Re: [Desktop13.04-Topic] Reduce patch burden

[Micah Gersten]

On 10/16/2012 06:13 AM, Iain Lane wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A lot of our packages are patched over upstream. Each of these comes
> with a maintenance cost and is also a source of bugs and frustration
> (quilt patches aren't the easiest things in the world to work with).
>
> I think we should systematically look at our patches and re-evaluate for
> each one
>
>   - Whether it is really (still) necessary — if not, drop
>   - If we can forward upstream if not already or if we can help
> its upstream inclusion along
>   - Who is going to maintain the patch in the distro if it needs to be
> kept as a local patch — desktop, PS, …
>
> It would be good if we could use something like DEP5 headers for all
> patches, including adding them to existing patches. It's sometimes
> really quite difficult to figure out what a particular patch is for,
> whether it is upstream and so on.
>
> Cheers,
>
I think you mean DEP3 [1].

Thanks,
Micah

[1] http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep3/

-- 
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop

Re: [Desktop 13.04-Topic] Discussing PS-related product processes

[Micah Gersten]

On 10/15/2012 02:43 AM, Didier Roche wrote:
> Hey everyone,
>
> as you probably know already, PS is our upstream for a lot of desktop
> components nowadays (Unity, compiz, webapps, indicators, multi touch
> stack...).
> The past cycle has been a real ride in term of features, which spawn
> the release team, translation team and documentation team with
> FFe/UIFe. We need to discuss a way to ease the process in both ways
> with all involved parts.
>
> Seeing the importance of those components on our stack today, I think
> for instance that having a standing FF/UIF exception as we have for
> GNOME components in ubuntu will make sense. However, the counter-part
> will be that PS will work on getting things landing only when they are
> ready, to avoid further and further refinements (and additional
> documentation changes) as we had in the past just to "match the date
> gate". So this one can clearly be a win-win situation.
>
AIUI, GNOME only has a MicroRelease exception, not a standing FF/UIF
exception.  If Feature Freeze were targeted for Features, then there are
about 2 months left in the cycle to clean up any bugs.  Also, the time
between Feature Freezes is about 6 months, so if their schedule were
adjusted to focus on Feature Freeze instead of the release date, you'd
still get about 6 months of feature work into the release (it also means
you get 2 months of polish as well).  Obviously, if something slips,
there's still the exception process, but that should be the exception,
not the rule.

Thanks,
Micah
-- 
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop

Re: Ubuntu-Desktop application

[Micah Gersten]

On 07/18/2012 10:13 AM, Brian Curtis wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I think it is about time that I apply to join ~ubuntu-desktop.
>
> I have been under the guidance of Ken Vandine and I feel that I'm
> bugging him more now to upload than I am asking questions about the
> processes. I have blocked him on numerous occasions from other things
> and would like to give him his time back.
>
> I would like to use this as a stepping stone to MOTU membership.
>
> I really appreciate endorsements.
>
> Thanks for your time,
> ~Brian Curtis
>
FWIW, ubuntu-desktop and MOTU are mutually exclusive package sets
(although ubuntu-desktop now comes with the desktop-extra membership
which has packages in universe as well).

Thanks,
Micah

-- 
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop

Re: Why don't we use Mozilla ESR in Precise?

[Micah Gersten]

ing web, we recently migrated Lucid and Maverick to
Rapid Release since Flash and some websites were breaking with 3.6
  * The browser is one of the most exploited pieces of software on Linux
outside of the Kernel
  * (from Lucid Firefox 3.6 comparison) Why is Chromium so much faster?

With all these reasons, it seemed clear that we don't want the ESR in
the LTS or any Ubuntu release.  We want to make sure that our users have
the best browsing experience possible.

Thank you,
Micah Gersten
Ubuntu Security Team
Ubuntu Mozilla Team


[1] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/security-p-mozilla-lts
-- 
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop

Re: It's time to jettison CCSM

[Micah Gersten]

On 01/26/2012 11:55 AM, Jorge O. Castro wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Micah Gersten  wrote:
>> Because novices are using a power user tool does not mean we should
>> remove a power user tool.  I think attention just needs to be called to
>> the problems that can be caused and what better tools exist for novice
>> users. Places like askubuntu.com and the Ubuntu forums would be good
>> places to evangelize this as well as omgbuntu and maybe webupd8.
> 
> We have a power user tool, MyUnity. If it doesn't do exactly what
> people want then people will file bugs and then people will either
> write the config option or not.
> 
> Then we'll have a power user tool that will work. And we do try to
> warn people about the dangers of CCSM, but this is one of those cases
> where we need to say "Sorry, you can't switch to the cube" instead of
> "well you can switch to the cube, but if you fail the saving throw
> your desktop turns into a wallpaper with no panels, no launcher, and
> no file manager and removing these dot directories, but hey, linux is
> about choice!"


You're missing a key point here that Compiz and CCSM are not Unity.  If
you want to make it so CCSM doesn't work with Unity, that's fine, but
don't hijack the Compiz configuration for non-Unity users.

Micah

-- 
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop

Re: It's time to jettison CCSM

[Micah Gersten]

On 01/26/2012 11:17 AM, Marc Deslauriers wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 11:02 -0600, Micah Gersten wrote:
>> On 01/26/2012 10:28 AM, Jorge O. Castro wrote:
>>> With tools like MyUnity now in universe, and didrocks putting basic
>>> configuration in the control panel I'd like to propose the removal of
>>> compizconfig-settingsmanager.
>>>
>>> I don't mean "stop telling people to use it" or "add a warning", I
>>> mean total removal from the archive until the tool is either better
>>> tested or doesn't break people's configuration. Here are some of the
>>> problems with the tool.
>>>
>>> - It's possible to accidentally uncheck the Unity plugin, breaking the
>>> user's desktop.
>>> - It has a load of checkboxes for plugins that we don't support,
>>> allowing infinite combinations of untested options, which result in
>>> either a broken desktop or a misconfigured one.
>>> - People report these bugs, and instead of fixing real bugs we have to
>>> deal with corner case bugs for things we never plan on supporting.
>>> - Since it's settings are separate from Unity a "unity --reset"
>>> doesn't fix it, you have to blow away .compiz or some other dotfile
>>> directories to get a desktop back.
>>> - Alex Chiang has documented some of the issues he's run into here:
>>> http://askubuntu.com/a/80590/235
>>> - I'm sure at UDS you've seen didrocks show you one of the ways it
>>> breaks even when using parts of it that shouldn't break.
>>>
>>> MyUnity is a better user-facing tool anyway for those that want to
>>> play, it would be a shame to have the ccsm tool ship in an LTS. If
>>> anyone cares about it they can plop it in a PPA.
>>>
>> -1, CCSM isn't just for unity, but any other desktop that uses compiz. 
>> I'm wondering if other desktops even work with the newer compiz in the
>> archive.  In any event, adding a Breaks unity to
>> compizconfig-settings-manager wouldn't be unreasonable IMHO.
> 
> CCSM breaks other desktops also, not just Unity, and novice users are
> installing it to customize their desktop without being aware of the
> damage they can cause. Other desktops should gain a reasonable settings
> manager, much like MyUnity.
> 
> Having an advanced tool being used by a large quantity of novice users
> and ends up leaving them with an unusable desktop is problematic.
> 
> Marc.

Because novices are using a power user tool does not mean we should
remove a power user tool.  I think attention just needs to be called to
the problems that can be caused and what better tools exist for novice
users. Places like askubuntu.com and the Ubuntu forums would be good
places to evangelize this as well as omgbuntu and maybe webupd8.

