Re: Enabling Connectivity Checking in NetworkManager
This article on how Windows does the connectivity check may be useful: http://blog.superuser.com/2011/05/16/windows-7-network-awareness/ (I'm not suggesting that we necessarily do the same thing; just that knowing what works and doesn't work for Windows may help us make a more informed decision). Robie -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
RE: LP958305: unscd crashing and SRU upload...
> Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 14:17:45 +0800 > Subject: LP958305: unscd crashing and SRU upload... > From: dan...@quora.org > To: ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com > > Hi Ubuntu devs, > > The currently released unscd package in Ubuntu 12.04 is DOA, ie > crashes at every start [1]. > > I believe I have set this Launchpad bug into the correct state to > reflect that it is fixed in the newer package, that just needs > sponsorship for the SRU upload (justification given). > > Please can someone take a look? > > Many thanks, > Daniel > > [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unscd/+bug/958305 > -- > Daniel J Blueman Hi Daniel, I've just had a look at the bug report - the state is correct, but there are some other things that are missing. 1) The SRU justification should go in the original description, in order to be more visible. 2) You should ask a bug supervisor via IRC to nominate your bug for Precise, see [1] and [2]. 3) As the version in Quantal is a newer one (even if it does not correspond to a new upstream version), you can't ask the archive administrators to backport the newer version to Precise, for stability reasons - you'll need to: - check out the sources for unscd 0.47-2build2 by creating a new Bazaar branch, see [3]; - insert the appropriate code changes from unscd 0.48 into the existing code. The changes should be the smallest possible, introducing new functionalities or even making "cosmetic" changes is not allowed. The patch from 0.47-2build2 to 0.48 [4] should be a good starting point; I think that the section starting with +/* Callback for glibc-2.15 */ and going until the end of the patch file should suffice; - run "dch -i" and update the changelog (make sure to target "precise-updates", to choose an appropriate version number and to reference the Launchpad bug report number, see [3] for all the details); - build and test the package; - when done, push the branch to Launchpad and link to it in the bug report. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask here or on IRC in #ubuntu-bugs. Hope this helps, Alessandro Menti [1] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates [2] https://answers.launchpad.net/launchpad/+question/140509 [3] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/HowToFix [4] https://launchpadlibrarian.net/103707277/unscd_0.47-2build2_0.48-2.diff.gz -- A neutron walks into a bar and asks how much for a drink. The bartender replies "for you, no charge". -- Sheldon Cooper, The Big Bang Theory -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Enabling Connectivity Checking in NetworkManager
On Wed, 2012-07-11 at 06:08 +0200, Martin Pitt wrote: > Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre [2012-07-10 14:41 -0400]: > > I'd like to enable connectivity checking in NetworkManager. We'd use > > http://start.ubuntu.com/connectivity-check.html, running the check > > every 5 minutes starting from the connection being established. > > start.ubuntu.com has already been in use for a while to verify > > connectivity from the installer, IIRC. > > That seems rather overzealous to me. Why does it need to re-check so > often, even after it knows that it is connected to the "real" world > out there? because the connection can die. e.g. you use you smartphone as wlan hotspot and the internet connection of the smartphone dies. > It could stop polling until the connection state changes > then. if you don't poll, you never know if the connection state changed. > Several million users pinging the same site every 5 minutes has > both privacy issues as well as significantly increasing the traffic to > start.u.c. as well. maybe we should increase the period when a connection is available (20 minutes?) and decrease the period (10 seconds?) when the connection is unavailable. > At the same time, 5 minutes is much too long when you use it for some > desktop application. After registering in the portal etc. you do not > want to twiddle your thumbs for 5 minutes until your application is > finally convinced that it can go on using the interweb now. > > It seems to me that this check would be more appropriate as a D-BUS > method. It sure needs to be handled async by the application and can > take a few seconds, but it avoids the 5 minute delay, the constant > hammering as well as the user count issues? imho we need both - a dbus method and the possibility for a periodic check. Cheers, Tom -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Enabling Connectivity Checking in NetworkManager
