Matt Zimmerman wrote:
Another option would be to leave the source package maintainer the same (to
retain proper credit, etc.), but override the binary package maintainer
during the build (to reflect that it is a different build, and also display
a more appropriate name in apt-cache show etc.).
On 5/2/05, Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another option would be to leave the source package maintainer the same (to
retain proper credit, etc.), but override the binary package maintainer
during the build (to reflect that it is a different build, and also display
a more appropriate
On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 02:22:48AM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Personally, when I rebuild a package that might get handed to someone
else -- even if I didn't touch the source, but am rebuilding in a
known environment so I can reproduce it later -- I change the
Maintainer field to an
quote who=Matt Zimmerman date=2005-05-02 15:06:10 -0700
Another option would be to leave the source package maintainer the
same (to retain proper credit, etc.), but override the binary
package maintainer during the build (to reflect that it is a
different build, and also display a more
James Treacy wrote:
On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 11:40:19AM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
I have to confess this is mainly because I maintain both
packages.debian.org and packages.ubuntu.com and just copied the code.
If anyone has suggestions how to improve the wording on the Ubuntu
part, my
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
Every Debian derivative I have seen does this the same way. There is some
inaccuracy in either case, but I think this is the lesser of the evils:
- Changing the maintainer field
- foo is taking credit for my work!
- Requires modification of every source package,
On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 08:46:44PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
Every Debian derivative I have seen does this the same way. There is some
inaccuracy in either case, but I think this is the lesser of the evils:
- Changing the maintainer field
- foo is taking
On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 03:06:10PM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 08:46:44PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
Every Debian derivative I have seen does this the same way. There is some
inaccuracy in either case, but I think this is the lesser of
also sprach Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.05.03.0006 +0200]:
Another option would be to leave the source package maintainer the
same (to retain proper credit, etc.), but override the binary
package maintainer during the build (to reflect that it is
a different build, and also display
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 12:25:28AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.05.03.0006 +0200]:
Another option would be to leave the source package maintainer the
same (to retain proper credit, etc.), but override the binary
package maintainer during
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 08:34:09PM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
Then I also found,
http://ubuntu.linux-server.org/mysql-query-browser/mysql-query-browser_1.1.4-1ubuntu2.dsc
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp$ gpg --verify mysql-query-browser_1.1.4-1ubuntu2.dsc
gpg: Signature made Tue
* Martin Schulze [Mon, 02 May 2005 20:46:44 +0200]:
Maybe it's worth modifying the debian/control file a bit when you
are altering the package such as
Maintainer: becomes Debian-Maintainer
I like this. (In fact, I have a mail written proposing it. Glad I
postponed it and read the rest
Matthew Palmer wrote:
I understood the proposal to be only for unchanged Debian source packages
(ie pure rebuild). If an Ubuntuite is actively maintaining the package for
Ubuntu, it stands to reason that they be listed as the Maintainer for the
Ubuntu source package, with appropriate credit
Adam Majer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Keep in mind that whenever you contribute something back to upstream,
you generally get little recognition for it (at least in my experience).
The code just becomes part of the new upstream version. I'm not too
sensitive about the recognition part anyway -
On the one hand, I think it's polite and the socially responsible
thing to give credit where credit is due, i.e., to acknowledge the
debian maintainers whose work is used.
On the other hand, I've had packages for which ubuntu has moved to a
newer upstream version without properly updating the
On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 08:59:55PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
https://launchpad.ubuntu.com/people/adamm/
They have a similar page for me. Nothing there indicates that I am not an
Ubuntu employee.
The same for me. And the funny thing is that
On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 05:08:04PM +1000, Ben Burton wrote:
So I guess all I'm saying is that, if you're choosing whether or not
to attribute packages to the respective debian maintainers, there's no
obvious default that won't upset somebody (either through lack of
recognition, or through
On Sunday, 1 de May de 2005 03:34, Adam Majer wrote:
Anyway, the bottom line is,
1. I'm a Debian Developer and chose to be associated with Debian
2. I have not chosen or gave permission to be associated with
modified/unmodified packages of other distributions (that may or may not
On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 08:34:09PM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
Well, at least on pages like,
http://packages.ubuntu.com/hoary/misc/mysql-query-browser
They have Adam Majer is responsible for this Debian package with a
link to Debian's QA. This reference I find acceptable, but better
wording
* Adam Majer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050501 03:35]:
I just search Google for me and I found this,
https://launchpad.ubuntu.com/people/adamm/
Now, I never signed up to be a maintainer for Ubuntu. I don't understand
why I am part of people of Ubuntu or why I am listed as a maintainer
of any
On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 11:40:19AM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
I have to confess this is mainly because I maintain both
packages.debian.org and packages.ubuntu.com and just copied the code.
If anyone has suggestions how to improve the wording on the Ubuntu
part, my email adress is in the
* James Treacy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050501 21:15]:
On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 11:40:19AM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
I have to confess this is mainly because I maintain both
packages.debian.org and packages.ubuntu.com and just copied the code.
If anyone has suggestions how to improve the
On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 09:36:57PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
Actually, I don't think that the packages.*-code is part of the problem.
Ubuntu treats the Debian maintainers at many places as their
maintainers, e.g. at apt-cache show $package. The packages.*-code just
displays that wrong
Hi Matt!
On Sun, 01 May 2005, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 09:36:57PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
Actually, I don't think that the packages.*-code is part of the problem.
Ubuntu treats the Debian maintainers at many places as their
maintainers, e.g. at apt-cache show
On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 08:34:09PM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
I just search Google for me and I found this,
https://launchpad.ubuntu.com/people/adamm/
Now, I never signed up to be a maintainer for Ubuntu. I don't understand
why I am part of people of Ubuntu or why I am listed as a
On Sun, 2005-05-01 at 22:38 +0200, Alexander Wirt wrote:
Hi Matt!
On Sun, 01 May 2005, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 09:36:57PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
Actually, I don't think that the packages.*-code is part of the problem.
Ubuntu treats the Debian maintainers
On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 01:48:26PM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 08:34:09PM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
PS. This is not a troll against Ubuntu.
In that case, can I ask why you addressed your concerns to debian-devel,
rather than to the parties responsible for the web
On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 04:19:03PM -0500, Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
Besides that, I didn't see anyone from Ubuntu ever make a general
announcement to Debian developers about who they should contact if they
have concerns about things like this
I sent several of the early Ubuntu announcements to
On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 03:00:54PM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 04:19:03PM -0500, Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
Besides that, I didn't see anyone from Ubuntu ever make a general
announcement to Debian developers about who they should contact if they
have concerns about
On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 05:25:41PM -0500, Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 03:00:54PM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
I sent several of the early Ubuntu announcements to debian-devel, so that
everyone knew what was happening and would have a point of contact if they
had any
On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 10:38:01PM +0200, Alexander Wirt wrote:
Hi Matt!
On Sun, 01 May 2005, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 09:36:57PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
Actually, I don't think that the packages.*-code is part of the problem.
Ubuntu treats the Debian
On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 05:08:04PM +1000, Ben Burton wrote:
On the other hand, I've had packages for which ubuntu has moved to a
newer upstream version without properly updating the debian/ files,
resulting in packages that are severely broken (some to the point of
unusability), with my name
Hi,
I just search Google for me and I found this,
https://launchpad.ubuntu.com/people/adamm/
Now, I never signed up to be a maintainer for Ubuntu. I don't understand
why I am part of people of Ubuntu or why I am listed as a maintainer
of any package on Ubuntu's website? I know Ubuntu is using
Adam Majer writes:
I just search Google for me and I found this,
https://launchpad.ubuntu.com/people/adamm/
They have a similar page for me. Nothing there indicates that I am not an
Ubuntu employee.
Well, at least on pages like,
http://packages.ubuntu.com/hoary/misc/mysql-query-browser
34 matches
Mail list logo
