Am Donnerstag, den 14.04.2011, 12:39 -0500 schrieb Ted Gould: > On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 09:49 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > Unless it's a package developed specifically for Ubuntu, it's really not a > > bug > > in the package from an upstream perspective. Some upstreams will choose to > > support Ubuntu specific requirements and others won't. For those that > > don't, > > either users will lose out on functionality or we'll have to develop and > > maintain Ubuntu specific patches. > > > > I doubt it's supportable to deal with Ubuntu patches for all the relevant > > Universe packages. We also know there are some important applicaitons that > > can't/won't support the migration, so it's either live with a legacy > > notification area or not support these packages. I suspect that, in the > > interest of giving the users fully functional applications we'll come down > > on > > the side of supporting the notification area for these packages. It makes > > sense to me, given that, just to plan on supporting it generally for > > applications that use it. > > I hope that one day we can get to the point of having UI requirements on > applications within the Ubuntu process similar to the security > requirements that exist with an MIR today. > > So, for instance a package couldn't be in the Ubuntu archive: > * if it required the system tray > * didn't support localization > * didn't have basic accessibility support > * doesn't provide any user documentation > * uses it's own notification system instead of the FD.o one
Do you really want to reject those package if they do not meet the criteria above? I think everything (complying to the DFSG) should be accepted in universe. Having those restrictions for packages in main would be fine. -- Benjamin Drung Debian & Ubuntu Developer
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
