Re: Ubuntu Business Remix update
Thanks Colin!
With Michael Vogt, Jamie Strandboge and the Ubuntu Security teams in
~canonical-partner-dev we can be confident in their handling of security
matters, again modulo 'upstream'.
I have a strong preference for the remix to be done in a way which is
not special to Canonical's trademark rights in Ubuntu, which is why I
asked it to be redone on that basis and why I'm pursuing the thread,
despite everyone saying 'I don't mind the remix but...'.
Pitti and Scott both said that they would prefer not to think of Partner
as part of Ubuntu. I prefer to think of it that way, because (a) I have
no problem with TB oversight of the practices that govern it, and (b) I
think it's good to reaffirm that our preference for free software is not
also a refusal to touch the rest. Nevertheless, I understand that we may
end up with a range of views rather than consensus.
Simplistically, I think that means 'we don't mind the remix', and could
go ahead, but we'll continue to hold off on any publication of it to see
if the thread turns up more suggestions. It's been good to get this
feedback. So far, I think the clarifications around bug tracking have
been very useful, as has the realisation that we could figure out how to
enable non-Canonical participation in the packaging and maintenance of
that archive. What other ideas?
Mark
On 01/02/12 23:17, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 09:02:26PM +, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
>> On 31/01/12 09:55, Alan Bell wrote:
>>> * Stuff gets added post-release with no pre-release testing, nowhere
>>> to report bugs and contribute fixes on Launchpad etc. etc.)
>> Good point, I thought bug reporting should be normal, and if it isn't,
>> let's fix that.
> I thought it was already, e.g.:
>
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/skype/+bugs
>
> (Earlier in the thread, somebody referred to a bug about the namespacing
> of this, which of course is tied into this thread. That bug also has a
> two-year-old comment saying that partner was due to move into a PPA or
> PPAs; if that happened, the positioning in the bug system would
> presumably change somehow although I have no idea how.)
>
> I don't know to what extent bug mail goes anywhere useful, gets acted
> on, etc. However, ~canonical-partner-dev is subscribed:
>
> >>> ubuntu = lp.distributions["ubuntu"]
> >>> skype = ubuntu.getSourcePackage(name="skype")
> >>> [s.subscriber.name for s in skype.getSubscriptions()]
> [u'canonical-partner-dev', u'costamagnagianfranco']
>
> It looks like ~canonical-partner-dev is subscribed to the majority of
> packages in partner, although not quite all. Posting the full list here
> wouldn't be terribly interesting, but something like this doesn't take
> too long to run:
>
> >>> for series_name in ('hardy', 'lucid', 'maverick', 'natty',
> ... 'oneiric', 'precise'):
> ... print series_name
> ... series = ubuntu.getSeries(name_or_version=series_name)
> ... pubs = partner.getPublishedSources(
> ... distro_series=series, status="Published")
> ... source_names = sorted([pub.source_package_name for pub in pubs])
> ... for source_name in source_names:
> ... source = ubuntu.getSourcePackage(name=source_name)
> ... subs = source.getSubscriptions()
> ... print " %s: %s" % (
> ... source_name, " ".join([s.subscriber.name for s in subs]))
>
--
technical-board mailing list
technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
Re: Ubuntu Business Remix update
On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 09:02:26PM +, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
> On 31/01/12 09:55, Alan Bell wrote:
> > * Stuff gets added post-release with no pre-release testing, nowhere
> > to report bugs and contribute fixes on Launchpad etc. etc.)
>
> Good point, I thought bug reporting should be normal, and if it isn't,
> let's fix that.
I thought it was already, e.g.:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/skype/+bugs
(Earlier in the thread, somebody referred to a bug about the namespacing
of this, which of course is tied into this thread. That bug also has a
two-year-old comment saying that partner was due to move into a PPA or
PPAs; if that happened, the positioning in the bug system would
presumably change somehow although I have no idea how.)
I don't know to what extent bug mail goes anywhere useful, gets acted
on, etc. However, ~canonical-partner-dev is subscribed:
>>> ubuntu = lp.distributions["ubuntu"]
>>> skype = ubuntu.getSourcePackage(name="skype")
>>> [s.subscriber.name for s in skype.getSubscriptions()]
[u'canonical-partner-dev', u'costamagnagianfranco']
It looks like ~canonical-partner-dev is subscribed to the majority of
packages in partner, although not quite all. Posting the full list here
wouldn't be terribly interesting, but something like this doesn't take
too long to run:
>>> for series_name in ('hardy', 'lucid', 'maverick', 'natty',
... 'oneiric', 'precise'):
... print series_name
... series = ubuntu.getSeries(name_or_version=series_name)
... pubs = partner.getPublishedSources(
... distro_series=series, status="Published")
... source_names = sorted([pub.source_package_name for pub in pubs])
... for source_name in source_names:
... source = ubuntu.getSourcePackage(name=source_name)
... subs = source.getSubscriptions()
... print " %s: %s" % (
... source_name, " ".join([s.subscriber.name for s in subs]))
--
Colin Watson [cjwat...@ubuntu.com]
--
technical-board mailing list
technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
Re: Ubuntu Business Remix update
Hi Alan Thanks for the insights, it's good to see what different people would look for in a business remix. I'll comment in detail below, but would also say that the choices in this remix were informed based on a review of what sysadmins are doing in practice. As ever, it's an average and so won't fit all tastes, but it's aimed at being a best-guess, non-ideological starting point. On 31/01/12 09:55, Alan Bell wrote: > I have wanted a business desktop remix for some time. The partner > archive does not seem to be particularly relevant to this, I have some > reservations about the partner archive, mostly already stated, but > here is my list: > * Alfresco came and went and was broken and I couldn't contribute a > fix and reporting bugs was painful as it fell in the gap between > Canonical and Alfresco. > * Anyone installing it would be worse off than installing manually > from upstream because there were no updates to the packaged version, > no clear plan on whether it would be best to wait for a new packaged > upgrade or dump upstream source on top of the packaged installed > Alfresco (at best, if it worked at all this would be unsupported by > anyone) There's a large category of things which are very difficult to package well, especially complex java server apps. Alfresco is a good example. In future, we'll try to solve these with Juju rather than packaging, using packages for parts which are common shared dependencies. > * Sun Java was in the partner repo and wasn't a wise installation choice AFAIK the Sun Java package was well maintained. That means it was better to get it from partner than from a Sun-provided tarball, which would not self-update. The fact that Oracle has revoked our rights to distribute it isn't a strike against the partner repo, imo. > * Stuff gets added post-release with no pre-release testing, nowhere > to report bugs and contribute fixes on Launchpad etc. etc.) Good point, I thought bug reporting should be normal, and if it isn't, let's fix that. The namespace should be flat, so there should be no problem reporting bugs in LP against partner packages. We don't put these packages in the normal archive for the simple reason that it would complicate the life of mirrors. > so right now for me the partner repo is empty. > http://archive.canonical.com/dists/precise/partner/binary-amd64/ ISV's won't often target an unreleased version :) Given that precise is an LTS, I'm sure it will fill up. > Looking back at Oneiric it contains Adobe reader (evince is better), > Adobe flash (standard downloader package works fine) and something > called centrifydc which relates to authenticating against a windows > server of some kind. Thats it. We're not here to judge Acrobat vs Evince. I know what I use, and it's probably what you use, but I'm not here to tell someone who needs Acrobat that they should jump through hoops just because neither you nor I would use it. > For me at least, Ubuntu + an elderly version of Adobe reader is not > really my vision of what the Ubuntu business desktop remix could be. > > What I would like to see is a vision for the Ubuntu desktop in a > business context that is Free Software end to end. Agreed, I think that would be wonderful. > > * Gwibber for connecting to public and private social business > networks like Linked-in, Ecademy, Yammer, Huddle or an internal Elgg etc > * Empathy instant messaging with support for Sametime, Groupwise > * De-emphasise the music and photo stuff. Banshee/Rhythmbox are fine > to have, people listen to music at work, but clicking the dash right > now (yeah I know it is changing) would kind of imply that "look at > photos" and "listen to music" is 50% of what the computer is *for* > * Lenses for connecting to open and proprietary business systems. I > really want to know the right way to do an authenticated lens. I would > like to search in the dash for a customer name and find correspondence > in Alfresco, contact information from vTiger (or even SalesForce.com), > invoices and project details from OpenERP or SAP, and a button to > click to call the contacts through an Asterisk server. All sounds good. > * A relationship with Ubuntu Server. I want to install the Ubuntu > Business Desktop and it should ask "Where is my Ubuntu Server please" > and then everything just works, in terms of authentication, printing, > configuration. Right now there is no special magic between Ubuntu > desktop and Ubuntu server. That also sounds interesting - opinionated network architecture, essentially. In most large-scale deployment, however, many of those decisions are already taken, often for hysterical raisons, and there's not much we can do but enable people to integrate smoothly. That includes integrating with Active Directory, for example, so perhaps that Centrify option isn't such a bad idea ;-) I don't disagree with the attractiveness of the vision you describe. But that doesn't diminish the value of a remix which reflects what Real S
