11:04, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On 1/18/06, Mike Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What please is the difference between a buildX package and all the
> > other packages that were rebuilt without the buildX annotation?
>
> It is quite similar to what debian calls a binary N
Mike Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 17:29, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > I don't agree. This isn't even the case within Debian. Binary-only NMUs
>> > don't modify the source package, even though the binaries are recompiled
* Brendan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006:01:18 14:54 -0500]:
> This thread is a huge waste of bandwidth. Can't you boys compare pickles
> somewhere else? This gets, (what's the expression?) a big ole fat PLONK.
Sorry sweetie, I'm not a boy and have no pickle to compare.
--
off the chain like a rebe
> You should be aware that per the current REJECT_FAQ [1]
> your package will be automatically rejected because it uses the PHP
> License. Several weeks ago I emailed the FTP Masters[2], requesting that
> they accept the PHP Licence for all PHP Group software, backed up by
> extensive debian-legal
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:09:50PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Notice that what you say, in response to what has been asked over and
>> over, is "my opinion is that changing the Maintainer field on
>> otherwise-unmodified source packages is too
This thread is a huge waste of bandwidth. Can't you boys compare pickles
somewhere else? This gets, (what's the expression?) a big ole fat PLONK.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> * Package name: php-net-imap
> Version : 1.0.3
> Upstream Author : Damian Alejandro Fernandez Sosa
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * URL : http://pear.php.net/package/Net_IMAP
> * License : php license
You should be aware that per the current REJECT_FAQ [1]
your pac
* Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006:01:18 20:23 +0100]:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Joerg Jaspert writes:
> >> On 10538 March 1977, Martin Schulze wrote:
> >>> Since this mail also mentions Andrews sarcastic posting
> >>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-anno
Hi,
I just did an upgrade on Sid and an upgrade on Linus tree. Since
then, I can't create a kernel-image.
gcc version 4.0.3 20060115 (prerelease) (Debian 4.0.2-7)
Package: kernel-package
Version: 10.032
I just would love to know if we should set a bug on kernel-package
(AFAIK, that is the
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Joerg Jaspert writes:
>> On 10538 March 1977, Martin Schulze wrote:
>>> Since this mail also mentions Andrews sarcastic posting
>>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/01/msg9.html I
>>> may lose posting permissions as well.
>> You sho
Hello!
martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> also sprach Emilio Jesús Gallego Arias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.01.18.1254
> +0100]:
>> As far as I can tell, network interface names are given by the
>> kernel and they've nothing to do with udev.
>>
>> To get a stable naming you should use
Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>
>> Debian-EDU is available in Debian but also outside of it since they
>
> Well, that's a "temporary" hack until we have implemented solutions which
> makes this superfluous.
But exist!
--
O T A V
On 1/18/06, Mike Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 05:29, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > Oh. There might be a misunderstanding: No binary package is taken from
> > debian, only source packages. This means that EVERY package is being
> > rebuilt in ubuntu on buildds, including arc
Joerg Jaspert writes:
> On 10538 March 1977, Martin Schulze wrote:
>
> > The charter for this list says: "Announcements for developers".
>
> The charter for -private reads
> "Private discussions among developers: only for issues that may not be
> discussed on public lists. Anything sent there sh
On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 11:21 +0100, Thomas Hood wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Given that python-minimal is Essential: yes in Ubuntu, the *only*
> > use for this package in Debian (given that there would be no
> > packages in the wild that depend on it -- the definition of Essential
> > is that
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:25:07PM +, Dave Holland wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:44:32PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Raphaël has also harmed the project by implicitly
> > linking it to Ubuntu.
>
> Don't be ridiculous. Ubuntu explicitly acknowledge that they build on
> Debian - see
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
On 10538 March 1977, Martin Schulze wrote:
> The charter for this list says: "Announcements for developers".
The charter for -private reads
"Private discussions among developers: only for issues that may not be
discussed on public lists. Anything sent there should be treated as
sensitive and not
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:44:32PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Raphaël has also harmed the project by implicitly
> linking it to Ubuntu.
