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


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 08-05-2010, 02:21 PM
LI Daobing
 
Default ubuntu-tweak in new

On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 21:43, Stephan Hermann <sh@sourcecode.de> wrote:
> moins,
>
>
> On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 10:21 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 09:16:05 pm LI Daobing wrote:
>> > On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 09:09, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu@kitterman.com> wrote:
>> > > On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 09:05:25 pm LI Daobing wrote:
>> > >> Hello,
>> > >>
>> > >> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 09:00, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu@kitterman.com>
>> 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.
>
> Yes, it can enable a lot of untrusted sources, but I don't understand
> how it does it.
> under "software-center" there are lot of archives, which are not ubuntu
> official, but they are greyed out...and with the "unlock" button it does
> nothing (I took the version from revu)

the unlock button will let you input your sudo password. then he can
modify /etc/apt/sources.list.d/ dir.

>
> Tbh, everything what's in there is already available on a standard gnome
> desktop. We don't need a copy of update-manager, software-center or
> whatever is in there...

it's somehow different, for example, the amule ppa shipped with
ubuntu-tweak has DLP function, which is important for us.

it also provide some snapshot version program (just like gcc-snapshot
which already in ubuntu).

>
> I even don't like descriptions like there are in
> ubuntutweak/common/appdata.py.
>
> It think that this could give us a sitution as we had during times when
> we had the unofficial backport times...
>
> I will not give a +1 for this tool in the official ubuntu archives.
>
I still think this package is suitable for universe.



Thanks


--
Best Regards
LI Daobing

--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
 
Old 08-05-2010, 02:39 PM
Scott Kitterman
 
Default ubuntu-tweak in new

On Thursday, August 05, 2010 10:21:41 am LI Daobing wrote:
> it's somehow different, for example, the amule ppa shipped with
> ubuntu-tweak has DLP function, which is important for us.

Can this be added to the amule package in Ubuntu?

> it also provide some snapshot version program (just like gcc-snapshot
> which already in ubuntu).

No. gcc-snapshot is IN Ubuntu. These PPAs are not.

Scott K

--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
 
Old 08-05-2010, 02:50 PM
LI Daobing
 
Default ubuntu-tweak in new

On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 22:39, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu@kitterman.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, August 05, 2010 10:21:41 am LI Daobing wrote:
>> it's somehow different, for example, the amule ppa shipped with
>> ubuntu-tweak has DLP function, which is important for us.
>
> Can this be added to the amule package in Ubuntu?

I don't know why this patch does not exist in amule package in Ubuntu,
maybe it makes amule more unstable? but for someone (like me), DLP is
important, without DLP, amule totally does not work (it will only
upload, but never download). I can bare the crash problem with it, so
I choose DLP. but maybe some other think the patch is not perfect, or
just he don't like the patch, so he refuse it.

>
>> it also provide some snapshot version program (just like gcc-snapshot
>> which already in ubuntu).
>
> No. *gcc-snapshot is IN Ubuntu. *These PPAs are not.

I mean someone need snapshot version of these programs (such as
snapshot version of vlc, opera, chromium, etc), just like the ubuntu
people need the snapshot version of gcc.
--
Best Regards
LI Daobing

--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
 
Old 08-05-2010, 02:59 PM
Reinhard Tartler
 
Default ubuntu-tweak in new

On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 10:15:55 (EDT), LI Daobing wrote:

> 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.

The difference is that add-apt-repository is that solves the technical
problem of enabling PPAs. This is fine for ubuntu.

ubuntu-tweak however enables *specific* PPAs that are important to you,
but we fear that they have substandard quality packages (otherwise they
would be in the main archive, no?). This makes our users think that we
somehow endorse these PPAs.

--
Gruesse/greetings,
Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4

--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
 
Old 08-05-2010, 03:02 PM
Stephan Hermann
 
Default ubuntu-tweak in new

On Thu, 2010-08-05 at 22:50 +0800, LI Daobing wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 22:39, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu@kitterman.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 05, 2010 10:21:41 am LI Daobing wrote:
> >> it's somehow different, for example, the amule ppa shipped with
> >> ubuntu-tweak has DLP function, which is important for us.
> >
> > Can this be added to the amule package in Ubuntu?
>
> I don't know why this patch does not exist in amule package in Ubuntu,
> maybe it makes amule more unstable? but for someone (like me), DLP is
> important, without DLP, amule totally does not work (it will only
> upload, but never download). I can bare the crash problem with it, so
> I choose DLP. but maybe some other think the patch is not perfect, or
> just he don't like the patch, so he refuse it.

So, if this is really a "showstopper" for amule, why doesn't someone fix
the patch to let it not crash, then add it to a wishlist bug and ask for
adding?


>
> >
> >> it also provide some snapshot version program (just like gcc-snapshot
> >> which already in ubuntu).
> >
> > No. gcc-snapshot is IN Ubuntu. These PPAs are not.
>
> I mean someone need snapshot version of these programs (such as
> snapshot version of vlc, opera, chromium, etc), just like the ubuntu
> people need the snapshot version of gcc.

I don't think that many people of Ubuntu use gcc-snapshot on a daily
basis.

More likely is that the standard ubuntu user doesn't even care about
gcc-snapshot, as many of our userbase are not caring about "newer"
versions of packages.

If they care, they could enable the backports repository and/or ask for
backports of current developement release packages (e.g. from maverick
to lucid).

Users who are reading "marketing statements like" "install this, you
will get newer versions and blablabla", will exactly do that, and they
will whine when they try to upgrade from there release to the next.

We had that in the past, and this will happen with unreflected usage of
tools like this. (Please read the threads about Automatix and Friends in
the past...google have references)

Regards,

sh

--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
 
Old 08-05-2010, 03:10 PM
LI Daobing
 
Default ubuntu-tweak in new

On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 22:59, Reinhard Tartler <siretart@ubuntu.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 10:15:55 (EDT), LI Daobing wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> The difference is that add-apt-repository is that solves the technical
> problem of enabling PPAs. This is fine for ubuntu.
>
> ubuntu-tweak however enables *specific* PPAs that are important to you,
> but we fear that they have substandard quality packages (otherwise they
> would be in the main archive, no?). This makes our users think that we
> somehow endorse these PPAs.

ubuntu-tweak have provided a warning[1] when you enter "source center".

[1] "It is a possible security risk to use packages from Third-Party Sources.
Please be careful and use only sources you trust."

--
Best Regards
LI Daobing

--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
 
Old 08-05-2010, 03:25 PM
Aron Xu
 
Default ubuntu-tweak in new

ubuntu-tweak has a very big user base from country to country. The
functions it provides are pretty good, and the software is actively
well maintained. If there is a right choice for providing more user
friendly system 'tweak' tool, then ubuntu-tweak should be the one.

Ubuntu (more exactly, GNOME, perhaps) is still lacking many
configuration tools to help users to let the software work as they
expected, and ubuntu-tweak provides a set of such UIs to make it come
true. It doesn't 'tweak' the system on its own, but let users to
choose what it behaves, for example there is an option to show
"Computer" link on the desktop, which could only switched on using
gconf-editor if we prefer using a graphic tool.

The software is well tested before every release, the author releases
a beta version before any official one, and some beta testers (they
are almost fan of ubuntu-tweak) will test it out and give feedback.
When they believe there isn't any important or milestone bugs they
will release an official one.

On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 09:09, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu@kitterman.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 09:05:25 pm LI Daobing wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 09:00, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu@kitterman.com> 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.
>
> Scott K
>
> --
> Ubuntu-motu mailing list
> Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
>



--
Regards,
Aron Xu

--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
 
Old 08-05-2010, 03:35 PM
Aron Xu
 
Default ubuntu-tweak in new

The untrusted PPAs are options for users that who would like to enjoy
newer versions of software, or something else that are not provided in
Ubuntu archive. I know users can request for packaging or request for
backports, but it is really a difficult thing for a common user to to
all the coordination and I believe there are many of them will choose
a PPA on there own risks.

Users are warned, even other users don't get that warnings from Launchpad.

The PPAs are selected by the ubuntu-tweak authors and community
contributors. You may want to pay some time to have a look at
ubuntu-tweak.com, which enables the users to add there suggestions and
reviews for the developers. Developers will review the PPAs and ask
for user feedback for whether the PPAs are good on there own
experience. Developers will also only add PPAs which have a
significant audience, for example the Mozilla Security Team PPA.

