Re: [Oneiric-Foundations-Topic]Python Goals
On Tuesday, April 26, 2011 05:49:22 PM Matthias Klose wrote: > On 04/26/2011 08:50 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > > Apologies for the long delayed response. > > > > On Apr 01, 2011, at 01:11 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > >> On Friday, April 01, 2011 12:58:37 PM Barry Warsaw wrote: > >>> Agreed. Can you elaborate on what "experimental support for Python3 as > >>> the Python that is shipped on the various Ubuntu ISOs" means to you? > >>> Does that mean no Python 2.7 on the ISO? Also, by "experimental" do > >>> you mean having a process for creating alternative CDs that have only > >>> Python 3.2 but not on the standard daily CDs? > >> > >> There is a lot of Python code in the Ubuntu insfrastructure. I'm not > >> sure exactly what I meant by that, but here's an example: > >> > >> Ubiquity is written in Python. It's a reasonably complex program that > >> is non- trivial to maintain and improve. It's also mission critical > >> for Ubuntu. I would be really suprised if it was fully ported with no > >> regressions in one cycle. In this case, I think "experimental support" > >> would be a python3 branch that ~works, but may not be fully tested/have > >> issues/or not be at feature parity so we wouldn't want to switch to it > >> in the oneiric cycle. > >> > >> The goal would be to have it be mature enough during oneiric that in the > >> "P" cycle we could switch to it early and have it land ~smoothly for > >> the LTS. > >> > >> I know there are others. > >> > >> My impression is that most upstreams for core desktop packages support > >> Python3. Mostly what we lack is packaging changes to support it. My > >> expectation is that most of the challenge around a Python3 desktop in > >> "P" will be around more peripheral modules/extensions and custom Ubuntu > >> code. > >> > >> That shouldn't preclude shipping some Python3 stuff in oneiric if it's > >> ready and we've got room on the relevant image. > >> > >> Does that help? > > > > It does, thanks. I wonder, with work going on in Launchpad to support > > derivatives, can we pervert that to create a Python 3 Ubuntu derivative > > that could be used for this experiment? It may not be fully functional, > > but I think it would be a great test and status tracker for how well our > > Python 3 efforts are going. > > which packages are affected, and what work is needed to get these packages > even built? I've only looked (a bit) at Kubuntu. PyQt4 and PyKDE have upstream support for Python3, but it's not packaged yet. I suspect it's incomplete as not all the python modules PyQt4 depends on for Python have been ported to Python3 (e.g. python-dbus). There are quite a number of Python packages higher in the stack and I have not checked their status: usb-creator-kde update-manager-kde ubiquity-frontend-kde system-config-printer-kde software-properties-kde plasma-scriptengine-python kde-config-touchpad jockey-kde gdebi-kde apturl-kde apport-kde You can imagine the similar list for Ubuntu. If someone was focused on doing this sort of work, I think it might be doable in a cycle (porting to Python3 isn't particularly hard). Even though I used Kubuntu as an example here, I don't think we're in a position to pursue this in Oneiric. Since I initially suggested this, I found out the one full time developer on Kubuntu is going on a rotation off the distro team this cycle, so among the community developers we've got to pick up the slack and that leaves little to no room for anything vaguely optional. Scott K -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
UDS/LDS Scheduling updates
Hello everyone, We're 14 days from UDS and LDS, here's the skinny so far: 119 blueprints have been filed, we had 360 BPs filed for UDS-O, so you should feel "One thirdish" of the way done with your blueprints. The list of blueprints is available here: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/sprints/uds-o We ran the scheduler and started to fill in some sessions, Track/Tech leads, you should be able to eyeball how along your track is filling up by looking at this list. Please don't start moving sessions into slots manually just yet (unless you're doing morning roundtables that you know won't move). We need to give people some time to subscribe to the blueprints. I'll announce when the schedule is full enough for you to shuffle sessions. Here's what everyone should be doing: - Attendees: You should be filing blueprints and