On Thursday, August 05, 2010 10:15:55 am LI Daobing wrote: > Hello, > > On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 22:21, Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 09:16:05 pm LI Daobing wrote: > >> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 09:09, Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 09:05:25 pm LI Daobing wrote: > >> >> Hello, > >> >> > >> >> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 09:00, Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > >> >> > On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 01:29:46 pm Jonathan Riddell wrote: > >> >> >> Ubuntu Tweak is waiting for approval in New queue. > >> >> >> http://ubuntu-tweak.com/ > >> >> >> https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/252140 > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Is this something MOTU wants included? > >> >> > > >> >> > No. > >> >> > > >> >> > It looks to me like something that, in addition to proper > >> >> > packaging, ought to have a thorough functional review before > >> >> > entering the archive. > >> >> > >> >> I am the packager of ubuntu-tweak, can you tell me what's the problem > >> >> with ubuntu-tweak? > >> > > >> > I don't know that there is a problem, but given the invasive nature of > >> > it's functionality, I think it appropriate for it to be given more of > >> > a review than just being packaged properly. In Ubuntu's history > >> > there have been multiple "Tweak" programs and so far they have always > >> > proved to be more harmful than helpful at the scale the Ubuntu > >> > archive operates. > >> > > >> > This one may be the one that gets it right, but having found that they > >> > rebrand PPAs that other people maintain as there's on their web site, > >> > I'm not at all inclined to assume this is all well intentioned. > >> > >> you are right. > >> > >> this package is active-maintained, and I'll forward your opinion to > >> the upstream author. I think he'll fix this bug. > >> > >> ubuntu-tweak is very useful for me, and it's also has many users. so I > >> want to push it to Ubuntu and hope it can catch ubuntu 10.10. > >> > >> thanks. > > > > I don't have a lot of time for a detailed review. A quick look shows > > that this can enable quite a number of untrusted repositories. My > > recollection is that we although Envy was initially accepted doing > > something similar it was required to be fixed to not do this. I don't > > think a package that adds untrusted repositories is suitable. > > ubuntu-tweak does not add any ppa to /etc/apt/sources.list.d/ by > default. this only happens when user ask it do. > > the add-apt-repository command in python-software-properties package > also can add ppa to sources.list, so I don't think ubuntu will reject > software like this.
As was already commented, the difference is that it presents a list of specific PPAs and is not just a generic tool to make adding of PPAs easier for non- technical users. Scott K -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
