Ubuntu Business Remix update

Mark Shuttleworth mark at ubuntu.com
Thu Feb 2 00:25:07 UTC 2012

Thanks Colin!

With Michael Vogt, Jamie Strandboge and the Ubuntu Security teams in
~canonical-partner-dev we can be confident in their handling of security
matters, again modulo 'upstream'.

I have a strong preference for the remix to be done in a way which is
not special to Canonical's trademark rights in Ubuntu, which is why I
asked it to be redone on that basis and why I'm pursuing the thread,
despite everyone saying 'I don't mind the remix but...'.

Pitti and Scott both said that they would prefer not to think of Partner
as part of Ubuntu. I prefer to think of it that way, because (a) I have
no problem with TB oversight of the practices that govern it, and (b) I
think it's good to reaffirm that our preference for free software is not
also a refusal to touch the rest. Nevertheless, I understand that we may
end up with a range of views rather than consensus.

Simplistically, I think that means 'we don't mind the remix', and could
go ahead, but we'll continue to hold off on any publication of it to see
if the thread turns up more suggestions. It's been good to get this
feedback. So far, I think the clarifications around bug tracking have
been very useful, as has the realisation that we could figure out how to
enable non-Canonical participation in the packaging and maintenance of
that archive. What other ideas?


On 01/02/12 23:17, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 09:02:26PM +0000, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
>> On 31/01/12 09:55, Alan Bell wrote:
>>> * Stuff gets added post-release with no pre-release testing, nowhere
>>> to report bugs and contribute fixes on Launchpad etc. etc.)
>> Good point, I thought bug reporting should be normal, and if it isn't,
>> let's fix that.
> I thought it was already, e.g.:
>   https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/skype/+bugs
> (Earlier in the thread, somebody referred to a bug about the namespacing
> of this, which of course is tied into this thread.  That bug also has a
> two-year-old comment saying that partner was due to move into a PPA or
> PPAs; if that happened, the positioning in the bug system would
> presumably change somehow although I have no idea how.)
> I don't know to what extent bug mail goes anywhere useful, gets acted
> on, etc.  However, ~canonical-partner-dev is subscribed:
>   >>> ubuntu = lp.distributions["ubuntu"]
>   >>> skype = ubuntu.getSourcePackage(name="skype")
>   >>> [s.subscriber.name for s in skype.getSubscriptions()]
>   [u'canonical-partner-dev', u'costamagnagianfranco']
> It looks like ~canonical-partner-dev is subscribed to the majority of
> packages in partner, although not quite all.  Posting the full list here
> wouldn't be terribly interesting, but something like this doesn't take
> too long to run:
>   >>> for series_name in ('hardy', 'lucid', 'maverick', 'natty',
>   ...                     'oneiric', 'precise'):
>   ...     print series_name
>   ...     series = ubuntu.getSeries(name_or_version=series_name)
>   ...     pubs = partner.getPublishedSources(
>   ...         distro_series=series, status="Published")
>   ...     source_names = sorted([pub.source_package_name for pub in pubs])
>   ...     for source_name in source_names:
>   ...         source = ubuntu.getSourcePackage(name=source_name)
>   ...         subs = source.getSubscriptions()
>   ...         print "  %s: %s" % (
>   ...             source_name, " ".join([s.subscriber.name for s in subs]))

More information about the technical-board mailing list