Olá Krzysztof e a todos.
On Saturday 12 July 2008 10:00:42 Krzysztof Lichota wrote:
> Maybe if Ubuntu shipped with apt settings which would make backports
> repository lower priority and would require explicit installation of
> given version from backports it would be OK, but AFAIK it is not the
>
Olá Matt e a todos.
On Thursday 10 July 2008 09:53:19 Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> System->About Ubuntu. Slow to start, but discoverable enough.
Slow you say?
My C2D 2.4 GHz took 10 sec.
"Thank you for your interest in Ubuntu 8.04 - the Hardy Heron - released in
April 2008."
and i-m on Intrepid. at
On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 18:14 +0200, Mario Vukelic wrote:
> FWIW: download from firefox.com
<- nothing
As was pointed out to me, FF3 needs gtk+ 2.10, which is not in Dapper.
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
http
2008/7/10 Mario Vukelic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 10:15 +0200, Krzysztof Lichota wrote:
>> The main point is that it is possible
>> (and easy) to install Firefox 3 on Windows XP (released 2001), while
>> try to install Firefox 3 on Dapper (released 2006).
>
> FWIW: download from
2008/7/10 Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 10:13:00AM +0200, Krzysztof Lichota wrote:
>> Well, IMO in most cases this would require just creation of
>> appropriate packaging process and appropriate build tools. Build
>> systems already support installing to different di
Op woensdag 09-07-2008 om 10:16 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef Mackenzie
Morgan:
> Er, not really. You can't have FF2 and FF3 or IE6 and IE7 both
> installed on Windows, or if it is somehow possible, it's certainly not
> easy.
It's not too difficult with Firefox AFAIK, but with IE it certainly is
2008/7/10 Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > The important point is that a normal user should not need to hang out on
> > forums, mailing list, LP, and so on, to know if the release is stable
> enough
> > to use. IMHO, it should be enough to see from the name if the release is
> > ready-for-u
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 12:47 PM, Pär Lidén <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/7/10 Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> To you, "LTS" may mean "so stable", but to another, it means that problems
>> are actively fixed (which implies some change and therefore instability)
>> even after release.
>
>
2008/7/10 Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> It is already documented, but most people file and respond to bugs without
> reading the documentation (and why should they have to?). Perhaps the only
> way to track regressions more accurately would be to represent them as
> first-class data in La
On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 10:15 +0200, Krzysztof Lichota wrote:
> The main point is that it is possible
> (and easy) to install Firefox 3 on Windows XP (released 2001), while
> try to install Firefox 3 on Dapper (released 2006).
FWIW: download from firefox.com, unpack, run installer. Granted, it is
no
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 01:45:55PM +0200, Pär Lidén wrote:
> 2008/7/8 Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > There is a 'regression' tag, and we do try to prioritize these on an ad-hoc
> > basis, but understand that with such incomplete information, it's difficult
> > at best.
>
> Ok, I haven'
2008/7/8 Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> There is a 'regression' tag, and we do try to prioritize these on an ad-hoc
> basis, but understand that with such incomplete information, it's difficult
> at best.
Ok, I haven't seen that tag, even on bug bugs where users explicitly say
that is has
You may be interested in the "LSB Package API" discussion on the Linux
Standard Base's packaging mailing list.
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/packaging/2008-June/000732.html
Regards,
Denis Washington
On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 11:47 +0300, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
> I think resume of a
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 10:13:00AM +0200, Krzysztof Lichota wrote:
> 2008/7/9 Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > As far as I'm aware, Windows provides no tools or infrastructure to make
> > this easier. It is completely up to the ISV how their software is
> > installed, and many of them detec
2008/7/9 Mackenzie Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 3:47 AM, Krzysztof Lichota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It is a lot of effort, but if we want to compete with Windows, which
>> makes it possible (and easy), it should be done.
>
> Er, not really. You can't have FF2 and FF3 o
2008/7/9 Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 09:47:56AM +0200, Krzysztof Lichota wrote:
>> It is a lot of effort, but if we want to compete with Windows, which
>> makes it possible (and easy), it should be done.
>
> As far as I'm aware, Windows provides no tools or infrast
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 11:27 AM, Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 11:20:06AM -0400, Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > In my opinion, nothing as esoteric as alternatives should be exposed in t
On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 11:20:06AM -0400, Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In my opinion, nothing as esoteric as alternatives should be exposed in the
> > desktop, any more than should reordering symlinks in /etc/rc?.d.