On 10/07/12 20:41, Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre wrote: I'd like to enable connectivity checking in NetworkManager. We'd use http://start.ubuntu.com/connectivity-check.html, running the check every 5 minutes starting from the connection being established. start.ubuntu.com has already been in use for a while to verify connectivity from the installer, IIRC. Isn't a check every 5 minutes a frequency a bit too high? I mean, if a computer is connected to a "captive portal which catches and redirects requests", then the chances that the connectivity will change during time are very low. In my opinion, having a high frequency will just cause unnecessary wakeups and will show boring data in tools used for network debugging. Also, what should happen if the connection to start.ubuntu.com times out because of a network congestion? Has this case been discussed? (I wasn't at UDS) -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Enabling Connectivity Checking in NetworkManager
On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 14:41 -0400, Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre wrote: > I'd like to enable connectivity checking in NetworkManager. We'd use > http://start.ubuntu.com/connectivity-check.html, running the check > every 5 minutes starting from the connection being established. > start.ubuntu.com has already been in use for a while to verify > connectivity from the installer, IIRC. http://start.ubuntu.com/connectivity-check.html should set the header "X-NetworkManager-Status". That's what NM checks first [1]. Then you don't need "response=Lorem ipsum" in the [connectivity] section. Cheers, Tom [1] http://cgit.freedesktop.org/NetworkManager/NetworkManager/tree/src/nm-connectivity.c#n104 -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Enabling Connectivity Checking in NetworkManager
On Wed, 2012-07-11 at 12:48 -0700, Chase Douglas wrote: > On 07/11/2012 12:17 PM, Thomas Bechtold wrote: > > On Wed, 2012-07-11 at 06:08 +0200, Martin Pitt wrote: > >> Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre [2012-07-10 14:41 -0400]: > >> It could stop polling until the connection state changes > >> then. > > > > if you don't poll, you never know if the connection state changed. > > My devious self is wondering if each computer can have an active TCP > connection to a specific address, like connected.ubuntu.com, with TCP > keepalives at a high interval (maybe 10 seconds). You don't have the > overhead of constantly opening and closing connections, but you do have > the overhead of actually keeping millions of connections open on the server. > > This addresses none of the privacy concerns, of course, but it does give > near immediate notification when the network has died, no matter how you > get your connection. I was thinking the same thing, I'm curious if we couldn't offload that to something like Telepathy. So for instance, I typically have a Jabber connection open if I'm online. Seems like U1 does the same thing for those with U1 accounts. Only poll if someone doesn't take over. --Ted signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Enabling Connectivity Checking in NetworkManager
On 07/11/2012 12:17 PM, Thomas Bechtold wrote: On Wed, 2012-07-11 at 06:08 +0200, Martin Pitt wrote: Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre [2012-07-10 14:41 -0400]: It could stop polling until the connection state changes then. if you don't poll, you never know if the connection state changed. My devious self is wondering if each computer can have an active TCP connection to a specific address, like connected.ubuntu.com, with TCP keepalives at a high interval (maybe 10 seconds). You don't have the overhead of constantly opening and closing connections, but you do have the overhead of actually keeping millions of connections open on the server. This addresses none of the privacy concerns, of course, but it does give near immediate notification when the network has died, no matter how you get your connection. -- Chase -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Patch Pilot report 2012-07-11
https://launchpad.net/bugs/914746 - added natty and oneiric, asked for debdiffs and testing https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dkms/+bug/989998 - looks good, uploaded to quantal, denied as SRU for precise https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cryptsetup/+bug/1015753 - marked as incomplete as per last comment https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/udisks/+bug/1022497 - debdiffs were actually changes files, asked for debdiffs https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cacti-spine/+bug/1023109 - looked good, builds fine on quantal, synced https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/precise/+source/freemind/+bug/883008 - looked good, uploaded to quantal and precise-proposed https://code.launchpad.net/~logan/ubuntu/quantal/acpidump/debian-merge/+merge/114319 - needed better changelog, NACK https://code.launchpad.net/~logan/ubuntu/quantal/amavisd-new/debian-merge/+merge/114321 - needed better changelog, NACK https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libgphoto2/+bug/981062 - debdiff needs work https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gallery/+bug/1019600 - looked good, uploaded Marc. -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Automatic import from debian package not found in Ubuntu
Hello I am a Debian maintainer, working on the mess package which sits in non-free in Debian ( the Mame license does not allow commercial use of the software, for the rest it is BSD ) I would have tought according to https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DebianImportFreeze, that the package would automatically end up in Quantal, as it was accepted in Debian Testing in December 2011. But the DebianImportFreeze date is gone, and I find no trace of it in the Quantal packages using rmadison. Is it because the package sits in the non-free section of the Debian Archive ? Is to possible to ask for the package to be imported ? Am I missing something ? Greetings Emmanuel -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Enabling Connectivity Checking in NetworkManager
Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre wrote: >On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 1:22 AM, Scott Kitterman >wrote: >[...] >> For hotels, I can't recall the last time I had one last less then 24 >hours. >> Even on public wifi (as in coffee shops), the shortest I recall one >lasting was >> 4 hours. I agree that every 5 minutes is excessive. >> >> The fundamental problem with periodics like this is that whatever >$PERIOD you >> pick, the situation can change immediately after a check. >Fundamentally, I >> think that this check leaves you knowing less that it probably >appears it >> does. > >I don't disagree -- whatever $PERIOD chosen, the situation can change >immediately after the check -- that works on both losing connectivity, >and gaining connectivity. > >I think what probably needs to be clarified here is that it's in no >way meant to be used by applications as "I don't have this, so I can't >work", because we all know the actual usefulness of the connection may >be different for different ports, between checks, etc. I think the primary benefit is the initial connection. Doing this once when the network connection is established and perhaps once every 15 seconds until there is a success would cover the initial connect use case even better, which probably makes it a good 90% solution, and avoids most of the concerns expressed in this thread (I still think default off is the more socially correct choice, but I seem to be a minority). >What we'd be gaining here would instead be the capacity to inform >users that their connection might not be optimal, and that they may >not have full connectivity. I'm still not clear on how you distinguish between captive and merely not working very well? >> If Ubuntu is going to work on mobile devices, it's going to have to >deal with >> intermittent apparent connectivity (it's not rare for me to have very >similar >> problems when tethered via my phone - I'm connected to the phone just >fine, but >> it's network connection dies for a bit). Captive connections like >hotels use >> is only one, special case of this. Even if I didn't have >reservations about >> phoning home as a concept, I don't think it solves enough of a >problem to be >> worth doing. > >When your phone's connection fails, doesn't it display a different >signal level icon to indicate it's not connected? When tethered, this >means you'd have to rely on watching your phone for connection changes >since it probably always shows up as an ethernet connection (unless >it's tethered over bluetooth DUN). In this case you could get notified >about it, but yes, as of the current status of the NM code, you'd have >to wait <= 5 minutes. I do it via USB, so it shows up as a USE networking connection (similar to wired). The phone doesn't indicate the change. What I do is run ping in a terminal and check it if it seems like there's a problem (anecdotally, it feels like it helps keep the connection working). At the interval ping runs at, if things are marginal, the connection can come and go several times a minute. This is part of why I'm sceptical about this helping much for anything beyond the initial connection. >> If I've just connected to a hotel/public wifi, I know I need to go to >a web >> page and sign in. I think anyone that's ever done this before on any >> operating system knows this. Intermittent 3G/4G connection loss >produces >> similar problems, but is completely unpredictable. I think that's a >more >> important problem to solve. > >We have signal level icons for 3G/4G; I'm not sure what else there >would be to do over that past using some form of external check to >verify that the connectivity is proper. Part of the discussion has been that some applications (e.g. Evolution) behave badly in the face of poor/no connectivity if NM thinks it's connected. My point here is that independent of the captive connection issue, that's going to come up and those applications need to be fixed. >Furthermore, facilitating sign in to portals is a feature that most >connection managers have on their roadmap or implemented. We (speaking >as a contributor to NM upstream) would like to implement it; ConnMan >already has features to help with this (WISPr). How do they do it? Scott K -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Enabling Connectivity Checking in NetworkManager
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 1:22 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: [...] > For hotels, I can't recall the last time I had one last less then 24 hours. > Even on public wifi (as in coffee shops), the shortest I recall one lasting > was > 4 hours. I agree that every 5 minutes is excessive. > > The fundamental problem with periodics like this is that whatever $PERIOD you > pick, the situation can change immediately after a check. Fundamentally, I > think that this check leaves you knowing less that it probably appears it > does. I don't disagree -- whatever $PERIOD chosen, the situation can change immediately after the check -- that works on both losing connectivity, and gaining connectivity. I think what probably needs to be clarified here is that it's in no way meant to be used by