Re: handling extensions in a canonical (no pun intended)

[Remco]

On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 4:00 AM, Dmitrijs
Ledkovs wrote:
> 2009/6/13 Remco :
>>
>> Well that's why I proposed to use PackageKit to announce these
>> extensions to Synaptic. That's essentially a way to automatically
>> generate packages.
>
> Are you suggesting a XPI/Mozilla-extensions backend for PackageKit?
> Well it will be usable from PackageKit but again dpkg will have no
> clue about those files and where they come from. And this starts to
> diverge system to a hybrid beast.

While that's somewhat true, this is already the case. In the current
situation, you have many separate programs with an extension mechanism
(Mozilla products, Eclipse, for example). These all operate
independently from each other and from dpkg. The reason this doesn't
completely mess up your system, is because all these extensions only
have effect on the one application, and only have dependencies from
their own extension mechanism.

So, from a technical point of view, there is no problem with the
current situation.

But there *is* a problem from an administration point of view. There
is no one tool that lists all extensions for all programs alongside
those programs. This problem is solved if all those mechanisms would
use PackageKit (and Synaptic would list those packages).

It may not be the most beautiful solution. (That would be if every
distro, every ISV, and that other company would use dpkg.) But I think
it's the most practical solution. After the initial burden of making
every program with extensions support PackageKit, there would be no
extra workload for packagers.

Remco

-- 
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: handling extensions in a canonical (no pun intended)

[Dmitrijs Ledkovs]

2009/6/13 Remco :
>
> Well that's why I proposed to use PackageKit to announce these
> extensions to Synaptic. That's essentially a way to automatically
> generate packages.
>
> Remco

Are you suggesting a XPI/Mozilla-extensions backend for PackageKit?
Well it will be usable from PackageKit but again dpkg will have no
clue about those files and where they come from. And this starts to
diverge system to a hybrid beast.

-- 
With best regards


Dmitrijs Ledkovs (for short Dima),
Ледков Дмитрий Юрьевич

-- 
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: handling extensions in a canonical (no pun intended)

[Dmitrijs Ledkovs]

2009/6/13 Mackenzie Morgan :
> On Friday 12 June 2009 3:05:14 pm Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
>> Heya
>>
>> This reminds me of per-user installed deb's (not supported) vs global
>> install's which clog up every users. For one in Ubuntu we have e.g.
>> plugins OOo in the repo. But if you install them there is no option
>> for unpriviledged users to disable it =/ it's just gray in OO.o
>
> I don't believe that's the case with Mozilla applications.  If you install a
> Firefox extension from the package manager right now, it is still possible for
> a user to disable it within their own local Firefox while still keeping it
> installed system-wide.

Good news. I should try Firefox again then (Moved on to Epiphany
Webkit with early builds, and now using Chromium daily builds)

-- 
With best regards


Dmitrijs Ledkovs (for short Dima),
Ледков Дмитрий Юрьевич

-- 
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: handling extensions in a canonical (no pun intended)

[Remco]

On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 3:30 AM, Vincenzo Ciancia wrote:
> The niceness of the package manager is that you can know e.g. which file
> belongs to which package, or clone your system by saving the installed
> packages and the /etc/apt/sources.list* files.
>
> Perhaps it is possible to create all the debs automatically (and keep
> them up to date) from the extensions themselves? But I guess the right
> place to host all them is the mozilla site.

Well that's why I proposed to use PackageKit to announce these
extensions to Synaptic. That's essentially a way to automatically
generate packages.

Remco

-- 
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: handling extensions in a canonical (no pun intended)

[Mackenzie Morgan]

On Friday 12 June 2009 9:02:51 pm Remco wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 2:22 AM, Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
> > On Friday 12 June 2009 3:05:14 pm Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
> >> Heya
> >>
> >> This reminds me of per-user installed deb's (not supported) vs global
> >> install's which clog up every users. For one in Ubuntu we have e.g.
> >> plugins OOo in the repo. But if you install them there is no option
> >> for unpriviledged users to disable it =/ it's just gray in OO.o
> >
> > I don't believe that's the case with Mozilla applications.  If you install 
a
> > Firefox extension from the package manager right now, it is still possible 
for
> > a user to disable it within their own local Firefox while still keeping it
> > installed system-wide.
> 
> You mention something that the Patrick seems to miss: Ubuntu already
> has packages in the repositories for Firefox. This could be done for
> many other programs too (and probably has been for some). But, that
> would put a LOT of strain on packagers. Firefox alone has thousands of
> extensions, managed by Mozilla.

