Re: Xorg was removed.. without an alternative
On 11 July 2013 08:43, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com wrote: It seems so strange to spend six months saying don't touch that just to turn around and then spend nine months begging people to touch that... I know it can be confusing, but the $devel-proposed (that should be future proof) serves a completely different purpose than -proposed post-release. Once Saucy is released, saucy-proposed will serve the same purpose -proposed has always served. Not for humans only applies to the development phase. It looks like the two different uses of -proposed should be separated, no? So a $devel release would have an always empty $devel-proposed and all that is currently pushed there would go to $devel-autobuilder-only-proposed or something and a released verison would continue as-is. -- Best regards, Aigars Mahinovsmailto:aigar...@debian.org #--# | .''`.Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org)| | : :' : Latvian Open Source Assoc. (http://www.laka.lv) | | `. `'Linux Administration and Free Software Consulting | | `- (http://www.aiteki.com) | #--# -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Xorg was removed.. without an alternative
Hi, On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 08:54:38AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: On Thursday, July 11, 2013 10:31:03 AM Aigars Mahinovs wrote: On 11 July 2013 08:43, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com wrote: […] It looks like the two different uses of -proposed should be separated, no? So a $devel release would have an always empty $devel-proposed and all that is currently pushed there would go to $devel-autobuilder-only-proposed or something and a released verison would continue as-is. In theory, sure. In practice, it would take a lot of work to do that for very minimal gain. Quite a while ago I started working to make it possible to enable NotAutomatic (as for -backports) for the proposed pocket. https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/1016776 Clearly, despite my comment saying that I'd finish implementing this, I never did. There would be some other work needed too before it could be enabled, like getting buildds to ignore the flag. It still seems to me that this is the right thing to do. If anyone wants to pick it up and push it over the line then please do. Cheers, -- Iain Lane [ i...@orangesquash.org.uk ] Debian Developer [ la...@debian.org ] Ubuntu Developer [ la...@ubuntu.com ] signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
RE: Xorg was removed.. without an alternative
You posted after my reply in https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2013-July/037451.html, but there's no indication whether you saw it. I repeat: do you have saucy-proposed enabled? If so, disable it; humans should not have that enabled. Unfortunately at this moment is very easy for anyone to enable it with just a click, even by accident, so shouldn't be a surprise that this is destined to happen to a number of people (gladly some report back this feedback, while others don't). There's really no warnings or prevention mechanism for something that a human should not have enabled or avoid. -- Colin Watson [cjwat...@ubuntu.com] -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Xorg was removed.. without an alternative
On 7 July 2013 09:59, Colin Watson cjwat...@ubuntu.com wrote: You posted after my reply in https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2013-July/037451.html, but there's no indication whether you saw it. I repeat: do you have saucy-proposed enabled? If so, disable it; humans should not have that enabled. Perhaps it would be wise to disable the option in the GUI with a proper explanation of this? It's obvious that proposed _might_ break things, but it's certainly not obvious that it's not intended for humans when there's a GUI to enable it. Jo-Erlend Schinstad -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Xorg was removed.. without an alternative
On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Jo-Erlend Schinstad joerlend.schins...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps it would be wise to disable the option in the GUI with a proper explanation of this? It's obvious that proposed _might_ break things, but it's certainly not obvious that it's not intended for humans when there's a GUI to enable it. The issue is that it's only in the *devel* pre-release when it's not safe for humans to enable it. The GUI for enabling it needs to exist because there are scenarios where humans should be enabling it: people using older stable releases who are crippled by some bug or other, and need to test SRUs sooner rather than later. -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Xorg was removed.. without an alternative
