Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] LTS proposal 14.04
On 02/24/2014 06:06 AM, Kaj Ailomaa wrote: > We are asked to make a proposal for our LTS, and how long we would like > to support it. > > If no one objects, I will create a simple page declaring that we would > like to support Ubuntu Studio for the full period that Ubuntu supports > it's LTS (5 years), and following their schedule of point releases. > > Motivation: > Older machines will have use of an older release, and it is quite common > for production machines to keep the same release over a period of many > years for the sake of stability and simplicity (no need to learn new > features). > Support needed is quite minimal. If there are bugs specific to Ubuntu > Studio we fix them. Past the Xubuntu 3 year support period, if there are > any XFCE specific bugs, we fix those too - but usually after 3 years, > not much changes, so support is quite easy. > > Possible reasons against: > Xubuntu will only support their LTS for 3 years. Since we base our > default DE on theirs, it means we need to take over support for > everything XFCE related after those three years. > > You can read more about the call for flavors to state their LTS status > here > https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-release/2014-February/002783.html > I think I should explain some of the reasoning that went into the Xubuntu decision to support the LTS for 3 years. The last LTS cycle, we were basically aligned with Debian for the Xfce base and Debian releases are only supported in their entirety for about 3 years (stable + oldstable). Xubuntu did not have (and still doesn't have) the resources to maintain Xfce without upstream or Debian support. Upstream Xfce's support cycle length is generally 1-2 years. The 4.10 cycle has been a bit longer since 4.12 is at least a year overdue at this point. Committing to a shorter length to support your packageset doesn't mean that you can't backport multimedia applications or SRU fixes after that point. You can do that for most of the full 5 years of support. It means that Studio as a whole is only supported for X years and after that, it's advised to upgrade to the next LTS. Another alternative is to suggest using an alternate DE after 3 years (like KDE). Best wishes, Micah -- 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] Debian Autoremoval
On 09/30/2013 01:35 PM, Len Ovens wrote: > I don't really understand how debian works... so this is a bit of a > mistery what this mans exactly. My main concern is if this would > affect packages we sync from debian, or if once it is synced it > matters less what debian does. > > See: > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2013/09/msg6.html > > Some of the packages (Like Ardour) that are meantioned are quite > important to our flavour. > All this means is that'll be removed from testing (Jessie). They'll remain in unstable (which is what Ubuntu syncs from for everything except for maybe the LTS, even then one can request a sync from unstable). Micah -- 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: Weekly Reminder of Ubuntu Studio ToMerge packages
On 05/13/2013 01:20 AM, Len Ovens wrote: > On Sun, May 12, 2013 11:00 pm, Kaj Ailomaa wrote: >> -- List of Ubuntu Studio merges that need attention by someone -- > Assuming these are package names: >> isdnutils - universe >> oss4 - universe > Ubuntustudio doesn't seem to ship either one. > > And this one doesn't show up at all: >> msttcorefonts - multiverse > I can find ttf-mscorefonts-installer though. But it seems we don't need it > to run. LMMS runs without. (or it runs with the installer failing for lack > of user input) > These are source package names, not binary package names. You can see the binary packages by running rmadison -S -s saucy $SOURCE_PKG_NAME Micah -- 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: Weekly Reminder of Ubuntu Studio ToMerge packages
Comments inline On 05/09/2013 09:16 AM, Kaj Ailomaa wrote: > -- List of Ubuntu Studio merges that need attention by someone -- > > Before doing anything, please read > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/Merging > For detailed info on the individual packages, see > https://merges.ubuntu.com/universe.html, and > https://merges.ubuntu.com/multiverse.html > And as the latter pages say: > - If you are not the previous uploader, ask the previous uploader before > doing the merge. This prevents two people from doing the same work. > > audacious-plugins Shared with Lubuntu > isdnutils this is very out of sync, so it's not suggested for a beginner > kdenlive This should be coordinated with Kubuntu > libav-extra Not in Debian anymore, no merge needed > lightdm-gtk-greeter > murrine-themes Shared with Xubuntu > oss4 > rtaudio Studio specific, not on images > xchat shared with Xubuntu > khronos-opencl-headers Studio specific, not on images > msttcorefonts Studio specific I'd suggest starting with the Studio specific stuff, and then moving to the shared components. By the way, you can see if any source is shared with seeded-in-ubuntu from ubuntu-dev-tools. Micah -- 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: LiveFS ubuntustudio-dvd/precise/i386 failed to build on 20121115
