Local build of Phone images ?
Hello, what is the correct setup and invocation of live-build in order to replicate the builds of the current Ubuntu phone images for armhf as published on cdimage.ubuntu.com ? Is there something as straightforward as for the desktop-build as described here? https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2011-June/033458.html thanks Jani -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Local build of Phone images ?
Thanks Kevin, sorry for not being more specific in my email. I meant the Ubuntu userland .zip not the Android bits. On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 08:26:39 -0600, Kevin Gunn wrote: Hi Jani - I was able to use these instructions a several weeks back, I assume they're still accurate. https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Touch/Building -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Call for votes: Developer Membership Board restaffing
On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 16:22:58 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: Hello, [snip] That's certainly true, but I think this is something that the DMB has a duty to correct. Frankly, I think there's no reason that Adam and Björn couldn't have been ready for upload rights by January, *if* the DMB's I must ask the same question as the Debian maintainer who endorsed Björn's application: 'Are you kidding? :)' I never assumed for a moment that he had not long been an uploader of LibreOffice. I think the DMB members did their job well by following the existing guidelines for such approval procedures and I also think those guidelines are in need of adjustments. It seems ridiculous to have such a bureaucratic process that prevents for example someone who more or less single-handedly has been taking care of LibreOffice in Ubuntu for the past two years get upload rights *for that set of packages only*. Extra caution is desirable when approving core developer or universe upload rights but it is counterproductive to have the same rules for applicants of restricted upload rights. I've seen similar problems in the past two years where people from Linaro would simply not bother applying for maintainership of otherwise good packages and preferred keeping them in PPAs at the detriment of those who only use the official Ubuntu archives, because again, the requirements seemed daunting. I honestly think the process should lose the 'pledge of allegiance' aspect for single uploaders and just get out of the way, saving time and annoyance both for those uploaders and for the Ubuntu developers who have to do the sponsoring. cheers Jani -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Call for votes: Developer Membership Board restaffing
On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 09:06:31 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote: On Thursday, January 31, 2013 09:23:39 AM Jani Monoses wrote: On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 16:22:58 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: Hello, [snip] That's certainly true, but I think this is something that the DMB has a duty to correct. Frankly, I think there's no reason that Adam and Björn couldn't have been ready for upload rights by January, *if* the DMB's I must ask the same question as the Debian maintainer who endorsed Björn's application: 'Are you kidding? :)' I never assumed for a moment that he had not long been an uploader of LibreOffice. I think the DMB members did their job well by following the existing guidelines for such approval procedures and I also think those guidelines are in need of adjustments. What's in the current guidelines that needs changing? I am only talking about PPU rights below, I think the current process for getting broader rights is ok. There is too much coupling between Ubuntu membership and upload rights. While there are many developers who are both uploaders and contribute broadly to other non-technical aspects of the project, I think PPU should be seen as a focused technical role closer to that of traditional upstreams. I'd also argue that endorsements from people who had sponsored and worked closely with the applicant in the past should have a greater weight than they apparently do and the process should not be about interview style packaging related questions. Jani -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Screen orientation and backlight sensing for the Nexus 7
On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 19:22:46 +, Jani Monoses wrote: On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 17:00:00 +0100, Oliver Grawert wrote: hi, i just uploaded http://paste.ubuntu.com/1555763/ which should do for now, it would be great if someone could re-implement /usr/bin/acceld in actual C .. polling like that from a shell script adds some CPU overhead that we could avoid ... I am looking into what it takes to add this functionality to gnome- settings-daemon that already has support for screen orientation and a certain type of accelerometer. If that does not work out without being too intrusive we should look into making this into C as you suggest. This is the current status. I'll probably upload the g-s-d equivalent of the shell script today. https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-nexus7/+bug/1110360/comments/2 Jani -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: smem report from the nexus-raring
Hello, On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 21:06:41 +0100, Sebastien Bacher wrote: We recently did a smem memory snapshot from raring, running on a nexus tablet. The results have been recorded on the wiki: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Nexus7/Smem-2013-01-16 At least some of the items have notes indicating work has already started on them. Do either of these have issues filed? It would be easier to follow progress and have discussions related to individual applications' memory consumption in the familiar LP bug interface, while keeping the wiki page as an overview with links to LP. Jani -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Screen orientation and backlight sensing for the Nexus 7
On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 17:00:00 +0100, Oliver Grawert wrote: hi, i just uploaded http://paste.ubuntu.com/1555763/ which should do for now, it would be great if someone could re-implement /usr/bin/acceld in actual C .. polling like that from a shell script adds some CPU overhead that we could avoid ... I am looking into what it takes to add this functionality to gnome- settings-daemon that already has support for screen orientation and a certain type of accelerometer. If that does not work out without being too intrusive we should look into making this into C as you suggest. Jani -- 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 2012-03-30
