| === yofel_ is now known as yofel | ||
| === ChanServ changed the topic of #ubuntu-uds-room-204 to: Track: Foundations | Finish the archive reorg | Url: http://summit.ubuntu.com/uds-q/meeting/20294/foundations-q-finish-archive-reorg/ | Audio: http://icecast.ubuntu.com:8000/room-204.ogg.m3u | ||
| mpt | Technology is overrated | 16:04 |
|---|---|---|
| mpt | https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SoftwareCenter#updates-text shows the text that Ubuntu Software Center currently shows for Main+Restricted vs. Universe+Multiverse | 16:09 |
| mpt | e.g. "Updates provided: by Canonical until June 2027" | 16:09 |
| mpt | "Updates provided: by the Ubuntu development community" | 16:09 |
| mpt | etc | 16:09 |
| mpt | I don't remember exactly | 16:10 |
| mpt | mvo would know | 16:10 |
| mpt | I've found it helpful to avoid using "support" in favor of more specific terms, relevant ones here being "updates" and "tech support" | 16:14 |
| mpt | "Who supports it" = who provides updates for it? | 16:16 |
| mpt | Is there any current example of multiple vendors (i.e. not just Canonical) offering updates for packages in an Ubuntu archive? | 16:18 |
| mpt | Or would they have their own archive (with its own field data) for that? | 16:18 |
| cjwatson | mpt: Several non-Canonical-sponsored flavours (Kubuntu, Edubuntu, Xubuntu, others) have declared intention to provide three- or five-year updates for 12.04 | 16:20 |
| cjwatson | They are nevertheless entirely in the Ubuntu archive | 16:20 |
| mpt | A flavour is not an organization, though. Would Blue Systems be an upcoming example? | 16:21 |
| cjwatson | A flavour is not a company; the group behind it is an organisation | 16:21 |
| cjwatson | In the same sense as "Ubuntu development community" in your link above | 16:22 |
| cjwatson | I can't speak for Blue Systems but I expect that they might be a company along these lines, though, yes | 16:22 |
| mpt | I felt very waffly when I specced the "Ubuntu development community" text :-) | 16:23 |
| mpt | --- | 16:26 |
| mpt | Maybe this is trivial, but something to answer perhaps: Why do people currently make Main Inclusion Requests, and what would the equivalent be? | 16:26 |
| xnox | mpt: well, a packageset determines if the package will land into main. So equivalent of MIR would be request to be included in the core-seed for example (or some other relevant package seed) | 16:27 |
| xnox | People do Main Inclusion Request to guarantee that main is self-contained and has build-dependency closure. | 16:28 |
| mpt | And this is the list of seeds? http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-core-dev/ubuntu-seeds/ubuntu.quantal/files | 16:29 |
| cjwatson | The MIR process is a cross between bureaucracy and a gateway for security review | 16:29 |
| mpt | i | 16:29 |
| mpt | If so, there is apparently a seed called "supported" :-) | 16:30 |
| cjwatson | Yes, it dates from 4.10 | 16:30 |
| xnox | mpt: there is even a tool "seeded-in-ubuntu" to check what is where. | 16:30 |
| cjwatson | I wouldn't think too hard about the current exact list of seed names | 16:30 |
| dweaver | Canonical support list of "tech-support" is not published as it changes due to customer demand and is often negotiated per customer. | 16:43 |
| cjwatson | Would it be valuable to have that clearly published per-customer (obviously to that customer only)? | 16:44 |
| cjwatson | Like a file on a customer's system(s) that would be consulted by Software Center et al to show what they have support for | 16:45 |
| mpt | That would be nifty | 16:45 |
| cjwatson | i.e. is that something we need to engineer generalised support for into the system, even if we don't use it straight away | 16:45 |
| cjwatson | (FWIW I think the proposal I had would cover that, although not the generation of such files) | 16:45 |
| mpt | I'd previously blue-skyed visualization of that: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PackageMaintainednessPresentation#Future_work | 16:46 |
| cjwatson | As always I am years behind mpt | 16:46 |
| mpt | (That was for updates, but the same could work for tech support) | 16:47 |
| udsbotu | uds-room-204: 5 minutes left in this session! | 16:49 |
| udsbotu | uds-room-204: 4 minutes left in this session! | 16:50 |
| SpamapS | +1 from me to revisiting the policy on build-deps | 16:50 |
| udsbotu | uds-room-204: 3 minutes left in this session! | 16:51 |
| udsbotu | uds-room-204: 2 minutes left in this session! | 16:52 |
| mpt | A field that no program pays attention to will serve only to mislead humans :-) | 16:52 |
| cjwatson | Exactly | 16:53 |
| udsbotu | uds-room-204: 1 minute left in this session! | 16:53 |
| udsbotu | uds-room-204: This session has ended. | 16:54 |
| mpt | Perfect timing mvo ;-) | 16:54 |
| === ChanServ changed the topic of #ubuntu-uds-room-204 to: Currently no events are active in this room - http://summit.ubuntu.com/uds-q/room-204/ - http://ubottu.com/uds-logs/%23ubuntu-uds-room-204.log | ||
| mpt | mvo, http://summit.ubuntu.com/uds-q/meeting/20294/foundations-q-finish-archive-reorg/ | 16:55 |
| * mvo looks | 16:55 | |
| mpt | mvo, does Update Manager actually show the updates info anywhere? I don't remember | 16:56 |
| mvo | there is a ubuntu-support-status command | 16:56 |
| mpt | e.g. "Updates provided by: The Ubuntu developer community" like US | 16:56 |
| mpt | C | 16:56 |
| mvo | but iirc its not displayed in the UI | 16:56 |
| mpt | ok | 16:57 |
| mvo | hm, I personally would love to have it part of the Packages file instead of a seperate file on changelogs, or alternatively alongside Packages.gz (sorry for coming in so late) | 16:57 |
| mvo | but we can discuss this on the mailinglist of course | 16:58 |
| mpt | cjwatson, ^ | 16:58 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!