Re: Newest Testing Report of Ubuntu 6.10 from BSTQC China

[Matthew Paul Thomas]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On May 8, 2007, at 9:06 PM, konghao wrote:
> ...
> 4.Since the human resource issue and the the limitation of 
> internet-access, it's complex for these guys to register every bug in 
> launchpad.
> I've check the process of reporting bugs in launchpad.net, there are 
> selections of "Distribution-Package" or "Project". I was confused that 
> which Package or Project I could report our bugs as a whole link 
> because it's really hard for us to input every bug one by one. If you 
> could give us some advices for that , it would be great appreciated:)
> ...

Reporting all bugs in the bugtracker as a single bug report probably 
wouldn't be any better than what you're doing now. :-) A bugtracker 
works poorly if there is more than one bug per bug report.

So, I suggest getting in touch with the Ubuntu BugSquad
, to organize a Bi-Annual Bug Blitz 
for them to ensure all the bugs you have found are reported. One way of 
doing this would be to copy and paste the defect report into a page (or 
pages) on the Ubuntu wiki. Then BugSquad members can edit the wiki page 
to annotate each problem with the equivalent bug link as they 
find/report it.

This is excellent work you're doing, and it would be a shame for it to 
be neglected because it isn't being converted to bug reports.

Cheers
- --
Matthew Paul Thomas
http://mpt.net.nz/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFGQqrD6PUxNfU6ecoRAgzJAJ0c9aDUC6JX9OvLG3dCBUunXKyS1wCfUPYJ
oTh5BtTtS8hPdFfB5yWhi4U=
=YCLd
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: /usr/local/bin in $PATH in system scripts?

[Jim Doherty]

Fergal Daly wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm looking for clarification of policy in the context of this bug
> 
> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-system-tools/+bug/71336
> 
> and the fact that having your own version of Perl in /usr/local will
> almost certainly break your Ubuntu admin tools.
> 
> I have always assumed that it was safe to put whatever I like in
> /usr/local/ and my system will continue to work. This seems to be
> backed up by Debian policy
> 
> http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-opersys.html#s-sysvinit
> 
> which contains this paragraph
> 
> "However, because /usr/local and its contents are for exclusive use of
> the local administrator, a package must not rely on the presence or
> absence of files or directories in /usr/local for normal operation."
> 
> This seems quite sensible, otherwise it leads to mysterious and hard
> to track-down failures.
> 
> Is this ubuntu policy too?
> 

Sorry, I have no idea what ubuntu policy is.   But good defensive
scripting practice includes setting your $PATH to something safe.  A
good script should always not trust the environment it was handed along
with many other things that people don't always do.

Jim


> I can't see any real benefit to including /usr/local/bin and I can
> find plenty of people in the forums who can't start *-admin,
> presumably due to problems similar to mine,
> 
> F
> 




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: KLF setup

[George Farris]

On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 08:27 +0200, Mike Cornelison wrote:
> <<
> It wouldn't be so bad if there was just one concise piece of documentation 
> but alas, we have all manor of stuff out in the wide on the net.  Much of it 
> is not correct for Ubuntu or your particular version of Ubuntu. Tools we 
> really need but also good docs for each release.
> >>
> 
> I think this is indicative of Linux, not just Ubuntu. Every distro and every 
> release invents some new and improved wheels, and neglects documentation. We 
> badly need a standards body to dampen the chaos. LSB?
> 

Couldn't agree more, however, in the interim if there was some concise
docs for Feisty it would be great.  Maybe we could get something going
here to solve the problem until the GUI wizards are in.  Possibly an
Ubuntu Server docs url on ubuntu.com.  Fill it with some howto
information covering Samba, LDAP, Kerberos, NFSv4, Active Directory
Integration.






-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: /usr/local/bin in $PATH in system scripts?

[Fergal Daly]

On 09/05/07, Soren Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 10:43:29AM +0200, Oliver Grawert wrote:
> > > "However, because /usr/local and its contents are for exclusive use
> > > of the local administrator, a package must not rely on the presence
> > > or absence of files or directories in /usr/local for normal
> > > operation."
> > how does that even remotely relate to your complaint ? the package
> > itself just uses the default system paths and obviously doesnt *rely*
> > on anything in /usr/local apparently ...
>
> No, but it *does* rely on the *absence* of a b0rken perl interpreter
> there.

Yes. Although there's nothing broken about it, it's just a vanilla
perl install and that means it doesn't have certain modules relating
to DBus or gnome or whatever (I can't remember the exact error),

F

>
> --
> | Soren Hansen| Linux2Go  | http://Linux2Go.dk/ |
> | Seniorkonsulent | Lindholmsvej 42, 2. TH| +45 46 90 26 42 |
> | [EMAIL PROTECTED]  | 9400 Norresundby, Denmark | GPG key: E8BDA4E3   |
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFGQYsAonjfXui9pOMRAuBBAJwJT1VRHNBJFU3aB1CjUtZ07c/TdgCgmyMT
> pc5WblW6yW0Q52x/fMxIpj8=
> =hu4o
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>
> --
> Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
> Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
>
>

-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: /usr/local/bin in $PATH in system scripts?

[Soren Hansen]

On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 10:43:29AM +0200, Oliver Grawert wrote:
> > "However, because /usr/local and its contents are for exclusive use
> > of the local administrator, a package must not rely on the presence
> > or absence of files or directories in /usr/local for normal
> > operation."
> how does that even remotely relate to your complaint ? the package
> itself just uses the default system paths and obviously doesnt *rely*
> on anything in /usr/local apparently ... 

No, but it *does* rely on the *absence* of a b0rken perl interpreter
there.

-- 
| Soren Hansen| Linux2Go  | http://Linux2Go.dk/ |
| Seniorkonsulent | Lindholmsvej 42, 2. TH| +45 46 90 26 42 |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]  | 9400 Norresundby, Denmark | GPG key: E8BDA4E3   |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: /usr/local/bin in $PATH in system scripts?

[Oliver Grawert]

hi,
On Di, 2007-05-08 at 21:42 +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
> 
> "However, because /usr/local and its contents are for exclusive use of
> the local administrator, a package must not rely on the presence or
> absence of files or directories in /usr/local for normal operation."

how does that even remotely relate to your complaint ? the package
itself just uses the default system paths and obviously doesnt *rely* on
anything in /usr/local apparently ... 

ciao
oli


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss