Re: installing sources to make binaries out of it.

[Michael Bienia]

On 2007-07-23 21:15:17 +0530, shirish wrote:
> Now obviously this is for debian, do we have something like that for
> ubuntu. There are packages which don't have binaries. For instance
> these games :-

Why do you have the impression that this package won't work on Ubuntu?

> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/whichwayisup

The binaries are sitting in the NEW queue and will be available once the
archive admins review them.

> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/snowballz
> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/bouncy

For both packages binaries are available now. As both packages are quite new
they were probably also stuck in the NEW queue.

> All of them don't have binaries just sources. If there is an easy way
> to install it or what?

The most common reasons why a source package has no binaries are:
 - it sits in the NEW queue
 - it fails to build from source (FTBFS)

In the first case be more patient and in the second case apt-src won't
help you much further as you will probably also run into the same
problem when building with apt-src.

Regards,

Michael

-- 
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: new packages freeze policy

[Michael Bienia]

On 2007-08-31 00:12:41 -0700, Scott Ritchie wrote:
> On this note, I got completely confused by the deadline.  I read that
> the upstream version freeze deadline was August 30th, so I planned to
> upload my packages on the 30th.

I guess you mixed up UpstreamVersionFreeze and NewPackage for Universe
Freeze. The first was already on August 16th.

> In other words, my package (Wine) is a day late and I'd like it reviewed
> anyway.  Although, Wine has gotten about 3 UVF exceptions for the past
> three releases, so I'm not particularly worried.  It's in REVU now
> anyway.

You are already two weeks late (for UVF) as wine is not a new package.

Regards,
Michael

-- 
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: Package source and binary packages out of sync

[Michael Bienia]

On 2007-12-15 16:52:06 -0500, Michael R. Head wrote:
> I reported this as bug 17622[1], but I'm concerned about how this could
> have happened (as it's almost certainly not a logjam bug). It looks like
> the binaries were never built for anything other than sparc. There
> appears to have been plenty of time to get it built for gutsy, since the
> source package was put into the repository in May. 

The package was attempted to build but failed to build at that time (for
what ever reason). As obviously nobody looked at the build failures, the
build was never retried (or fixed).
For ia64, sparc and lpia the build attempt was 2 months later than i386,
amd64 and powerpc. It looks like that the build problem resolved itself
overtime as for them the build succeeded.
See https://edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/gutsy/+source/logjam/+builds

Michael

-- 
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: ghc6 (Haskell compiler) becoming old

[Michael Bienia]

On 2008-01-06 02:15:18 -0500, Paul Dufresne wrote:
> One of my new year resolution is to become a not too bad Haskell
> programmer in 2008.
> That said, I would like to have latest development version of ghc6
> (Glasgow Haskell Compiler) which is the most well known Haskell
> compiler in Haskell community, inside Hardy.
> 
> Unfortunately, Debian Sid just have the 6.6.1 version (that was
> released april 26, 2007) and the current version on ghc web site is
> 6.8.2. (released december 12, 2007).

Debian unstable has ghc 6.8.2 now (see
http://packages.qa.debian.org/g/ghc6/news/20080106T214705Z.html).

> *Maybe* the reason is that many sub libraries need to be rebuilt with
> a new compiler,
> and *maybe* this is a lot of job, I don't know.

I've also seen some uploads of other haskell packages but didn't pay to
much attention at the changelog.
The haskell packages have a very strict dependency on the ghc6 package
so they need at least be rebuild with the newer ghc6.

If you are interested to see a newer ghc6 in hardy, a list of packages
which need to be synced from Debian unstable would be helpful.

Michael

-- 
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: Automatically sync new packages until feature freeze

[Michael Bienia]

On 2008-01-20 23:19:58 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> I'm not 100% sure it's a good idea, but what about doing the same for
> packages which aren't a new upstream release? If the Debian maintainer
> uploaded a new debian-specific version, it's likely to be a bug-fixing
> upload. It might be harder to automatize, but still...

The new revision might introduce a versioned build-dependency on an
other package with a new upstream version and we would either have to
complete the transition or undo the change.

Michael

-- 
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: Extremely large -data packages

[Michael Bienia]

On 2008-07-21 13:36:18 +0100, (``-_-´´) -- Fernando wrote:
> If everything else fails, you may ask LP admin if you can have it
> initially on a PPA (i dont know the quota limit on PPAs, sorry), and
> if it can handle safely, then ask Ubuntu reps to store it.

