ubuntu-tweak in new

Ubuntu Tweak is waiting for approval in New queue.  
http://ubuntu-tweak.com/
https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/252140

Is this something MOTU wants included?

Jonathan

Re: ubuntu-tweak in new

On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 01:29:46 pm Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> Ubuntu Tweak is waiting for approval in New queue.
> http://ubuntu-tweak.com/
> https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/252140
> 
> Is this something MOTU wants included?
> 
No.

It looks to me like something that, in addition to proper packaging, ought to 
have a thorough functional review before entering the archive.  

Scott K

Re: ubuntu-tweak in new

Hello,

On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 09:00, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu@...> wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 01:29:46 pm Jonathan Riddell wrote:
>> Ubuntu Tweak is waiting for approval in New queue.
>> http://ubuntu-tweak.com/
>> https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/252140
>>
>> Is this something MOTU wants included?
>>
> No.
>
> It looks to me like something that, in addition to proper packaging, ought to
> have a thorough functional review before entering the archive.
>
I am the packager of ubuntu-tweak, can you tell me what's the problem
with ubuntu-tweak?

thanks.

--

-- 
Best Regards
LI Daobing

Re: ubuntu-tweak in new

On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 09:05:25 pm LI Daobing wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 09:00, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu@...> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 01:29:46 pm Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> >> Ubuntu Tweak is waiting for approval in New queue.
> >> http://ubuntu-tweak.com/
> >> https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/252140
> >> 
> >> Is this something MOTU wants included?
> > 
> > No.
> > 
> > It looks to me like something that, in addition to proper packaging,
> > ought to have a thorough functional review before entering the archive.
> 
> I am the packager of ubuntu-tweak, can you tell me what's the problem
> with ubuntu-tweak?
> 

I don't know that there is a problem, but given the invasive nature of it's 
functionality, I think it appropriate for it to be given more of a review than 
just being packaged properly.  In Ubuntu's history there have been multiple 
"Tweak" programs and so far they have always proved to be more harmful than 
helpful at the scale the Ubuntu archive operates.

This one may be the one that gets it right, but having found that they rebrand 
PPAs that other people maintain as there's on their web site, I'm not at all 
inclined to assume this is all well intentioned.

Re: ubuntu-tweak in new

On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 09:09, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu@...> wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 09:05:25 pm LI Daobing wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 09:00, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu@...> wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 01:29:46 pm Jonathan Riddell wrote:
>> >> Ubuntu Tweak is waiting for approval in New queue.
>> >> http://ubuntu-tweak.com/
>> >> https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/252140
>> >>
>> >> Is this something MOTU wants included?
>> >
>> > No.
>> >
>> > It looks to me like something that, in addition to proper packaging,
>> > ought to have a thorough functional review before entering the archive.
>>
>> I am the packager of ubuntu-tweak, can you tell me what's the problem
>> with ubuntu-tweak?
>>
>
> I don't know that there is a problem, but given the invasive nature of it's
> functionality, I think it appropriate for it to be given more of a review than
> just being packaged properly.  In Ubuntu's history there have been multiple
> "Tweak" programs and so far they have always proved to be more harmful than
> helpful at the scale the Ubuntu archive operates.
>
> This one may be the one that gets it right, but having found that they rebrand
> PPAs that other people maintain as there's on their web site, I'm not at all
> inclined to assume this is all well intentioned.

Re: ubuntu-tweak in new

<div>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Scott Kitterman <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:ubuntu@...">ubuntu <at> kitterman.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote">

