=== kees_ is now known as kees
=== yofel_ is now known as yofel
=== Quintasan_ is now known as Quintasan
=== Guest81619 is now known as Zic
=== Tonio__ is now known as Tonio_
=== jdstrand_ is now known as jdstrand
=== bladernr_afk is now known as bladernr_
=== meetingology` is now known as meetingology
=== beuno is now known as beuno-lunch
=== beuno-lunch is now known as beuno
=== kalosaurusrex is now known as albrigha
meetingologyMeeting started Mon Feb  6 18:12:15 2012 UTC.  The chair is jdstrand. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology.18:12
meetingologyAvailable commands: #accept #accepted #action #agree #agreed #chair #commands #endmeeting #endvote #halp #help #idea #info #link #lurk #meetingname #meetingtopic #nick #progress #rejected #replay #restrictlogs #save #startmeeting #subtopic #topic #unchair #undo #unlurk #vote #voters #votesrequired18:12
jdstrandThe meeting agenda can be found at:18:12
jdstrand[LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam/Meeting18:12
jdstrand[TOPIC] Announcements18:12
=== meetingology changed the topic of #ubuntu-meeting to: Announcements
jdstrandFeatureFreeze is coming in a less than two weeks (February 16th). Please try to finish any non-bugfix work items that are tied to the release by this date. Please talk to mdeslaur (and optionally me) soon if there are issues meeting this deadline. This is particularly true for essential and high priority items.18:12
jdstrandLeo Iannacone (l3on) provided debdiffs for natty and oneiric for usbmuxd (LP: #919435)18:13
jdstrandYour work is very much appreciated and will keep Ubuntu users secure. Great job! :)18:13
jdstrand[TOPIC] Review of any previous action items18:13
=== meetingology changed the topic of #ubuntu-meeting to: Review of any previous action items
jdstrandACTION: sbeattie to follow up on qrt bugs from QA team18:13
sbeattieoh gack, I still haven't responded to the QART bugs on that.18:13
* jdstrand keeps it as an action for now18:14
jdstrand[TOPIC] Weekly stand-up report18:14
=== meetingology changed the topic of #ubuntu-meeting to: Weekly stand-up report
jdstrandI'll go first18:14
jdstrandso, for some reason, I have quite a few meetings this week18:14
jdstrandand out of them is coming significant work surrounding the partner archive and secure boot18:15
jdstrandso, I am going to be tied up with these things quite a bit18:15
jdstrandI managed to get mostly caught up with archive admin duties over the weekend18:15
jdstrandbut MIR audits are lagging behind18:16
jdstrandI may need help with those. I'll ask if I do18:16
jdstrandI also have a couple of work items I'd like to finish up. hopefully I will be able to18:16
jdstrandmdeslaur: you're up18:16
mdeslaurI'm on triage this week18:17
mdeslaurthis morning, I've released python-httplib2 backports to -proposed18:17
mdeslaurthese packages add ssl certificate validation to the versions that were in lucid-natty18:18
mdeslaurand improve the ssl cert validation in oneiric18:18
mdeslaurthe update should be seamless, but if anyone has stuff that uses python-httplib2, it would be good to make sure everything works as expected before they get released18:18
mdeslaurIf tomcat6 testing goes well, I'll be releasing that this week or possibly next18:19
mdeslaurand I'll be doing down the cve list to pick up some new updates to work on18:19
mdeslaurthat's it from me18:19
mdeslaursbeattie: you're next18:19
sbeattieI'm in the happy place this week.18:19
sbeattieI'm currently testing openssl as well as working on php and glibc updates.18:20
sbeattieI also need to review my work items18:20
sbeattieI think that's it for me18:20
sbeattiemicahg: tag18:20
mdeslaursbeattie: you have two bugs that are milestoned, when do you think you'll be getting to them?18:20
sbeattiemdeslaur: after I get out from under these updates is my plan.18:21
mdeslaursbeattie: ok, cool18:21
mdeslaursbeattie: those are three nasty updates you've got there :)18:21
micahgI'm finishing updates from last week (Thunderbird, xulrunner), might have to push through an icedtea update due to a bad interaction between firefox 10 and icedtea, we're considering doing the Thunderbird rapid release migration during the Thunderbird 10 time frame due to the extra testing efforts upstream that went into the ESR prep (we're not using the ESR)18:22
micahgif we go ahead with this, those builds will be in -proposed later this week or early next week18:23
jdstrandmicahg: what is the deciding factor?18:23
micahgjdstrand: umm, just availability I think18:24
micahgi.e. we don't have more important things to do right now18:24
jdstrandmicahg: ok. perhaps you and mdeslaur can discuss that after this meeting18:24
micahgok, sounds good18:25
micahgalso, I'm planning to merge ca-certificates from Debian before feature freeze18:25
micahgand time permitting, work on the webkit migration in the stable releases to 1.618:26
micahgthat's it for me, tyhicks?18:26
tyhicksI'm in the community role this week18:26
tyhicksI'm currently trying to get bug 926292 triaged18:27
ubottuLaunchpad bug 926292 in linux (Ubuntu) "automake distdir.test fails because of an EPERM error" [Medium,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/92629218:27
tyhicksOnce that is done, I'll go back to my ruby1.8 update and begin testing this week18:27
tyhicksI think the only work item that I need to complete before feature freeze is getting a daily build ppa set up for ecryptfs-utils18:28
