Re: Firefox Extensions still needed?

[Chris Coulson]

On 10/08/15 22:21, Xavier Guillot wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I can't answer to this specific question, but as an user with Firefox
> as default browser on Ubuntu 15.04 Desktop, if those addons are kept,
> perhaps they need to be signed.
>
> Today when I updated to the latest FF Nightly 42.0a1 on the daily ppa,
> Mozilla activated the obligation to use only officially signed extensions:
> https://support.mozilla.org/fr/kb/add-on-signing-in-firefox
>
> All 3 Ubuntu addons were automatically desactivated.
>
> On the nightly version, there is an option in About:config to restore
> the old behavior (xpinstall.signatures.required set to false), but on
> future normal and beta versions of Firefox, it will not be possible
> anymore normally.
>
> Even if the addons are provided directly in the packages and not on
> Mozilla site, it is still also possible to validate them.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Xavier
>

Ubufox was signed a few weeks ago and will be shipped with the Firefox
40 update tomorrow. However, it's only been through preliminary review,
and future Firefox versions disable side-loaded addons that haven't had
a full review.

I'm not sure about the status of the other addons (cc'ing dbarth).

Regards
- Chris
-- 
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop

Re: Firefox Extensions still needed?

[David Barth]

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Chris Coulson 
wrote:

> On 10/08/15 22:21, Xavier Guillot wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I can't answer to this specific question, but as an user with Firefox as
> default browser on Ubuntu 15.04 Desktop, if those addons are kept, perhaps
> they need to be signed.
>
> Today when I updated to the latest FF Nightly 42.0a1 on the daily ppa,
> Mozilla activated the obligation to use only officially signed extensions:
> https://support.mozilla.org/fr/kb/add-on-signing-in-firefox
>
> All 3 Ubuntu addons were automatically desactivated.
>
> On the nightly version, there is an option in About:config to restore the
> old behavior (xpinstall.signatures.required set to false), but on future
> normal and beta versions of Firefox, it will not be possible anymore
> normally.
>
> Even if the addons are provided directly in the packages and not on
> Mozilla site, it is still also possible to validate them.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Xavier
>
>
> Ubufox was signed a few weeks ago and will be shipped with the Firefox 40
> update tomorrow. However, it's only been through preliminary review, and
> future Firefox versions disable side-loaded addons that haven't had a full
> review.
>
> I'm not sure about the status of the other addons (cc'ing dbarth).
>

Yup, we've started submitting webapps extensions as well, starting with the
main xul-ext-websites-integration.

David
-- 
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop

Re: Coordinating work around newer upstream Nvidia drivers for users

[Jorge O. Castro]

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 7:05 PM, Jorge O. Castro  wrote:
> After some googling I found two people who are doing amazing work:

Bah, as pointed out in IRC I totally missed Rico and Robert:

https://launchpad.net/~xorg-edgers/+archive/ubuntu/ppa

Sorry guys, it wasn't my intent to leave people out!

-- 
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop

Re: Coordinating work around newer upstream Nvidia drivers for users

[Rico Tzschichholz]

Having a disjunct set of packages for every nvidia driver series has
served us well in my opinion. So this should be continued.
A slight change I would prefer is a det of common metapackages. Those
would control which driver gets chosen for install. Basically this could
match the linux-kernel package scheme. So there could be a metapackage
for old-legacy, legacy, longterm, stable and beta. (supporting drivers
which don't work with the system's xorg-server isn't possible)
There should be no need for transitional packages in the driver package
itself. This would preserve all available driver series to roll back to
if needed.

I am in favor of introducing a commonly trusted (non-virtualized) PPA
which is able to build for all architectures like it is done by the
linux-kernel or mozilla-security team.

This PPA could be promoted by some mentioned technical websites to
encourage users to test the provided driver versions.

Regards,
Rico

https://launchpad.net/~ricotz
https://launchpad.net/~xorg-edgers/+archive/ubuntu/ppa/+packages?field.name_filter=nvidia




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- 
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop

Re: Firefox Extensions still needed?

[David Barth]

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:41 PM, David Barth 
wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Chris Coulson 
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/08/15 22:21, Xavier Guillot wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I can't answer to this specific question, but as an user with Firefox as
>> default browser on Ubuntu 15.04 Desktop, if those addons are kept, perhaps
>> they need to be signed.
>>
>> Today when I updated to the latest FF Nightly 42.0a1 on the daily ppa,
>> Mozilla activated the obligation to use only officially signed extensions:
>> https://support.mozilla.org/fr/kb/add-on-signing-in-firefox
>>
>> All 3 Ubuntu addons were automatically desactivated.
>>
>> On the nightly version, there is an option in About:config to restore
>> the old behavior (xpinstall.signatures.required set to false), but on
>> future normal and beta versions of Firefox, it will not be possible anymore
>> normally.
>>
>> Even if the addons are provided directly in the packages and not on
>> Mozilla site, it is still also possible to validate them.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Xavier
>>
>>
>> Ubufox was signed a few weeks ago and will be shipped with the Firefox 40
>> update tomorrow. However, it's only been through preliminary review, and
>> future Firefox versions disable side-loaded addons that haven't had a full
>> review.
>>
>> I'm not sure about the status of the other addons (cc'ing dbarth).
>>
>
> Yup, we've started submitting webapps extensions as well, starting with
> the main xul-ext-websites-integration.
>

Hmm, actually there is a problem, but thanks for the reminder.

David
-- 
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop

Re: Firefox Extensions still needed?

[Bryan Quigley]

Hi David,

Are those extensions still needed for our Unity vision or does the new
Ubuntu browser make them obsolete?  Already the Chromium part of those
extensions no longer works, could the Firefox part be dropped too?

What specifically is each one supposed to do?

Kind regards,
Bryan

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 8:48 AM, David Barth  wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:41 PM, David Barth 
> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Chris Coulson 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/08/15 22:21, Xavier Guillot wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I can't answer to this specific question, but as an user with Firefox as
>>> default browser on Ubuntu 15.04 Desktop, if those addons are kept, perhaps
>>> they need to be signed.
>>>
>>> Today when I updated to the latest FF Nightly 42.0a1 on the daily ppa,
>>> Mozilla activated the obligation to use only officially signed extensions:
>>> https://support.mozilla.org/fr/kb/add-on-signing-in-firefox
>>>
>>> All 3 Ubuntu addons were automatically desactivated.
>>>
>>> On the nightly version, there is an option in About:config to restore the
>>> old behavior (xpinstall.signatures.required set to false), but on future
>>> normal and beta versions of Firefox, it will not be possible anymore
>>> normally.
>>>
>>> Even if the addons are provided directly in the packages and not on
>>> Mozilla site, it is still also possible to validate them.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Xavier
>>>
>>>
>>> Ubufox was signed a few weeks ago and will be shipped with the Firefox 40
>>> update tomorrow. However, it's only been through preliminary review, and
>>> future Firefox versions disable side-loaded addons that haven't had a full
>>> review.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure about the status of the other addons (cc'ing dbarth).
>>
>>
>> Yup, we've started submitting webapps extensions as well, starting with
>> the main xul-ext-websites-integration.
>
>
> Hmm, actually there is a problem, but thanks for the reminder.
>
> David
>
> --
> ubuntu-desktop mailing list
> ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
>

-- 
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop

Re: Firefox Extensions still needed?

[Sebastien Bacher]

Le 11/08/2015 14:48, David Barth a écrit :
> Hmm, actually there is a problem, but thanks for the reminder.

Hey David,

Thanks for the reply, can you give some detail on that? Do we have
registered bugs for the issues?

Cheers,
Sebastien Bacher

-- 
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop

Re: Coordinating work around newer upstream Nvidia drivers for users

[Sebastien Bacher]

Le 11/08/2015 01:05, Jorge O. Castro a écrit :
> because our Nvidia driver story in Trusty isn't ideal

Hey Jorge,

Thanks for the email. I read what you wrote but failed to understand the
details of issue, could you give some details on what sort of issues you
saw? Did we ship drivers buggy enough that you couldn't play with them?
Was that fixes with the version you found in ppas?

Having uptodate drivers in a documented location seems like a good idea,
I would still like to understand how "unusable" our archive versions
are, because if users can't use those to start games then I think that
having an "out of the archive" solution isn't good enough. We shouldn't
keep shipping drivers in the archive if those aren't usable...

Cheers,
Sebastien Bacher

-- 
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop

Re: Drop Ubuntu Software Centre and Adopt GNOME Software

[Sebastien Bacher]

Le 30/07/2015 19:13, Amr Ibrahim a écrit :
> I suggest putting a roadmap for this to see if it's possible or not.

Hey Amr,

Having a roadmap and people interested in working on the transition
seems like a good first step!

Before suggesting a replacement the alternative should be proved to be
good enough, which means identifying the gaps and working on resolving
those.

If you/others start working on that please share the wiki document on
the list so others can look at it and maybe help/contribute

Cheers,
Sebastien Bacher

-- 
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop

Re: Coordinating work around newer upstream Nvidia drivers for users

[Jorge O. Castro]

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:36 AM, Sebastien Bacher  wrote:
> Thanks for the email. I read what you wrote but failed to understand the
> details of issue, could you give some details on what sort of issues you
> saw? Did we ship drivers buggy enough that you couldn't play with them?
> Was that fixes with the version you found in ppas?

>From a "Just Works for the Desktop", the drivers we ship in the
archive work just fine. However, with all that's going in upstream
OpenGL and (soon) Vulkan; coupled with AAA game releases; users are
wanting to get the absolute latest drivers.

For example, a new game comes out, and Liam runs some benchmarks:
https://www.gamingonlinux.com/articles/shadow-of-mordor-nvidia-benchmarks-on-linux.5769

If you check out the comments there are some times when a game
requires a new version for the best performance. This is just an
example, but it's usually a similar discussion any time a large
release is made.

> Having uptodate drivers in a documented location seems like a good idea,
> I would still like to understand how "unusable" our archive versions
> are, because if users can't use those to start games then I think that
> having an "out of the archive" solution isn't good enough.

I don't consider the drivers in the archive broken, I think for
desktop users they generally work fine. I don't think aggressively
updating those will be useful, since Nvidia has dropped support for
older hardware in the past, and I am wary of us sending out an SRU
with a new driver update and old hardware breaks. (This happened to
SteamOS in May).

It appears as though more and more games are requiring newer drivers
though. I was thinking of maybe pinging the guys over at Feral or
Aspyr (who port games to Linux) to see what they think.

-- 
Jorge Castro
Canonical Ltd.
http://juju.ubuntu.com/ - Automate your Cloud Infrastructure

-- 
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop

Re: Coordinating work around newer upstream Nvidia drivers for users

[Bryan Quigley]

> Thanks for the email. I read what you wrote but failed to understand the
> details of issue, could you give some details on what sort of issues you
> saw? Did we ship drivers buggy enough that you couldn't play with them?
> Was that fixes with the version you found in ppas?

For my use case, the latest NVidia hardware isn't supported on 14.04
(I'm on 15.04 now, but it definitely wasn't supported previously).  I
believe I need 340.xx or higher for Geforce 750 (Maxwell+) or above.

For gamers especially, it's recommended to always use the latest
stable driver because it will have the latest fixes, performance
improvements, and possibly features that your new game requires.  Some
drivers will also include game specific profiles to optimize the
driver for that specific game.  Steam actually included a Video Driver
Update checker and will warn if you drivers are to out-of-date (this
doesn't work on Linux).

We've had the most games released for Linux in the last year (or so),
then any year (or decade?) previously.  That's why this hasn't really
been an issue before.

Kind regards,
Bryan

-- 
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop

Re: Firefox Extensions still needed?

[David Barth]

You're right: not all of them actually make sense in the new world order,
as we have a better solution on touch devices in particular. That's why we
started with just the one that signals the existence of webapps. The better
integration points and OA links are now directly with webapp-container.

Still the main one makes sense to keep around.


On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Bryan Quigley  wrote:

> Hi David,
>
> Are those extensions still needed for our Unity vision or does the new
> Ubuntu browser make them obsolete?  Already the Chromium part of those
> extensions no longer works, could the Firefox part be dropped too?
>
> What specifically is each one supposed to do?
>
> Kind regards,
> Bryan
>
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 8:48 AM, David Barth 
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:41 PM, David Barth  >
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Chris Coulson <
> chrisccoul...@ubuntu.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 10/08/15 22:21, Xavier Guillot wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I can't answer to this specific question, but as an user with Firefox
> as
> >>> default browser on Ubuntu 15.04 Desktop, if those addons are kept,
> perhaps
> >>> they need to be signed.
> >>>
> >>> Today when I updated to the latest FF Nightly 42.0a1 on the daily ppa,
> >>> Mozilla activated the obligation to use only officially signed
> extensions:
> >>> https://support.mozilla.org/fr/kb/add-on-signing-in-firefox
> >>>
> >>> All 3 Ubuntu addons were automatically desactivated.
> >>>
> >>> On the nightly version, there is an option in About:config to restore
> the
> >>> old behavior (xpinstall.signatures.required set to false), but on
> future
> >>> normal and beta versions of Firefox, it will not be possible anymore
> >>> normally.
> >>>
> >>> Even if the addons are provided directly in the packages and not on
> >>> Mozilla site, it is still also possible to validate them.
> >>>
> >>> Best regards,
> >>>
> >>> Xavier
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Ubufox was signed a few weeks ago and will be shipped with the Firefox
> 40
> >>> update tomorrow. However, it's only been through preliminary review,
> and
> >>> future Firefox versions disable side-loaded addons that haven't had a
> full
> >>> review.
> >>>
> >>> I'm not sure about the status of the other addons (cc'ing dbarth).
> >>
> >>
> >> Yup, we've started submitting webapps extensions as well, starting with
> >> the main xul-ext-websites-integration.
> >
> >
> > Hmm, actually there is a problem, but thanks for the reminder.
> >
> > David
> >
> > --
> > ubuntu-desktop mailing list
> > ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
> > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
> >
>
-- 
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop

Re: Coordinating work around newer upstream Nvidia drivers for users

[Sebastien Bacher]

Le 11/08/2015 16:13, Jorge O. Castro a écrit :
> From a "Just Works for the Desktop", the drivers we ship in the
> archive work just fine. However, with all that's going in upstream
> OpenGL and (soon) Vulkan; coupled with AAA game releases; users are
> wanting to get the absolute latest drivers.

Thanks Jorge, it's reassuring to know that our archive drivers situation
is not totally bogus ;-)

And yeah, I agree that having a way for users to get the most recent
upstream stuff would be nice!

Cheers,
Sebastien Bacher

-- 
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop

Re: Drop Ubuntu Software Centre and Adopt GNOME Software

[Robert Ancell]

For us to use GNOME Software we probably want to update to the latest
version [1]. That's currently blocked because it needs PackageKit 1.0 [2].
And that's blocked until we get a Click update. If anyone knows more
migration issues please add information to those bugs. I suspect we might
also need some work in aptdaemon - please comment if you know.

--Robert

[1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1470656
[2] https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1470655

On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:40 AM Sebastien Bacher  wrote:

> Le 30/07/2015 19:13, Amr Ibrahim a écrit :
> > I suggest putting a roadmap for this to see if it's possible or not.
>
> Hey Amr,
>
> Having a roadmap and people interested in working on the transition
> seems like a good first step!
>
> Before suggesting a replacement the alternative should be proved to be
> good enough, which means identifying the gaps and working on resolving
> those.
>
> If you/others start working on that please share the wiki document on
> the list so others can look at it and maybe help/contribute
>
> Cheers,
> Sebastien Bacher
>
> --
> ubuntu-desktop mailing list
> ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
>
-- 
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop

Re: Drop Ubuntu Software Centre and Adopt GNOME Software

[Tim]

On 12/08/15 07:56, Robert Ancell wrote:
> For us to use GNOME Software we probably want to update to the latest version 
> [1]. That's currently blocked because it needs PackageKit 1.0
> [2]. And that's blocked until we get a Click update. If anyone knows more 
> migration issues please add information to those bugs. I suspect we
> might also need some work in aptdaemon - please comment if you know.
gnome-software only works with packagekit aptcc backend and not aptdaemon, 
which are obviously not co-installable. All of the upstream/debian
work on appstream metadata has been focused on aptcc. Not sure what would be 
involved in teaching aptdaemon about appstream metadata, but maybe
at some point it would be better looking into switching over to aptcc which I 
believe is used by default in debian these days, and certainly
packagekit seems to be the standard for transactional package systems across 
all distro's except ubuntu these days.
>
> --Robert
>
> [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1470656
> [2] https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1470655
>
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:40 AM Sebastien Bacher  > wrote:
>
> Le 30/07/2015 19:13, Amr Ibrahim a écrit :
> > I suggest putting a roadmap for this to see if it's possible or not.
>
> Hey Amr,
>
> Having a roadmap and people interested in working on the transition
> seems like a good first step!
>
> Before suggesting a replacement the alternative should be proved to be
> good enough, which means identifying the gaps and working on resolving
> those.
>
> If you/others start working on that please share the wiki document on
> the list so others can look at it and maybe help/contribute
>
> Cheers,
> Sebastien Bacher
>
> --
> ubuntu-desktop mailing list
> ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com 
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
>
>
>


-- 
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop