version 0.4 uploaded, waiting in NEW.
--
[needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Lubuntu,
which is a direct subscriber.
Status in Ubuntu: In Progress
Status in “pam” package in Debian: Invalid
Through New as well and in the archive.
** Changed in: ubuntu
Status: In Progress = Fix Released
--
[needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Lubuntu,
which is a direct subscriber.
Status
** Changed in: ubuntu
Status: New = In Progress
** Changed in: ubuntu
Assignee: (unassigned) = David Sugar (dyfet)
--
[needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Lubuntu,
which is a
Just to have a clarification, is the open-team a blocker for MOTU-Release ACK ?
Even if it could generate some problems in Lubuntu team itself, a MOTU
sponsorship is still needed to modify the seed package in the archive.
This open-team issue is still under discussion in the Lubuntu team.
--
I don't see it as a blocker.
--
[needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Lubuntu,
which is a direct subscriber.
Status in Ubuntu: New
Status in “pam” package in Debian: Invalid
Bug description:
i'm definately for adding the metapackage to universe (even though
requesting it early enough pre FF would have been a lot nicer) but i
fully agree with scotts suggestion here, having an open and completely
uncontrolled team anyone can subscribe to in control of the seeds seems
very dangerous
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 7:23 AM, David Sugar wrote:
Second, I suggest given that UDS for Karmic +1 is likely going to be
in two months, that we draft a new spec for that UDS for/from and most
especially WITH the Lubuntu team and community. Indeed, it is the
approach of UDS is one reason I
Hi,
just subscribed ogra and StevenK. ogra: you've registered the spec in
the first place, how do you feel about adding that meta package at this
point in the release cycle? I assume this mainly impacts MID?
@StevenK: If this mainly impacts MID, then I guess it's your domain ;).
Cheers,
In principle adding a metapackage is not a big deal. Do you expect ISO
images for lubuntu to be built on Launchpad? Do you have a governance
process for deciding what should be in the package?
--
[needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513
You received this
Additionally, the seeds are currently controlled by an open team with
118 members. I do not see this as a recipe for success.
--
[needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Lubuntu,
which is a
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 11:13 PM, David Sugardavid.su...@canonical.com wrote:
Lol! While I appreciate the vote of confidence, the goal was NEVER to
have a dictatorship, benevolent or otherwise!
Thanks for making this clear. The goal for lubuntu was from the start
to build a strong and
Dear all,
lynxis has put together a lubuntu-iso to test:
http://lynxis.crew.c-base.org
All the best,
Mario
2009/8/31 Martin-Éric Racine q-f...@iki.fi:
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 11:09 PM, Julien
Lavergnejulien.laver...@gmail.com wrote:
@Martin-Éric
An exception is only necessary for the
I like them, especially logo 2
Glen
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 8:41 AM, Mario Behlingm...@mariobehling.de wrote:
Dear all,
enclosed a few desktop backgrounds and images I collected from the
lubuntu designer forum at the lxde website.
Please include.
Best,
Mario
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Mario Behlingm...@mariobehling.de wrote:
Dear all,
enclosed a few desktop backgrounds and images I collected from the
lubuntu designer forum at the lxde website.
Please include.
I personally like the all-blue background with the bubbly logo best.
I'd however
14 matches
Mail list logo
