Thanks for the FFe.
I'll take care of uploading it shortly, if somebody have modification to
include.
** Changed in: ubuntu
Assignee: David Sugar (dyfet) = Julien Lavergne (gilir)
--
[needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513
You received this bug
Un-subscribing universe-sponsors as Julien is on it, and he no longer
needs a sponsor. =)
--
[needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs
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 Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
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 Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
Hi,
sorry for not having made it clear yet. As I asked ogra and he gave a +1
I certainly do second this position. FFe granted hence, please go ahead.
Cheers, and sorry again for the delay,
Stefan.
--
[needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513
You received
** 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 Ubuntu
Bugs, which is
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 Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
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
Mario wrote
I suggest to meet on IRC freenode #lubuntu
on Sep. 6, 15.00 GMT
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?day=5month=9year=2009hour=15min=0sec=0p1=0
Mario you wrote to meet on IRC freenode #lubuntu on Sep. 6, 15.00 GMT
But the link you gave is for today the 5th of Sept @
Mario you wrote to meet on IRC freenode #lubuntu on Sep. 6, 15.00 GMT
But the link you gave is for today the 5th of Sept @ 15.00 UTC.
Great Britain/United Kingdom is one hour ahead of UTC during summer.
Which gives us a meeting time of 14.00 local time here in the UK
Could you please clarify
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
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 2:49 AM, hagisbasheruk wrote:
I suggest that you try to minimize any use of gnome libs as possible, use
slim instead of gdm, use Wicd for network as lxnw is too limited right now,
aumix-gtk for mixer and a program to add menu entries.
1) slim has not been packaged.
Just as a general suggestion, the needs packaging bug probably isn't the
best venue for these meta Lubuntu discussions.
--
[needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is
** Changed in: pam (Debian)
Status: New = Invalid
--
[needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
This really did not get handled correctly at the start of the week as we
were requested to have this in a hurry and then learned after it could
not be sponsored prior to the ffe process. I have put it in revu to
correct any outstanding issue so that it can at least be properly
evaluated.
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
Scott, it was not anticipated there would be spins hosted on Launchpad
for Lubuntu for Karmic, just the meta package. What happens Karmic +X
though may become a different question.
There is a launchpad team for Lubuntu, and there is a process for
community input through the wiki, but not a
OK. My concern is that there be some agreement on what goes in this
metapackage before it gets approved to go in, so we don't have a lot of
contention afterwards (I'm not saying adjustments won't be needed).
--
[needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513
You
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 Ubuntu
Bugs, which is
Scott , We are all grown folks and we also understand that David Sugar is
more or less the boss here , There will be no foul play.
Now let's be positive and congratulate everyone on a job well done and wish
everyone a Fantastic week end of whatever tickles your fancy!
Cheers folks! It's POETS.
Lol! While I appreciate the vote of confidence, the goal was NEVER to
have a dictatorship, benevolent or otherwise!
I think what Scott says about some form of formalizing governance is
actually very correct. However, the meta package (any meta-package
instance) has a snapshot instance of the
2009/9/4 David Sugar david.su...@canonical.com
There is a launchpad team for Lubuntu, and there is a process for
community input through the wiki, but not a formal governance process as
yet,
What precisely is required, and how could the LXDE Foundation provide
assistance?
-- A
--
[needs
gah - sorry, wrong bug...
** Bug watch added: Debian Bug tracker #545086
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=545086
** Also affects: pam (Debian) via
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=545086
Importance: Unknown
Status: Unknown
** Changed in: pam
Sounds to me like you are moving in the right direction. +1.
I'll volunteer to do the archive admin review after it's uploaded.
--
[needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is
i have been running LXDE from a cli install on my Tatung / RM – RTABB12D using
both a genkernel and a custom built onefor quite some time now.
I suggest that you try to minimize any use of gnome libs as possible, use slim
instead of gdm, use Wicd for network as lxnw is too limited right
Thank you for the input about the ISO that was tested. As stated the
ISO is not a final release. Some of the changes you suggested have
already been incorporated. Others will be as we go on. We will soon be
uploading a new test iso.
All the best,
Mario
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 1:49 AM,
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
Thanks for making this clear. The goal for lubuntu was from the start to
build a strong and broad
community, that can take care of tasks. For example Debian packages that
have been made
available during recent months by Andrew Lee and others were also planned and
released
to lay the
Just to put some wording for the FFe request for MOTU Release :
This a new meta-package to build a new flavor for Ubuntu, base on LXDE. Please
consider the FFe as it blocks the work on official ISO and standard
installation, and also progress on this new flavor.
You can see more information
Why do we need both Mirage and GPicView at the same time? GPicView has a
much better user interface. Why not stick to that?