jdstrandtyhicks: re 926292> huh, that is from seb128? I thought it failed on the buildds without ecryptfs. interesting18:28
tyhicksjdstrand: Yeah, that's the one from seb12818:29
mdeslaurtyhicks: so, what's the status on ecryptfs on precise, and on previous releases?18:29
tyhicksIf it failed on the buildds w/o eCryptfs, I missed that18:29
tyhicksI'll look back at the logs18:29
mdeslaurtyhicks: are there any outstanding bugs that should be milestones so we track them properly?18:29
jdstrandtyhicks: it might be worth asking about...18:29
tyhicksmdeslaur: I feel really good about eCryptfs on precise18:29
mdeslaurtyhicks: is the automake bug the only one right now?18:30
tyhicksmdeslaur: Nope - one more bug that I need to fix18:30
* tyhicks looks up the number18:30
tyhicksbug 84264718:30
ubottuLaunchpad bug 842647 in eCryptfs "[git] file blocks duplicated at the end of the file" [High,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/84264718:30
mdeslaurtyhicks: ok, I'll milestone those two to precise18:31
tyhicksthanks mdeslaur18:31
tyhicksI think that's it for me18:31
tyhicksjjohansen: you're up18:32
jjohansenI need to get the mount and associated rules out and in review and testing this week.  Then I will go back and roll a new version of the dentry patch for Bug #925028.  After that it will be getting all the patches marshalled for a pull request, and then maybe looking at a limited implicit labeling patch more.18:32
ubottuLaunchpad bug 925028 in lxc (Ubuntu) "apparmor breaks lxc-start-ephemeral (apparmor+overlayfs returns -EINVAL)" [High,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/92502818:32
jjohansenI think thats it from me18:34
jdstrand[TOPIC] Highlighted packages18:34
=== meetingology changed the topic of #ubuntu-meeting to: Highlighted packages
jdstrandThe Ubuntu Security team will highlight some community-supported packages that might be good candidates for updating and or triaging. If you would like to help Ubuntu and not sure where to start, this is a great way to do so.18:34
jdstrandSee https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam/UpdateProcedures for details and if you have any questions, feel free to ask in #ubuntu-security. To find out other ways of helping out, please see https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam/GettingInvolved.18:34
jdstrand[TOPIC] Miscellaneous and Questions18:35
=== meetingology changed the topic of #ubuntu-meeting to: Miscellaneous and Questions
jdstrandDoes anyone have any other questions or items to discuss?18:35
jdstrandmdeslaur, sbeattie, micahg, tyhicks, jjohansen: thanks!18:38
=== meetingology changed the topic of #ubuntu-meeting to: Ubuntu Meeting Grounds | Calendar/Scheduled meetings: http://fridge.ubuntu.com/calendar | Logs: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MeetingLogs | Meetingology documentation: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology
meetingologyMeeting ended Mon Feb  6 18:38:21 2012 UTC.18:38
meetingologyMinutes:        http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2012/ubuntu-meeting.2012-02-06-18.12.moin.txt18:38
mdeslaurthanks jdstrand18:38
micahgthanks jdstrand18:38
sbeattiejdstrand: thanks!18:39
=== kalosaurusrex is now known as albrigha
=== Myrtti is now known as Guest98157
=== robbiew1 is now known as robbiew
mdzsoren, here20:56
* pitti waves good evening20:57
* stgraber waves20:57
sorenpitti: Oh, you're here. I missed that.21:00
sorenSo we're missing..21:00
sorenColin and..21:00
stgraberI think that's it21:00
sorenOh, right. I'm here.21:00
stgraberapparently you're21:01
meetingologyMeeting started Mon Feb  6 21:01:01 2012 UTC.  The chair is soren. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology.21:01
meetingologyAvailable commands: #accept #accepted #action #agree #agreed #chair #commands #endmeeting #endvote #halp #help #idea #info #link #lurk #meetingname #meetingtopic #nick #progress #rejected #replay #restrictlogs #save #startmeeting #subtopic #topic #unchair #undo #unlurk #vote #voters #votesrequired21:01
soren#topic action review21:01
=== meetingology changed the topic of #ubuntu-meeting to: action review
pittibtw, Laney said that he probably cannot make it21:01
sorenHeh* stgraber21:01
soren ** stgraber to harmonize the DMB expiring dates  (extend bdrung to 2013-02-13 and micah, tumbleweed and then the two new members to 2014-02-13)21:01
meetingologysoren: Error: Can't start another meeting, one is in progress.21:01
pittibut I think we are aware of his topics21:01
sorenstgraber: You did that, right?21:02
stgraberright, all the DMB changes have been done21:02
sorenkees to perform brainstorm review21:02
keesI suck!21:02
sorenkees: At least you're consistent :)21:02
soren#action kees to perform brainstorm review21:02
meetingologyACTION: kees to perform brainstorm review21:02
sorenstgraber to de-activate Emmet Hikory's membership in the DMB as he's still MIA. DONE21:02
soren#topic Is Partner a part of Ubuntu? -- IainLane21:03
=== meetingology changed the topic of #ubuntu-meeting to: Is Partner a part of Ubuntu? -- IainLane
pittiwrt. brainstorm, I think at this point it makes more sense to just drop this one and do March one21:03
soren#link https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2012-January/001177.html21:03
pitti(sorry for lag)21:03
sorenDoes anyone want to present this subject?21:03
pittiis anyone not familiar with the discussion and needs some time to catch up/explanations?21:04
sorenI'm not sure what we're meant to decide.21:04