Well at least for just the dictionaries, it seems they should be packaged.  
Those are rather important.

-- 
Mackenzie Morgan
http://ubuntulinuxtipstricks.blogspot.com
apt-get moo


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

Re: handling extensions in a canonical (no pun intended)

[Vincenzo Ciancia]

Il giorno sab, 13/06/2009 alle 03.02 +0200, Remco ha scritto:
> 
> I have a silly idea: why use the package manager for system-wide
> extensions? The package manager is used for dependency resolution, but
> since Mozilla and others already have their own system set up, it is
> unnecessary to replicate the behavior. Can't there be an "Install
> system-wide" button in the Firefox extensions window next to the
> normal "Install" button?

The niceness of the package manager is that you can know e.g. which file
belongs to which package, or clone your system by saving the installed
packages and the /etc/apt/sources.list* files. 

Perhaps it is possible to create all the debs automatically (and keep
them up to date) from the extensions themselves? But I guess the right
place to host all them is the mozilla site.


-- 
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: handling extensions in a canonical (no pun intended)

[Remco]

On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 2:22 AM, Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
> On Friday 12 June 2009 3:05:14 pm Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
>> Heya
>>
>> This reminds me of per-user installed deb's (not supported) vs global
>> install's which clog up every users. For one in Ubuntu we have e.g.
>> plugins OOo in the repo. But if you install them there is no option
>> for unpriviledged users to disable it =/ it's just gray in OO.o
>
> I don't believe that's the case with Mozilla applications.  If you install a
> Firefox extension from the package manager right now, it is still possible for
> a user to disable it within their own local Firefox while still keeping it
> installed system-wide.

You mention something that the Patrick seems to miss: Ubuntu already
has packages in the repositories for Firefox. This could be done for
many other programs too (and probably has been for some). But, that
would put a LOT of strain on packagers. Firefox alone has thousands of
extensions, managed by Mozilla.

I have a silly idea: why use the package manager for system-wide
extensions? The package manager is used for dependency resolution, but
since Mozilla and others already have their own system set up, it is
unnecessary to replicate the behavior. Can't there be an "Install
system-wide" button in the Firefox extensions window next to the
normal "Install" button?

Now, that might not alleviate the burden of system administrators, who
can't just use Synaptic, but have to use each application's own
extension mechanism. That is the root of the problem for Patrick, I
think. This problem could be solved at a later stage when PackageKit
is introduced in Ubuntu. Then, each application's extension mechanism
can announce the available extensions to PackageKit, and then they
would show up in Synaptic by magic.

Remco

-- 
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: handling extensions in a canonical (no pun intended)

[Mackenzie Morgan]

On Friday 12 June 2009 3:05:14 pm Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
> Heya
> 
> This reminds me of per-user installed deb's (not supported) vs global
> install's which clog up every users. For one in Ubuntu we have e.g.
> plugins OOo in the repo. But if you install them there is no option
> for unpriviledged users to disable it =/ it's just gray in OO.o

I don't believe that's the case with Mozilla applications.  If you install a 
Firefox extension from the package manager right now, it is still possible for 
a user to disable it within their own local Firefox while still keeping it 
installed system-wide.

-- 
Mackenzie Morgan
http://ubuntulinuxtipstricks.blogspot.com
apt-get moo


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

Re: Transition to OCaml 3.11.1...

[Sylvain Le Gall]

Hello,

On 12-06-2009, Stéphane Glondu  wrote:
> David MENTRE a écrit :
>> Regarding Ubuntu, the Debian Import Freeze is set to the 25th of June.
>> After that date, packages can be synchronized upon request until the
>> 13th of August.
>>   https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KarmicReleaseSchedule
>> 
>> Currently, nearly all (i.e. except 3 packages) are on 3.11.0.
>> 
>> According to your planning, it would mean that OCaml 3.11.1 would be
>> uploaded now (12th of June) and all other packages rebuilt after the
>> 23th of June. It could break the current OCaml status on Ubuntu. I
>> don't know if massive rebuild of packages (binNMU???) is possible on
>> Ubuntu.
>
> Not right now (I would like to wait for the remaining of the OCaml team,
> and the release team approvals), but certainly before the 25th of June.
> I guess there will be a lot of binNMUs (at least 50, maybe 100, out of
> 139 packages or so), and I don't know either how Ubuntu manages this
> kind of task.
>
>> Why do you think of this?
>> 
>> Of course, I would very much have OCaml 3.11.1 on Karmic but that
>> might be difficult to do in such a short time frame.
>
> I think it's up to the Ubuntu release managers to decide. FYI, the last
> transition (to 3.11.0) took 1.5 months since the first upload to
> unstable, but it was a big transition: a new major version of OCaml, and
> big changes in our way to do things that caused > 100 sourceful uploads.
> The feature freeze for Karmic is set at the end of August, so 2.5 months
> from now. So it looks like there is time, but rebuilds must be handled
> efficiently (this is still an unknown to me). If you decide not to ship
> 3.11.1, care must be taken to not import ocaml 3.11.1 from sid.
>
>

I think we are too tigh regarding time. I prefer that Ubuntu ship a good
3.11.0 release than to have to fight for months to get a 3.11.1.

Moreover, we can use 3.11.1 transition to stress test dh-ocaml after we
have add some functionnalities (like automatic dependencies). This will
made us wait until, at least, Debcamp.

Regards,
Sylvain Le Gall


-- 
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: Transition to OCaml 3.11.1...

[David MENTRE]

Hello Sylvain,

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 20:07, Sylvain Le Gall wrote:
> I think we are too tigh regarding time. I prefer that Ubuntu ship a good
> 3.11.0 release than to have to fight for months to get a 3.11.1.

I need to think a bit more about this but looking at the amount of
work I should do or things I should learn for doing this job[1], I
would prefer not to do that in a hurry.

Moreover, summer time is coming and I plan to take some holidays. ;-)

So right now I'm also for keeping 3.11.0 in Karmic and doing 3.11.1 in Karmic+1.

Yours,
d.

-- 
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: Reproducible w3m bug

[Matthew Paul Thomas]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

(``-_-´´) -- BUGabundo wrote on 08/06/09 20:58:
>...
> Should package that are in Universe and unmaintained[1] show that in
> Launchpad and _suggest_ the user to upstream them? I understand that
> _not_ all user will know/want to do that, but at least it would allow
> more experienced bug filling users to be more alerted to this
> problems.
>...

Yes, and that should be true for almost all Ubuntu bug reports, not just
those about Universe packages. 

Cheers
- --
Matthew Paul Thomas
http://mpt.net.nz/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkoylZwACgkQ6PUxNfU6ecrSTACfUkdN/9ESwa3zyZr6/vafu2VK
JrgAn0VVF7MBfA2U0RlmAaUq+/u9XuIT
=PnLB
-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: handling extensions in a canonical (no pun intended)

[Dmitrijs Ledkovs]

Heya

This reminds me of per-user installed deb's (not supported) vs global
install's which clog up every users. For one in Ubuntu we have e.g.
plugins OOo in the repo. But if you install them there is no option
for unpriviledged users to disable it =/ it's just gray in OO.o

It would be great, technically it might just be possible, but
applications are still not ready for this resulting in bad UX.

Python applications seem to be the most graceful at plugin management
(e.g. bzr). I think this should be pushed upstream per application so
that each extension can be installed into /usr and be disabled on
per-user basis.

-- 
With best regards


Dmitrijs Ledkovs (for short Dima),
Ледков Дмитрий Юрьевич

-- 
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

handling extensions in a canonical (no pun intended)

[Patrick Goetz]

One problem for which I still haven't seen a good solution is how to
handle package extensions in a multi-user environment.  Perhaps an
example would explain what I mean:

We use Thunderbird (locale=en-us) as our default email client.  There
are lots of .xpi extensions which might be useful, but one thing that
lots of people including myself want/use are spell-checking dictionaries
for other languages.  When I'm sending a message to someone in, say
German, having the English language spell-checker turned on is not
fun(tm), and because my German is even worse than my English, I would
like the benefit of my German spelling actually being checked.

On my home (basically) single-user system, this is not a problem; I
download the xpi file and install it from Thunderbird.  The situation is
much more complicated on a multi-user network where we want these
dictionaries (German, French, Spanish, etc.) to be available for all
users ubiquitously and without having thousands of duplicate copies
clogging up the storage system.  Similar concerns apply to firefox and
any other program featuring on-demand feature extensions and add-ons, a
ever growing list of applications/toolkits/frameworks/etc..

