Re: Proposal: revert recent debianutils changes for Jammy

On 2021-11-25 17:42, Robie Basak wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 05:16:52PM +0100, Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
>> But.. With Ubuntu's language pack arrangement, those translations
>> are already in Launchpad. If I understand it correctly,
>> regenerating the POT file would have been sufficient.
>
> I had to patch Makefile.am (to build tempfile again). This required
> autoreconf (adding some build depends, calling it in debian/rules,
> etc), which then attempted to regenerate translations. But that
> failed because various source files weren't in the source package, so
> I patched those those back in. I'd appreciate being told about a
> cleaner way to do this :)
>
> On the topic of translations, when I reverted tempfile, I didn't
> re-add the translations that were dropped, because that would involve
> some kind of re-merge of the previously dropped translations back
> into the current files, and I don't know how to do that.

Ok, then I misunderstood. I had a quick look at the diff, saw a lot of
translated strings and jumped at conclusion.

> So I'm probably dropping translations in the revert - I haven't yet
> checked. This was part of my "needs polish". I'd appreciate some help
> with this please!

As I mentioned, I think we can still make those translations available
if we can regenerate the translation template. I'll take a look and give
it a try later this week.

/ Gunnar

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

Re: Proposal: revert recent debianutils changes for Jammy

On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 05:16:52PM +0100, Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
> On 2021-11-25 16:56, Robie Basak wrote:
> >It turned out to be a bit of a rabbithole getting the package to rebuild
> >with translated string changes, but I have a work-in-progress branch up
> >here:
> >
> >https://code.launchpad.net/~racb/ubuntu/+source/debianutils/+git/debianutils/+merge/412397
>
> But.. With Ubuntu's language pack arrangement, those translations are
> already in Launchpad. If I understand it correctly, regenerating the POT
> file would have been sufficient.

I had to patch Makefile.am (to build tempfile again). This required
autoreconf (adding some build depends, calling it in debian/rules, etc),
which then attempted to regenerate translations. But that failed because
various source files weren't in the source package, so I patched those
those back in. I'd appreciate being told about a cleaner way to do this :)

On the topic of translations, when I reverted tempfile, I didn't re-add
the translations that were dropped, because that would involve some kind
of re-merge of the previously dropped translations back into the current
files, and I don't know how to do that. So I'm probably dropping
translations in the revert - I haven't yet checked. This was part of my
"needs polish". I'd appreciate some help with this please!

Robie

Re: Proposal: revert recent debianutils changes for Jammy

On 2021-11-25 16:56, Robie Basak wrote:
> It turned out to be a bit of a rabbithole getting the package to rebuild
> with translated string changes, but I have a work-in-progress branch up
> here:
>
> https://code.launchpad.net/~racb/ubuntu/+source/debianutils/+git/debianutils/+merge/412397

But.. With Ubuntu's language pack arrangement, those translations are
already in Launchpad. If I understand it correctly, regenerating the POT
file would have been sufficient.

--
Gunnar Hjalmarsson
https://launchpad.net/~gunnarhj

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

Re: Proposal: revert recent debianutils changes for Jammy

On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 12:53:03PM +0000, Robie Basak wrote:
> Any objections to an upload to debianutils in Ubuntu reverting these two
> changes?

It turned out to be a bit of a rabbithole getting the package to rebuild
with translated string changes, but I have a work-in-progress branch up
here:

https://code.launchpad.net/~racb/ubuntu/+source/debianutils/+git/debianutils/+merge/412397

It basically works but needs some polish. I expect I'll be uploading
this next week.

Re: Add ubuntu-advantage-tools to Recommends on ubuntu-minimal

On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 1:52 PM Mattia Rizzolo <mapreri@ubuntu.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 12:56:18PM +0000, Robie Basak wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 05:19:38PM -0300, Lucas Moura wrote:
> > > We want to ask for opinions of this change to other Ubuntu developers, to
> > > see if we are not missing any other aspect around the original decision to
> > > include the package into *Depends*.
> >
> > Thank you Lucas for raising this here!
> >
> > Unfortunately I think that unless someone advocate for the case for this
> > here, this discussion can't go anywhere, and the status quo will remain.
> >
> > I'm saying this for the record: if those who want the change don't
> > participate, then it's unlikely to happen.
>
> FWIW, I'd also like this to be changed.
>
> As a very practical example of why: I find very annoying that by default
> on 14.04 it keeps bothering me that ESM has however many other updates
> available that -oh how unfortunate- I can't install, and what should
> have been the trivial way to avoid that to creep into my systems (i.e.,
> removing ubuntu-advantage-tools well before that change came) couldn't
> be done.
>

This is intentional, to ensure that we make users aware that there are
vulnerabilities out there that may be affecting them. One can access
ESM for free under certain terms. Once ESM ends, like it did for
Precise, we have made all ESM updates for Precise available publically
and archived on old-releases.ubuntu.com. Thus eventually everyone does
have access to them.

