Re: Old Bitcoin Core packages in old Ubuntu releases

The package should be doable by any Ubuntu Developer since it is just an empty package. Process will be your biggest hurdle, as you've already seen. Do you have a Launchpad bug filed already? A title like "Replace bitcoin-core with an empty dummy package" should suffice -- that bug will then be

pidgin-microblog and pidgin-mbpurple appear to be the same project in two packages

and pidgin-microblog has a -ubuntu suffix. It seems like we should standardize on one (and provide a replace/provides for the other), but I haven't looked at the individual packaging yet. Thanks, Scott Ritchie -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or

Re: MOTU Release done for Karmic

a package ready to go into -proposed today, however if I have to wait until Lucid is open to upload that could be much longer. Thanks, Scott Ritchie -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu

Re: noip2 new version

p2 Best way is to probably upload the new version to Debian, sync it to Jaunty, then SRU it to Hardy/Intrepid. Thanks, Scott Ritchie -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu

Wine 1.0 as a Stable Release Update

thought I would start this up on the mailing list here as Wine 1.0 is a bit different from a normal SRU (though not much different from FireFox). Thanks, Scott Ritchie -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/

Re: new default compiler flags

Kees Cook wrote: > Further details and examples of failure conditions are written up in the > wiki: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CompilerFlags > > Thanks in advance for everyone's time and attention for fixing the > issues that will crop up. :) > Have we settled on a GCC vers

Re: NEW Packages process

Daniel Holbach wrote: > - higher similarity between NEW Packages process and Sponsoring process I see no reason why they shouldn't be completely identical, really. Thanks, Scott Ritchie -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at

Re: More granular LP permissions

Stefan Potyra wrote: > Hi, > > Am Samstag 05 April 2008 10:27:49 schrieb Scott Ritchie: > [..] >>> I think there are some wishlist reports already filed about a more >>> granular permission concept, if not, let's do it together and formulate >>> a clear

Re: More granular LP permissions

orting purposes, but not to have upload rights to the team PPA. Thanks, Scott Ritchie -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu

Re: Unable to upload new ia32-libs package to REVU

Scott Ritchie wrote: > The current ia32-libs package needs a refresh, and its missing the > libssl0.9.8 package. > > I tried fixing these issues myself, however I've been unable to upload > the package to REVU - it's 300 megabytes, and the connection will just > fail

Unable to upload new ia32-libs package to REVU

depends on the existence of a 32 bit libssl0.9.8 in order to work fully - many of the libs in the package are also over a month out of date before release. How can I get the package up and committed? Thanks, Scott Ritchie -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or

Re: Wine 0.9.45 up on REVU

Scott Ritchie wrote: > I finally got my 64 bit machine built, and my testing of the new Wine > package shows that it works better than the old one. > > There are still a couple of improvements to be made to the package > (fixing the .desktop files and installing to /usr/lib32

Wine 0.9.45 up on REVU

0.9.42 package. I don't think I can properly fix these two issues before the beta freeze tomorrow, however I should be able to fix these bugs sometime during the beta. Thanks, Scott Ritchie -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at:

Re: future of the Ubuntu Packaging Guide

or put the packaging guide on your watchlist. That's way simpler than having to explain to a new dev why the packaging guide isn't on the wiki. Thanks, Scott Ritchie -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu

Re: future of the Ubuntu Packaging Guide

essible, useful guide. Simply put, it's a lot easier to update a wiki page than send in a patch to a docbook. Thanks, Scott Ritchie -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu

New Wine up on REVU

something gets very broken. Thanks, Scott Ritchie -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFG5yWfWEAwJjh+4mMRAgvZAJ9YpFKZYw+prpPG2EbJk/+eXrXe/QCeLAh/ bSnhCJphI1KVXoCGnZpGe78= =JVTl -END PGP SIGNATURE--

Re: Review of wine 0.9.44 on revu.tauware.de

On Sat, 2007-09-08 at 08:58 +0200, Stephan Hermann wrote: > Moins Scott, > > Scott Ritchie schrieb: > > On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 08:35 +0200, Stephan Hermann wrote: > > > >> > >> Well, there is no problem with 32bit packages on 64bit arch. > >

Re: Review of wine 0.9.44 on revu.tauware.de

t have to worry for Gutsy. You are right that Wine's 32 bit libs should go into /usr/lib32 though -- that's a fairly simple change; just move the install target on the 64 arch. Later, a combined 32 and 64 bit package would put the 64 bit libs into /usr/lib (and the old 32 bit ones into /usr/lib32). In the meantime, there's no real change moving from /usr/lib to /usr/lib32 since we don't yet have any duplication and both are in the path. Thanks, Scott Ritchie -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu

Re: CommonPackagingMistakes updated -- notes about debian/copyright

rights. However, you may redistribute it under license B, which does" -- we wouldn't need to mention license A in debian/copyright, as all we would be concerned about is the redistributable license that all of us have. Thanks, Scott Ritchie -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu

Re: Two packages that need to be removed: xwine and wine-doc

On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 08:46 +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 10:53:46PM -0800, Scott Ritchie wrote: > > The packages xwine and wine-doc need to be removed from the repository, > > as they don't do anything. The documentation for Wine is included in >

Two packages that need to be removed: xwine and wine-doc

The packages xwine and wine-doc need to be removed from the repository, as they don't do anything. The documentation for Wine is included in the main package now, and xwine is extremely ancient and nonfunctional. Thanks, Scott Ritchie -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubunt

Re: UVF-Exception: wine 0.9.8

abilize on this one while we still can. Thanks, Scott Ritchie On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 03:05 +0100, Stephan Hermann wrote: > Hi Guys, > > my life is getting complicated...and in the moment I have less time for doing > some ubuntu stuff, but anywaysI'm preparing the packages

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

are potentially more relevant to a Debian maintainer than bug reports on a Debian stable package, since they're closer to the current unstable. Thoughts? Scott Ritchie -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu

Re: [UVF Exception Report] wine 0.9.6

especially because it's a security update (fixing WMF vulnerability). Thanks, Scott Ritchie -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu