[ubuntu-studio-devel] Ferature Spec Discussion: Testing
If anyone is interested in helping out with writing and performing tests during this cycle, please answer this mail (and do read on). We hardly do any testing at all during our cycle, currently. This needs to be changed. Naturally, we do required tests for our releases, the Beta releases and the final release, but other than that, there's no structured testing. There are two kinds of testing that we would like to do: * Quality Assurance Testing - to make sure there are no bugs for a wide range of applications * performance testing (which is rather a big topic) The most urgent type of testing we need to deal with is the first of those. (So far, what we have in testing documentation can be found here https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuStudio/TestingDocumentation) # QA testing I suggest we establish a plan for testing, write test cases, and such, until Debian Import Freeze (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DebianImportFreeze), which is scheduled to happen Aug 7th this cycle. Debian Import Freeze is a great time to do testing on Debian imported packages, since those packages won't be changing before release. It also gives us some time to find bugs, report them and fix them (Testing can of course be done from day one of our development cycle. The more time we have to spot bugs and fix them, the better, but we should begin no later than Debian Import Freeze). So: * Test writing may starts any time * Testing of applications should begin no later than at Debian Import Freeze, Aug 7th Elfy has offered to give us a hand on this. If he likes, he could take the role of QA lead for Ubuntu Studio during the next cycle, and mentor us into set up testing. What do you think elfy? The people who write the tests should know the applications they write the tests for. The test should be as simple as possible, but still designed to spot as many typical problems as possible for that application. # Performance testing During this cycle, as we might be getting a new kernel into the repo, we need to at least test linux-rt to see if it is worth the trouble to maintain it. Also, it might not be a bad idea to test performance on different DEs. We need to figure out how to do those tests, so if anyone has any experience in this, please let us know. -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Naming the metas, WAS:Re: Feature Spec discussion: ubuntustudio-desktop
On Sun, May 18, 2014, at 03:53 PM, Len Ovens wrote: On Sun, 18 May 2014, Kaj Ailomaa wrote: I would suggest we name the metas and the desktop sessions: ubuntustudio-gnome ubuntustudio-kde ubuntustudio-lxde ubuntustudio-unity ubuntustudio-xfce Does the one that comes stock need to have it's own name? or should it be called -custom? I guess my question is shouldn't the user be aware which DE is considered default and is most customised/tested? I think the custom meta should just be called ubuntustudio-desktop, as now. -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
[ubuntu-studio-devel] Feature Spec Discussion: Introduce New Netinstall ISO
I would like us to introduce a new netinstall type of ISO, small enough to fit on a CD, and useful when you don't want to install the whole suite of packages that come with Ubuntu Studio. I'm thinking a stripped down version of our current ISO. Keep the core stuff, like jack, so the installer can be used for simple testing too, but otherwise nothing. We will need a super light DE setup for this. I do prefer to have a DE, with a web browser and easy graphical means of setting up wifi, and such. Also, with the ubiquity installer. As little maintenance as possible should be the goal of course. Any Ideas? -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Feature Spec Discussion: Introduce New Netinstall ISO
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Kaj Ailomaa zeque...@mousike.me wrote: I would like us to introduce a new netinstall type of ISO, small enough to fit on a CD, and useful when you don't want to install the whole suite of packages that come with Ubuntu Studio. I'm thinking a stripped down version of our current ISO. Keep the core stuff, like jack, so the installer can be used for simple testing too, but otherwise nothing. We will need a super light DE setup for this. I do prefer to have a DE, with a web browser and easy graphical means of setting up wifi, and such. Also, with the ubiquity installer. As little maintenance as possible should be the goal of course. Any Ideas? I think it's great idea and have been toying with it lately as well. I ended up using the Ubuntu Studio ISO and then uncheck all packages but the ones I really want. After that I installed dwm as WM and dwb as a browser. I like it, but perhaps a bit too complicated for the average user with dwm and dwb. I'm running it on a usb-stick in an old eee-pc and it's working great. Though setting up wifi I kind of cheated as I kept Xfce and logged in there to set it up, after that it carries over to when I log in to dwm. I have been wanting to do like a mini-iso and even looking into using terminal audio tools, but that's also stretching it a bit far. When comparing size, resource usage and ease of use I think we are already on the right track with Xfce. My own small investigations have not come up with a better solution which is also easy to set up wifi and so on. The difference between Xfce and Lxde have been to minor to make any difference IMHO. /Jimmy -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Feature Spec Discussion: Introduce New Netinstall ISO
As little maintenance ? so try first using Unity before considering switching to another desktop. Otherwise, LXDE in its latest version is interesting. I would keep the very basics if possible: Firefox, Ardour, Gimp and Inkscape, maybe a video editor like Pitivi. But I would drop Libre Office and other stuff like that. Antoine THOMAS Tél: 0663137906 2014-05-19 13:31 GMT+02:00 Kaj Ailomaa zeque...@mousike.me: I would like us to introduce a new netinstall type of ISO, small enough to fit on a CD, and useful when you don't want to install the whole suite of packages that come with Ubuntu Studio. I'm thinking a stripped down version of our current ISO. Keep the core stuff, like jack, so the installer can be used for simple testing too, but otherwise nothing. We will need a super light DE setup for this. I do prefer to have a DE, with a web browser and easy graphical means of setting up wifi, and such. Also, with the ubiquity installer. As little maintenance as possible should be the goal of course. Any Ideas? -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Feature Spec discussion: Realtime Privilege and access to ffado devices
+1 for your 2 ideas. We need to use realtime group ! Antoine THOMAS Tél: 0663137906 2014-05-18 11:41 GMT+02:00 Kaj Ailomaa zeque...@mousike.me: We should do something about how realtime privilege is administered. Currently, the upstream Debian package jackd installs a file, giving members of audio group access to tuned rtprio and memlock, at /etc/security/limits.d/audio.conf. Also, access to ffado drivers is done from /lib/udev/rules.d/60-ffado.rules, also giving audio group the right to use a set of ffado supported devices. This all works fine in Debian, since the user is in audio group by default. Not on Ubuntu though, since the group is used for other things. I would prefer that installing jackd would give the user realtime privilege the same way on any Debian derived system, and since audio group is out of the question, we should look at other alternatives. A couple of ideas: * introduce two new groups and make sure both Debian and Ubuntu introduces them. Name them jack and ffado. * Make jack use rt-kit. (We still need a way for jack to get access to ffado devices though) -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Feature Spec Discussion: Introduce New Netinstall ISO
On Mon, May 19, 2014, at 01:54 PM, ttoine wrote: As little maintenance ? so try first using Unity before considering switching to another desktop. Using unity would mean we need to create a custom desktop seed file for Unity, which would place us in the situation where we do need to do maintenance for it. I would rather our seed file only pointed to an existing DE, which was small in size. lxde is a strong candidate there - one would just need to make sure it is functional enough for what we want it to do. If we start supporting multiple DEs, unity will always be installable though. Otherwise, LXDE in its latest version is interesting. I would keep the very basics if possible: Firefox, Ardour, Gimp and Inkscape, maybe a video editor like Pitivi. But I would drop Libre Office and other stuff like that. The smaller ISO is not meant to be used as a live tool, so if we are to put any applications on it other than a basic DE, a web browser and the installer, we need to figure out why. I would still like it if one could do a bit of troubleshooting with it. And for that, it's good to have jack, and perhaps one application to go with it. As for other areas, I wouldn't know what would be worth to include for the sake of troubleshooting. -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Feature Spec discussion: ubuntustudio-desktop
On Mon, May 19, 2014, at 02:43 PM, Jimmy Sjölund wrote: On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Kaj Ailomaa zeque...@mousike.me wrote: # Supporting multiple Desktop Environments There has long been talk about us possibly supporting multiple desktop environments. Doing so, we would use existing DE metas, and just add our own session, menu, and artwork. The desktop environments in question would be unity, gnome, kde, xfce and lxde. There are two ways we can do this: * base our desktop environments on flavor DE metas such as ubuntu-desktop, xubuntu-desktop, etc, * or we base on the vanilla DE metas, such as xfce4 (not sure how that works with unity though) So, let's discuss the pros and cons with selecting one over the other. Perhaps choice one is better for some DEs, and choice two better for others? I think one of the advantages for us to use for instance xubuntu-desktop is that the possibilities for support is much greater. If it's a vanilla Xubuntu desktop you would have all the xubuntu community to help out with DE related questions. Sure, with a plain Xfce DE we could say that we would have all the xfce-community to help out with support but I think it's easier to provide closer support within the *buntu sphere. /Jimmy Good point. Quite a significant one, i would say. In that case we would offer the user choices between other DE based flavors, and not just DE environments. So, that would equal to: Ubuntu Studio Xubuntu Studio Kubuntu Studio Lubuntu Studio Ubuntu Gnome Studio And, the Studio bit would be more of an overlay for these existing flavors. -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Feature Spec discussion: ubuntustudio-desktop
