On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:59:41PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
Has any work been done on concurrent requests? That would likely be
pretty broadly useful, not just for cloud images.
AIUI, apt-get already supports concurrent requests, but only to
diffferent servers at once. From my
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 01:51:46AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
I think most developers would believe the current situation is appropriate.
I disagree.
By default users have the same access to source and binary packages and for a
free software distribution, that is the ethically correct
(pardon the top-posting)
I think the slight reduction in ethics (relevant mainly to developers)
is a good trade to help deployability in the real world. We'll leave
sources enabled by default for development releases.
For the other 99% of users, where practicality is more important than
On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 06:59:43 AM Robie Basak wrote:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 01:51:46AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
I think most developers would believe the current situation is
appropriate.
I disagree.
By default users have the same access to source and binary packages and
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 03:02:02AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
So those are a couple of examples of what I think is definitely not what we
want. I'm open to discussion about alternate ways to preserve easy access to
the source.
How about:
$ sudo apt-get source hello
Reading package
Hi Daniel (2013.07.23_08:13:47_+0200)
For the other 99% of users, where practicality is more important than
immediate access to source, we end up wasting ~10% of Canonical and
our mirror's bandwidth on the source updates.
Can you back that up with evidence? As I (and a few other people) have
On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 08:12:16 AM Robie Basak wrote:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 03:02:02AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
So those are a couple of examples of what I think is definitely not what
we
want. I'm open to discussion about alternate ways to preserve easy access
to the source.
On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 08:21:40 AM Jordon Bedwell wrote:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 6:32 AM, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com
wrote:
Assuming add-apt-repository was installed by default, it's close. I think
something like this might be reasonable (imagine some policykit or
whatever it
Or 90/110K per day per computer for Precise. I guess what was getting
me is the additional 6-7MB during install or first update:
http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/precise/universe/source/ 4.8M/5.9M
http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/precise/main/source/ 912K/1.1M
On 24 July 2013 09:31,
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 09:31:15PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
Before we run off and expend a lot more effort on this, I'd like to
see something other than handwaving that this is really is a
significant issue.
[size comparisions snipped]
My concern is latency, not size. How many round
Perhaps we have two issues here:
- the download during installs or first index update is 6-7MB extra,
which makes a real difference when installing lots of computers
- downloads from security.ubuntu.com being slow (eg 1-5KB/s) as it's 500ms away
The 20% additional download due to sources [1]
On Wednesday, July 24, 2013 11:00:40 AM Daniel J Blueman wrote:
Perhaps we have two issues here:
The 20% additional download due to sources [1] would help both issues,
but perhaps of bigger impact, trusting the country-level mirror for
the security updates?
...
You aren't. Security
On 24 July 2013 11:08, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com wrote:
On Wednesday, July 24, 2013 11:00:40 AM Daniel J Blueman wrote:
Perhaps we have two issues here:
The 20% additional download due to sources [1] would help both issues,
but perhaps of bigger impact, trusting the
By large, developers are uninterested in this, but it is important for
users and where we use Ubuntu.
Anyone care to comment on how we can progress this?
On 15 July 2013 13:32, Daniel J Blueman dan...@quora.org wrote:
From earlier feedback, there were no overriding reasons why package
sources
On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 11:02:00 AM Daniel J Blueman wrote:
By large, developers are uninterested in this, but it is important for
users and where we use Ubuntu.
Anyone care to comment on how we can progress this?
I think most developers would believe the current situation is appropriate.
From earlier feedback, there were no overriding reasons why package
sources should be enabled by default.
We not only save congestion on security.ubuntu.com, but quite a lot of
country-level mirrors point to Canonical's servers, which are
relatively distant and slow (~80KB/s from here), so this
unsubscribe
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:09 PM, Daniel J Blueman dan...@quora.org wrote:
When installing Ubuntu, I always see the source packages enabled by
default.
For all the general users I install Ubuntu for (including servers),
it's an utter waste of bandwidth for everyone, particularly
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 02:20:51AM +0200, Florian Diesch wrote:
Am Mon, 20 May 2013 10:02:41 -0700
schrieb Benjamin Kerensa bkere...@ubuntu.com:
I think in most parts of the world 4MB is trivial overhead for a user.
Over here in German cheap mobile data tarrifs often get you something
On Wed, 22 May 2013, Dale Amon wrote:
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 02:20:51AM +0200, Florian Diesch wrote:
Am Mon, 20 May 2013 10:02:41 -0700
4MB every few days could quite hurt you with that.
My flat outside Belfast has 20 meg of bandwidth.
It is good that a decade[1] of broadband investment[2]
Another idea about mechanism:
It seems to me that apt-get update does two logical tasks which serve
two different use cases for many users, one of which is rare and
often unnecessary.
How about an apt configuration option that, when enabled (default: off),
disables source index downloads when
Am Mittwoch, den 22.05.2013, 10:11 +0100 schrieb Robie Basak:
Another idea about mechanism:
It seems to me that apt-get update does two logical tasks which serve
two different use cases for many users, one of which is rare and
often unnecessary.
How about an apt configuration option that,
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 01:56:08PM +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote:
Commenting/Uncommenting deb-src lines in /etc/apt/sources.list seems
much simpler/easier.
I can deal with that... I always have changes to make to sources.list
anyway, so uncommenting a few more items is not an issue.
--
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Dale Amon a...@vnl.com wrote:
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 01:56:08PM +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote:
Commenting/Uncommenting deb-src lines in /etc/apt/sources.list seems
much simpler/easier.
I can deal with that... I always have changes to make to sources.list
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Benjamin Kerensa wrote on 20/05/13 18:02:
On May 20, 2013 8:10 AM, Daniel J Blueman dan...@quora.org ...
For all the general users I install Ubuntu for (including
servers), it's an utter waste of bandwidth for everyone,
particularly when
I propose we either disable source downloading by default at release
time, but I conclude that developers generally don't care about this
extra overhead (as we have a good setup).
If really we can't see this from a user PoV, I'm happy to start a user
discussion and see how users feel...?
--
(with my personal hat on)
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 01:48:47PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
I think that's legally sufficient, but not in the spirit of free software.
I agree that it's legally sufficient.
I also agree that making the sources easily available for download is
part of the
Robie Basak [2013-05-21 13:55 +0100]:
Why don't we talk about ways to make it just as easy, but without the
requirement that indexes are downloaded locally even when they are not
being used?
pull-lp-source and pull-debian-source are about as easy as it can be
IMHO, and offer a lot more
On 21 May 2013 13:55, Robie Basak robie.ba...@canonical.com wrote:
What if we provided a reasonable message if no deb-src lines are
defined, with a single simple command to add them and run apt-get
update for you?
I don't think it would even need that - software-properties (Software
Updates)
Am Dienstag, den 21.05.2013, 18:02 +0800 schrieb Daniel J Blueman:
I propose we either disable source downloading by default at release
time, but I conclude that developers generally don't care about this
extra overhead (as we have a good setup).
If really we can't see this from a user PoV,
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 03:04:20PM +0100, J Fernyhough wrote:
On 21 May 2013 13:55, Robie Basak robie.ba...@canonical.com wrote:
What if we provided a reasonable message if no deb-src lines are
defined, with a single simple command to add them and run apt-get
update for you?
I don't
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 06:02:36PM +0800, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
I propose we either disable source downloading by default at release
time, but I conclude that developers generally don't care about this
extra overhead (as we have a good setup).
If really we can't see this from a user PoV,
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 9:16 AM, Dale Amon a...@vnl.com wrote:
Source is an educational tool.
Learning command line is a lesson in taking control of your own computer.
Kids explore.
Make sure J Random's computer is full of things to intrigue and
lead a 13 year old to the power of the source.
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 03:22:50PM +0100, Robie Basak wrote:
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 03:04:20PM +0100, J Fernyhough wrote:
On 21 May 2013 13:55, Robie Basak robie.ba...@canonical.com wrote:
What if we provided a reasonable message if no deb-src lines are
defined, with a single simple
Hi,
I'm kind of late to this thread, but I'd like to add my opinion.
Personally, I think we have to many entries in sources.list.
Anyone suggesting that there is little cost to entries simply hasn't
tested things. There is a very real cost to having unused entries,
in bandwidth, load on a
Am Mon, 20 May 2013 10:02:41 -0700
schrieb Benjamin Kerensa bkere...@ubuntu.com:
I think in most parts of the world 4MB is trivial overhead for a user.
Over here in German cheap mobile data tarrifs often get you something
like a few hundered MByte/month.
In some rural areas it's hard to get
When installing Ubuntu, I always see the source packages enabled by default.
For all the general users I install Ubuntu for (including servers),
it's an utter waste of bandwidth for everyone, particularly when
automatically checking once a day. This is amplified eg in schools
without transparent
On 20 May 2013 16:09, Daniel J Blueman dan...@quora.org wrote:
When installing Ubuntu, I always see the source packages enabled by default.
For all the general users I install Ubuntu for (including servers),
it's an utter waste of bandwidth for everyone, particularly when
automatically
I'm talking in the context of the average user, so releases. Fine for
pre-release.
Updating 12.04, the universe sources are an extra 4MB (almost 25%
extra) downloaded whenever a package is changed. Does it really make
sense when 0.1% of people actually need this?
Us developers probably care the
Am Montag, den 20.05.2013, 23:09 +0800 schrieb Daniel J Blueman:
When installing Ubuntu, I always see the source packages enabled by default.
For all the general users I install Ubuntu for (including servers),
it's an utter waste of bandwidth for everyone, particularly when
automatically
On Monday, May 20, 2013 06:16:53 PM Benjamin Drung wrote:
Am Montag, den 20.05.2013, 23:09 +0800 schrieb Daniel J Blueman:
When installing Ubuntu, I always see the source packages enabled by
default.
For all the general users I install Ubuntu for (including servers),
it's an utter
On 20 May 2013 17:16, Benjamin Drung bdr...@ubuntu.com wrote:
What happens when you run apt-get source with disabled apt-src
entries?
A reasonable error message:
E: You must put some 'source' URIs in your sources.list
J
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com wrote:
Apt will error out that it can't find the package.
I think that if we are distributing binaries, we should (perhaps must, I'm not
sure) enable the source repositories in order to , as a free software
distribution,
Hi Daniel (2013.05.20_18:07:43_+0200)
Updating 12.04, the universe sources are an extra 4MB (almost 25%
extra) downloaded whenever a package is changed.
The release pockets aren't changed post-release.
So it's a one-time download, and a continual extra overhead on
-security, -updates, and
Excerpts from Daniel J Blueman's message of 2013-05-20 08:09:19 -0700:
When installing Ubuntu, I always see the source packages enabled by default.
For all the general users I install Ubuntu for (including servers),
it's an utter waste of bandwidth for everyone, particularly when
On May 20, 2013 8:10 AM, Daniel J Blueman dan...@quora.org wrote:
When installing Ubuntu, I always see the source packages enabled by
default.
For all the general users I install Ubuntu for (including servers),
it's an utter waste of bandwidth for everyone, particularly when
automatically
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:25:50AM -0500, Jordon Bedwell wrote:
I'm more surprised that people are more upset about 4MB than the 5%
that is still claimed by the system for the system which adds up to a
lot more than 4MB on some systems which on a even a small 32GB SSD is
what, 1.5GB?
In these
On Monday, May 20, 2013 11:25:50 AM Jordon Bedwell wrote:
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com
wrote:
Apt will error out that it can't find the package.
I think that if we are distributing binaries, we should (perhaps must, I'm
not sure) enable the
On 20 May 2013 18:02, Benjamin Kerensa bkere...@ubuntu.com wrote:
On May 20, 2013 8:10 AM, Daniel J Blueman dan...@quora.org wrote:
When installing Ubuntu, I always see the source packages enabled by
default.
For all the general users I install Ubuntu for (including servers),
it's an utter
48 matches
Mail list logo
