Re: Looking at Package Management for Karmic or Karmic+1

Jan Claeys wrote: > Op maandag 06-04-2009 om 00:43 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef Mackenzie > Morgan: > >> On Sunday 05 April 2009 11:55:10 pm Jan Claeys wrote: >> >>> Actually, a running firefox shows you a warning and a restart button (or >>> at least it did?) if it's older than the on-dis

Re: Looking at Package Management for Karmic or Karmic+1

Erich Jansen wrote: > Jan Claeys wrote: > >> Op maandag 06-04-2009 om 00:43 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef Mackenzie >> Morgan: >> >> >>> On Sunday 05 April 2009 11:55:10 pm Jan Claeys wrote: >>> >>> Actually, a running firefox shows you a warning and a restart button (or

Re: Looking at Package Management for Karmic or Karmic+1

On Monday 06 April 2009 3:22:10 am Erich Jansen wrote: > Jan Claeys wrote: > > Op maandag 06-04-2009 om 00:43 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef Mackenzie > > Morgan: > > > >> On Sunday 05 April 2009 11:55:10 pm Jan Claeys wrote: > >> > >>> Actually, a running firefox shows you a warning and a r

Re: Looking at Package Management for Karmic or Karmic+1

Mackenzie Morgan wrote: > On Monday 06 April 2009 3:22:10 am Erich Jansen wrote: > >> Jan Claeys wrote: >> >>> Op maandag 06-04-2009 om 00:43 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef Mackenzie >>> Morgan: >>> >>> On Sunday 05 April 2009 11:55:10 pm Jan Claeys wrote:

Re: Looking at Package Management for Karmic or Karmic+1

Il giorno dom, 05/04/2009 alle 22.45 +0200, Remco ha scritto: > > Are there any problems with enabling automatic updates by default? > Most users don't care about updates to the point that they never > install them. I think that one of the aspects is the following: as an update may *always* creat

Re: Looking at Package Management for Karmic or Karmic+1

On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 07:27 +0200, Jan Claeys wrote: > Maybe delaying upgrades until shutdown *is* the right > solution? There are a couple of other issues with that. 1. The upgrades may need some feedback from the user, but the user has just declared that they would like to leave the com

Re: Looking at Package Management for Karmic or Karmic+1

Matthew Paul Thomas wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Erich Jansen wrote on 06/04/09 08:29: > >> ... >> Also, isn't this an option that could be added to Ubiquity? Like when >> you are filling in your user information we could have a checkbox that >> enables automati

Argyll sync from Debian

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I don't know where to ask for. I'm hoping thta a motu will take this wish. Is it possible (or is it too late) to have argyll package in ubuntu mirrors ? This package is new under Debian, and it's a very great and usefull tool ! http://packages.debian.

Re: Looking at Package Management for Karmic or Karmic+1

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Erich Jansen wrote on 06/04/09 10:59: >... Also, isn't this an option that could be added to Ubiquity? Like when you are filling in your user information we could have a checkbox that enables automatic installation of all security u

Re: Looking at Package Management for Karmic or Karmic+1

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Erich Jansen wrote on 06/04/09 08:29: >... > Also, isn't this an option that could be added to Ubiquity? Like when > you are filling in your user information we could have a checkbox that > enables automatic installation of all security updates? Have

Re: Looking at Package Management for Karmic or Karmic+1

> Now that the Updates Available window opens by itself, it may help for > it to contain a checkbox for installing future updates by default. > > +1. I would say keep the current update workflow but add a line about "click here to automatically update in the future". -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss maili

Re: Looking at Package Management for Karmic or Karmic+1

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Martin Olsson wrote on 02/04/09 10:42: > > Matthew Paul Thomas wrote: >> >> We have not made any decisions about whether this program would be >> based on PackageKit, Add/Remove Applications, Synaptic, or something >> else, or written from scratch. W

Re: Looking at Package Management for Karmic or Karmic+1

Felipe Figueiredo wrote: > Remco escreveu: >> Are there any problems with enabling automatic updates by default? >> Most users don't care about updates to the point that they never >> install them. And even if they would open the update manager, they >> > Which is precisely why security should

Please don't automatic upgrade

Il giorno lun, 06/04/2009 alle 08.00 -0400, Andrew Barbaccia ha scritto: > > Now that the Updates Available window opens by itself, it may > help for > it to contain a checkbox for installing future updates by > default. > > > > +1. > > I would s

Re: Please don't automatic upgrade

ma, 2009-04-06 kello 15:24 +0200, Vincenzo Ciancia kirjoitti: > Unless you can _guarantee_ that every upgrade will NOT harm the system As you point out, it is not possible to guarantee that. However, it is probably best to point out that not upgrading can also harm things, when it is about securit

Re: Please don't automatic upgrade

Il giorno lun, 06/04/2009 alle 16.32 +0300, Lars Wirzenius ha scritto: > > As you point out, it is not possible to guarantee that. However, it is > probably best to point out that not upgrading can also harm things, > when > it is about security updates. Thus, it would perhaps be best to enable >

Re: Looking at Package Management for Karmic or Karmic+1

On Monday 06 April 2009 3:49:48 am Erich Jansen wrote: > Mackenzie Morgan wrote: > > On Monday 06 April 2009 3:22:10 am Erich Jansen wrote: > > > >> Jan Claeys wrote: > >> > >>> Op maandag 06-04-2009 om 00:43 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef Mackenzie > >>> Morgan: > >>> > >>> >

Re: Looking at Package Management for Karmic or Karmic+1

On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 07:27:00 +0200 Jan Claeys wrote: > Op maandag 06-04-2009 om 00:43 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef Mackenzie > Morgan: > > On Sunday 05 April 2009 11:55:10 pm Jan Claeys wrote: > > > Actually, a running firefox shows you a warning and a restart > > > button (or at least it did?)

