Colourisation of Radiant Buttons
I just copied the Radiant theme to RadiantColour and edited the index.theme I also made some very small changes to metacity-theme-1.xml so that the unmaximize, minimize and maximize buttons glow exactly like the close button. alpha .7 or .9 or preselect of pressed respectively. I then went in with gimp and colourised the buttons to be green and yellow as in Mac OSX. Just a thought, but the control symbol on the buttons is hard to see, whereas the colours are very distinct and clear. -- Regards, Vinnie Chapman -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
About man pages...
Hi. My name is Omar Roa, and I'm interested in translating a man page. I found this email in the info of the 'iptables' command. I've been using GNU/Linux for some time and I like everything about it. I've learned a lot with it and I want to help by translating some pages of the manuals but I don't know how it works. Do I translate the pages and send them to you? Is it neccessary to send them to someone else? Please let me know how it works and if I can contribute with this translations. Best regards. -- *Omar Roa* Programador Java/web 0412-3896716 -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: SRWare Iron: Chromium without the data-mining
Hi. AFAIK, even Chrome has disabled most tracking stuff per default (except those things which FF/etc. do too). With chromium, it was regarded to be a (reportable) bug if anything that is privacy sensitive could not be disabled, IIRC. And regarding Iron,... the following might be interesting: http://neugierig.org/software/chromium/notes/2009/12/iron.html Cheers, Chris. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: SRWare Iron: Chromium without the data-mining
Il 18/05/2010 19:12, Ryan Oram ha scritto: Chrome Incognito Tracks Visited Sites http://www.lewiz.org/2010/05/chrome-incognito-tracks-visited-sites.html I just backported upstream commit that fixes this huge privacy killer bug... This seems to be becoming a theme. As Chromium has much of the same privacy issues as Chrome (SRWare Iron is made from Chromium and the code is striped from Chromium), this feature is surely in Chromium as well. I find this completely unacceptable. Please report[1] these privacy issues more explicitly than referring to a related blog post. [1]http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting Cheers, Giuseppe signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Rethinking Ubuntu's Repositories
I like the repository system that Ubuntu uses, but I feel that there is a problem with it and I have a suggestion as to how to fix it. ~ The Problem ~ Ubuntu inherited the Debian system of updating software versions with OS upgrades. This makes the most sense when you have many many packages that are slow in updating (e.g. due to code maturity) and/or you are upgrading your OS relatively frequently. An example of where this is a bad idea is Firefox, especially on LTS releases; an excerpt from http://packages.ubuntu.com/search?keywords=firefox showing the releases still supported on the Desktop: Package firefox * hardy (web): meta package for the popular mozilla web browser 3.0.19+nobinonly-0ubuntu0.8.04.1 [security]: all * jaunty (web): meta package for the popular mozilla web browser 3.0.19+nobinonly-0ubuntu0.9.04.1 [security]: all * karmic (web): meta package for the popular mozilla web browser 3.5.9+nobinonly-0ubuntu0.9.10.1 [security]: all * lucid (web): safe and easy web browser from Mozilla 3.6.3+nobinonly-0ubuntu4: amd64 i386 Most Firefox users have already moved to version 3.6 (see the graph on http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser_version-ww-monthly-200904-201005) which is where Mozilla wants you to be also BTW. Getting a new version of Firefox on an old version of Ubuntu can be a pain. Supporting Firefox 3.0.x which is no longer supported by Mozilla (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Firefox_3) seems silly. PPAs are unofficial. Mozilla doesn't have a DEB repo and even if they do make one, they might not offer packages other than for x86-32. ~ A Solution ~ Now, assuming that there are no technical reasons why Firefox 3.6 can't be built for all the currently supported versions of Ubuntu, we can do the following for future releases; get rid of the main repo as it currently stands and replace it with two repositories: (1) a 'core' which will represent everything up to and including Gnome (for Ubuntu; KDE for Kubuntu, etc.), so to a working GUI including some basic apps (like Totem). This is stuff that most users assume will just work and don't want to fiddle with or upgrade for a while once they're working right. If Ubuntu is a 'software libre supermarket', these are the canned, dried and frozen goods that have a moderate to long shelf life. This repo should retain the 'main' designation. (2) the 'desktop' applications currently in main that people really would like to stay current. Especially Firefox, but also OpenOffice, GIMP, etc. (that is, the 'big' ones (usually recommended by the ubuntu-desktop metapackage, or otherwise in main) that aren't part of Gnome proper...). In the supermarket analogy, these are the big showy fresh fruit displayed at room temperature. Perhaps a line in the sources.list could look like this: deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu-desktop maverick main In 'main' cases like Firefox where you can have two versions that are