FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Ubuntu > Ubuntu Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 12-13-2007, 11:31 PM
Scott James Remnant
 
Default Strawman: merge main and universe

On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 21:38 +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:

> Scott James Remnant <scott@ubuntu.com> writes:
>
> > We move all packages from universe into main, and remove the universe
> > component. Likewise packages from multiverse are moved into restricted,
> > and multiverse removed.
> >
> > Instead, we define who provides what kind of support through meta-data.
> >
> > We have generated lists of packages already, the seeds. In fact, it's
> > these seeds that (by a manual process) result in packages being divided
> > between main and universe right now.
>
> At the moment, packages in main cannot (build-)depend on packages in
> universe. This is technically easy to implement with apt. What
> consequences would your proposal have with respect to this constraint?
>
Err, I'm not aware that APT is involved in the process.

In the current system, when a package is seeded, its dependencies and
build-dependencies are added to the resulting package list by germinate.

Anastacia informs the archive admins of mis-matches between the
germinate output and the archive state.


Adding a build-dependency on a package in universe inherently drags it
into main, subject to archive admin approval. I imagine we'd just use
exactly the same system, except instead of moving packages around on the
FTP site, simply doing bzr commits on the seeds.

Scott
--
Scott James Remnant
scott@ubuntu.com
--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
 
Old 12-13-2007, 11:39 PM
Matthias Klose
 
Default Strawman: merge main and universe

Martin Pitt schrieb:
> Scott James Remnant [2007-12-13 0:18 +0000]:
>> (The difference being that the seed owners may set their own
>> permissions; the primary seeds that currently determine what goes in
>> main would probably keep the same work flow as they do today, the only
>> difference being that the archive admins don't need to change a
>> component after committing the seed change).
>
> I always have considered that a good feature actually. It's the only
> point where we control what actually goes in and out of a component
> like main. If we lose that, then any transitive dependency addition
> would automatically get supported. If it was not a manual merge, but
> an autosync, then there are no humans involved at all any more. Thus
> you end up with many packages we do not actually want to support in a
> particular seed.
>
> E. g. libssh2 (#173783) was introduced in a curl merge, but it's
> something we do not want to support for 5 years without at least
> making a qualified decision about it.

right, so at least the buildds need to know about seeds. what else needs to be
aware of seeds?

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
 
Old 12-13-2007, 11:48 PM
Matthias Klose
 
Default Strawman: merge main and universe

Scott James Remnant schrieb:
> I'd like to make a strawman proposal to be torn apart and burnt as
> necessary: merge main and universe. I will try and explain my
> rationale, and my alternate proposal.

+1

We apparently have difficulties to communicate that this separation was done
only for the support case mentioned. two examples for "universe not being ubuntu":

- distrowatch.com treats universe as non-existant (I contacted them, but
they didn't want to change their mind).

- Fedora did get good feedback by integrating "extras" into "core"; while
not directly comparable you can see the some impact on integrating the
community.

Matthias



--
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
 
Old 12-13-2007, 11:48 PM
Matthias Klose
 
Default Strawman: merge main and universe

Scott James Remnant schrieb:
> I'd like to make a strawman proposal to be torn apart and burnt as
> necessary: merge main and universe. I will try and explain my
> rationale, and my alternate proposal.

+1

We apparently have difficulties to communicate that this separation was done
only for the support case mentioned. two examples for "universe not being ubuntu":

- distrowatch.com treats universe as non-existant (I contacted them, but
they didn't want to change their mind).

- Fedora did get good feedback by integrating "extras" into "core"; while
not directly comparable you can see the some impact on integrating the
community.

Matthias



--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
 
Old 12-14-2007, 01:30 PM
Matt Zimmerman
 
Default Strawman: merge main and universe

On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 10:24:56PM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> The distinction between main and universe is instead done based on
> "support". But what does this actually mean?

Our terminology on this needs a bit of cleanup, but the relevant distinction
here is "maintenance". This means that, for example, a security
vulnerability in the package will be fixed, and this is backed up by a
commitment from Canonical (which has dedicated resources to this
maintenance).

> What about support for fixing bugs? We actually don't like to do that
> very much, we only have limited updates to our stable release. This
> surprises most people who think this is what support means.

We do need to do a better job of both communicating our maintenance
practices and ensuring that they meet expectations. There is work in
progress to change this for 8.04 LTS.

> We move all packages from universe into main, and remove the universe
> component. Likewise packages from multiverse are moved into restricted,
> and multiverse removed.
>
> Instead, we define who provides what kind of support through meta-data.
>
> We have generated lists of packages already, the seeds. In fact, it's
> these seeds that (by a manual process) result in packages being divided
> between main and universe right now.
>
> So let's just use these to determine the types of support provided.

This seems sensible to me; Debian-style components are unwieldy to work
with, as they are closely tied to the way the archive is published. We
should be able to change a declaration of maintenance without moving files
around on a web server, and the placement of the files isn't a very good way
of communicating this information.

> Canonical can declare that it provides commercial support for the
> ubuntu-desktop, ubuntu-server, ubuntu-mobile and kubuntu-desktop seeds
> (and any others we support that I forgot). It can also declare what
> date that support ends.
>
> Other companies and groups can declare their own support based on the
> existing seeds, or just branch the bzr repository and make their own
> (the seeds are public, and the tool to generate complete package lists
> is also public).
>
> The Ubuntu Security team can declare which seeds they provide security
> support for at which levels.

All reasonable.

> The packaging tools can then use this information to show appropriate
> information to the user; they'll know the package they are installing is
> supported for a further 12 months by Canonical, a further 18 months by
> another company or group; Security support is provided by the Ubuntu
> security team for 12 months and critical bug fixes are no longer
> provided.