We currently solve these problems by using bcfg2 to add specific files
to every installation (possibly restricted by machine group), but a
package-oriented solution would be best, since not everyone uses bcfg2
and since the system is already based on a package paradigm.  Also,
surgically dropping files into a linux installation requires precise
knowledge of where the files must go, permissions, group ownership,
etc., so I/someone has to research this for every single file that gets
added outside the framework of a pre-built binary package.  This adds up
to a lot of work in environments like ours where we have >2500 packages
installed on every workstation.

What has typically been done to address this so far is for package
maintainers to bundle up groups of extensions into "recommended"
packages which can be optionally installed.  This works well for
programs where there are only a handful of well defined extensions, but
is not a good solution for things such as Thunderbird/firefox where
there an exponentially increasing set of potential extensions which one
might want to install.

So, I'm throwing this out there as a Gedanken experiment RFP:  The ideal
would be a package building system which would allow administrators to
assemble a custom-selected group of extensions which would then
automatically be converted to an installable package with dependencies
based on the specific program which is being extended.  For example, I
might decide that I want everyone on my network to automatically have
the German, French, and Spanish dictionaries, enigmail, ReminderFox, and
Nostalgy available when they use Thunderbird.  I would indicate this
somehow (perhaps by downloading the .xpi files) and the system would
automatically build a package for me with these Thunderbird extensions
that I could then add to the list of packages installed on all machines.
  If I want to add/remove extensions, I just rebuild the package and
apt-get install again.  The Thunderbird extensions package would
automatically depend on, at least, some version of the Thunderbird
package and possibly other stuff, depending on the program.  Did I
mention easy to use?  Yes, I/we know how to build debian packages, but
this shouldn't be a prerequisite for administering an ubuntu system.
For example, I don't want to have to know where language dictionaries
get installed; the package builder should have this information built in.






-- 
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: Massive sync and rebuild of packages? The case of OCaml

[James Westby]

On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 18:14 +0200, David MENTRE wrote:
> Hello James,
> 
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 16:55, James Westby wrote:
> >>  * Is Ubuntu infrastructure is providing capabilities for doing such
> >> massive rebuild of packages, in several rounds?
> >
> > Yes, it's called "Ubuntu developers".
> 
> :-) "I don't want to be an Ubuntu developer!" :-D
> 
> More seriously, until now, all the hard work is done in Debian by
> Debian developers (of whom I'm not) and the only need is to
> synchronize & rebuild the packages with the right timing. If I need to
> be an Ubuntu developer to do that, I'll look at it seriously.

You need an Ubuntu developer to upload the change. If that was you then
it would be a whole lot easier, but you may be able to convince a
few to help you out.

(And I do suggest that you find the lists of packages and speak to
some developers to help you, and then trying to do them in batch, rather
than proposing each individually, as that will be a whole lot slower)

> >>  * Is it possible to import on demand a set of source packages that
> >> would need a source upload?
> >
> > What do you mean by "import on demand"?
> 
> I mean import a set of source packages from Debian Sid to Karmic that
> are known to have been changed and are needed for the transition from
> 3.11.0 to 3.11.1. This import should be done at a certain date, i.e.
> after the corresponding change is made in Debian.

Yep, we call that a "sync":

  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SyncRequestProcess

Getting a developer to look over a list of packages and approve them on
mass, then passing that list to a co-operative archive admin could save
you on quite some work if there are a lot of packages (more than 20 
say).

> >>  * The Debian Import Freeze is set to the 25th of June and the Partner
> >> Upload Deadline is set to the 13th of August. So the window is quite
> >> short. The transition should be initiated in Debian before migrating
> >> into Ubuntu.  Do you think it is wise to make such a transition right
> >> now or it would be better to wait until Karmic+1?
> >
> > I'm not sure why you picked those deadlines out. Earlier is better, but
> > I don't think it has to be before those particular deadlines.
> 
> I picked up those dates from my own reading and understanding of the
> wiki and messages of this list. I'm glad to hear that I have a little
> more margin.

Getting it done by Feature Freeze would definitely be a good idea, but 
bear in mind that the period just prior to that is very busy, so finding
those co-operative developers might be harder.

Also, if it's looking like it will slip past Feature Freeze then talking
to the release team would be a good idea.

Thanks,

James


-- 
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: Massive sync and rebuild of packages? The case of OCaml

[David MENTRE]

Hello Iain,

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 16:58, Iain Lane wrote:
> I think it would be easier to get this done if you were to stop by our IRC
> channel - #ubuntu-motu on Freenode. There we can tell you what needs to be
> done, and equally you can tell us the same.