On Sun, 18 May 2014, bart deruyter wrote: Hi, the reason for upgrading each 6 months and not sticking to LTS version is mainly Krita and Blender for me. Those are evolving so fast it's hard to keep up without upgrading. The dependencies change with them because they often use latest stable versions of certain libraries. Because for me personally I do need or want to use the new features of those applications (e.g. fire and smoke rendering in cycles (blender), painting in tiles for textures (krita) ) it becomes hard to stick to LTS versions and even then I have to add for example kubuntu-backports to my system. Bottom line is that the reason to upgrade to the non-LTS versions is that development between OS and applications is not synchronised. The audio world has been moving quite quickly too. (though maybe not as fast as blender in the past year or so) Certainly Ardour3 showed up between LTSs and some of the pulse fixes were quite signifcant as well. As a ballance to that Harison Mixbus is still a very valid tool and still worth buying even though it is bassed on ardour 2. There are a number of people who are just not using some of the new tools and still do amazing recordings with past LTS (some no longer supported). I think For people doing keyboard centred or electronic music things are moving fast enough to do more keeping up than just LTS. -- Len Ovens www.ovenwerks.net -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Feature Spec Discussion: Introduce New Netinstall ISO
On Mon, 19 May 2014, Kaj Ailomaa wrote: I would like us to introduce a new netinstall type of ISO, small enough to fit on a CD, and useful when you don't want to install the whole suite of packages that come with Ubuntu Studio. A netinstall ISO is in the form of the old style ALT iso. Is this what you mean? This is an install only media except for shell access. The old alt installs were the netiso with a package repo on disk and an install script to install them. Not much good for testing. I'm thinking a stripped down version of our current ISO. Keep the core stuff, like jack, so the installer can be used for simple testing too, but otherwise nothing. We will need a super light DE setup for this. I do prefer to have a DE, with a web browser and easy graphical means of setting up wifi, and such. Also, with the ubiquity installer. As little maintenance as possible should be the goal of course. Ah, So this is really a very lite live iso. It needs a WM and a menu to work. But could still do the install an alt style so that the the packages on the ISO itself would not be what got installed. I do not know how well ubiquity would deal with this. But ubuntustudio-installer with the expansions you have envisioned might do well... except that would require (ubiquity too) a number of gui libs to be installed. I would almost suggest against any of the DEs that we support so that the user would be aware from the start that this look and feel of this ISO are not representative of any of the installed flavours. It would be good to define the exact use cases for this ISO. -- Len Ovens www.ovenwerks.net -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] kernel vs DE WAS:Re: Feature Spec discussion: ubuntustudio-desktop
That's exactly what I am saying. It was a pre-release version of US I was playing with, but with the move from a Raring based to a Saucy development version the rt kernel had a broken video driver (radeon r600). If that driver is working in current rt kernels that issue may have come and gone, but the fact that it got out at all means that the rt patch set has broken drivers before and could do so again. Since I edit video, the rt kernel is not needed for my normal workflow and is not installed in my normal operating system On 5/19/2014 at 6:17 AM, Kaj Ailomaa zeque...@mousike.me wrote: On Sun, May 18, 2014, at 07:59 PM, lukefro...@hushmail.com wrote: Watch out for rt-kernel issues with 3d desktops. When I was trying to develop a metapackage for Cinnamon against Saucy, I had issues with some rt kernel versions being unable to run the 3d desktop. I would expect similar issues both with Unity and with Gnome. The work I was doing was seriously hampered by the fact that my own install upon which it was based has diverged so far from anyone's default install. If you want to support GNOME and Unity, watch out for rt-kernel bugs affecting at least the radeon/r600g video driver. I don't know if those made it into Saucy's released kernel, but those were what made me throw in the towel. Are you saying you had problems getting accelerated graphics to work? I would believe free drivers always work, while non-free ones installed from the repo may not build for a custom kernel, unless done manually - but I suppose this was not your problem. -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Feature Spec Discussion: Introduce New Netinstall ISO