On 10 July 2013 21:41, Robert Park robert.p...@canonical.com wrote: On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Jo-Erlend Schinstad joerlend.schins...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps it would be wise to disable the option in the GUI with a proper explanation of this? It's obvious that proposed _might_ break things, but it's certainly not obvious that it's not intended for humans when there's a GUI to enable it. The issue is that it's only in the *devel* pre-release when it's not safe for humans to enable it. The GUI for enabling it needs to exist because there are scenarios where humans should be enabling it: people using older stable releases who are crippled by some bug or other, and need to test SRUs sooner rather than later. Sure, but then you check to see if you're in a pre-release. If so, then add a label saying proposed isn't available for pre-releases, otherwise add the normal controls. How hard could that be? :) -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Xorg was removed.. without an alternative
On 10 July 2013 20:41, Robert Park robert.p...@canonical.com wrote: On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Jo-Erlend Schinstad joerlend.schins...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps it would be wise to disable the option in the GUI with a proper explanation of this? It's obvious that proposed _might_ break things, but it's certainly not obvious that it's not intended for humans when there's a GUI to enable it. The issue is that it's only in the *devel* pre-release when it's not safe for humans to enable it. The GUI for enabling it needs to exist because there are scenarios where humans should be enabling it: people using older stable releases who are crippled by some bug or other, and need to test SRUs sooner rather than later. Well, this is a problem we solved a while ago - making use of Pin-Priority[0]. With this enabled, a sudo apt-get dist-upgrade will not pull from -proposed, but sudo apt-get install xorg/saucy-proposed , would allow me to forcefully install xorg from saucy-proposed, as an opt-in - per package choice. [0] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/EnableProposed -- Kind Regards, Dave Walker -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Xorg was removed.. without an alternative
On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 11:36:58 PM Dave Walker wrote: On 10 July 2013 20:41, Robert Park robert.p...@canonical.com wrote: On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Jo-Erlend Schinstad joerlend.schins...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps it would be wise to disable the option in the GUI with a proper explanation of this? It's obvious that proposed _might_ break things, but it's certainly not obvious that it's not intended for humans when there's a GUI to enable it. The issue is that it's only in the *devel* pre-release when it's not safe for humans to enable it. The GUI for enabling it needs to exist because there are scenarios where humans should be enabling it: people using older stable releases who are crippled by some bug or other, and need to test SRUs sooner rather than later. Well, this is a problem we solved a while ago - making use of Pin-Priority[0]. With this enabled, a sudo apt-get dist-upgrade will not pull from -proposed, but sudo apt-get install xorg/saucy-proposed , would allow me to forcefully install xorg from saucy-proposed, as an opt-in - per package choice. [0] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/EnableProposed What part of not for humans is confusing? 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: Xorg was removed.. without an alternative
On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 06:12:51 PM Robert Park wrote: On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 4:17 PM, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.comwrote: What part of not for humans is confusing? Because it's not for humans, except when it is for humans, sometimes. Not $devel-proposed. 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: Xorg was removed.. without an alternative
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 07:17:24PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: The issue is that it's only in the *devel* pre-release when it's not safe for humans to enable it. The GUI for enabling it needs to exist because there are scenarios where humans should be enabling it: people using older stable releases who are crippled by some bug or other, and need to test SRUs sooner rather than later. With this enabled, a sudo apt-get dist-upgrade will not pull from -proposed, but sudo apt-get install xorg/saucy-proposed , would allow me to forcefully install xorg from saucy-proposed, as an opt-in - per package choice. [0] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/EnableProposed What part of not for humans is confusing? What will we do for SRU verification? Will we introduce a new -proposed-for-humans pocket once Saucy is released? Or will we need to go edit everything that once said saucy-proposed isn't for humans to read t-proposed isn't for humans? It seems so strange to spend six months saying don't touch that just to turn around and then spend nine months begging people to touch that... signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Xorg was removed.. without an alternative
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 4:17 PM, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.comwrote: What part of not for humans is confusing? Because it's not for humans, except when it is for humans, sometimes. -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Xorg was removed.. without an alternative
On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 04:36:35 PM Seth Arnold wrote: On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 07:17:24PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: The issue is that it's only in the *devel* pre-release when it's not safe for humans to enable it. The GUI for enabling it needs to exist because there are scenarios where humans should be enabling it: people using older stable releases who are crippled by some bug or other, and need to test SRUs sooner rather than later. With this enabled, a sudo apt-get dist-upgrade will not pull from -proposed, but sudo apt-get install xorg/saucy-proposed , would allow me to forcefully install xorg from saucy-proposed, as an opt-in - per package choice. [0] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/EnableProposed What part of not for humans is confusing? What will we do for SRU verification? Will we introduce a new -proposed-for-humans pocket once Saucy is released? Or will we need to go edit everything that once said saucy-proposed isn't for humans to read t-proposed isn't for humans? It seems so strange to spend six months saying don't touch that just to turn around and then spend nine months begging people to touch that... I know it can be confusing, but the $devel-proposed (that should be future proof) serves a completely different purpose than -proposed post-release. Once Saucy is released, saucy-proposed will serve the same purpose -proposed has always served. Not for humans only applies to the development phase. 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: Xorg was removed.. without an alternative
This should all be fixed now even for people who still have saucy-proposed on (though you should still disable it, if so); the new Xorg stack reached consistency and landed in saucy earlier today. -- Colin Watson [cjwat...@ubuntu.com] -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Xorg was removed.. without an alternative
On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 5:34 AM, Colin Watson cjwat...@ubuntu.com wrote: Is it possible that you accidentally have saucy-proposed enabled? You really ought to disable it - it's intended only for building against and for automatic checks that defend you from exactly this kind of breakage, not for use by humans. It looks like 'do-release-upgrade -d' will happily allow someone with raring-proposed enables upgrade to saucy and enable saucy-proposed. [1] I imagine the sub-set of users who run the stable release with proposed enabled overlaps quite a bit those willing to upgrade to the development release. I took a stab at fixing that, if anyone would like to review it. [2] [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-release-upgrader/+bug/1199157 [2] https://code.launchpad.net/~andrewsomething/ubuntu-release-upgrader/lp1199157/+merge/173611 Thanks! -- Andrew Starr-Bochicchio Ubuntu Developer https://launchpad.net/~andrewsomething Debian Developer http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=asb PGP/GPG Key ID: D53FDCB1 -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Xorg was removed.. without an alternative
On 04.07.2013 19:57, Alexandre Strube wrote: Today's update removed xorg... and the ability to boot - it does not even get to a terminal. In the case of such big breakups, wouldn't it be a good idea to have a simple workaround documented? -- [] Alexandre Strube su...@ubuntu.com mailto:su...@ubuntu.com Got the same shit after morning update! Moved back to 13.04, because of: aptitude install unity will remove xserver-xorg* BTW, want to see workaround anyway. -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Xorg was removed.. without an alternative
On Sat, Jul 06, 2013 at 03:58:10AM +0700, Victor BruteForce Hackeridze wrote: On 04.07.2013 19:57, Alexandre Strube wrote: Today's update removed xorg... and the ability to boot - it does not even get to a terminal. In the case of such big breakups, wouldn't it be a good idea to have a simple workaround documented? Got the same shit after morning update! There's no need for that tone on this list. You can find polite ways to say the same thing. Moved back to 13.04, because of: aptitude install unity will remove xserver-xorg* BTW, want to see workaround anyway. You posted after my reply in https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2013-July/037451.html, but there's no indication whether you saw it. I repeat: do you have saucy-proposed enabled? If so, disable it; humans should not have that enabled. -- Colin Watson [cjwat...@ubuntu.com] -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Xorg was removed.. without an alternative
Alexandre Strube [2013-07-04 14:57 +0200]: Today's update removed xorg... and the ability to boot - it does not even get to a terminal. In the case of such big breakups, wouldn't it be a good idea to have a simple workaround documented? That would assume that the removal of xorg was actually anticipated. It certainly wasn't, we would not ever knowingly allow something of that magnitude to get into the development release. It certainly didn't happen here, and I haven't heard from anybody else about it. Do you have the output of apt-get dist-upgrade still, or if you used update-manager, logs from /var/log/dist-upgrade/ ? This looks specific to your installation. Martin -- Martin Pitt| http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org) -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
