On Tuesday, August 05, 2014 17:50:06 Robie Basak wrote: > On Tue, Aug 05, 2014 at 12:44:13PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > > This is a fundamental difference between main and universe. There may be > > > a case for an exception in the case of particular packages (bitcoin is a > > > recent example), but in the general case I don't think it makes sense to > > > not offer the packages. Users have a choice as to what they do right > > > now, and also have the choice of contributing fixes. Removing packages > > > takes that choice away. > > > > No. The difference is that for Universe there is generally not someone > > with an @canonical.com address paying attention to them. There are > > plenty of Universe packages that are well maintained and updated. Some > > by Canonical people and some by others. While there is some correlation > > between Main/Universe and package maintenance, it's not as close as you > > might think. > > Right - what I mean is that there exists an assurance that all packages > in main are looked after by Canonical staff for security updates. This > assurance doesn't exist in universe. I didn't mean to suggest that > some universe packages aren't looked after - just that there isn't such > a sweeping global assurance of it. > > > > Instead, users can always opt to not install universe packages (eg. > > > remove it from sources.list). There's also an argument for not having > > > universe enabled by default, but I think that a decision was made a long > > > time ago before I was around on this point. I guess it could always be > > > revisited, but would probably be one for the technical board to make a > > > final decision on. > > > > No. We have one set of sources.list for all of Ubuntu right now. Many > > flavors provide packages from Universe, so this would break things and be > > hard to implement sanely. > > I was thinking of server - presuming that drupal is primarily run on > server installations. Perhaps this assumption is wrong - but it should > be fine to disable universe on a server without breaking anything, right?
Yes, but we use one common sources.list across the entire project now. Server admins using Ubuntu should be clue-full enough to understand the the maintenance policy of the distro they are using. So while it wouldn't break anything, I don't think it would gain much. It's a rat-hole we've been down before that I'd rather not repeat. Scott K -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
