Re: [Merge] ~alfonsosanchezbeato/network-manager:test-ci into network-manager:snap-1.10
I'm not clear if this commit is temporary or not? Did you mean to check this in so that you could test your CI changes, or are these changes intended to be permanent so that we can build the snap using CI? Do we disable a similar set of tests in the old HWE nm build too? If these changes are intended to be permanent, please add some more detail to your commit message. Something like: snap: disable tests that fail lp builds Some advanced integration tests (e.g. bonding, teaming, ...) that are trigged by 'make test' fail when NM is built by launchpad. -- https://code.launchpad.net/~alfonsosanchezbeato/network-manager/+git/network-manager/+merge/367987 Your team Network-manager is requested to review the proposed merge of ~alfonsosanchezbeato/network-manager:test-ci into network-manager:snap-1.10. -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: [Merge] ~alfonsosanchezbeato/network-manager:add-connectivity-check into network-manager:snap-1.10
@Alfonso To do so would mean we need to add CI support for the NM 1.10 snap. We'll talk about it during the product sprint this week, and can follow up at our sprint next week. -- https://code.launchpad.net/~alfonsosanchezbeato/network-manager/+git/network-manager/+merge/361245 Your team Network-manager is requested to review the proposed merge of ~alfonsosanchezbeato/network-manager:add-connectivity-check into network-manager:snap-1.10. -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: [Merge] ~alfonsosanchezbeato/network-manager:add-connectivity-check into network-manager:snap-1.10
Note, I'm not able to successfully build this version using the latest stable version of snapcraft. This may be due to virtualization, as I'm building from Ubuntu running under Parallels w/nested virtualization enabled (to allow multipass to run). Perhaps this is because the Parallels VM instance itself isn't configured in a way which allow all of the test cases to be run? -- https://code.launchpad.net/~alfonsosanchezbeato/network-manager/+git/network-manager/+merge/361245 Your team Network-manager is requested to review the proposed merge of ~alfonsosanchezbeato/network-manager:add-connectivity-check into network-manager:snap-1.10. -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
[Merge] ~alfonsosanchezbeato/network-manager:add-connectivity-check into network-manager:snap-1.10
The proposal to merge ~alfonsosanchezbeato/network-manager:add-connectivity-check into network-manager:snap-1.10 has been updated. Status: Needs review => Approved For more details, see: https://code.launchpad.net/~alfonsosanchezbeato/network-manager/+git/network-manager/+merge/361245 -- Your team Network-manager is requested to review the proposed merge of ~alfonsosanchezbeato/network-manager:add-connectivity-check into network-manager:snap-1.10. -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: [Merge] ~alfonsosanchezbeato/network-manager:add-connectivity-check into network-manager:snap-1.10
Review: Approve LGTM -- https://code.launchpad.net/~alfonsosanchezbeato/network-manager/+git/network-manager/+merge/361245 Your team Network-manager is requested to review the proposed merge of ~alfonsosanchezbeato/network-manager:add-connectivity-check into network-manager:snap-1.10. -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: [Merge] ~alfonsosanchezbeato/network-manager:add-connectivity-check into network-manager:snap-1.10
Review: Needs Fixing -- https://code.launchpad.net/~alfonsosanchezbeato/network-manager/+git/network-manager/+merge/361245 Your team Network-manager is requested to review the proposed merge of ~alfonsosanchezbeato/network-manager:add-connectivity-check into network-manager:snap-1.10. -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: [Merge] ~alfonsosanchezbeato/network-manager:add-connectivity-check into network-manager:snap-1.10
Diff comments: > diff --git a/snap/hooks/install b/snap/hooks/install > deleted file mode 100755 > index 8f4e7ca..000 > --- a/snap/hooks/install > +++ /dev/null > @@ -1,11 +0,0 @@ > -#!/bin/sh -e This hook is also used to prevent installation on classic desktop systems, not just Ubuntu Core 16! > - > -. "$SNAP"/meta/hooks/utils.sh > - > -target=$(get_target_system) > - > -if [ "$target" != "18" ] ; then > -echo "This snap is only supported on Ubuntu Core 18." > -exit 1 > -fi > - > diff --git a/snap/hooks/post-refresh b/snap/hooks/post-refresh > deleted file mode 100755 > index 8f4e7ca..000 > --- a/snap/hooks/post-refresh > +++ /dev/null > @@ -1,11 +0,0 @@ > -#!