On 11/15/2012 04:28 PM, Len Ovens wrote: > On Thu, November 15, 2012 12:36 pm, CD Image wrote: > >> The following packages have unmet dependencies: >> linux-lowlatency-pae : Depends: linux-image-lowlatency-pae (= >> 3.2.0.33.21) but it is not going to be installed >> E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages. >> P: Begin unmounting filesystems... > Zequence, do we need a transitional package away from the PAE name? > > Well, the issue is that the kernel team didn't build the separate PAE kernel with the last update they did. This means that users that had the PAE kernel installed won't get the update that was pushed out. Thanks, Micah -- 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: [testcases] Creation of Ubuntu Studio specific testcase
On 09/24/2012 10:06 AM, Kaj Ailomaa wrote: > On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 09:36:20 +0200, Ho Wan Chan > wrote: > > > > > > I think it will be a better idea to just let people who want to > help with the testcase to edit the testcase in a wiki. So I > created a wiki > page > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/QuantalTestcaseUpdates/UbuntuStudioTestcase to > let you all edit it. > > Actually it is the steps after installation is more important, so > you can think about what we can add, e.g. audio testing, hardware > testing... > > You may have a look > at > http://iso.qa.ubuntu.com/qatracker/milestones/219/builds/23726/testcases/1434/results > and > http://iso.qa.ubuntu.com/qatracker/milestones/219/builds/23726/testcases/1433/results > and > look at the examples. > > > > > I think we should focus as little as possible on Ubuntu and Xubuntu > specific test cases, i.e. things that we share with those two distros, > as those are things that will be corrected without our help. > We should keep our testcase economic, and mostly focused on the > multimedia aspects. > With whatever customization we do to the desktop, that should be > tested too, of course. > > As I am not that involved in the desktop customization, I would gladly > just focus on the multimedia test cases. > Perhaps someone could look through the page and try to filter out > anything that we don't need to test (for reasons stated above)? > I would tend to disagree here; as Xubuntu has seen bad interaction between various programs in the past (that don't necessarily affect Ubuntu). It would be good for Studio to run (not create) the relevant Ubuntu and Xubuntu test cases to make sure that the shared functionality functions properly with the Studio set of apps. Of course, testers are free to test what they wish. Thanks, Micah -- 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: [Branch ~ubuntustudio-dev/ubuntu-seeds/ubuntustudio.quantal] Rev 1331: Added alacarte as per Quantal blueprints
On 07/23/2012 12:43 PM, nore...@launchpad.net wrote: > > revno: 1331 > committer: Len Ovens l...@ovenwerks.net > branch nick: ubuntustudio.quantal > timestamp: Mon 2012-07-23 10:33:22 -0700 > message: > Added alacarte as per Quantal blueprints > modified: > audio-common > desktop > > > revision-diff.txt > > > === modified file 'audio-common' > --- audio-common 2012-07-09 23:52:28 + > +++ audio-common 2012-07-23 17:33:22 + > @@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ > * patchage > * pulseaudio-module-jack > * qjackctl > - * qmidiroute # added 20120709 - Len > + * (qmidiroute) # added 20120709 - Len > * rakarrack > * zynjacku > > > === modified file 'desktop' > --- desktop 2012-07-18 10:02:37 + > +++ desktop 2012-07-23 17:33:22 + > @@ -162,6 +162,7 @@ > * (audacious-plugins) > * (shotwell) > * (gnome-system-monitor) # replaces xfce4-taskmanager - Len 20120709 > + * (alacarte) # added as per quantal blueprints - Len 20120723 > > Desktop Experience: > > It seems there were 2 changes made here, where only one was commented on. Was this accidental? Thanks, Micah -- 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: ubuntustudio icons