subscribing to blueprints you want to go to. If you're important to a blueprint make sure you mark yourself as essential. If you've submitted your blueprints and they're not on that list you need to talk to your track or tech lead and ask them to approve it. - Tech Leads: Same thing, except you should be annoying people in your teams to submit blueprints if they have not done so already. - Track Leads: All that, plus you should be approving/declining bp's from this list: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/sprints/uds-o/+settopics Some of you have noticed that when you click on the cool notepad icon in the schedule that you can see an etherpad note for the session. While etherpad support has landed in summit this is currently using Daviey's server; do NOT use it for critical data as it will be gone. We've filed a ticket with IS to push forward about having a real etherpad for UDS itself, I'll post how that goes, many thanks to the server team and IS for trying to make this happen. -- Jorge Castro Canonical Ltd. http://twitter.com/castrojo Help fix Unity Bitesize Bugs: http://goo.gl/i1WA1 -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: [Oneiric-Foundations-Topic]Python Goals
On 04/26/2011 08:50 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: Apologies for the long delayed response. On Apr 01, 2011, at 01:11 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: On Friday, April 01, 2011 12:58:37 PM Barry Warsaw wrote: Agreed. Can you elaborate on what "experimental support for Python3 as the Python that is shipped on the various Ubuntu ISOs" means to you? Does that mean no Python 2.7 on the ISO? Also, by "experimental" do you mean having a process for creating alternative CDs that have only Python 3.2 but not on the standard daily CDs? There is a lot of Python code in the Ubuntu insfrastructure. I'm not sure exactly what I meant by that, but here's an example: Ubiquity is written in Python. It's a reasonably complex program that is non- trivial to maintain and improve. It's also mission critical for Ubuntu. I would be really suprised if it was fully ported with no regressions in one cycle. In this case, I think "experimental support" would be a python3 branch that ~works, but may not be fully tested/have issues/or not be at feature parity so we wouldn't want to switch to it in the oneiric cycle. The goal would be to have it be mature enough during oneiric that in the "P" cycle we could switch to it early and have it land ~smoothly for the LTS. I know there are others. My impression is that most upstreams for core desktop packages support Python3. Mostly what we lack is packaging changes to support it. My expectation is that most of the challenge around a Python3 desktop in "P" will be around more peripheral modules/extensions and custom Ubuntu code. That shouldn't preclude shipping some Python3 stuff in oneiric if it's ready and we've got room on the relevant image. Does that help? It does, thanks. I wonder, with work going on in Launchpad to support derivatives, can we pervert that to create a Python 3 Ubuntu derivative that could be used for this experiment? It may not be fully functional, but I think it would be a great test and status tracker for how well our Python 3 efforts are going. which packages are affected, and what work is needed to get these packages even built? -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: [Oneiric-Foundations-Topic]Python Goals
Apologies for the long delayed response. On Apr 01, 2011, at 01:11 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >On Friday, April 01, 2011 12:58:37 PM Barry Warsaw wrote: >> Agreed. Can you elaborate on what "experimental support for Python3 as the >> Python that is shipped on the various Ubuntu ISOs" means to you? Does that >> mean no Python 2.7 on the ISO? Also, by "experimental" do you mean having >> a process for creating alternative CDs that have only Python 3.2 but not >> on the standard daily CDs? >There is a lot of Python code in the Ubuntu insfrastructure. I'm not sure >exactly what I meant by that, but here's an example: > >Ubiquity is written in Python. It's a reasonably complex program that is non- >trivial to maintain and improve. It's also mission critical for Ubuntu. I >would be really suprised if it was fully ported with no regressions in one >cycle. In this case, I think "experimental support" would be a python3 branch >that ~works, but may not be fully tested/have issues/or not be at feature >parity so we wouldn't