--
[needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is
I suggest putting the LXDE icon in the centre of the circle much like
Xubuntu puts the XFCE mouse in te logo.
2009/9/1 Martin-Éric Racine q-f...@iki.fi
The blue theme doesn't differentiate enough from KDE. We need to use
other colors. How about these? (attachment)
** Attachment added:
This had to be in this morning, so I only had time to incorporate
Martin-Éric Racine's changes to the meta and seed. The tarball has the
source, dsc, and changes files needed to build.
** Attachment added: lubuntu-meta-srcbld.tar.gz
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 11:09 PM, Julien
Lavergnejulien.laver...@gmail.com wrote:
@Martin-Éric
An exception is only necessary for the first inclusion of the package.
Adjusting dependencies (default applications) can be made without exceptions
(unless most of applications changed).
Ah,
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
Dear all,
enclosed a few desktop backgrounds and images I collected from the
lubuntu designer forum at the lxde website.
Please include.
Best,
Mario
** Attachment added: lubuntu-design.zip
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/31051972/lubuntu-design.zip
--
[needs packaging] lubuntu desktop
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
Hi,
I like those designs, but I am not decided which way I like most. I
think we can also gather more design suggestions and it is always
easier to see, than to hear how something looks like.
Fedora created an adapted them for the LXDE spin. Openbox is just one
part, we also need to create athe
@Martin-Éric
You can found some details about bzr here : https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bzr .
Basically, you just need to branch the lubuntu-meta branch
(https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~lubuntu-desktop/+junk/lubuntu-meta), make
your modifications, push your branch somewhere, and propose to merge your
The blue theme doesn't differentiate enough from KDE. We need to use
other colors. How about these? (attachment)
** Attachment added: lubuntu-logo.png
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/31098584/lubuntu-logo.png
--
[needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513
Lintian also reports the following:
Now running lintian...
W: lubuntu-meta source: package-uses-deprecated-debhelper-compat-version 4
W: lubuntu-meta source: diff-contains-bzr-control-dir .bzr
W: lubuntu-desktop: old-fsf-address-in-copyright-file
W: lubuntu-desktop: unknown-section metapackages
Here's a patch with the resulting changes.
** Attachment added: lubuntu-meta_02_to_03.diff
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/31004713/lubuntu-meta_02_to_03.diff
--
[needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513
You received this bug notification because you are a
Looking at what the resulting lubuntu-desktop package tries to pull:
1) sysinfo -- As this pulls the whole MONO framework along, I contend
that the inclusion of this is contrary to the goal of keeping Lubuntu
lightweight, so I'd recommend its removal.
2) gstreamer0.10-alsa -- We already depend
I agree with Martin-Éric Racine and thanks for the patch as well ,
Cheers.
2009/8/30 Martin-Éric Racine q-f...@iki.fi
Looking at what the resulting lubuntu-desktop package tries to pull:
1) sysinfo -- As this pulls the whole MONO framework along, I contend
that the inclusion of this is
@Martin-Eric
you should publish a bzr branch and propose to merge with the current one for
all the fixes you done. It should be easier than a patch.
Also, the choice of defaults applications should be discuss separately, the
more important for now is to add the package itself to the repository.
Julien, I know that we are in Feature Freeze. Since this package hasn't
yet entered KArmic, we must therefore do it right the first time,
because there won't be many exceptions to get it in.
--
[needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513
You received this bug
I had wanted to get feedback sooner and hence see this done earlier.
Most if not all of these changes noted are certainly valid. Where we
touch upon what the default apps should be, my only concern is that we
do not have a lot of revs. If we are going to split the seed to produce
variants of
@Martin-Éric
An exception is only necessary for the first inclusion of the package.
Adjusting dependencies (default applications) can be made without exceptions
(unless most of applications changed). The main point, like David said, is the
split or not of the seed because it will probably need
Under which package name can we see those packages?
--
[needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
Hi,
lubuntu and lubuntu karmic seeds are here:
https://code.launchpad.net/~lubuntu-desktop
Best,
Mario
2009/8/29 Martin-Éric Racine q-f...@iki.fi:
Under which package name can we see those packages?
--
[needs packaging] lubuntu desktop meta
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420513
You
Two bugs in the debian/rules file:
1) Typo:
make: *** build-stamp-kohteen tarvitseman kohteen lubutu-i386 tuottamiseen
ei ole sääntöä. Seis.
dpkg-buildpackage: failure: debian/rules build gave error exit status 2
The build-stamp should be called lubuntu, not lubutu (missing N).
2) Misses the
*** This is an automated message ***
This bug is tagged needs-packaging which identifies it as a request for
a new package in Ubuntu. As a part of the managing needs-packaging bug
reports specification,
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/Specs/NeedsPackagingBugs, all needs-
packaging bug reports
54 matches
Mail list logo
