Re: Changes in bugs.maemo.org

<div>
<p>Hi Andre,<br><br>Thanks for posting to the ML and I think you're going in the right direction here.&nbsp; But let's leave room for the community to discuss this a bit if it wishes.<br><br>First, my opinion is that the criterion should be whether Nokia wishes to support rather than actively develop Maemo.&nbsp; After all, we just had a security update that fixed a reported bug.&nbsp; I agree that we shouldn't take new bugs against "Official" Maemo SW if Nokia plans to take no action on them.&nbsp; But instead of concluding that it "seems" like Nokia is not interested, why shouldn't we just ask them?<br><br>I understand your message as indicating Bugzilla will remain for CSSU and for any other ongoing community project that requests it.<br><br>Rob<br><br><br><br></p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 8:23 AM, Andre Klapper <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:aklapper@...">aklapper@...</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote">Yo!<br><br>
By the end of this year, I plan to close all those products in<br><a href="http://bugs.maemo.org" target="_blank">bugs.maemo.org</a> for new bug entry that are in the classifications<br>
"Official Maemo applications" and "Official Maemo platform" as it seems<br>
that Nokia has not been very interested in this lately.<br>
The <a href="http://bugs.maemo.org" target="_blank">bugs.maemo.org</a> frontpage will also reflect this:<br><a href="https://bugs.maemo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12517" target="_blank">https://bugs.maemo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12517</a><br><br>
Only thing I am afraid of is that users will report to some random<br>
(still open) products just to get their reports submitted, however with<br>
the current low amount of incoming issues that sounds unlikely to become<br>
a problem. Plus there are always some folks that don't read (we received<br>
a few MeeGo/N950 reports in <a href="http://bugs.maemo.org" target="_blank">bugs.maemo.org</a> though the frontpage clearly<br>
says where to go for this) but that's life.<br><br>
So from 2012 on <a href="http://bugs.maemo.org" target="_blank">bugs.maemo.org</a> will exist only for reporting issues<br>
about the <a href="http://maemo.org" target="_blank">maemo.org</a> website and its related services, plus for Maemo<br>
Extras (community applications).<br><br>
andre<br>--<br>
Andre Klapper (<a href="http://maemo.org" target="_blank">maemo.org</a> bugmaster)<br><a href="http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/" target="_blank">http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/</a> | <a href="http://www.openismus.com" target="_blank">http://www.openismus.com</a><br><br><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
maemo-community mailing list<br><a href="mailto:maemo-community@...">maemo-community@...</a><br><a href="https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-community" target="_blank">https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-community</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>

Adding extra languages into Welcome screen

Hello,

you may noticed that Maemo 5 Welcome screen (which appears after instering 
battery or flashing) does not show all extra installed Maemo 5 translations.

Problem is because, osso_startup_wizard (Welcome screen application) read 
language table from library libi18n-locale-resolver0. And that libray read 
languages from binary file /usr/share/i18n-locale-resolver/lra_language.data 
(and not try to check which translations are installed)

I created small shell script which can modify (add/delete) language strings 
(e.g en_US) to that binary file and thus Welcome screen show/hide other 
languages.

Script is in Extras(-devel) package locale-resolver-config 
http://maemo.org/packages/view/locale-resolver-config/
and install file /usr/sbin/locale-resolver-config

For example adding Slovak language (which is not by default in Maemo) call:
$ locale-resolver-config add sk_SK
and to remove
$ locale-resolver-config del sk_SK

Maintainers of extra Maemo 5 translations could modify their postinst/postrm 
scripts to call this script for adding/removing their language to/from Maemo 5 
Welcome screen.

-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.rohar@...

Hello,

you may noticed that Maemo 5 Welcome screen (which appears after instering 
battery or flashing) does not show all extra installed Maemo 5 translations.

Problem is because, osso_startup_wizard (Welcome screen application) read 
language table from library libi18n-locale-resolver0. And that libray read 
languages from binary file /usr/share/i18n-locale-resolver/lra_language.data 
(and not try to check which translations are installed)

I created small shell script which can modify (add/delete) language strings 
(e.g en_US) to that binary file and thus Welcome screen show/hide other 
languages.