pittithere was some back and forth, mostly between Mark who has always considered Partner a part of Ubuntu, and some developers who never considered it to be21:04
sabdflhi all21:04
pittihey sabdfl21:04
mdzI think perhaps part of the confusion is over what is meant by "part of Ubuntu"21:05
pittiTBH I'm less worried about the mere terminology; what is and isn't "Ubuntu" certainly canot be proved or disproved, it's a matter of definition21:05
mdzparticularly with the word "Ubuntu" being overloaded21:05
pittiso perhaps we should talk more about the policy/procedures21:06
mdz(community, project, product, package repository, ISO, etc.)21:06
pittii. e. should Partner be subject to TB ruling, community involvement, or stay a pure Canonical project21:06
keeswhile I would like "ubuntu" to mean exclusively free software, we already have exceptions.21:06
Laneymade it through the snow covered wastelands21:06
pittihello Laney21:06
highvoltagehey Laney21:07
pittisabdfl: did I understand you right that you would actually want more community involvement there?21:07
sabdflLaney, sounds poetic :)21:07
sabdflpitti, would be happy to facilitate21:08
pittiso far it has always been a canonical service on top of Ubuntu to me, to make it very easy for users to install popular software21:08
highvoltagepitti: it's easy to understand it that way if it's been defined like that *everywhere* ;)21:08
sabdflpitti, yes, i think it was described that way, fair enough21:08
sorenpitti: I feel (and have always felt) the same way.21:08
LaneyI'm not so tied to the formulation of my two questions fwiw. I think we're pretty clear on what the discussion is about.21:08
sabdflon community involvement21:09
=== kalosaurusrex is now known as albrigha
sabdfli hadn't realised there was interest in being able to engage there21:10
LaneyI don't think anyone is in doubt that partner as it stands isn't "part of Ubuntu" as we want it, so we should figure out what we'd like to see to make it so, if that is the goal.21:10
sabdflbut since it was asked about, we should ask the folk who run the archive to make that possible21:10
sorenLaney: I'm less sure. I think it's an interesting topic for sure, but I'm unclear how we can close this point on the agenda a way that's satisfactory to anyone.21:10
LaneyI don't really know that there is interest.21:10
sabdflstepping back a little21:11
pittiargh, DSL reconnect; I lost the previous conversation, and probably you didn't see my ramblings21:11
sabdflubuntu is unusual in that it tries to bring balance across some areas of tension21:11
sabdflfor example, between company and community21:11
stgraberpitti: last from you: 21:08 < pitti> so far it has always been a canonical service on top of Ubuntu to me, to make it very easy for users to install popular software21:11
sabdflit's easy, if you live on only one side of that fence, to snipe at the other side21:12
pittiso far it has always been a canonical service on top of Ubuntu to me, to make it very easy for users to install popular software21:12
pittiand I have some doubts whether we'd do Canonical or the Ubuntu community a favor by trying to push partner under Ubuntu packaging and other policies21:12
pittithat might restrict Canonical in what it's doing with it, and we could never make it even remotely adhere to Ubuntu standards21:12
pitti(free software, minimal SRUs, freezes, etc.), as this kind of software just doesn't work like that21:12
sabdflbut we try to bring both together, in an appropriate way21:12
sabdflrecognizing that end users want clarity and principles, and also want working results21:12
sabdflin pitti's list (free software) is a good example, since we created restricted at the outset, and multiverse not long after21:13
sabdfli often see folk claiming ubuntu stands for just on part of the whole21:13
sabdflbut to me, it's the whole that makes it really interesting21:13
sabdflnow, we do have clear lines21:13
pitti"interesting" for sure21:13
sabdflwe haven't put proprietary userspace apps in the cd, afaict21:14
sabdfljust drivers21:14
pittiI actually haven't seen any reply that considered partner a bad or irrelevant service21:14
sabdflpitti, then the question is: how does the Ubuntu project want to deliver those bits to its users?21:14
pittiI wasn't actually sure what the question was here :)21:15
sabdflbecause (a) it needs to answer that, and (b) the answer will describe what it means for those bits to be 'in Ubuntu'21:15
highvoltage"But best of all, Ubuntu is and always will be absolutely free."21:15
highvoltagewhat exactly does "Ubuntu is and always will be absolutely free" mean?21:15
sabdflhighvoltage, that refers to price21:15
pittisabdfl: hm, the current integration into software-center seems quite nice to me? have there been any complaints?21:15
highvoltagehmm, interesting :/21:15
LaneyI don't think the project has had any problem with how partner is implemented currently21:16
sabdflpitti, i'm sure there were eyebrows raised in some quarters :)21:16
pittiI had the impression the discussion revolved more about definitions and who can drive it21:16
sabdflperhaps the term 'enemy of freedom' was bandied about in certain tea parties21:16
Laneythe project as led by the TB, at least.21:16
sabdflhighvoltage, what did you think restricted was?21:16
mdzthe question arose because of remixing, right?21:16
mdzmaybe we should discuss in that context21:17
sabdflLaney, the TB has a mandate to lead technical processes, supervise developers, set technical direction etc21:17
sabdfli forget the wording21:17