officially supported for a time, have a metapackage (e.g. firefox) pointing at the newest release, but the actual versions in the names of packages that contain data (e.g. firefox-3.5 and firefox-3.6). This will allow users to pick if they would rather transition automatically to the latest version or maintain the old version *while it is still supported* (e.g. for businesses which tend to be slower in adopting new versions... also, for people like my wife who bitterly complain that new releases always break things... e.g. Firefox extensions) since desktop software seems to have unpredictable release cycles very much not in synch with Ubuntu's. In the case of Firefox (let's say starting in 2009 after Firefox 2 reached an end of life), my solution would work like this: - start 2009 firefox metapackage points to firefox-3.0 - June 30, 2009: Firefox 3.5 released firefox metapackage changed shortly to point to firefox-3.5 repository contains both firefox-3.0 and firefox-3.5 - January 21, 2010: Firefox 3.6 released firefox metapackage changed shortly to point to firefox-3.6 repository contains firefox-3.0, firefox-3.5 and firefox-3.6 - March 30, 2010: final version of 3.0 (3.0.19) released firefox-3.0 to be removed in a timely manner (a week or two?) - August 2010: final version of 3.5 to be released firefox-3.5 to be removed in a timely manner (a week or two?) - late 2010: Firefox 4.0 (hopefully ;) releases firefox metapackage changed shortly to point to firefox-4.0 repository contains firefox-3.6 and firefox-4.0 etc. ~ Misc. Thoughts ~ Splitting out the desktop apps would mean that old LTS releases (like Dapper, which is expired for the desktop but still supported for the server) would not need to keep ancient browser packages around (like Firefox 1.5)! There are some notable 'desktop' apps in Universe (e.g. VLC, Chromium (chromium-browser), Thunderbird and Wine spring to mind), which are under active development and could be treated similarly... Perhaps deb
Re: LiveCD optimisations
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 6:35 PM, Louis Simard louis.sim...@gmail.com wrote: Optimising the PNG images saves 5.5 MB on the filesystem.squashfs. Optimising the SVG files saves an additional 7 MB. This is a total of 12.5 MB which could be used to pack more software or another language pack or two onto the LiveCD. Speaking of saving space on the LiveCD, I note on http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/05/see-ya-f-spot-shotwell-comes-to-ubuntu.html that F-Spot is supposed to be bumped (in favor of Shotwell) for Maverick. Does this mean that we can finally remove Mono now too? (Tomboy can be replaced with Gnote; gBrainy can be replaced with some other game... it's not like there aren't lots to pick from :) Anyone have an estimate of how much space would be saved by doing that? CK -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: LiveCD optimisations
On 24 May 2010 10:33, Conrad Knauer ath...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 6:35 PM, Louis Simard louis.sim...@gmail.com wrote: Optimising the PNG images saves 5.5 MB on the filesystem.squashfs. Optimising the SVG files saves an additional 7 MB. This is a total of 12.5 MB which could be used to pack more software or another language pack or two onto the LiveCD. Speaking of saving space on the LiveCD, I note on http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/05/see-ya-f-spot-shotwell-comes-to-ubuntu.html that F-Spot is supposed to be bumped (in favor of Shotwell) for Maverick. Does this mean that we can finally remove Mono now too? No. (Tomboy can be replaced with Gnote; gBrainy can be replaced with some Gnote is abandoned by the author and has less functionality then Tomboy (less plugins, no ubuntuone integration etc.) gBrainy ROCKS =) other game... it's not like there aren't lots to pick from :) Anyone have an estimate of how much space would be saved by doing that? No clue =) and to late for Maverick this should have been proposed as a spec for UDS and discussed there. ps. I would really want for gnome-do to get into default install ;-) CK -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
RE: Rethinking Ubuntu's Repositories
I like your ideas Conrad and think that you've obviously put a lot of thought into it all. I'm very interested what others have to say about the concept. -- Chris Jones Photographic Imaging Professional and Graphic Designer ABN: 98 317 740 240 Photo Resolutions - Photo Printing, Editing and Restorations Web: http://photoresolutions.freehostia.com Email: chrisjo...@comcen.com.au -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Rethinking Ubuntu's Repositories
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 9:44 PM, Chris Jones chrisjo...@comcen.com.auwrote: I like your ideas Conrad and think that you've obviously put a lot of thought into it all. I'm very interested what others have to say about the concept. I like this idea too. There were a lot of users asking how to upgrade to Firefox 3.6 in Launchpad Answers and the Ubuntu Forums when it was released. Not being able to easily install the latest software is quite a setback. -- Chris Jones Photographic Imaging Professional and Graphic Designer ABN: 98 317 740 240 Photo Resolutions - Photo Printing, Editing and Restorations Web: http://photoresolutions.freehostia.com Email: chrisjo...@comcen.com.au -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
glibc version in Ubuntu 10.04!