On Mon, May 19, 2014, at 05:32 PM, Len Ovens wrote: On Mon, 19 May 2014, Kaj Ailomaa wrote: I would like us to introduce a new netinstall type of ISO, small enough to fit on a CD, and useful when you don't want to install the whole suite of packages that come with Ubuntu Studio. A netinstall ISO is in the form of the old style ALT iso. Is this what you mean? This is an install only media except for shell access. The old alt installs were the netiso with a package repo on disk and an install script to install them. Not much good for testing. I'm thinking a stripped down version of our current ISO. Keep the core stuff, like jack, so the installer can be used for simple testing too, but otherwise nothing. We will need a super light DE setup for this. I do prefer to have a DE, with a web browser and easy graphical means of setting up wifi, and such. Also, with the ubiquity installer. As little maintenance as possible should be the goal of course. Ah, So this is really a very lite live iso. It needs a WM and a menu to work. But could still do the install an alt style so that the the packages on the ISO itself would not be what got installed. I do not know how well ubiquity would deal with this. But ubuntustudio-installer with the expansions you have envisioned might do well... except that would require (ubiquity too) a number of gui libs to be installed. I would almost suggest against any of the DEs that we support so that the user would be aware from the start that this look and feel of this ISO are not representative of any of the installed flavours. It would be good to define the exact use cases for this ISO. -- By netinstall, I don't mean in the traditional term. Just that most things get installed over the net, instead of from the ISO. My view, as I said before, would be it is to be used for two things: * installing only what you need over the internet (so, no need to download the entire 2+GB ISO) * simple troubleshooting/testing (again, no need to download the entire 2+GB ISO). Also, it would be nice if could fit on a CD, all though the CD is a dying medium. -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Feature Spec Discussion: Introduce New Netinstall ISO
On Mon, May 19, 2014, at 11:10 PM, Kaj Ailomaa wrote: On Mon, May 19, 2014, at 05:32 PM, Len Ovens wrote: On Mon, 19 May 2014, Kaj Ailomaa wrote: I would like us to introduce a new netinstall type of ISO, small enough to fit on a CD, and useful when you don't want to install the whole suite of packages that come with Ubuntu Studio. A netinstall ISO is in the form of the old style ALT iso. Is this what you mean? This is an install only media except for shell access. The old alt installs were the netiso with a package repo on disk and an install script to install them. Not much good for testing. I'm thinking a stripped down version of our current ISO. Keep the core stuff, like jack, so the installer can be used for simple testing too, but otherwise nothing. We will need a super light DE setup for this. I do prefer to have a DE, with a web browser and easy graphical means of setting up wifi, and such. Also, with the ubiquity installer. As little maintenance as possible should be the goal of course. Ah, So this is really a very lite live iso. It needs a WM and a menu to work. But could still do the install an alt style so that the the packages on the ISO itself would not be what got installed. I do not know how well ubiquity would deal with this. But ubuntustudio-installer with the expansions you have envisioned might do well... except that would require (ubiquity too) a number of gui libs to be installed. I would almost suggest against any of the DEs that we support so that the user would be aware from the start that this look and feel of this ISO are not representative of any of the installed flavours. It would be good to define the exact use cases for this ISO. -- By netinstall, I don't mean in the traditional term. Just that most things get installed over the net, instead of from the ISO. My view, as I said before, would be it is to be used for two things: * installing only what you need over the internet (so, no need to download the entire 2+GB ISO) * simple troubleshooting/testing (again, no need to download the entire 2+GB ISO). Also, it would be nice if could fit on a CD, all though the CD is a dying medium. And, using ubiquity, and in all other regards, a similar setup to our DVD, would make it easier to maintain. Less variables to keep track off. Also, as I suggested before, having network-manager with a graphical gui is kind of nice when setting up an internet connection, if you need wifi. Plus, when doing simple testing, you still need graphical tools, and most often, access to the internet with a browser. -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] kernel vs DE WAS:Re: Feature Spec discussion: ubuntustudio-desktop
On Mon, May 19, 2014, at 07:23 PM, lukefro...@hushmail.com wrote: That's exactly what I am saying. It was a pre-release version of US I was playing with, but with the move from a Raring based to a Saucy development version the rt kernel had a broken video driver (radeon r600). If that driver is working in current rt kernels that issue may have come and gone, but the fact that it got out at all means that the rt patch set has broken drivers before and could do so again. Since I edit video, the rt kernel is not needed for my normal workflow and is not installed in my normal operating system We won't ship a rt kernel by default, or at least not have it as the default option during boot. Linux-lowlatency is more or less equal to linux-generic, and will most probably never have graphic driver issues. So, no problems there :) -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] kernel vs DE WAS:Re: Feature Spec discussion: ubuntustudio-desktop
