[02:41] jbicha, what are your thoughts on the packagekit stuff? i.e. should we fix it or just revert to standard ubuntu update stack [02:44] well like I said for bug 1071008 I'm not sure about how fix the updates problem yet [02:44] Launchpad bug 1071008 in ubuntu-gnome-meta (Ubuntu) "Update Integration" [Medium,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1071008 [02:44] Wheezy is shipping gpk by default too though [02:45] I think can fix the automatic updates, but not sure about dist upgrades [02:45] yeah I didn't know a good way to test dist-upgrades until raring got going [02:46] I think we can't do dist-upgrades at all until we are an official flavour though [02:46] we could have people upgrade from the command line or we could include update-manager [02:47] we need update-notifier for apport to work properly but unfortunately update-notifier depends on update-manager in quantal [02:47] anyway I think gnome-software-manager is pretty hopeless [02:47] I'd prefer to use GNOME's tools if they work close enough [02:48] I've got a patch for https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=682696 but that's a raring fix [02:48] Gnome bug 682696 in general "Add keywords for better discoverability" [Normal,Unconfirmed] [02:49] people don't read every line in the release notes and can't figure out how to install updates [02:50] well people don't read until they have a problem, and by then they have probably forgotten about the release notes [02:51] gnome-packagekit is in "core GNOME" so we kinda have to ship it http://git.gnome.org/browse/jhbuild/plain/modulesets/gnome-suites-core-3.6.modules [02:52] but then again so is Epiphany and many GNOME distros don't include it by default [02:53] but that is the dbus stuff [02:53] (gnome-packagekit) [02:53] the way I see it, if something is a 50/50 decision then we'll go with the GNOME choice [02:54] but I'm not the only one who decides the direction of this project [02:55] ubuntu patch g-c-c with a hard link to update manager [02:56] and I havent looked at the source, but pretty certain software properties is hardcoded against update-manger [02:57] I think the g-c-c patch is only for the Details panel but I think it's rather uncommon that people look there for software updates [02:57] we had to include software properties for quantal because that's where Additional Drivers moved, but gpk has its own config dialog [02:58] gpk-prefs on ubuntu has no update tab [02:59] we probably need to get update-notifier to Ubuntu GNOME users on quantal [03:00] I don't know what the side effects of that would be [03:00] gpk-prefs is also set to NoDisplay also [03:01] yeah, I'm not so sure that those changes were a good idea http://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-packagekit/commit/?id=3c7585 [03:01] it definitely was bad without adding the keywords "breadcrumbs" so that people would know where stuff went [03:02] gpk-prefs, not gpk-update-viewer [03:02] yeah, that was the next commit [03:09] maybe Debian will revert the NoDisplay changes and then we can just sync from Debian... [03:10] how about we swap out gnome-update-viewer with update-manager [03:11] and a small patch against gnome-software-manager menu to launch update-manager instead [03:11] we could add a dependency on update-manager to ubuntu-gnome-desktop for quantal [03:11] no I don't want to patch that [03:12] well its better than having duplicated prefs tools [03:13] so far we have GOA/UOA, software-prefs/gpk-prefs [03:13] and I suppose there could be others [03:13] I don't want to patch that for quantal because I'm not convinced update-manager is what we want to ship for raring or sparky [03:15] and I don't want to see what happens when we semi-invent our own dist-upgrade process [03:15] do-release-upgrade works fine [03:16] update-notifier might take care of that; I need to look into splitting update-notifier away from update-manager [03:20] so the updater is one question; the software installer is the other [03:21] yeh, they are basically independant from my quick look [03:21] gpk is better than I remember it being; and someday they're supposed to be doing their fancy overhaul to make it more directly competitive with USC [03:21] really? I nearly cry every time I have to use it [03:22] I think Synaptic is out of the question; we should stick with USC or Software [03:22] I would probably take aptitude or even dselect over the gpk one [03:23] USC will never *fit* in a gnome-ish distro [03:23] but think, if you improve gpk then you help virtually every GNOME distro [03:24] not me, programmers don't make good UI's last time I checked [03:25] USC includes screenshots, ratings and reviews, paid app support, and even support for -backports [03:26] yeh I think USC is awesome for end (non-technical) users, but the only time I use it is to sync package lists to U1 [03:26] oh and the odd humble bundle [03:27] I suppose we could re-skin it, to fit. if/when we have a design team atleast.. [03:28] USC has got too much attention from the designers though, custom widgets & webkit [03:29] well I dont know what designers do [03:30] at least