Hi All, I am trying to compile Ofono in Ubuntu 10.04. I have a problem with the glibc version number. Ofono needs a version 2.16 whereas 10.04 gives 2.10. Upstream of glibc is at 2.9. Why is ubuntu 10.04 stuck at 2.10? Is there a reason for that and/or are there any plans to upgrade the library later on? Previous versions of Ubuntu had glibc package available which is not available with 10.04. It would be great if somebody can throw some light here. Please do guide me to the appropriate mailing list if this is not the intended one. BR; Naresh visit me at: http://www.naresh.se/ -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: About man pages...
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Omar Roa omaro...@gmail.com wrote: Hi. My name is Omar Roa, and I'm interested in translating a man page. I found this email in the info of the 'iptables' command. I've been using GNU/Linux for some time and I like everything about it. I've learned a lot with it and I want to help by translating some pages of the manuals but I don't know how it works. Do I translate the pages and send them to you? Is it neccessary to send them to someone else? Please let me know how it works and if I can contribute with this translations. Best regards. -- Omar Roa Programador Java/web 0412-3896716 -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss iptables is part of the netfilter project: http://www.netfilter.org/ Their mailing list would be a better place to go, unless you want your translation to be Ubuntu-specific. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: glibc version in Ubuntu 10.04!
On 24 May 2010 13:41, Naresh Mehta nareshte...@gmail.com wrote: Hi All, I am trying to compile Ofono in Ubuntu 10.04. I have a problem with the glibc version number. Ofono needs a version 2.16 whereas 10.04 gives 2.10. Upstream of glibc is at 2.9. Why is ubuntu 10.04 stuck at 2.10? Is there a reason for that and/or are there any plans to upgrade the library later on? How about testing for API/ABI and functions instead of version numbers? Previous versions of Ubuntu had glibc package available which is not available with 10.04. It would be great if somebody can throw some light here. Maybe because Debian Ubuntu stopped using glibc? =) we use eglibc and it is at latest stable version www.eglibc.org Please do guide me to the appropriate mailing list if this is not the intended one. This is not the correct mailing list. ubuntu-users or ubuntu-app-devel channel on freenode. There is also a developing subforum on ubuntuforums. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Rethinking Ubuntu's Repositories
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 5:08 AM, Conrad Knauer ath...@gmail.com wrote: I like the repository system that Ubuntu uses, but I feel that there is a problem with it and I have a suggestion as to how to fix it. ~ The Problem ~ Ubuntu inherited the Debian system of updating software versions with OS upgrades. This makes the most sense when you have many many packages that are slow in updating (e.g. due to code maturity) and/or you are upgrading your OS relatively frequently. An example of where this is a bad idea is Firefox, especially on LTS releases; an excerpt from http://packages.ubuntu.com/search?keywords=firefox showing the releases still supported on the Desktop: Package firefox * hardy (web): meta package for the popular mozilla web browser 3.0.19+nobinonly-0ubuntu0.8.04.1 [security]: all * jaunty (web): meta package for the popular mozilla web browser 3.0.19+nobinonly-0ubuntu0.9.04.1 [security]: all * karmic (web): meta package for the popular mozilla web browser 3.5.9+nobinonly-0ubuntu0.9.10.1 [security]: all * lucid (web): safe and easy web browser from Mozilla 3.6.3+nobinonly-0ubuntu4: amd64 i386 Most Firefox users have already moved to version 3.6 (see the graph on http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser_version-ww-monthly-200904-201005) which is where Mozilla wants you to be also BTW. Getting a new version of Firefox on an old version of Ubuntu can be a pain. Supporting Firefox 3.0.x which is no