want to switch to it in the oneiric cycle. > >The goal would be to have it be mature enough during oneiric that in the "P" >cycle we could switch to it early and have it land ~smoothly for the LTS. > >I know there are others. > >My impression is that most upstreams for core desktop packages support >Python3. Mostly what we lack is packaging changes to support it. My >expectation is that most of the challenge around a Python3 desktop in "P" will >be around more peripheral modules/extensions and custom Ubuntu code. > >That shouldn't preclude shipping some Python3 stuff in oneiric if it's ready >and we've got room on the relevant image. > >Does that help? It does, thanks. I wonder, with work going on in Launchpad to support derivatives, can we pervert that to create a Python 3 Ubuntu derivative that could be used for this experiment? It may not be fully functional, but I think it would be a great test and status tracker for how well our Python 3 efforts are going. Maybe it's not a good feature-fit, but rather than (or better, in addition to) tracking individual packages, I think it would be really helpful to have an integrated system image that you could test drive and report bugs against. I don't think we'd need that right away, as the focus will initially be on getting individual libraries and applications ported, but once we have reasonable coverage on that, the Python 3 image will help us identify the holes. -Barry signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Ubuntu Kernel Team Meeting Minutes - 2011-04-26
= Meeting Minutes = [[http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2011/04/26/%23ubuntu-meeting.txt|IRC Log of the meeting.]] <> [[http://voices.canonical.com/kernelteam|Meeting minutes.]] == Agenda == [[https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam/Meeting#Tues, 26 Apr, 2011|20110426 Meeting Agenda]] === Release Metrics === Release Meeting Bugs (15 bugs, 6 Blueprints) Release Milestoned Bugs (21 across all packages (down 31)) * 1 linux kernel bugs (down 1) * 0 linux-ti-omap4 bugs (no change) * 0 linux-meta-ti-omap4 bug (no change) Release Targeted Bugs (272 across all packages (up 36)) * 38 linux kernel bugs (up 4) * 16 linux-ti-omap4 bugs (up 14) * 0 linux-meta-ti-omap4 bug (no change) Milestoned Features * 6 blueprints (Including HWE Blueprints) Maverick Updates Bugs * 5 Linux Bugs (no change) Lucid Updates Bugs * 16 Linux Bugs (up 1) Bugs with Patches Attached:87 (down 5) * [[https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bugs?field.has_patch=on | Bugs with Patches]] * [[http://qa.ubuntu.com/reports/ogasawara/csv-stats/bugs-with-patches/linux/ | Breakdown by status]] === Blueprints: Natty Bug Handling === All items completed or postponed === Status: General Natty === The kernel remains frozen for the Natty release. We now have 2.6.38.4 pending for SRU. We do have some desirable fixes pending and we likely would like an early SRU if possible. === Status: Stable Kernel Team === We are not currently in a normal SRU kernel cycle due to allocation of testing resources to Natty. There are new kernels for Hardy, Lucid, and Maverick which need verification. <> <> The Dapper kernel which is in -proposed will not be released. Instead, the stable kernel team will prepare one final Dapper kernel by the end of this week. === Security & bugfix kernels - Maverick/Lucid/Karmic/Hardy/Dapper === || Package|| Upd/Sec || Proposed || TiP || Verified || |||| || || || || || dapper linux-source-2.6.15 || 2.6.15-57.94 || 2.6.15-57.95 ||0 ||0 || |||| || || || || || hardylinux || 2.6.24-29.88 || 2.6.24-29.89 ||0 ||0 || |||| || || || || || karmic linux-ec2 || 2.6.31-308.28|| 2.6.31-308.29||1 ||1 || || --- linux || 2.6.31-23.74 || 2.6.31-23.75 ||1 ||1 || |||| || || || || || lucidlinux-ec2 || 2.6.32-314.27|| 2.6.32-316.30||8 ||6 || || --- linux-ports-meta || 2.6.32.31.23 || 2.6.32.32.24 ||0 ||0 || || --- linux-meta-lts-backport-maverick || 2.6.35.25.36 || 2.6.35.28.37 ||0 ||0 || || --- linux-lts-backport-maverick || 2.6.35-25.44~lucid1 || 2.6.35-28.50~lucid1 || 13 || 13 || || --- linux-backports-modules-2.6.32|| 2.6.32-31.31 || 2.6.32-32.32 ||0 ||0 || || --- linux || 2.6.32-31.61 || 2.6.32-32.62 ||4 ||2 || || --- linux-meta|| 2.6.32.31.37 || 2.6.32.32.38 ||1 ||0 || || --- linux-meta-ec2|| 2.6.32.314.15|| 2.6.32.316.17||0 ||0 || |||| || || || || || maverick linux-ports-meta || 2.6.35.28.21 || 2.6.35.29.22 ||0 ||0 || || --- linux-backports-modules-2.6.35|| 2.6.35-28.20 || 2.6.35-29.21 ||0 ||0 || || --- linux-meta|| 2.6.35.28.36 || 2.6.35.29.37 ||0 ||0 || || --- linux-firmware|| 1.38.6 || 1.38.7 ||1 ||0 || || --- linux || 2.6.35-28.50 || 2.6.35-29.51 || 11 ||5 || |||| || || || || === Incoming Bugs: Regressions === Incoming Bugs 934 Natty Bugs (up 17) 1129 Maverick Bugs (down 136) 1022 Lucid Bugs (down 53) Current regression stats (broken down by release): regression-update * 41 maverick bugs (down 6) * 74 luc