Micah

-- 
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop

Re: It's time to jettison CCSM

[Micah Gersten]

On 01/26/2012 10:28 AM, Jorge O. Castro wrote:
> With tools like MyUnity now in universe, and didrocks putting basic
> configuration in the control panel I'd like to propose the removal of
> compizconfig-settingsmanager.
>
> I don't mean "stop telling people to use it" or "add a warning", I
> mean total removal from the archive until the tool is either better
> tested or doesn't break people's configuration. Here are some of the
> problems with the tool.
>
> - It's possible to accidentally uncheck the Unity plugin, breaking the
> user's desktop.
> - It has a load of checkboxes for plugins that we don't support,
> allowing infinite combinations of untested options, which result in
> either a broken desktop or a misconfigured one.
> - People report these bugs, and instead of fixing real bugs we have to
> deal with corner case bugs for things we never plan on supporting.
> - Since it's settings are separate from Unity a "unity --reset"
> doesn't fix it, you have to blow away .compiz or some other dotfile
> directories to get a desktop back.
> - Alex Chiang has documented some of the issues he's run into here:
> http://askubuntu.com/a/80590/235
> - I'm sure at UDS you've seen didrocks show you one of the ways it
> breaks even when using parts of it that shouldn't break.
>
> MyUnity is a better user-facing tool anyway for those that want to
> play, it would be a shame to have the ccsm tool ship in an LTS. If
> anyone cares about it they can plop it in a PPA.
>
-1, CCSM isn't just for unity, but any other desktop that uses compiz. 
I'm wondering if other desktops even work with the newer compiz in the
archive.  In any event, adding a Breaks unity to
compizconfig-settings-manager wouldn't be unreasonable IMHO.

Micah

-- 
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop

Re: [ubuntu/precise] totem 3.3.4-0ubuntu1~precise1 (Accepted)

[Micah Gersten]

On 01/10/2012 07:46 AM, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Hello Jeremy,
>
> Jeremy Bicha [2012-01-09 17:05 -0500]:
>> Sometimes the order on commands doesn't matter but this time it
>> definitely does. I have now changed my /etc/dput.cf
>> "default_host_main" to a non-existent location to prevent this mistake
>> from happening again this easily. Should that be the default?
> Some people use a dput wrapper which automatically selects a PPA when the
> version number contains a ~ or "ppa". :)
>
>> Since the new totem hit depwait, is it possible to remove/overwrite
>> without needing to use a 3.3.4+really3.0.1 upload?
> There might be a really hackish way that involves Launchpad admin DB
> access, but once the source is accepted, you generally can't go back.
>
> If you are still online in about 1.5 hours, I'll be on IRC and we can
> try something, but I guess we do noeed a +really upload.
>
> Martin
>
This shouldn't in general be a problem as long as the binaries haven't
been published.  The source record will continue to exist, but since no
one can upgrade to the new version as there are no binaries, you can
just remove the source and upload the older version as if nothing happened.

Thanks,
Micah

-- 
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop

Re: [ubuntu/precise] meta-gnome3 1:3.0+5ubuntu1 (Accepted)

[Micah Gersten]

On 11/28/2011 02:35 PM, Michael Terry wrote:
> meta-gnome3 (1:3.0+5ubuntu1) precise; urgency=low
>
>   * Merge from Debian testing.  Remaining changes:
> * gnome:
>   - Lower hamster-applet dependency to last stable version (2.32)
> * gnome-core:
>  - Use sound-theme-freedesktop instead of freedesktop-sound-theme
>   - Use gdm instead of gdm3
>   - Use synaptic instead of gnome-packagekit
>   - Add gnome-contacts
> * gnome-core-devel:
>   - Use libgnome-menu-3-dev instead of libgnome-menu-dev
>   - Use libgck-1-dev instead of libgck-dev
> * gnome-debug:
>   - Recommend libnspr4-dbg instead of libnspr4-0d-dbg
>   - Recommend libnss3-dbg instead of libnss3-1d-dbg
> * gnome-platform-devel:
>   - Drop dependency on libegroupwise1.2-dev
>
> Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:31:07 -0500
> Changed-By: Michael Terry 
> Maintainer: Ubuntu Developers 
> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/precise/+source/meta-gnome3/1:3.0+5ubuntu1
>
Is there a reason to keep the synaptic vs gnome-packagekit diff since
both are in universe and gnome-packagekit seems to be the upstream choice?
Thanks,
Micah

-- 
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop

Re: Proposed desktop-extra set

[Micah Gersten]

