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 binaries are
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 16:03:05 -0800, Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Do you realize that Xandros, who maintains a Debian derivative which they
box and sell for US$50-$129 per copy, leaves the Maintainer field
unmodified, and as far as I'm aware, was doing so for a period of *years*
before
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 02:15:15PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 16:03:05 -0800, Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Do you realize that Xandros, who maintains a Debian derivative which they
box and sell for US$50-$129 per copy, leaves the Maintainer field
unmodified, and
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 communicative about their practices
than Ubuntu.
How does the
Adam Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* 1 FETCH (BODY[TEXT] {1008}
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Otavio Salvador wrote:
In my point of view, maintainer field just need to be change when
Ubuntu does a non-trivial change on it. Otherwise, at least to me, is
OK to leave the maintainer field unchanged.
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Otavio Salvador wrote:
But linked against other libraries. The binary is downloaded from another
location(or installed from a different cd set). The program used to do the
download may be different.
Using this as rule, then all Debian CDD distributions would need to
Andreas Tille [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In case of CDDs, the only exception is it isn't build against other
libraries but it is installed by different cd set and downloaded from
another location in many cases.
If it is a CDD than it is installed from a Debian mirror and nothing else.
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.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
* 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 package
* 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 operation on
-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*. It is
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 communicative about
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 I OS A
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 costly
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.
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 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 NMUs,
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 modifying them.
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 binaries are
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 unmodified, and do
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 version
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 or do not have.
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 binaries are
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!
Please show me
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
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
-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
Well,
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'm
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 certainly
* Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I would very much appreciate if folks would review
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html and consider the
points that I raise there. I put some effort into collating the issues
which came up the last time and presenting them.
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is important, in particular, to account for the fact that Ubuntu is not
the only Debian derivative, and that proposals like yours would amount to
Debian derivatives being obliged to fork *every source package in Debian*
for the sake of changing a
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would very much appreciate if folks would review
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html and consider the
points that I raise there. I put some effort into collating the issues
which came up the last time and presenting them.
In
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
Debian developers set the Maintainer field to themselves(or a team), when
they
upload to Debian. The upstream author is only mentioned in the copyright
file.
Ubuntu should do something similiar. Set the Maintainer field to someone
from
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
Debian developers set the Maintainer field to themselves(or a team), when
they
upload to Debian. The upstream author is only mentioned in the copyright
file.
Ubuntu should do something similiar. Set the Maintainer field to someone
from
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Otavio Salvador wrote:
In my point of view, maintainer field just need to be change when
Ubuntu does a non-trivial change on it. Otherwise, at least to me, is
OK to leave the maintainer field unchanged. Directly imported source
(that will be just recompiled by Ubuntu)
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 12:37:47PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is important, in particular, to account for the fact that Ubuntu is not
the only Debian derivative, and that proposals like yours would amount to
Debian derivatives being
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 package revision numbers; changing
the Maintainer field at
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 03:50:09PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
Debian developers set the Maintainer field to themselves(or a team), when
they
upload to Debian. The upstream author is only mentioned in the copyright
file.
Ubuntu should
* Matt Zimmerman:
It is important, in particular, to account for the fact that Ubuntu is not
the only Debian derivative, and that proposals like yours would amount to
Debian derivatives being obliged to fork *every source package in Debian*
for the sake of changing a few lines of text.
Such
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You quite obviously haven't read
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html yet, where I
wrote (among other important things), it would be fairly straightforward
for Ubuntu to override the Maintainer field in binary packages. I
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 12:34:33AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Matt Zimmerman:
It is important, in particular, to account for the fact that Ubuntu is not
the only Debian derivative, and that proposals like yours would amount to
Debian derivatives being obliged to fork *every source
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 11:44:48AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
It is important, in particular, to account for the fact that Ubuntu is not
the only Debian derivative, and that proposals like yours would amount to
Debian derivatives being obliged to fork *every source package in Debian*
for the
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 06:19:32PM -0600, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 11:44:48AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
It is important, in particular, to account for the fact that Ubuntu is not
the only Debian derivative, and that proposals like yours would amount to
Debian
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Besides which, do you honestly know which packages other Debian derivatives
rebuild? As a rule, they are far less communicative about their practices
than Ubuntu.
How does the behavior of other Debian derivatives matter?
As a rule, those other
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 costly for derivatives in
general.
But you say
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 modifying them.
It's really a very short perl script, or a simple modification in C to
the
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.
Actually, binary-only NMUs, after the first
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.
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:
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
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No other Debian derivative, as far as I'm aware, says that it
cooperates fully with Debian.
Other than, say, the DCC Alliance?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe.
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No other Debian derivative, as far as I'm aware, says that it
cooperates fully with Debian.
Other than, say, the DCC Alliance?
I wasn't aware of them until just now. :)
Interestingly, the DCC Alliance
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Other than, say, the DCC Alliance?
I wasn't aware of them until just now. :)
Wow!
Interestingly, the DCC Alliance says that it wants to become part of
Debian.
Do you have information on their plans
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Interestingly, the DCC Alliance says that it wants to become part of
Debian.
Do you have information on their plans with respect to the issues
discussed in this thread?
The DCCA distribution is a mixture of packages from Sarge plus some
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 07:23:41PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The DCCA distribution is a mixture of packages from Sarge plus some
backports. In all cases, the Maintainer: field appears to be the same as
in Debian. Several derived
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Have they modified these packages?
Some of them, yes. Mostly the backports.
What happens to the maintainer field in these cases?
Certainly, if they are modifying the packages, I would think the same
there here applies as in the case of Ubuntu: they
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 07:32:20PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Have they modified these packages?
Some of them, yes. Mostly the backports.
What happens to the maintainer field in these cases?
I haven't seen any that have been changed.
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 communicative about their practices
than Ubuntu.
How does the
57 matches
Mail list logo