The initial limit for PPAs is 1 GB but one can get it increased if there
is need.

Beware that one needs space for the source and the binary packages, so
with -data packages around 700 MB (I guess the source package will have
a similar size), one gets pretty fast past the initial 1 GB limit.

Michael

-- 
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: Midnight Commander in 8.10

[Michael Bienia]

On 2008-10-29 05:12:36 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Good day
> Please add mc to the '8.10'. It's very useful

It's included in the 'universe' component.

$ apt-cache show mc
Package: mc
Section: universe/utils
Version: 2:4.6.2~git20080311-2
Description: midnight commander - a powerful file manager
[output shortened to the interesting lines]

Michael

-- 
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

[Michael Bienia]

On 2009-06-11 01:25:58 +0200, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
> 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...?

It's sort of automatic. The archive-admin-of-the-day has to start a
script to trigger the autosync. As archive admins are also normal
(core-)developers it might happen that archive work is a little bit
neglected sometimes when more important work is pending (such as
preparing/fixing packages for an alpha release and such).
Thinking about the alpha 2 release (announced for today) it might even
be that the autosync wasn't done on purpose to not break the alpha 2
release.

Michael

-- 
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: Empathy is not in line with the much discussed guidelines

[Michael Bienia]

On 2009-06-23 17:30:34 +0200, Vincenzo Ciancia wrote:
> -1  It flashes the notification area. THIS IS FORBIDDEN. Update notifier
> can not do that. Why should empathy do that? This must be fixed.
> 
> -1  It does NOT OPEN A POPUP on new messages. When the infamous
> update-notifier popup was decided, it was argued that pidgin already did
> that. I am a pop-up hater and the IM client is the only exception. In
> fact, for IM a pop-up may be desired. This is because if I start the IM
> client chances are I *want* to be disturbed and if a contact calls me I
> *want* to interact immediately. So ehm, I know it should not come from
> me but can we have the popup back?

There is a bug open at the gnome bugzilla about it:
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=585914
(Notification icon must be clicked before user can see new messages)

It looks like some persuasion is needed to get even an option for
pop-unders of new chats.

It certainly will be a blocker for myself to switch to empathy, when
I've to check the small indicator applet icon regularly to see if
there are some new messages or not.

Michael

-- 
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...

[Michael Bienia]

On 2009-06-12 22:06:20 +0200, David MENTRE wrote:
> 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.

What's the current plan for Ocaml in Karmic? Update to 3.11.1 or stay
with 3.11.0?

I've seen that ocaml 3.11.1 is already in unstable and that some ocaml
packages have a versioned build-dependency on it. I wanted to see if
camlimages can be synced to karmic (because of the CVE fix) and got
stopped by it. Should I try to apply the fix on camlimages in Karmic or
wait for the transition?

Michael

-- 
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: Error while building a package in Karmic, no /usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/ocaml.mk

[Michael Bienia]

On 2009-07-30 22:29:58 +0200, David MENTRE wrote:
> I have an error at step 7 when doing debuild:
>  $ debuild -S -us -uc

While you don't need all build-dependencies to build a source package,
a subset of the build-dependencies might be necessary to have installed.
As you have experienced you need to have the packages installed which
provide files which are getting included in debian/rules. You also need
to have the packages installed which are used in the "clean" target of
debian/rules.

Regards,
Michael

-- 
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: Downgrading packages after removing a repository

[Michael Bienia]

On 2009-08-01 19:49:33 +0100, Andrew Sayers wrote:
> When you add a repository to your computer, then remove that repository, 
> it's not obvious how to downgrade packages that are no longer available.

Downgrades are not supported, while in practise they work in most cases.
Offering such a downgrade option will probably lead to bugs about broken
downgrades as people will assume that it should work.

Downgrade will certainly fail if the format of user data has changed
(e.g. a new database format or config file format). Assuming that the
new version will upgrade the data to new format on the first run, the
data won't be usable after a downgrade anymore (the old version doesn't
understand the new format).

While not the best solution, make downgrades only available to those
who know that downgrades might fail and that they're left alone in such
a case, will hopefully prevent that people assume that downgrades will
always succeed.

