[12:24] are NBS binaries removed regularly/automatically from the archive? /cc cjwatson [12:30] mapreri: semi-automatically - i.e. http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/nbs.html reports on them, we process the ones that don't have reverse-deps pretty frequently [12:30] mapreri: but the ones that have reverse-deps there need manual attention [12:30] mapreri: some of those may be false positives (recommends or alternatives-where-first-is-still-available), which are hard to deal with automatically [12:32] cjwatson: i was looking because i removed pbuilder-uml yesterday, but I don't see it in the list (and britney complains about it). does it have to be in the release pocket? [12:32] (which kinda defeats the purpose of that britney check, maybe) [12:33] mapreri: yes. there's a corner case in what you're thinking of, it's only a problem if a package goes through multiple versions in -proposed without migrating and one of the non-final versions has NBS binaries [12:33] that has no automatic report but every so often I go through excuses and work out what to remove ... [12:34] well, this one hit proposed yesterday for the first time, before there was nothing in proposed. [12:34] though in this case ... yeah, not sure what's up there [12:34] probably an extra-weird corner case to do with arch: all vs. any [12:35] the whole business of -proposed being a partial suite makes things complicated in britney [12:35] arch:all is so funny [12:36] mapreri: removed, anyway [12:36] cool [12:38] cjwatson: + do you confirm that what's keeping libpodofo out of release is the need of a transition for it? update_excuse is silent, but i learn out to read update_output... [12:38] learnt* [12:39] even if it seems to write stuff (and behave, maybe?) a bit differently than debian's britney [12:41] seems like usrmerge might need some poking, btw. [12:43] mapreri: needs rebuilds of calibre, krename, and scribus, yes [12:43] mapreri: I believe usrmerge needs an initramfs-tools merge [12:44] mapreri: also coreutils [12:44] Conflicting with the current version of an Essential package isn't going to go well for it :-) [12:45] oh. eheh :) [13:14] cyphermox, infinity I have an idea I'd like to discuss. [13:14] Not sure if it is feasible. [13:15] Need some wise heads to bounce ideas off. [13:57] In debian the libpng16 transition is mostly "done" I mean, we patched the sources except for a few build failures, and we are waiting for the release team to proceed [13:57] I did ~30 NMUs and they are pending, and I'm planning to merge ubuntu whenever possible [13:57] do you think we can arrange a transition for xenial? [13:58] flexiondotorg: shoot [13:58] Would it be possible to make another image for Ubuntu MATE that just use the ubuntu-mate-core meta-package? [13:59] I'd like to create an Ubuntu MATE Basic edition which is heavily stipped down. [14:03] cyphermox, ^ [14:32] cjwatson, initramfs-tools merge, ugg [14:33] * apw looks at usrmerge [14:34] cjwatson, yes so it does, fun, i've got that merge on my list as soon as i get the previous version uploaded === ginggs_ is now known as ginggs === maclin1 is now known as maclin === narindergupta is now known as narindergupta_aw [18:26] hi, is there a reason we don't have ceres-solver in ubuntu ? https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/ceres-solver I don't see it in the sync blacklist and it was uploaded to unstable at the end of november. [18:45] ginggs, no idea, just synced [18:46] doko, thanks [18:53] ginggs: The reason was that it was previously removed from Ubuntu as a consequence of a removal from Debian, and auto-sync defers all packages that have previously been removed for manual attention. [18:53] In this case I agree it was fine to reintroduce it. [18:54] thanks, cjwatson, is there a list of these packages somewhere? [18:55] http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/auto-sync/current.log [18:55] pretty raw form [18:55] doesn't divide down by reason, you need to read through it [21:27] cjwatson, please could you build gradle using the gradle binaries from unstable? validated that it builds [21:31] cyphermox, Yo [21:50] flexiondotorg: hey [21:50] Hi [21:50] Back home now. [21:51] I was enquiring about the notion of creating an Ubuntu MATE Basic image. [21:51] Is that something the build system can accommodate? [22:14] flexiondotorg: in theory yes [22:15] flexiondotorg: what comes to mind is what level of simplification are you looking at? because we already have ubuntu-core / ubuntu-server which can be pretty minimal [22:16] cyphermox, Basically an Ubuntu MATE that is "built" using just the ubuntu-mate-core meta package. [22:16] at the point where you're looking at a command-line setup, I start to have a hard time how you can both do a minimal setup and a branded one [22:16] So still Ubuntu MATE, with desktop. But with much of the bundled applications removed. [22:17] There is a demand for this for people to make bespoke setups for stuff like Steam or Kodi or whatever. [22:18] * xnox uploaded something into ubuntu, instead of ppa =( [22:18] yeah, I can picture the kiosk idea to some degree [22:18] nodejs - 4.2.6~dfsg-1ubuntu3 [22:20] i did block-proposed, which is good enough. [22:21] mdeslaur, ^^^ [22:21] block 1537922 [22:21] bug 1537922 [22:21] bug 1537922 in nodejs (Ubuntu) "nodejs 4.2.6~dfsg-1ubuntu3 was meant to go into ppa; remove from proposed" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1537922 [22:28] cyphermox, So how can I progress this? [22:29] flexiondotorg: To be fair, starting from a desktop/live installer ISO isn't how I'd build a bespoke kiosk image, I'm not sure many would. [22:29] cyphermox, fwiw, the xubuntu team has a similar effort underway. [22:29] flexiondotorg: Doing a d-i netboot and then adding the packages you want would be a more common approach. [22:30] infinity, I'm not planning to make a kiosk image. [22:30] infinity, since the "core" name seems to be the blocker for some people, would you think "base" would be more approachable for them? [22:30] What the UBuntu MATE community are asking for a minimal desktop. [22:30] flexiondotorg: Well, whatever "bespoke setups" people might have. [22:30] knome: flexiondotorg: I'm not sure how to deal with this. My understanding is that new flavours would have to go through TB approval, but I'm not sure if it qualifies as a new flavor or as a JFDI case. [22:31] People can then use it as a "base" to make their own thing. [22:31] cyphermox, Is this not is the same category as the alternate image for Lubuntu? [22:31] (I'm leaning towards jfdi but hey) [22:31] flexiondotorg, we can help with the technical side [22:32] or, the social request side, or whatever [22:32] knome, Thanks. [22:32] flexiondotorg: technically it's not much more than having a seed and making an image with that seed [22:32] infinity, what flexiondotorg is proposing is basically the same as the "xubuntu core" image [22:32] knome: I would certainly prefer to see people stop using "core" for this, but I'm more trying to understand the use-cases. [22:32] knome: And yes, I know what you're both been proposing. :P [22:32] for us, the usecase is that not all people want firefox, thunderbird and libreoffice [22:33] (and a lot more) [22:33] infinity, OK so if we go with -base (for example) are there any technical reasons blocking this? [22:33] so we want to offer a smaller image for them so they can save bandwidth and installation time [22:33] infinity, What knome said. Same from Ubuntu MATE. [22:33] the use cases are endless [22:33] Okay, but in both cases, this is targetted to end users? [22:33] There is a large user group who what to currate their own system. [22:33] for us, yes, totally [22:34] advanced end users [22:34] Sort of "make your own adventure". [22:34] we will make sure the "core" image is working though, eg. not just stripping packages like headless chicken [22:34] Again, what knome said. [22:34] Kay. I think I misread flexiondotorg originally, feeling like this was targettted at people doing custom images, and a live ISO is a horrible starting point for third parties to customize images. [22:34] Advanced/experienced users. [22:34] for us, there might be some replacements for some packages too [22:35] For Ubuntu MATE it is simply a build from ubuntu-mate-core. [22:35] i don't know if anybody in our team has thought about creating customized images from that image, but i guess it helps with that too [22:35] He says "simply" assuming this is indeed simple. [22:36] flexiondotorg, we have a xubuntu-core task set up already. [22:36] flexiondotorg, so even in that regard, the same as you [22:36] now we basically just want an image for that task. [22:36] It's relatively simple, other than exploding your QA matrix. [22:37] infinity: our 'core' lives on the tracker already in a basic state [22:37] all *I'm* waiting for now is it to be a daily build - so I can actually ask people to test it [22:37] I have a small team who have said they will test a "base" image. [22:38] http://iso.qa.ubuntu.com/qatracker/milestones/351/builds/105604/testcases [22:38] exactly what flocculant said. we want it to start running in the dailies "officially" [22:38] (everything else is prepared for us, except for the merge...) [22:38] So, before we have an explosion of things named core, could we maybe all agree on consistent branding for "a flavour without all the extra desktop applications"? :P [22:39] :) [22:39] infinity, i've got an "ack" for being okay with "base", if the "core" name REALLY is the blocker [22:39] infinity, I "think" Xubuntu and UBuntu MATE can agree on "base". I'm certainly OK with that. [22:39] (we want this to progress too, but we don't want desktop/dvd) [22:39] 2 of our release team would ack that - pretty sure the other one would too [22:39] knome: I've said before that I wouldn't block on "core" in your case, but I'm less thrilled about it, the more people follow in your footsteps. :P [22:39] (as was previously suggested by a few people) [22:39] infinity, i understand and remember you said that [22:40] infinity, So is "base" agreeable from your point of view? [22:40] core is our #1 bet, because we've already advertised it as that on our website and more, but if the cd image doesn't approve that, then we'll live with "base" [22:40] Something like "base" or "basic" would be fine. [22:40] *cd image team [22:40] And you could maybe rebrant the other ISO as "Full" or something, to be descriptive. [22:41] infinity, as you probably can imagine, we don't want to do another merge proposal with the new "base" name unless it's really ok with the cd image team [22:41] So people get an idea that ISO 1 has a basic setup, ISO 2 is what you want to download for gandpa so he doesn't have to hunt for a web browser or word processor after install. [22:41] yes, that's one option [22:41] infinity, Can do. [22:42] the downside