On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 09:18:40PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Use 2: I have this Ubuntu CD and want to know which debs are from
debian and which got recompiled
Look for all debs that have a deb signature of the debian archive
(to be added to dinstall at some point).
I
On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 08:48:45AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 03:13:58PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
You're correct.
And he is also wrong.
That would result in debs with the same name and version but different
md5sums. Something that easily confuses
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 01:22:50AM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
[Michael Vogt]
Sorry for the delay. I'm preparing a new upload that adds the 2006
archive key to the default keyring.
Sounds good. Will this automatically take care of the key update and
make sure no manual
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 08:23:13PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 03:19:42PM -0500, Frans Jessop wrote:
Ubuntu's launchpad is amazing. Do you think it would be helpful if all
DD's worked through it on their projects? Wouldn't that keep things more
organized and
On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 04:34:48PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 04:32:29PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 01:22:50AM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
Isn't Ubuntu using the signed apt stuff? How are they handling the
new archive keys
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 08:45:02AM +0100, Romain Francoise wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Developers will choose to use them when and where it makes sense for
them to do so.
Ironically enough, it looks like all Debian Developers already have an
account there... because
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 01:28:00AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 11:25:28AM +0100, Stephan Hermann wrote:
Everything what is on https://wiki.launchpad.canonical.com/ is free to use.
Read and think again. Or use another example: Amazons code is not free to
see, but
On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 11:17:10AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Stephan Hermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, we can't change the world totally, but avoiding a tool, because
it's free, but non-free source, it's more a joke then anything else,
because I had to avoid many of the services I
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 12:32:32AM +0100, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
Il giorno lun, 09/01/2006 alle 15.09 -0800, Matt Zimmerman ha scritto:
The reality of the situation is much less controversial. If a Debian
maintainer finds it useful to manage their translations in Rosetta
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 11:52:43AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
As such, I think getting upset at them is fundamentally missing the
point. Companies act like companies, sooner or later. Companies are
fundamentally economic. I don't mind them buying goodwill -- the only
actions a company
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 02:44:28PM +0100, jeremiah foster wrote:
On Wed, 2006-01-11 at 10:25 +0100, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
Thomas Bushnell writes:
No, I think it's because Ubuntu doesn't cooperate well with Debian,
while pretending to cooperate.
Could you be more explicit? I
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 02:34:31PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Ubuntu could report in the BTS all the bugs it finds, and submit patches
via the BTS.
As you know, most bugs are reported by users, not discovered by developers
We direct users to report those bugs to us, rather than Debian,
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 07:54:10PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
This is exactly the point, what can I do with a patch if I don't know
why it's there? Which problem is it trying to address (I know, I can
read the patch and guess, but WTF), and why such solution was adopted...
Everytime I submit a
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 11:09:12PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Let's take this one apart and see what it is that pisses people off so
much.
Hello, Andrew.
I don't intend to participate in this type of email argument with you; I've
yet to see it pay off for anyone involved. However, I will
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 06:09:25PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As you know, most bugs are reported by users, not discovered by developers
We direct users to report those bugs to us, rather than Debian, for obvious
reasons.
Really? I get
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 07:26:50AM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
/me...who expects tons of Ubuntu/Debian discussions at Solutions Linux
in Paris (Jan 31-Feb 2) with both fellow French developers,
users...and Ubuntu users as well. No chance that people from Canonical
show up over there? I can
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 12:41:29AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Now, it may be that this is an unrealistic pipe dream on my part that's
incompatible with Ubuntu's goals/release schedule, but it seems to me that
everyone involved would get more mileage out of the giving-back process if
there
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 07:48:56AM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
Why? Don't we expect users to decide which of their local changes are
suitable for Debian? I sometimes make local changes to Debian packages.
