Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Numix Blue Theme
On 01/10/16 17:16, Set Hallstrom wrote: I hope Krytarik wants to step in here because i know neither what are the pros nor what are the cons of "virtual package" and "breaks/replaces" :/ A virtual package is normally used when two packages provide similar functionality, and the user can chose which package to install, and it will "provide" the virtual package that other packages will depend upon. It is also used in other complicated transitional arrangements. But this is a simple case of moving files from one package to another, for which a breaks/replaces is normally sufficient. See: https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/dreq.en.html#control https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html xubuntu-icon-theme was a depend of -lightdm-theme, hence they were moved over with it. Perfect, that was what I was missing. A changelog entry (or a separate bzr commit & message) would have helped :-) I truly hope i'm not making things more complicated with my interaction and that we will be able to find a good solution in time. No problems. I think a simpler diff (only the default settings changes) will be easier to review and generate less questions/delay from the sponsor. And it will get us the new theme. It is pretty simple to replay the commits back in later. Cheers, Ross -- 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] Numix Blue Theme
Hi Ross, Thank you for taking a look at this. Most of your questions and the details are unfortunately beyond reach of my skills, but I'll do my best to address the little i know about it bellow: On 2016-10-01 14:01, Ross Gammon wrote: > Hi All, > > I sat down this morning to review where we are with implementing the new > theme. It was a little tricky to follow what was done where, and why. It > would be more helpful to reviewers and potential sponsors if we > submitted a bug on launchpad, then carried out discussions there, and > created a task for the required actions on each package so we can track > when they are all complete. For example, we have the theme uploaded in > ubuntustudio-look, but we haven't changed the default settings in > ubuntustudio-default-setttings yet. > > So where are we we with each package? > > ubuntustudio-look: > > Kaj uploaded Version 0.54 to yakkety, and this appears to now depend on > numix-gtk-theme, and numix-blue-gtk-theme. Numix-blue-gtk-theme is a new > binary package (of ubuntustudio-look) and contains the bundled source of > the upstream tarball. It would have been better to create a separate > source package for this, but I suppose doing it this way avoided the > need to get sponsorship outside of the team. And a note for Set for next > time - the commit bundling numix-blue included a lot of other changes > that probably should have been committed separately to bzr. But no harm > done. We should probably: > > 1. Submit bug to remind ourselves to see of we can drop some theme > packages now to save space (or has this already been done?). I don't know. But i guess if there are unnecessary packages that haven't been drop, it would be a good idea to do it. > > 2. Submit a bug to remind ourselves to explain the inclusion of the > numix-blue source in a debian/README.source file at the next upload. There were three options identified: 1.) Package NumixBlue properly in Debian, 2.) Package it separately in Ubuntu, and 3.) Add it temporarily to -look until we can do the first. We chose the only sensible option there in terms of timing. > > ubuntustudio-default-settings: > > This has not been uploaded yet (currently version 0.62 in Yakkety), but > Krytarik has prepared the required changes to make numix blue the > default, which without a full check look fine. Unfortunately, there is > also a commit to move the lightdm configuration to > ubuntu-default-settings from the separate source package > (ubuntustudio-lightdm-theme). This is probably the right thing to do, > because the us-lightdm-theme package is practically empty now (except > for this one configuration file). But the timing is unfortunate (so > close to release), and the changelog entry could have been a bit more > verbose, explaining that we are moving the config file from one source > package to another (in preparation for dropping the lightdm package one > day). > > 1. We should also have a launchpad bug for this change, so we can track > the eventual removal of the lightdm package (and mention it in the > changelog). Good point. I would love to file it so i can unload work-burden for you, but the level of my confusion in this issue is.. palpable to say the least. > > 2. We have updated debian/control to also provide the us-lightdm-theme > package. I don't think creating a virtual package is appropriate here. > It is probably sufficient to just have breaks/replaces so that > us-lightdm-theme is removed on upgrade. I hope Krytarik wants to step in here because i know neither what are the pros nor what are the cons of "virtual package" and "breaks/replaces" :/ > > 3. We also seem to have added a dependency on xubuntu-icon-theme, which > is not explained in the changelog. Do we know why this is required? xubuntu-icon-theme was a depend of -lightdm-theme, hence they were moved over with it. > > ubuntustudio-lightdm-theme (currently version 0.9 9n yakkety & xenial): > > As I said above, us-lightdm is practically empty, except for this one > config file that we should move to default-settings. However, I notice > at the last upload we changed to a tidier way of using a maintainer > script to remove the old config file (which was renamed at this > version). I am not 100% sure, but by setting the lastversion that the > config file existed to 0.9, the config file may not be removed in an > upgrade to Xenial. It probably should have said 0.8. This maintainer > script should probably also be moved to the default-settings package in > the merge above, so that us-lightdm-theme can be removed eventually. > This theory needs some testing. This is very hard for me to assimilate, but what i know is that ubuntustudio-lightdm-theme 0.9 was already released in Xenial > > Summary: > > Krytarik has done a good job here (as things certainly were a little > messy before), but at this stage I think we should revert the commit > that moves the config to default-settings, and just upload the changes > to make