I can't to this right now. I'll do it.

Yours,
d.

-- 
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: Massive sync and rebuild of packages? The case of OCaml

[David MENTRE]

Hello James,

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 16:55, James Westby wrote:
>>  * Is Ubuntu infrastructure is providing capabilities for doing such
>> massive rebuild of packages, in several rounds?
>
> Yes, it's called "Ubuntu developers".

:-) "I don't want to be an Ubuntu developer!" :-D

More seriously, until now, all the hard work is done in Debian by
Debian developers (of whom I'm not) and the only need is to
synchronize & rebuild the packages with the right timing. If I need to
be an Ubuntu developer to do that, I'll look at it seriously.

> We have no system that allows us to do this without an upload for each
> package, but when it is just a rebuild then it's painful, but not
> impossible.

Ok. Not great but at least it can be done.

>>  * Is it possible to import on demand a set of source packages that
>> would need a source upload?
>
> What do you mean by "import on demand"?

I mean import a set of source packages from Debian Sid to Karmic that
are known to have been changed and are needed for the transition from
3.11.0 to 3.11.1. This import should be done at a certain date, i.e.
after the corresponding change is made in Debian.

>>  * The Debian Import Freeze is set to the 25th of June and the Partner
>> Upload Deadline is set to the 13th of August. So the window is quite
>> short. The transition should be initiated in Debian before migrating
>> into Ubuntu.  Do you think it is wise to make such a transition right
>> now or it would be better to wait until Karmic+1?
>
> I'm not sure why you picked those deadlines out. Earlier is better, but
> I don't think it has to be before those particular deadlines.

I picked up those dates from my own reading and understanding of the
wiki and messages of this list. I'm glad to hear that I have a little
more margin.

Many thanks for your answers,
Yours,
d.

-- 
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: Transition to OCaml 3.11.1...

[David MENTRE]

Hello Stéphane,

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 16:37, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
> I don't know either how Ubuntu manages this
> kind of task

For the record, I've started a thread regarding those issues in Ubuntu:
  
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-discuss/2009-June/thread.html#8656

Yours,
d.

-- 
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: Massive sync and rebuild of packages? The case of OCaml

[Martin Pitt]

Hello David,

David MENTRE [2009-06-12 16:12 +0200]:
>  2. massive rebuild of all other packages through a binNMU[2].
> 
> Thus my questions:
>  * Is Ubuntu infrastructure is providing capabilities for doing such
> massive rebuild of packages, in several rounds? Is it considered
> correct behaviour or something to avoid?

We don't have an automatic system for that yet. However, if it's just
a simple change to a package (or none at all), someone can do a
semi-automatic transition with a script like

  http://people.ubuntu.com/~pitti/scripts/update-maintainer-transition

Martin
-- 
Martin Pitt| http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com)  | Debian Developer  (www.debian.org)

-- 
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: shameful censoring of mono opposition

[Vincenzo Ciancia]

Il giorno ven, 12/06/2009 alle 12.05 +0100, Matthew Paul Thomas ha
scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is an example of why some Ubuntu developers don't bother
> to
> read this mailing list.

The more users you have, the more noise you get, but certain things
emerge even trough the noise. You are welcome to close development
channels to non-developers if you please and, in this case, weighting
the loss and benefits is up to the developers. 

It seems to me that the flow of good information on all ubuntu channels
has raised enormously in the last two years, but people just keeps
complaining about s-to-n ratio every time there are discussions or
complaints. Perhaps they would rather avoid dealing with their users and
bug-reporters community and they are free to chose just as I am.

Not that I want to defend specifically _this shameful thread_ in which
the discussion about firefox is likely OT.

V.


-- 
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: shameful censoring of mono opposition

[Vincenzo Ciancia]

Il giorno ven, 12/06/2009 alle 12.05 +0100, Matthew Paul Thomas ha
scritto:
> 
> Depends what you mean by "we". You are welcome to create a derivative
> OS
> that has a different default.

Yes I could fork the project (this word is coming out too frequently in
my opinion recent bug reports and mailing list posts) but let's not lie
on the fact that reputation and popularity differences would leave the
non-default google search on the screen of most of the linux users. If
people like me prefers to aggregate around ubuntu instead of creating
our own fork is because it is better to join forces than to create a
dead project. 