Script is in Extras(-devel) package locale-resolver-config 
http://maemo.org/packages/view/locale-resolver-config/
and install file /usr/sbin/locale-resolver-config

For example adding Slovak language (which is not by default in Maemo) call:
$ locale-resolver-config add sk_SK
and to remove
$ locale-resolver-config del sk_SK

Maintainers of extra Maemo 5 translations could modify their postinst/postrm 
scripts to call this script for adding/removing their language to/from Maemo 5 
Welcome screen.

--

-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.rohar@...

Re: Changes in bugs.maemo.org

Hi Robert,

On Wed, 2011-12-14 at 19:09 -0500, robert bauer wrote:
> Thanks for posting to the ML and I think you're going in the right
> direction here.  But let's leave room for the community to discuss
> this a bit if it wishes.

Feedback is very welcome, that's why I dropped this a few weeks in
advance. :)

> First, my opinion is that the criterion should be whether Nokia wishes
> to support rather than actively develop Maemo.  After all, we just had
> a security update that fixed a reported bug.  

I'm not sure if one fix per year outweighs the amount of wasted time of
bug reporters that file reports against the "official" part just to end
up in silence, and silence is my impression recently.

> I agree that we shouldn't take new bugs against "Official" Maemo SW if
> Nokia plans to take no action on them.  But instead of concluding that
> it "seems" like Nokia is not interested, why shouldn't we just ask
> them?

A good idea, please go ahead if you have contacts (as I wouldn't know
who to ask).

> I understand your message as indicating Bugzilla will remain for CSSU
> and for any other ongoing community project that requests it.

Yes, that's my plan, as the workload for incoming Extras reports (like
CSSU reports) and general administration is rather small and could be
continued in freetime by volunteers.

andre
--

-- 
Andre Klapper (maemo.org bugmaster)
http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/

Re: Changes in bugs.maemo.org

<div>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Andre Klapper <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:aklapper@...">aklapper@...</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote">
Hi Robert,<br><div class="im">
<br>
On Wed, 2011-12-14 at 19:09 -0500, robert bauer wrote:<br>
&gt; Thanks for posting to the ML and I think you're going in the right<br>
&gt; direction here. &nbsp;But let's leave room for the community to discuss<br>
&gt; this a bit if it wishes.<br><br>
</div>Feedback is very welcome, that's why I dropped this a few weeks in<br>
advance. :)<br><div class="im">
<br>
&gt; First, my opinion is that the criterion should be whether Nokia wishes<br>
&gt; to support rather than actively develop Maemo. &nbsp;After all, we just had<br>
&gt; a security update that fixed a reported bug.<br><br>
</div>I'm not sure if one fix per year outweighs the amount of wasted time of<br>
bug reporters that file reports against the "official" part just to end<br>
up in silence, and silence is my impression recently.<br>
</blockquote>
<div>Understood.&nbsp; But the operating efficiency of bugzilla is not the only consideration here.&nbsp; We could make it harder for internal supporters of maemo within Nokia to obtain funding and other benefits for the community.&nbsp; &nbsp; <br>
&nbsp;</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote">
<div class="im">
<br>
&gt; I agree that we shouldn't take new bugs against "Official" Maemo SW if<br>
&gt; Nokia plans to take no action on them. &nbsp;But instead of concluding that<br>
&gt; it "seems" like Nokia is not interested, why shouldn't we just ask<br>
&gt; them?<br><br>
</div>A good idea, please go ahead if you have contacts (as I wouldn't know<br>
who to ask).<br>
</blockquote>
<div>I have.&nbsp; But it's probably going to take more than a few weeks because of the holidays and Nokia is responding slowly these days regarding maemo.&nbsp; So please wait to take action based on an affirmative decision rather than based on inaction (even though a few weeks is ordinarily enough time).&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp;</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="h5">
</div></div></blockquote>
</div>Rob<br>
</div>

Re: Changes in bugs.maemo.org

Hi,

On 19.12.2011 14:06, ext robert bauer wrote:

On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Andre Klapper <aklapper-ft1v69bDuIaakBO8gow8eQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:

I'm not sure if one fix per year outweighs the amount of wasted time of
bug reporters that file reports against the "official" part just to end
up in silence, and silence is my impression recently.

Understood.  But the operating efficiency of bugzilla is not the only consideration here.  We could make it harder for internal supporters of maemo within Nokia to obtain funding and other benefits for the community.   

With the current MeeGo operations being ramped down during the next year and the existing team focusing completely on getting the next N9 software updates finished, there really is no chance of getting any work done for the N900 any longer. So, keeping the Bugzilla components just gives false hope. Better to close them for new submissions.

The story is different for the N9 bugs filed at harmattan-bugs.nokia.com - these still receive active attention, and I warmly recommend reporting any issues found.

> I agree that we shouldn't take new bugs against "Official" Maemo SW if
> Nokia plans to take no action on them.  But instead of concluding that
> it "seems" like Nokia is not interested, why shouldn't we just ask
> them?

A good idea, please go ahead if you have contacts (as I wouldn't know
who to ask).

I have.  But it's probably going to take more than a few weeks because of the holidays and Nokia is responding slowly these days regarding maemo.  So please wait to take action based on an affirmative decision rather than based on inaction (even though a few weeks is ordinarily enough time). 

Here's your answer.

Cheers,

ma.

<div>
    Hi,<br><br>
    On 19.12.2011 14:06, ext robert bauer wrote:<br><blockquote cite="mid:CANsY6cHiu-MsY123M-yWbqt5Tiif4DkP5DwL718JKs-+K4KrAw@..." type="cite">
<br><div>On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Andre Klapper <span>&lt;<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:aklapper@...">aklapper@...</a>&gt;</span>
        wrote:<br><blockquote>
<br>
          I'm not sure if one fix per year outweighs the amount of
          wasted time of<br>
          bug reporters that file reports against the "official" part
          just to end<br>
          up in silence, and silence is my impression recently.<br>
</blockquote>
        <div> Understood.&nbsp; But the operating efficiency of bugzilla is
          not the only consideration here.&nbsp; We could make it harder for
          internal supporters of maemo within Nokia to obtain funding
          and other benefits for the community.&nbsp; &nbsp; <br>
</div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    With the current MeeGo operations being ramped down during the next
    year and the existing team focusing completely on getting the next
    N9 software updates finished, there really is no chance of getting
    any work done for the N900 any longer. So, keeping the Bugzilla
    components just gives false hope. Better to close them for new
    submissions.<br><br>
    The story is different for the N9 bugs filed at
    harmattan-bugs.nokia.com - these still receive active attention, and
    I warmly recommend reporting any issues found.<br><br><blockquote cite="mid:CANsY6cHiu-MsY123M-yWbqt5Tiif4DkP5DwL718JKs-+K4KrAw@..." type="cite">
      <div>
        <div>
          &gt; I agree that we shouldn't take new bugs against
          "Official" Maemo SW if<br>
          &gt; Nokia plans to take no action on them. &nbsp;But instead of
          concluding that<br>
          &gt; it "seems" like Nokia is not interested, why shouldn't we
          just ask<br>
          &gt; them?<br><br>
</div>
        <blockquote>
          A good idea, please go ahead if you have contacts (as I
          wouldn't know<br>
          who to ask).<br>
</blockquote>
        <div> I have.&nbsp; But it's probably going to take more than a few
          weeks because of the holidays and Nokia is responding slowly
          these days regarding maemo.&nbsp; So please wait to take action
          based on an affirmative decision rather than based on inaction
          (even though a few weeks is ordinarily enough time).&nbsp; <br>
</div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    Here's your answer. <br><br>
    Cheers,<br><br>
    ma.<br><br>
</div>