[ubuntu-studio-devel] Numix Blue Theme
Hi All, I sat down this morning to review where we are with implementing the new theme. It was a little tricky to follow what was done where, and why. It would be more helpful to reviewers and potential sponsors if we submitted a bug on launchpad, then carried out discussions there, and created a task for the required actions on each package so we can track when they are all complete. For example, we have the theme uploaded in ubuntustudio-look, but we haven't changed the default settings in ubuntustudio-default-setttings yet. So where are we we with each package? ubuntustudio-look: Kaj uploaded Version 0.54 to yakkety, and this appears to now depend on numix-gtk-theme, and numix-blue-gtk-theme. Numix-blue-gtk-theme is a new binary package (of ubuntustudio-look) and contains the bundled source of the upstream tarball. It would have been better to create a separate source package for this, but I suppose doing it this way avoided the need to get sponsorship outside of the team. And a note for Set for next time - the commit bundling numix-blue included a lot of other changes that probably should have been committed separately to bzr. But no harm done. We should probably: 1. Submit bug to remind ourselves to see of we can drop some theme packages now to save space (or has this already been done?). 2. Submit a bug to remind ourselves to explain the inclusion of the numix-blue source in a debian/README.source file at the next upload. ubuntustudio-default-settings: This has not been uploaded yet (currently version 0.62 in Yakkety), but Krytarik has prepared the required changes to make numix blue the default, which without a full check look fine. Unfortunately, there is also a commit to move the lightdm configuration to ubuntu-default-settings from the separate source package (ubuntustudio-lightdm-theme). This is probably the right thing to do, because the us-lightdm-theme package is practically empty now (except for this one configuration file). But the timing is unfortunate (so close to release), and the changelog entry could have been a bit more verbose, explaining that we are moving the config file from one source package to another (in preparation for dropping the lightdm package one day). 1. We should also have a launchpad bug for this change, so we can track the eventual removal of the lightdm package (and mention it in the changelog). 2. We have updated debian/control to also provide the us-lightdm-theme package. I don't think creating a virtual package is appropriate here. It is probably sufficient to just have breaks/replaces so that us-lightdm-theme is removed on upgrade. 3. We also seem to have added a dependency on xubuntu-icon-theme, which is not explained in the changelog. Do we know why this is required? ubuntustudio-lightdm-theme (currently version 0.9 9n yakkety & xenial): As I said above, us-lightdm is practically empty, except for this one config file that we should move to default-settings. However, I notice at the last upload we changed to a tidier way of using a maintainer script to remove the old config file (which was renamed at this version). I am not 100% sure, but by setting the lastversion that the config file existed to 0.9, the config file may not be removed in an upgrade to Xenial. It probably should have said 0.8. This maintainer script should probably also be moved to the default-settings package in the merge above, so that us-lightdm-theme can be removed eventually. This theory needs some testing. Summary: Krytarik has done a good job here (as things certainly were a little messy before), but at this stage I think we should revert the commit that moves the config to default-settings, and just upload the changes to make numix blue the default. Then we should implement the config move early in the next release cycle to get maximum upgrade testing from previous releases. If there are no mistakes/comments in this analysis (and I could do with an answer on the xubuntu-icon-theme question above), I will probably start on this later today/tomorrow. Regards, Ross -- 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] Final push before release.
I have been doing a bit of travelling the last two weeks, but apart from the usual family commitments, I should be largely available the next two weeks. Cheers, Ross On 09/30/2016 03:57 PM, Set Hallstrom wrote: > Hi list, > > As you probably know, next week is Release Candidate and the week after > is the Final release. I am facing 2 major difficulties in timing: > - My mom is visiting me from Switzerland during RC > - I start working on a new job full-time the day before RC. > > It should be fine anyways, but i feel i need to inform you since i will > not be as available as i would like to. > > How will it be looking with you guys? Will you be around? > > Yours, > > -- 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