longer supported by Mozilla (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Firefox_3) seems silly. PPAs are unofficial. Mozilla doesn't have a DEB repo and even if they do make one, they might not offer packages other than for x86-32. ~ A Solution ~ Now, assuming that there are no technical reasons why Firefox 3.6 can't be built for all the currently supported versions of Ubuntu, we can do the following for future releases; get rid of the main repo as it currently stands and replace it with two repositories: (1) a 'core' which will represent everything up to and including Gnome (for Ubuntu; KDE for Kubuntu, etc.), so to a working GUI including some basic apps (like Totem). This is stuff that most users assume will just work and don't want to fiddle with or upgrade for a while once they're working right. If Ubuntu is a 'software libre supermarket', these are the canned, dried and frozen goods that have a moderate to long shelf life. This repo should retain the 'main' designation. (2) the 'desktop' applications currently in main that people really would like to stay current. Especially Firefox, but also OpenOffice, GIMP, etc. (that is, the 'big' ones (usually recommended by the ubuntu-desktop metapackage, or otherwise in main) that aren't part of Gnome proper...). In the supermarket analogy, these are the big showy fresh fruit displayed at room temperature. Perhaps a line in the sources.list could look like this: deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu-desktop maverick main In 'main' cases like Firefox where you can have two versions that are officially supported for a time, have a metapackage (e.g. firefox) pointing at the newest release, but the actual versions in the names of packages that contain data (e.g. firefox-3.5 and firefox-3.6). This will allow users to pick if they would rather transition automatically to the latest version or maintain the old version *while it is still supported* (e.g. for businesses which tend to be slower in adopting new versions... also, for people like my wife who bitterly complain that new releases always break things... e.g. Firefox extensions) since desktop software seems to have unpredictable release cycles very much not in synch with Ubuntu's. In the case of Firefox (let's say starting in 2009 after Firefox 2 reached an end of life), my solution would work like this: - start 2009 firefox metapackage points to firefox-3.0 - June 30, 2009: Firefox 3.5 released firefox metapackage changed shortly to point to firefox-3.5 repository contains both firefox-3.0 and firefox-3.5 - January 21, 2010: Firefox 3.6 released firefox metapackage changed shortly to point to firefox-3.6 repository contains firefox-3.0, firefox-3.5 and firefox-3.6 - March 30, 2010: final version of 3.0 (3.0.19) released firefox-3.0 to be removed in a timely manner (a week or two?) - August 2010: final version of 3.5 to be released firefox-3.5 to be removed in a timely manner (a week or two?) - late 2010: Firefox 4.0 (hopefully ;) releases firefox metapackage changed shortly to point to firefox-4.0 repository contains firefox-3.6 and firefox-4.0 etc. ~ Misc. Thoughts ~ Splitting out the desktop apps would mean that old LTS releases (like Dapper, which is expired for the desktop but still supported for the server) would not need to keep ancient browser packages around (like Firefox 1.5)! There are some notable 'desktop' apps in Universe (e.g. VLC, Chromium
Re: glibc version in Ubuntu 10.04!
Hi, On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 02:41:27PM +0200, Naresh Mehta wrote: Hi All, I am trying to compile Ofono in Ubuntu 10.04. I have a problem with the glibc version number. Ofono needs a version 2.16 whereas 10.04 gives 2.10. Upstream of glibc is at 2.9. Why is ubuntu 10.04 stuck at 2.10? Is there a reason for that and/or are there any plans to upgrade the library later on? It requires glib = 2.16, not glibc. Cheers, -- Lionel Le Folgoc - https://launchpad.net/~mrpouit E61E 116D 4BA1 3936 0A33 F61D 65D9 A66E 10E2 969A signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: glibc version in Ubuntu 10.04!