/bin/sh -e This hook is also used to prevent refresh on classic desktop systems, not just Ubuntu Core 16! > - > -. "$SNAP"/meta/hooks/utils.sh > - > -target=$(get_target_system) > - > -if [ "$target" != "18" ] ; then > -echo "This snap is only supported on Ubuntu Core 18." > -exit 1 > -fi > - > diff --git a/snap/snapcraft.yaml b/snap/snapcraft.yaml > index e43dea0..d9e1363 100644 > --- a/snap/snapcraft.yaml > +++ b/snap/snapcraft.yaml > @@ -85,7 +80,6 @@ parts: >networkmanager: > plugin: autotools > source: . > -build-attributes: [no-system-libraries] How are you building the snap? I'm still using 2.43.1 due to some issues with snapcraft 3.x. This attribute is still supported by 2.43.1, so I'd prefer to keep it for now, unless it's breaking snapcraft 3.x builds. > build-packages: >- intltool >- libdbus-glib-1-dev -- https://code.launchpad.net/~alfonsosanchezbeato/network-manager/+git/network-manager/+merge/361245 Your team Network-manager is requested to review the proposed merge of ~alfonsosanchezbeato/network-manager:add-connectivity-check into network-manager:snap-1.10. -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: [Oneiric-Topic] Simplifying system sleep functions
On 04/22/2011 10:27 AM, Ted Gould wrote: On Thu, 2011-04-21 at 12:06 -0400, Tony Espy wrote: On 04/21/2011 11:49 AM, Ted Gould wrote: On Thu, 2011-04-21 at 11:34 -0400, Tony Espy wrote: On 04/19/2011 08:09 PM, Jason Warner wrote: Hi Everyone - Sending this on behalf of John Lea, desktop design lead. == Currently Ubuntu contains two separate sleep functions, suspend and hibernate. This choice confuses users and is a un-necessary complication to 'sleeping' the computer. The proposed change is to combine both 'suspend' and 'hibernate' into a single 'sleep' function. When the user presses 'sleep', the computer should both suspend and hibernate simultaneously. The computer remains suspended for a set period of time (e.g. 30min) or until the battery charge falls below a set level. At the point the suspend state is discarded, and if the user wakes the computer after this point their state is restored from hibernate. However if the user wakes the computer before the suspend state is discarded, the computer is restored from 'suspend' and the 'hibernate' state is discarded. I'm not a fan of this idea. If suspend works for the vast majority of users, why complicate it by adding a timed auto-hibernate to the equation? As a few folks have pointed out, what if hibernate fails? What if the BIOS doesn't properly support a wake timer? I'm pretty sure the latter criteria for triggering hibernate ( critical low-battery event while suspended ) already works. It essentially wakes the system from suspend, the power manager notices the battery is critically low, and invokes a hibernate. The timed scenario would work in a similar manner, except that after a timer event wakes the system, the power manager would have to have added logic to trigger the hibernate. I'm much more in favor of hiding or even removing hibernate from the UI, as long as it remains an option for critical low-battery event for those systems that properly support hibernate. I think these are all valid cases, but I think that we should support this feature. I think how we should handle this is with a whitelist if machines that we know hibernate works on. We can provide instructions on adding your machine to that list if you want. Otherwise machines that get certified by a vendor that cares about Ubuntu could ship their machine in that whitelist. Two words come to mind...maintenance nightmare. ;) After having lived through OEM-hell the last three months dealing with ACPI stress testing and hibernate failures on Sandy Bridge machines, the idea of maintaining a whitelist of machines that are known to have a working hibernate function, doesn't seem very practical to me. I'm confused, wouldn't your work there be effectively building that whitelist? Sounds like work you've already done ;-) Ah, there you go, volunteering me for work items! We can talk about this over beers in Budapest! What I think this does, and I don't believe it's really a bad thing, is makes it so there are effectively two Ubuntu experiences. That which you get from installing off of the CD on random hardware, and that which you get when you use a hardware vendor that cares about Ubuntu. I think that we need to make the experience the best we can for hardware vendors that want to participate in Ubuntu -- and provide reasonable fallback for those who don't. Personally, if we really want to consider this idea, I think we need to put cycles into making hibernate work better first ( faster, more user feedback, ... ). Another alternative would be to explore something more radical, along the lines of what OS X does, which actually tries to combine hibernate and sleep as opposed to running them in a serial fashion as proposed. So I guess that'd be the list of things we should discuss in the session. What are the requirements and changes we'd need to make hibernate work well enough to make this a reality? We can't budget time if we don't know what we want :-) Also, I thought this *was* how OSX did things. Can you explain how that works as I don't know. My understanding is that macbooks running the latest versions of OS X, always write a hibernate image to disk when sleeping, however the machine still goes into S3 (sleep). If the system is resumed and power has never dropped below critical level, then it's just like a normal suspend/resume. If however the system runs out of juice...the next time it's booted, it will resume from the hibernate image. This is different than a normal Ubuntu install, where sleep == suspend, with no hibernate image written. If the battery reaches a critical level, the machine is woken up, and the power manager will initiate a hibernate ( unless the user has changed the default setting ). pm-utils does support something called pm-suspend-hybrid which acts like the OS X sleep, but I have little experience with it. Does anybody care to comment on the current
Re: [Oneiric-Topic] Simplifying system sleep functions
On 04/21/2011 11:49 AM, Ted Gould wrote: On Thu, 2011-04-21 at 11:34 -0400, Tony Espy wrote: On 04/19/2011 08:09 PM, Jason Warner wrote: Hi Everyone - Sending this on behalf of John Lea, desktop design lead. == Currently Ubuntu contains two separate sleep functions, suspend and hibernate. This choice confuses users and is a un-necessary complication to 'sleeping' the computer. The proposed change is to combine both 'suspend' and 'hibernate' into a single 'sleep' function. When the user presses 'sleep', the computer should both suspend and hibernate simultaneously. The computer remains suspended for a set period of time (e.g. 30min) or until the battery charge falls below a set level. At the point the suspend state is discarded, and if the user wakes the computer after this point their state is restored from hibernate. However if the user wakes the computer before the suspend state is discarded, the computer is restored from 'suspend' and the 'hibernate' state is discarded. I'm not a fan of this idea. If suspend works for the vast majority of users, why complicate it by adding a timed auto-hibernate to the equation? As a few folks have pointed out, what if hibernate fails? What if the BIOS doesn't properly support a wake timer? I'm pretty sure the latter criteria for triggering hibernate ( critical low-battery event while suspended ) already works. It essentially wakes the system from suspend, the power manager notices the battery is critically low, and invokes a hibernate. The timed scenario would work in a similar manner, except that after a timer event wakes the system, the power manager would have to have added logic to trigger the hibernate. I'm much more in favor of hiding or even removing hibernate from the UI, as long as it remains an option for critical low-battery event for those systems that properly support hibernate. I think these are all valid cases, but I think that we should support this feature. I think how we should handle this is with a whitelist if machines that we know hibernate works on. We can provide instructions on adding your machine to that list if you want. Otherwise machines that get certified by a vendor that cares about Ubuntu could ship their machine in that whitelist. Two words come to mind...maintenance nightmare. ;) After having lived through OEM-hell the last three months dealing with ACPI stress testing and hibernate failures on Sandy Bridge machines, the idea of maintaining a whitelist of machines that are known to have a working hibernate function, doesn't seem very practical to me. What I think this does, and I don't believe it's really a bad thing, is makes it so there are effectively two Ubuntu experiences. That which you get from installing off of the CD on random hardware, and that which you get when you use a hardware vendor that cares about Ubuntu. I think that we need to make the experience the best we can for hardware vendors that want to participate in Ubuntu -- and provide reasonable fallback for those who don't. Personally, if we really want to consider this idea, I think we need to put cycles into making hibernate work better first ( faster, more user feedback, ... ). Another alternative would be to explore something more radical, along the lines of what OS X does, which actually tries to combine hibernate and sleep as opposed to running them in a serial fashion as proposed. /t -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
