* Christopher M. Penalver ([email protected]) wrote: > Just to touch on Brian Murray's comments (because I'm now being CC'ed, > and there is a lag on what gets posted to the Launchpad archive): > > > Subsequently, if the bug is in fact with the kernel then it is still valid > > and likely should be marked as a duplicate. > > If this regression in the kernel which caused a problem in, for > example, the package apt, and folks cannot add/remove packages, > agreed, the symptoms (apt not working) should be fixed in the kernel > (root cause). I disagree with marking a a duplicate of 1327300 for > symptom fixes of unsupported packages, because the supported package > had a regression.
Looking at the fix described in another message it seems a fundamental breakage in futex calls; it's going to be a shotgun causing bugs all over the place. > > How did you make the determination that a system is a 10.04 Server or a > > 10.04 Desktop? There is no easy way to make that distinction as far as I > > know. > > Apport catches the install ISO name and posts it in the Bug > Description. Also, one could clarify with the bug reporter at a worst > case. > > > Subsequently, the distinction between a Server and a Desktop seems rather > > moot, the support is provided on a per package basis not installation type. > > Ok, then why even say Lucid Desktop is not supported on the release > page, since packages of either are supported on either? Based on this, > Lucid Desktop is fully supported on all the packages it's being > supported in, nothing different from Lucid Server. I could guess to > the intention of this (trying to be accommodating and not slam hammer > people to upgrade off Lucid Desktop). However, the support structure > from my vantage point is contradictory in saying one thing in one > place, and saying another in another. No, there are packages that are specifically in Lucid Desktop; but packages that are in both; if I happen to have installed from a Desktop iso but the bug is in a package included in a server install then the bug is still valid. Lets imagine that some unfortunate Desktop user hits a bug, and they give a good report, but that bug is in a common package and that helps fix it for users of server, it would be a shame to lose the information that helps fix it for the supported users. Remember, the point of bugcontrol is not to act as harsh policemen; it's to get bugs fixed, yes that sometimes means throwing out the old crud, but in the end it also means recognising when the bug is important/shared. Dave > > > If I were working on these bugs I would add a comment regarding 10.04 > > desktop packages being End of Life > while marking them as a duplicate of bug 1327300 (if they are for > certain a duplicate). > > Given the supported package regression (linux) would seem to have > caused issues with various unsupported packages situation these folks > are in, and the unsupported, and insecure Lucid Desktop they are > using, I would do everything but mark it a duplicate given the > security issue. > > > If not then a comment about testing the new kernel from -proposed, while > > mentioning End of Life, and a status of Incomplete seems appropriate. > > Fair enough. > > On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Daniel Letzeisen <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 06/14/2014 10:43 AM, Christopher M. Penalver wrote: > > > >> The support is based on that, as when one installs the Desktop ISO, it > >> installs the userspace that is now unsupported. > > > > > > False. > > True. Firefox (which one of the bug reporters is complaining about) is > a userspace application pulled in by Lucid Desktop, which is an > unsupported package, as further advised to you by Brian Murray's > comments yesterday: > "...support for the 10.04 for "Desktop" systems has ended..." > > and the supported package link > https://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-security/ubuntu-cve-tracker/master/view/head:/lucid-supported.txt > . > > Having a supported package in the only supported ISO provided (Lucid > Server) that breaks unsupported packages in either Lucid Server or > Lucid Desktop would be unsupported. Nobody with a server is installing > a GUI and it's applications (ex. Firefox). > > > "Additionally, the security team publishes a list of 5 year supported > > packages[1] found at their FAQ[2]. Any package in that list is supported and > > if there is a regression in that package due to a security update it should > > be fixed. Subsequently, the distinction between a Server and a Desktop seems > > rather moot, ***the support is provided on a per package basis not > > installation type.*** > > -- Brian Murray, https://lists.launchpad.net/ubuntu-bugcontrol/msg04110.html > > Quoting: > "...support for the 10.04 for "Desktop" systems has ended..." > > >> > >> Second, this is support for Lucid Server on a per package basis, not > >> Lucid Desktop. That link doesn't trump > >> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Releases it sets the expectations in a more > >> granular fashion. > > > > False. See above quote... > > True, and again quoting: > "...support for the 10.04 for "Desktop" systems has ended..." > > >> Third, let's review each bug report you marked a duplicate on a line > >> item basis specifically to clarify the support they are looking for > > > > They've reported a lot of symptoms in packages that aren't supported? > > Yes. > > > So what? > > That's what determines the support expectations for their problem. > > > The root cause is still the botched kernel. I know you think you're doing > > these people a favor by just telling them to upgrade, but you are flat-out > > lying (by omission) > > Again, stop with your rude accusations. > > > to them if you don't tell them that their problem was caused by the -61 > > kernel update, can be easily worked around, > > and has a pending fix. > > If the kernel being updated fixes their unsupported packages, that's > great. But no Ubuntu support would be available to them for their > unsupported packages. > > >>>> In fact, some of the people I've communicated with in the forums about > >>>> this issue explicitly said they knew Lucid Desktop was no longer > >>>> supported > >>>> (but still ran it for one reason or another). > >> > >> Not terribly relevant to this discussion. > > > > > > It's extremely relevant since you keep insisting that I'm "encouraging" > > people to run Lucid by telling them the truth. > > You would be encouraging people to run Lucid Desktop by marking those > bugs duplicates, which is encouraging dangerous behavior running an > insecure operating system. > > > Marking bugs as duplicate of the actual bug isn't "support" any more than > > marking a bug Won't Fix and copy/pasting a > > response. > > Agreed, it would be less so, because you are doing them a grave > disservice encouraging them to use an insecure operating system. > > As well, your arguing for support for EoL operating systems and > packages shows security isn't very important to you, let alone the > security of those using Lucid Desktop, which is not a quality highly > valued in today's technology-driven marketplace where security is more > important than ever. > > Christopher M. Penalver > E-Mail: [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-bugcontrol > Post to : [email protected] > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-bugcontrol > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp -- -----Open up your eyes, open up your mind, open up your code ------- / Dr. David Alan Gilbert | Running GNU/Linux | Happy \ \ gro.gilbert @ treblig.org | | In Hex / \ _________________________|_____ http://www.treblig.org |_______/ _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-bugcontrol Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-bugcontrol More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