It is our commitment to be transparent and not hide problems, and
fight for the users to ensure they have ways to remain secure (upgrade
to a supported release or enable ESM). Whilst some users may find this
information redundant, many others may find it eye opening.

It really is very important, especially since a lot of systems get
broken simply due to lack of installing updates or timely upgrades.

Recently newer laws are getting passed that require one to disclose if
updates are available, for how long, and notify when they cease to be
provided. Although Ubuntu is nominally so far excluded from these, it
is prudent to comply with the spirit of those laws protecting and
informing users.

I see this as no different to how we default to applying security
updates, and informing users about the number of non-security updates.

Regards,

Dimitri.

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

Re: Add ubuntu-advantage-tools to Recommends on ubuntu-minimal

On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 12:56:18PM +0000, Robie Basak wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 05:19:38PM -0300, Lucas Moura wrote:
> > We want to ask for opinions of this change to other Ubuntu developers, to
> > see if we are not missing any other aspect around the original decision to
> > include the package into *Depends*.
>
> Thank you Lucas for raising this here!
>
> Unfortunately I think that unless someone advocate for the case for this
> here, this discussion can't go anywhere, and the status quo will remain.
>
> I'm saying this for the record: if those who want the change don't
> participate, then it's unlikely to happen.

FWIW, I'd also like this to be changed.

As a very practical example of why: I find very annoying that by default
on 14.04 it keeps bothering me that ESM has however many other updates
available that -oh how unfortunate- I can't install, and what should
have been the trivial way to avoid that to creep into my systems (i.e.,
removing ubuntu-advantage-tools well before that change came) couldn't
be done.

--
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`.
More about me: https://mapreri.org : :' :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `-

Re: Proposal: revert recent debianutils changes for Jammy

I have been playing whack-a-mole trying to fix usage of those two
commands in all the places. It will be a painful and long process, not
only because we need to merge changes from Debian, but because we have
Ubuntu-specific deltas that use those commands all over the place as
well.

I agree that it is unnecessary transition to be done for Jammy. We can
choose to schedule this transition after Debian in a post Jammy
release.

It is in no way an expression of opinion about this transition, purely
a choice to coordinate timing of it with our release schedules.

+1 from me please go ahead, I was contemplating to propose the same myself.

--
Regards,

Dimitri.

On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 12:53 PM Robie Basak <robie.basak@ubuntu.com> wrote:
>
> You may be aware of a couple of recent changes in debianutils in Debian:
>
> 1. The "tempfile" command has been removed.
>
> 2. The "which" command now prints a deprecation warning on every
> invocation.
>
> These have ramifications across the archive, and also outside the
> archive, as everything that relies on these commands need adjusting.
>
> This kind of big change is being done in the right place in Debian's
> release cycle - shortly after a release. But for Ubuntu, it's the
> opposite - we're a few months away from an LTS release.
>
> Risk 1: before everything is settled, we release an LTS that is
> unpolished with regards to these changes.
>
> Risk 2: the changes may prove unpopular with users. Given that these are
> deprecations coming from Debian, it seems odd for Ubuntu users to face
> this ahead of Debian and without appearing in our interim releases
> first. Debian may end up applying mitigations for specific affected user
> stories but we would be stuck with the behaviour defined at our LTS
> release time.
>
> Proposal: we revert these two changes in an Ubuntu delta on the
> debianutils package, and reconsider syncing back with Debian _after_
> Jammy is released.
>
> Then Debian can lead the way, and we won't get additional work ensuring
> that there are no user-facing warts ahead of Debian's schedule.
>
> Any objections to an upload to debianutils in Ubuntu reverting these two
> changes?
>
> Robie
> --
> ubuntu-devel mailing list
> ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel