CouchDB SRU exception
On the behalf of the Ubuntu One team, and of everybody else using CouchDB on 10.04, I'm asking for an SRU exception for couchdb itself. The couchdb package currently in 10.04 is version 0.10, which is unable to interoperate with version 1.0 and later; this includes not only our cloud servers but also those of CouchIO (the creators of CouchDB) and anybody running CouchDB in Ubuntu 10.10 and beyond. The changes from 0.10 to 0.11 and 1.0 include several security fixes, which alone would warrant the request; unfortunately the changes between these releases have been significant enough that isolating and then maintaining the fixes for these issues is unpractical. As CouchDB is an Apache project, the 1.0 release means that we shouldn't need to worry about this kind of change happening during the rest of the 10.04 timeframe -- if there are security issues, the fixes will be isolated; further, they will not break replication. We went ahead and put together a test plan to exercise multiple upgrade paths against all common CouchDB enabled applications. Everything worked as expected, including moving a home directory that had upgraded databases to a non-upgraded machine: there's an error in reading the data until CouchDB is upgraded, at which point everything resumes working as expected. The testing we did is documented here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/CouchDBSRU Thank you, pgpwfPlALmSk3.pgp Description: PGP signature -- technical-board mailing list technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
for tomorrow's meeting: ARB exception proposal
The Application Review Board would appreciate input from the Tech Board on an issue that's blocking all applications in our review queue. Simply put, certain parts of our toolchain and runtime can't currently handle applications installed entirely under /opt. More details here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PostReleaseApps/MaverickExceptionsProposal There are ongoing discussions in the ARB and the community about which specific technologies merit an exception to /opt installation, but general agreement on allowing some exceptions until our tools catch up with our specification. A couple of possible actions from the Tech Board for tomorrow's meeting: - Request a list of specific tools/technologies that require an exception to /opt installation, which the ARB can bring to the next Tech Board meeting for approval. - Approve exceptions to /opt installation on the general principle of only where absolutely necessary, and only for Maverick, and delegate the decision(s) on specific tools/technologies to the ARB. But, any comments or suggestions are welcome. Allison -- technical-board mailing list technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
Re: ARB legality checks
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 07:02:58AM -0800, Allison Randal wrote: This is one of the topics we discussed at UDS, with the conclusion that while we may not be quite as strict as Debian, we will follow most of their guidelines, as a well-tested procedure for ensuring that the software is legally distributable. Ah, thank you. Do you have a reference to a gobby document or something like that? We're setting up a Security Checklist wiki page now, and may need a similar Legal Checklist, so it's completely transparent what we're accepting and rejecting. (We might be able to refer to the PackagingGuide's Copyright content instead, will re-review with an eye to how straightforward it is to apply it to our process.) Normally I'm a fan of incorporating things by reference, but I think it would be a little confusing in this case - you'd have to say this document, except for X, Y, and Z. -- Colin Watson [cjwat...@ubuntu.com] -- technical-board mailing list technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
Re: Not installing changelogs in 11.04
Hi! I suggest that we drop the others on further responses, not sure wether this discussion part is really interesting for others. If anyone is though in fact interested, please raise your voice now, otherwise I might cut the Cc list on my next response to Michael. :) * Michael Vogt m...@ubuntu.com [2010-11-15 16:51:58 CET]: There is a native c++ implementation for apt-changelogs now in lp:~mvo/apt/apt-get-changelogs that follows the directory layout that http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/ is using. We use the same layout (in fact mostly the same tool :) in changelogs.ubuntu.com Sweet, good to know! Actually, changelogs.debian.net isn't the proper place, http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/ is the correct one - and they don't look that incompatible with each other. ;) They should be compatible. The only addition we do in changelogs.ubuntu.com is that there are additional symlinks if source_ver!=binary_ver (like for gcc-defaults). This fixes changelog fetching on installs with deb-src disabled for tools like gcc. It would be nice to include something like this to debian as well, this way the code in apt could also be simplified. If you are using the same tool, do you actually have a patch for the code? Then I'm all for adding that to packages.debian.org too. I would love to serve the changelogs via packages.ubuntu.com (that is what you propose, right?) and stop maintaining changelogs.ubuntu.com. We have it since a long time because we need a place to store our changelogs without relying on launchpad.net. I'm not attached to it, I just want a place that gives me raw changelogs files. Right, that's my suggestion, to make them more behave the same again and potential have as sole difference the css and config files, if possible, to make merges and further development easier. Like mentioned, on Debian we are changing the extraction stage from the packages site itself to the archive tools (dak) and they sync the files to a specific directory on the site. Is this possible within Ubuntu too? If so then it would be great to have them in a directory on sulfur available to synchronize the code, and the output. Enjoy! Rhonda -- dholbach Last day of https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDeveloperWeek starting in 34 minutes in #ubuntu-classroom on irc.feenode.net * ScottK hands dholbach an r. Rhonda Are they fundraising again? -- technical-board mailing list technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
Re: for tomorrow's meeting: ARB exception proposal
Hello Allison, Allison Randal [2010-11-15 17:55 -0800]: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PostReleaseApps/MaverickExceptionsProposal this was discussed on today's TB meeting [1], but we ran out of time, so let's continue this via email. = .desktop files = This wasn't discussed extensively, but some comments indicated that making an exception for those for maverick should be okay. (Hasn't been officially approved yet, though) = Python binaries = Is that actually an issue? They could all live in /opt/packagename/, we are mostly concerned about user-facing apps which ship a desktop file? Do we have actual cases where those extra packages ship command line applications or something which needs to be in $PATH? How would people think about the (maverick only) permission to ship a symlink to /opt/... in /usr/local/bin? = Python libraries = For maverick we could require app developers to add their application path directory to sys.path, and fix quickly to do that automatically. Would that be practical? pyc files are just a nice to have, so we could ship maverick packages without them. I didn't quite get why people asked for a vendor prefix in /opt/, like /opt/ubuntu. What would this give us? AFAIK it wouldn't address any of above problems, and just additionally require LANANA registration, etc.? Thanks, Martin [1] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/TechnicalBoard/TeamReports/10/November -- Martin Pitt| http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org) signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- technical-board mailing list technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
Re: ARB legality checks
Hey Colin and Allison, (sorry for being a little off topic for a second) Was the /opt push back approved? --fagan On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Allison Randal alli...@canonical.comwrote: On 11/16/2010 07:09 AM, Colin Watson wrote: Ah, thank you. Do you have a reference to a gobby document or something like that? The gobby doc is ubuntutheproject-community-n-app-review-board-review. Normally I'm a fan of incorporating things by reference, but I think it would be a little confusing in this case - you'd have to say this document, except for X, Y, and Z. What we'll probably end up with is a short summary checklist (similar to your original email), with a link to the PackagingGuide for more details. Allison -- technical-board mailing list technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