Sometimes I send patches to the BTS and sometimes I decide that the change
is only
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 05:08:33PM +0100, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
as documented experience by maintainers who've tried that shows, this is
inefficient enough that reimplementing is mostly faster (and definately
more attractive, as it involves less drudgework)
This is at best an
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 03:19:09PM +0100, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
But at the moment I've seen lots of comments by maintainers saying that in
most cases it's currently more work to find out if there's any usefull
bits in the diffs between debian-ubuntu packages, then to do the work
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 03:41:08PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
I'm not at all surprised that Ubuntu is drifting into closed-source
software, as this is a standard development path for a company based
around free software. I'm not upset. I'm simply not interested, and
consider that path to be
On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 10:19:50AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 01:14:18PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
Some things that it does say:
[...]
- Ubuntu submits fixes for Debian bugs to the Debian BTS including a patch
URL
If that said sometimes or some people
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 05:49:40PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
I don't buy this. The impression that just about everyone has of this
didn't come from nowhere.
Not from nowhere, no. The statements that Ubuntu steals users from
Debian, wants to kill Debian, etc. came from somewhere, too, but
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 06:15:16PM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
Quoting Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Unfortunately, this conflicts with a development sprint we're having in
London, so that won't be possible at that time.
My heart breaks at the prospect of a missed opportunity
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 07:19:53PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Which group, pray, do you categorize me into?
You, Manoj, are in a category all your own.
--
- mdz
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 02:54:30AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Raphael Hertzog:
I believe Ubuntu fills an important gap in the Debian world and as such
I'm not satisfied when Ubuntu is diverging too much from Debian, and the
only way to avoid divergence is to merge back what's useful
to contribute code to
Debian that is under the his copyright and not Canonical's? And
especially since it is in the exact same area that he was employed by
Canonical to do? Would this apply to Progeny and Debian, Progeny and
Canonical, Linspire and ...
Hi Kevin,
I think that Matt
On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 05:09:44PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
Hmm, it seems to me that Ubuntu has recently changed its practices
regarding what degree of divergence from Debian is appropriate, notably
in the introduction of the MOTU group.
The MOTU team was formed about a week after the first
On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 01:08:41AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 12:34:51PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
can easily spot the holes in it. Likewise, a proposal that Ubuntu
developers should put their changes into Debian instead sounds simple, but
to an Ubuntu
On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 02:59:58AM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
It's not about succeeding. It's about false statements all the time,
like Every Debian developer is also an Ubuntu developer. If I were I
would know. And they are recompiling all my packages, so you can't even
say that they are
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 06:44:42PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
It's amazing how the Debian project manages to communicate fixes to
an even more diverse set of upstream authors, isn't it.
I would be interested to know how you've measured this, because it sounds
hard. It's only because Ubuntu
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 06:58:47PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 05:09:44PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
Hmm, it seems to me that Ubuntu has recently changed its practices
regarding what degree of divergence from Debian is appropriate, notably
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 02:31:47PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
You're underestimating the grave consequences of losing 25MB off every
memory stick and virtual machine.
python-minimal is about two megabytes installed, with no non-Essential
dependencies.
(strictly an observation of fact; I'm
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 09:45:13PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 11:07:40AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
There have been no responses which would indicate what we should do.
Actually, there've been lots, some of them are just contradictory.
There was a lot of
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 09:58:28AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
What I find very dissapointing is that mdz asked on debian-devel twice
for a decision from debian how ubuntu should handle the maintainer Field
without any luck:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 06:52:10PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 04:04:09PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
The ratio of Debian developers to upstream developers is *much* closer to
1:1 than the ratio of Ubuntu developers to Debian developers,
Obviously; but still, I'd
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 12:46:52PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Anthony Towns wrote:
What I find very dissapointing is that mdz asked on debian-devel twice
for a decision from debian how ubuntu should handle the maintainer Field
without any luck:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 06:46:26PM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
* Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-16 15:39]:
Is the meaning of this statement truly unclear to you, or is this purely a
rhetorical point? Under the assumption that you read it differently than I
do, I'll attempt
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 07:01:42PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 09:25:40AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
[snip]
There will always be differing personal preferences, but in spite of these,
there are times when an organization needs to take an official position
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 12:37:15PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In my opinion, it's much more practical and reasonable for there to be an
agreement on consistent treatment of all packages, than for each Debian
derivative to try to please
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
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 06:39:37PM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
Matt Zimmerman writes:
Is the meaning of this statement truly unclear to you...
