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, 03:47 PM
Aron Xu
 
Default ubuntu-tweak in new

We shouldn't reject a package that provides some functions in
software-center's field but software-center still not implemented yet.

As we can see software-center has already gained basic PPA support,
and I guess it WILL be more tightly integrated with Launchpad
services. Will you reject software-center when it provides function
like 'search and add Launchpad PPAs'? I guess most people won't
against it if the feature is decided and approved as a blueprint, but
why you think such feature is an issue getting in the way of including
it to Ubuntu archive?

In fact ubuntu-tweak isn't a copy of any program that we already have
in Ubuntu, including software-center, update-manager or whatever we
can list here. On a common user's view, it is really useful and
provides a set of great features that improves Ubuntu's user
experience.

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)
>
> 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...
>
> 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.
>
> Regards,
>
> sh
>
> --
> 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, 03:57 PM
Scott Kitterman
 
Default ubuntu-tweak in new

On Thursday, August 05, 2010 11:35:40 am Aron Xu wrote:
> 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.

One thing I noticed on ubuntu-tweak.com was http://ubuntu-
tweak.com/source/clam-antivirus/. This page takes a PPA that I maintain and
makes it look like part of ubuntu-tweak.

I find this very unpleasant as I feel it is misappropriating my work. It does
not give me any confidence at all that the ubuntu-tweak authors are people that
I would care to work with.

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, 04:03 PM
Aron Xu
 
Default ubuntu-tweak in new

That's what the author did wrong, that he should copy the information
from Launchpad directly to his site, this is what we could ask him to
fix. Not all PPAs you can see on the site available in the software,
only PPAs that tagged "Featured" are included, others are only users
added them to the site and as the author to review whether it could be
included.

I'm forwarding your mail to the author, and I believe he will correct
his unsuitable action in near future. Thanks for your poing out your
concerns (maybe there are many other people care about) and make the
Ubuntu community better.

On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 23:57, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu@kitterman.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, August 05, 2010 11:35:40 am Aron Xu wrote:
>> 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.
>
> One thing I noticed on ubuntu-tweak.com was http://ubuntu-
> tweak.com/source/clam-antivirus/. *This page takes a PPA that I maintain and
> makes it look like part of ubuntu-tweak.
>
> I find this very unpleasant as I feel it is misappropriating my work. *It does
> not give me any confidence at all that the ubuntu-tweak authors are people that
> I would care to work with.
>
> 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, 04:25 PM
Aron Xu
 
Default ubuntu-tweak in new

I think talking for a single patch is not the relevant topic in this
thread. But for amule, adding DLP to the mainstream package is not
acceptable because not all users like that function in deed. AFAIK,
the amule project rejected that patch because they think it is not
appropriate for all users. But DLP is quite good function to make some
people who are suffering the leeching from other clients. Pushing such
a patched version - amule-dlp package - to Ubuntu is really not an
easy job.

Some packages are updating frequently and Ubuntu only ships and old
version during a support cycle. Yes, we can ask for backports, but
some people one this list can notice there was a topic talking about
"backporting is too hard", when we go through a backport procedure,
there might be several newer releases, if the upstream is really
active enough.

There is another live sample for such situation. The firefox package
in Ubuntu Lucid originally shipt 3.6.6, and when Mozilla released
3.6.7 the Ubuntu update engine got started to run, but unfortunately
there when 3.6.7 hit the archive, 3.6.8 was released a day before and
users waits for another 'long time' time to get the latest package.
Users like me are choosing Mozilla builds to avoid such situation, and
there are many others choosing Mozilla Security Team PPA. So why don't
make it an alternate for users who want to receive a more instant
update on there own risks when it is available? The users are warned,
and they like the way that ubuntu-tweak gives them some advice about
some top-used PPAs? I think letting users choose PPAs that are used by
a big amount of people is better than making them searching a PPA in
the really big capacity of the Launchpad database and choose ones that
perhaps are misleading.

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?
>
>> 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
>



--
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, 04:37 PM
Aron Xu
 
Default ubuntu-tweak in new

There are more examples if we start a long discussion. Although the
following content is somehow off-topic, but for a common user the best
choice is not asking for solving the problem, but simply adding a PPA
from ubuntu-tweak. ubuntu-tweak introduces some useful PPAs that many
users may have searching for them for a long time.

For example the ibus series in Ubuntu is OLD, and I filed some sync
and merge request about including the newer versions from Debian. But
in fact nobody works on the ibus package's merge, and users are
getting software that supported by Ubuntu Development team but which
are almost dropped by upstream. There are many users in CJK
communities using ibus-dev/shawn-p-huang 's PPAs, the first one is
maintained by the package maintainer in Debian, the second by the ibus
author. Only in this way users can get a better input experience, and
I am frustrating about having 1.2.0.20091215-1ubuntu4 in
Lucid/Maverick when 1.3.7-1 has already sit in Debian Sid. This single
package blocks quite some other packages, like ibus-pinyin to be
updated in Ubuntu. From a user's point of view, 1.3.x has a really big
improvement that worth to use an "untrusted" PPA when the trusted
maintainer team don't supply updates for quite quite long cycles.

