Re: ubuntu-tweak in new
The approach that some people take on application reviews seems to fit the description from Mark: 'Tribalism is when one group of people start to think people from another group are “wrong by default” - http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/439 . I hope that the seek for reasons to reject the package will turn into reasonable suggestions to the author in order to improve the application to make sure it becomes acceptable. Best regards -- João Luís Marques Pinto GetDeb Team Leader http://www.getdeb.net http://blog.getdeb.net -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: ubuntu-tweak in new
于 2010年08月05日 23:37, Andrew SB 写道: On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Stephan Hermann s...@sourcecode.de wrote: We had that in the past, and this will happen with unreflected usage of tools like this. (Please read the threads about Automatix and Friends in the past...google have references) For reference, here's Matthew Garrett's technical review of Automatix: http://mjg59.livejournal.com/77440.html Re-reading that now, I note that the issue of adding untrusted third party sources doesn't seem to be the argument against Automatix. - Andrew SB I've read through the paragraphs, the several things Matthew has written are about some (serious) problems that Automatix had: poor packaging quality, security problems, etc. But ubuntu-tweak doesn't have those problems: 1.Debian packaging stuff are in good shape. 2.Run as a common user application, only prompt for privilege when actually needed, it uses policykit to manage the authorizing and privileged sessions. 3.Written in python completely, so it does not have cross-platform issues (expected for Python is cross-platform). 4.Use python-apt backend to support software installation progress currently, and planning to switch to packagekit/aptdaemon in near future, so there is no problem on maintaining a full package dependency or do some unsuitable actions such as `kill -9 dpkg' in Automatix. 5.Third party software is only from Launchpad PPAs, no need to concern about building some software from source or other binaries and have files not tracked in dpkg's info database. PPAs in the list are selected, which are believed to be used by many other users and really useful. As I've said in earlier mails, it is better to give some suggestions for those who are looking for PPAs to 6.Does not take any default action, nor provide default set of action to users that they don't know what is happening when they choose them. It just do what the user have selected, and before doing so it will warn if the action might be harmful. Though there might be some description and warning messages are still not perfect, but they are easy to be improved and I believe the author is happy to do so when people give reasonable suggestions. -- Regards, Aron Xu signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: ubuntu-tweak in new
Just my two kopecks here: It's not just the catalogue of specific PPAs that is a problem. Granted, that's one of the problems too, in my eyes; having it in the Ubuntu archive makes us look like we support that kind of unofficial bleeding-edge updates *and* the PPAs featured. Ubuntu does provide a way to install PPAs: through the Software Sources tool. But it does not treat some PPAs as more equal than others. The entire package management part just bugs me. It's basically a duplication of standard Ubuntu tools, and I doubt it has received such extensive testing as Software Sources/Update Manager/Software Center/Synaptic. The ability to manually edit sources.list files should not be exposed to the end user in the UI at all, that's for advanced users. Keep in mind that package management is a sensitive part of the system and reckless meddling can leave it in an inconsistent state. If only package management was limited to its own section. But it also creeps into other sections; the Compiz settings, for example, include a checkbox (?!) for installing simple-ccsm, and even the application itself prompts to install its own PPA for updates. The other sections basically expose hidden settings in gconf, but they do so in an inconsistent way. Some settings are innocent, others expose experimental and unreliable features (Metacity compositing, for instance), or are potentially dangerous and can render the desktop unusable. Again, this makes Ubuntu look like it promotes this. Ultimately, the #1 bug in Ubuntu Tweak (which is really a bug in Ubuntu) is that some users feel it has the need to exist. I myself believe that many of the hidden gconf settings should be configurable, but that Ubuntu Tweak is the Wrong Way to Do It. If they're useful, they should either be added to the configuration dialogs of the respective applications, or have separate configuration dialogs (for example, ccsm and simple-ccsm do everything Ubuntu Tweak does for Compiz, and then some). That would remove the need for the safe subset of Ubuntu Tweak in the first place, just as the PPA culture and restricted extras packages proved to be the Right Way to Do It that removed the raison d'etre for its spiritual predecessor, Automatix. -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: ubuntu-tweak in new
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Maia Kozheva si...@ubuntu.com wrote: Just my two kopecks here: It's not just the catalogue of specific PPAs that is a problem. Granted, that's one of the problems too, in my eyes; having it in the Ubuntu archive makes us look like we support that kind of unofficial bleeding-edge updates *and* the PPAs featured. Ubuntu does provide a way to install PPAs: through the Software Sources tool. But it does not treat some PPAs as more equal than others. The issue applies to every application which provides it's own sources of media/software/whatever, as far as I understand that is not something we take responsibility for as part of the packaging. Does MOTU support or endorse the IRC servers available on the xchat server list ? Does MOTU support or endorse the the radio stream availables on the 'tunapie' stream list ? Does MOTU support or endorse the the insert your application media/software/etc source here ? IMHO as long as the application provides a sensible warning about the security/stability risks of enabling the PPA's it is an acceptable feature. The entire package management part just bugs me. It's basically a duplication of standard Ubuntu tools, and I doubt it has received such extensive testing as Software Sources/Update Manager/Software Center/Synaptic. The ability to manually edit sources.list files should not be exposed to the end user in the UI at all, that's for advanced I don't think kpackagekit, packagekit-gnome and adept received such an extensive testing as Software Sources/Update Manager/Software Center/Synaptic, still they are on the archive. users. Keep in mind that package management is a sensitive part of the system and reckless meddling can leave it in an inconsistent state. If only package management was limited to its own section. But it also creeps into other sections; the Compiz settings, for example, include a checkbox (?!) for installing simple-ccsm, and even the application Why is that wrong as long it's clear than an install operation will be invoked ? Please note that there are Ubuntu default apps which do that, the language support app comes to my mind. itself prompts to install its own PPA for updates. The other sections basically expose hidden settings in gconf, but they do so in an inconsistent way. Some settings are innocent, others expose experimental and unreliable features (Metacity compositing, for instance), or are potentially dangerous and can render the desktop unusable. Again, this makes Ubuntu look like it promotes this. +1, Dangerous/unreliable features should have a proper warning. Ultimately, the #1 bug in Ubuntu Tweak (which is really a bug in Ubuntu) is that some users feel it has the need to exist. I myself believe that many of the hidden gconf settings should be configurable, but that Ubuntu Tweak is the Wrong Way to Do It. If they're useful, they should either be added to the configuration dialogs of the respective applications, or have separate configuration dialogs (for example, ccsm and simple-ccsm do everything Ubuntu Tweak does for Compiz, and then some). That would remove the need for the safe subset of Ubuntu Tweak in the first place, just as the PPA culture and restricted extras packages proved to be the Right Way to Do It that removed the raison d'etre for its spiritual predecessor, Automatix. So you agree that there is a need for ubuntu-tweak until the other bugs get fixed, right :) ? -- João Luís Marques Pinto GetDeb Team Leader http://www.getdeb.net http://blog.getdeb.net -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: ubuntu-tweak in new
Does MOTU support or endorse the IRC servers available on the xchat server list ? Does MOTU support or endorse the the radio stream availables on the 'tunapie' stream list ? Does MOTU support or endorse the theinsert your application media/software/etc source here ? IRC servers and radio streams are not installed as root and do not modify OS configuration. They are just user settings. And to my knowledge, no other application in the Ubuntu archive attempts to install specific third-party repositories by itself. I don't think kpackagekit, packagekit-gnome and adept received such an extensive testing as Software Sources/Update Manager/Software Center/Synaptic, still they are on the archive. Adept (in the past) and KPackageKit are standard package management applications in Kubuntu, supported by the Kubuntu developers. Package management is what they *do*, it's their whole purpose. Ubuntu Tweak is a kitchen sink of random features. Why is that wrong as long it's clear than an install operation will be invoked ? Please note that there are Ubuntu default apps which do that, the language support app comes to my mind. First of all, it is a checkbox. Users typically don't expect an application to be installed by merely clicking a checkbox without an explicit install button. The language support application is a specific case: it is essentially a mini package manager, which installs localization packages from a list. So you agree that there is a need for ubuntu-tweak until the other bugs get fixed, right :) ? Need would be too strong, since those settings are available in gconf. (And I said that need for the casual user only strictly applies to the part of Ubuntu Tweak that modifies gconf settings.) Some users may find it useful, but I would rather not see it in the official Ubuntu archive. -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: ubuntu-tweak in new
于 2010年08月06日 02:40, Stephan Hermann 写道: Moins, On Thu, 2010-08-05 at 11:37 -0400, Andrew SB wrote: On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Stephan Hermann s...@sourcecode.de wrote: We had that in the past, and this will happen with unreflected usage of tools like this. (Please read the threads about Automatix and Friends in the past...google have references) For reference, here's Matthew Garrett's technical review of Automatix: http://mjg59.livejournal.com/77440.html Re-reading that now, I note that the issue of adding untrusted third party sources doesn't seem to be the argument against Automatix. Matthew wrote in his last paragraph: In its current form Automatix is unsupportable, and a mechanism for flagging bugs from machines with Automatix installed may provide a valuable aid for determining whether issues are due to supported distribution packages or third party software installers. This may not be read as argument against automatix, but the past told us, what will happen to the Ubuntu Bug tracker when third party repositories (and even PPAs from LP are third party) are enabled and non-distro packages are installed. Yes, installing a third party software source will put users in a more dangerous situation than they are just using Ubuntu archive. But why Launchpad PPA service exists? Why does many users actually using software from PPA rather than requesting backports or something recommended in various mailing list or wiki pages? When the users are get warned properly, it is acceptable to let users to have more friendly way to add a PPA which satisfy her/his requirement is improving the user experience so they don't blaming the backports are too slow or they cannot find what they want. We had all this discussions in the past, and we came to the conclusion that we want to support backports but in an official means Ubuntu blessed way. That's why we created ubuntu backports repository... But there are also other things I don't like. An easy way to tweak gconf settings could also be dangerous for Ubuntu users. But that's eventually only me. We have read that someone were talking about something like backports is too difficult in Ubuntu, before we solve the problems in our backporting process, perhaps it is useless to emphasize *backporting* to a non-technical end-user. For a user, it is easy to choose a PPA to solve their problem on their own risks than requesting for a backport and wait for a quite long time to wait for it's available. And, they are warned, they are knowing what's other users' choice, they know what they are doing and possible results. I've already talked with the author about warnings, he will add more warnings in next release, and will remove some descriptions like mentioned before that some people feel them could be misleading. One thing I would like to raise: Someone who wants to tweak his/her setup, is not the normal Ubuntu user. Mostly they are power users, and I do think that really knowledged power users can tweak their systems without such a tool. Making it an easy task to tweak and break peoples Ubuntu installation shouldn't be a goal for us in general. Not only so-called power users can change there preference on how to user their desktop, for example whether displaying a Computer link on desktop is just something like users who want to have their own wallpaper. If a non-technical user won't change their choice of whether displaying a link like Computer on desktop, they won't change wallpaper either. That's obviously not, so I don't think only power users can change Ubuntu defaults. Every desktop user has their own desktop, with their own preferences and settings. We provide a good default choice, but we shouldn't assume it fits everyone's need and shouldn't be changed by a non-technical user. If there are any unsuitable gconf settings that shouldn't be displayed because they are still testing features or not stable enough, we can ask the author to remove it, that is the way we help a potential great software's development. Users of mostly all operating systems are doing things, when someone tells them to do so, but those people don't know anything about the dangers. If something breaks, Ubuntu will be flooded with bug reports and complaints, and this is really something we should avoid. So ubuntu-tweak gives a lot of warnings, and it will add more warnings in next release when users are about to do something may harm the system. It is better than we are shipping some core packages without a throughout testing - it is known that some users cannot boot after upgrading some key programs through update-manager. A better solution will be to push more backports. And backporting is not that difficult, it just takes time and caution, to not break working systems. Yes, this is a good idea, but I am afraid many users won't like to enable -backports - install a software - disable -backports, but totally
Re: ubuntu-tweak in new
Sorry, but people also need to be careful taking out an nuclear option in how they describe others when they bring legitimate arguments. Everything that I have seen so far in the thread is a discussion if certain features of a software are a good solution for the general population of users or not. This has nothing to do with tribalism. Open source is an open concept that allows different options. The core of a distro is defined by this distro. However, in difference to Apple's iPhone and iPad, nobody must jailbreak in order to install something outside the normal software archives. Nothing excludes anybody to use ubuntu-tweak regardless if it is in the official archives or not. If ubuntu-tweak fixes some temporary issues that in order to do it right should be fixed in other places then this is recommendable, but does not create an automatic need of inclusion. It would be better if those issue are fixed in the right place. In the meantime, it is available in a ppa. If it bring real long-term benefit for users that is not met in other ways, or is a good alternative to what already exists, then it should be included. All of this is a matter of proper and civil discussion. There is no need to undermined anybodies reputation by insinuating ulterior motives. The beauty of our community is the empowerment of everybody. This means not everybody has to have or do the same thing. Diversity is strength! Having different perspectives and arguments is part of this strength. On 08/06/2010 04:04 AM, Joao Pinto wrote: The approach that some people take on application reviews seems to fit the description from Mark: 'Tribalism is when one group of people start to think people from another group are “wrong by default” - http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/439 . I hope that the seek for reasons to reject the package will turn into reasonable suggestions to the author in order to improve the application to make sure it becomes acceptable. Best regards -- João Luís Marques Pinto GetDeb Team Leader http://www.getdeb.net http://blog.getdeb.net -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: ubuntu-tweak in new
On Thursday, August 05, 2010 10:15:55 am LI Daobing wrote: Hello, On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 22:21, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com wrote: On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 09:16:05 pm LI Daobing wrote: On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 09:09, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com wrote: On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 09:05:25 pm LI Daobing wrote: Hello, On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 09:00, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com wrote: On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 01:29:46 pm Jonathan Riddell wrote: Ubuntu Tweak is waiting for approval in New queue. http://ubuntu-tweak.com/ https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/252140 Is this something MOTU wants included? No. It looks to me like something that, in addition to proper packaging, ought to have a thorough functional review before entering the archive. I am the packager of ubuntu-tweak, can you tell me what's the problem with ubuntu-tweak? I don't know that there is a problem, but given the invasive nature of it's functionality, I think it appropriate for it to be given more of a review than just being packaged properly. In Ubuntu's history there have been multiple Tweak programs and so far they have always proved to be more harmful than helpful at the scale the Ubuntu archive operates. This one may be the one that gets it right, but having found that they rebrand PPAs that other people maintain as there's on their web site, I'm not at all inclined to assume this is all well intentioned. you are right. this package is active-maintained, and I'll forward your opinion to the upstream author. I think he'll fix this bug. ubuntu-tweak is very useful for me, and it's also has many users. so I want to push it to Ubuntu and hope it can catch ubuntu 10.10. thanks. I don't have a lot of time for a detailed review. A quick look shows that this can enable quite a number of untrusted repositories. My recollection is that we although Envy was initially accepted doing something similar it was required to be fixed to not do this. I don't think a package that adds untrusted repositories is suitable. ubuntu-tweak does not add any ppa to /etc/apt/sources.list.d/ by default. this only happens when user ask it do. the add-apt-repository command in python-software-properties package also can add ppa to sources.list, so I don't think ubuntu will reject software like this. As was already commented, the difference is that it presents a list of specific PPAs and is not just a generic tool to make adding of PPAs easier for non- technical users. Scott K -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: ubuntu-tweak in new