> Anna added a PPA through Synaptic > Settings > Repositories, which 
> upgraded emacs.  She didn't like the upgraded version, so she removed 
> the repository.  She scrambled around for a while, before realising she 
> could get her old emacs back by removing it then reinstalling.

Anna certainly won't be happy when she realizes that her fine emacs
config is gone because the new version upgrade it to a new format the
old version can't understand.

> Tim added a repository from a random website through System > Admin > 
> Software Sources, then updated and was notified that a new version of 
> debconf was available.  He installed the upgrade, then realised that the 
> upgrade had been downloaded from the new repository.  Realising he'd 
> been tricked, he removed the new repository and assumed that debconf had 
> been uninstalled as well.

We can't protect the users from themselves. I'm sorry, but if Tim add a
random (untrusted) package source without thinking, then he deserves a
little pain in undoing it. Otherwise people won't learn it if Ubuntu
makes everything ok what they break.

> Bob, thinking that a Debian-based distribution should be okay with 
> Debian packages, followed command-line instructions to create 
> /etc/apt/sources.list.d/debian-unstable.  Once his Ubuntu/Debian hybrid 
> was installed, he rang his technical friend to clear up the mess.  The 
> friend tried every "apt-get" command he knew, before gradually realising 
> that he had to run "apt-cache showpkg ", find the package version, 
> do "apt-get install =", and repeat many, many times.

There a way too many ways to break a installation. Who breaks it, can
keep the parts.

Regards,
Michael

-- 
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: Downgrading packages after removing a repository

[Michael Bienia]

On 2009-08-04 13:14:25 -0500, C de-Avillez wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 17:56 +0200, Michael Bienia wrote:
> > On 2009-08-01 19:49:33 +0100, Andrew Sayers wrote:
> > > When you add a repository to your computer, then remove that repository, 
> > > it's not obvious how to downgrade packages that are no longer available..
> > 
> > Downgrades are not supported, while in practise they work in most cases.
> > Offering such a downgrade option will probably lead to bugs about broken
> > downgrades as people will assume that it should work.
> > 
> > Downgrade will certainly fail if the format of user data has changed
> > (e.g. a new database format or config file format). Assuming that the
> > new version will upgrade the data to new format on the first run, the
> > data won't be usable after a downgrade anymore (the old version doesn't
> > understand the new format).
> 
> Indeed. Some options seem to apply, though: offer to replace the current
> configuration with the maintainers one; warn the user the the current
> user data format is incompatible with the one provided in this version,
> and that the user will have to *manually* recover; etc, etc.
> 
> Still, this is not a reason *not* to provide such service. We already
> provide a similar service in the other direction. Also, I am not aware
> of API/ABI changes *within* a version (or Ubuntu release) being a common
> case. So, for most cases, we are talking only about updates/downgrades
> *within* a version/release.

If you limit this to use-cases with requirements (like only updates from
-security or -updates) when it should be possible to downgrade, then
it's easier to do than a "generic downgrade" like it sounded in the
first mail.

> Nevertheless, I agree that downgrading to a *previous* version is a
> potentially dangerous situation, and should not be offered to either the
> casual or experienced user.
> 
> > 
> > While not the best solution, make downgrades only available to those
> > who know that downgrades might fail and that they're left alone in such
> > a case, will hopefully prevent that people assume that downgrades will
> > always succeed.
> 
> Although this is the current practice everywhere (not only on Ubuntu),
> and I am not aware of any implementation of this idea, the proposal
> still *can* bring value to the table. I certain would love it. And I
> think that this would bring even more value for Ubuntu.

Surely, making downgrades more easily sounds fine. But like any other
feature it needs developers time and also testing that it works and not
breaks even more horrible. And as developer time is a rare resource one
needs to use it wisely. And using it on a feature which will be only
used by a few people while there are enough bug reports in Launchpad
about other bugs (incl. upgrade problems) doesn't sound wise to me.

> User Case. Jacob upgraded to a -updates package. This upgrade seems to
> have broken something (perhaps a regression), and he wants to get back.

This is a very specific use-case where downgrades might be possible.
The involved packages and versions are pretty well known and the changes
to a package between release and release-updates are rather small.

Doing the same for -backports which might include complete new upstream
versions is on the other hand not so easy anymore.

> If what you state were to be generically valid, then Ubuntu must keep
> the parts.

