Please proceed deleting it. Our online & cold storage are covering all possible requirements needed.
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 at 00:05, Michael Hudson-Doyle <michael.hud...@canonical.com> wrote: > > So do we think this reached any kind of consensus? Can I start deleting code > related to source ISOs? > > Cheers, > mwh > > On Fri, 5 Jan 2024 at 00:27, Lukasz Zemczak <lukasz.zemc...@canonical.com> > wrote: >> >> Hey Michael! >> >> I basically +1 what Steve said. To add a bit more to this, the current >> source-iso machinery doesn't take snaps into consideration, so the >> resulting isos weren't fully compliant anyway - especially after we >> adopted so many snaps on our images. >> The source iso codebase was in general unmaintained. I remember Laney >> once tried refactoring it to key on amd64 but that actually broke >> things even more, so we decided not to touch it if not needed. >> >> I think archive snapshotting is a much better solution in overall, or >> at least pointing people to the manifest + lists files as a means of >> source retrieval. Maybe even offer a tool that would consume a >> manifest + list file to download all the sources if needed. >> >> I feel like it's the right way to go. I'm not really knowledgeable >> about the licensing compliance bits here of course, but I'm sure we >> can achieve that in a better way than having to provide 6+ isos with >> source content, which in my opinion nowadays wasn't very useful >> anyway. >> >> Cheers, >> >> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 at 05:55, Steve Langasek <steve.langa...@ubuntu.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > On Thu, Jan 04, 2024 at 04:41:43PM +1300, Michael Hudson-Doyle wrote: >> > > Hello release team, >> > >> > > In the course of recent refactorings of ubuntu-cdimage / debian-cd we >> > > somehow broke the building of source ISOs. I doubt this is anything very >> > > deep and can surely be fixed but there is another option: stop building >> > > source ISOs. >> > >> > > AFAIU the point of a source ISO is GPL-compliance: if you are hosting an >> > > ISO made out of GPL-licensed components you should really also host the >> > > source of those components. However, we put source ISOs on cdimage (e.g. >> > > https://cdimage.ubuntu.com/source/20231011.1/source/) not releases, so >> > > everyone (?) who mirrors the ubuntu ISOs for us does not mirror the >> > > source >> > > ISOs. >> > >> > > As our mirror operators have been working this way for approximately 20 >> > > years without issue, perhaps it's time to stop making source ISOs and >> > > delete even more code from debian-cd and ubuntu-cdimage. >> > >> > > WDYAT? >> > >> > As you know, I'm a fan of this. >> > >> > In principle, source images are useful for ensuring the distributors of our >> > install images are complying with the terms of the GPL. But this is only >> > true if they are *actually distributed together*, or if the source image is >> > somehow useful for a distributor to rely on for the "written offer" option >> > under the GPL. >> > >> > As you point out, the image files are not being distributed together. >> > Mirrors of releases.ubuntu.com don't get these source ISOs; and where >> > community flavors are running their own mirrors, AFAIK they aren't >> > including >> > the source ISOs. So if they're not being distributed together, the ISOs >> > are >> > no better than pointing at the apt archive for source (possibly with an >> > appropriate index - which we do as a matter of course archive as part of >> > point releases, so that it is possible to correctly reconstruct the list of >> > required source packages + versions for point release images as well, not >> > just GA images). >> > >> > And we ourselves long ago stopped distributing physical CDs, and I'm not >> > aware of anyone else doing so - and if someone does, I think it's unlikely >> > that they are also distributing >> > https://cdimage.ubuntu.com/releases/mantic/release/source/ on 6 DVDs! This >> > just isn't a useful structuring of corresponding-source-for-image anymore, >> > because we try to include the source for all flavors, and there are a lot >> > more flavors than there were when source ISOs started being built; yet >> > we've >> > had zero bug reports from anyone asking to make these source ISOs more >> > useful. >> > >> > And as far as OEM preinstalled systems are concerned, well - those systems >> > use customized install media, so the "mainline" Ubuntu source ISOs don't >> > satisfy the "corresponding source" requirement there either. >> > >> > So I think in practice, the source ISOs are not useful in their current >> > state, haven't been for a long time, and therefore we should stop producing >> > them. >> > >> > >> > And as to whether there are costs in maintaining these: we basically only >> > build source ISOs once or twice every release cycle, so the machinery to do >> > so is very much the opposite of well-oiled. After the 23.10.1 respin of >> > the >> > Ubuntu Desktop images, I found that the source ISOs appeared to have become >> > un-published, and I found it incredibly difficult to even work out the >> > correct invocation of the commands that would allow me to re-publish the >> > existing ISOs. debian-cd didn't even enter into it, I was just trying to >> > drive ubuntu-cdimage to re-publish the previously built images... >> > >> > Dropping the source ISO builds from the release process (and not having to >> > continue supporting them in the code) would be very nice. >> > >> > -- >> > Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS >> > Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. >> > Ubuntu Developer https://www.debian.org/ >> > slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org >> > -- >> > Ubuntu-release mailing list >> > Ubuntu-release@lists.ubuntu.com >> > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: >> > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-release >> >> >> >> -- >> Ćukasz 'sil2100' Zemczak >> Foundations Team >> Tools Squad Engineering Manager >> lukasz.zemc...@canonical.com >> www.canonical.com >> >> -- >> Ubuntu-release mailing list >> Ubuntu-release@lists.ubuntu.com >> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: >> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-release > > -- > Ubuntu-release mailing list > Ubuntu-release@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-release -- Dimitri Sent from Ubuntu Pro https://ubuntu.com/pro -- Ubuntu-release mailing list Ubuntu-release@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-release