On Friday, August 06, 2010 09:30:04 am Scott Kitterman wrote: On Thursday, August 05, 2010 10:15:55 am LI Daobing wrote: Hello, On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 22:21, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com wrote: On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 09:16:05 pm LI Daobing wrote: On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 09:09, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com wrote: On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 09:05:25 pm LI Daobing wrote: Hello, On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 09:00, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com wrote: On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 01:29:46 pm Jonathan Riddell wrote: Ubuntu Tweak is waiting for approval in New queue. http://ubuntu-tweak.com/ https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/252140 Is this something MOTU wants included? No. It looks to me like something that, in addition to proper packaging, ought to have a thorough functional review before entering the archive. I am the packager of ubuntu-tweak, can you tell me what's the problem with ubuntu-tweak? I don't know that there is a problem, but given the invasive nature of it's functionality, I think it appropriate for it to be given more of a review than just being packaged properly. In Ubuntu's history there have been multiple Tweak programs and so far they have always proved to be more harmful than helpful at the scale the Ubuntu archive operates. This one may be the one that gets it right, but having found that they rebrand PPAs that other people maintain as there's on their web site, I'm not at all inclined to assume this is all well intentioned. you are right. this package is active-maintained, and I'll forward your opinion to the upstream author. I think he'll fix this bug. ubuntu-tweak is very useful for me, and it's also has many users. so I want to push it to Ubuntu and hope it can catch ubuntu 10.10. thanks. I don't have a lot of time for a detailed review. A quick look shows that this can enable quite a number of untrusted repositories. My recollection is that we although Envy was initially accepted doing something similar it was required to be fixed to not do this. I don't think a package that adds untrusted repositories is suitable. ubuntu-tweak does not add any ppa to /etc/apt/sources.list.d/ by default. this only happens when user ask it do. the add-apt-repository command in python-software-properties package also can add ppa to sources.list, so I don't think ubuntu will reject software like this. As was already commented, the difference is that it presents a list of specific PPAs and is not just a generic tool to make adding of PPAs easier for non- technical users. Scott K Sorry about this one. I re-replied to an olde message in the thread by mistake. Scott K -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: ubuntu-tweak in new
于 2010年08月06日 20:37, Ralph Janke 写道: Sorry, but people also need to be careful taking out an nuclear option in how they describe others when they bring legitimate arguments. Everything that I have seen so far in the thread is a discussion if certain features of a software are a good solution for the general population of users or not. This has nothing to do with tribalism. You may missed a point, that our discussion is about whether ubuntu-tweak should be approved from NEW to universe archive. So their is something that likely to make people to associate it to tribalism. Open source is an open concept that allows different options. The core of a distro is defined by this distro. However, in difference to Apple's iPhone and iPad, nobody must jailbreak in order to install something outside the normal software archives. Nothing excludes anybody to use ubuntu-tweak regardless if it is in the official archives or not. Yes, any software available is able to be used by a user, but including a software to the distribution's repository will make it be accepted by more users, especially who don't know anything about installing software from other source rather than the distribution's archive. Popular GNU/Linux distributions provides a significant big amount software in their repository using their own way, like Debian/Ubuntu, Fedora, OpenSuSE, Arch, Gentoo. Probably it is an important thing for a person to judge which distribution should be her/his choice, and we also think it is an advantage over some other operating systems. If ubuntu-tweak fixes some temporary issues that in order to do it right should be fixed in other places then this is recommendable, but does not create an automatic need of inclusion. It would be better if those issue are fixed in the right place. In the meantime, it is available in a ppa. If it bring real long-term benefit for users that is not met in other ways, or is a good alternative to what already exists, then it should be included. This temporary is not really *temporary*, because there is always problems to be solved and new problems jump into our eyes. We cannot solve those problems in a determined numbers of release cycles, and users need to have solutions to make their life easier. Improving our community is the right thing we need to focus on, but it's not the reason to refuse a software that can help users to get a better experience. All of this is a matter of proper and civil discussion. There is no need to undermined anybodies reputation by insinuating ulterior motives. The beauty of our community is the empowerment of everybody. This means not everybody has to have or do the same thing. Diversity is strength! Having different perspectives and arguments is part of this strength. Yes! Diversity is strength! :) On 08/06/2010 04:04 AM, Joao Pinto wrote: The approach that some people take on application reviews seems to fit the description from Mark: 'Tribalism is when one group of people start to think people from another group are “wrong by default” - http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/439 . I hope that the seek for reasons to reject the package will turn into reasonable suggestions to the author in order to improve the application to make sure it becomes acceptable. Best regards -- João Luís Marques Pinto GetDeb Team Leader http://www.getdeb.net http://blog.getdeb.net -- Regards, Aron Xu signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: ubuntu-tweak in new
于 2010年08月06日 21:30, Scott Kitterman 写道: As was already commented, the difference is that it presents a list of specific PPAs and is not just a generic tool to make adding of PPAs easier for non- technical users. Scott K Thanks Scott, the ubuntu-tweak author told me he will do the following two things this weekend and hopefully release a new version of ubuntu-tweak: 1.Make ubuntu-tweak can search and add any Launchpad PPA using Launchpad API, he'll keep a list of featured PPA, but with a lot of suitable warnings to help users keep clear about adding a PPA may do harm to their system. 2.Changing ubuntu-tweak.com to clarify the PPA's link, author and maintainer, and tell visitors they should go to the respective PPA page on Launchpad to get the information they really want, and what's on the site is just a reference. 3.Add more warnings about gconf settings changing options, to help users keep in mind that some of the settings may let there desktop not doing what they expect. 4.Add an option to reset gconf settings to system default changed by user via ubuntu-tweak, or via other way (for example unexpectedly changed the gconf xmls or edited with gconf-editor). It will also be able to restore user's settings if present before ubuntu-tweak doing any change in future development. -- Regards, Aron Xu signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: update ibus (was: ubuntu-tweak in new)
On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 05:44, Benjamin Drung bdr...@ubuntu.com wrote: Yes, the merge or upgrade needs to be done by a developer. It's not a user task. My point was: If someone was able to provide a newer version via a PPA (and you install it via ubuntu-tweak), the person can get the package in the archive (through an sponsor) instead. The package in Debian can build directly in Ubuntu and works well. I am wondering if we don't really need a merge because I found there are some code in the previous patches already in mainstream and the package works well in our desktop. Also, I am sure there are issues about indicator support open on upstream issue tracker. What we are using from PPA (ppa:shawn-p-huang/ppa) is mostly build the package directly from source without any change, package in Debian adds the first of three patches ship in Ubuntu that adds the X-Ubuntu-Gettext-Domain=ibus domain in .desktop file. The other two are about appindicator and show_menuitem which are somehow not easy for people who are not familiar with indicator-* to do the merge. ibus changes rapidly and indicator-* has changed, too. -- Benjamin Drung Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Maintainer (www.debian.org) -- Regards, Aron Xu -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: ubuntu-tweak in new
moins, On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 10:21 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 09:16:05 pm LI Daobing wrote: On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 09:09, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com wrote: On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 09:05:25 pm LI Daobing wrote: Hello, On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 09:00, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com wrote: On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 01:29:46 pm Jonathan Riddell wrote: Ubuntu Tweak is waiting for approval in New queue. http://ubuntu-tweak.com/ https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/252140 Is this something MOTU wants included? No. It looks to me like something that, in addition to proper packaging, ought to have a thorough functional review before entering the archive. I am the packager of ubuntu-tweak, can you tell me what's the problem with ubuntu-tweak? I don't know that there is a problem, but given the invasive nature of it's functionality, I think it appropriate for it to be given more of a review than just being packaged properly. In Ubuntu's history there have been multiple Tweak programs and so far they have always proved to be more harmful than helpful at the scale the Ubuntu archive operates. This one may be the one that gets it right, but having found that they rebrand PPAs that other people maintain as there's on their web site, I'm not at all inclined to assume this is all well intentioned. you are right. this package is active-maintained, and I'll forward your opinion to the upstream author. I think he'll fix this bug. ubuntu-tweak is very useful for me, and it's also has many users. so I want to push it to Ubuntu and hope it can catch ubuntu 10.10. thanks. I don't have a lot of time for a detailed review. A quick look shows that this can enable quite a number of untrusted repositories. My recollection is that we although Envy was initially accepted doing something similar it was required to be fixed to not do this. I don't think a package that adds untrusted repositories is suitable. Yes, it can enable a lot of untrusted sources, but I don't understand how it does it. under software-center there are lot of archives, which are not ubuntu official, but they are greyed out...and with the unlock button it does nothing (I took the version from revu) Tbh, everything what's in there is already available on a standard gnome desktop. We don't need a copy of update-manager, software-center or whatever is in there... I even don't like descriptions like there are in ubuntutweak/common/appdata.py. It think that this could give us a sitution as we had during times when we had the unofficial backport times... I will not give a +1 for this tool in the official ubuntu archives. Regards, \sh signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: ubuntu-tweak in new