The fact that I use "us" when speaking of ubuntu is because I tend to
consider myself part of this community by merely acting into it, if this
is not what you want you need to change your marketing about cooperation
with ubuntu :)

I think that in ordinary users (and my own) balance of priorities that
is a low priority issue. I changed the firefox home page for my mother
who would be a potential "victim" and that sufficed.

Still, it is not a Good Thing that the custom search is not advertised
as such. That's something microsoft would do. A phrase like "this is a
google custom search [link to longer explanation], using this has the
following advantages for ubuntu [link] and means that your search query
will go to the ubuntu server and return ubuntu-customised results" just
below the search field would make me happy. 

It would be even nicer if the search was in Italian for Italian
users like my mother who does not speak english, but that would be
asking too much I suppose.

> 
> > People who can't tell the difference will keep using a "different"
> > google, but there is not even way to get some discussion around this
> >...
> 
> That's incorrect: There was a discussion on this exact issue, led by
> Canonical's COO, at UDS Jaunty. There's probably even a video of it at
> .

When I asked, politely, on this mailing list, at least twice, more or
less nobody cared to reply, and there was no way to obtain anything else
than silence. I am glad that you discussed the topic at UDS, and it is a
pity that so often questions remain "in the air" on other channels.

Could you please provide a link to the outcome of that discussion? I am
really interested in knowing what happened and I am not finding it.
Clearly this did not lead to any change in Jaunty as I just saw by
restoring the default firefox page. Also, is it possible to know who
participated in such a discussion in general?

I didn't find anything related in the following three sites

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UDSJaunty/Discussions
https://blueprints.edge.launchpad.net/sprints/uds-jaunty
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UDSJaunty/Report

Thank you

Vincenzo



-- 
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: Massive sync and rebuild of packages? The case of OCaml

[Iain Lane]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hello,

On 12 Jun 2009, at 15:12, David MENTRE wrote:

> Thus my questions:
> * Is Ubuntu infrastructure is providing capabilities for doing such
> massive rebuild of packages, in several rounds? Is it considered
> correct behaviour or something to avoid?
>
> * Is it possible to import on demand a set of source packages that
> would need a source upload?

I think it would be easier to get this done if you were to stop by our  
IRC channel - #ubuntu-motu on Freenode. There we can tell you what  
needs to be done, and equally you can tell us the same.

Iain
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)

iEYEARECAAYFAkoybTIACgkQPy0SnCC/zcc/DACgkRgwFwWc1Mx4em+oOjwjNIE0
gAoAnRvoEwVlGn7AB46y2s78m/1mrngK
=tptg
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment
may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system:
you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the
University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.


-- 
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: shameful censoring of mono opposition

[Remco]

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
> This thread is an example of why some Ubuntu developers don't bother to
> read this mailing list.

Anything is an example of why some Ubuntu developers don't bother to
read this mailinglist. People always complain about the signal to
noise ratio. I'm growing pretty tired of it.

Remco

-- 
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: Massive sync and rebuild of packages? The case of OCaml

[James Westby]

On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 16:12 +0200, David MENTRE wrote:
> Debian developers are doing such transition in two steps:
>  1. upload of some modified source package (mainly the OCaml compiler
> itself) and rebuild of them;
>  2. massive rebuild of all other packages through a binNMU[2].
> 
> Thus my questions:
>  * Is Ubuntu infrastructure is providing capabilities for doing such
> massive rebuild of packages, in several rounds?

Yes, it's called "Ubuntu developers".

We have no system that allows us to do this without an upload for each
package, but when it is just a rebuild then it's painful, but not
impossible.

>  Is it considered
> correct behaviour or something to avoid?

It's often unavoidable, but we would like to.

>  * Is it possible to import on demand a set of source packages that
> would need a source upload?

What do you mean by "import on demand"?

>  * The Debian Import Freeze is set to the 25th of June and the Partner
> Upload Deadline is set to the 13th of August. So the window is quite
> short. The transition should be initiated in Debian before migrating
> into Ubuntu.  Do you think it is wise to make such a transition right
> now or it would be better to wait until Karmic+1?

I'm not sure why you picked those deadlines out. Earlier is better, but
I don't think it has to be before those particular deadlines.

Thanks,

James


-- 
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: shameful censoring of mono opposition

[Matthew Paul Thomas]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

This thread is an example of why some Ubuntu developers don't bother to
read this mailing list.

Vincenzo Ciancia wrote on 09/06/09 18:23:
>...
> Ubuntu is a centralised entity. No external person can control e.g.
> why we have a custom search in the home page of firefox by default.

Depends what you mean by "we". You are welcome to create a derivative OS
that has a different default.

> People who can't tell the difference will keep using a "different"
> google, but there is not even way to get some discussion around this
>...

That's incorrect: There was a discussion on this exact issue, led by
Canonical's COO, at UDS Jaunty. There's probably even a video of it at
.

- --
Matthew Paul Thomas
http://mpt.net.nz/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkoyNmIACgkQ6PUxNfU6ecrxKwCgl+7V5WFDjDtyQ3AtxK0q0RWu
W7AAnjOjwz8qKO2ZBpn3JtJKg+sAYkHu
=C00Y
-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

Massive sync and rebuild of packages? The case of OCaml

[David MENTRE]

Hello,

I'm following the status of OCaml packages on Ubuntu[1].

Currently in Karmic, OCaml is at release 3.11.0 and nearly all
packages (except 3) are correctly compiled for this release.

Unfortunately, OCaml 3.11.1 has just been released. It is a bug fix
release[3] but, due to OCaml specificities, *all* OCaml packages
(about 124 packages) should be recompiled against the new OCaml tool
chain, in several rounds[4].

Debian developers are doing such transition in two steps:
 1. upload of some modified source package (mainly the OCaml compiler
itself) and rebuild of them;
 2. massive rebuild of all other packages through a binNMU[2].

Thus my questions:
 * Is Ubuntu infrastructure is providing capabilities for doing such
massive rebuild of packages, in several rounds? Is it considered
correct behaviour or something to avoid?

 * Is it possible to import on demand a set of source packages that
would need a source upload?

 * The Debian Import Freeze is set to the 25th of June and the Partner
Upload Deadline is set to the 13th of August. So the window is quite
short. The transition should be initiated in Debian before migrating
into Ubuntu.  Do you think it is wise to make such a transition right
now or it would be better to wait until Karmic+1?

Sincerely yours,
david

[1] http://bentobako.org/ubuntu-ocaml-status/raw/

http://bentobako.org/ubuntu-ocaml-status/transition_monitor/ocaml_transition_monitor.html

[2] binNMU request like this:
  http://glondu.net/debian/ocaml_transition_binNMU_request.txt

[3] http://caml.inria.fr/pub/distrib/ocaml-3.11/notes/Changes

[4] http://glondu.net/debian/ocaml_transition_monitor.html

-- 
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

Few notes on filing "papercut" bugs

[Mat Tomaszewski]

Hi,

During the recent UDS we launched a "100 Paper Cuts" project 
(https://edge.launchpad.net/hundredpapercuts), aiming to target and fix 
small but significant design and usability bugs in Ubuntu. We set an 
arbitrary target of 100 to be fixed for Karmic release.

The response so far has been overwhelming and we are already finding it 
difficult to filter out bugs that indeed are "papercuts" from the ones 
that aren't. On that note, I think we need a clearer definition of which 
bugs do qualify as papercuts.

Please do file as papercuts:

- bugs that are system-wide (Nautilus, Gnome panel, etc), rather than 
app-specific (F-Spot, OOo, Terminal, etc.)
- bugs that impact standard workflows (like connecting to the network, 
copying files, browsing folders, etc.), rather than specialised or 
corner case workflows (e.g. dragging an image in evince)
- bugs that are easy to address, rather that ones that require 
significant design or development efforts
- issues with existing features, rather than requests for new features
- bugs that relate to usability and design (like size of the 
notification bubbles), rather than broken software (e.g. notifications 
flickering in fullscreen)

Please pass this message on to anyone who may be interested in making 
Ubuntu better.

Many thanks!

Mat




-- 
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: Status of OCaml packages on Ubuntu Karmic - 2009-06-10

[Vincenzo Ciancia]

Il giorno gio, 11/06/2009 alle 10.56 +0100, Iain Lane ha scritto:
> 
> > [1]
> >
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-discuss/2009-June/008384.html
> 
> The sync script has to be run manually by an archive administrator.
> I  
> don't know how often they do this, but "every few
> days" (deliberately  
> vague) is my feeling.

It is always nice to see that the world we are building our civilisation
on is sustained in the end by a bunch of gnomes that spin a wheel with
their hands in the centre of the earth :) Eh, you didn't know?

