Re: [Fwd: Bug 1223199 - Unnecessary deps on packages that lock in things like Mir when not wanted.]
On 01.10.2013 03:35, Colin Watson wrote: > On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 01:04:31AM +0100, Phil Wyett wrote: >>> I am also concerned with many bugs these days are getting marked as they >>> are with no justification or explanation. > > I agree that it was not particularly helpful to mark the bug as "Won't > Fix" without explanation, and I think that practice should generally be > deprecated. > > You seem to have escalated to the Technical Board rather rapidly without > first trying to find common ground on the bug report, so I infer (I may > be wrong) that perhaps there is some history of disagreement between you > and Timo; even so, at least a copied-and-pasted explanation of the > status change would have been usual. > > CCing Timo to suggest this for the future. Sorry for not adding an explanation that time, last week I was triaging pretty much every bug on the ubuntu-x-swat package set filed against saucy, so I dismissed this bug as a 'troll' in haste. I'll add this to the bug now: "It's just a -dev package, no mesa runtime dependencies pull in any Mir libs. also, libegl1-mesa-drivers pulls in libwayland* on every system, but I guess that's ok.." -- t -- technical-board mailing list technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
Re: [Fwd: Bug 1223199 - Unnecessary deps on packages that lock in things like Mir when not wanted.]
On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 01:04:31AM +0100, Phil Wyett wrote: > Forwarded Message > > From: Phil Wyett > > Reply-to: one.u...@gmail.com > > To: technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com > > Subject: Bug 1223199 - Unnecessary deps on packages that lock in > > things like Mir when not wanted. > > Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 14:42:37 +0100 > > > > Dear Technical Board, > > > > I a have a concern regarding deps being added to certain packages that > > are not really needed. My specific concern is the adding of Mir related > > dev packages to Mesa packages. Please could you look at the following > > bug. > > > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/mesa/+bug/1223199 The Mesa packaging in Ubuntu enables the Mir EGL display, and as a result this dependency is unsurprising to me: it seems likely that it's required for reverse-dependencies to behave properly. The dependencies of -dev packages typically reflect the configure options found in their source packages. In general it is standard practice in both Debian and Ubuntu to configure packages with all reasonable and non-conflicting options enabled, in order to maximise the usefulness of the pre-built binaries we supply. (I recall that there used to be a general statement about this in the Debian Policy Manual many years ago, although I can't find it just now.) On occasion it is necessary to run separate build passes with different feature sets, but this is expensive in various ways and has never been the default practice: we only do this when there is no reasonable alternative. In this case, libegl1-mesa-dev only pulls in the Mir client libraries, for a total .deb size of around 270KiB plus a few generic odds and ends like libboost-system1.53.0 and libprotobuf7. Their presence has no effect on the host system's behaviour and doesn't enable the Mir compositor itself. Regardless of whether this was Mir or something entirely different, this isn't something I would consider it appropriate to split into a separate package; leaving aside emotional arguments about Mir, I can see no strictly rational reason to avoid this dependency. A package split without good reason would contribute further to bloating the Packages file, which has incremental costs all over the place. Furthermore, this is only a dependency from a -dev package, and therefore it seems unlikely that it would pull even this relatively modest set of library packages into any images. I don't see how this has an effect on other flavours or derivatives; it should principally affect package builds, which should be performed in clean chroots anyway. If it does affect other flavours or derivatives, please provide specific technical details, rather than fairly general comments about "bloat" and "pollution"; when bringing a dispute to a body such as the Technical Board it will help your case if you try to avoid polemic language. At this point I see no cause for concern; I am confident that the analysis above is objective enough that I would not see a cause for concern if this were a change introduced by somebody outside Canonical, nor if I did not work for Canonical. I'm willing to look at it again if shown further technical argument. > > I am also concerned with many bugs these days are getting marked as they > > are with no justification or explanation. I agree that it was not particularly helpful to mark the bug as "Won't Fix" without explanation, and I think that practice should generally be deprecated. You seem to have escalated to the Technical Board rather rapidly without first trying to find common ground on the bug report, so I infer (I may be wrong) that perhaps there is some history of disagreement between you and Timo; even so, at least a copied-and-pasted explanation of the status change would have been usual. CCing Timo to suggest this for the future. Thanks, -- Colin Watson [cjwat...@ubuntu.com] -- technical-board mailing list technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
[Fwd: Bug 1223199 - Unnecessary deps on packages that lock in things like Mir when not wanted.]
A resend. Apparently it never arrived. Regards Phil Forwarded Message > From: Phil Wyett > Reply-to: one.u...@gmail.com > To: technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com > Subject: Bug 1223199 - Unnecessary deps on packages that lock in > things like Mir when not wanted. > Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 14:42:37 +0100 > > Dear Technical Board, > > I a have a concern regarding deps being added to certain packages that > are not really needed. My specific concern is the adding of Mir related > dev packages to Mesa packages. Please could you look at the following > bug. > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/mesa/+bug/1223199 > > I am also concerned with many bugs these days are getting marked as they > are with no justification or explanation. > > Regards > > Phil Wyett > 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
Technical Board restaffing
Hello SABDFL, in today's meeting we discussed a proposal from Micah to make ~ubuntu-core-dev membership a prerequisite for joining the TB (proposal and email discussion at [1], meeting notes at [2]). In summary, the TB does not want to (or probably is not even able to) making this a hard requirement, but wants to formally recommend to you that non-core-dev members should be considered "unusal" and have a good justification (like Matt Zimmerman voluntarily relinquishing his core-dev powers). Also, would you like to have a public call for nominations like in 2011 [3]? As time is running out this should not be too long (perhaps one week?); I can help with tracking the proposals and sending you the collected results. Thanks, The Ubuntu Technical Board p. p. Martin Pitt [1] https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2013-September/001716.html [2] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/TechnicalBoard/TeamReports/13/September [3] https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-announce/2011-September/000895.html -- 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: Provisional MRE Request For KDE Telepathy
Hello Scott, Scott Kitterman [2013-09-07 1:20 -0400]: > The recent extension of the KDE MRE did not include telepathy related > packages > because we didn't have a good test case yet. We do now. The follow the KDE > maintenance policy, which is generally similar to our SRU policy. > > We have a set of packages in the queue that I've reviewed. The package > contain bug fixes and translations updates. I found nothing that would be > problematic. > > The packages in question are: > > ktp-text-ui ktp-send-file ktp-kded-integration-module > ktp-filetransfer-handler > ktp-desktop-applets ktp-contact-runner ktp-contact-list ktp-common-internals > ktp-call-ui ktp-auth-handler ktp-approver ktp-accounts-kcm > > I would like to have a provisional MRE now for 0.6.3 in the queue for raring > and then based on how that goes, request a full MRE for the set afterwards. This was officially approved in today's TB meeting. I'll adjust https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates/MicroReleaseExceptions accordingly now. 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: Requiring Core dev membership for TB members
Soren Hansen wrote: >2013/9/30 Scott Kitterman : >> On Monday, September 30, 2013 10:29:25 Soren Hansen wrote: >>> 2013/9/30 Micah Gersten : >>> > I'd like to propose that there's a requirement for TB members to >be >>> > Ubuntu core developers due to the nature of the responsibilities >of the >>> > TB (Microrelease exceptions, technical policy). The one exception >to >>> > this would be Mark in his unique position as sabdfl. I've added >this to >>> > the TB agenda and will endeavor to be at the meeting. >> While I agree that a hard requirement might be too strong >[...] >> Modulo a few exceptions, I think Micah's suggestion is a good one. > >You argue that a hard requirement might be too strong, but you're in >favour of Micah's suggestion. Micah's suggestion certainly sounds like >a hard requirement to me, so can you help me understand? I'm in favor of the concept. I think that it's a good requirement, but his proposal should be modified to allow for some exceptions. Scott K -- technical-board mailing list technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
Re: Requiring Core dev membership for TB members
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 08:14:08AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: > While I agree that a hard requirement might be too strong (I can think of > MOTU > who choose not to apply for core-dev for social reasons and people with the > technical background to be core-dev, but who choose not to based on principle > of least access (mdz, for example) and a perhaps a few others), it is > important that the Technical Board be, well technical. If you look at the > things we expect a core-dev to know, I think they kinds of things that SHOULD > be pre-requisites for being on the Tech Board. > > Mark can nominate who he wants, of course, but I think that Tech Board > members > who don't meet reasonable technical standards will undermine the perceived > legitimacy of the Tech Board with the broader development community. > > Modulo a few exceptions, I think Micah's suggestion is a good one. Perhaps it would be sufficient to allow the development community to set their own standards of legitimacy by way of the votes they cast? As long as the nominee pool contains some electable core developers (which seems likely), then it kind of seems to me that this should work out on its own. -- Colin Watson [cjwat...@ubuntu.com] -- technical-board mailing list technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
Re: Requiring Core dev membership for TB members
2013/9/30 Scott Kitterman : > On Monday, September 30, 2013 10:29:25 Soren Hansen wrote: >> 2013/9/30 Micah Gersten : >> > I'd like to propose that there's a requirement for TB members to be >> > Ubuntu core developers due to the nature of the responsibilities of the >> > TB (Microrelease exceptions, technical policy). The one exception to >> > this would be Mark in his unique position as sabdfl. I've added this to >> > the TB agenda and will endeavor to be at the meeting. > While I agree that a hard requirement might be too strong [...] > Modulo a few exceptions, I think Micah's suggestion is a good one. You argue that a hard requirement might be too strong, but you're in favour of Micah's suggestion. Micah's suggestion certainly sounds like a hard requirement to me, so can you help me understand? -- 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
Re: Requiring Core dev membership for TB members
On Monday, September 30, 2013 10:29:25 Soren Hansen wrote: > 2013/9/30 Micah Gersten : > > I'd like to propose that there's a requirement for TB members to be > > Ubuntu core developers due to the nature of the responsibilities of the > > TB (Microrelease exceptions, technical policy). The one exception to > > this would be Mark in his unique position as sabdfl. I've added this to > > the TB agenda and will endeavor to be at the meeting. > > Mark vets the list of candidates and there's also an election. If the > election shows that they're not only suitable, but even preferred over > other candidates, I think that's all we really need to know. While I agree that a hard requirement might be too strong (I can think of MOTU who choose not to apply for core-dev for social reasons and people with the technical background to be core-dev, but who choose not to based on principle of least access (mdz, for example) and a perhaps a few others), it is important that the Technical Board be, well technical. If you look at the things we expect a core-dev to know, I think they kinds of things that SHOULD be pre-requisites for being on the Tech Board. Mark can nominate who he wants, of course, but I think that Tech Board members who don't meet reasonable technical standards will undermine the perceived legitimacy of the Tech Board with the broader development community. Modulo a few exceptions, I think Micah's suggestion is a good one. Scott K -- technical-board mailing list technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
Re: Requiring Core dev membership for TB members
2013/9/30 Micah Gersten : > I'd like to propose that there's a requirement for TB members to be > Ubuntu core developers due to the nature of the responsibilities of the > TB (Microrelease exceptions, technical policy). The one exception to > this would be Mark in his unique position as sabdfl. I've added this to > the TB agenda and will endeavor to be at the meeting. Mark vets the list of candidates and there's also an election. If the election shows that they're not only suitable, but even preferred over other candidates, I think that's all we really need to know. -- 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
