Re: continuing conversation from UDS-N - Application Review Board

On Nov 17, 2010, at 11:35 AM, Philipp Kern wrote: >FWIW (and I didn't see this raised in this thread) FQDNs do not need to be >registered with the LANANA and can be used instead of a registered string >(see [1]). So if you distribute the packages through extras.ubuntu.com >anyway, it might make s

Re: continuing conversation from UDS-N - Application Review Board

On Nov 15, 2010, at 05:53 PM, Allison Randal wrote: >> Sure, but this is the "consenting adults" argument. The thing is, the >> packages are going to be available in either case, so you're just putting an >> inconvenient sys.path hack in front of anyone who really wants to do it. > >The tricky th

Re: continuing conversation from UDS-N - Application Review Board

On Thursday, November 18, 2010 12:51:40 pm Allison Randal wrote: > On 11/18/2010 09:22 AM, Martin Pitt wrote: > > Philipp Kern [2010-11-17 11:35 +0100]: > >> FWIW (and I didn't see this raised in this thread) FQDNs do not need to > >> be registered with the LANANA and can be used instead of a regis

Re: continuing conversation from UDS-N - Application Review Board

On 11/18/2010 09:22 AM, Martin Pitt wrote: > Philipp Kern [2010-11-17 11:35 +0100]: >> FWIW (and I didn't see this raised in this thread) FQDNs do not need to be >> registered with the LANANA and can be used instead of a registered string >> (see [1]). So if you distribute the packages through ext

Re: continuing conversation from UDS-N - Application Review Board

On 11/18/2010 12:21 PM, Martin Pitt wrote: > I'd just call it /opt/appname, but I could live with /opt/extras/appname. Per , folder names in /opt/ MUST be a package or a provider name registered with LANANA to avoid

Re: continuing conversation from UDS-N - Application Review Board

Philipp Kern [2010-11-17 11:35 +0100]: > FWIW (and I didn't see this raised in this thread) FQDNs do not need to be > registered with the LANANA and can be used instead of a registered string > (see [1]). So if you distribute the packages through extras.ubuntu.com > anyway, it might make sense to

Re: continuing conversation from UDS-N - Application Review Board

Allison Randal [2010-11-16 11:21 -0800]: > - They suggested /opt/ubuntu/ instead of /opt/extras/ > as the private install location, For the record, I didn't (someone else might have, I don't remember any more). We went through some lengths to explicitly not call those part of Ubuntu. I'd just c

Re: continuing conversation from UDS-N - Application Review Board

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 10:31:13AM +, Colin Watson wrote: > On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 07:44:24PM +, Shane Fagan wrote: > > On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 11:38 -0800, Rick Spencer wrote: > > > Does "/opt/ubuntu/" perhaps suggest a bit of "officialness" or support > > > from the Ubuntu community, where

Re: continuing conversation from UDS-N - Application Review Board

On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 07:44:24PM +, Shane Fagan wrote: > On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 11:38 -0800, Rick Spencer wrote: > > Does "/opt/ubuntu/" perhaps suggest a bit of "officialness" or support > > from the Ubuntu community, whereas these apps are specifically *not* > > suppose to have such a connot

Re: continuing conversation from UDS-N - Application Review Board

On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 11:38 -0800, Rick Spencer wrote: > Does "/opt/ubuntu/" perhaps suggest a bit of "officialness" or support > from the Ubuntu community, whereas these apps are specifically *not* > suppose to have such a connotation? Yeah I get what Rick is saying here. Does using /opt/ubuntu

Re: continuing conversation from UDS-N - Application Review Board

"Rick Spencer" wrote: >On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 15:42 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> On Tuesday, November 16, 2010 03:21:46 pm Allison Randal wrote: >> > On 11/16/2010 12:08 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> > > IIRC, FHS expects /opt//. Perhaps Canonical >should >> > > register "canonical" if they

Re: continuing conversation from UDS-N - Application Review Board

On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 15:42 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Tuesday, November 16, 2010 03:21:46 pm Allison Randal wrote: > > On 11/16/2010 12:08 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > > IIRC, FHS expects /opt//. Perhaps Canonical should > > > register "canonical" if they haven't already and then alloca

