-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:26:05AM +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 10:01 +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
* Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-17 11:36]:
Kennedy wasn't a citizen of Berlin, either, not literally. The
On Wednesday 18 January 2006 21:51, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 09:41:58AM +0100, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
wrote:
syncinc _to_ debian implies that changes are _pushed_ to Debian
regularly, whereas in actuallity they're simply made available for pull
by Debian (in most
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 Wed, 2006-01-18 at 10:01 +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
* Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-17 11:36]:
Kennedy wasn't a citizen of Berlin, either, not literally. The world
understood what he meant, though, when he said (somewhat awkwardly) that he
was.
Again my question: Do
[EMAIL PROTECTED], if you read that: Fix your mail setup, I'm not
interested in getting double mails from whatever setup you have there.
Thanks]
* Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-17 11:36]:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 06:46:26PM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
Do we call RMS a Debian
On Tuesday 17 January 2006 00:39, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 02:59:58AM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
It's also about false statements like We sync our packages to Debian
regularly, because that simply doesn't happen for quite a lot of us,
otherwise all these heated
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 yourself to ubuntu, checking what other
Debian derivates, Fedora,
[don't be confused about the To header, this is merly just for testing a
propable b0rked setup]
* 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
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:
Given that you saw this on a wiki page, a disclaimer about wiki contents
should be implicit. However, regardless of whether it's an accurate
quote, it's quite
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 yourself to
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 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 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 we are
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 uttered
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Robert Collins wrote:
And yet most upstreams can get pretty much arbitrary code into Debian,
just by committing it?. How many DD's read the -entire- diff on major
version upgrades from upstream. And not just read, audit.
Not all, but it might be quite a few more than what
* Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-16 15:39]:
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
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 to
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
I wrote:
I am pleased when downstream distributions notify me that they are using
my packages.
mdz writes:
Have you ever received such a notification?
Yes.
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
mdz writes:
Have you ever received such a notification?
Yes.
I haven't. I'm going to cry now :-(((
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
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
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
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
On Mon, 2006-01-16 at 19:21 -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
but I agree with it. I would also say that Debian's upstreams are, in the
same sense, Debian developers.
I think that we probably have hundreds of upstreams who would react with
everything from disbelief to anger if Debian claimed that
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). I don't doubt that it was meant as an expression of gratitude
also sprach Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.01.17.0039 +0100]:
Ubuntu is a Debian derivative. The work that Debian developers do is merged
into Ubuntu as well. Most of the source packages in Ubuntu are identical to
the ones in Debian. The statement that you quoted is an expression of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
It's also about false statements like We sync our packages to Debian
regularly, because that simply doesn't happen for quite a lot of us,
otherwise all these heated discussions wouldn't happen.
They have their own timetable.
On Sunday 15 January 2006 10:27, Sami Haahtinen wrote:
What do you want?
Bugs filed in Debian's bts, with the patches attached and the rationale why
this patch is done.
Just like many DD work with upstream, by pushing non-Debian changes back
actively, and not just saying 'all are changes are
You do realize that your work is out there for anyone to take and to
modify. I agree that for the modified packages it should be more clear
that the package has been modified by ubuntu and the maintainer or some
And why isn't this done? It's so simple to do. I would prefer to know about MY
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Michael Meskes wrote:
other field should reflect that. But again, some people are offended if
the maintainer field is changed to something ubuntu specific for the
modified packages. As before it's not an easy task, you get burnt if you
go either way.
But Windows security advisories don't contain debian packages. Ubuntu
does contain close to all debian packages, and (I hope) most DDs have an
interest to include improvements of other distributions in their
packages (at least I do).
Maemo (from the Nokia 770 fame) contains Debian
[Sami Haahtinen]
like 'dpkg --show-primary-contact package' That way we could even
add a separate field Preferred-Contact: (or something alike) that
could override the maintainer and modifier.
Preferred contact is *exactly* what the Maintainer field means.
[Well, and the co-maintainers
* Sami Haahtinen [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-15 11:27]:
Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
It's also about false statements like We sync our packages to Debian
regularly, because that simply doesn't happen for quite a lot of us,
otherwise all these heated discussions wouldn't happen.
They have their own
On 1/15/06, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you can't understand sarcasm, why didn't you read the part for
people who can't understand sarcasm?
debian-announce is not meant to play games. Someone made a (perhaps
honest) mistake, and were duly criticised. But you know the rules.
If you can't understand sarcasm, why didn't you read the part for
people who can't understand sarcasm?
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andrew Suffield wrote:
If you can't understand sarcasm, why didn't you read the part for
people who can't understand sarcasm?
I read the part about sarcasm and i partially argee with you. But i'm
with Andreas here. Your post didn't help anyone, the
On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 06:20:40PM +0200, Sami Haahtinen wrote:
Andrew Suffield wrote:
If you can't understand sarcasm, why didn't you read the part for
people who can't understand sarcasm?
I read the part about sarcasm and i partially argee with you. But i'm
with Andreas here. Your post
Windows security advisories are surely important to quite a few
people, and probably to more readers of -devel-announce than Ubuntu
stuff. Are you saying that it would be okay to post these? If not,
then you need to rethink your reasoning here. Personally, I don't
think important to the
Sami Haahtinen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I can understand that a part of the people behind Debian feel hostile
against Ubuntu because it's succeeding in something that Debian was
trying to achieve. But what i can't understand is that people behind
Ubuntu are trying to reach out and build a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 06:20:40PM +0200, Sami Haahtinen wrote:
I read the part about sarcasm and i partially argee with you. But i'm
with Andreas here. Your post didn't help anyone, the original Ubuntu
post was important to
On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 07:35:04PM +0100, Willi Mann wrote:
But Windows security advisories don't contain debian packages. Ubuntu
does contain close to all debian packages, and (I hope) most DDs have an
interest to include improvements of other distributions in their
packages (at least I
* Sami Haahtinen [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-14 18:20]:
I can understand that a part of the people behind Debian feel hostile
against Ubuntu because it's succeeding in something that Debian was
trying to achieve.
It's not about succeeding. It's about false statements all the time,
like Every
41 matches
Mail list logo