sabdflthis is not, technically, a matter for the TB ;-)21:17
LaneyWhatever the precise mandate is, I don't see any push from inside the project to change how partner is delivered21:17
highvoltagesabdfl: restricted is at least a clearly noted exception that's documented from the very start21:18
sabdflbut since it was being discussed here, and since we have many folk here who contribute more than technically, I thought it would be worth engaging21:18
sabdflhighvoltage, yes. but it establishes that we understand the need to dance appropriately with proprietary software21:18
sabdfland this conversation is thus appropriate21:18
LaneyI think a good outcome of this would be to open partner up to (a) bug reporting and (b) patches to the packaging as far as it isn't currently21:19
sabdflthe question is, for our users, what do we want to do about things like vmware player?21:19
sabdflLaney, +121:19
pittiwrt. restricted, it's part of archive.ubuntu.com, and covered by the usual ubuntu-{,core-}dev privileges, SRU policy, etc.21:19
pittinone of which applies to partner21:19
LaneyBut there's a risk of removing its agility if you involve the community more21:19
sabdfllet's consider that historical21:19
micahgpartner is already open for bug reporting (there are plenty open :))21:19
sabdfland ask what it would look like, if it were designed now21:19
Laneythat was just something raised on list21:20
pitti(a) (bug reporting) should already be provided? cf. cjwatson's reply21:20
sabdflyes, bug reporting is handled21:20
popey"handled" as in we have infratructure to report them21:20
sabdfland i have no objections to figuring out how to take patches21:20
popeynot "handled" in that anyone takes care of the bugs21:20
sabdfland possibly even how to have an ITP type process inviting participation21:20
sabdfl*some* things will require NDA's from the ISV, and preclude that kind of pre-release discolsure21:21
sabdfldisclosure, even21:21
pittithose sound fine to me21:21
sabdflbut i don't know any examples21:21
LaneyI actually think it is a great example of how Canonical and Ubuntu can work together, so it seems a little strange to me to see that it is desirable to make it a "part of Ubuntu", whatever that means21:21
ajmitchhow does this differ from the commercial apps queue on developer.ubuntu.com now?21:21
sabdflLaney, you get to the heart of my point21:21
pittiI'd just object against trying to crowbar partner into the ubuntu packaging/freeze/SRU policies, that's IMHO not going to fly21:21
sabdflpitti, agreed21:21
pittiit seems much closer to extras.ubuntu.com to me21:22
sabdflwe have the same core issues with restricted and multiverse, though21:22
sabdfli don't really know extras.u.c, tbh21:22
popeypartner is not a lot different from any one of a number of PPAs we already have out there, it's just more integrated into USC21:22
mdzrestricted and multiverse differ only in licensing21:22
mdzthe rest of Ubuntu's policies and processes still apply21:22
sabdflis that the ARB repo?21:22
pittisabdfl: yes, that one21:23
LaneyI'm not sure how the paid apps are delivered thusly21:23
pittisabdfl: i. e. post-release apps added to s-c by third party devs21:23
sabdflmdz, agreed, though i think 'integrated in the USC' is tantamount to 'we've put our stamp on it'21:23
tumbleweedsticking my nose in, the issue I raised in the private discussion was: Are we happy with an Ubuntu remix that dosen't have the "freedom to share it with anyone you like"?21:23
sabdflso, perhaps belatedly, we should figure out how to do that to a standard that matches the stamp :)21:23
pittitumbleweed: right, I think that question comes closest to the definition side of the word, and is very much unrelated to policies, upload privs, etc.21:24
sabdfltumbleweed, hence remix, not edition, for sure21:24
Laneythat is the second question I asked21:24
beunoI've had that email parked for reply for a while now, and I can't really see how this would be much different than what we have been doing up to now21:24
pitti#link https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ExtensionRepositoryPolicy21:24
mdzsabdfl, we present software to users in various ways, but it doesn't always mean the same thing21:24
beunoit's just a change in the way it's delivered21:24
sabdflby way of background, the team originally did it as a derivative, tentatively called the Canonical Business Desktop, to which there were objections that it would set us on a course of having 'special bits'21:25
sabdflwhich is definitely not a course we want to set21:25
mdze.g. Ubuntu downloads third party software from various sources, which we enable, but on a kind of as-is basis21:25
sabdfli asked that it be redone, as a pure remix21:25
mdzplugins, printer drivers, and the like21:25
sabdflthinking that there would be far fewer objections to that, since anyone can do a remix21:25
mdzbut this seems to be more a question of governance than of user experience or messaging21:25
pittisabdfl: my question to this would be: do we want to allow anyone else than C to create a remix that includes partner, and perhaps even extras.u.c., and call it "Ubuntu"?21:26
mdzif the question is, who governs partner, the answer is unquestionably Canonical and not Ubuntu21:26
sorenpitti: We can't, can we?21:26
pittisabdfl: or should that be more like a Canonical prerogative/project?21:26
sabdflpitti, i would have no objection21:26
sabdflthey would need distribution rights to the bits21:26
mdzsoren, Canonical may be able to, but Ubuntu cannot21:26