Re: [Oneiric-Foundations-Topic] Boost Defaults
On Tuesday, April 26, 2011 07:56:17 AM Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Tuesday, April 26, 2011 05:51:05 AM Matthias Klose wrote: > > On 04/26/2011 04:47 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > > On Saturday, April 23, 2011 06:26:27 AM Matthias Klose wrote: > > >> On 04/14/2011 06:28 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > >>> This should get done before UDS, during toolchain upload (i.e. before > > >>> the first autosync), but I think it's worth mentioning. > > >>> > > >>> The current Boost that's default and in Main is 1.42. Debian's > > >>> current default is 1.46. My proposal for Oneiric is that we switch > > >>> our default/Main version to 1.46 at the start of Oneric development > > >>> and then in Debian updates their default prior to feature freeze, > > >>> we'll assess where we are and decide if we should stay with 1.46 or > > >>> advance. > > >> > > >> whatever version you do choose, please make sure it does build with > > >> GCC 4.6. > > > > > > Please update the gcc-defaults in the toolchain PPA in Natty to be > > > newer than the one in natty itself and I'll check it out. > > > > See https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2011-April/033042.html > > Is there something missing? > > Thanks. I looked in the wrong PPA. Boost1.46 builds with gcc4.6: https://launchpad.net/~kitterman/+archive/ppa/+buildjob/2499742 https://launchpad.net/~kitterman/+archive/ppa/+buildjob/2499743 I built the entire package with Universe, so it will still have to be split for the archive, but there don't appear to be gcc4.6 related problems. Scott K -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: [Oneiric-Foundations-Topic] Boost Defaults
On Tuesday, April 26, 2011 05:51:05 AM Matthias Klose wrote: > On 04/26/2011 04:47 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > On Saturday, April 23, 2011 06:26:27 AM Matthias Klose wrote: > >> On 04/14/2011 06:28 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > >>> This should get done before UDS, during toolchain upload (i.e. before > >>> the first autosync), but I think it's worth mentioning. > >>> > >>> The current Boost that's default and in Main is 1.42. Debian's current > >>> default is 1.46. My proposal for Oneiric is that we switch our > >>> default/Main version to 1.46 at the start of Oneric development and > >>> then in Debian updates their default prior to feature freeze, we'll > >>> assess where we are and decide if we should stay with 1.46 or advance. > >> > >> whatever version you do choose, please make sure it does build with GCC > >> 4.6. > > > > Please update the gcc-defaults in the toolchain PPA in Natty to be newer > > than the one in natty itself and I'll check it out. > > See https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2011-April/033042.html > Is there something missing? Thanks. I looked in the wrong PPA. Scott K -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: [Oneiric-Foundations-Topic] Boost Defaults
On 04/26/2011 04:47 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: On Saturday, April 23, 2011 06:26:27 AM Matthias Klose wrote: On 04/14/2011 06:28 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: This should get done before UDS, during toolchain upload (i.e. before the first autosync), but I think it's worth mentioning. The current Boost that's default and in Main is 1.42. Debian's current default is 1.46. My proposal for Oneiric is that we switch our default/Main version to 1.46 at the start of Oneric development and then in Debian updates their default prior to feature freeze, we'll assess where we are and decide if we should stay with 1.46 or advance. whatever version you do choose, please make sure it does build with GCC 4.6. Please update the gcc-defaults in the toolchain PPA in Natty to be newer than the one in natty itself and I'll check it out. See https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2011-April/033042.html Is there something missing? -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
