Re: Kubuntu LTS
On Tue, 2012-01-24 at 10:25 +0100, Martin Pitt wrote: > Martin Pitt [2011-12-20 9:23 +0100]: > > Hello Jonathan, > > > > Jonathan Riddell [2011-12-12 17:15 +]: > > > https://wiki.kubuntu.org/Kubuntu/12.04/LTS-Proposal > > > > Jamie's questions would interest me as well. > > Aside from those, there is one thing which fell through the cracks in > the TB meeting: qtwebkit-source is not merely a Qt binding around > webkit, but a full code copy; this would need to be updated > throughout the full LTS cycle. Is the Kubuntu team going to do this? Actually, it is worse than an embedded copy since with an embedded copy you can at least share patches between the system lib and the embedded copy. This is generally not possible with qtwebkit-source and webkit in Ubuntu, because qtwebkit-source contains a copy of the QTWebKit source code which is a different upstream source than webkit (WebKitGTK+). -- Jamie Strandboge | http://www.canonical.com signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- technical-board mailing list technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
Re: Mesa floting point patent enquiry - continued
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:33:16AM +1100, Christopher James Halse Rogers wrote: > Sorry for not following up on this sooner. I'd like to resolve this now > that Mesa 8.0 is close to landing in Precise. The last status is > ambiguous to me: Colin Watson's response[1] suggests against enabling > the extensions, while Mark Shuttleworth's response[2] is for enabling > them, and there doesn't appear to be a resolution of the two. I'm still unconvinced personally, but I'll defer to Mark. -- Colin Watson [cjwat...@ubuntu.com] -- technical-board mailing list technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
Ubuntu Business Remix update
Hi folk Allison made me aware of an off-list discussion amongst the TB regarding the Business Remix. Here's an update from my perspective, and to avoid further confusion please keep me and/or the CC in the loop on similar conversations in future. * The work has been done as a remix specifically to avoid concerns about Canonical's best work on packages going into anything other than the archives which are widely available. The team had to re-do their work to meet this requirement. * Steve Langasek raised a concern with me, that Partner might not be considered "part of Ubuntu" for remix purposes. That was a surprise to me, and is a simple omission rather than intended outcome. We index Partner packages in the Software Center - they are as much part of Ubuntu as multiverse it - they reflect packages where redistribution is not possible, and Canonical has to be directly involved as a contractual requirement of the ISV. We should simply clarify this in the remix guidelines if it is an issue. * There is no new precedent on proprietary bits here - remixes can certainly already pull from restricted and multiverse. * To avoid a delta in the installer and other packages, the EULA's of included packages from Partner will be presented through the web on download rather than in the installer or desktop UX. I don't believe there are any technical issues that warrant concern on the part of the TB, but am happy to be part of the discussion if you feel otherwise. From a CC perspective, again I don't believe there are policy questions or concerns. We would have no issue if a third party published a remix of this nature. It was a debate as to whether the name should be "Canonical Business Desktop" or "Ubuntu Business Desktop", we felt the awkwardness of differentiating this from Ubuntu was very high - we do not want to be lumped in the same category as "Fedora / RHEL" as it is a completely different proposition from both Ubuntu and Canonical. There's no legal issue w.r.t. the trademark, both because this is a remix (and within guidelines for the use of the name) and because Canonical owns the mark in the first place. Mark -- technical-board mailing list technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
Re: Kubuntu LTS
Martin Pitt [2011-12-20 9:23 +0100]: > Hello Jonathan, > > Jonathan Riddell [2011-12-12 17:15 +]: > > https://wiki.kubuntu.org/Kubuntu/12.04/LTS-Proposal > > Jamie's questions would interest me as well. Aside from those, there is one thing which fell through the cracks in the TB meeting: qtwebkit-source is not merely a Qt binding around webkit, but a full code copy; this would need to be updated throughout the full LTS cycle. Is the Kubuntu team going to do this? Thank you! Martin -- 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: Mesa floting point patent enquiry - continued
On the basis that apps would not need to be recompiled if this needs to be changed later, I still support enabling the functionality. Mark -- technical-board mailing list technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
Mesa floting point patent enquiry - continued
Hello again! Sorry for not following up on this sooner. I'd like to resolve this now that Mesa 8.0 is close to landing in Precise. The last status is ambiguous to me: Colin Watson's response[1] suggests against enabling the extensions, while Mark Shuttleworth's response[2] is for enabling them, and there doesn't appear to be a resolution of the two. There's no rush; this can easily be enabled any time before feature freeze. [1]: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2011-October/001113.html [2]: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2011-October/001114.html signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- technical-board mailing list technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
Re: Harmonizing DMB membership expiring dates
2012/1/20 Martin Pitt : > Benjamin Drung [2012-01-09 20:40 +0100]: >> What do you think? Are we allowed to adjust the membership expiration >> dates? > While it technically does not match the letter of what people voted > on, I can't imagine anyone seriously complaining. Let's not be overly > bureaucratic here, IMHO :-) > > Let's see what the other TB members think. Yeah, this doesn't even give me a reading at all on my controversial-o-meter :) Fine with me. -- Soren Hansen | http://linux2go.dk/ Ubuntu Developer | http://www.ubuntu.com/ OpenStack Developer | http://www.openstack.org/ -- technical-board mailing list technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