Am Montag, den 24.05.2010, 15:02 +0200 schrieb Lionel Le Folgoc: Hi, On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 02:41:27PM +0200, Naresh Mehta wrote: Hi All, I am trying to compile Ofono in Ubuntu 10.04. I have a problem with the glibc version number. Ofono needs a version 2.16 whereas 10.04 gives 2.10. Upstream of glibc is at 2.9. Why is ubuntu 10.04 stuck at 2.10? Is there a reason for that and/or are there any plans to upgrade the library later on? It requires glib = 2.16, not glibc. Install libglib2.0-dev. Lucid has version 2.24.1-0ubuntu1 of it. As mentioned before, this mailing list is not the right place to discuss it. -- Benjamin Drung Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Maintainer (www.debian.org) signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Rethinking Ubuntu's Repositories
On Mon, 2010-05-24 at 09:01 -0400, Evan wrote: On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 5:08 AM, Conrad Knauer ath...@gmail.com wrote: I like the repository system that Ubuntu uses, but I feel that there is a problem with it and I have a suggestion as to how to fix it. ~ The Problem ~ Ubuntu inherited the Debian system of updating software versions with OS upgrades. This makes the most sense when you have many many packages that are slow in updating (e.g. due to code maturity) and/or you are upgrading your OS relatively frequently. An example of where this is a bad idea is Firefox, especially on LTS releases; an excerpt from http://packages.ubuntu.com/search?keywords=firefox showing the releases still supported on the Desktop: Package firefox * hardy (web): meta package for the popular mozilla web browser 3.0.19+nobinonly-0ubuntu0.8.04.1 [security]: all * jaunty (web): meta package for the popular mozilla web browser 3.0.19+nobinonly-0ubuntu0.9.04.1 [security]: all * karmic (web): meta package for the popular mozilla web browser 3.5.9+nobinonly-0ubuntu0.9.10.1 [security]: all * lucid (web): safe and easy web browser from Mozilla 3.6.3+nobinonly-0ubuntu4: amd64 i386 Most Firefox users have already moved to version 3.6 (see the graph on http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser_version-ww-monthly-200904-201005) which is where Mozilla wants you to be also BTW. Getting a new version of Firefox on an old version of Ubuntu can be a pain. Supporting Firefox 3.0.x which is no longer supported by Mozilla (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Firefox_3) seems silly. PPAs are unofficial. Mozilla doesn't have a DEB repo and even if they do make one, they might not offer packages other than for x86-32. ~ A Solution ~ Now, assuming that there are no technical reasons why Firefox 3.6 can't be built for all the currently supported versions of Ubuntu, we can do the following for future releases; get rid of the main repo as it currently stands and replace it with two repositories: (1) a 'core' which will represent everything up to and including Gnome (for Ubuntu; KDE for Kubuntu, etc.), so to a working GUI including some basic apps (like Totem). This is stuff that most users assume will just work and don't want to fiddle with or upgrade for a while once they're working right. If Ubuntu is a 'software libre supermarket', these are the canned, dried and frozen goods that have a moderate to long shelf life. This repo should retain the 'main' designation. (2) the 'desktop' applications currently in main that people really would like to stay current. Especially Firefox, but also OpenOffice, GIMP, etc. (that is, the 'big' ones (usually recommended by the ubuntu-desktop metapackage, or otherwise in main) that aren't part of Gnome proper...). In the supermarket analogy, these are the big showy fresh fruit displayed at room temperature. Perhaps a line in the sources.list could look like this: deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu-desktop maverick main In 'main' cases like Firefox where you can have two versions that are officially supported for a time, have a metapackage (e.g. firefox) pointing at the newest release, but the actual versions in the names of packages that contain data (e.g. firefox-3.5 and firefox-3.6). This will allow users to pick if they would rather transition automatically to the latest version or maintain the old version *while it is still supported* (e.g. for businesses which tend to be slower in adopting new versions... also, for people like my wife who bitterly complain that new releases always break things... e.g. Firefox extensions) since desktop software seems to have unpredictable release cycles very much not in synch with Ubuntu's. In the case of Firefox (let's say starting in 2009 after Firefox 2 reached an end of life), my solution would work like this: - start 2009 firefox metapackage points to firefox-3.0 - June 30, 2009: Firefox 3.5 released firefox metapackage changed shortly to point to firefox-3.5 repository contains both firefox-3.0 and firefox-3.5 - January 21, 2010: Firefox 3.6 released firefox metapackage changed shortly to point to firefox-3.6 repository contains firefox-3.0, firefox-3.5 and firefox-3.6 - March 30, 2010: final version of 3.0 (3.0.19) released firefox-3.0 to be removed in a timely manner (a week or two?) - August 2010: final version of 3.5 to be released firefox-3.5 to be removed in a timely manner (a week or two?) - late 2010: Firefox 4.0 (hopefully ;) releases firefox metapackage changed shortly to point to firefox-4.0 repository contains firefox-3.6 and firefox-4.0 etc. ~ Misc. Thoughts ~ Splitting out the desktop apps would mean that old LTS releases (like Dapper, which is expired for the desktop but still supported for the server)