On 07/23/2012 12:04 PM, Len Ovens wrote: > On Mon, July 23, 2012 9:37 am, Shubham Mishra wrote: > >>> The standard for icons seems to be to create them as *.svg and convert >>> them from there to *.png at the sizes needed. For menu use 24x24 is the >>> right size and the default size is 48x48, so we should cover those at >>> least. >> Do I send the SVGs or am I supposed to send the bitmaps? Whom am I >> supposed to send it to? Could tell me the procedure? > Well, in the end we need both, but if you want to send the svg I should be > able to get the png files I need from that. In general, each icon should > have an svg (128x128 is probably an easy size to work at for creation... > or does svg have a size?) a 24x24 png and a 48x48 png. > > All I have is the access to add things, I can't grant access to others. So > the easy thing to do is attach them in an email to me and I will add them. > There are not many people around right now (I am assuming because of > summer). > I think we should only have the SVG file in the packaging and generate the PNGs at build time. The proper way to get stuff in is to submit merge proposals against the various Ubuntu Studio branches. Then, someone with access, can review and merge them in. Thanks, Micah -- 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: LiveFS ubuntustudio-dvd/precise/amd64 failed to build on 20120318
On 03/18/2012 01:19 PM, CD Image wrote: > [2012-03-18 18:17:05] lb_clean --purge > [1;37mP[0m: Executing auto/clean script. > [2012-03-18 18:17:05] lb_clean noauto --purge > [1;37mP[0m: Executing auto/clean script. > [2012-03-18 18:17:05] lb_clean noauto --all > P: Cleaning chroot > [1;37mP[0m: Executing auto/clean script. > [2012-03-18 18:17:08] lb_clean noauto --cache > [2012-03-18 18:17:09] lb_config > [1;37mP[0m: Executing auto/config script. > [2012-03-18 18:17:09] lb_config noauto --mode ubuntu --distribution precise > --bootstrap-keyring ubuntu-keyring --binary-images none --memtest none > --source false --build-with-chroot false --parent-mirror-bootstrap > http://ftpmaster.internal/ubuntu/ --parent-archive-areas main restricted > universe multiverse --package-lists none --linux-flavours lowlatency-pae > --initsystem none --bootloader none --initramfs-compression lzma > [1;37mP[0m: Considering defaults defined in /etc/live/build.conf > P: Updating config tree > [2012-03-18 18:17:09] lb_build > [1;37mP[0m: Executing auto/build script. > [2012-03-18 18:17:09] lb_bootstrap > P: Setting up cleanup function > [2012-03-18 18:17:09] lb_bootstrap_cache restore > P: Begin caching bootstrap stage... > [2012-03-18 18:17:09] lb_bootstrap_copy > [2012-03-18 18:17:09] lb_bootstrap_cdebootstrap > [2012-03-18 18:17:09] lb_bootstrap_debootstrap > P: Begin bootstrapping system... > [2012-03-18 18:17:09] lb_testroot > P: If the following stage fails, the most likely cause of the problem is with > your mirror configuration or a caching proxy. > P: Running debootstrap (download-only)... > I: Retrieving Release > I: Retrieving Release.gpg > I: Checking Release signature > I: Valid Release signature (key id 630239CC130E1A7FD81A27B140976EAF437D05B5) > I: Retrieving Packages > I: Validating Packages > I: Retrieving Packages > I: Validating Packages > I: Retrieving Packages > I: Validating Packages > I: Retrieving Packages > I: Validating Packages > I: Resolving dependencies of required packages... > I: Resolving dependencies of base packages... > I: Checking component main on http://ftpmaster.internal/ubuntu... > I: Retrieving adduser > I: Validating adduser > I: Retrieving apt > I: Validating apt > I: Retrieving apt-utils > I: Validating apt-utils > I: Retrieving base-files > I: Validating base-files > I: Retrieving base-passwd > I: Validating base-passwd > I: Retrieving bash > I: Validating bash > I: Retrieving bsdutils > I: Validating bsdutils > I: Retrieving busybox-initramfs > I: Validating busybox-initramfs > I: Retrieving bzip2 > I: Validating bzip2 > I: Retrieving console-setup > I: Validating console-setup > I: Retrieving coreutils > I: Validating coreutils > I: Retrieving cpio > I: Validating cpio > I: Retrieving cron > I: Validating cron > I: Retrieving dash > I: Validating dash > I: Retrieving debconf > I: Validating debconf > I: Retrieving debconf-i18n > I: Validating debconf-i18n > I: Retrieving debianutils > I: Validating debianutils > I: Retrieving diffutils > I: Validating diffutils > I: Retrieving dmsetup > I: Validating dmsetup > I: Retrieving dpkg > I: Validating dpkg > I: Retrieving e2fslibs > I: Validating e2fslibs > I: Retrieving e2fsprogs > I: Validating e2fsprogs > I: Retrieving eject > I: Validating eject > I: Retrieving file > I: Validating file > I: Retrieving findutils > I: Validating findutils > I: Retrieving gcc-4.6-base > I: Validating gcc-4.6-base > I: Retrieving gnupg > I: Validating gnupg > I: Retrieving gpgv > I: Validating gpgv > I: Retrieving grep > I: Validating grep > I: Retrieving gzip > I: Validating gzip > I: Retrieving hostname > I: Validating hostname > I: Retrieving ifupdown > I: Validating ifupdown > I: Retrieving initramfs-tools > I: Validating initramfs-tools > I: Retrieving initramfs-tools-bin > I: Validating initramfs-tools-bin > I: Retrieving initscripts > I: Validating initscripts > I: Retrieving insserv > I: Validating insserv > I: Retrieving iproute > I: Validating iproute > I: Retrieving iputils-ping > I: Validating iputils-ping > I: Retrieving isc-dhcp-client > I: Validating isc-dhcp-client > I: Retrieving isc-dhcp-common > I: Validating isc-dhcp-common > I: Retrieving kbd > I: Validating kbd > I: Retrieving keyboard-configuration > I: Validating keyboard-configuration > I: Retrieving klibc-utils > I: Validating klibc-utils > I: Retrieving less > I: Validating less > I: Retrieving libacl1 > I: Validating libacl1 > I: Retrieving libapt-inst1.4 > I: Validating libapt-inst1.4 > I: Retrieving libapt-pkg4.12 > I: Validating libapt-pkg4.12 > I: Retrieving libattr1 > I: Validating libattr1 > I: Retrieving libblkid1 > I: Validating libblkid1 > I: Retrieving libbz2-1.0 > I: Validating libbz2-1.0 > I: Retrieving libc-bin > I: Validating libc-bin > I: Retrieving libc6 > I: Validating libc6 > I: Retrieving libcomerr2 > I: Validating libcomerr2 > I: Retrieving libdb5.1 > I: Validating libdb5.1 > I: Retrieving libdbus-1-3 > I: Validating libdbus-1-3 > I: R