This is tricky. In order to be effective, this needs to be communicated all
the way from apt-cache up through gnome-app-install in a reasonably
consistent way.

> What about upload privileges?
>
> Let's do those the same way.

Sounds elegant enough, though I wonder about automatically granting upload
privileges based on a new dependency.

--
- mdz

--
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
 
Old 12-14-2007, 01:30 PM
Matt Zimmerman
 
Default Strawman: merge main and universe

On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 10:24:56PM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> The distinction between main and universe is instead done based on
> "support". But what does this actually mean?

Our terminology on this needs a bit of cleanup, but the relevant distinction
here is "maintenance". This means that, for example, a security
vulnerability in the package will be fixed, and this is backed up by a
commitment from Canonical (which has dedicated resources to this
maintenance).

> What about support for fixing bugs? We actually don't like to do that
> very much, we only have limited updates to our stable release. This
> surprises most people who think this is what support means.

We do need to do a better job of both communicating our maintenance
practices and ensuring that they meet expectations. There is work in
progress to change this for 8.04 LTS.

> We move all packages from universe into main, and remove the universe
> component. Likewise packages from multiverse are moved into restricted,
> and multiverse removed.
>
> Instead, we define who provides what kind of support through meta-data.
>
> We have generated lists of packages already, the seeds. In fact, it's
> these seeds that (by a manual process) result in packages being divided
> between main and universe right now.
>
> So let's just use these to determine the types of support provided.

This seems sensible to me; Debian-style components are unwieldy to work
with, as they are closely tied to the way the archive is published. We
should be able to change a declaration of maintenance without moving files
around on a web server, and the placement of the files isn't a very good way
of communicating this information.

> Canonical can declare that it provides commercial support for the
> ubuntu-desktop, ubuntu-server, ubuntu-mobile and kubuntu-desktop seeds
> (and any others we support that I forgot). It can also declare what
> date that support ends.
>
> Other companies and groups can declare their own support based on the
> existing seeds, or just branch the bzr repository and make their own
> (the seeds are public, and the tool to generate complete package lists
> is also public).
>
> The Ubuntu Security team can declare which seeds they provide security
> support for at which levels.

All reasonable.

> The packaging tools can then use this information to show appropriate
> information to the user; they'll know the package they are installing is
> supported for a further 12 months by Canonical, a further 18 months by
> another company or group; Security support is provided by the Ubuntu
> security team for 12 months and critical bug fixes are no longer
> provided.

This is tricky. In order to be effective, this needs to be communicated all
the way from apt-cache up through gnome-app-install in a reasonably
consistent way.

> What about upload privileges?
>
> Let's do those the same way.

Sounds elegant enough, though I wonder about automatically granting upload
privileges based on a new dependency.

--
- mdz

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
 
Old 12-14-2007, 01:36 PM
Matt Zimmerman
 
Default Strawman: merge main and universe

On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 06:59:26AM +0000, Ted Gould wrote:
> I guess we can look at "main" as the "Editor's Choice" of everything
> that is in Universe. The best applications at solving problems of
> users.

This is an interesting view, and one which reflects the way that users and
developers interact with them.

It starts to fit in even more interesting ways if it were possible to have
different versions of the same software in both places, rather than one
being a subset of the other.

--
- mdz

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
 
Old 12-21-2007, 10:20 AM
Colin Watson
 
Default Strawman: merge main and universe

On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 12:31:32AM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 21:38 +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > At the moment, packages in main cannot (build-)depend on packages in
> > universe. This is technically easy to implement with apt. What
> > consequences would your proposal have with respect to this constraint?
>
> Err, I'm not aware that APT is involved in the process.

It is. The ogre model (layers) is implemented on the buildds by means of
simply omitting universe from /etc/apt/sources.list when building
packages in main, which renders it impossible for a package in main to
build against universe even by accident (think virtual packages).

> In the current system, when a package is seeded, its dependencies and
> build-dependencies are added to the resulting package list by germinate.
>
> Anastacia informs the archive admins of mis-matches between the
> germinate output and the archive state.

This complements the above process, but we do make use of both processes
at the moment.

Cheers,

--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@ubuntu.com]

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
 
Old 02-07-2008, 09:53 AM
Matt Zimmerman
 
Default Strawman: merge main and universe

On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 12:37:05AM +0900, Emmet Hikory wrote:
> On Dec 18, 2007 11:38 PM, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
> > I do think we need a richer privileges system for upload - we specifically
> > need to solve the problem that people who care about a package in universe
> > don't lose the ability to tend to it when it moves to main. But that should
> > be the exception, rather than the rule. In other words, I would layer
> > explicit additional permissions for packages, and (small) sets of packages,
> > on top of our existing main/universe permissions. That way, when a package,
> > or small set of tightly-linked packages, wants to migrate from universe to
> > main, it can come with a dedicated group who can continue to upload to it
> > even though it's in main.
>
> As an interim solution until a richer permissioning model is
> available, would the use of the Uploaders field (perhaps combined with
> Original-Maintainer) be a good way to handle this? If uploads remain
> restricted to members of ~ubuntu-dev, but uploads to main are
> permitted by members of ~ubuntu-core-dev + those in the Uploaders
> field (who are also in ~ubuntu-dev), it would allow interested MOTU to
> upload to select packages in main with only minor disruption. As
> teams grow larger over time, this won't scale, but it at least
> provides a little more breathing room whilst determining how to build
> an effective privileges system that meets the needs of developers,
> sponsors selling support contracts, and archive integrity.

This sounds fairly reasonable in terms of policy, though I don't know how
feasible this would be to implement in Launchpad or in what timeframe.

--
- mdz

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:52 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org