Re: Adding Spidermonkey 17esr to Raring

yes, indeed. But debian will be in for some confusion, they current package the non-standalone engine as libmozjs17d etc (as part of iceweasel). - Tim On 06/03/13 18:06, Dmitry Shachnev wrote: > Yes, a new source package (mozjs17) makes sense I think. As the > current package is in sync with Deb

Re: Adding Spidermonkey 17esr to Raring

Its currently at RC, due for release in the next few days. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=735599#c44 I have spent quite a bit of time, patching their build system etc, to make this happen, but still it has taken forever to get to this point. - Tim On 06/03/13 17:29, Dmitry Shachn

Re: reflecting on first UDS session on "rolling releases"

On 03/05/2013 07:47 PM, Robert Bruce Park wrote: > > That's how I've been interpreting this all along... 2-year release > cadence, and the current dev release is simply declared "rolling" > without any real changes. I don't see any issues with this: it's a > huge reduction in SRU burden while allo

Re: Adding Spidermonkey 17esr to Raring

Yes, a new source package (mozjs17) makes sense I think. As the current package is in sync with Debian, maybe it'll be a good idea to get the new one uploaded there, as well. -- Dmitry Shachnev On 3/6/13, Tim wrote: > Its currently at RC, due for release in the next few days. > > https://bugzill

Re: Adding Spidermonkey 17esr to Raring

According to , "SpiderMonkey 1.8.5 is the most recent standalone source code release", and that's what we already have in Debian/Ubuntu (src:mozjs). I also don't see anything newer on their FTP. Are you sure there was a new *standalone* releas

Re: reflecting on first UDS session on "rolling releases"

Hi Allison On 06/03/2013 01:49, Allison Randal wrote: There were a few things that concerned me in today's session on cadence of rolling releases: Sad not to have made it, I had to be out at that moment. Thanks for the summary! But, the biggest was at the very end when System76 said that t

Re: reflecting on first UDS session on "rolling releases"

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 13-03-05 03:49 PM, Allison Randal wrote: > If the "rolling releases" really aren't intended for end-users, > then we should just drop the fiction, say the change is from a > 6-month cadence to a 2-year cadence, and be done with it. That's how I've

Re: reflecting on first UDS session on "rolling releases"

Robert Collins wrote: >On 6 March 2013 17:13, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> On Tuesday, March 05, 2013 08:07:36 PM Jono Bacon wrote: >>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 7:43 PM, Scott Kitterman > >> wrote: >>> > What percentage of code in the default install is covered by >automated >>> > tests? >>> I am not

Re: reflecting on first UDS session on "rolling releases"

On 6 March 2013 17:13, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Tuesday, March 05, 2013 08:07:36 PM Jono Bacon wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 7:43 PM, Scott Kitterman > wrote: >> > What percentage of code in the default install is covered by automated >> > tests? >> I am not sure, maybe the QA team can weig

Re: reflecting on first UDS session on "rolling releases"

On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > I agree. My main point is that such things are pre-requisites to a new > release model. We don't have them, so we should get them before we change to > something we're not ready to support. My feeling here is that new processes and models

Re: reflecting on first UDS session on "rolling releases"

On Tuesday, March 05, 2013 08:07:36 PM Jono Bacon wrote: > On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 7:43 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > What percentage of code in the default install is covered by automated > > tests? > I am not sure, maybe the QA team can weigh in on this. > > > For a relatively small project, s

Re: reflecting on first UDS session on "rolling releases"

On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 7:43 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > What percentage of code in the default install is covered by automated tests? I am not sure, maybe the QA team can weigh in on this. > For a relatively small project, such approaches are conceivable. For > something the size of an install

Re: reflecting on first UDS session on "rolling releases"

On Tuesday, March 05, 2013 10:14:05 PM Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Mar 06, 2013, at 02:31 PM, Robert Collins wrote: > >A rolling release that isn't actually *always releasable* isn't a > >rolling release. > > In a different forum, some folks were advocating for never actually doing > what we'd tradit

Re: Monthly Updates versus Monthly Images

On Wednesday, March 06, 2013 04:12:16 PM Robert Collins wrote: > On 6 March 2013 12:20, Scott Kitterman wrote: > >> critical updates. I think leveraging phased-updates to that end is a > >> fairly simple, lightweight, and elegant solution that completely avoids > >> the > >> harm and complexity o

Re: Monthly Updates versus Monthly Images

On Mar 06, 2013, at 04:12 PM, Robert Collins wrote: >I think this is backwards: we're trying to cross the chasm; users >don't want to have to care about updates *ever* My observation of, let's call them my local users, backs this up. It drives me crazy to see the various software delivery tools

Re: reflecting on first UDS session on "rolling releases"

On Mar 06, 2013, at 02:31 PM, Robert Collins wrote: >A rolling release that isn't actually *always releasable* isn't a >rolling release. In a different forum, some folks were advocating for never actually doing what we'd traditionally call "a release" ever (of an upstream package). There'd be no

Re: Monthly Updates versus Monthly Images

On 6 March 2013 12:20, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> critical updates. I think leveraging phased-updates to that end is a >> fairly simple, lightweight, and elegant solution that completely avoids the >> harm and complexity of any of the proposed monthly updates schemes. > > I think for phased upda

Re: reflecting on first UDS session on "rolling releases"

On 6 March 2013 12:49, Allison Randal wrote: > There were a few things that concerned me in today's session on cadence > of rolling releases: > > http://summit.ubuntu.com/uds-1303/meeting/21683/community-1303-rolling-release/ > > But, the biggest was at the very end when System76 said that two yea

Re: Let's Discuss Interim Releases (and a Rolling Release)

On 3/5/13 4:21 PM, Steve Langasek wrote: On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 02:10:55AM -0800, Scott Ritchie wrote: apt should never do that, and that would be a major bug that we should fix. Do you have a bug reference for this behavior in apt (preferably with a reproducer case)? This reminded me of thi

Re: reflecting on first UDS session on "rolling releases"

On 03/05/2013 04:41 PM, Michael Hall wrote: > > I think different segments of the community have different ideas of what > "stable" means: > > Distro devs & power users: "stable" == "things don't break" > > App devs, OEMS, NTEU: "stable" == "things don't change" > > > I think what we're going

Re: reflecting on first UDS session on "rolling releases"

On Tuesday, March 05, 2013 07:41:23 PM Michael Hall wrote: > On 03/05/2013 06:49 PM, Allison Randal wrote: > > There were a few things that concerned me in today's session on cadence > > of rolling releases: > > > > http://summit.ubuntu.com/uds-1303/meeting/21683/community-1303-rolling-rel > > eas

Re: reflecting on first UDS session on "rolling releases"

On 03/05/2013 06:49 PM, Allison Randal wrote: > There were a few things that concerned me in today's session on cadence > of rolling releases: > > http://summit.ubuntu.com/uds-1303/meeting/21683/community-1303-rolling-release/ > > But, the biggest was at the very end when System76 said that two y

Re: Let's Discuss Interim Releases (and a Rolling Release)

On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 02:10:55AM -0800, Scott Ritchie wrote: > >apt should never do that, and that would be a major bug that we should fix. > >Do you have a bug reference for this behavior in apt (preferably with a > >reproducer case)? > This reminded me of this older bug from Karmic-Lucid era,

reflecting on first UDS session on "rolling releases"

There were a few things that concerned me in today's session on cadence of rolling releases: http://summit.ubuntu.com/uds-1303/meeting/21683/community-1303-rolling-release/ But, the biggest was at the very end when System76 said that two years is too long between releases for their customers, but

Re: Monthly Updates versus Monthly Images

On Tuesday, March 05, 2013 06:34:29 AM Adam Conrad wrote: > TL;DR summary: Monthly updates are harmful, monthly images are cool, let's > do the latter without turning them into the former and all frolick happily > in fields of time, money, and cheesecake. > > So, I'm intentionally breaking the thr

Re: Monthly Updates versus Monthly Images

On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 01:19:17PM -0500, Marc Deslauriers wrote: > On 13-03-05 08:34 AM, Adam Conrad wrote: > > TL;DR summary: Monthly updates are harmful, monthly images are cool, let's > > do the latter without turning them into the former and all frolick happily > > in fields of time, money, an

Re: Let's Discuss Interim Releases (and a Rolling Release)

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Rick Spencer wrote: > Therefore, I think we should keep LTS releases, but starting now, stop doing > interim releases and start a rolling release. > > More clearly, I think we should: > * Stop making interim releases. > * Keep doing daily quality and keep improving

Re: taking Unity to the next level

On 4 March 2013 16:35, Ted Gould wrote: > For some derivatives that may be the case, but it would seem for Kubuntu > specifically Canonical now has vested interest in keeping the Qt stack > working really well and will start to pick up work that has been done by > Kubuntu-devs previously free'ing

Re: Monthly Updates versus Monthly Images

On 03/05/2013 12:19 PM, Marc Deslauriers wrote: > On 13-03-05 08:34 AM, Adam Conrad wrote: > >> 2) No out-of-band support at all, SRU or security. The only slight change >> from how we do things now would be that security updates destined for >> the development release would be built in

Re: QApt does not install by clicking on .deb file

Hello, 2013/3/5 Harald Sitter : > Report a bug please. Also mention your Kubuntu version... > A bug report for KDE Bugs or Kubuntu Bugs? Thank you... -Volkan > HS > > -- > kubuntu-devel mailing list > kubuntu-de...@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.c

Re: Monthly Updates versus Monthly Images

On 13-03-05 08:34 AM, Adam Conrad wrote: > TL;DR summary: Monthly updates are harmful, monthly images are cool, let's > do the latter without turning them into the former and all frolick happily > in fields of time, money, and cheesecake. mmm...cheesecake... :) > 2) No out-of-band support at al

Re: Articles needed for a special edition of a magazine about Ubuntu Flavors

Sorry for the delayed reply, I fell ill over the weekend. I have been using Linux for around 6 months now. I only use it personally, as at work we are a purely MS company. Cheers, Dave On 28 February 2013 06:17, Elizabeth Krumbach wrote: > On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 2:37 PM, David James > wro

Re: Regarding patching virtualbox in 12.04

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/05/2013 11:53 AM, Pranith Kumar wrote: > Hi, > > I am writing this regarding the issues being faced by Virtualbox > users in 12.04. > > 12.04 was released with kernel 3.2 and then the kernel 3.5 was > offered as a possible upgrade. Most users a

Regarding patching virtualbox in 12.04

Hi, I am writing this regarding the issues being faced by Virtualbox users in 12.04. 12.04 was released with kernel 3.2 and then the kernel 3.5 was offered as a possible upgrade. Most users are currently switching over to 3.5 The version Virtualbox in 12.04 was 4.12. The problem is that this ver

Re: Adding Spidermonkey 17esr to Raring

I guess this got lost in the flood of Rolling Release discussions Is there any reason why we couldnt have both versions of spidermonkey in the archive? It is simply not feasible to port all rdepends to the new engine, and I guess most other upstreams (apart from gnome) arent going to start p

Re: taking Unity to the next level

Hi all, I usually do not comment on this list but this message raises so much hope and fear at once that it gets hard to resist! Let me be clear: the mir announce is a surprise, kind of a big deal and raises a lot of questions. I do not mean to be overly critical here, but these questions have to

Re: tablets request

On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 08:41:41PM +0530, Rohan Garg wrote: > Hi Jonathan > > > I'd suppose this, we shouldn't be afraid to buy things for people who have > > a record of helping Kubuntu in the expectation they will work out what it > > takes to get Kubuntu onto the device. I'd like a final pri

Re: ureadahead

On 13-03-04 06:19 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: I am quite happy to review ureadahead bugfixes & improvements. I'll try to go over the pending merge proposals on both upstream and ubuntu branches. If there is anything specific you are after, just reply in private to me and I'll prioritise it. T

Monthly Updates versus Monthly Images

TL;DR summary: Monthly updates are harmful, monthly images are cool, let's do the latter without turning them into the former and all frolick happily in fields of time, money, and cheesecake. So, I'm intentionally breaking the thread here to shift gears slightly. I have no intention of discussing

Re: Avoiding fragmentation with a rolling release

On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 03:34:33PM +, Evan Dandrea wrote: > > "From exceptions to segfaults" is quite a harsh exaggeration. > > >> from gi.repository import GdkX11 > >> GdkX11.get_default_xdisplay() > [1]10593 segmentation fault (core dumped) ipython That should just be fixed. It should

Re: Let's Discuss Interim Releases (and a Rolling Release)

On 3/4/13 12:46 PM, Steve Langasek wrote: On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 12:42:30PM -0800, Scott Ritchie wrote: On 3/3/13 4:54 PM, Colin Watson wrote: On Sat, Mar 02, 2013 at 11:36:45AM +0100, Nicolas Delvaux wrote: On Fri, 2013-03-02 at 09:32 +, Colin Watson wrote: I'm surprised, because when I