applications as "I don't have this, so I can't work", because we all know the actual usefulness of the connection may be different for different ports, between checks, etc. What we'd be gaining here would instead be the capacity to inform users that their connection might not be optimal, and that they may not have full connectivity. > If Ubuntu is going to work on mobile devices, it's going to have to deal with > intermittent apparent connectivity (it's not rare for me to have very similar > problems when tethered via my phone - I'm connected to the phone just fine, > but > it's network connection dies for a bit). Captive connections like hotels use > is only one, special case of this. Even if I didn't have reservations about > phoning home as a concept, I don't think it solves enough of a problem to be > worth doing. When your phone's connection fails, doesn't it display a different signal level icon to indicate it's not connected? When tethered, this means you'd have to rely on watching your phone for connection changes since it probably always shows up as an ethernet connection (unless it's tethered over bluetooth DUN). In this case you could get notified about it, but yes, as of the current status of the NM code, you'd have to wait <= 5 minutes. > If I've just connected to a hotel/public wifi, I know I need to go to a web > page and sign in. I think anyone that's ever done this before on any > operating system knows this. Intermittent 3G/4G connection loss produces > similar problems, but is completely unpredictable. I think that's a more > important problem to solve. We have signal level icons for 3G/4G; I'm not sure what else there would be to do over that past using some form of external check to verify that the connectivity is proper. Furthermore, facilitating sign in to portals is a feature that most connection managers have on their roadmap or implemented. We (speaking as a contributor to NM upstream) would like to implement it; ConnMan already has features to help with this (WISPr). / Matt -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Enabling Connectivity Checking in NetworkManager
Le 10/07/2012 21:36, Scott Kitterman a écrit : On Tuesday, July 10, 2012 03:27:07 PM Marc Deslauriers wrote: On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 15:21 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: On Tuesday, July 10, 2012 02:06:32 PM Ted Gould wrote: On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 14:48 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: On Tuesday, July 10, 2012 02:41:35 PM Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre wrote: As for the actual change, it is limited to the /etc/NetworkManager/NetworkManager.conf file; to which the following will be added: [connectivity] uri=http://start.ubuntu.com/connectivity-check.html response=Lorem ipsum See the manual page for NetworkManager.conf(5) for the details of what these settings do. Please let me know if you have questions or think there are good reasons not to enable this feature. If there is no response by the end of the week, I'd like to proceed with a enabling this in Quantal and making sure it gets well tested. I think that a significant fraction of Ubuntu's user base is (reasonably) very sensitive about privacy issues. While this is no worse the the NTP check that already exists (that is controversial), I don't think it should be enabled by default. I think that for those who are concerned, this is trivial to disable. But, I think what happens for those who are, is that Ubuntu "does the right thing" by default. If you're at a hotel or other location that captures for a login page, you won't get your mail and apt and ... all downloading bogus stuff. First, I do a fair amount of travelling for $WORK, so I know all about these. For people who travel, they already know about logging into the web page when you get to the hotel. This kind of check doesn't actually guarantee anything since different places handle these things differently. Even if the proposed check works, if a hotel captures and redirects port 25 or 587 (yes, port 587 redirection happens, although it's positively brain dead and rare) then your mail is still screwed. If you're connected of not is on a port by port basis, so I don't think this reliably solves the problem in any case. Solving it for a good proportion of cases is better than not solving it at all. It drives me nuts that Evolution and gnome-xchat spew error messages before I log into a portal, when this problem is already solved on other operating systems by using essentially the same technique. I've got absolutely no objection to this if it's defaulted off for people like you that want it. I clearly don't agree it should be defaulted to off. That's one of the best feature I discovered in Android ICS (4.0): "seems like your connexion is behind a captive portal", just click on it, and be able to log in! I really enjoyed the first experience and was really surprised to see it. I think this kind of small delightedness is what makes a shining user experience, and that's why it should be on by default for the user. Then, if people really concerns about "privacy" (which is the not that different than the automatic apt-get update done in the cron job, or by the proxy detection in vino…), then they can help implementing some UI for deactivating that in a privacy panel for their favorite desktop environment. Didier -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