it's not as bad as the Ubuntu One design :) [03:31] I filed some specific design bugs for U1 right after the Qt switch that have been basically ignored [03:33] yeh its pretty bad, but I am mostly dependant on dropbox here... [03:34] and I gave up submitting patches against core ubuntu stuff... [03:35] trivial bug fixes would just be ignored or otherwise marked invalid [04:43] everaldo, how did you go with the 'participating' article? [04:47] darkxst, hey :) [04:47] hey [04:47] darkxst, writing in my language... [04:47] I think that I will have it on english tomorow night [04:47] I mean, 18 hours from now ;-) [04:48] haha ok, I dont understand your language! [04:48] to be honest, most people here don't understand a "good" portuguese too :-) [04:50] darkxst, do we have a place and a domain if we found someone to make us a website? [04:50] well we have http://gnomebuntu.org/ [04:51] not sure we can really use that domain though [04:51] might have to register something else (gnome don't want us to mash their trademarks) [04:52] darkxst, they explicity told us that? [04:52] everaldo, yes [04:52] oh, did not know that [04:53] well they said would need board approval, not actually sure if we asked for that [04:53] I man, my understand of their guidelines is that we can use "gnome" if we want to spread gnome [04:53] so, maybe we can ask then [04:53] yeh we can use gnome [04:53] but not mashed words like gnomebuntu [04:54] gnome ubuntu [04:54] is ok, I believe [04:54] did you think that gubuntu is bad just because theres goobuntu ? [04:54] I mean, it is just a internal google version [04:54] that nobody outside of Google uses [04:55] lol, nobody outside of google even knows about [04:55] Gubuntu would be the obvious chouce [04:55] but that said I do like ubuntu GNOME edition [04:55] I really like the idea of use gubuntu [04:56] and we don't even need to care about gnome trademarks [04:57] yeh I don't really get the whole fuss over that [04:57] i would thing Gubuntu be pronoucned with a hard G [04:57] Goobuntu with a soft G [04:58] exactly [04:58] and the owner of gubuntu.org is sakalsiz@gmail.com [04:59] who is that? [04:59] don't know but seaching on google looks to be a postgres/debian/python guy [05:00] so, we will probably can get success to have his domain [05:00] Created On:06-Nov-2010 12:30:01 UTC [05:00] Last Updated On:31-Oct-2011 22:28:55 UTC [05:00] Expiration Date:06-Nov-2012 12:30:01 UTC [05:00] and he is not using it [05:00] let me send him a mail [05:01] lol, I have a bad focus bug again... can really check much! [05:02] our bug man! [05:02] bugman...that sounds nice [05:03] lol, no one will want a distro with 'bug' in the name [05:03] yeah, and it also looks like a porn actor name :( [05:05] darkxst, is this ok? [05:05] "My name is Everaldo and I am one of the guys working on GNOME based variation of Ubuntu. We just want to know if you are willing to provide us the domain gubuntu.org and in which terms." [05:07] everaldo, I would wait until we decide if we actually want it! [05:07] darkxst, we are just asking [05:08] it is much better to know before decide right? [05:08] but at this point we are not actually going to use gubuntu, perhaps we should contact google! [05:09] humm [05:09] ubuntu-ge.org (maybe gnome edition) [05:09] the owner is... Canonical :) [05:10] I like how GNOME Edition sounds [05:10] but I have no contacts a google apart from a few guts that work in maps at Sydney [05:10] s/guts/guys/ [05:10] darkxst, ask then [05:10] them [05:10] they won't be able to help [05:11] Domain ID:D105610408-LROR [05:11] Domain Name:UBUNTU-GE.ORG [05:11] Created On:21-Jan-2005 12:57:38 UTC [05:11] Last Updated On:24-May-2011 00:26:11 UTC [05:11] Expiration Date:21-Jan-2014 12:57:38 UTC [05:11] perhaps thats a country code [05:11] ??? [05:12] don't know [05:12] jbicha just sugested "Ubuntu GNOME Edition" [05:12] looks nice... but again we need to use "GNOME" word [05:13] that is fine I believe [05:13] GE Georgia (Republic Of) [05:20] hatochna.org is available [05:21] HArd TO CHoose a NAme [05:21] :D [05:22] I think we have to have buntu if we want to be official flavour [05:22] yes, I was just kiding [05:24] fubunutu, nubuntu and mubuntu... all registered [05:24] mubuntu owner is also canonical [05:25] obuntu.org is available [05:25] gnOme [05:26] darkxst, whats about obuntu.org ? [05:26] seems a bit unrelated [05:27] well, the only really related good name is gubuntu :( [05:29] gnubuntu is also nice but... you know... gnu [05:29] yeh like, we need stallman on our case! [05:31] uge.org [05:32] I like it [05:32] but is already registered [05:32] and it is used since 2002 [05:32] oh, "this domain is for sale" [05:32] 35% off :) [05:33] 35% off what? some rip off scammer [05:33] ? [05:34] hahaha [05:34] Buy this great domain today for only $9,888.00 (USD)!.. [05:36] seems like uge.fm or uge.net.au [05:36] is all thats available? [05:37] yes [05:38] ok, go sleep a little [05:38] net au probably has rules [05:38] be back later [05:38] atleast had to provide an ABN for org.au adresses [05:38] yes [05:39] bye [05:39] I suppose canoconical might have a ABN