of that is we need to rename our main ISO at that point [22:42] not completely sold on renaming what we currently have tbh [22:42] but i guess you don't mind if it's base/desktop? [22:42] Well, not in the machinery or anything, just in pretty charts on websites. [22:42] yeah, pretty charts are pretty charts [22:42] if the new one is -base then it stands to reason the bigger download isn't base imo [22:42] And already have the -desktop suffix. [22:43] infinity, so... how do we go from here? [22:43] I like "basic" over "base", if we're bikeshedding. We're describing a flavour of an OS, not a chunk of it. [22:43] So, an adjective is better. [22:43] But I'll be happy with either of those, if you two agree. [22:43] in my mind, basic refers to being "simple", or not the "premium" version, so i prefer "base" [22:44] (besides, i would still consider our desktop image the "basic" (or regular) image) [22:44] Yeah, fair enough on the basic != premium. I think that's why I suggested "light" or "minimal" last year. [22:44] infinity: in simple terms for me - our main image is stuff added to the base image iirc now [22:45] minimal has the potential to be messed up with the mini ISO again, so not that [22:45] I don't think so, TBH. [22:45] (and xubuntu core is not really "minimal") [22:45] We don't promote the mini ISO in any way, only advanced users even know they exist. [22:45] and for xubuntu, the word "light" is a red light, because we have been previously targeting low-end machines [22:46] (which need a "light" OS) [22:46] But yeah, I could live with base, if you two like that best out of the non-core options. [22:46] so i would say we want to avoid that too [22:46] flexiondotorg, please ack once more that you are fine with "base" [22:46] ^ we are [22:46] I am fine to "base". [22:46] great! [22:47] I would definitely recommend you both do some Microsoft-style charts on your websites to tell people the difference. [22:47] infinity, do you need to run this by other cd image members, or are you ready to merge? [22:47] infinity, i'll pass on that to our marketing team [22:47] "You get all this great stuff, plus a web browser, office suite, etc preinstalled". [22:47] wait, i'm on that team [22:47] Cause, yay confusing. [22:47] * knome facepalms [22:47] ;) [22:47] Hahaha. [22:47] infinity, Ubuntu MATE will do that. [22:47] * flocculant is off now - night all [22:47] infinity, we'll likely do it the other way, but yeah, marketing semantics [22:48] knome: Anyhow, yeah, if we s/core/base/ across the board, I think I'll be happy revisiting your MP. I haven't read it in a while to remember if it was otherwise okay, but I don't recall it being awful. [22:48] i don't think there is anything else [22:48] when can we expect to hear from you about the name? [22:48] You two agreed, I'm fine with the name now. [22:48] So, you've heard from me. [22:49] It's more about me finding a bit of time for a final review and merge. [22:49] ok, [22:49] so should i ask Unit193, who proposed the merge, to add you as another reviewer? [22:49] base has no conflicts with other products, and bonus points if we (in)formally decide that this is what we call flavours with fewer bits installed. [22:49] I'm a fan of consistency where we can get it. [22:49] i'll applaud for consistency too. [22:49] +1 [22:50] knome: I'm in the team that's proposed as a reviewer, I'm sure, but a fresh pointer to the MP itself wouldn't hurt. [22:50] infinity, slangasek claimed the review, so you aren't... but here it is: https://code.launchpad.net/~unit193/ubuntu-cdimage/xubuntu-core/+merge/268167 [22:52] knome: Right. This'll need some fixing up for name change proposals. [22:52] infinity, acknowledge, but we are not willing to do that unless we can be certain that the new name is okay. [22:52] infinity, as you can probably imagine... [22:52] knome: And I might still agree with slangasek that this shouldn't be whole new projects, but types (like desktop/dvd), which is a transparent thing to the end user, we can name the ISOs and label the webpages however we want. [22:53] tbh, i don't understand most of the technicalities here, i'm mediating between the two parties to get this done :) [22:53] Just from a POV of backend machinery and paperwork, it makes more sense for them to be subtypes of "xubuntu" rather than whole new projects. [22:53] Yeah, that's cool. [22:53] Yeah I'm pretty sure that's exactly how it is now, just not using the 'dvd' one. [22:54] I'm hip deep in other work right now, can you set yourself a reminder to yell at me about this near the end of the week? [22:54] Oh, indeed, it just created a new type. [22:54] infinity, ACK. [22:54] I didn't read the MP, just the comments. :P [22:54] thin the comment was about the earlier revision [22:54] So, we could just make a "base" type instead, doesn't really bug me. [22:54] then we updated the MP [22:55] now we want to make sure we don't do more work unless we know it will be the last time we change this [22:56] Ahh, no, it's still a different project in there. [22:56] So, it's a different project *and* a new type. [22:56] Which doesn't make much sense. [22:57] But yeah, poke me violently on Thurs/Fri, and we'll get this moving for realz this time. [22:57] infinity, i'll poke related people [22:57] thanks! [22:58] we'll try to help mate get their stuff in line before that too, so you can kill two birds with one stone [23:05] infinity, cyphermox Thanks for helping with this.