On 10/05/2018 06:21 AM, Robie Basak wrote:
> Now that we have experimental "git-ubuntu" git repositories available
> for most packages in main, we (the server/git-ubuntu team) will be
> switching the default VCS for the Launchpad "ubuntu" distribution over
> to git.
Wow! This is a milestone worth
I think for NEW packages the best default position is now "strictly
confined snap". That way, we don't impose paperwork on upstreams or
community members, and we enable upstreams to ship the versions they
think are best for their users, while minimising changes in the base.
For updates to
On 08/06/16 04:26, David Mohammed wrote:
> Thank you Steve,
>
> the key package budgie-desktop I have submitted to Debian. Its been
> through a couple of reviews but unfortunately I haven't found a debian
> mentor to help take the package through into Sid :(
>
>
> Will try as recommended with
Hi David
Thank you for making this request, I'm very encouraged by your desire to
be an official flavor. As Steve has outlined, the first step would be to
maintain the packages for Budgie as part of Ubuntu. We can help arrange
upload permissions to your teams so that they can do that efficiently,
On 15/04/16 17:08, Adam Conrad wrote:
> In a TB meeting earlier this year[1], the current TB voted to reduce
> the number of non-sabdfl seats from 6 to 5. The rationale for this is
> to avoid deadlocked votes. One could argue that Mark exists as a
> permanent TB member to break deadlocks, but
Hi folks
The nominations for Ubuntu Technical Board are, in no particular order:
Ben Collins
Kees Cook
Steve Langasek
Jason de Rose
Marc Deslauriers
Adam Conrad
Stéphane Graber
Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre
Didier Roche
Paul Sladen
Sebastien Bacher
Robie Basak
We are very fortunate to have such an
On 09/06/15 17:06, Martin Pitt wrote:
I think this is a very sensible approach and avoids inventing further
boards and procedures. The only remark that I have is that if such a
case occurs, I'd rather discuss it privately first than in the public
and logged IRC meeting.
The CC has a private
Hi Rastin
That server should have at least one interface connected to a LAN which
has no DHCP/DNS and all the machines you want to drive through MAAS, and
it should be able to ping the IPMI / AMT BMCs for those machines.
If you're on Trusty, from memory the install should be something like:
On 22/07/14 18:55, Kees Cook wrote:
As a side note, what would it take for MATE to be available from a PPA for
trusty? Currently the trusty MATE story isn't very good (unsigned external
repo).
A built-from-source Trusty PPA would be a good start, with
built-from-universe-archive-source for
On 26/04/14 13:40, Otto Kekäläinen wrote:
As the packager of MariaDB in Debian and I intend to update the
packages to include the micro releases as soon as upstream releases
them. In the packaging process I automatically build and run build
tests for both Debian and Ubuntu in parallel. This is
Dear Tech Board
Our current phone images have pioneered some new approaches to
delivering both system software (image-based updates) and applications
(click packages). The folks driving that work have solved some really
thorny problems and the results feel great on the phone - I look forward
to
On 08/03/14 23:55, Adam Conrad wrote:
The biggest issue is the client library version, which is linked in
to a mess of stuff, and one needs to be very careful when having two
around to make sure things are sane.
This seems to be worth digging into, whether it's at the package level
(conflicts)
On 08/03/14 10:57, Adam Conrad wrote:
If the argument is customers might want it! then we need to accept
that we should also be *maintaining* it, and if we're going that way,
we should be looking at switching wholesale, so we're not maintaining
two versions.
We've seen that for some
If this is a single-use MRE, and it's saucy-to-precise so that we can
use a saucy kernel in precise, and it's been reviewed for new-code-ness,
then it's already cross a fairly high bar. Is it reasonable to suggest a
longer-than-usual gestation in -proposed?
Mark
signature.asc
Description:
Given that I just saw a flood of TB membership expirations, I think I
may have quorum for a sneaky +1 ;)
On 08/10/13 15:34, Chuck Short wrote:
Last cyle, the TB added a provisional micro release exception for both
Cinder and Neutron. Since then two additional projects have been
added, this is
Hi Martin et al, yes, I think that would be a good process. I'd be
happiest to start with a list of suggestions from the current TB. A good
idea would be to maintain good cross-visibility with Debian, I think.
Mark
On 02/09/13 21:16, Martin Pitt wrote:
Hello Mark,
the current Tech Board
On 23/07/13 23:36, Iain Lane wrote:
I'm not sure what additional/different quality control would be
necessary. Is your concern that by not being Ubuntu members these folk
don't have skin in the game and therefore might be less careful in
their work in Ubuntu? I think that a necessary component
Just a note of support for this from my perspective (and if desired, can
raise with the wider CC). In most areas of Ubuntu folks can participate
directly before taking on membership, it's healthy to have an onramp for
contributions with membership as a destination. Would leave it to the TB
to
TB,
Am writing to ask you to weigh in on an updated release management
proposal. Details are on Planet Ubuntu, salient portion of the proposal is:
Updated Ubuntu Release Management proposal
In order to go even faster as the leading free software platform, meet
the needs of both our
On 03/04/2013 10:14 PM, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
Thanks all for the meeting today. One thing we didn't discuss was
whether we could use the name 'Ubuntu GNOME Edition'.
Ubuntu GNOME Remix would be more on-target. We're trying to avoid
Editions :)
Mark
--
technical-board mailing list
A quick note to voice support for this flavour.
We (Canonical) have felt the need to lead on a number of platform
fronts, and that has placed a degree of stress on flavours that need to
keep up with changes in infrastructure at the platform level. I think
it's important to enable teams that care
On 02/18/2013 01:48 PM, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
Hi! I'm not a member of the Tech Board but I hope you won't mind me
asking one question that I've had since the first I've heard of the
Ubuntu Kylin project. How does this differ from Ubuntu Chinese
Edition? (Although I guess the fact that I'm having
On 02/18/2013 02:31 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Monday, February 18, 2013 01:54:44 PM Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
On 02/18/2013 01:48 PM, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
Hi! I'm not a member of the Tech Board but I hope you won't mind me
asking one question that I've had since the first I've heard
On 02/18/2013 04:10 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
When you say We have a formal relationship with the Kylin team, who is
We,
what is the nature of the relationship, and (because it appears to then be
relevant), what is this Kylin team?
'We' is Canonical in this context. The relationship is
On 02/18/2013 08:05 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
My concern is more specifically about if the product will, like
existing Ubuntu flavors, be designed to protect the privacy and security of
the
user and that it be shipped in China with the same content as elsewhere in
the
world.
Yes, our
Yes, we do have escalation mechanisms, and having the chair act as a
tiebreaker only to have the decision escalated would be demoralising for
the tiebreaker (we could of course get better about declining to review
decisions if on the face of them they were properly made).
After discussing this
Hi Alan
Thanks for the insights, it's good to see what different people would
look for in a business remix. I'll comment in detail below, but would
also say that the choices in this remix were informed based on a review
of what sysadmins are doing in practice. As ever, it's an average and so
the realisation that we could figure out how to
enable non-Canonical participation in the packaging and maintenance of
that archive. What other ideas?
Mark
On 01/02/12 23:17, Colin Watson wrote:
On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 09:02:26PM +, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
On 31/01/12 09:55, Alan Bell wrote:
* Stuff
On 31/01/12 09:27, Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) wrote:
software to be 'part of Ubuntu'? From my perspective:
* it would need to be exposed in the software center
* it would need a counterparty to a VMWare distribution agreement,
* it would need to be packaged to a high standard,
As a very positive outcome from this, we could ask the team responsible
for Partner to articulate the standards to which they hold work that
goes into that archive. If it's in any way sub-par for reasons that are
not forced by the ISV, we can raise the game. I would not want anyone to
feel that
On 25/01/12 17:28, Iain Lane wrote:
This is where we have problems. As far as Ubuntu developers are
concerned, these packages are very much not as much of a part of
Ubuntu as the rest of the archive.
Which Ubuntu developers? Please avoid a simplistic us-and-them response ;-)
They live on
On 29/01/12 18:38, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
Mark, you were surprised that a significant number of developers don't
consider the partner repository part of Ubuntu. In addition to what
Laney has pointed out, /etc/apt/sources.list has for years said: ##
Uncomment the following two lines to add
On the basis that apps would not need to be recompiled if this needs to
be changed later, I still support enabling the functionality.
Mark
--
technical-board mailing list
technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
Hi folk
Allison made me aware of an off-list discussion amongst the TB regarding
the Business Remix. Here's an update from my perspective, and to avoid
further confusion please keep me and/or the CC in the loop on similar
conversations in future.
* The work has been done as a remix
On 20/01/12 05:40, Martin Pitt wrote:
While it technically does not match the letter of what people voted
on, I can't imagine anyone seriously complaining. Let's not be overly
bureaucratic here, IMHO :-)
Let's see what the other TB members think.
+1, polling is confirmation of the nomination,
Any merit to this suggestion?
