On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Maia Kozheva <si...@ubuntu.com> wrote:
> Just my two kopecks here: > > It's not just the catalogue of specific PPAs that is a problem. Granted, > that's one of the problems too, in my eyes; having it in the Ubuntu > archive makes us look like we support that kind of unofficial > bleeding-edge updates *and* the PPAs featured. Ubuntu does provide a way > to install PPAs: through the Software Sources tool. But it does not > treat some PPAs as "more equal than others". > The issue applies to every application which provides it's own sources of media/software/whatever, as far as I understand that is not something we take responsibility for as part of the packaging. Does MOTU support or endorse the IRC servers available on the xchat server list ? Does MOTU support or endorse the the radio stream availables on the 'tunapie' stream list ? Does MOTU support or endorse the the <insert your application media/software/etc source here> ? IMHO as long as the application provides a sensible warning about the security/stability risks of enabling the PPA's it is an acceptable feature. > The entire package management part just bugs me. It's basically a > duplication of standard Ubuntu tools, and I doubt it has received such > extensive testing as Software Sources/Update Manager/Software > Center/Synaptic. The ability to manually edit sources.list files should > not be exposed to the end user in the UI at all, that's for advanced > I don't think kpackagekit, packagekit-gnome and adept received such an extensive testing as Software Sources/Update Manager/Software Center/Synaptic, still they are on the archive. users. Keep in mind that package management is a sensitive part of the > system and reckless meddling can leave it in an inconsistent state. > > If only package management was limited to its own section. But it also > creeps into other sections; the Compiz settings, for example, include a > checkbox (?!) for installing simple-ccsm, and even the application > Why is that wrong as long it's clear than an install operation will be invoked ? Please note that there are Ubuntu default apps which do that, the language support app comes to my mind. itself prompts to install its own PPA for updates. > > The other sections basically expose "hidden" settings in gconf, but they > do so in an inconsistent way. Some settings are innocent, others expose > experimental and unreliable features (Metacity compositing, for > instance), or are potentially dangerous and can render the desktop > unusable. Again, this makes Ubuntu look like it promotes this. +1, Dangerous/unreliable features should have a proper warning. > Ultimately, the #1 bug in Ubuntu Tweak (which is really a bug in Ubuntu) > is that some users feel it has the need to exist. I myself believe that > many of the "hidden" gconf settings should be configurable, but that > Ubuntu Tweak is the Wrong Way to Do It. If they're useful, they should > either be added to the configuration dialogs of the respective > applications, or have separate configuration dialogs (for example, ccsm > and simple-ccsm do everything Ubuntu Tweak does for Compiz, and then > some). That would remove the need for the safe subset of Ubuntu Tweak in > the first place, just as the PPA culture and restricted extras packages > proved to be the Right Way to Do It that removed the raison d'etre for > its spiritual predecessor, Automatix. > So you agree that there is a need for ubuntu-tweak until the other bugs get fixed, right :) ? -- João Luís Marques Pinto GetDeb Team Leader http://www.getdeb.net http://blog.getdeb.net
-- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
