country-level archive DNS changes
What (who?) is the right mechanism to re-point a country-level Ubuntu archive DNS entry, after we have confirmed agreement from the hosting organisation? Many thanks, Daniel -- Daniel J Blueman -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: country-level archive DNS changes
On 22 July 2013 16:34, Daniel J Blueman wrote: > What (who?) is the right mechanism to re-point a country-level Ubuntu > archive DNS entry, after we have confirmed agreement from the hosting > organisation? > Information about becoming country mirror is at: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Mirrors Including irc and email contact details, on the bottom of that page. Regards, Dmitrijs. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Source packages appropriate by default?
By large, developers are uninterested in this, but it is important for users and where we use Ubuntu. Anyone care to comment on how we can progress this? On 15 July 2013 13:32, Daniel J Blueman wrote: > From earlier feedback, there were no overriding reasons why package > sources should be enabled by default. > > We not only save congestion on security.ubuntu.com, but quite a lot of > country-level mirrors point to Canonical's servers, which are > relatively distant and slow (~80KB/s from here), so this is a win. > > So, what's the path to change this? > > On 21 May 2013 22:04, J Fernyhough wrote: >> On 21 May 2013 13:55, Robie Basak wrote: >>> What if we provided a reasonable message if no deb-src lines are >>> defined, with a single simple command to add them and run "apt-get >>> update" for you? >> >> I don't think it would even need that - software-properties (Software >> & Updates) already has the necessary checkbox. All that is needed to >> enable sources is to tick that box. >> >>> From a technical point of view, does mirroring the deb lines into >>> deb-src lines work in all cases? Would doing so break anything? >> >> This is effectively what Software Sources does under-the-hood. >> >> I have to agree, if the amount being downloaded is not trivial (which >> I thought it was) then there's no need to have them enabled by default >> when it's very easy to turn them on. One of the first things I do on >> any new install is disable those that aren't needed. >> >> Jonathon >> >> (to the list this time) >> >> -- >> Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list >> Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com >> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: >> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss > > > > -- > Daniel J Blueman -- Daniel J Blueman -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Source packages appropriate by default?
On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 11:02:00 AM Daniel J Blueman wrote: > By large, developers are uninterested in this, but it is important for > users and where we use Ubuntu. > > Anyone care to comment on how we can progress this? I think most developers would believe the current situation is appropriate. By default users have the same access to source and binary packages and for a free software distribution, that is the ethically correct approach. Scott K > On 15 July 2013 13:32, Daniel J Blueman wrote: > > From earlier feedback, there were no overriding reasons why package > > sources should be enabled by default. > > > > We not only save congestion on security.ubuntu.com, but quite a lot of > > country-level mirrors point to Canonical's servers, which are > > relatively distant and slow (~80KB/s from here), so this is a win. > > > > So, what's the path to change this? > > > > On 21 May 2013 22:04, J Fernyhough wrote: > >> On 21 May 2013 13:55, Robie Basak wrote: > >>> What if we provided a reasonable message if no deb-src lines are > >>> defined, with a single simple command to add them and run "apt-get > >>> update" for you? > >> > >> I don't think it would even need that - software-properties (Software > >> & Updates) already has the necessary checkbox. All that is needed to > >> enable sources is to tick that box. > >> > >>> From a technical point of view, does mirroring the deb lines into > >>> deb-src lines work in all cases? Would doing so break anything? > >> > >> This is effectively what Software Sources does under-the-hood. > >> > >> I have to agree, if the amount being downloaded is not trivial (which > >> I thought it was) then there's no need to have them enabled by default > >> when it's very easy to turn them on. One of the first things I do on > >> any new install is disable those that aren't needed. > >> > >> Jonathon > >> > >> (to the list this time) > >> > >> -- > >> Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list > >> Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com > >> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > >> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss> > > -- > > Daniel J Blueman -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Source packages appropriate by default?
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 01:51:46AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: > I think most developers would believe the current situation is appropriate. I disagree. > By default users have the same access to source and binary packages and for a > free software distribution, that is the ethically correct approach. Indeed, but you never replied to my original response to your concern. By "same access", do you specifically require the mechanism to be to keep users' local apt caches maintained with source entries? If so, why is such a mechanism necessary to fit the spirit of Free Software? If the user still has easy access to the source, why is this not sufficient? I'm happy to discuss what "easy access" might actually mean, but I see no reason that it should require the waste of users' bandwidth and time. Robie -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Source packages appropriate by default?
(pardon the top-posting) I think the slight reduction in ethics (relevant mainly to developers) is a good trade to help deployability in the real world. We'll leave sources enabled by default for development releases. For the other 99% of users, where practicality is more important than immediate access to source, we end up wasting ~10% of Canonical and our mirror's bandwidth on the source updates. This makes a difference when behind a congested network, running on battery or so on. That 10% when accessing security.ubuntu.com really helps, particularly when topologically distant from the UK (if you have good network connectivity, ask someone who hasn't got it). No? On 23 July 2013 13:51, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 11:02:00 AM Daniel J Blueman wrote: >> By large, developers are uninterested in this, but it is important for >> users and where we use Ubuntu. >> >> Anyone care to comment on how we can progress this? > > I think most developers would believe the current situation is appropriate. > By default users have the same access to source and binary packages and for a > free software distribution, that is the ethically correct approach. > > Scott K > >> On 15 July 2013 13:32, Daniel J Blueman wrote: >> > From earlier feedback, there were no overriding reasons why package >> > sources should be enabled by default. >> > >> > We not only save congestion on security.ubuntu.com, but quite a lot of >> > country-level mirrors point to Canonical's servers, which are >> > relatively distant and slow (~80KB/s from here), so this is a win. >> > >> > So, what's the path to change this? >> > >> > On 21 May 2013 22:04, J Fernyhough wrote: >> >> On 21 May 2013 13:55, Robie Basak wrote: >> >>> What if we provided a reasonable message if no deb-src lines are >> >>> defined, with a single simple command to add them and run "apt-get >> >>> update" for you? >> >> >> >> I don't think it would even need that - software-properties (Software >> >> & Updates) already has the necessary checkbox. All that is needed to >> >> enable sources is to tick that box. >> >> >> >>> From a technical point of view, does mirroring the deb lines into >> >>> deb-src lines work in all cases? Would doing so break anything? >> >> >> >> This is effectively what Software Sources does under-the-hood. >> >> >> >> I have to agree, if the amount being downloaded is not trivial (which >> >> I thought it was) then there's no need to have them enabled by default >> >> when it's very easy to turn them on. One of the first things I do on >> >> any new install is disable those that aren't needed. >> >> >> >> Jonathon >> >> >> >> (to the list this time) >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list >> >> Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com >> >> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: >> >> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss> >> > -- >> > Daniel J Blueman > > -- > ubuntu-devel mailing list > ubuntu-de...@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel -- Daniel J Blueman -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
