On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 02:03:28PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> Are we talking about the same upstream here? The ones that knew the
> package seemingly from the get go and then AFTER it made it into the archive
> threatened with a lawyer because the package was named virtualbox
> instead of virt
Quoting Holger Levsen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Hi,
>
> I'm happy to hear that the team maintainance aspect of this seems to have
> been
> resolved on IRC. Thanks to those involved!
Indeed. I don't know who had the initiative of setting up that IRC
discussion to solve that "dispute" but (s)he des
Hi,
I'm happy to hear that the team maintainance aspect of this seems to have been
resolved on IRC. Thanks to those involved!
On Wednesday 05 September 2007 14:26, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> If there are restrictions on the package name, this definitely looks
> like something all Debian developer
On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 05:33:40PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> Just a quick note to say that after some discussion in #debian-devel
> involving Daniel, Patrick, and Michael, and fostered by various DDs
> (azeem, buxy, Ganneff, myself), a solution to resolve this situation was
> achieved.
>
Can
Just a quick note to say that after some discussion in #debian-devel
involving Daniel, Patrick, and Michael, and fostered by various DDs
(azeem, buxy, Ganneff, myself), a solution to resolve this situation was
achieved.
In particular, development will return to the pkg-virtualbox Alioth
project (P
On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 02:49:25PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Sep 2007, Patrick Winnertz wrote:
> > This was no good work which was quicked hacked together.
> I'm sorry, but when I upload a new upstream release of Django, I don't
> check every new file.
> It's all good that you do
On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 11:39:42AM +0200, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> Michael Meskes wrote:
> > I have no idea what Daniel really did on the package.
> I did about 90% of the inital packaging.
Which just left the last 90% of the packaging, I guess.
> Patrick uploaded removed me from changelog in the
On Wed, 05 Sep 2007, Patrick Winnertz wrote:
> This was no good work which was quicked hacked together.
I'm sorry, but when I upload a new upstream release of Django, I don't
check every new file.
It's all good that you do it, but it's not necessarily a requirement
and I find it hard to blame da
Patrick Winnertz wrote:
> The upload after the debconf shows me that you doesn't really check what
> you do there.
This package was done and uploaded by Phillip, not me.
--
Address:Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Internet: ht
Patrick Winnertz wrote:
> I add it to the svn you removed it and when i ask you why you do it, you
> told me that the tarballs doesn't belong into svn. you never mention any
> other place where to put the tarball.
>
> The only thing you mentioned were debian/rules upstream to build it, so
> t
On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 02:01:39PM +0200, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> My point is, that it is, of course, a serious error, but not a critical
> one. It may have not been put well enough in words by me.
I cannot speak for our ftp admins here, but I definitely would call this
very critical if I was one
On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 02:08:47PM +0200, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> Michael Meskes wrote:
> > Are we talking about the same upstream here?
>
> i did answer to this question to michael in private (nda reasons).
You're kidding right? This has to be a joke. Please tell me it is. Or is
there another em
Am Mittwoch, 5. September 2007 14:01:39 schrieb Daniel Baumann:
> Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > NO. There is absolutely no reason to *knowingly* upload a non-free
> > tarball, even named ".dfsg".
>
> For the records: I did *not* knowingly see that one.
Yes. bt a simply "find . -type f | sort > /tmp/new
Le mercredi 05 septembre 2007 à 14:08 +0200, Daniel Baumann a écrit :
> Michael Meskes wrote:
> > Are we talking about the same upstream here?
>
> i did answer to this question to michael in private (nda reasons).
If there are restrictions on the package name, this definitely looks
like something
Daniel Baumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Are we talking about the same upstream here?
>
> i did answer to this question to michael in private (nda reasons).
Please post this explanation to -private.
JB.
--
Julien BLACHE - Debian & GNU/Linux Developer - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Public key a
Am Mittwoch, 5. September 2007 12:54:23 schrieb Daniel Baumann:
> tarballs can be produced with the invokation of 'debian/rules upstream'.
>
> it is debatable if the upstream tarball has to be inside the svn, rather
> than the alioth webspace (which I recommended you to do instead). other
> teams,
Michael Meskes wrote:
> Are we talking about the same upstream here?
i did answer to this question to michael in private (nda reasons).
--
Address:Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Internet: http://people.panthera-systems.net/~da
On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 11:39:42AM +0200, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> Upstream is generally cooperative and understands the problems, hence I
> see this a bit more relaxed (for the next few days only, until it's
> sorted out). However, if ftp-master do disagree, I'll can re-upload
> 1.4.0, superseeding
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> NO. There is absolutely no reason to *knowingly* upload a non-free
> tarball, even named ".dfsg".
For the records: I did *not* knowingly see that one.
> "Yay, Upstream understands the problem, lets upload non-free crap to main"
> does
> not work.
My point is, that it is,
On 11133 March 1977, Michael Meskes wrote:
Not rating the act of adding/removing maintainers in an upload, just one
thing:
> But he not just added himself, he also changed some packaging stuff and
> upgraded to a new upstream version. This seems to be done in a hurry as
> he missed some licensing
Patrick Winnertz wrote:
> I started to check in the dfsg- tarball and you remove it again from the
> svn... who should a team work on a package if they doesn't use the same
> tarball at all?
tarballs can be produced with the invokation of 'debian/rules upstream'.
it is debatable if the upstream
Am Mittwoch, 5. September 2007 11:39:42 schrieb Daniel Baumann:
> I did about 90% of the inital packaging.
I removed one line from the changelog.. sorry for this. I'll readd it
within the next upload.
> Patrick uploaded removed me from changelog in the two last uploads
> (virtualbox 1.4.0svn4130-
Michael Meskes wrote:
> I have no idea
> what Daniel really did on the package.
I did about 90% of the inital packaging.
Can be seen on http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/pkg-virtualbox/
> I cannot find him in the
> changelog file.
Patrick uploaded removed me from changelog in the two last uploads
(vir
23 matches
Mail list logo