sorenpitti: Stuff in partner may only be distributable by Canonical.21:26
mdzdepending on the terms21:26
Laneyto me the word "remix" really doesn't imply endorsement from the project21:26
sorenmdz: Exactly.21:26
sabdflbut we would not assert special rights to the parts we do, i.e. the packaging21:26
pittisabdfl: right, I mean in the category of TM compliance/violation21:26
Laneyquite the contrary infact21:26
pittino, but in order to call it Ubuntu you need to satisfy the trademark restrictions21:27
sabdflmdz, can you clarify why Ubuntu cannot?21:27
sabdflin some senses, i understand21:27
sabdflubuntu can't countersign a license with the ISV21:27
pittiso if sabdfl wants "Ubuntu" to encompass partner, I see no reason to object21:27
sabdflbut in other senses, it can, in that we could ask TB to take a view on challenges presented in the packaging, for example21:28
pitti(again, only under a trademark POV; sorting out licenses is the business of the creator of that remix, of course)21:28
sabdflpitti, if we consider partner as part of ubuntu, then vmware could use the package in there to do an Ubuntu VMWare Client Remix21:29
Laneyhttp://www.ubuntu.com/aboutus/trademarkpolicy: "In general, a Remix can have applications from the Ubuntu archives added, or default applications removed, but removing or changing any infrastructure components (e.g., shared libraries or desktop components) will result in changes too large for the resulting product to be called by a Trademark"21:30
sabdfland users would get exactly what they expect21:30
sabdflsame for, say, Citrix21:30
pittisabdfl: yes, that was sort of my question, whether you would like the Ubuntu TM policy to allow that21:30
sorenShall we formally move on to the remix subject?21:30
sabdflpitti, yes. that's what I *thought* it already said :)21:30
pittibecause at that point it would go pretty far from "free/libre OS"21:30
sabdflpitti, remixes can already include all of multiverse21:30
pittisabdfl: right, it just seems rather counter-intuitive to us long-term ubuntu devs, so that takes a while to settle21:31
soren#topic Should the Ubuntu remix policy be relaxed to allow the use of non-Ubuntu components in remixes?21:31
=== meetingology changed the topic of #ubuntu-meeting to: Should the Ubuntu remix policy be relaxed to allow the use of non-Ubuntu components in remixes?
keesI have trouble seeing how software that cannot be redistrubted by anyone but Canonical should be considered "part of Ubuntu".21:31
soren(calling it like it is)21:31
micahgmultiverse is at least freely redistributable, just not necessarily modifyable21:31
sabdflkees, separate distribution from redistribution21:31
sabdflyou can get permission to distribute anything in there, if you want it21:31
sabdflthen remix it21:31
sabdflthat's not something canonical forces, nor that ubuntu forces, it's a reality we need to deal with21:32
sabdflwe're having this conversation because i'd prefer that you *can* make a remix that has those bits in, rather than having Canonical be the only company which can do so21:32
sorenWhat does "can" mean in this context?21:33
sabdflagain, a remix is in my mind what you can get to, or back from, using standard package management21:33
keesright, I'd like these remixes to be flexible. if a mirror can't be a mirror without seeking some sort of additional permissions, I don't think that should be under the Ubuntu umbrella.21:33
sabdflwhich isn't *exactly* the same as USC, but close enough21:33
sabdflkees, there we differ21:33
sabdflmirrors can mirror what they can mirror21:34
greg-gsoren: "can" if you go get the separate licensing agreements from the companies that Canonical has, no garauntee that you will.21:34
sabdflUbuntu should facilitate that, yes, but not penalise users because there are some bits which cannot be mirrored21:34
sabdflgreg-g, there are few guarantees of anything in life, beyond mortality ;)21:34
micahgpartner licensing wouldn't affect a -desktop package in the archive that recommends partner apps21:35
sorengreg-g: In that case the limitation on "can" must refer to "being allowed to name it 'ubuntu' something"?21:35
keesI don't ever want to see "I provided an Ubuntu mirror and Xyz Corp sued me"21:35
sabdflkees, agreed. which is why we have a place for non-mirrorable bits21:35
sabdfl*must* have a place for non-mirrorable place21:35
sabdfland why that place can't easily be in the archive / components / pockets21:36
sabdflso, again, we promote those bits in the software centre; we implicitly stand by them21:36
sabdfland if the TB thinks that the implementation is stinky, we should figure out how to address that21:37
sabdfli make no claims of non-stinkiness, especially for old packages in partner21:37
pittithe TB actually did discuss and eventually approve https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ExtensionRepositoryPolicy21:37
pittiso as long as pacakges satisfy that minimal standard (both partner and ARB alike), there is a certain confidence that users can put into them21:38
* kees nods21:38
LaneyCan't we just allow remixes to include packages from extension repositories, and specify some way by which non-redistributility is to be indicated21:38
sabdflthat's very useful21:38
pittithat's one point where Ubuntu institutions (TB in that case) can influence e. g. Partner21:38
pittiwithout totally pulling it under Ubuntu governance21:38
pittisorry, "ubuntu" from a developer's POV here21:39