On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 22:21, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu@kitterman.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 09:16:05 pm LI Daobing wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 09:09, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu@kitterman.com> wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 09:05:25 pm LI Daobing wrote:
>> >> Hello,
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 09:00, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu@kitterman.com>
> 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.
>
> It would be good if someone else could do a more thorough review.
>
> Scott K
>
> --
> Ubuntu-motu mailing list
> Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
>



--
Regards,
Aron Xu

--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
 
Old 08-05-2010, 03:37 PM
Andrew SB
 
Default ubuntu-tweak in new

On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Stephan Hermann <sh@sourcecode.de> wrote:
> We had that in the past, and this will happen with unreflected usage of
> tools like this. (Please read the threads about Automatix and Friends in
> the past...google have references)

For reference, here's Matthew Garrett's technical review of Automatix:

http://mjg59.livejournal.com/77440.html

Re-reading that now, I note that the issue of adding untrusted third
party sources doesn't seem to be the argument against Automatix.

- Andrew SB

--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
 
Old 08-05-2010, 03:38 PM
LI Daobing
 
Default ubuntu-tweak in new

On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 23:02, Stephan Hermann <sh@sourcecode.de> wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-08-05 at 22:50 +0800, LI Daobing wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 22:39, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu@kitterman.com> wrote:
>> > On Thursday, August 05, 2010 10:21:41 am LI Daobing wrote:
>> >> it's somehow different, for example, the amule ppa shipped with
>> >> ubuntu-tweak has DLP function, which is important for us.
>> >
>> > Can this be added to the amule package in Ubuntu?
>>
>> I don't know why this patch does not exist in amule package in Ubuntu,
>> maybe it makes amule more unstable? but for someone (like me), DLP is
>> important, without DLP, amule totally does not work (it will only
>> upload, but never download). I can bare the crash problem with it, so
>> I choose DLP. but maybe some other think the patch is not perfect, or
>> just he don't like the patch, so he refuse it.
>
> So, if this is really a "showstopper" for amule, why doesn't someone fix
> the patch to let it not crash, then add it to a wishlist bug and ask for
> adding?

this is just an example, many program provide many compile options and
many patches, and ubuntu only provided one combination for it.

another example for me, when emacs want to display a char, first he
should detect the charset of this char. but in this program, japanese
is always preferred than chinese. And japanese and chinese share many
symbols in unicode, but with much different glyph[1]. so when I open a
txt file in chinese, some char is displayed in japanese fonts with
"wrong" glyph, some others in chinese fonts. I write a patch for this
problem, which make chinese is preferred than japanese. this patch
works fine for me and other emacs users in chinese, but it will not
(and should not) be accepted in Ubuntu.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_unification#Examples_of_language_dependent_cha racters

The previous is just another example. there is not only one user base
in Ubuntu. there are some many user base in Ubuntu. they have
different requirement. PPA can resolve this problem. that's why PPA in
launchpad is used by more and more people.

for the problem of amule, I don't follow this bug, but I think you can
check it at http://goo.gl/WxGo.



>
>
>>
>> >
>> >> it also provide some snapshot version program (just like gcc-snapshot
>> >> which already in ubuntu).
>> >
>> > No. *gcc-snapshot is IN Ubuntu. *These PPAs are not.
>>
>> I mean someone need snapshot version of these programs (such as
>> snapshot version of vlc, opera, chromium, etc), just like the ubuntu
>> people need the snapshot version of gcc.
>
> I don't think that many people of Ubuntu use gcc-snapshot on a daily
> basis.
>
> More likely is that the standard ubuntu user doesn't even care about
> gcc-snapshot, as many of our userbase are not caring about "newer"
> versions of packages.

we have many different userbases.

>
> If they care, they could enable the backports repository and/or ask for
> backports of current developement release packages (e.g. from maverick
> to lucid).
>
> Users who are reading "marketing statements like" "install this, you
> will get newer versions and blablabla", will exactly do that, and they
> will whine when they try to upgrade from there release to the next.
>
> We had that in the past, and this will happen with unreflected usage of
> tools like this. (Please read the threads about Automatix and Friends in
> the past...google have references)
>

Aron Xu has talked many about this.

thanks.



--
Best Regards
LI Daobing

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

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 03:13 PM.

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