V.


-- 
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

[PATCH] installkernel: support for initramfs and update-grub

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

This makes the installkernel script build the initramfs
and call update-grub accordingly using 'lsb_release -i -s' to
determine the distribution. Debian or any other Debian
based distribution can add its own entry once someone maps
it out, provided the lsb id tag changes.

Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez 
---

I don't think the debianutils package is always installed but
having this simple script around helps when building kernels.
Is debianutils the right place for it? Can we get Ubuntu
to always just ship it? If so what package should it be
part of? How about Debian? At the very least I expect
this to be available when users want to build kernels.

 installkernel |   11 +++
 1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/installkernel b/installkernel
index cbb..09eced2 100644
--- a/installkernel
+++ b/installkernel
@@ -75,5 +75,16 @@ config="${config}/.config"
 if [ -f "$config" ] ; then
   updatever config "$config"
 fi
+
+LSB_RED_ID=$(/usr/bin/lsb_release -i -s)
+
+case $LSB_RED_ID in
+"Ubuntu")
+   mkinitramfs -o $dir/initrd.img-$ver $ver
+   update-grub
+   ;;
+*)
+   ;;
+esac
  
 exit 0
-- 
1.6.2.2.446.gfbdc0



-- 
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: [PATCH] installkernel: support for initramfs and update-grub

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> This makes the installkernel script build the initramfs
> and call update-grub accordingly using 'lsb_release -i -s' to
> determine the distribution. Debian or any other Debian
> based distribution can add its own entry once someone maps
> it out, provided the lsb id tag changes.
>
> Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez 
> ---
>
> I don't think the debianutils package is always installed but
> having this simple script around helps when building kernels.
> Is debianutils the right place for it? Can we get Ubuntu
> to always just ship it? If so what package should it be
> part of? How about Debian? At the very least I expect
> this to be available when users want to build kernels.

I failed to mention this works with grub and grub2.

  Luis

-- 
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: Status of OCaml packages on Ubuntu Karmic - 2009-06-10

[Iain Lane]

On 11 Jun 2009, at 00:25, Stéphane Glondu wrote:

> David MENTRE a écrit :
>> * pycaml: a new version (0.82-10) has been uploaded in Debian which
>> should fix the issue with Python 2.6 in Karmic after automatic  
>> import.
>> I'm waiting for the automatic import.
>
> When will it happen, by the way? According to [1]:
>> The syncs are done automatically on daily basis until DIF date.
>
> However, pycaml has been uploaded more that 48 hours ago in sid, and  
> it
> has still not been updated in karmic... or maybe automatic syncs  
> happen
> only with testing...?
>
> [1]
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-discuss/2009-June/008384.html

The sync script has to be run manually by an archive administrator. I  
don't know how often they do this, but "every few days" (deliberately  
vague) is my feeling.

Iain
-- 
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: shameful censoring of mono opposition

[David Schlesinger]

> PS David, I'm relieved you have such a cool boss and I hope you can enjoy
> the rest of your sabbatical.

Thanks, whoever-the-heck-you-are, I've been having an excellent time and the 
childishness we've seen here from the likes of Mark Fink and Paige Thompson 
haven't impacted my enjoyment of it in the slightest. I'm also happy that I 
have a smart boss who isn't dismayed by the obvious shenanigans of a bunch of 
infants who put their own interests far above the _real lives_ of other people.

However, one of the things which _does_ disturb me a bit--although I suppose I 
can understand it--is that some people feel the necessity to hide their 
identities as a result of the kind of grossly abusive attempts at intimidation 
that Mark and Paige feel is an appropriate response to rational disagreement 
with their positions. 

I'm not ashamed of my opinions: they're mine, and I'm entitled to them. As I 
said, I'm fairly well-known for being outspoken (but hopefully not irrational), 
and I don't hide behind a "nym" out of fear of children whose parents 
overindulged them. It's terrible that some folks feel the necessity to do so.

That's the thing that I've found really _shameful_ on this thread. And if 
trying to make trouble for someone on their job as a result of an opinion 
they've expressed doesn't qualify as "censorship", I'm not sure what does. 

Mark and Paige have either never learned, or have managed to ignore, 
Nietzsche's advice that "he who battles monsters should be careful that he does 
not become a monster himself in the process". I'm pleased that other folks on 
this list show much better sense.
-- 
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