sabdflhmm... that looks like the TB has outlined a framework, within which those archives need to operate21:39
sabdflso the task at hand is to make sure that partner (and the others) meet that standard21:39
sabdflwhich i'm confident we can do21:40
pittilet's say it's a set of requirements that aims to say what a third-party package must look like to work on, and not break, the Ubuntu OS underneath it21:40
sabdflthe guys currently figuring this out are very good - mvo & co21:40
mdzsabdfl, (sorry, had to step away from my desk)21:40
LaneySo (a) the TB can designate repositories to be extension repositories and (b) remixes can include sources from these so long as the repositories are following the policy21:40
pittiI'm not sure to what extend (B) can be enforced21:40
mdzI was saying that Ubuntu could not, without specific permission from Canonical and/or the original rights holder, remix with partner21:40
sabdfland really, i'd like to ask the TB to trust them, and work with them, to do it right, even if the task isn't as much fresh air as, say, figuring out multiarch :)21:40
Laneywell, the TB can take a look if concerns are raised to it21:41
sabdflmdz, ok21:41
mdzthat's the point, isn't it? that the software can't be distributed by Ubuntu, otherwise it would be in the Ubuntu repositories21:41
ajmitchLaney: that would exclude most PPAs without TB involvement?21:41
sabdflif Canonical grants that right, under the remix guidelines which are essentially a wide trademark license subject to the constraint of using packages from those archives21:41
Laneycorrect, remixes can't have these anyway21:42
sabdflthen, it is only a matter for the ISV and the person doing the remix21:42
sabdflPPA's can't go into remixes, because the namespace is not managed21:42
sabdfla ppa package can overwrite a normal package21:42
sabdflthat would be a derivative21:42
Laneyand (c) If a remix includes a non-freely-redistrutable component then it must indicate in some to-be-defined way the presence of this so that people wishing to mirror or derive know that they must seek additional licenses21:43
sabdflto me, https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ExtensionRepositoryPolicy suggests we've already answered this question, setting standards for those archives21:43
pittiright, the extras policy avoids that possibility of overwriting21:43
sabdflLaney, we don't publish the remix in a way that standard mirroring would pick it up21:44
sabdflso as to avoid inadvertent issues for the mirrors21:44
Laneysabdfl: right, any mirroring21:44
sabdflyou could warez it, but there wouldn't be much point :)21:44
Laneyjust something that people working with these remixes need to be aware of21:44
pittiright, I wouldn't like these to be on cdimage.u.c. or releases.u.c. anywhere21:44
sorenWe seem to be converging. Anyone care to sum up? Laney?21:44
pittifor the same reason why archive.c.c shouldn't be21:44
pitti(expectancy that *.ubuntu.com is redistributable and mostly FOSS, as www.u.c. advertises)21:45
Laneysoren: I gave my (a) (b) and (c) that I think would be reasonable21:45
sabdflpitti, right, they can't be on those sites, because of mirroring21:45
Laneyyou guys should decide what you think about that, or something else21:45
sabdflLaney, (a) bug reports, (b) packaging patches, (c) ?21:45
Laneyno, those are just nice wishlists for partner to have (although a is done)21:45
pittiso for Laney's (a), I don't think the TB should "designate" extension repos21:46
sorenSo (a) the TB can designate repositories to be extension repositories and (b) remixes can include sources from these so long as the repositories are following the policy (c) If a remix includes a non-freely-redistrutable component then it must indicate in some to-be-defined way the presence of this so that people wishing to mirror or  derive know that they must seek additional licenses21:46
LaneyI don't know what is currently done21:46
pittiLaney: I'd like to modify your (a) to say "TB can define what an extension repo must look like"21:46
sabdflany mirror needs to satisfy themselves as to (c) as good practice21:46
Laneydid you say "extras is an extension reposotory" when that was created?21:46
Laneythe list of three repositories in the first paragraph of ExtensionRepositoryPolicy21:47
pittiyes, unlike partner we had that policy discussion before extras.u.c. was opened21:47
Laney"This policy applies to software published through one of the extension repositories Extras, Partner, and Commercial"21:47
Laneyso I guess you already have (a)21:47
pittiright; I (mis?)understood "designate" as "actively bless"21:48
pitti"define" would perhaps be clearer21:48
LaneyI am saying that there is a canonical list of extension repositories, and that Ubuntu Remixes can include packages from those.21:48
wendarpitti: aye, or "recognize"21:48
sorenOk, so shall we move to vote on: "Remixes can include sources from these so long as the repositories are following ExtensionRepositoryPolicy"?21:49
soren(running low on time)21:49
soren#vote Remixes can include sources from these so long as the repositories are following ExtensionRepositoryPolicy21:49
meetingologyPlease vote on: Remixes can include sources from these so long as the repositories are following ExtensionRepositoryPolicy21:49
meetingologyPublic votes can be registered by saying +1, +0 or -1 in channel, (private votes don't work yet, but when they do it will be by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0 to me)21:49
meetingology+1 received from sabdfl21:49
Laneythese → extension repositories as defined in https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ExtensionRepositoryPolicy21:49
Laneys/defined/your btetter word/21:49
mdzsoren, sorry, what does "these" refer to specifically?21:50
pitti"these" == extras, partner, commercial ?21:50
pittii. e. a specific subset?21:50
pittiit seems a bit lax to say "any archive which adheres to above policy21:50
LaneyI think it should be dynamic and refer to the wiki page, so it's easily updated.21:50
pittithen "Ubuntu" would be quite meaningless21:50
LaneyThe wiki page should be the canonical list of extension repositories21:51
sorenSorry, I skimmed that page and thought it gave a list.21:51
Laneymodified only by decision of the TB21:51
Laneyit does21:51
pittiif "these" == "list on above wiki page", it sounds fine to me21:51
wendarsensible that any new repositories that what to be recognized would approach the TB to be added to that page.21:51
sorenOh, yes, it does.21:51
sabdfl+1 to requiring TB approval21:51
meetingology+1 to requiring TB approval received from sabdfl21:51
stgraber+1 [Remixes can include packages from the extension repositories listed on https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ExtensionRepositoryPolicy (additions to that list need to be approved by the TB)]21:52
meetingology+1 [Remixes can include packages from the extension repositories listed on https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ExtensionRepositoryPolicy (additions to that list need to be approved by the TB)] received from stgraber21:52
pitti+1 then21:52
meetingology+1 then received from pitti21:52
gekkerthank you gentlemen of the board, this is very good guidance21:52
meetingology+1 received from soren21:52
pitti(based on sabdfl's +1, as I think it's pretty much his choice what "ubuntu" is :) )21:52
mdz+1, what stgraber said21:52
meetingology+1, what stgraber said received from mdz21:52
* pitti wonders how meetingology adds these up21:52
* soren lost count21:52
meetingology+1 received from kees21:53
meetingologyVoting ended on: Remixes can include sources from these so long as the repositories are following ExtensionRepositoryPolicy21:53
meetingologyVotes for:6 Votes against:0 Abstentions:021:53
meetingologyMotion carried21:53
micahgpitti: I'd guess by an abacus on the backend :)21:53
soren#topic Review copyright file placement for Ubuntu ARB apps (currently installed under /opt, should probably be under the usual location).21:53
=== meetingology changed the topic of #ubuntu-meeting to: Review copyright file placement for Ubuntu ARB apps (currently installed under /opt, should probably be under the usual location).
sorenhighvoltage: .21:53
sabdfli should say thanks to the TB retroactively for the extension repo policy, it's very clear and addresses this nicely21:54
highvoltageARB apps currently require that the copyright file is installed under /opt21:54
Laney(I think the remix trademark policy needs to specify some standard for documenting non-freely-redistrutable stuff, but maybe I'll take it to list)21:54
Laney(good decision, thanks)21:54
highvoltageimho there's very little reason why it can't go under /usr/share/doc/$packagename like all the other packages21:54
pittialso, a link to the "Ubuntu" trademark policy couldn't hurt, whereever that lives these days21:55
mdzhighvoltage, refresh my memory please, is $packagename already required to be non-overlapping with Ubuntu proper?21:55
ajmitchthe package name is going to have to be unique21:55
highvoltage(should I hold on a bit longer for the remix discussions?)21:55
stgraberright, /usr/share/doc/<package name> is already namespaced, so there can't be conflict between ARB and regular package there as otherwise you'd have a package name conflict too21:55
Laneysomeone needs an action to get the trademark policy fixed21:55
pittimdz: yes21:55
Laneysorry, /me goes awy21:55
highvoltagemdz: yes21:55
mdzI don't see a problem with it then21:55
sorenmdz: Even if not, there couldn't possible be overlap on individual systems.21:56
pittimdz: in fact, that's the first requirement21:56
stgraberit's really just a small clarification to the ARB policy I asked highvoltage to send to the TB for approval anyway. I didn't think it'd be covered by the generic namespace exception I proposed a few meetings ago21:56
keesseems fine, almost better, to have it in /usr/hsare/doc/$pkg21:56
highvoltageI think it would be good to have it somewhere predictable, and if someone wants to use some auditing tools for licensing (even if it's toy ones like the rms script) then at least it will still work21:56
pittikees: hm, I disagree21:56
pittiif the whole package lives in /opt/<name>, so should the doc and copyright IMHO21:56
pittibut I don't have a strong opinion either way21:57
stgraberI also think it's going to possibly fix a few tools expecting to find the changelog/copyright file in /usr/share/doc/<package> and not /opt/extras.ubuntu.com/<package>/doc/21:57
sorenI think /usr/share/doc makes sense. I like the assumption that any package dpkg knows about has its copyright file in the same place.21:57
highvoltage(I don't have much more to say on the issue)21:58
ajmitchshoudl an exception apply to anything under /usr/share/doc/package, or just copyright/changelog?21:58
keespitti: there isn't a need to keep the contents isolated to a single root path because we have a package manager. putting things in /opt keeps it out of PATH if needed. re-using the common documentation path seems correct to me.21:58