On 10/23/2011 11:27 PM, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Hello Jeremy, DMB,
>
> Jeremy Bicha [2011-09-23 11:19 -0400]:
>> There's been some discussion about making a new desktop seed for
>> Universe packages. I believe a main driver is to allow those of us
>> who've been working on gnome-shell but aren't Core or MOTU yet to
>> avoid having to get everything sponsored. Also, since ~ubuntu-desktop
>> already has commit rights to the GNOME stuff in main, it makes sense
>> that they have the rights to the GNOME part of universe too. Here's a
>> proposed starter list from ricotz and me:
>>
>> alacarte
>> anjuta
>> anjuta-extras
>> caribou
>> cheese
>> clutter-gst
>> ekiga
>> eog-plugins
>> epiphany-browser
>> epiphany-extensions
>> evolution-mapi
>> gedit-plugins
>> gjs
>> gnome-applets
>> gnome-backgrounds
>> gnome-contacts
>> gnome-games-extra-data
>> gnome-panel
>> gnome-shell
>> gnome-system-tools
>> gnome-tweak-tool
>> gthumb
>> mx
>> mutter
>> seed
>> sound-juicer
>> tracker
>
> This looks very appropriate to me. Sending to DMB for official
> confirmation, if that is acked, I can create a new desktop-extra
> package set and put ~ubuntu-desktop into it. I believe we can't put
> them into ~ubuntu-desktop directly, as this is autogenerated from
> seeds.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Martin
>
I've added this to the agenda for tomorrow's meeting at 14:00 UTC, but
due to the late notice and that it's only a 1 hr meeting, we might not
get to it.

Thanks,
Micah

-- 
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop

Re: Desktop-related packagesets

[Micah Gersten]

On 09/08/2011 04:51 AM, Iain Lane wrote:
> Hey,
>
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 11:34:39AM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
>> Le jeudi 08 septembre 2011 à 09:59 +0100, Iain Lane a écrit :
>>> Maybe it should.
>> I would be in favor of it but we got told before that universe
>> components can't be added to the ubuntu-desktop set
>>
>>> Or maybe there should be a separate GNOME set that contains all GNOME
>>> modules. desktop-non-core or so. 
>> That would work as well I guess...
> I think if that's what people are interested in (and not wider MOTU
> work) then that's what they should be applying for.
>
> If someone can come up with an initial list and a suitable definition
> for which packages should go in it (so we know which packages can be
> added in future) then it should be accepted.
>
> If you desktoppers are the people who sponsor most of these uploads into
> the archive anyway then you could become the approvers for this team
> just like you are for ~ubuntu-desktop.
>
It could also be set up that becoming a member of ~ubuntu-desktop also
grants one rights to this new non-main desktopish packageset, if desired.
Thanks,
Micah

-- 
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop

gir1.2-json-1.0 and gir1.2-json-glib-1.0

[Micah Gersten]

So, json-glib 0.13.4-2 renamed the gir1.2-json-glib-1.0 package to
gir1.2-json-1.0 to follow the gir naming policy.  However, this causes
FTBFS now since the two are not co-installable.  gir1.2-json-1.0
provides gir1.2-json-glib-1.0, but this cannot work while the old binary
exists.  So, should we remove the old gir1.2-json-glib-1.0 binary so the
provides can work, or should we transition all the packages to use
gir1.2-json-1.0.