I was not scheduled today but since last time I only got around to sponsor two packages I did a few more now: * Sponsored 5 uploads for Linaro devs to make some packages cross-build and used for bootstrapping Ubuntu: gawk, noweb, libbsd,texinfo, klibc * debsign --debs-dir is broken due to incorrectly added quotes https://launchpad.net/bugs/966867 Asked for updated debdiff to include a more complete patch that is in Debian git * FontConfig/Qt stack choke on Ubuntu Medium font meta-data (No medium in Inkscape and too bold in Qt apps) https://code.launchpad.net/~fboucault/ubuntu/precise/ubuntu-font-family-sources/no_medium_font/+merge/98606 Merged and uploaded * Ethiopian Mobile Broadband provider information https://launchpad.net/bugs/915095 Notified maintainer and unsubscribed sponsors * Ubuntu Studio fr.po is not translated in french French team is already assigned, unsub sponsors * Set WIP as the corresponding bug is Won't Fix (something LP does not make obvious, the letters are tiny grey instead of saying in BIG RED: DO NOT CONSIDER MERGING THIS BEFORE READING THE BUG LINKeD TO IT) https://code.launchpad.net/~gruemaster/flash-kernel/bug-961174/+merge/98874 35 at the beginning, 27 after I just recently started using the sponsor-patch tool and it is helpful. -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Five build fixes a day
[1] If your primary focus is main, you may be tempted to say oh, they're in universe, so they don't matter very much. Firstly, the noise causes a problem in itself; many Launchpad bug views don't make it particularly easy to see what component bugs affect, and we often have to filter things out in order to do release management effectively. Secondly, we often have to promote packages from universe or fix problems in universe in order to meet user/customer demand or clean up various bits of the archive, so allowing universe buildability to be a swamp causes us velocity problems. Thirdly, we provide universe for the benefit of our users; even if Canonical engineers generally have main as their primary focus, we all lose out if our users are having upgrade problems due to a popular package in universe failing to build and so being stuck on an old version of a library that conflicts with other newer packages, or something like that. [2] Fourthly, for armel at least, fixing toolchain related build failures (quite a few and usually gcc regressions) in universe helps make the tools better and can translate to similar fixes in main. This is less of an issues on x86/amd64 where the toolchain is more mature and better tested in general. Jani -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Oneiric / Sid diff pages in Launchpad
Hello, Is each package diff accessible from the corresponding Ubuntu package source page? https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/oneiric/+uniquepackages This has over 3000 entries, many of which are not actually in sid but pending approval? Do those not yet meet criteria for inclusion? For ex: Pending in sid-release since 2009-04-21 16:46:55 EEST Jani -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Oneiric / Sid diff pages in Launchpad
On 08/16/2011 07:19 PM, Julian Edwards wrote: On Tuesday 16 August 2011 09:30:43 Jani Monoses wrote: Hello, Is each package diff accessible from the corresponding Ubuntu package source page? No, you need to go to the pages I mentioned. https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/oneiric/+uniquepackages This has over 3000 entries, many of which are not actually in sid but I count 2089. Sorry I miscut the wrong link, this is the one I meant. https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/oneiric/+missingpackages pending approval? Do those not yet meet criteria for inclusion? For ex: Pending in sid-release since 2009-04-21 16:46:55 EEST Someone else will have to answer that. -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Pairing new patch pilots with old patch pilots
On 07/07/2011 12:46 PM, Daniel Holbach wrote: Hello Bryce, Am 06.07.2011 21:12, schrieb Bryce Harrington: I like the idea very much. With the Packaging Training classes [1] we are always looking for people who are willing to talk 10-15 minutes about a topic and answer just a few questions about it. Who would be willing to give a session like that? If it were possible to record (and then post-process/edit into a publicly viewable movie) the terminal session(s) of such a 4 hour shift as done by pitti, cjwatson or other very productive sponsors it would be a much more valuable learning tool than all of the wiki pages we have ATM on the subject IMO. The tutorials and packaging classes usually give a generic overview and work on a simple package which is a good way to get started, whereas a broad coverage of a dozen or more packages in such a sponsoring session surely touch some corner cases and show off existing tools and new ways to use and combine them even for more experienced developers. Jani -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Package post-install notification methods?
Hello, I received quite a few helpful suggestions about how one could partially solve the problem I describe below so I am more confused than if there were only one way to do it :) For an ARM blueprint [1] concerning updating boot firmware on certain boards, one of the requirements is to notify users when a new bootloader package is installed. These binary packages (u-boot and/or x-loader) get installed on the system but they have no effect on the booting unless the files they contain are copied to a boot partition. This copying is not automatic and not part of the package via a dpkg hook because it is a potentially dangerous operation. However users should be notified that the possibility exists and that they can flash the new firmware using flash-kernel. The question is how to present this notification to the user so that * it works both in X and in headless images * it is simple and involves a minimum number of package and system file changes :) I was suggested motd-update, jockey, update-manager hooks and debconf notes so far. I find the debconf way the least intrusive but I worry that few packages use such notes and it is only for important use-cases. Such firmware updates do not happen frequently, if ever, in a stable release, as only bugfixes that cannot otherwise be worked around in kernel or userland are targeted. thank you Jani [1] https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/other-arm-n-handle-core-boot-files-update -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Unity desktop and maverick backport
On 11/19/2010 02:10 AM, Alex Launi wrote: On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 6:59 PM, Dustin Kirkland kirkl...@ubuntu.com mailto:kirkl...@ubuntu.com wrote: I thought a good 2D experience was also one of the key objectives? Yeah, but the good 2D experience is really just a fall back to Gnome 2.X panel, and the current Ubuntu desktop. It will be good to have this fall back well tested, but that doesn't help us test Unity. Sorry for the tangent but I could not find more information about this online: is the Unity UI fundamentally tied to 3D acceleration support and compositing? IMHO if it was technically possible it would be more uniform to have the 2D experience built on the same new UI/UX concepts just a bit less visually intense, much like the 'desktop effects' setting used to provide more or less the same UI with various degrees of glitz. thanks Jani -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