The kernel used was the default in a pre-release Saucy DVD installer dated August 2, 2013 On 5/19/2014 at 5:16 PM, Kaj Ailomaa zeque...@mousike.me wrote: On Mon, May 19, 2014, at 07:23 PM, lukefro...@hushmail.com wrote: That's exactly what I am saying. It was a pre-release version of US I was playing with, but with the move from a Raring based to a Saucy development version the rt kernel had a broken video driver (radeon r600). If that driver is working in current rt kernels that issue may have come and gone, but the fact that it got out at all means that the rt patch set has broken drivers before and could do so again. Since I edit video, the rt kernel is not needed for my normal workflow and is not installed in my normal operating system We won't ship a rt kernel by default, or at least not have it as the default option during boot. Linux-lowlatency is more or less equal to linux-generic, and will most probably never have graphic driver issues. So, no problems there :) -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Feature Spec Discussion: Introduce New Netinstall ISO
On Mon, 19 May 2014, Kaj Ailomaa wrote: By netinstall, I don't mean in the traditional term. Just that most things get installed over the net, instead of from the ISO. My view, as I said before, would be it is to be used for two things: * installing only what you need over the internet (so, no need to download the entire 2+GB ISO) * simple troubleshooting/testing (again, no need to download the entire 2+GB ISO). Also, it would be nice if could fit on a CD, all though the CD is a dying medium. 200 Meg CDs fit in pockets real nice. I once had (maybe I still do) an ISO image that would fit in 200 Meg with a DE, browser and a pack of network and other admin tools... even a windows reg editor. Seems to me the browser was very basic, but there was a menu item for downloading and installing firefox into memory But, are there any machines made since 2000 that will not boot from a USB stick? USB started showing up before then. I do have One running laptop from 98 that while it does have a usb port, will not boot from it. However, at 360Mhz and 256M ram, it is not going to do much of any audio. In fact, there is no Ubuntu flavour that is worth running on it. Funny, I used to be able to get videos to run smoothly on it at one time. I used vcds to keep the kids busy on long trips. Anyway, Aim for CD size, if for nothing else besides short DL time. Do you want it pretty too? or are coloured backgrounds ok? Can we ditch plymouth? Is there some kind of sandbox we can build ISOs in? If the ISO has a package blacklisted so it is not included on the ISO, can ubiquity still DL and install that package later? Right now our (and most flavours) rely on a basic desktop package (i'm guessing X and some generic X apps/utils). It would be nice to still use that but be able to blacklist things at least to try without them. IS there any reason to do both 32 and 64 bit.. at least to start? I wouldn't mind playing with a seed package for this. ubiquity uses gtk? (on top of python) So the DE should also be GTK based. LXDE has announced they are moving towards QT, so that is probably out unless there is a qt based version of ubiquity that does not also use the kde toolkit. XFCE is probaly the only one that makes sense, or to put it another, any other DE will still result in the gtk libs just for ubiquity anyway. We need a menu, but not indicators or systray, the netman will run without them. Do we need the panel? Is there a menu without? (if so would the average user find it?) How stripped down do we want/need? The install option has no DE. ubiquity becomes the wm. It will start the netmanager if it is needed for example. We can make something with very little that will do the job, but should we? Matchbox anyone? -- Len Ovens www.ovenwerks.net -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Naming the metas, WAS:Re: Feature Spec discussion: ubuntustudio-desktop
In regard to the names why not stick with kubuntu lubunutu xubuntu etc for the names? and ubuntu can be going or unity? On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Kaj Ailomaa zeque...@mousike.me wrote: On Sun, May 18, 2014, at 03:53 PM, Len Ovens wrote: On Sun, 18 May 2014, Kaj Ailomaa wrote: I would suggest we name the metas and the desktop sessions: ubuntustudio-gnome ubuntustudio-kde ubuntustudio-lxde ubuntustudio-unity ubuntustudio-xfce Does the one that comes stock need to have it's own name? or should it be called -custom? I guess my question is shouldn't the user be aware which DE is considered default and is most customised/tested? I think the custom meta should just be called ubuntustudio-desktop, as now. -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel -- Jonathan Aquilina -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