Original Message
Subject:Build-in DNS cache support
Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2011 06:51:24 -
From: xiangxw 963632...@qq.com
Reply-To: xiangxw 963632...@qq.com
To: Mark Shuttleworth m...@canonical.com
As far as I know, Ubuntu
On 10/11/11 16:53, Bodhi Zazen wrote:
I would say that although LXC is an up and coming technology, LXC has a
number of issues not the least of which isolation of guest from host is sub
optimal.
Bodhi, my take is that LXC is clearly headed to container-of-choice
status, with AppArmor helping
On 06/11/11 23:36, Micah Gersten wrote:
Can the upload processing system handle multiple uploaders/teams? If so,
then the DMB also has the option of compositing teams. I say this
because we've generally found it's better to have an ACL than to try and
construct a new team every time you want
If the patent-holder has expressed a view that the mesa code is
infringing, or raises the matter with us directly, we can adjust. For
now, it's reasonable for us to enable the option.
Mark
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
technical-board mailing list
Colin and others gave me a heads-up on upcoming expirations of tech
board positions. Time has flown by! I think (Daniel will correct me)
that the right way is to call for nominations or applications. I'd be
delighted to re-nominate any current members, I think we have a very
functional team
+1 from me!
--
technical-board mailing list
technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
On 29/05/11 09:11, Matthew East wrote:
My concern would be that it is unusual to create a council before an
established community is in place. We have traditionally looked for a
community to evolve, set in place some established procedures, and
grow to a decent level before appointing a
On 27/05/11 19:34, Dustin Kirkland wrote:
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Mark Shuttleworth m...@ubuntu.com wrote:
...
I would be happy for this group to be accountable to the
TB on technical matters, though I think this group should also be able to
grant Ubuntu membership to contributors
Thanks Reinhard, that's very useful background.
Mark
--
technical-board mailing list
technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
On 29/05/11 09:18, Matthew East wrote:
On 29 May 2011 08:03, Mark Shuttleworth m...@ubuntu.com wrote:
The Council serves a number of purposes:
* it highlights a core group who can set policy for the whole work
* it provides a forums for debate and discussion, with resolution
(i.e
Hi folks
I'd like to propose a leadership and governance structure for Principia,
our collection of Ensemble formulas.
By way of background, Ensemble is a tool for deploying workloads in the
cloud. It allows you to see what workloads you are currently running,
and it handles dependencies between
+1 from me.
On 18/05/11 13:26, Martin Pool wrote:
Elsewhere, on 26 April 2011 08:13, Martin Pitt martin.p...@ubuntu.com wrote:
Hello Martin,
Martin Pool [2011-04-21 18:48 +1000]:
On the whole I'm not sure [manually verifying all SRU bugs in bzr] was a
good use of time: I think we tend
to
Hi Julien
Thanks for writing to us and for the great work and progress of Lubuntu
in the past 2 years. The fact that you are now 100% in the archive, and
using PPA's and other tools effectively, makes it possible for us to
consider recognising Lubuntu as an official part of the project.
On
On 13/04/11 22:14, Martin Pitt wrote:
Regarding systray support:
But I want to point out that this is in no way a technical problem,
it's purely a design decision.
The systray icons have major usability problems, which can't be worked
around. We simply won't move people forward unless we draw
Hi Michael
Thanks for raising this with us. I've copied the Technical Board as I
think they are the right body to take a position on the matter. They
will certainly want to hear frmo those behind libav as well.
Mark
On 07/04/11 18:55, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
Hi Mark
Iam the main
Thanks all for the consideration, and I concur.
Mark
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Technical Board, which is a bug assignee.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/723831
Title:
Installer – The option to 'install third-party software' when
installing
Unfortunately Mark will not be able to make it either.
Thanks,
Claire
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
The next meeting is scheduled for tomorrow, but the agenda at
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/TechnicalBoardAgenda hasn't been updated since the
last meeting. Who is chairing?
I won't be able to make it, but
On 23/01/11 11:18, Colin Watson wrote:
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 12:05:58PM +0100, Martin Pitt wrote:
Emmet Hikory [2011-01-19 22:59 +0900]:
The terms of six of the seven members of the Developer Membership
Board expire on the 20th of January, meaning the following meetings
will be
On 23/01/11 20:36, Micah Gersten wrote:
We've been updating Seamonkey through the security pocket, but I noticed
that it does not have an official Micro release exception [1]. I wanted
to officially request this since it has the same issues with patch
backporting as Firefox, Thunderbird, and
54 matches
Mail list logo