pittikees: ok, fair enough21:58
sorenDoes anyone want further discussion, or should we vote?21:58
stgraberajmitch: I'd go with anything usually found under /usr/share/doc/<package>, I definitely don't want apps to start putting non-standard stuff there21:58
stgraberajmitch: so having changelog, copyright, upstream changelog, possibly some examples sounds reasonable, anything else definitely shouldn't (as it shouldn't in the archive anyway)21:59
ajmitchstgraber: right, I'm just thinking of the usual README & example files21:59
pittisoren: nothing from me21:59
soren#vote Copyright files for ARB apps should reside in /usr/share/doc/<packagename>/copyright even though the rest of the package's files are in /opt21:59
meetingologyPlease vote on: Copyright files for ARB apps should reside in /usr/share/doc/<packagename>/copyright even though the rest of the package's files are in /opt21:59
meetingologyPublic votes can be registered by saying +1, +0 or -1 in channel, (private votes don't work yet, but when they do it will be by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0 to me)21:59
meetingology+1 received from kees21:59
meetingology+1 received from soren21:59
meetingology0 received from pitti21:59
meetingology+1 received from mdz22:00
mdzpitti, nice that meetingology understands that zero is unsigned :-)22:00
sorenstgraber: ?22:00
stgraber+1 [applies to any file in /usr/share/doc/<package name>/ that'd normally be allowed in the archive, that's at least changelog, copyright, upstream changelog, possibly some readme and examples]22:00
meetingology+1 [applies to any file in /usr/share/doc/<package name>/ that'd normally be allowed in the archive, that's at least changelog, copyright, upstream changelog, possibly some readme and examples] received from stgraber22:00
pittimdz: yes, I refuse to say "plus zero" :)22:00
meetingology0~ received from pitti22:01
meetingologyVoting ended on: Copyright files for ARB apps should reside in /usr/share/doc/<packagename>/copyright even though the rest of the package's files are in /opt22:01
meetingologyVotes for:4 Votes against:0 Abstentions:122:01
meetingologyMotion carried22:01
pitti. o O { meetingology hacking }22:01
sorenLaney raised a good point: Someone needs an action item to adjust the trademark policy for the remixes. Who can do that?22:01
sabdflyou mean fix the website, or draft the text?22:01
sabdfli can get the policy amended, especially if you have specific text to add22:01
sabdfland can get it on the website, given the URL to amend22:01
sabdflthanks all22:02
sorenDraft the text, I guess. Getting it changed should be a matter of filing a bug and waiting :)22:02
sabdfllet's go with Laney's amended text?22:02
LaneyI didn't suggest precise wording, but I think I'm going to work with wendar on this22:02
LaneyWe'll CC the TB22:02
sabdflok, feel free to CC me22:02
soren#action Laney and wendar to get trademark policy updated wrt remixes22:03
meetingologyACTION: Laney and wendar to get trademark policy updated wrt remixes22:03
sorenAOB real quick? Chair for next meeting?22:03
soren#topic AOB22:03
=== meetingology changed the topic of #ubuntu-meeting to: AOB
pittilexicographically that would be stgraber?22:03
sorenWEll, he filled in for me last time.22:03
sorenSo Colin's next, I guess.22:04
pittiso, back to the top then, Colin?22:04
sorenAlright, then.22:04
sorenOk, great. Thanks everyone, and sorry it ran late.22:04
=== meetingology changed the topic of #ubuntu-meeting to: Ubuntu Meeting Grounds | Calendar/Scheduled meetings: http://fridge.ubuntu.com/calendar | Logs: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MeetingLogs | Meetingology documentation: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology
meetingologyMeeting ended Mon Feb  6 22:04:54 2012 UTC.22:04
meetingologyMinutes:        http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2012/ubuntu-meeting.2012-02-06-21.01.moin.txt22:04
AlanBellsabdfl: there are very few stinky old packages in partner, things don't get dragged forward to new releases, so anything stinky is a stinky new package. Things going missing is, in itself, a bit stinky.22:05
pittithanks everyone!22:05
AlanBellpitti: meetingology counts votes once per person, but you can change your vote as many times as you like before #endvote is called, it uses the last thing you said. I have no idea what it thought 0~ meant.22:05
AlanBellmicahg: yes, it is an abacus.22:05
pittiAlanBell: "~" has a special meaning in Debian/ubuntu package versions22:05
pittiit was really just a joke22:05
pittiAlanBell: for dpkg, "0~" is rathehr interesting, as it's smaller than 0, but not negative :)22:06
sorenIt's roughly equal to 0-ε.22:06
sorenAlthough, that would be negative, I guess.22:06
pittiI don't think 0~ can be expressed with any mathematical model of real numbers22:07
sorenI think I must insist that 0~ is negative, too. Otherwise my head will explode :)22:07
AlanBellit looks at the first two characters and sees if it is something it is expecting, I am surprised it looked like it accepted 0~22:07
pittiAlanBell: nah, it just accepted the "0" and ignored the rest, I figure22:08
pittiI just really like "0~" because it's a nice brain teaser22:08
pittianyway, bed time22:08
pittisoren: well, if it is, it's smaller than any negative number22:08
* AlanBell will have to go read the code in a sec22:09
* pitti waves good night22:09
keesthanks soren!22:11
* cielak is away: Busy/Away22:58

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!