Don't be ridiculous. Ubuntu explicitly acknowledge that they build on
Debian - see http://www.ubuntulinux.org/ubuntu/relationship - and Debian
positively en
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
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:54:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Besides which, do you honestly know which packages other Debian derivatives
>> > rebuild? As a rule, they are far less communic
Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Oh. There might be a misunderstanding: No binary package is taken from
> debian, only source packages. This means that EVERY package is being
> rebuilt in ubuntu on buildds, including arch: all packages. The output
> of apt-cache shows the field 'Orig
Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 1/18/06, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > As pointed out several times, the source package in the ubuntu archive
>> > is NOT different to the source package in the debian archive. The
>> > binary package have been rebuilt in an differ
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:44:32PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Sorry to feed again the troll, but I would like to know what is the
> rationale behind removing the permissions for Andrew and not for
> Raphaël.
This has nothing to do with the technical aspects of Debian development
(too bad th
On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 05:29, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Oh. There might be a misunderstanding: No binary package is taken from
> debian, only source packages. This means that EVERY package is being
> rebuilt in ubuntu on buildds, including arch: all packages. The output
> of apt-cache shows the fiel
Le mercredi 18 janvier 2006 à 18:07 +0100, Martin Schulze a écrit :
> Andrew Suffield has lost his posting permission to debian-devel-announce
> after making a rather sarcastic point that off-topic mails to this list are
> unwanted.
Sorry to feed again the troll, but I would like to know what is t
Am Mittwoch, den 18.01.2006, 06:02 -0800 schrieb Sergio Talens-Oliag:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Format: 1.7
> Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 14:38:08 +0100
> Source: gnome-u2ps
> Binary: gnome-u2ps
> Architecture: source i386
> Version: 0.0.4-4
> Distribution: unstable
> Urgenc
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Steffen Joeris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: php-net-imap
Version : 1.0.3
Upstream Author : Damian Alejandro Fernandez Sosa
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://pear.php.net/package/Net_IMAP
* License : php license
On Wednesday, 18 January 2006 11:30, Riku Voipio wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 January 2006 11:01, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> > * Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-17 11:36]:
> > So again you are saing it's the Debian Developer's job to look around
>
> Yes it is. and you shouldn't restrict yours
Dear, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You have been successfully unsubscribed from Small Cap Reports.
We are sorry to see you go!
Visit our Ezine Directory for more newsletters!
http://subs.zinester.com
Fill in our questionnaire and receive a bonus: no ads in newsletters!
To fill in the questionnaire please
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:38:29PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:09:50PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> > Since you are rebuilding the package, you *must* change the version number
>> > *anyway*
On 1/17/06, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As it is, to me, Ubuntu is just a group of people, some of which might
> have names[1]. I find it hard to work with such a thing; while I would
> love to work more closely with Ubuntu, the lack of personality is what's
> holding me back---and
Md wrote:
> SuSE uses some scripts to handle persistent interface names
> [...] I had no time yet to investigate the details.
I just looked at the "rename_netiface" script in that package. The
following comments in the script give an idea of how it handles the
race problem.
# look for a netw
* Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 12:34:33AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > FWIW, I think your implied assumption that all Debian derivatives should
> > be treated the same is flawed. Ubuntu is just not like any other
> > derivative, it's a significant operati
* Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 03:07:25PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > You're already rebuilding the package, which I expect entails possible
> > Depends: line changes and other things which would pretty clearly
> > 'normally' entail different Debian packag
please remove me from callwave, [EMAIL PROTECTED]. thank you.
sharenknapp. 956 464 3214.
> In any case I am hoping to see python-minimal included in Debian.
I now see that it is already in sid. :)
$ apt-cache madison python-minimal
python-minimal |2.3.5-5 | http://ftp.nl.debian.org sid/main Packages
--
Thomas Hood
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
1 - 100 of 129 matches
Mail list logo
