On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 at 00:41, Robie Basak wrote:
>
> I'd like to talk about addressing the difficulty in maintenance of long
> tail language-specific stacks in Ubuntu. For example, right now
> `src:rails` is stuck in disco-proposed[1]. It seems to me that we spend
> a disproportionate amount of eff
On Thu., 1 Nov. 2018, 08:55 Andreas Hasenack Hi,
>
> we are reviewing the server seeds
> (
> https://code.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-core-dev/ubuntu-seeds/+git/ubuntu/+ref/disco
> )
> and the acpid package came up. It's currently in the server seed,
> meaning it's installed by default.
>
> I did some t
On 9 June 2016 at 20:44, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Stéphane Graber [2016-06-07 16:47 -0400]:
>> > > And so long as having a common solution can be done without regressions
>> > > and without hand wavy answers like "web browsers will just have to
>> > > switch to some new systemd DBUS API", I don't mind
ith all cloud image use cases.
There is a view that apps that need stuff in memory should just, well,
use memory. So yeah - lets make this configurable, but not default i.
-Rob
--
Robert Collins
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud
--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
ng something you
accidentally break but which otherwise Just Works.
-Rob
--
Robert Collins
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud
--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
many index files to download, and half
the size local mirror to maintain.
-Rob
--
Robert Collins
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud
--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
can explicitly exlude it from cloud images
> without removing 'ubuntu-standard' ?
I don't see any reason to have it installed. I would like to still
have it on the bootable server CD-roms, it's handy when something is
suspected wrong.
-Rob
--
Robert Collins
Distinguishe
On 29 October 2013 08:56, Scott Moser wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Oct 2013, Robert Collins wrote:
>
>> On 29 October 2013 07:46, Scott Moser wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > tldr;
>> > As we look forward to the 14.04 deliverable of cloud images, we'
s for diskimage-builder
in OpenStack. We build both vm and baremetal images from them, and
currently assume that there is a kernel in them (but we do remove grub
from them early on). Overall I think this is probably a good idea, but
we'll need to fixup our code to be a bit more explicit about
t you'll
> have internet connectivity from inside the chroot (but I'm working on
> also emulating that part of the LP build environment) and that you'll be
> running with a newer version of sbuild than what's used on the real
> buildds.
>
>
> --
>
UuWs9vtJ62
Mikb0kzAjlQYPwNx6UNpQaILZ1MYLa3JXjataAsTqcKtbxcyKgLQOrZy55ZYoZO5
+qdZ1+wiD3+usr/GFDUX9KiM/f6N+Xo=
=EVi2
-END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Robert Collins
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud
--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsu
On 13 March 2013 03:57, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Robert Collins wrote:
> Understood. IMHO that "LTS mode" would significantly reduce the benefits
> compared to the current LTS. Current LTS promises to keep
> you secure with a behavior mostly unchanged. It gives you uncha
user base is very varied and you have to segment it to reason
sensibly about the stats we have.
-Ro
--
Robert Collins
Distinguished Technologist
HP Cloud Services
--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
, and the cost of
> special-casing a few dates is not that high to pay.
It depends a *great* deal on the implications of that special casing.
LEAN teaches that your cycle time - the time it takes do your
plan-execute-learn-plan loop is the big definer for your agility -
your ability t
On 11 March 2013 23:12, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Robert Collins wrote:
>> A - an archive that we place a high friction change process on,
>> intended to eliminate regressions [the SRU]
>> B - a logical name that users can associate with a /large/ bundle of
>> changes. O
On 11 March 2013 23:25, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> Robert Collins wrote:
>>> - Move the concept of using 'a release of Ubuntu' to using 'a
>>> configuration' - LTS is 'keep my behaviour unchanged', interim
>&g
On 10 March 2013 14:38, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Our SRU policy reflects this: we only allow updates to stable releases for
> specific bugfixes, and don't allow other changes.
... except for firefox. And kernels.
-Rob
--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings o
fairly straightforward to me: the
phased updates work + CI tooling can combine quite nicely into a CD
story.
I'm happy to provide a longer version and engage on implementation
details, if this sounds like an interesting approach.
AFAICT it should meet all the audiences we have, though it is quite
visibly different to the way we deliver it today.
-Rob
--
Robert Collins
Distinguished Technologist
HP Cloud Services
--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
rder. While there is a safety barrier
of 'noone really uses this' there is no driver for contributors to pay
attention to detail : they can fix any issue by another upload.
Exactly what conclusion to draw from that I'm not sure; will leave it
as an exercise for the reader.
-Rob
-
nt to achieve, lets design
around our users, what we can reasonably expect them to know and care
about, rather than around the plumbing we happen to have today, which
they assuredly are not interested in.
-Rob
--
Robert Collins
Distinguished Technologist
HP Cloud Services
--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
too, and using automatic signs - crashes and
exceptions from a small part of the userbase - to trigger a halt to
propogation, or even an automated reversal - a very good one.
A rolling release that isn't actually *always releasable* isn't a
rolling release.
Just saying.
-Rob
-
ets, to see if there is actual non-trivial demand for
one vs another (and deal with the 'default sticks' effect too).
-Rob
--
Robert Collins
Distinguished Technologist
HP Cloud Services
--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 2:12 AM, Rick Spencer
wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> At UDS I had some "hallway discussions" about why we freeze for Alphas
> and Betas, and the fact that I think it is time to drop this practice
> and rather focus on making Ubuntu good quality each day. Sadly, there
> was no sess
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Phillip Susi wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I was a bit confused when I saw this uds event. It is unclear to me why we
> would want to add upstart to the initramfs. I think it is important to
> remember that the the whole purpose o
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 11:21 AM, bdfhjk wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I’m going to create Ubuntu Algorithms Team, which will be responsible for:
>
> * Helping developers in the implementation of the latest and hard to
> understand algorithms
> * Detection of ‘bottlenecks’ at boot time and during run time o
... or LP could talk to the tracker via a web API :P
-Rob
--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 6:52 AM, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> 1. Prior art in Linux? Aside from Breakpad, do any other distros or
> FOSS projects have crash reporting systems like this?
There is LP's OOPS system, there is a google project for cross
platform crashdump capturing, a django project
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Robert Collins
wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Brian Murray wrote:
>> With regards to the volume of bug reports - since Maverick has been
>> released on 2010-10-10 there have been 8572 bugs reported using apport.
>> The same number
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Brian Murray wrote:
> With regards to the volume of bug reports - since Maverick has been
> released on 2010-10-10 there have been 8572 bugs reported using apport.
> The same number for Lucid since 2010-04-29 is 17,949. I'd tell you the
> number for Natty but Laun
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Christopher James Halse Rogers
wrote:
> While we're using the terminology "crash report", I want to ensure that
> there's a sufficiently general understanding of what this means. I
> think we'd want this to cover at least:
> * Actual C-style crashes, with core.
>
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Rick Spencer wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-08-08 at 19:44 +1200, Robert Collins wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 6:25 PM, Christopher James Halse Rogers
>> wrote:
>> The LP team doesn't *currently* have working on this in our short term
>
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 6:25 PM, Christopher James Halse Rogers
wrote:
> I know it's been proposed and discussed previously, and I believe Robert
> Collins both wants something similar for Launchpad and has done some
> work towards making it happen.
I have a draft implementatio
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Chase Douglas
wrote:
> The other thing that I forgot to mention is that moving to a "trust"
> model of requirements resolves the issue that I face: acceptable for
> core-dev, but not for motu, and thus I'm not acceptable for core-dev. I
> was told that I would be
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> It doesn't appear to have any functionality for auto-linking bug #'s.
They get linkified on display :) - but an explicit link is something
we could look at (done automatically with manual override to remove
bad ones I guess).
> Also, I'
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 9:52 AM, James Westby wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2011 13:59:08 -0700, Bryce Harrington
> wrote:
>> No objections from me, although James has better insights into how
>> people are utilizing packaging branches in Ubuntu. James?
>
> I don't see a problem with this approach.
>
>
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:40 AM, Martin Owens wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 13:20 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> For this to work I think the "suite" target in the changelog entry
>> should be qualified by the distro, so you could say (picking a random
>> example):
>>
>> picocom (1.4-1) debian:uns
Without commenting on the privacy / merit of the proposal etc...
I don't think you need a guid.
Just two counters:
- started an install
- first login after an install where this machine successfully
register the 'started an install' counter.
divide the two and you have (with some noise) the su
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Hello,
>
> whenever an upgrade fails early in the unpack (either broken preinst,
> corrupted archive, etc.), APT still tries to configure it and
> it results in a supplementary error in the upgrade log that looks like
> this:
> dpkg: error p
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> 1. When new bugs are filed, LP doesn't show private bugs that may be
> dupes.
> 2. After filing, apport sometimes marks bugs as dupes of a master
> private bug, which the dupee can't view.
Yes; note that both of these things resul
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 6:42 AM, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 09:53:56PM +1200, Robert Collins wrote:
>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apport/+bug/764414
>> has a summary in it of a chat pitti and I had on IRC about the
>> handling of master b
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apport/+bug/764414
has a summary in it of a chat pitti and I had on IRC about the
handling of master bugs with private data. What we currently do
consistently confuses users and prevents Launchpads duplicate bug
detection working properly (because the maste
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Barry Warsaw [2011-02-22 17:22 -0500]:
>> That's definitely a problem. :) Because of the team nature of Ubuntu
>> development, I think in general uploaders should have push rights to the UDD
>> branches.
>
> They do already. computer-janitor u
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Barry Warsaw [2011-02-22 17:22 -0500]:
>> That's definitely a problem. :) Because of the team nature of Ubuntu
>> development, I think in general uploaders should have push rights to the UDD
>> branches.
>
> They do already. computer-janitor u
I think you need an upstream status field, for instance for
python-testtools which is single-source python 3.2+ compatible, but
may not be packaged thusly.
-Rob
--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinf
On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 8:21 AM, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 19, 2011, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> Perhaps a reasonable middle ground would be some new X-USE-UDD field (pick a
>> better name please) in debian/control and a changet to dput that would either
>> ask an "are you sure y/N" question
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Robert Collins
wrote:
> Another thing to consider -
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/268508 - is a bug filed
> about how this search is *a problem* rather than a benefit.
>
> Given the fairly low key response to this thread, I'm go
FWIW, as a postgresql user, Launchpad has the same desire here that we
have for the rest of our platform - continuity as we upgrade LTS->LTS.
So I'm ecstatic to see 9.0, and maybe even 9.1 in the next LTS, but we
need either that version in a PPA, or 8.4 in a PPA, to let us decouple
os-upgrade from
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 9:43 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> This is true - I wish PPAs could be designated official, and I know the issue
> is on the LP team's radar, though I have no inside information about ETA of
> that. Still, I think if we clearly document the PPA's location on LP's dev
> wiki, th
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 6:06 AM, James Westby wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> One thing that isn't clear from your mail is if all substring matching
> on package names is out.
>
> For instance would searching for "gcc" get you results from "gcc-4.4"
> and "gcc-4.5"?
I was proposing to nuke the substring sear
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Elliot Murphy wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> So now that Natty main support for Python 2.7 looks pretty good, the question
>> is: do we drop Python 2.6 from Natty?
>>
>> Pro-removal:
>>
>> * It reduces the CD space requirements by
Thats pretty nice. One thought - a ln scale might be useful :)
-Rob
--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 6:38 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-02-02 at 19:09 +1300, Robert Collins wrote:
>> Hi, as you may have noticed, bug search in Launchpad is not as fast as
>> you might wish :). One of the contributing factors to the search
>> performance is t
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 4:38 AM, Brian Murray wrote:
> I'm a bit confused here as you've mentioned package names and bug
> search. Would this type of change modify the search mechanism behind
> both https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu and
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu (Find a Package here)?
h
Hi, as you may have noticed, bug search in Launchpad is not as fast as
you might wish :). One of the contributing factors to the search
performance is that we do a substring match for package names.
We're looking at schema changes and additional short-term solutions
(long term we're moving to a de
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 2:25 AM, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
>>> I don't see any reasons there. How does the licensing model have
>>> anything to do with the rollout process? For example, I'm pretty sure
>>> that any changes to Launchpad's rollout process since it was closed
>>> source have nothing
55 matches
Mail list logo