Re: Jan 21 iso
On 01/21/2012 08:54 PM, Micah Gersten wrote: > On 01/21/2012 04:31 PM, Len Ovens wrote: >> It's back the extra/non extra libs thing. ffmpeg is not having it's >> effect. I would cheat and throw it in desktop... But there is probably a >> better way. Do the live seeds do something to this? The slideshow maybe? >> There is no live dvd by the way, still an alt. >> >> > Sorry, I was worried about that, I'll sync over the ffmpeg-extra package > again. > > Thanks, > Micah > Sorry, I meant libav-extra :) -- 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: Jan 21 iso
On 01/21/2012 04:31 PM, Len Ovens wrote: > It's back the extra/non extra libs thing. ffmpeg is not having it's > effect. I would cheat and throw it in desktop... But there is probably a > better way. Do the live seeds do something to this? The slideshow maybe? > There is no live dvd by the way, still an alt. > > Sorry, I was worried about that, I'll sync over the ffmpeg-extra package again. Thanks, Micah -- 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 daily CD health check
On 12/27/2011 05:05 AM, Colin Watson wrote: > This is a daily health check report on the Ubuntu Studio CD images. > If you have any questions, contact Colin Watson . > > ubuntustudio/daily: Uninstallable packages: > > ubuntustudio-meta 0.93 produces uninstallable binaries: > * ubuntustudio-video (amd64 i386) > This may have been due to the libav*-dev packages temporarily not being co-installable with the extras binaries [1]. Thanks, Micah [1] https://launchpad.net/bugs/908894 -- 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: ffmpeg "extra" libs
On 11/30/2011 05:12 PM, Len Ovens wrote: > On Wed, November 30, 2011 2:49 pm, Micah Gersten wrote: >> There are possible licensing issues with the "extra" libs which is why >> they are in multiverse. Applications in main or universe cannot depend >> solely on these binaries. There should be alternate dependencies in >> place to allow one to choose between the "extra" and regular versions of >> each library. The regular library has to take preference though. > Ok, how does that affect UbuntuStudio? Does it mean the extra libs can not > be included in the desktop-common? does it mean we should have the user's > permission or request before loading them? or just that we have to work > around the preference? We already don't ask if the user wants them or not > BTW. > > It means that if the "extra" libs are seeded, it should just work. If there's a package that depends on the non-extra libs only, I think that a bug should be filed so that you can use those as well. Thanks, Micah -- 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: ffmpeg "extra" libs
On 11/30/2011 04:18 PM, Len Ovens wrote: > I was looking at the US ubuntustudio.precise seeds. to see if it might be > obvious to me why the non extra libs are a problem. > > It appears that the gstreamer package is part of the desktop-common part > of things which will set the dependencies to the non-extra libs before any > of the other audio packages are looked at by the installer. > > What this means is that the extra style libs are actually needed in the > desktop-common set of apps anyway and should be installed at that time. > That is, all the stuff in the ffmpeg-common package should be moved into > the desktop-common package... I would go one step farther and blacklist > the non-extra packages (just to be sure). The other option would be to set > ffmpeg-common as a dependency of desktop-common, but that doesn't really > make sense if they are going to be loaded all the time anyway. > > Getting the extra libs set up as preferred might be hard to do as each > application that uses these libs sets it's own preference. So any new > package added later could mess things up again anyway. > > There are possible licensing issues with the "extra" libs which is why they are in multiverse. Applications in main or universe cannot depend solely on these binaries. There should be alternate dependencies in place to allow one to choose between the "extra" and regular versions of each library. The regular library has to take preference though. Thanks, Micah -- 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