For -updates Ubuntu tries its best to avoid regressions and in case a
severe regression slips through stops the specific update.

Michael

-- 
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: Downgrading packages after removing a repository

[Michael Bienia]

On 2009-08-04 18:28:17 +0100, Andrew Sayers wrote:
> You make a good point about breakage when packages are downgraded.  But 
> it seems a little disingenuous for us to bend over backwards to make 
> unsupported upgrades possible (adding a "software sources" menu item, 
> putting PPAs in Launchpad, creating /etc/apt/sources.list.d/ and so on), 
> then for us to walk away when those upgrades make systems unusable.

There are certainly use-cases where this is usefull and people using it
know what they are doing. Disable such options won't make the problems
go away.

Removing the option to add software sources through a GUI will only lead
to instructions how to add them by adding/editing files in /etc/apt/. If
you remove that too, you will find instructions to download the deb and
"dpkg -i" it instead. In all cases users will follow them without
thinking because the instructions promised them a new version or
programm with more bling as they currently have.

Indepenent of how hard you make it to break an installation, there will
be someone who managed to break it nonetheless and expects from you to
unbreak it. And at the same time you will annoy experienced users who
know what they are doing.

> I also take your point that pain is an important way of communicating 
> danger to users.  But making a system unusable seems like pushing a man 
> off a cliff to warn him about the dangers of falling.

I see it more like using an old, rotten bridge with a big warning "Use
at your own risk." You might be lucky and can use it to get to the other
side and back again without problems, your might get to the other side
and the bridge breaks after you or if you're unlucky, you might not even
reach the other side. But your shouldn't complain afterwards if you hurt
yourself trying to reach the other side.

I'm pretty sure people will be carefull when they should use these (even
without a big warning):
http://www.scottishmunros.co.uk/assets/galleries/photos/_resampled/Resize500500-7018-Rotten-Bridge-to-Maol-Chean-Dearg-2.jpg
http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/1113598721040505749FqtOqH

In this regard people seem to apply some common sense and not use this
bridge if it looks unsafe to them but if it comes to software they
believe you everything you tell them.

Michael

-- 
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: Build issue with why and libfloat-coq

[Michael Bienia]

On 2009-08-18 10:18:56 +0200, David MENTRE wrote:
Hi,

> For transition to OCaml 3.11.1 in Ubuntu Karmic, the only remaining
> package having an issue is "why". It fails to build because its
> dependency "libfloat-coq" is not installable:
> """
>  The following packages have unmet dependencies:
>   libfloat-coq: Depends: coq-8.2-1+3.11.0 but it is not installable
> """
>   
> http://launchpadlibrarian.net/30368068/buildlog_ubuntu-karmic-amd64.why_2.18.dfsg-5_FAILEDTOBUILD.txt.gz
> 
> The current "coq-float" source package in Karmic is 1:8.2-1.2-3:
>  https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/karmic/+source/coq-float/1:8.2-1.2-3
> 
> The current "coq" source package in Karmic is 8.2.pl1+dfsg-2:
>  https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/karmic/+source/coq/8.2.pl1+dfsg-2
> 
> I'm not quite sure of the blocking point. Is it "coq"? "coq-float"? A
> synchronization is needed or just a re-compilation? I would appreciate
> any help.

I've given back 'why' to the buildds for an other build attempt.

coq-float needed a rebuild for the new coq and OCaml and I requested a
sync of it from Debian unstable.
The build of the new 'coq-float' happened after the build attempt of
'why' so it failed but it's unblocked now.

Michael

-- 
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: launchpad bug reports

[Michael Bienia]

On 2009-09-22 07:44:13 -0500, Patrick Goetz wrote:
> Joshua Timberman wrote:
> > "Bugs in The Karmic Koala"
> > 
> > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/karmic
> > 
> > Substitute karmic with other release names if desired.
> > 
> 
> I saw this, but this just lists all karmic bugs, although it's easy 
> enough to search on a package name.  This raises the question of how 
> bugs appear in this list; i.e. does one file the bug against karmic or 
> against the package, and if the latter, will it automatically appear in 
> the karmic list if it's a karmic package?  Based on sifting through the 
> dovecot/postfix bug lists, it appears not.

Those lists only list those bugs which have a task open for that
release. As most bugs don't have any release task open they only appear
on the "generic" bug list.

Michael

-- 
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: Save Icon modernization needed

[Michael Bienia]

On 2009-11-15 19:22:16 +0100, Remco wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 23:37 +0800, Christopher Lees wrote:
> > My favourite method of saving a document was in RiscOS; when you opened
> > the 'save' dialog, it was just a small window with the document icon, a
> > filepath and an OK button. When you were doing your initial save (or a
> > "Save As...") you just dragged the icon to where you wanted to save it
> > to. In subsequent saves, you just hit the OK button.
> 
> I have a slightly crazy idea. What if documents didn't have to be saved?
> You could just start writing (or doing whatever you do in the particular
> application), and the program magically remembers what you were doing in
> case you closed the program, or it crashed. Of course, you want to give
> documents names, so that should still be possible through some means.

Please also think about the use-cases where you *don't* want to save
your changes.

At work some documents are only used like a form: they get opened,
filled out and printed. After that the document is closed again without
saving the changes (so it's still empty at the next opening). I doubt
those users would be happy that they need now to click several times
"undo" to restore the document.

And think also at the space-requirements for those "undo"s. Hard-disk
space might be cheap today, but this data still needs to be loaded from
disk (or even a network storage). And some operations might need much
space for "undo"s, like in image-, video- or audio-editing.

Michael

-- 
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: Ubuntu Domain Server

[Michael Bienia]

On 2009-11-21 17:37:46 +0100, Markus Hitter wrote:
> 
> Oh, perhaps you prefer command line disk partitioning over gparted as  
> well. It's doable and much more flexible :-)

gparted is probably a good GUI (hadn't have to repartition my disk for a
long time, so never used it till now). But does it help someone to
partition his disk properly who doesn't know about primary/logical
partitions, filesystem types, mount points, etc.?

Letting someone use gparted to partition his disk who doesn't know
anything about partitioning will probably end in a big data desaster.
And whom will this user blame for it? Certainly not himself for doing
tasks he doesn't understand but the GUI for letting it do him (even if
it has big warnings).

Michael

-- 
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: proper procedure regarding bug reports

[Michael Bienia]

On 2010-01-06 11:36:09 +0100, Patrick Freundt wrote:
> We dont talk about an unpleasant background color or desired or
> unwanted functionality. We talk about a default configuration of a
> browser that goes online to download data without my consent. And the
> very least to expect is that its prompting with a dialog.

You know that your Ubuntu systems also checks for package updates
automatically? So it goes online without your consent too. The same do
current Windows systems too.
And I don't want a dialog popping up asking me if it can look for fresh
updates now.

Michael

-- 
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: New OCaml 3.11.2: inclusion in Lucid?

[Michael Bienia]

On 2010-01-21 09:57:41 +0100, David MENTRE wrote:
Hello,

> As usual with OCaml, if the OCaml compiler is updated, *all* OCaml
> packages should be rebuild. This is a not so simple task that should
> be done in 6 rounds. We have done this before. Debian will probably
> transition to 3.11.2 in a short time-frame. According to Debian
> developers, all Debian packages recompile without issue with this new
> compiler.

I guess Debian will do binNMUs for the rebuilds or are uploads needed?

> My questions:
>   * Should Lucid integrate this new OCaml 3.11.2? (I think so)

As I'm not familiar with OCaml, I can't judge this.
But a quick look at our Ubuntu delta shows that it got included
upstream, so we can sync from Debian once it's there.

>   * If yes, can one or more Ubuntu Developers help me do the
> transition as I am not myself an Ubuntu Developer? (validate my sync
> request and mentor my work)

If nobody object that we shouldn't do this transition, I'm willing to
help you with this (validate your sync requests and do no-change uploads
for the rebuild if necessary).

Michael

-- 
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: lucid testreport upgraded 24 march 2010 from karmic

[Michael Bienia]

On 2010-03-24 09:22:45 +0200, Rene Veerman wrote:
> - had my compiz set to put my 2 screens in a left/right, shared
> desktop config. i had a desktop of 3360x1050 on which i put
> single-file backgrounds that span both screens.
> under lucid, my backgrounds (same file) are zoomed in and what's on
> the left screen as background is duplicated on the right screen.

The behaviour of some styles from the background properties has changed,
which made several people unhappy. But the background preferences got a
new style option: "span". When you use "spanning" then your wallpaper
will span both screens again :)

> - i'm against moving the window buttons to the left. it'll be annoying
> AS HELL, having to change a habit that's used that often.

You can change the gconf-key controlling this. This was also covered on
the planet how to change it again (not everyone was happy with this
decision).

Michael

-- 
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: lucid testreport upgraded 24 march 2010 from karmic

[Michael Bienia]

On 2010-03-25 13:10:32 +0100, Rene Veerman wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 9:57 PM, Michael Bienia  wrote:
> > On 2010-03-24 09:22:45 +0200, Rene Veerman wrote:
> 
> >> - i'm against moving the window buttons to the left. it'll be annoying
> >> AS HELL, having to change a habit that's used that often.
> >
> > You can change the gconf-key controlling this. This was also covered on
> > the planet how to change it again (not everyone was happy with this
> > decision).
> >
> ehm how do i edit that key? can't find the app to do it with..

When you have gconf-editor installed, call it from a terminal or through
"Run application" (gconf-editor). Its menu entry isn't visible by
default.


Michael

-- 
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: Ubuntu needs a new development model

[Michael Bienia]

On 2010-05-06 21:42:40 +0100, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
> Debian is not using public gpg servers. Instead they maintain their
> own keyring shipped in the debian-keyring package. You cannot add
> signatures to that from non-dd's. And DD's are only keeping real
> signatures on their keys from key signing parties.

That's not fully correct. The keys from DDs are also on the public keys
servers, but a key has to be in the seperate managed debian-keyring to
have upload rights to Debian. The membership in this keyring is
important, not the signatures on the key.
Of course it is possible to sign a key of a DD without being a DD
oneself. I've signatures from DDs on my key and also have signed their
keys (without being a DD).

And as the keys are on public keyservers, you have no control on the
signatures on your key. But you can tell gpg how much you trust (or not
trust) a key. And only trust other keys if they have signatures from
trusted keys.

Michael

-- 
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: Aptitude included in Maverick by default

[Michael Bienia]

On 2010-06-12 00:10:57 +0100, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
> Debian aptitude is at 0.6.2.1-2, while ubuntu's aptitude is at
> 0.4.11.11-1ubuntu10
> 
> I don't know why there is such a large version difference though and
> how much work needs to be done to merge these two together.

Lucid synced preferrably with testing and testing had for almost the
whole lucid development cycle 0.4.11.11-1 in testing. Aptitude 0.6.1.5-3
moved to testing on 2010-03-23. Way too late to get merged into lucid.

One could argue to merge with unstable earlier (aptitude 0.6.0.1-1 got
uploaded to unstable on 2009-10-25), but as I don't know how bug free
this version was (as aptitude 0.6.x needed almost 5 months to move to
testing) I don't know if it was an option to merge with unstable at all.

When looking at the changelog entries for those ten ubuntu uploads,
three uploads where pure rebuilds with a recent apt. And from the
changelog entries for the other Ubuntu delta and their size, it doesn't
look as that hard to merge them (if someone is up to this task).

Michael

-- 
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: [maverick] mercurial broken for amd64...

[Michael Bienia]

On 2010-07-04 17:11:27 +0100, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
> At present in maverick, there is an inconsistent upload of the
> mercurial-common (1.54-1) and mercurial (1.52-1) packages on amd64,
> leading to inability to install it - see
> http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/universe/m/mercurial/ .
> 
> Anyone able to help address it, or should I file a LP bug and request
> sponsorship?

Known problem as the upload of the build debs from the buildds failed
on other architectures than i386. This is a bug in LP itself (see 
https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/soyuz/+bug/589073). I'm waiting on the
next LP rollout for the fix. I will ask on monday (when everyone is back
from weekend) when the next LP rollout is and either wait or work-around
it (depending how much longer it takes).

Regards,
Michael

-- 
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: maverick package indexing broken...

[Michael Bienia]

On 2010-07-10 08:15:22 +0100, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
> When looking at the maverick package lists at
> http://packages.ubuntu.com/maverick/ , we get an error, also searching
> for packages in the maverick repos returns nothing, and has done for a
> while now.

Known problem and it's being worked on. A fix is available but it's hard
to find someone with access to this box to deploy the fix.

Michael

-- 
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