I can't use a debdiff here anymore because the new key is a binary file.
I created a git branch here:
https://code.launchpad.net/~ahasenack/ubuntu/+source/base-files/+git
/base-files/+ref/ubuntu-advantage-sru
Is that enough for your review? Should I make an MP against the precise-
updates packagi
I pushed it to keyserver.ubuntu.com, key id 67C7A026
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1686183
Title:
Ship ubuntu-advantage in basefiles for ubuntu
To manage notifications about this bu
The key was updated, is there an updated export of it available?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1686183
Title:
Ship ubuntu-advantage in basefiles for ubuntu
To manage notifications a
e...@ubuntu.com actually might be a better email address, following on
ftpmaster@ cdimage@ pattern.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1686183
Title:
Ship ubuntu-advantage in basefiles fo
The key UID is interesting. It is "Ubuntu ESM " is this an appropriate user facing uid that is
listed in the output of $ apt-key list?
Our current key names are a bit more descriptive than that, e.g.:
* Ubuntu Archive Automatic Signing Key
* Ubuntu CD Image Automatic Signing Key
Have you consid
* the key should be shipped as a key fragment in /usr/share/keyrings
/ubuntu-keyring-extended-security-maintainance.gpg
* the shell script should simply copy that key fragment into
/etc/apt/trusted.gpg.d/ upon enablement of the ESM repository
* there should not be encoded binary in the shell scri
Updated debdiff attached. Changes:
- the ubuntu-advantage script is now shell (/bin/sh)
- install an MOTD script that will print a banner informing the status of ESM
** Patch added: "ubuntu-advantage.debdiff"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/base-files/+bug/1686183/+attachment/4868686
The difference here is a supported machine is up to date, even if it
only has the minimum packages installed.
Asking for another package to be installed to be "supported" is a small
bit of friction that can be removed by delivering the script with
basefiles.
--
You received this bug notification
This introduces a python dependency to base-files, which I think is
incorrect. I think the decision to choose base-files should be
reevaluated.
>From the point of view of end-users, regardless if the script is in
base-files or in its own package, the same number of apt commands will
be needed eith
** Changed in: base-files (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => Incomplete
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1686183
Title:
Ship ubuntu-advantage in basefiles for ubuntu
To manage notifi
Status changed to 'Confirmed' because the bug affects multiple users.
** Changed in: base-files (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Confirmed
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1686183
Title:
** Tags added: patch
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1686183
Title:
Ship ubuntu-advantage in basefiles for ubuntu
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.
debdiff for base-files on precise
** Patch added: "lp1686183.debdiff"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/base-files/+bug/1686183/+attachment/4867936/+files/lp1686183.debdiff
** Description changed:
[Impact]
- * Allow ubuntu-advantage users to access the extended security
+ * Al
13 matches
Mail list logo