On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 21:43, Stephan Hermann <[email protected]> wrote: > moins, > > > On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 10:21 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 09:16:05 pm LI Daobing wrote: >> > On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 09:09, Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 09:05:25 pm LI Daobing wrote: >> > >> Hello, >> > >> >> > >> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 09:00, Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 01:29:46 pm Jonathan Riddell wrote: >> > >> >> Ubuntu Tweak is waiting for approval in New queue. >> > >> >> http://ubuntu-tweak.com/ >> > >> >> https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/252140 >> > >> >> >> > >> >> Is this something MOTU wants included? >> > >> > >> > >> > No. >> > >> > >> > >> > It looks to me like something that, in addition to proper packaging, >> > >> > ought to have a thorough functional review before entering the >> > >> > archive. >> > >> >> > >> I am the packager of ubuntu-tweak, can you tell me what's the problem >> > >> with ubuntu-tweak? >> > > >> > > I don't know that there is a problem, but given the invasive nature of >> > > it's functionality, I think it appropriate for it to be given more of a >> > > review than just being packaged properly. In Ubuntu's history there >> > > have been multiple "Tweak" programs and so far they have always proved >> > > to be more harmful than helpful at the scale the Ubuntu archive >> > > operates. >> > > >> > > This one may be the one that gets it right, but having found that they >> > > rebrand PPAs that other people maintain as there's on their web site, >> > > I'm not at all inclined to assume this is all well intentioned. >> > >> > you are right. >> > >> > this package is active-maintained, and I'll forward your opinion to >> > the upstream author. I think he'll fix this bug. >> > >> > ubuntu-tweak is very useful for me, and it's also has many users. so I >> > want to push it to Ubuntu and hope it can catch ubuntu 10.10. >> > >> > thanks. >> >> I don't have a lot of time for a detailed review. A quick look shows that >> this can enable quite a number of untrusted repositories. My recollection is >> that we although Envy was initially accepted doing something similar it was >> required to be fixed to not do this. I don't think a package that adds >> untrusted repositories is suitable. > > Yes, it can enable a lot of untrusted sources, but I don't understand > how it does it. > under "software-center" there are lot of archives, which are not ubuntu > official, but they are greyed out...and with the "unlock" button it does > nothing (I took the version from revu)
the unlock button will let you input your sudo password. then he can modify /etc/apt/sources.list.d/ dir. > > Tbh, everything what's in there is already available on a standard gnome > desktop. We don't need a copy of update-manager, software-center or > whatever is in there... it's somehow different, for example, the amule ppa shipped with ubuntu-tweak has DLP function, which is important for us. it also provide some snapshot version program (just like gcc-snapshot which already in ubuntu). > > I even don't like descriptions like there are in > ubuntutweak/common/appdata.py. > > It think that this could give us a sitution as we had during times when > we had the unofficial backport times... > > I will not give a +1 for this tool in the official ubuntu archives. > I still think this package is suitable for universe. :) Thanks -- Best Regards LI Daobing -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