>
> Is
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 10:19:46AM -0400, Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 4:43 AM, Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 09:47:56AM +0200, Krzysztof Lichota wrote:
>> >> T
On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 10:19:46AM -0400, Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 4:43 AM, Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 09:47:56AM +0200, Krzysztof Lichota wrote:
> >> There is already system for handling that - /etc/alternatives/. According
> >> t
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 4:43 AM, Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 09:47:56AM +0200, Krzysztof Lichota wrote:
>> There is already system for handling that - /etc/alternatives/. According
>> to my Dapper installation it already contains 240 commands with
>> alternat
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 3:47 AM, Krzysztof Lichota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is a lot of effort, but if we want to compete with Windows, which
> makes it possible (and easy), it should be done.
Er, not really. You can't have FF2 and FF3 or IE6 and IE7 both
installed on Windows, or if it is s
On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 09:47:56AM +0200, Krzysztof Lichota wrote:
> 2008/7/8 Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> [package multiple versions of everything]
> >
> > This sounds simple enough, but the implementation gets complex very quickly,
> > as does future maintenance and support.
>
> It i
2008/7/8 Scott Kitterman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 10:38:01 +0200 "Krzysztof Lichota"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
>>Additionally, ship _newer_ versions of important apps to LTS releases,
>>so that continuity is kept. If LTSx release contains OpenOffice 2.2
>>and new version 2
2008/7/8 Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 10:38:01AM +0200, Krzysztof Lichota wrote:
>> I can't agree here. IMO bugs which people already know, they got used
>> to and found workarounds for, are less damaging for system reputation
>> than bugs which are unexpected.
>
>
On Tue, 2008-07-08 at 00:47 +0100, Alexander Jones wrote:
> 2008/7/8 Evan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Mark Shuttleworth has already proposed something along these lines. I can't
> > find it at the moment, but it's in a post somewhere at markshuttleworth.com
> >
> > I also think this would help signifi
On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 10:24:46AM -0400, Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Peteris Krisjanis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:48 PM, Vincenzo Ciancia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> 2) What about adding some basic hardware testing to these test cas
On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 04:13:23PM +0200, Pär Lidén wrote:
> 2008/7/8 Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 01:00:00PM -0500, Luke L wrote:
> > > Ceteris paribus, regressions should have a higher priority than normal
> > > bugs. I totally agree.
> >
> > It's hard to arg
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Peteris Krisjanis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:48 PM, Vincenzo Ciancia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> 2) What about adding some basic hardware testing to these test cases?
>>> For example, vga out support never survives a release or two bef
> What purpose would such a spec serve that isn't already served by the test
> cases (which already exist)? It is a noble goal to have a rigorous
> specification for Ubuntu, but consider the effort of keeping it up to date
> as our thousands of upstream projects continue to change. We do create
>
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:48 PM, Vincenzo Ciancia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 2) What about adding some basic hardware testing to these test cases?
>> For example, vga out support never survives a release or two before
>> being killed by X progressing, in my experience, but it is very
>> importa
On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 04:54:46PM +0300, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
> > This is easy to say, but consider carefully what it would mean in practice.
> > How could we implement such a policy in Ubuntu? Before we can even begin to
> > estimate the effort required in order to achieve this, we would nee
2008/7/8 Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 01:00:00PM -0500, Luke L wrote:
> > Ceteris paribus, regressions should have a higher priority than normal
> > bugs. I totally agree.
>
> It's hard to argue with that, but again, I have to look at this
> pragmatically. It is v
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:48 PM, Vincenzo Ciancia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2) What about adding some basic hardware testing to these test cases?
> For example, vga out support never survives a release or two before
> being killed by X progressing, in my experience, but it is very
> important for
>> Conclusion
>> Ubuntu must stop insisting on being on the bleeding edge of features and
>> software if they want to have a "low-error" operating system. This applies
>> even more so for LTS, and this paper is directed toward my disappointment in
>> the QC of this LTS release. Let us briefly re
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 10:38:01 +0200 "Krzysztof Lichota"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
>Additionally, ship _newer_ versions of important apps to LTS releases,
>so that continuity is kept. If LTSx release contains OpenOffice 2.2
>and new version 2.3 appears, port it to LTSx, so that when version
>LTS
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 07:48:03PM +0200, Vincenzo Ciancia wrote:
> Il giorno lun, 07/07/2008 alle 18.04 +0100, Matt Zimmerman ha scritto:
> >
> > Instead, we focus on defining a subset of functionality which can be
> > tested in practice. You can find the corresponding test plans here:
> > https
On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 10:38:01AM +0200, Krzysztof Lichota wrote:
> 2008/7/7 Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 10:43:44AM -0500, Luke L wrote:
> >> --New software should not be included simply because it is new, quite the
> >> opposite: new software should rarely inc
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 01:00:00PM -0500, Luke L wrote:
> Ceteris paribus, regressions should have a higher priority than normal
> bugs. I totally agree.