RE: Rethinking Ubuntu's Repositories
Chris Jones chrisjo...@comcen.com.au wrote: I like your ideas Conrad and think that you've obviously put a lot of thought into it all. I'm very interested what others have to say about the concept. This doesn't need a new pocket, just a policy decision. As an example, clamav has approval from the tech board for post-release updates. Scott K -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: LiveCD optimisations
On 21 May 2010 15:48, Phillip Susi ps...@cfl.rr.com wrote: snip Also could you explain a bit what you mean by optimizations? You can of course, use a higher lossy compression on the png images, but that lowers their quality, which I think is not a desirable tradeoff. png does not do lossy compression -- Matt Wheeler m...@funkyhat.org -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: LiveCD optimisations
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 4:33 AM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs dmitrij.led...@ubuntu.com wrote: Tomboy can be replaced with Gnote Gnote is abandoned by the author On what basis do you claim this? Lucid uses 0.6.2 according to http://packages.ubuntu.com/search?keywords=gnote I note the following release dates according to the files in http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/sources/gnote/ gnote-0.6.3 28-Nov-2009 gnote-0.6.4 22-Mar-2010 gnote-0.7.0 31-Dec-2009 gnote-0.7.1 04-Jan-2010 gnote-0.7.2 12-Mar-2010 Debian is up to 0.7.1 as per http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=gnote and has less functionality then Tomboy (less plugins, no ubuntuone integration etc.) Please see http://www.stefanoforenza.com/getting-gnote-facts-straight/ CK -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: LiveCD optimisations
On 24 May 2010 17:57, Conrad Knauer ath...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 4:33 AM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs dmitrij.led...@ubuntu.com wrote: Tomboy can be replaced with Gnote Gnote is abandoned by the author On what basis do you claim this? Last time I cared about Tomboy vs Gnote arguments it was this: http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnote-list/2009-October/msg1.html Lucid uses 0.6.2 according to http://packages.ubuntu.com/search?keywords=gnote I note the following release dates according to the files in http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/sources/gnote/ gnote-0.6.3 28-Nov-2009 gnote-0.6.4 22-Mar-2010 gnote-0.7.0 31-Dec-2009 gnote-0.7.1 04-Jan-2010 gnote-0.7.2 12-Mar-2010 Debian is up to 0.7.1 as per http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=gnote Fair enough so taking ~6 months as cutoff date which puts at gnote 0.6.2 tomboy 1.1.0 Comparing: http://git.gnome.org/browse/gnote/tree/NEWS http://git.gnome.org/browse/tomboy/tree/NEWS and has less functionality then Tomboy (less plugins, no ubuntuone integration etc.) Please see http://www.stefanoforenza.com/getting-gnote-facts-straight/ So has the syncing been implemented yet? IMHO it's the killer feature to sync tomboy with linux, mac, win cloud. Also note that gnote vs tomboy in terms of disk space savings is really about gtkmm vs mono. As far as I remember (again could be out-of-date and less relevant with GObject-Interspcection) that gtkmm is big and currently not-included by default on Ubuntu CD's. ps. I use emacs-org mode and I don't have tomboy/gnote installed =) -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Rethinking Ubuntu's Repositories
On Mon May 24 at 10:08:49 BST 2010, Conrad Knauer atheoi at gmail.com wrote: I like the repository system that Ubuntu uses, but I feel that there is a problem with it and I have a suggestion as to how to fix it. Splitting out the desktop apps would mean that old LTS releases (like Dapper, which is expired for the desktop but still supported for the server) would not need to keep ancient browser packages around (like Firefox 1.5)! There are some notable 'desktop' apps in Universe (e.g. VLC, Chromium (chromium-browser), Thunderbird and Wine spring to mind), which are under active development and could be treated similarly... Perhaps deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu-desktop maverick universe ? Sincerely, Conrad Knauer I have implemented a very similar system to the one you're proposing in my distribution infinityOS. Applications will be updated freely while the core libraries will remain frozen for a year after each release. Each Core OS release will serve as specification for building packages. I'd be more than happy to expand it into a general pilot project for Ubuntu. From https://launchpad.net/~infinityos-core : Notify the core team via the mailing list about your package update, and a member of the core team will push it to either the testing or unstable repository, depending on the libraries it depends on and the stability of the code reflected in our testing. If it is pushed to testing and no major problems appear after at least a week, it will be pushed by Ryan to stable and all infinityOS users will be notified of the update. All packages must be uploaded to a Launchpad PPA before they will be considered to be included in the infinityOS repositories. Note: Keep in mind, this applies to applications like Firefox, Deluge and MPlayer, *not* the kernel, core libraries and the desktop environment. The core OS will be frozen each year, as there will be an annual core OS release. Thanks, Ryan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
