Re: Proposal to drop Ubuntu alternate CDs for 12.10
Hey Steve, > I don't know what you mean by "verified" here. Neither Canonical nor the > Ubuntu project offer any guarantees of the legitimacy of such third-party > CDs. I wouldn't expect that of them. I meant GPG key verification in general. Thanks for clarifying. On other distros that documentation is alongside the download and I just missed it. I'll research more thoroughly in the future. For anyone else: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/HowToMD5SUM vs. https://help.ubuntu.com/community/VerifyIsoHowto Best, P.S. On 09/25/2012 09:45 PM, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 04:10:24PM +, Paul Smith wrote: >> It may behoove us to be concerned over being able to download and verify >> the entirety of the packages that are not included in the mini ISO and >> provide the ability to perform a command line install on one cd. I know >> that we do not currently offer the ability to order a hard copy of the >> alternate cd. However, there are other online vendors who do, which means >> at present there is an existing way to order a *verified* *hard copy* via >> mail. > > I don't know what you mean by "verified" here. Neither Canonical nor the > Ubuntu project offer any guarantees of the legitimacy of such third-party > CDs. > >> Are we considering the difference between debsums on an installed system >> vs. md5sum of a disc? Also, where would I re-emphasize that we currently >> have no gpg verification for any of our images despite it's adoption by our >> competitors? > > All Ubuntu images are accompanied on the download mirrors by GPG-signed > checksum files. > > http://releases.ubuntu.com/12.04/SHA256SUMS > http://releases.ubuntu.com/12.04/SHA256SUMS.gpg -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Proposal to drop Ubuntu alternate CDs for 12.10
Dmitrijs, > What is "command-line install" ? After booting and selecting language, on the alternate-cd if you press F4 there's the option "Install a command-line system". Choosing to install the command-line version installs core system packages and leaves the user with a bare-bones terminal. > Why don't you use server-cd for that? Moglen > What extra degree of security? X-Windows is omitted from our servers because of security issues. In general the principal of installing the minimal amount of software can be found in section 3.7 of the Debian Security Guide: http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/securing-debian-howto/ch3.en.html. > Please note lubuntu & kubuntu are still publishing alternate CDs this cycle. I'm usually just on the LTS. Thank you for the suggestion. Further, I realize the alternate use-case here is just using https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/MinimalCD, but I recently had the entire X-Windows system break on one of my machines after the 12.04.1 install and installing a command-line system and doing an update solved the issue in such a satisfying way that I thought I would share. Best, P.S. On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 4:26 AM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: > What is "command-line install" ? Is that with or without a > desktop environment? And why don't you use server-cd for that? > > What extra degree of security? I have a trust path via GPG web of trust to > ubuntu archive key, but I only got it recently. > Inherently CDs are self-signed, and one must verify signed cd checksums > before using it. > > For your use cases you can use server cd. Despite the name it's actually > more closer to what you want... > > Please note lubuntu & kubuntu are still publishing alternate CDs this > cycle. > > On 10 September 2012 03:13, Paul Smith wrote: > >> My main issue with removing the alternate install is the ability to do a >> command-line install, which similar to our servers provides an extra degree >> of security and the ability to do the following as troubleshooting steps >> without a gui: >> >> 1) perform initial system updates >> 2) download other components, verify them, and burn them to cd >> 3) browse the internet for other troubleshooting steps with a >> command-line browser such lynx or elinks >> >> Also, do we have time estimates on how long it takes to maintain the >> alternate iso, or any iso for that matter? >> >> Paul Smith >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 12:04 AM, Nicholas Skaggs < >> nicholas.ska...@canonical.com> wrote: >> >>> FYI -- as spoken of earlier, here's the details on dropping the >>> alternate installer in 12.10. Again, this is just for ubuntu, and not a >>> decision for any flavors. As far as I know, no flavors have committed to >>> dropping the alternate cd's. This transition will occur with the next >>> milestone, which is Beta 1. As part of this, we'll need to migrate the >>> alternate testcases and add new testcases in support of the new features in >>> ubiquity. Thanks! >>> >>> Nicholas >>> >>> >>> Original Message Subject: Proposal to drop Ubuntu >>> alternate CDs for 12.10 Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 14:50:24 -0700 From: Steve >>> LangasekTo: >>> ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com >>> >>> Dear developers, >>> >>> As part of ongoing efforts to reduce the number of images we ship for >>> Ubuntu, and to make the desktop image more useful in a variety of scenarios, >>> Dmitrijs Ledkovs has been hard at work in quantal adding support for LVM, >>> cryptsetup, and RAID to ubiquity. >>> >>> The good news is that this means today we already have support in ubiquity >>> for cryptsetup and LVM in the guided partitioner, with manual partitioning >>> support soon to follow. The somewhat bad news is that we will not have >>> support for RAID setup in ubiquity this cycle. >>> >>> I would like to propose that, in spite of not reaching 100% feature parity, >>> we drop the Ubuntu alternate installer for 12.10 anyway. >>> >>> The arguments that I see in favor of this are: >>> >>> - RAID is relatively straightforward to turn on post-install. You install >>>to one disk, boot to the system, assemble a degraded RAID with the other >>>disks, copy your data, reboot to the degraded RAID, and finally merge >>>your install disk into the array. It's not quick, but it's *possible*. >>> - Desktop installs on RAID will still be supported
Re: Proposal to drop Ubuntu alternate CDs for 12.10
My main issue with removing the alternate install is the ability to do a command-line install, which similar to our servers provides an extra degree of security and the ability to do the following as troubleshooting steps without a gui: 1) perform initial system updates 2) download other components, verify them, and burn them to cd 3) browse the internet for other troubleshooting steps with a command-line browser such lynx or elinks Also, do we have time estimates on how long it takes to maintain the alternate iso, or any iso for that matter? Paul Smith On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 12:04 AM, Nicholas Skaggs < nicholas.ska...@canonical.com> wrote: > FYI -- as spoken of earlier, here's the details on dropping the > alternate installer in 12.10. Again, this is just for ubuntu, and not a > decision for any flavors. As far as I know, no flavors have committed to > dropping the alternate cd's. This transition will occur with the next > milestone, which is Beta 1. As part of this, we'll need to migrate the > alternate testcases and add new testcases in support of the new features in > ubiquity. Thanks! > > Nicholas > > Original Message Subject: Proposal to drop Ubuntu > alternate CDs for 12.10 Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 14:50:24 -0700 From: Steve > LangasekTo: > ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com > > Dear developers, > > As part of ongoing efforts to reduce the number of images we ship for > Ubuntu, and to make the desktop image more useful in a variety of scenarios, > Dmitrijs Ledkovs has been hard at work in quantal adding support for LVM, > cryptsetup, and RAID to ubiquity. > > The good news is that this means today we already have support in ubiquity > for cryptsetup and LVM in the guided partitioner, with manual partitioning > support soon to follow. The somewhat bad news is that we will not have > support for RAID setup in ubiquity this cycle. > > I would like to propose that, in spite of not reaching 100% feature parity, > we drop the Ubuntu alternate installer for 12.10 anyway. > > The arguments that I see in favor of this are: > > - RAID is relatively straightforward to turn on post-install. You install >to one disk, boot to the system, assemble a degraded RAID with the other >disks, copy your data, reboot to the degraded RAID, and finally merge >your install disk into the array. It's not quick, but it's *possible*. > - Desktop installs on RAID will still be supported by other paths: using >either netboot or server CDs and installing the desktop task. > - RAID on the desktop really is a minority use case. Laptops almost never >have room for more than one hard drive; desktops can but are rarely >equipped with them. So the set of affected users is very small. Some >rough analysis of bug data in launchpad suggests a very liberal upper >bound of .8% of desktop users. > - RAID on the desktop correlates with conservatism in other areas: we can >probably continue to recommend 12.04 instead of 12.10 for the affected >users. > - It lets us tighten our focus on making the desktop CD shine: fewer images >to QA, fewer different paths to get right (like the CD apt upgrader case) >means more time to focus on the things that matter. > > So my opinion is that we should drop the Ubuntu alternate CDs with Beta 1. > Other flavors are free to continue building alternate CDs (i.e., > "debian-installer" CDs) according to their preference, but we would drop > them for Ubuntu and direct users to one of the above-mentioned alternatives > if they care about RAID on desktop installs. > > Please note one implication here that, with the possibility of not having > i386 server CDs for 12.10, the only install option for an i386 user wanting > RAID on a desktop would be to install via netboot or with the mini ISO. > > Do any of you see reasons for not making this change, and dropping the > alternate CDs? Are there shortcomings to the proposed fallback solutions > that we haven't identified here? > > Thanks, > -- > Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS > Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. > Ubuntu Developer > http://www.debian.org/slanga...@ubuntu.com > vor...@debian.org > > > > > > -- > Ubuntu-qa mailing list > ubuntu...@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-qa > > -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Proposal to drop Ubuntu alternate CDs for 12.10
It may behoove us to be concerned over being able to download and verify the entirety of the packages that are not included in the mini ISO and provide the ability to perform a command line install on one cd. I know that we do not currently offer the ability to order a hard copy of the alternate cd. However, there are other online vendors who do, which means at present there is an existing way to order a *verified* *hard copy* via mail. Are we considering the difference between debsums on an installed system vs. md5sum of a disc? Also, where would I re-emphasize that we currently have no gpg verification for any of our images despite it's adoption by our competitors? P.S. -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