It's hard to argue with that, but again, I have to look at this
pragmatically. It is very rarely possible to tell just by looking at a bug
whet
2008/7/7 Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 10:43:44AM -0500, Luke L wrote:
>> --New software should not be included simply because it is new, quite the
>> opposite: new software should rarely included. Firefox beta and OOo 2.4 are
>> notable examples.
>
> I can't agree
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 11:14:59PM +0100, Alexander Jones wrote:
> 2008/7/7 Bryce Harrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Frequently upstream decides $TECH is too horribly broken, so they create
> > $TECH+1 which is often a from-scratch rewrite, which often means trading
> > one set of bugs for another
2008/7/8 Evan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Mark Shuttleworth has already proposed something along these lines. I can't
> find it at the moment, but it's in a post somewhere at markshuttleworth.com
>
> I also think this would help significantly.
I believe Mark proposed only a synchronisation on the six-m
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Alexander Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It makes me wonder whether synchronised planning for a major cycle
> every 2 years would be a good idea to pitch.
>
> I tend to think (perhaps unfoundedly) that we have this problem where,
> rarely are more than a few par
2008/7/7 Bryce Harrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Frequently upstream decides $TECH is too horribly broken, so they create
> $TECH+1 which is often a from-scratch rewrite, which often means trading
> one set of bugs for another. Unfortunately, upstream then takes the
> step of dropping all ongoing
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 06:04:14PM +0100, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > Stability in software
> > Why is it that 8.04 “LTS” has such a wave of new features and new
> > versions of software that have not been time-tested to be stable? LTS
> > releases (meant to be exceptionally stable) should not have s
2008/7/7 Mackenzie Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Alexander Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'm still not following. In October, 8.04 would have been the "beta"
>> for an imaginary 8.10 LTS release for 6 months. You can happily ignore
>> the fact that the real, bl
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Alexander Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm still not following. In October, 8.04 would have been the "beta"
> for an imaginary 8.10 LTS release for 6 months. You can happily ignore
> the fact that the real, bleeding edge 8.10 is released.
>
> No?
8.10 isn't re
I'm still not following. In October, 8.04 would have been the "beta"
for an imaginary 8.10 LTS release for 6 months. You can happily ignore
the fact that the real, bleeding edge 8.10 is released.
No?
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or un
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 2:00 PM, Luke L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/7/08, Evan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I would propose a compromise between the current LTS pattern and the
> > proposed bug-fix only pattern: maintain the current upstream merge, but
> add
> > no new packages. That way
2008/7/7 Luke L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> ---Using a previous release as a "beta" for an LTS: Instead of syncing
> packages with debian-sid on an LTS, use the packages from the LTS-1
> release to find bugs and security holes. That way, when someone gets
> the LTS, they know it's been through the wring
> Aside the version number, isn't that just like waiting 6 months on an
> LTS we already have? We're not going to dress up 8.04 as a new fancy
> release come October, but that's the only difference I think.
No, an example would be using Feisty's packages and codebase to
release 8.04. Almost as if
On 7/7/08, Evan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would propose a compromise between the current LTS pattern and the
> proposed bug-fix only pattern: maintain the current upstream merge, but add
> no new packages. That way newer software is still in the repositories (and
> thus supported upstream for
Hello. In my defense, some of the errors in my essay are due to the
fact that I was new to Ubuntu at the time, and since then I have seen
the effort and complexity of the project. I have also been around the
wiki, and yes, I see that 10.04 is the next LTS :) My freshness to the
subject is the reaso
Il giorno lun, 07/07/2008 alle 18.04 +0100, Matt Zimmerman ha scritto:
>
> Instead, we focus on defining a subset of functionality which can be
> tested
> in practice. You can find the corresponding test plans here:
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing along with instructions for how you
> can
> par
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 10:43:44AM -0500, Luke L wrote:
>
>> Considerations for an LTS
>> One idea to prevent such a rush of higher version numbers and new gadgets
>> from breaking a distro is to use a "STS" release as an
55 matches
Mail list logo