Every Debian developer is also an Ubuntu developer implies to me that I
can make uploads to Ubuntu. I can't (not that I'm asking for that
privilege
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 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
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:05:35PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That simply isn't true, and taken at face value, it's insulting, because you
attribute malicious intent.
Um, I have said nothing about your intent.
I think you are desperate
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
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:58:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If that were true, you wouldn't be having this conversation with me. It is
costing me an unreasonable amount of time to deal with this trivial issue,
and I've spent
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 efforts
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 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 project
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
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
is that
, including arch: all packages. The output
of apt-cache shows the field 'Origin' to indicate that this is not a
package built on debian systems.
Good grief, and Matt Zimmerman said the exact opposite recently,
saying that Ubuntu does not rebuild every package.
I said no such thing, and would
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
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 stripped-down
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
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
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 ubuntu
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
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:25:45AM -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
I was unable to locate the quote, but it seems that the quote is/could
be taken liteally. Why not modify the quote to state that it is
metaphorical by using something like 'Every Debian developer is an
Ubuntu developer in the same
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
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 01:14:17PM +0100, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
you are able to do init.d scripts, pre- and postinsts etc in
python. That is a ease of development helper for ubuntu.
All of those can be done today using dependencies.
.config scripts, for example, cannot.
--
- mdz
--
To
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:08:32PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 03:00:53PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
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
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 07:21:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 09:56:59PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
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
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:34:58PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
If we followed the same method for python-base, then we would
a) instroduce python-base iff we had some package(s) written in python
that we wanted in the base system (apt-listchanges comes to mind)
b) include only the modules
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:47:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
In any case, I want to note what has just happened here. You received
a clear, easily implemented, request about what would be a wonderful
contribution, and which is (from the Debian perspective) entirely
non-controversial.
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 09:23:30PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-19 12:45]:
Please don't do this; it implies that python-minimal would be part
of base, but not full python, and this is something that python
upstream explicitly objects to.
Why
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 05:58:20PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
That said, I don't really understand why it's Ok for Ubuntu to do this but
not us.
Ubuntu never installs python-minimal without python, even in base.
--
- mdz
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 06:38:55PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:18:48PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 05:58:20PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
That said, I don't really understand why it's Ok for Ubuntu to do this but
not us.
Ubuntu
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 08:42:57PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Programs that want to use python can assume that python-minimal is
there (since it's Essential), and since python-minimal is never
installed without python also installed, they can also now assume that
all of python,
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 12:16:55AM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
Just to clarify, because I'm also confused and genuinely curious... you
guys use the minimal package during bootstrapping or something and then by
the end of the installation process you will necessarily have the full
python
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 10:38:08PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Ok, but now I'm confused: why is python-minimal needed in Essential?
Why not simply depend on it straightforwardly?
Because there are parts of the packaging system where there is no way to
express such a dependency
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 10:32:06AM +0100, Thomas Hood wrote:
I'll assume that python2.4-minimal Recommending: python2.4 won't be
enough.
I'd imagine not.
How about this? The current python2.4-minimal package contains
/usr/bin/python2.4. We would move this to /usr/lib/python2.4/interpreter
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 12:12:39PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You seem to require a standard of attribution in the Maintainer field
that Debian does not itself follow in our default procedures. To wit:
NMUs _within_ Debian keep the Maintainer field
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:40:55AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
I asked this question earlier, and no one answered. Are there .config
scripts being written in python today in Ubuntu? (Hmm, where are the python
bindings for debconf, and what ensures that they're installed?)
No, not yet. The
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:08:38PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
I keep hearing this, but I really don't believe it. In Debian, Maintainer
means An individual or group of people primarily responsible for the
on-going well being of a package. As I understand it, in Ubuntu, the MOTUs
have
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:24:57PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:20:33AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same thing, however. Most of
the packages in universe are maintained only by the Debian maintainer, and
The thing
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:35:55PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Arg, and to make matters worse, this discussion is CCed to a
closed-moderated-list, Matt, this is really not a friendly way to have a
conversation.
I didn't add the CC to ubuntu-motu, nor the one to debian-project. I've
merely
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 07:13:31AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:20:33AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:08:38PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
I keep hearing this, but I really don't believe it. In Debian,
Maintainer
means
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 08:31:44AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
All you'll get is the loud minority having a whinge then, no matter what the
outcome.
It will certainly beat the hell out of continuing this thread.
--
- mdz
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 02:05:40PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:34:58PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
If we followed the same method for python-base, then we would
a) instroduce python-base iff we had some package(s) written in python
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 01:48:11AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One example is .config maintainer scripts, some of which are quite complex
and worth writing in a higher-level language than shell.
This is surely true; Steve Langasek asked
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 01:04:25PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Granted if it is a real issue, then why not use perl? Yes, I hate
perl too, but really, the argument hey, people like Python too
implies that we should have a scheme interpreter
On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 04:16:20PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Matt Zimmerman:
One of the appealing things about the Python language is their batteries
included philosophy: users can assume that the standard library is
available, documentation and examples are written to the full API
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 06:20:47PM +0100, Sergio Callegari wrote:
As far as I know, it should exist in Debian too.
No, it doesn't.
--
- mdz
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 07:26:07PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 05:56:10PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
I hadn't replied to the bug report because I wasn't involved in the
Ubuntu kernel at the point when it was filed, so I didn't reply there.
When you brought my
On Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 03:39:24PM +0100, Christian Kurz wrote:
as jsut discussed on debian-devel, I would like to package John the
Ripper. If someone already has done or is working on it, please mail me,
then I will stop packing it. Otherwise I will try to upload this package
till friday
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 07:23:09PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Is it orphaned? (Then I would take it, when becoming a developer). Though
it is not listed in prospective-packages.html.
It's not officially orphaned but it's no maintained anymore since the
maintainer could have fixed this
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 09:22:41PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Great, sorry for the confusion, however you could have fixed this RC bug
way before the first bug horizon, you haven't done such a good job by
taking so long ... I don't want to blame you but RC bugs (and particularly
when they
On Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 02:39:26AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not for me...
Life is nice isn't it?
(And then stop sending this Not for me-answers all the time or
something bad could happend)
I
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 08:51:47PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
The definition is the following:
It is not be necessary to explicitly specify build-time relationships
on a minimal set of packages that are always needed to compile, link
and put in a Debian package a
Package: wnpp
Severity: normal
I intend to package Enhydra, an open source Java/XML application server
http://www.enhydra.org/software/enhydra/index.html. It is licensed as
follows (according to http://www.enhydra.org/software/license/):
Base Enhydra server and tools: FreeBSD license
XMLC
On Thu, Aug 31, 2000 at 03:05:04PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
Package: wnpp
Severity: normal
I intend to package Enhydra, an open source Java/XML application server
http://www.enhydra.org/software/enhydra/index.html. It is licensed as
follows (according to http://www.enhydra.org
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 11:02:58AM -0700, Michael Meskes wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2000 at 06:44:48PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
The README on security.debian.org already gives you that line..
Hmm, strange. It seems I missed reading this.
Maybe the complete list of sources should be at
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 11:30:06AM +0200, Per Lundberg wrote:
EB == Ethan Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
EB perhaps because in the default configuration there is no
EB display manager, and thus no automatic runage of X.
Sure. But whenever you install something that gets you a
[CCed to:
debian-java, where this thread originated
the wnpp bug for Enhydra
debian-devel, to get broader input on source packaging issues
Please trim CC list as appropriate]
On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 02:55:48PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
If the package is in
On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 05:04:10PM +0200, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
as already i said, on woody everything runs well. i could not recompile
php4 debian sources on my potato since they look for apsx for creating
apache modules and, as far as i searched, i couldn't find it.
The apxs program is
On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 06:24:28PM +0200, Frederic Peters wrote:
GUI tools. [some will respond here with we don't want those users and I
won't agree. This flamewar already happened. GUI tools doesn't mean you
have to use them. blah blah blah.]
Something else we'd need is an option in the
1 - 100 of 1219 matches
Mail list logo