Hello, On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 22:21, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com wrote: On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 09:16:05 pm LI Daobing wrote: On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 09:09, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com wrote: On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 09:05:25 pm LI Daobing wrote: Hello, On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 09:00, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com wrote: On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 01:29:46 pm Jonathan Riddell wrote: Ubuntu Tweak is waiting for approval in New queue. http://ubuntu-tweak.com/ https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/252140 Is this something MOTU wants included? No. It looks to me like something that, in addition to proper packaging, ought to have a thorough functional review before entering the archive. I am the packager of ubuntu-tweak, can you tell me what's the problem with ubuntu-tweak? I don't know that there is a problem, but given the invasive nature of it's functionality, I think it appropriate for it to be given more of a review than just being packaged properly. In Ubuntu's history there have been multiple Tweak programs and so far they have always proved to be more harmful than helpful at the scale the Ubuntu archive operates. This one may be the one that gets it right, but having found that they rebrand PPAs that other people maintain as there's on their web site, I'm not at all inclined to assume this is all well intentioned. you are right. this package is active-maintained, and I'll forward your opinion to the upstream author. I think he'll fix this bug. ubuntu-tweak is very useful for me, and it's also has many users. so I want to push it to Ubuntu and hope it can catch ubuntu 10.10. thanks. I don't have a lot of time for a detailed review. A quick look shows that this can enable quite a number of untrusted repositories. My recollection is that we although Envy was initially accepted doing something similar it was required to be fixed to not do this. I don't think a package that adds untrusted repositories is suitable. ubuntu-tweak does not add any ppa to /etc/apt/sources.list.d/ by default. this only happens when user ask it do. the add-apt-repository command in python-software-properties package also can add ppa to sources.list, so I don't think ubuntu will reject software like this. -- Best Regards LI Daobing -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: ubuntu-tweak in new
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 21:43, Stephan Hermann s...@sourcecode.de wrote: moins, On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 10:21 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 09:16:05 pm LI Daobing wrote: On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 09:09, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com wrote: On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 09:05:25 pm LI Daobing wrote: Hello, On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 09:00, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com wrote: On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 01:29:46 pm Jonathan Riddell wrote: Ubuntu Tweak is waiting for approval in New queue. http://ubuntu-tweak.com/ https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/252140 Is this something MOTU wants included? No. It looks to me like something that, in addition to proper packaging, ought to have a thorough functional review before entering the archive. I am the packager of ubuntu-tweak, can you tell me what's the problem with ubuntu-tweak? I don't know that there is a problem, but given the invasive nature of it's functionality, I think it appropriate for it to be given more of a review than just being packaged properly. In Ubuntu's history there have been multiple Tweak programs and so far they have always proved to be more harmful than helpful at the scale the Ubuntu archive operates. This one may be the one that gets it right, but having found that they rebrand PPAs that other people maintain as there's on their web site, I'm not at all inclined to assume this is all well intentioned. you are right. this package is active-maintained, and I'll forward your opinion to the upstream author. I think he'll fix this bug. ubuntu-tweak is very useful for me, and it's also has many users. so I want to push it to Ubuntu and hope it can catch ubuntu 10.10. thanks. I don't have a lot of time for a detailed review. A quick look shows that this can enable quite a number of untrusted repositories. My recollection is that we although Envy was initially accepted doing something similar it was required to be fixed to not do this. I don't think a package that adds untrusted repositories is suitable. Yes, it can enable a lot of untrusted sources, but I don't understand how it does it. under software-center there are lot of archives, which are not ubuntu official, but they are greyed out...and with the unlock button it does nothing (I took the version from revu) the unlock button will let you input your sudo password. then he can modify /etc/apt/sources.list.d/ dir. Tbh, everything what's in there is already available on a standard gnome desktop. We don't need a copy of update-manager, software-center or whatever is in there... it's somehow different, for example, the amule ppa shipped with ubuntu-tweak has DLP function, which is important for us. it also provide some snapshot version program (just like gcc-snapshot which already in ubuntu). I even don't like descriptions like there are in ubuntutweak/common/appdata.py. It think that this could give us a sitution as we had during times when we had the unofficial backport times... I will not give a +1 for this tool in the official ubuntu archives. I still think this package is suitable for universe. :) Thanks -- Best Regards LI Daobing -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: ubuntu-tweak in new
On Thursday, August 05, 2010 10:21:41 am LI Daobing wrote: it's somehow different, for example, the amule ppa shipped with ubuntu-tweak has DLP function, which is important for us. Can this be added to the amule package in Ubuntu? it also provide some snapshot version program (just like gcc-snapshot which already in ubuntu). No. gcc-snapshot is IN Ubuntu. These PPAs are not. Scott K -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: ubuntu-tweak in new
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 22:39, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com wrote: On Thursday, August 05, 2010 10:21:41 am LI Daobing wrote: it's somehow different, for example, the amule ppa shipped with ubuntu-tweak has DLP function, which is important for us. Can this be added to the amule package in Ubuntu? I don't know why this patch does not exist in amule package in Ubuntu, maybe it makes amule more unstable? but for someone (like me), DLP is important, without DLP, amule totally does not work (it will only upload, but never download). I can bare the crash problem with it, so I choose DLP. but maybe some other think the patch is not perfect, or just he don't like the patch, so he refuse it. it also provide some snapshot version program (just like gcc-snapshot which already in ubuntu). No. gcc-snapshot is IN Ubuntu. These PPAs are not. I mean someone need snapshot version of these programs (such as snapshot version of vlc, opera, chromium, etc), just like the ubuntu people need the snapshot version of gcc. -- Best Regards LI Daobing -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: ubuntu-tweak in new
On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 10:15:55 (EDT), LI Daobing wrote: ubuntu-tweak does not add any ppa to /etc/apt/sources.list.d/ by default. this only happens when user ask it do. the add-apt-repository command in python-software-properties package also can add ppa to sources.list, so I don't think ubuntu will reject software like this. The difference is that add-apt-repository is that solves the technical problem of enabling PPAs. This is fine for ubuntu. ubuntu-tweak however enables *specific* PPAs that are important to you, but we fear that they have substandard quality packages (otherwise they would be in the main archive, no?). This makes our users think that we somehow endorse these PPAs. -- Gruesse/greetings, Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4 -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: ubuntu-tweak in new
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 22:59, Reinhard Tartler siret...@ubuntu.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 10:15:55 (EDT), LI Daobing wrote: ubuntu-tweak does not add any ppa to /etc/apt/sources.list.d/ by default. this only happens when user ask it do. the add-apt-repository command in python-software-properties package also can add ppa to sources.list, so I don't think ubuntu will reject software like this. The difference is that add-apt-repository is that solves the technical problem of enabling PPAs. This is fine for ubuntu. ubuntu-tweak however enables *specific* PPAs that are important to you, but we fear that they have substandard quality packages (otherwise they would be in the main archive, no?). This makes our users think that we somehow endorse these PPAs. ubuntu-tweak have provided a warning[1] when you enter source center. [1] It is a possible security risk to use packages from Third-Party Sources. Please be careful and use only sources you trust. -- Best Regards LI Daobing -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: ubuntu-tweak in new
ubuntu-tweak has a very big user base from country to country. The functions it provides are pretty good, and the software is actively well maintained. If there is a right choice for providing more user friendly system 'tweak' tool, then ubuntu-tweak should be the one. Ubuntu (more exactly, GNOME, perhaps) is still lacking many configuration tools to help users to let the software work as they expected, and ubuntu-tweak provides a set of such UIs to make it come true. It doesn't 'tweak' the system on its own, but let users to choose what it behaves, for example there is an option to show Computer link on the desktop, which could only switched on using gconf-editor if we prefer using a graphic tool. The software is well tested before every release, the author releases a beta version before any official one, and some beta testers (they are almost fan of ubuntu-tweak) will test it out and give feedback. When they believe there isn't any important or milestone bugs they will release an official one. On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 09:09, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com wrote: On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 09:05:25 pm LI Daobing wrote: Hello, On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 09:00, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com wrote: On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 01:29:46 pm Jonathan Riddell wrote: Ubuntu Tweak is waiting for approval in New queue. http://ubuntu-tweak.com/ https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/252140 Is this something MOTU wants included? No. It looks to me like something that, in addition to proper packaging, ought to have a thorough functional review before entering the archive. I am the packager of ubuntu-tweak, can you tell me what's the problem with ubuntu-tweak? I don't know that there is a problem, but given the invasive nature of it's functionality, I think it appropriate for it to be given more of a review than just being packaged properly. In Ubuntu's history there have been multiple Tweak programs and so far they have always proved to be more harmful than helpful at the scale the Ubuntu archive operates. This one may be the one that gets it right, but having found that they rebrand PPAs that other people maintain as there's on their web site, I'm not at all inclined to assume this is all well intentioned. Scott K -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu -- Regards, Aron Xu -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: ubuntu-tweak in new
The untrusted PPAs are options for users that who would like to enjoy newer versions of software, or something else that are not provided in Ubuntu archive. I know users can request for packaging or request for backports, but it is really a difficult thing for a common user to to all the coordination and I believe there are many of them will choose a PPA on there own risks. Users are warned, even other users don't get that warnings from Launchpad. The PPAs are selected by the ubuntu-tweak authors and community contributors. You may want to pay some time to have a look at ubuntu-tweak.com, which enables the users to add there suggestions and reviews for the developers. Developers will review the PPAs and ask for user feedback for whether the PPAs are good on there own experience. Developers will also only add PPAs which have a significant audience, for example the Mozilla Security Team PPA. On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 22:21, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com wrote: On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 09:16:05 pm LI Daobing wrote: On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 09:09, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com wrote: On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 09:05:25 pm LI Daobing wrote: Hello, On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 09:00, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com wrote: On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 01:29:46 pm Jonathan Riddell wrote: Ubuntu Tweak is waiting for approval in New queue. http://ubuntu-tweak.com/ https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/252140 Is this something MOTU wants included? No. It looks to me like something that, in addition to proper packaging, ought to have a thorough functional review before entering the archive. I am the packager of ubuntu-tweak, can you tell me what's the problem with ubuntu-tweak? I don't know that there is a problem, but given the invasive nature of it's functionality, I think it appropriate for it to be given more of a review than just being packaged properly. In Ubuntu's history there have been multiple Tweak programs and so far they have always proved to be more harmful than helpful at the scale the Ubuntu archive operates. This one may be the one that gets it right, but having found that they rebrand PPAs that other people maintain as there's on their web site, I'm not at all inclined to assume this is all well intentioned. you are right. this package is active-maintained, and I'll forward your opinion to the upstream author. I think he'll fix this bug. ubuntu-tweak is very useful for me, and it's also has many users. so I want to push it to Ubuntu and hope it can catch ubuntu 10.10. thanks. I don't have a lot of time for a detailed review. A quick look shows that this can enable quite a number of untrusted repositories. My recollection is that we although Envy was initially accepted doing something similar it was required to be fixed to not do this. I don't think a package that adds untrusted repositories is suitable. It would be good if someone else could do a more thorough review. Scott K -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu -- Regards, Aron Xu -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: ubuntu-tweak in new
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Stephan Hermann s...@sourcecode.de wrote: We had that in the past, and this will happen with unreflected usage of tools like this. (Please read the threads about Automatix and Friends in the past...google have references) For reference, here's Matthew Garrett's technical review of Automatix: http://mjg59.livejournal.com/77440.html Re-reading that now, I note that the issue of adding untrusted third party sources doesn't seem to be the argument against Automatix. - Andrew SB -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: ubuntu-tweak in new
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 23:02, Stephan Hermann s...@sourcecode.de wrote: On Thu, 2010-08-05 at 22:50 +0800, LI Daobing wrote: On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 22:39, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com wrote: On Thursday, August 05, 2010 10:21:41 am LI Daobing wrote: it's somehow different, for example, the amule ppa shipped with ubuntu-tweak has DLP function, which is important for us. Can this be added to the amule package in Ubuntu? I don't know why this patch does not exist in amule package in Ubuntu, maybe it makes amule more unstable? but for someone (like me), DLP is important, without DLP, amule totally does not work (it will only upload, but never download). I can bare the crash problem with it, so I choose DLP. but maybe some other think the patch is not perfect, or just he don't like the patch, so he refuse it. So, if this is really a showstopper for amule, why doesn't someone fix the patch to let it not crash, then add it to a wishlist bug and ask for adding? this is just an example, many program provide many compile options and many patches, and ubuntu only provided one combination for it. another example for me, when emacs want to display a char, first he should detect the charset of this char. but in this program, japanese is always preferred than chinese. And japanese and chinese share many symbols in unicode, but with much different glyph[1]. so when I open a txt file in chinese, some char is displayed in japanese fonts with wrong glyph, some others in chinese fonts. I write a patch for this problem, which make chinese is preferred than japanese. this patch works fine for me and other emacs users in chinese, but it will not (and should not) be accepted in Ubuntu. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_unification#Examples_of_language_dependent_characters The previous is just another example. there is not only one user base in Ubuntu. there are some many user base in Ubuntu. they have different requirement. PPA can resolve this problem. that's why PPA in launchpad is used by more and more people. for the problem of amule, I don't follow this bug, but I think you can check it at http://goo.gl/WxGo. it also provide some snapshot version program (just like gcc-snapshot which already in ubuntu). No. gcc-snapshot is IN Ubuntu. These PPAs are not. I mean someone need snapshot version of these programs (such as snapshot version of vlc, opera, chromium, etc), just like the ubuntu people need the snapshot version of gcc. I don't think that many people of Ubuntu use gcc-snapshot on a daily basis. More likely is that the standard ubuntu user doesn't even care about gcc-snapshot, as many of our userbase are not caring about newer versions of packages. we have many different userbases. If they care, they could enable the backports repository and/or ask for backports of current developement release packages (e.g. from maverick to lucid). Users who are reading marketing statements like install this, you will get newer versions and blablabla, will exactly do that, and they will whine when they try to upgrade from there release to the next. We had that in the past, and this will happen with unreflected usage of tools like this. (Please read the threads about Automatix and Friends in the past...google have references) Aron Xu has talked many about this. thanks. -- Best Regards LI Daobing -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: ubuntu-tweak in new
We shouldn't reject a package that provides some functions in software-center's field but software-center still not implemented yet. As we can see software-center has already gained basic PPA support, and I guess it WILL be more tightly integrated with Launchpad services. Will you reject software-center when it provides function like 'search and add Launchpad PPAs'? I guess most people won't against it if the feature is decided and approved as a blueprint, but why you think such feature is an issue getting in the way of including it to Ubuntu archive? In fact ubuntu-tweak isn't a copy of any program that we already have in Ubuntu, including software-center, update-manager or whatever we can list here. On a common user's view, it is really useful and provides a set of great features that improves Ubuntu's user experience. On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 21:43, Stephan Hermann s...@sourcecode.de wrote: moins, On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 10:21 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 09:16:05 pm LI Daobing wrote: On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 09:09, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com wrote: On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 09:05:25 pm LI Daobing wrote: Hello, On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 09:00, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com wrote: On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 01:29:46 pm Jonathan Riddell wrote: Ubuntu Tweak is waiting for approval in New queue. http://ubuntu-tweak.com/ https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/252140 Is this something MOTU wants included? No. It looks to me like something that, in addition to proper packaging, ought to have a thorough functional review before entering the archive. I am the packager of ubuntu-tweak, can you tell me what's the problem with ubuntu-tweak? I don't know that there is a problem, but given the invasive nature of it's functionality, I think it appropriate for it to be given more of a review than just being packaged properly. In Ubuntu's history there have been multiple Tweak programs and so far they have always proved to be more harmful than helpful at the scale the Ubuntu archive operates. This one may be the one that gets it right, but having found that they rebrand PPAs that other people maintain as there's on their web site, I'm not at all inclined to assume this is all well intentioned. you are right. this package is active-maintained, and I'll forward your opinion to the upstream author. I think he'll fix this bug. ubuntu-tweak is very useful for me, and it's also has many users. so I want to push it to Ubuntu and hope it can catch ubuntu 10.10. thanks. I don't have a lot of time for a detailed review. A quick look shows that this can enable quite a number of untrusted repositories. My recollection is that we although Envy was initially accepted doing something similar it was required to be fixed to not do this. I don't think a package that adds untrusted repositories is suitable. Yes, it can enable a lot of untrusted sources, but I don't understand how it does it. under software-center there are lot of archives, which are not ubuntu official, but they are greyed out...and with the unlock button it does nothing (I took the version from revu) Tbh, everything what's in there is already available on a standard gnome desktop. We don't need a copy of update-manager, software-center or whatever is in there... I even don't like descriptions like there are in ubuntutweak/common/appdata.py. It think that this could give us a sitution as we had during times when we had the unofficial backport times... I will not give a +1 for this tool in the official ubuntu archives. Regards, \sh -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu -- Regards, Aron Xu -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: ubuntu-tweak in new
On Thursday, August 05, 2010 11:35:40 am Aron Xu wrote: The PPAs are selected by the ubuntu-tweak authors and community contributors. You may want to pay some time to have a look at ubuntu-tweak.com, which enables the users to add there suggestions and reviews for the developers. Developers will review the PPAs and ask for user feedback for whether the PPAs are good on there own experience. Developers will also only add PPAs which have a significant audience, for example the Mozilla Security Team PPA. One thing I noticed on ubuntu-tweak.com was http://ubuntu- tweak.com/source/clam-antivirus/. This page takes a PPA that I maintain and makes it look like part of ubuntu-tweak. I find this very unpleasant as I feel it is misappropriating my work. It does not give me any confidence at all that the ubuntu-tweak authors are people that I would care to work with. Scott K -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: ubuntu-tweak in new
That's what the author did wrong, that he should copy the information from Launchpad directly to his site, this is what we could ask him to fix. Not all PPAs you can see on the site available in the software, only PPAs that tagged Featured are included, others are only users added them to the site and as the author to review whether it could be included. I'm forwarding your mail to the author, and I believe he will correct his unsuitable action in near future. Thanks for your poing out your concerns (maybe there are many other people care about) and make the Ubuntu community better. On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 23:57, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com wrote: On Thursday, August 05, 2010 11:35:40 am Aron Xu wrote: The PPAs are selected by the ubuntu-tweak authors and community contributors. You may want to pay some time to have a look at ubuntu-tweak.com, which enables the users to add there suggestions and reviews for the developers. Developers will review the PPAs and ask for user feedback for whether the PPAs are good on there own experience. Developers will also only add PPAs which have a significant audience, for example the Mozilla Security Team PPA. One thing I noticed on ubuntu-tweak.com was http://ubuntu- tweak.com/source/clam-antivirus/. This page takes a PPA that I maintain and makes it look like part of ubuntu-tweak. I find this very unpleasant as I feel it is misappropriating my work. It does not give me any confidence at all that the ubuntu-tweak authors are people that I would care to work with. Scott K -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu -- Regards, Aron Xu -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: ubuntu-tweak in new
I think talking for a single patch is not the relevant topic in this thread. But for amule, adding DLP to the mainstream package is not acceptable because not all users like that function in deed. AFAIK, the amule project rejected that patch because they think it is not appropriate for all users. But DLP is quite good function to make some people who are suffering the leeching from other clients. Pushing such a patched version - amule-dlp package - to Ubuntu is really not an easy job. Some packages are updating frequently and Ubuntu only ships and old version during a support cycle. Yes, we can ask for backports, but some people one this list can notice there was a topic talking about backporting is too hard, when we go through a backport procedure, there might be several newer releases, if the upstream is really active enough. There is another live sample for such situation. The firefox package in Ubuntu Lucid originally shipt 3.6.6, and when Mozilla released 3.6.7 the Ubuntu update engine got started to run, but unfortunately there when 3.6.7 hit the archive, 3.6.8 was released a day before and users waits for another 'long time' time to get the latest package. Users like me are choosing Mozilla builds to avoid such situation, and there are many others choosing Mozilla Security Team PPA. So why don't make it an alternate for users who want to receive a more instant update on there own risks when it is available? The users are warned, and they like the way that ubuntu-tweak gives them some advice about some top-used PPAs? I think letting users choose PPAs that are used by a big amount of people is better than making them searching a PPA in the really big capacity of the Launchpad database and choose ones that perhaps are misleading. On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 22:39, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com wrote: On Thursday, August 05, 2010 10:21:41 am LI Daobing wrote: it's somehow different, for example, the amule ppa shipped with ubuntu-tweak has DLP function, which is important for us. Can this be added to the amule package in Ubuntu? it also provide some snapshot version program (just like gcc-snapshot which already in ubuntu). No. gcc-snapshot is IN Ubuntu. These PPAs are not. Scott K -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu -- Regards, Aron Xu -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: ubuntu-tweak in new
There are more examples if we start a long discussion. Although the following content is somehow off-topic, but for a common user the best choice is not asking for solving the problem, but simply adding a PPA from ubuntu-tweak. ubuntu-tweak introduces some useful PPAs that many users may have searching for them for a long time. For example the ibus series in Ubuntu is OLD, and I filed some sync and merge request about including the newer versions from Debian. But in fact nobody works on the ibus package's merge, and users are getting software that supported by Ubuntu Development team but which are almost dropped by upstream. There are many users in CJK communities using ibus-dev/shawn-p-huang 's PPAs, the first one is maintained by the package maintainer in Debian, the second by the ibus author. Only in this way users can get a better input experience, and I am frustrating about having 1.2.0.20091215-1ubuntu4 in Lucid/Maverick when 1.3.7-1 has already sit in Debian Sid. This single package blocks quite some other packages, like ibus-pinyin to be updated in Ubuntu. From a user's point of view, 1.3.x has a really big improvement that worth to use an untrusted PPA when the trusted maintainer team don't supply updates for quite quite long cycles. On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 23:38, LI Daobing lidaob...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 23:02, Stephan Hermann s...@sourcecode.de wrote: On Thu, 2010-08-05 at 22:50 +0800, LI Daobing wrote: On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 22:39, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com wrote: On Thursday, August 05, 2010 10:21:41 am LI Daobing wrote: it's somehow different, for example, the amule ppa shipped with ubuntu-tweak has DLP function, which is important for us. Can this be added to the amule package in Ubuntu? I don't know why this patch does not exist in amule package in Ubuntu, maybe it makes amule more unstable? but for someone (like me), DLP is important, without DLP, amule totally does not work (it will only upload, but never download). I can bare the crash problem with it, so I choose DLP. but maybe some other think the patch is not perfect, or just he don't like the patch, so he refuse it. So, if this is really a showstopper for amule, why doesn't someone fix the patch to let it not crash, then add it to a wishlist bug and ask for adding? this is just an example, many program provide many compile options and many patches, and ubuntu only provided one combination for it. another example for me, when emacs want to display a char, first he should detect the charset of this char. but in this program, japanese is always preferred than chinese. And japanese and chinese share many symbols in unicode, but with much different glyph[1]. so when I open a txt file in chinese, some char is displayed in japanese fonts with wrong glyph, some others in chinese fonts. I write a patch for this problem, which make chinese is preferred than japanese. this patch works fine for me and other emacs users in chinese, but it will not (and should not) be accepted in Ubuntu. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_unification#Examples_of_language_dependent_characters The previous is just another example. there is not only one user base in Ubuntu. there are some many user base in Ubuntu. they have different requirement. PPA can resolve this problem. that's why PPA in launchpad is used by more and more people. for the problem of amule, I don't follow this bug, but I think you can check it at http://goo.gl/WxGo. it also provide some snapshot version program (just like gcc-snapshot which already in ubuntu). No. gcc-snapshot is IN Ubuntu. These PPAs are not. I mean someone need snapshot version of these programs (such as snapshot version of vlc, opera, chromium, etc), just like the ubuntu people need the snapshot version of gcc. I don't think that many people of Ubuntu use gcc-snapshot on a daily basis. More likely is that the standard ubuntu user doesn't even care about gcc-snapshot, as many of our userbase are not caring about newer versions of packages. we have many different userbases. If they care, they could enable the backports repository and/or ask for backports of current developement release packages (e.g. from maverick to lucid). Users who are reading marketing statements like install this, you will get newer versions and blablabla, will exactly do that, and they will whine when they try to upgrade from there release to the next. We had that in the past, and this will happen with unreflected usage of tools like this. (Please read the threads about Automatix and Friends in the past...google have references) Aron Xu has talked many about this. thanks. -- Best Regards LI Daobing -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu -- Regards, Aron Xu -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list