Re: Looking at Package Management for Karmic or Karmic+1

On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 12:25:07 +0100 Matthew Paul Thomas wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Erich Jansen wrote on 06/04/09 10:59: > >... > Also, isn't this an option that could be added to Ubiquity? Like > when you are filling in your user information we could h

Re: Argyll sync from Debian

On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 7:17 AM, Patrice Vetsel wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > I don't know where to ask for. I'm hoping thta a motu will take this wish. > Is it possible (or is it too late) to have argyll package in ubuntu > mirrors ? > > This package is new under Deb

Re: Please don't automatic upgrade

On Monday 06 April 2009 9:24:40 am Vincenzo Ciancia wrote: > Unless you can _guarantee_ that every upgrade will NOT harm the system > and e.g. make it impossible to login, or break Xorg, it is much wiser if > upgrades are done only by the hand of persons who know how to solve a > glitch. This happe

Re: Looking at Package Management for Karmic or Karmic+1

On Monday 06 April 2009 10:35:17 am Charlie Kravetz wrote: > On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 12:25:07 +0100 > Matthew Paul Thomas wrote: > > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > Erich Jansen wrote on 06/04/09 10:59: > > >... > > Also, isn't this an option that could be added to U

Re: Looking at Package Management for Karmic or Karmic+1

On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 11:03:20 -0400 Mackenzie Morgan wrote: > On Monday 06 April 2009 10:35:17 am Charlie Kravetz wrote: > > On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 12:25:07 +0100 > > Matthew Paul Thomas wrote: > > > > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > > > Erich Jansen wrote on 06/04/09

Re: Please don't automatic upgrade

> By the way, when was the last time an update (in a stable release) broke X? > September 2006 is the last (and only!) one I remember. Ever since then, > there's this horrible fear...come on, the lesson was learned, and kernels > aren't being released until their accompanying modules are don

Re: suspend/hibernate/shutdown under multiseat?

On Wed, 2009-04-01 at 17:14 -0400, Matt Price wrote: > I'm setting up a multiseat system (jaunty, 64-bit). Pretty much > everything is working fine, except that I would like to enable either > user to initiate a hibernate or suspend command. I know this is > counter-intuitive, but this is for a s

Re: Please don't automatic upgrade

On Monday 06 April 2009 11:22:07 am Vincenzo Ciancia wrote: > Mackenzie wrote: > > By the way, when was the last time an update (in a stable release) broke X? > > September 2006 is the last (and only!) one I remember. Ever since then, > > there's this horrible fear...come on, the lesson was le

Re: Looking at Package Management for Karmic or Karmic+1

Matthew Paul Thomas wrote: > Erich Jansen wrote on 06/04/09 10:59: >>... >> My problem with the way things are currently done is that it's not >> obvious to someone like my parents, who run Ubuntu, that this feature >> exists. After switching my parents to Ubuntu the only real complaint I >> hear

Re: Looking at Package Management for Karmic or Karmic+1

James Westby wrote: > On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 07:27 +0200, Jan Claeys wrote: >> Maybe delaying upgrades until shutdown *is* the right >> solution? > > There are a couple of other issues with that. > > 1. The upgrades may need some feedback from the user, but the user has > just declared th

Re: Looking at Package Management for Karmic or Karmic+1

Op maandag 06-04-2009 om 10:03 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef James Westby: > On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 07:27 +0200, Jan Claeys wrote: > > Maybe delaying upgrades until shutdown *is* the right > > solution? > > There are a couple of other issues with that. > > 1. The upgrades may need some feedback

Re: Please don't automatic upgrade

Op maandag 06-04-2009 om 12:12 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef Mackenzie Morgan: > I have no idea what you're talking about for Debian (OpenSSL? but they > weren't > compromised, were they?), There has been a compromised Debian webserver some time ago:

Re: Please don't automatic upgrade

On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Lars Wirzenius wrote: > ma, 2009-04-06 kello 15:24 +0200, Vincenzo Ciancia kirjoitti: > > Unless you can _guarantee_ that every upgrade will NOT harm the system > > As you point out, it is not possible to guarantee that. However, it is > probably best to point out

Re: Please don't automatic upgrade

On Monday 06 April 2009 11:40:12 pm Jan Claeys wrote: > Op maandag 06-04-2009 om 12:12 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef Mackenzie > Morgan: > > I have no idea what you're talking about for Debian (OpenSSL? but they weren't > > compromised, were they?), > > There has been a compromised Debian webser