Re: continuing conversation from UDS-N - Application Review Board

On Tuesday, November 16, 2010 03:21:46 pm Allison Randal wrote: > On 11/16/2010 12:08 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > IIRC, FHS expects /opt//. Perhaps Canonical should > > register "canonical" if they haven't already and then allocate > > /opt/canonical/quickly or /opt/canonical/arb namespace to t

Re: continuing conversation from UDS-N - Application Review Board

On Tuesday, November 16, 2010 03:32:11 pm Micah Gersten wrote: > On 11/16/2010 02:21 PM, Allison Randal wrote: > > On 11/16/2010 12:08 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > >> IIRC, FHS expects /opt//. Perhaps Canonical should > >> register "canonical" if they haven't already and then allocate > >> /opt/ca

Re: continuing conversation from UDS-N - Application Review Board

On 11/16/2010 02:21 PM, Allison Randal wrote: > On 11/16/2010 12:08 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> IIRC, FHS expects /opt//. Perhaps Canonical should register >> "canonical" if they haven't already and then allocate /opt/canonical/quickly >> or /opt/canonical/arb namespace to this. Given the way F

Re: continuing conversation from UDS-N - Application Review Board

On 11/16/2010 12:08 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > IIRC, FHS expects /opt//. Perhaps Canonical should register > "canonical" if they haven't already and then allocate /opt/canonical/quickly > or /opt/canonical/arb namespace to this. Given the way FHS anticipated /opt > to be used, I think Canonical

Re: continuing conversation from UDS-N - Application Review Board

On Tuesday, November 16, 2010 03:01:23 pm Allison Randal wrote: > On 11/16/2010 11:38 AM, Rick Spencer wrote: > > Does "/opt/ubuntu/" perhaps suggest a bit of "officialness" or support > > from the Ubuntu community, whereas these apps are specifically *not* > > suppose to have such a connotation? >

Re: continuing conversation from UDS-N - Application Review Board

On 11/16/2010 11:38 AM, Rick Spencer wrote: > Does "/opt/ubuntu/" perhaps suggest a bit of "officialness" or support > from the Ubuntu community, whereas these apps are specifically *not* > suppose to have such a connotation? That was mentioned in the meeting. Also the possibility of going with s

Re: continuing conversation from UDS-N - Application Review Board

"Rick Spencer" wrote: >On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 11:21 -0800, Allison Randal wrote: >> - They suggested /opt/ubuntu/ instead of >/opt/extras/ >> as the private install location, with the note that (respecting the >FHS) >> we need to register the provider name with LANANA, and "ubuntu" is >more >

Re: continuing conversation from UDS-N - Application Review Board

On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 11:21 -0800, Allison Randal wrote: > - They suggested /opt/ubuntu/ instead of /opt/extras/ > as the private install location, with the note that (respecting the FHS) > we need to register the provider name with LANANA, and "ubuntu" is more > sensible in that general context

Re: continuing conversation from UDS-N - Application Review Board

On 11/15/2010 05:53 PM, Allison Randal wrote: > The fortnightly Tech Board meeting is tomorrow, and the ARB is conscious > of the fact that we're already a couple weeks out from UDS, and still > blocking all applications in our queue. So we're submitting this for > discussion in the meeting, with t

Re: continuing conversation from UDS-N - Application Review Board

On 11/15/2010 02:36 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Nov 15, 2010, at 05:27 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > >> Unless there is some commitment to API stability, this is actively harmful. >> If you are writing functions to be consumed generally, and not just within >> your program/module/whatever, then you

Re: continuing conversation from UDS-N - Application Review Board

On Mon, 2010-11-15 at 17:36 -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Nov 15, 2010, at 05:27 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > >Unless there is some commitment to API stability, this is actively harmful. > >If you are writing functions to be consumed generally, and not just within > >your program/module/wha