update ibus (was: ubuntu-tweak in new)
Am Freitag, den 06.08.2010, 00:37 +0800 schrieb Aron Xu: For example the ibus series in Ubuntu is OLD, and I filed some sync and merge request about including the newer versions from Debian. But in fact nobody works on the ibus package's merge, and users are getting software that supported by Ubuntu Development team but which are almost dropped by upstream. There are many users in CJK communities using ibus-dev/shawn-p-huang 's PPAs, the first one is maintained by the package maintainer in Debian, the second by the ibus author. Only in this way users can get a better input experience, and I am frustrating about having 1.2.0.20091215-1ubuntu4 in Lucid/Maverick when 1.3.7-1 has already sit in Debian Sid. This single package blocks quite some other packages, like ibus-pinyin to be updated in Ubuntu. From a user's point of view, 1.3.x has a really big improvement that worth to use an untrusted PPA when the trusted maintainer team don't supply updates for quite quite long cycles. To get the newer version into Ubuntu someone has to do the merge and attach a debdiff to the merge bug report [1] or request a sync and explain why the Ubuntu changes can be dropped. If someone is able to provide a package in a PPA, he/she is able to produce a proper debdiff for a merge request. [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ibus/+bug/611224 -- Benjamin Drung Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Maintainer (www.debian.org) signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: ubuntu-tweak in new
On Thu, 2010-08-05 at 11:57 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: On Thursday, August 05, 2010 11:35:40 am Aron Xu wrote: The PPAs are selected by the ubuntu-tweak authors and community contributors. You may want to pay some time to have a look at ubuntu-tweak.com, which enables the users to add there suggestions and reviews for the developers. Developers will review the PPAs and ask for user feedback for whether the PPAs are good on there own experience. Developers will also only add PPAs which have a significant audience, for example the Mozilla Security Team PPA. One thing I noticed on ubuntu-tweak.com was http://ubuntu- tweak.com/source/clam-antivirus/. This page takes a PPA that I maintain and makes it look like part of ubuntu-tweak. I find this very unpleasant as I feel it is misappropriating my work. It does not give me any confidence at all that the ubuntu-tweak authors are people that I would care to work with. Scott K I just noticed that they also list a PPA that I maintain ( http://ubuntu-tweak.com/source/tracker-unstable-ppa/ ). However, the description on their website doesn't match the description of my PPA on Launchpad. Their description looks like it's been completely written by them to make it look like they are maintaining the packages (Ultimately various packages that I primarily build for my own experiments. I try to keep a package of unstable tracker for Ubuntu Karmic updated here. Please let me know if stuff doesn't work.). My PPA has never had that description, and I find it wholly offensive that they are using it this way. Regards Chris signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: ubuntu-tweak in new
On Thursday, August 05, 2010 12:37:19 pm Aron Xu wrote: For example the ibus series in Ubuntu is OLD, and I filed some sync and merge request about including the newer versions from Debian. But in fact nobody works on the ibus package's merge, and users are getting software that supported by Ubuntu Development team but which are almost dropped by upstream. There are many users in CJK communities using ibus-dev/shawn-p-huang 's PPAs, the first one is maintained by the package maintainer in Debian, the second by the ibus author. Only in this way users can get a better input experience, and I am frustrating about having 1.2.0.20091215-1ubuntu4 in Lucid/Maverick when 1.3.7-1 has already sit in Debian Sid. This single package blocks quite some other packages, like ibus-pinyin to be updated in Ubuntu. From a user's point of view, 1.3.x has a really big improvement that worth to use an untrusted PPA when the trusted maintainer team don't supply updates for quite quite long cycles. The solution to problems like this is to improve Ubuntu development so we can make Ubuntu better for all users. It is not to point everyone to PPAs. Scott K -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: ubuntu-tweak in new
Moins, On Thu, 2010-08-05 at 11:37 -0400, Andrew SB wrote: On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Stephan Hermann s...@sourcecode.de wrote: We had that in the past, and this will happen with unreflected usage of tools like this. (Please read the threads about Automatix and Friends in the past...google have references) For reference, here's Matthew Garrett's technical review of Automatix: http://mjg59.livejournal.com/77440.html Re-reading that now, I note that the issue of adding untrusted third party sources doesn't seem to be the argument against Automatix. Matthew wrote in his last paragraph: In its current form Automatix is unsupportable, and a mechanism for flagging bugs from machines with Automatix installed may provide a valuable aid for determining whether issues are due to supported distribution packages or third party software installers. This may not be read as argument against automatix, but the past told us, what will happen to the Ubuntu Bug tracker when third party repositories (and even PPAs from LP are third party) are enabled and non-distro packages are installed. We had all this discussions in the past, and we came to the conclusion that we want to support backports but in an official means Ubuntu blessed way. That's why we created ubuntu backports repository... But there are also other things I don't like. An easy way to tweak gconf settings could also be dangerous for Ubuntu users. But that's eventually only me. One thing I would like to raise: Someone who wants to tweak his/her setup, is not the normal Ubuntu user. Mostly they are power users, and I do think that really knowledged power users can tweak their systems without such a tool. Making it an easy task to tweak and break peoples Ubuntu installation shouldn't be a goal for us in general. Users of mostly all operating systems are doing things, when someone tells them to do so, but those people don't know anything about the dangers. If something breaks, Ubuntu will be flooded with bug reports and complaints, and this is really something we should avoid. A better solution will be to push more backports. And backporting is not that difficult, it just takes time and caution, to not break working systems. Regards, \sh signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: update ibus (was: ubuntu-tweak in new)
Thanks, I am not complaining about the sponsor team and I know there must be someone to do the merge and supply a debdiff or a branch for the sponsor team to actually do the sponsor. What I am thinking is ibus is a key program for many users especially CJK users, and when someone in the community requests to update the package, there should be somebody (e.g. Ubuntu Desktop Team/Canonical Desktop Team) to do the merge and let Ubuntu Sponsor Team upload it to make the real update. We are common users and Ubuntu wiki (and in various mailing lists) is encouraging us to file requests when we need the program to be updated. But when we asked for updating the package, we seemingly need to merge it ourselves first to make it able to be updated. That's not easy or reasonable for a non-technical desktop user. On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 00:54, Benjamin Drung bdr...@ubuntu.com wrote: Am Freitag, den 06.08.2010, 00:37 +0800 schrieb Aron Xu: For example the ibus series in Ubuntu is OLD, and I filed some sync and merge request about including the newer versions from Debian. But in fact nobody works on the ibus package's merge, and users are getting software that supported by Ubuntu Development team but which are almost dropped by upstream. There are many users in CJK communities using ibus-dev/shawn-p-huang 's PPAs, the first one is maintained by the package maintainer in Debian, the second by the ibus author. Only in this way users can get a better input experience, and I am frustrating about having 1.2.0.20091215-1ubuntu4 in Lucid/Maverick when 1.3.7-1 has already sit in Debian Sid. This single package blocks quite some other packages, like ibus-pinyin to be updated in Ubuntu. From a user's point of view, 1.3.x has a really big improvement that worth to use an untrusted PPA when the trusted maintainer team don't supply updates for quite quite long cycles. To get the newer version into Ubuntu someone has to do the merge and attach a debdiff to the merge bug report [1] or request a sync and explain why the Ubuntu changes can be dropped. If someone is able to provide a package in a PPA, he/she is able to produce a proper debdiff for a merge request. [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ibus/+bug/611224 -- Benjamin Drung Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Maintainer (www.debian.org) -- Regards, Aron Xu -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: ubuntu-tweak in new
于 2010年08月05日 22:59, Reinhard Tartler 写道: On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 10:15:55 (EDT), LI Daobing wrote: ubuntu-tweak does not add any ppa to /etc/apt/sources.list.d/ by default. this only happens when user ask it do. the add-apt-repository command in python-software-properties package also can add ppa to sources.list, so I don't think ubuntu will reject software like this. The difference is that add-apt-repository is that solves the technical problem of enabling PPAs. This is fine for ubuntu. ubuntu-tweak however enables *specific* PPAs that are important to you, but we fear that they have substandard quality packages (otherwise they would be in the main archive, no?). This makes our users think that we somehow endorse these PPAs. ubuntu-tweak suggests some most used PPAs that benefit lots of users, it doesn't enable them once you install and run the program, or enable PPAs via a something like one click solution. It just provides a list of PPAs that users might be interesting, and when the user decide to enable any of them, ubuntu-tweak will warn the user that packages from PPAs won't have the quality assurance like in Ubuntu archive and then enable it. -- Regards, Aron Xu signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: ubuntu-tweak in new