On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 23:38, LI Daobing <lidaobing@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>



--
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, 05:00 PM
Chris Coulson
 
Default ubuntu-tweak in new

On Thu, 2010-08-05 at 11:57 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Thursday, August 05, 2010 11:35:40 am Aron Xu wrote:
> > 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.
>
> One thing I noticed on ubuntu-tweak.com was http://ubuntu-
> tweak.com/source/clam-antivirus/. This page takes a PPA that I maintain and
> makes it look like part of ubuntu-tweak.
>
> I find this very unpleasant as I feel it is misappropriating my work. It does
> not give me any confidence at all that the ubuntu-tweak authors are people that
> I would care to work with.
>
> Scott K
>

I just noticed that they also list a PPA that I maintain
( http://ubuntu-tweak.com/source/tracker-unstable-ppa/ ). However, the
description on their website doesn't match the description of my PPA on
Launchpad. Their description looks like it's been completely written by
them to make it look like they are maintaining the packages ("Ultimately
various packages that I primarily build for my own experiments. I try to
keep a package of unstable tracker for Ubuntu Karmic updated here.
Please let me know if stuff doesn't work."). My PPA has never had that
description, and I find it wholly offensive that they are using it this
way.

Regards
Chris
--
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, 05:54 PM
Scott Kitterman
 
Default ubuntu-tweak in new

On Thursday, August 05, 2010 12:37:19 pm Aron Xu wrote:
> For example the ibus series in Ubuntu is OLD, and I filed some sync
> and merge request about including the newer versions from Debian. But
> in fact nobody works on the ibus package's merge, and users are
> getting software that supported by Ubuntu Development team but which
> are almost dropped by upstream. There are many users in CJK
> communities using ibus-dev/shawn-p-huang 's PPAs, the first one is
> maintained by the package maintainer in Debian, the second by the ibus
> author. Only in this way users can get a better input experience, and
> I am frustrating about having 1.2.0.20091215-1ubuntu4 in
> Lucid/Maverick when 1.3.7-1 has already sit in Debian Sid. This single
> package blocks quite some other packages, like ibus-pinyin to be
> updated in Ubuntu. From a user's point of view, 1.3.x has a really big
> improvement that worth to use an "untrusted" PPA when the trusted
> maintainer team don't supply updates for quite quite long cycles.

The solution to problems like this is to improve Ubuntu development so we can
make Ubuntu better for all users. It is not to point everyone to PPAs.

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, 06:40 PM
Stephan Hermann
 
Default ubuntu-tweak in new

Moins,


On Thu, 2010-08-05 at 11:37 -0400, Andrew SB wrote:
> 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.

Matthew wrote in his last paragraph:

"In its current form Automatix is unsupportable, and a mechanism for
flagging bugs from machines with Automatix installed may provide a
valuable aid for determining whether issues are due to supported
distribution packages or third party software installers."

This may not be read as "argument against automatix", but the past told
us, what will happen to the Ubuntu Bug tracker when third party
repositories (and even PPAs from LP are third party) are enabled and
non-distro packages are installed.

We had all this discussions in the past, and we came to the conclusion
that we want to "support backports" but in an "official" means Ubuntu
blessed way.

That's why we created ubuntu backports repository...

But there are also other things I don't like. An easy way to "tweak"
gconf settings could also be dangerous for Ubuntu users.

But that's eventually only me.

One thing I would like to raise: Someone who wants to "tweak" his/her
setup, is not the "normal" Ubuntu user. Mostly they are "power users",
and I do think that really knowledged "power users" can tweak their
systems without such a tool.

Making it an easy task to "tweak" and "break" peoples Ubuntu
installation shouldn't be a goal for us in general.

Users of mostly all operating systems are doing things, when someone
tells them to do so, but those people don't know anything about the
dangers. If something breaks, Ubuntu will be flooded with bug reports
and complaints, and this is really something we should avoid.

A better solution will be to push more backports. And backporting is not
that difficult, it just takes time and caution, to not break working
systems.

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 08-06-2010, 04:52 AM
Aron Xu
 
Default ubuntu-tweak in new

于 2010年08月05日 22:59, Reinhard Tartler 写道:
> 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 suggests some most used PPAs that benefit lots of users, it
doesn't enable them once you install and run the program, or enable PPAs
via a something like "one click" solution. It just provides a list of
PPAs that users might be interesting, and when the user decide to enable
any of them, ubuntu-tweak will warn the user that packages from PPAs
won't have the quality assurance like in Ubuntu archive and then enable it.

--
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 08-06-2010, 04:55 AM
Aron Xu
 
Default ubuntu-tweak in new

Hi Chris,

于 2010年08月06日 01:00, Chris Coulson 写道:
> On Thu, 2010-08-05 at 11:57 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> On Thursday, August 05, 2010 11:35:40 am Aron Xu wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> One thing I noticed on ubuntu-tweak.com was http://ubuntu-
>> tweak.com/source/clam-antivirus/. This page takes a PPA that I maintain and
>> makes it look like part of ubuntu-tweak.
>>
>> I find this very unpleasant as I feel it is misappropriating my work. It does
>> not give me any confidence at all that the ubuntu-tweak authors are people that
>> I would care to work with.
>>
>> Scott K
>>
>
> I just noticed that they also list a PPA that I maintain
> ( http://ubuntu-tweak.com/source/tracker-unstable-ppa/ ). However, the
> description on their website doesn't match the description of my PPA on
> Launchpad. Their description looks like it's been completely written by
> them to make it look like they are maintaining the packages ("Ultimately
> various packages that I primarily build for my own experiments. I try to
> keep a package of unstable tracker for Ubuntu Karmic updated here.
> Please let me know if stuff doesn't work."). My PPA has never had that
> description, and I find it wholly offensive that they are using it this
> way.
>
> Regards
> Chris
>

I've checked it with the author and confirmed that it's a bug in his
website application, the description comes from ppa:alex-hunziker/ppa,
he will fix it when he gets some time this weekend.

--
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
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 05:44 AM.

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