<div class="im">On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 09:05:25 pm LI Daobing wrote:<br>
&gt; Hello,<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 09:00, Scott Kitterman &lt;<a href="mailto:ubuntu@...">ubuntu@...</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt; &gt; On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 01:29:46 pm Jonathan Riddell wrote:<br>
&gt; &gt;&gt; Ubuntu Tweak is waiting for approval in New queue.<br>
&gt; &gt;&gt; <a href="http://ubuntu-tweak.com/" target="_blank">http://ubuntu-tweak.com/</a><br>
&gt; &gt;&gt; <a href="https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/252140" target="_blank">https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/252140</a><br>
&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt; &gt;&gt; Is this something MOTU wants included?<br>
&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt; &gt; No.<br>
&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt; &gt; It looks to me like something that, in addition to proper packaging,<br>
&gt; &gt; ought to have a thorough functional review before entering the archive.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; I am the packager of ubuntu-tweak, can you tell me what's the problem<br>
&gt; with ubuntu-tweak?<br>
&gt;<br><br>
</div>I don't know that there is a problem, but given the invasive nature of it's<br>
functionality, I think it appropriate for it to be given more of a review than<br>
just being packaged properly. &nbsp;In Ubuntu's history there have been multiple<br>
"Tweak" programs and so far they have always proved to be more harmful than<br>
helpful at the scale the Ubuntu archive operates.<br><br>
This one may be the one that gets it right, but having found that they rebrand<br>
PPAs that other people maintain as there's on their web site, I'm not at all<br>
inclined to assume this is all well intentioned.<br>
</blockquote>
<div>I did the upload, the package itself are fine, I think we'd have it in our repositary, then can</div>
<div>it be used more widely, therefore, upstream author know how to improve/polish it. &nbsp;</div>

<blockquote class="gmail_quote">
<br>
Scott K<br><div>
<div></div>
<div class="h5">
<br>
--<br>
Ubuntu-motu mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Ubuntu-motu@...">Ubuntu-motu@...m</a><br>
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: <a href="https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu" target="_blank">https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu</a><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>

Re: ubuntu-tweak in new

<div>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 1:29 AM, Jonathan Riddell <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:jriddell@...">jriddell@...</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote">

<br>
Ubuntu Tweak is waiting for approval in New queue.<br><a href="http://ubuntu-tweak.com/" target="_blank">http://ubuntu-tweak.com/</a><br><a href="https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/252140" target="_blank">https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/252140</a><br><br>
Is this something MOTU wants included?<br>
</blockquote>
<div>Yes, I want it, and actually, its being used widely in China.&nbsp;</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote">

<br>
Jonathan<br><br>
--<br>
Ubuntu-motu mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Ubuntu-motu@...">Ubuntu-motu@...m</a><br>
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: <a href="https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu" target="_blank">https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>

Re: ubuntu-tweak in new

On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 09:16:05 pm LI Daobing wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 09:09, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu@...> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 09:05:25 pm LI Daobing wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >> 
> >> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 09:00, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu@...> 
wrote:
> >> > On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 01:29:46 pm Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> >> >> Ubuntu Tweak is waiting for approval in New queue.
> >> >> http://ubuntu-tweak.com/
> >> >> https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/252140
> >> >> 
> >> >> Is this something MOTU wants included?
> >> > 
> >> > No.
> >> > 
> >> > It looks to me like something that, in addition to proper packaging,
> >> > ought to have a thorough functional review before entering the
> >> > archive.
> >> 
> >> I am the packager of ubuntu-tweak, can you tell me what's the problem
> >> with ubuntu-tweak?
> > 
> > I don't know that there is a problem, but given the invasive nature of
> > it's functionality, I think it appropriate for it to be given more of a
> > review than just being packaged properly.  In Ubuntu's history there
> > have been multiple "Tweak" programs and so far they have always proved
> > to be more harmful than helpful at the scale the Ubuntu archive
> > operates.
> > 
> > This one may be the one that gets it right, but having found that they
> > rebrand PPAs that other people maintain as there's on their web site,
> > I'm not at all inclined to assume this is all well intentioned.
> 
> you are right.
> 
> this package is active-maintained, and I'll forward your opinion to
> the upstream author. I think he'll fix this bug.
> 
> ubuntu-tweak is very useful for me, and it's also has many users. so I
> want to push it to Ubuntu and hope it can catch ubuntu 10.10.
> 
> thanks.

I don't have a lot of time for a detailed review.  A quick look shows that 
this can enable quite a number of untrusted repositories.  My recollection is 
that we although Envy was initially accepted doing something similar it was 
required to be fixed to not do this.  I don't think a package that adds 
untrusted repositories is suitable.

It would be good if someone else could do a more thorough review.

Scott K

Re: ubuntu-tweak in new

moins,

On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 10:21 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 09:16:05 pm LI Daobing wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 09:09, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu@...> wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 09:05:25 pm LI Daobing wrote:
> > >> Hello,
> > >> 
> > >> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 09:00, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu@...> 
> wrote:
> > >> > On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 01:29:46 pm Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> > >> >> Ubuntu Tweak is waiting for approval in New queue.
> > >> >> http://ubuntu-tweak.com/
> > >> >> https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/252140
> > >> >> 
> > >> >> Is this something MOTU wants included?
> > >> > 
> > >> > No.
> > >> > 
> > >> > It looks to me like something that, in addition to proper packaging,
> > >> > ought to have a thorough functional review before entering the
> > >> > archive.
> > >> 
> > >> I am the packager of ubuntu-tweak, can you tell me what's the problem
> > >> with ubuntu-tweak?
> > > 
> > > I don't know that there is a problem, but given the invasive nature of
> > > it's functionality, I think it appropriate for it to be given more of a
> > > review than just being packaged properly.  In Ubuntu's history there
> > > have been multiple "Tweak" programs and so far they have always proved
> > > to be more harmful than helpful at the scale the Ubuntu archive
> > > operates.
> > > 
> > > This one may be the one that gets it right, but having found that they
> > > rebrand PPAs that other people maintain as there's on their web site,
> > > I'm not at all inclined to assume this is all well intentioned.
> > 
> > you are right.
> > 
> > this package is active-maintained, and I'll forward your opinion to
> > the upstream author. I think he'll fix this bug.
> > 
> > ubuntu-tweak is very useful for me, and it's also has many users. so I
> > want to push it to Ubuntu and hope it can catch ubuntu 10.10.
> > 
> > thanks.
> 
> I don't have a lot of time for a detailed review.  A quick look shows that 
> this can enable quite a number of untrusted repositories.  My recollection is 
> that we although Envy was initially accepted doing something similar it was 
> required to be fixed to not do this.  I don't think a package that adds 
> untrusted repositories is suitable.

Yes, it can enable a lot of untrusted sources, but I don't understand
how it does it.
under "software-center" there are lot of archives, which are not ubuntu
official, but they are greyed out...and with the "unlock" button it does
nothing (I took the version from revu)

Tbh, everything what's in there is already available on a standard gnome
desktop. We don't need a copy of update-manager, software-center or
whatever is in there...

I even don't like descriptions like there are in
ubuntutweak/common/appdata.py.

It think that this could give us a sitution as we had during times when
we had the unofficial backport times...

I will not give a +1 for this tool in the official ubuntu archives.

Regards,

\sh

moins,

On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 10:21 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 09:16:05 pm LI Daobing wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 09:09, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu@...> wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 09:05:25 pm LI Daobing wrote:
> > >> Hello,
> > >> 
> > >> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 09:00, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu@...> 
> wrote:
> > >> > On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 01:29:46 pm Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> > >> >> Ubuntu Tweak is waiting for approval in New queue.
> > >> >> http://ubuntu-tweak.com/
> > >> >> https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/252140
> > >> >> 
> > >> >> Is this something MOTU wants included?
> > >> > 
> > >> > No.
> > >> > 
> > >> > It looks to me like something that, in addition to proper packaging,
> > >> > ought to have a thorough functional review before entering the
> > >> > archive.
> > >> 
> > >> I am the packager of ubuntu-tweak, can you tell me what's the problem
> > >> with ubuntu-tweak?
> > > 
> > > I don't know that there is a problem, but given the invasive nature of
> > > it's functionality, I think it appropriate for it to be given more of a
> > > review than just being packaged properly.  In Ubuntu's history there
> > > have been multiple "Tweak" programs and so far they have always proved
> > > to be more harmful than helpful at the scale the Ubuntu archive
> > > operates.
> > > 
> > > This one may be the one that gets it right, but having found that they
> > > rebrand PPAs that other people maintain as there's on their web site,
> > > I'm not at all inclined to assume this is all well intentioned.
> > 
> > you are right.
> > 
> > this package is active-maintained, and I'll forward your opinion to
> > the upstream author. I think he'll fix this bug.
> > 
> > ubuntu-tweak is very useful for me, and it's also has many users. so I
> > want to push it to Ubuntu and hope it can catch ubuntu 10.10.
> > 
> > thanks.
> 
> I don't have a lot of time for a detailed review.  A quick look shows that 
> this can enable quite a number of untrusted repositories.  My recollection is 
> that we although Envy was initially accepted doing something similar it was 
> required to be fixed to not do this.  I don't think a package that adds 
> untrusted repositories is suitable.

Yes, it can enable a lot of untrusted sources, but I don't understand
how it does it.
under "software-center" there are lot of archives, which are not ubuntu
official, but they are greyed out...and with the "unlock" button it does
nothing (I took the version from revu)

Tbh, everything what's in there is already available on a standard gnome
desktop. We don't need a copy of update-manager, software-center or
whatever is in there...

I even don't like descriptions like there are in
ubuntutweak/common/appdata.py.

It think that this could give us a sitution as we had during times when
we had the unofficial backport times...

I will not give a +1 for this tool in the official ubuntu archives.

Regards,

\sh

Re: ubuntu-tweak in new

Hello,

On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 22:21, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu@...> wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 09:16:05 pm LI Daobing wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 09:09, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu@...> wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 09:05:25 pm LI Daobing wrote:
>> >> Hello,
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 09:00, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu@...>
> wrote:
>> >> > On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 01:29:46 pm Jonathan Riddell wrote:
>> >> >> Ubuntu Tweak is waiting for approval in New queue.
>> >> >> http://ubuntu-tweak.com/
>> >> >> https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/252140
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Is this something MOTU wants included?
>> >> >
>> >> > No.
>> >> >
>> >> > It looks to me like something that, in addition to proper packaging,
>> >> > ought to have a thorough functional review before entering the
>> >> > archive.
>> >>
>> >> I am the packager of ubuntu-tweak, can you tell me what's the problem
>> >> with ubuntu-tweak?
>> >
>> > I don't know that there is a problem, but given the invasive nature of
>> > it's functionality, I think it appropriate for it to be given more of a
>> > review than just being packaged properly.  In Ubuntu's history there
>> > have been multiple "Tweak" programs and so far they have always proved
>> > to be more harmful than helpful at the scale the Ubuntu archive
>> > operates.
>> >
>> > This one may be the one that gets it right, but having found that they
>> > rebrand PPAs that other people maintain as there's on their web site,
>> > I'm not at all inclined to assume this is all well intentioned.
>>
>> you are right.
>>
>> this package is active-maintained, and I'll forward your opinion to
>> the upstream author. I think he'll fix this bug.
>>
>> ubuntu-tweak is very useful for me, and it's also has many users. so I
>> want to push it to Ubuntu and hope it can catch ubuntu 10.10.
>>
>> thanks.
>
> I don't have a lot of time for a detailed review.  A quick look shows that
> this can enable quite a number of untrusted repositories.  My recollection is
> that we although Envy was initially accepted doing something similar it was
> required to be fixed to not do this.  I don't think a package that adds
> untrusted repositories is suitable.

ubuntu-tweak does not add any ppa to /etc/apt/sources.list.d/ by
default. this only happens when user ask it do.

the add-apt-repository command in python-software-properties package
also can add ppa to sources.list, so I don't think ubuntu will reject
software like this.

-- 
Best Regards
LI Daobing

--

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