Here are the currently affected packages:
-- oneiric/main build deps on gir1.2-json-glib-1.0:
couchdb-glib
libubuntuone
-- oneiric/main amd64 deps on gir1.2-json-glib-1.0:
gir1.2-couchdb-1.0
gir1.2-desktopcouch-1.0
-- oneiric/main i386 deps on gir1.2-json-glib-1.0:
gir1.2-couchdb-1.0
gir1.2-desktopcouch-1.0
-- oneiric/main armel deps on gir1.2-json-glib-1.0:
gir1.2-couchdb-1.0
gir1.2-desktopcouch-1.0
-- oneiric/main powerpc deps on gir1.2-json-glib-1.0:
gir1.2-couchdb-1.0
gir1.2-desktopcouch-1.0
-- oneiric/universe amd64 deps on gir1.2-json-glib-1.0:
gir1.2-champlain-0.10
gir1.2-champlain-0.8
gir1.2-clutter-gtk-0.10
gir1.2-geocodeglib-1.0
gir1.2-gtkchamplain-0.10
gir1.2-gtkchamplain-0.8
-- oneiric/universe i386 deps on gir1.2-json-glib-1.0:
gir1.2-champlain-0.10
gir1.2-champlain-0.8
gir1.2-clutter-gtk-0.10
gir1.2-geocodeglib-1.0
gir1.2-gtkchamplain-0.10
gir1.2-gtkchamplain-0.8
-- oneiric/universe armel deps on gir1.2-json-glib-1.0:
gir1.2-champlain-0.10
gir1.2-clutter-gtk-0.10
gir1.2-gtkchamplain-0.10
-- oneiric/universe powerpc deps on gir1.2-json-glib-1.0:
gir1.2-champlain-0.10
gir1.2-champlain-0.8
gir1.2-clutter-gtk-0.10
gir1.2-geocodeglib-1.0
gir1.2-gtkchamplain-0.10
gir1.2-gtkchamplain-0.8


Thanks,
Micah

-- 
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop

Re: [Oneiric-Topic] Default Browser

[Micah Gersten]

Apologies for the delay in response, responses inline.

On 04/18/2011 09:05 AM, Chris Coulson wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 10:36 -0500, Micah Gersten wrote:
>> Since now both Firefox and Chromium have committed to rapid release
>> schedules, I think it's time to reevaluate the default browser in
>> Ubuntu.  I am concerned that some of these upgrades might break system
>> integration at some point.  While the security team does its best to
>> prevent regressions, we can't test every case (especially ones we don't
>> know about :)). Perhaps, if we can find one with sufficient features,
>> switch to a Webkit based browser with a more normal release schedule (6
>> months).  We could have an installer like Kubuntu does to install
>> Firefox or Chromium on demand.  This will also keep the system
>> documentation current within the release as the screenshots/menus won't
>> be out of date shortly after release.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Micah
>>
>>
> Hi,
>
> So, here are my initial thoughts about this. I'm not going to respond to
> every mail in this thread, as that would just take too much of my time.
> The response here is directed at the whole thread really.
>
> What problem are we actually trying to solve here? If it is an issue of
> maintenance, then I don't think it really solves anything for us - in
> fact, I it makes it slightly worse IMO and I will attempt to explain
> why.
This isn't about maintenance as much as a uniform browser experience. 
The theory being that casual users don't care about the latest and
greatest stuff as long as they know they're secure and have the tools
they need.
> Changing the default browser isn't going to make Firefox or Chromium go
> away (unless you're suggesting we abandon them entirely, but you suggest
> adding a shortcut to Firefox or Chromium in the default install). If we
> change the default browser, we're still going to provide the same level
> of support we have always provided for Firefox (and Chromium too, many
> thanks to Fabien), and I definitely wouldn't want to see this change.
> However, there would also be an extra browser for us to look after as
> well, so if the problem is actually related to maintenance, then this
> doesn't really solve it at all.
>
> Also, quoting what you say in your mail:
>
>> While the security team does its best to prevent regressions, we can't
>> test every case (especially ones we don't know about :))
> This is why we run the test-suite in Firefox now, and this should avoid
> the need for a lot of manual testing (although, I'm not entirely sure
> about the scope of your current testing). The Firefox test suite is
> pretty extensive - see
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=644621 as an example of the
> sort of level at which things can be regression tested in Firefox. I'm
> not aware of many other projects that use testing frameworks that enable
> you to test things at this level.
While having the Firefox test suite enabled is good, that only find
regressions in Firefox itself.  As the default browser, I'm concerned
about system integration breaking which the Firefox regression suite
cannot catch.
> Also, remember that Firefox is quite an important and familiar brand
> name for people migrating from other operating systems (and we do need
> to entice these people to come and try Ubuntu). IMO, only Chromium can
> match Firefox here, but you are suggesting we look at something else
> anyway.
Indeed, which is why making it simple for those who recognize the brand
and want it as their browser is important.
> I see a lot of people are recommending Epiphany. I've used this before,
> but it's never been my default browser. I used it again today, for the
> first time in a year or so. Here's a brief summary of some of the things
> I noticed:
>
> - Text rendering is pretty bad. For some reason, text appears to be tiny
> in Epiphany compared with any other browser (or any other application on
> my desktop for that matter). This is easily visible by comparing
> something like http://www.bbc.co.uk/news side-by-side in Firefox and
> Epiphany.
>
> - It has a very wasteful statusbar by default. Ok, I know you can turn
> this off - but when I did this and then hovered over some links on the
> page, I got a tiny overlay in the bottom-left hand corner displaying the
> destination URL in the same barely-readable font that the rest of the
> page is in (I had to squint so I could read it). These font sizes don't
> seem to match anything else on my system.
>
> - Invalid certificate warnings in Epiphany are unacceptable. Firefox
> presents you with an obvious warning