Hi Chris, 于 2010年08月06日 01:00, Chris Coulson 写道: On Thu, 2010-08-05 at 11:57 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: On Thursday, August 05, 2010 11:35:40 am Aron Xu wrote: The PPAs are selected by the ubuntu-tweak authors and community contributors. You may want to pay some time to have a look at ubuntu-tweak.com, which enables the users to add there suggestions and reviews for the developers. Developers will review the PPAs and ask for user feedback for whether the PPAs are good on there own experience. Developers will also only add PPAs which have a significant audience, for example the Mozilla Security Team PPA. One thing I noticed on ubuntu-tweak.com was http://ubuntu- tweak.com/source/clam-antivirus/. This page takes a PPA that I maintain and makes it look like part of ubuntu-tweak. I find this very unpleasant as I feel it is misappropriating my work. It does not give me any confidence at all that the ubuntu-tweak authors are people that I would care to work with. Scott K I just noticed that they also list a PPA that I maintain ( http://ubuntu-tweak.com/source/tracker-unstable-ppa/ ). However, the description on their website doesn't match the description of my PPA on Launchpad. Their description looks like it's been completely written by them to make it look like they are maintaining the packages (Ultimately various packages that I primarily build for my own experiments. I try to keep a package of unstable tracker for Ubuntu Karmic updated here. Please let me know if stuff doesn't work.). My PPA has never had that description, and I find it wholly offensive that they are using it this way. Regards Chris I've checked it with the author and confirmed that it's a bug in his website application, the description comes from ppa:alex-hunziker/ppa, he will fix it when he gets some time this weekend. -- Regards, Aron Xu signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: ubuntu-tweak in new
On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 09:16:05 pm LI Daobing wrote: On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 09:09, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com wrote: On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 09:05:25 pm LI Daobing wrote: Hello, On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 09:00, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com wrote: On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 01:29:46 pm Jonathan Riddell wrote: Ubuntu Tweak is waiting for approval in New queue. http://ubuntu-tweak.com/ https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/252140 Is this something MOTU wants included? No. It looks to me like something that, in addition to proper packaging, ought to have a thorough functional review before entering the archive. I am the packager of ubuntu-tweak, can you tell me what's the problem with ubuntu-tweak? I don't know that there is a problem, but given the invasive nature of it's functionality, I think it appropriate for it to be given more of a review than just being packaged properly. In Ubuntu's history there have been multiple Tweak programs and so far they have always proved to be more harmful than helpful at the scale the Ubuntu archive operates. This one may be the one that gets it right, but having found that they rebrand PPAs that other people maintain as there's on their web site, I'm not at all inclined to assume this is all well intentioned. you are right. this package is active-maintained, and I'll forward your opinion to the upstream author. I think he'll fix this bug. ubuntu-tweak is very useful for me, and it's also has many users. so I want to push it to Ubuntu and hope it can catch ubuntu 10.10. thanks. I don't have a lot of time for a detailed review. A quick look shows that this can enable quite a number of untrusted repositories. My recollection is that we although Envy was initially accepted doing something similar it was required to be fixed to not do this. I don't think a package that adds untrusted repositories is suitable. It would be good if someone else could do a more thorough review. Scott K -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
ubuntu-tweak in new
Ubuntu Tweak is waiting for approval in New queue. http://ubuntu-tweak.com/ https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/252140 Is this something MOTU wants included? Jonathan -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: ubuntu-tweak in new
On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 01:29:46 pm Jonathan Riddell wrote: Ubuntu Tweak is waiting for approval in New queue. http://ubuntu-tweak.com/ https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/252140 Is this something MOTU wants included? No. It looks to me like something that, in addition to proper packaging, ought to have a thorough functional review before entering the archive. Scott K -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: ubuntu-tweak in new
Hello, On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 09:00, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com wrote: On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 01:29:46 pm Jonathan Riddell wrote: Ubuntu Tweak is waiting for approval in New queue. http://ubuntu-tweak.com/ https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/252140 Is this something MOTU wants included? No. It looks to me like something that, in addition to proper packaging, ought to have a thorough functional review before entering the archive. I am the packager of ubuntu-tweak, can you tell me what's the problem with ubuntu-tweak? thanks. -- Best Regards LI Daobing -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: ubuntu-tweak in new
On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 09:05:25 pm LI Daobing wrote: Hello, On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 09:00, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com wrote: On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 01:29:46 pm Jonathan Riddell wrote: Ubuntu Tweak is waiting for approval in New queue. http://ubuntu-tweak.com/ https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/252140 Is this something MOTU wants included? No. It looks to me like something that, in addition to proper packaging, ought to have a thorough functional review before entering the archive. I am the packager of ubuntu-tweak, can you tell me what's the problem with ubuntu-tweak? I don't know that there is a problem, but given the invasive nature of it's functionality, I think it appropriate for it to be given more of a review than just being packaged properly. In Ubuntu's history there have been multiple Tweak programs and so far they have always proved to be more harmful than helpful at the scale the Ubuntu archive operates. This one may be the one that gets it right, but having found that they rebrand PPAs that other people maintain as there's on their web site, I'm not at all inclined to assume this is all well intentioned. Scott K -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: ubuntu-tweak in new
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 09:09, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com wrote: On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 09:05:25 pm LI Daobing wrote: Hello, On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 09:00, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com wrote: On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 01:29:46 pm Jonathan Riddell wrote: Ubuntu Tweak is waiting for approval in New queue. http://ubuntu-tweak.com/ https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/252140 Is this something MOTU wants included? No. It looks to me like something that, in addition to proper packaging, ought to have a thorough functional review before entering the archive. I am the packager of ubuntu-tweak, can you tell me what's the problem with ubuntu-tweak? I don't know that there is a problem, but given the invasive nature of it's functionality, I think it appropriate for it to be given more of a review than just being packaged properly. In Ubuntu's history there have been multiple Tweak programs and so far they have always proved to be more harmful than helpful at the scale the Ubuntu archive operates. This one may be the one that gets it right, but having found that they rebrand PPAs that other people maintain as there's on their web site, I'm not at all inclined to assume this is all well intentioned. you are right. this package is active-maintained, and I'll forward your opinion to the upstream author. I think he'll fix this bug. ubuntu-tweak is very useful for me, and it's also has many users. so I want to push it to Ubuntu and hope it can catch ubuntu 10.10. thanks. -- Best Regards LI Daobing -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: ubuntu-tweak in new
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.comwrote: On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 09:05:25 pm LI Daobing wrote: Hello, On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 09:00, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com wrote: On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 01:29:46 pm Jonathan Riddell wrote: Ubuntu Tweak is waiting for approval in New queue. http://ubuntu-tweak.com/ https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/252140 Is this something MOTU wants included? No. It looks to me like something that, in addition to proper packaging, ought to have a thorough functional review before entering the archive. I am the packager of ubuntu-tweak, can you tell me what's the problem with ubuntu-tweak? I don't know that there is a problem, but given the invasive nature of it's functionality, I think it appropriate for it to be given more of a review than just being packaged properly. In Ubuntu's history there have been multiple Tweak programs and so far they have always proved to be more harmful than helpful at the scale the Ubuntu archive operates. This one may be the one that gets it right, but having found that they rebrand PPAs that other people maintain as there's on their web site, I'm not at all inclined to assume this is all well intentioned. I did the upload, the package itself are fine, I think we'd have it in our repositary, then can it be used more widely, therefore, upstream author know how to improve/polish it. Scott K -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: ubuntu-tweak in new
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 1:29 AM, Jonathan Riddell jridd...@ubuntu.comwrote: Ubuntu Tweak is waiting for approval in New queue. http://ubuntu-tweak.com/ https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/252140 Is this something MOTU wants included? Yes, I want it, and actually, its being used widely in China. Jonathan -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