Re: continuing conversation from UDS-N - Application Review Board

On Nov 15, 2010, at 05:27 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >Unless there is some commitment to API stability, this is actively harmful. >If you are writing functions to be consumed generally, and not just within >your program/module/whatever, then you have to take on some additional >responsiblities

Re: continuing conversation from UDS-N - Application Review Board

On Monday, November 15, 2010 10:17:01 am Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Nov 15, 2010, at 12:06 PM, Stefano Rivera wrote: > >Why not just use python-support/dh_python2's private-module mode? This > >is what most applications should be using, anyway, rather than polluting > >the public Python module namesp

Re: continuing conversation from UDS-N - Application Review Board

"Allison Randal" wrote: >On 11/11/2010 07:52 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> >> I wasn't in all the the ARB related sessions, so perhaps this got >rediscussed >> in a session I didn't attend, but my recollection was that the idea >for >> Maverick was to put everything in /opt except for things li

Re: continuing conversation from UDS-N - Application Review Board

Hi Barry (2010.11.15_17:17:01_+0200) > A good way to think about it is that an "application" (i.e. the command you > execute) is just the tip of the iceberg on top of a rich library that could be > useful to others. I'm thinking about examples like 'bzr' and 'bzrlib' which > were explicitly design

Re: continuing conversation from UDS-N - Application Review Board

On 11/11/2010 07:52 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > I wasn't in all the the ARB related sessions, so perhaps this got rediscussed > in a session I didn't attend, but my recollection was that the idea for > Maverick was to put everything in /opt except for things like .desktop files > that need to be

Re: continuing conversation from UDS-N - Application Review Board

On Nov 15, 2010, at 12:06 PM, Stefano Rivera wrote: >Why not just use python-support/dh_python2's private-module mode? This >is what most applications should be using, anyway, rather than polluting >the public Python module namespace. I hesitate to mention this here because I agree that in this c

Re: continuing conversation from UDS-N - Application Review Board

Hi Allison (2010.11.11_04:25:40_+0200) > Let us know of any changes (anything I missed, or that doesn't seem to > accurately reflect the discussions). We'll try to finalize it next week. Hi, some Python-related questions: > * There is no support in Quickly, python-distutils-extra, > python-dist

Re: continuing conversation from UDS-N - Application Review Board

On Wednesday, November 10, 2010 09:25:40 pm Allison Randal wrote: > I've drafted a proposal for the Tech Board based on our discussions at > UDS and on ubuntu-devel. The ARB is still reviewing it, but we'd also > like to open it up for broader review: > > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PostReleaseApps/Ma

Re: continuing conversation from UDS-N - Application Review Board

On Wed, 10 Nov 2010, Allison Randal wrote: > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PostReleaseApps/MaverickExceptionsProposal My recollection of the session was /if/ normal levels of package oversight can be offered during the natty cycle then the "/opt exception" would be fine. (Conversely, if oversight can't

Re: continuing conversation from UDS-N - Application Review Board

I've drafted a proposal for the Tech Board based on our discussions at UDS and on ubuntu-devel. The ARB is still reviewing it, but we'd also like to open it up for broader review: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PostReleaseApps/MaverickExceptionsProposal Let us know of any changes (anything I missed, or

Re: continuing conversation from UDS-N - Application Review Board

On 28/10/10 21:55, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 10:54:15PM -0400, Allison Randal wrote: >> - develop checks (and tools for automated checking) between apps that >> install any files outside /opt and main|universe|restricted|multiverse > > I assume there's a missing "conflicts" i

Re: continuing conversation from UDS-N - Application Review Board

On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 10:54:15PM -0400, Allison Randal wrote: > - develop checks (and tools for automated checking) between apps that > install any files outside /opt and main|universe|restricted|multiverse I assume there's a missing "conflicts" in the above? > >- How stringent should we be

continuing conversation from UDS-N - Application Review Board

We had two sessions on ARB today at UDS, one on policy[1] and one on implementation/infrastructure[2]. There's one more session ahead on sandboxing (on Thursday), but I want to loop the conversation so far back around with those who couldn't attend or participate remotely. On 13/10/10 20:16, Allis