ubuntu-tweak in new

[Stephan Hermann]

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 at kitterman.com> 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 at kitterman.com> 
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-motu/attachments/20100805/4ef5610e/attachment.pgp