Re: [Oneiric-Topic] Default Browser

[Micah Gersten]

On 04/07/2011 05:21 PM, Luke Yelavich wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 01:36:01AM EST, Micah Gersten wrote:
>> Since now both Firefox and Chromium have committed to rapid release
>> schedules, I think it's time to reevaluate the default browser in
>> Ubuntu.  I am concerned that some of these upgrades might break system
>> integration at some point.  While the security team does its best to
>> prevent regressions, we can't test every case (especially ones we don't
>> know about :)). Perhaps, if we can find one with sufficient features,
>> switch to a Webkit based browser with a more normal release schedule (6
>> months).  We could have an installer like Kubuntu does to install
>> Firefox or Chromium on demand.  This will also keep the system
>> documentation current within the release as the screenshots/menus won't
>> be out of date shortly after release.
> This raises accessibility concerns, because Chromium is not yet accessible on 
> Linux, and there is not enough manpower upstream to address that, 
> particularly since Firefox is working well with regards to accessibility. If 
> chromium were using libwebkitgtk, then things may be different, since 
> webkitgtk is getting better and better accessibility wise, but I dare say 
> that would be a lot of work.
>
> Luke
>

Please note, I was suggesting not having Firefox or Chromium as the
default, but a webkit based browser with a normal release cycle like
Epiphany (which uses webkitgtk :)).

Micah

-- 
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop

Re: [Oneiric-Topic] Firefox translations in Launchpad/Language packs

[Micah Gersten]

On 04/07/2011 09:57 AM, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Chris Coulson [2011-04-07  9:25 +0100]:
>> - This means that Firefox will output xpi's for every language in the
>> future (not just for en-US). We either need to package these in to
>> dedicated language packs for Firefox (e.g., firefox-locale-foo)
> I. e. build separate binaries from the firefox source? This would
> certainly work and make the process a lot easier, too. We can then
> integrate it into the existing language-selector framework.
>
I this is a good idea so that Firefox security upgrades aren't blocked
on new language packs.
>> - Note that searchplugins are shipped independently of the xpi's. If
>> we are going to be shipping Firefox translations with our language
>> packs (as we do currently), this would mean Launchpad would need a
>> mechanism for importing and exporting the searchplugins alongside the
>> xpi's too.
> As they are so small, wouldn't it be much easier to just ship them all
> in the firefox.deb, as they come from upstream anyway?

This is another reason why generating firefox-locale-foo would be good. 
Otherwise, we'd be adding ~3MB to the main firefox package.

Micah


-- 
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop

[Oneiric-Topic] Default Browser

[Micah Gersten]

Since now both Firefox and Chromium have committed to rapid release
schedules, I think it's time to reevaluate the default browser in
Ubuntu.  I am concerned that some of these upgrades might break system
integration at some point.  While the security team does its best to
prevent regressions, we can't test every case (especially ones we don't
know about :)). Perhaps, if we can find one with sufficient features,
switch to a Webkit based browser with a more normal release schedule (6
months).  We could have an installer like Kubuntu does to install
Firefox or Chromium on demand.  This will also keep the system
documentation current within the release as the screenshots/menus won't
be out of date shortly after release.

Thanks,
Micah


-- 
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop

Re: New Ubuntu Desktop Developers?

[Micah Gersten]

On 11/23/2010 04:07 AM, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> Le lundi 22 novembre 2010 à 21:22 -0600, Micah Gersten a écrit :
>> Hi, I noticed there were some new Ubuntu Desktop developers, but I
>> didn't notice see any advocation on the ubuntu-desktop ML or any
>> announcement of these new developers on devel-permissions.  Is the
>> policy[1] listed on the wiki out of date? 
> Hey Micah,
>
> Thank you for pointing the issue, I did forgot about the policy indeed
> (we didn't have to use it since it was set), the intend was to give
> upload rights to Rodrigo and Michael to the GNOME3 ppa to make easier
> the work they are doing on it. We will sort the situation and I will
> reply to this email later on with details on what we do.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Sebastien Bacher
I figured it was a bzr or PPA access issue. We've had those issues in
the Mozilla Team as well. Thanks for taking care of it so quickly!

Micah

-- 
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop

New Ubuntu Desktop Developers?

[Micah Gersten]

Hi, I noticed there were some new Ubuntu Desktop developers, but I
didn't notice see any advocation on the ubuntu-desktop ML or any
announcement of these new developers on devel-permissions.  Is the
policy[1] listed on the wiki out of date?

Thanks,
Micah

[1] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DesktopTeam/Developers

-- 
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop

Re: Default bookmarks for Firefox and Chromium

[Micah Gersten]

I think we should stick with official and semi-official (ubuntuforums)
Ubuntu/Debian sites.
So, the Fridge might make a decent addition, since this is where Ubuntu
News goes.
http://fridge.ubuntu.com/

On 08/04/2010 10:50 AM, Frederik Nnaji wrote:
> Bookmarks in firefox should support pin/unpin.
> i also believe that more than 5 pre-pinned objects per default would be
> too much.
> The demo (affordance) of pin/unpin support should rather be of a design
> so obvious, that even one single example bookmark is sufficient to
> illustrate the purpose of bookmarks as a whole.
> 
> Apart from that, i see no reason why these or any other popular FOSS
> websites should not be featured here..
> 
> My new personal rule #1 for the presentation of content applies:
> Allow each participant to decide which objects deserve attention and
> hide the rest intelligently...
> 
> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 17:33, Benjamin Humphrey  > wrote:
> 
> http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk
> 
> On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 3:31 AM, Chris Coulson
> mailto:chrisccoul...@ubuntu.com>> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> A few weeks ago, philinux from ubuntuforums approached me with a
> suggestion that we should think about updating the default
> bookmarks in
> Firefox, and I suggested opening a bug report with some ideas
> for new
> defaults on. With hindsight in mind, a bug report probably isn't the
> best venue for discussing these things, and there has only been a
> handful of suggestions so far.
> 
> Currently, we ship 4 extra bookmarks to the vanilla Firefox
> profile (I'm
> not sure whether we add any bookmarks to the default Chromium
> profile
> too, but we probably should do if we don't already). These are:
> 
> http://www.ubuntulinux.org/
> http://wiki.ubuntu.com/ (although the link for this one is currently
> broken, but fixed in bzr)
> https://answers.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+addquestion
> http://www.debian.org/
> 
> Do people think these are a good set of defaults, and if not -
> do they
> have any ideas for other bookmarks they think should be there by
> default
> (or think that any shouldn't be there)? I'm open to suggestions,
> although I'm reasonably happy with what we have currently.
> 
> Regards
> Chris
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> ubuntu-desktop mailing list
> ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
> 
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Benjamin Humphrey
> 
> interesting.co.nz 
> ohso.co 
> 
> 
> --
> ubuntu-desktop mailing list
> ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com 
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
> 
> 

-- 
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop