ubuntu-bugcontrol team mailing list archive

[Daniel Letzeisen <dtl131@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 06/13/2014 06:36 AM, Christopher M. Penalver wrote:
> However, you are still misunderstanding that support is not on a per package basis
> (whether linux, libreoffice, etc.), but a release one (Lucid Desktop
> v. Lucid Server). You are encouraging those with EoL
> releases into thinking they are supported, when they are clearly not.

Support IS still on a per package basis, as Brian Murray confirmed with 
this link (please bookmark it!) 
https://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-security/ubuntu-cve-tracker/master/view/head:/lucid-supported.txt

Also, I'm definitely not encouraging anyone to run Lucid. In fact, some 
of the people I've communicated with in the forums about this issue 
explicitly said they knew Lucid Desktop was no longer supported (but 
still ran it for one reason or another). If anything is deceiving people 
into thinking that their OS is still supported, it's those updates that 
keep coming from apt...

Again - You can't just tell someone that their OS is unsupported, push 
them an update that breaks it, and then hide behind a policy when they 
ask what happened. Don't pee on the users' legs and tell them it's raining!

> Is this a serious question?
When you gave me the release link and told me that Lucid Desktop was 
only supported until last year, was that a serious attempt to inform me 
or were you being condescending on purpose?

> By marking a bug a duplicate of another, after I've clearly marked it
> Invalid or Won't Fix as per this discussion, this would be overriding.
> However, I'm always happy to have someone catch a mistake I would have
> made and override that. I appreciate it that folks are that concerned
> that they do share their knowledge on a subject I may not be as
> familiar with. It's an opportunity to learn. However, this is not that
> case.
The "master" bug is also marked Invalid. And yes, you've made a mistake 
here (though I don't expect you to admit it or change your viewpoint). I 
certainly don't blame you though. It's Canonical's policy (or rather, 
their uneven enforcement of it with apt) that is to blame. At least 
Lucid is the last LTS to try to make this Server/Desktop distinction...

> That policy was set in place at the release of Lucid Desktop, and has
> been known for going on 6 years. I wouldn't classify it as lousy,
> given that the support expectations were clearly communicated since
> day one.
Was it made clear to users then that Canonical would still push them 
"fixes" that would break their system after it was EOL?

> By marking Lucid Desktop bugs a duplicate of a Lucid Server bug, you
> are doing one thing on Launchpad, and then saying the complete
> opposite here at a later point in time.
Again, support is on a per-package basis (as established above). By 
agreeing that bug 1327300 is valid and then marking duplicates as 
non-duplicates, you are not really agreeing that bug 1327300 is valid..


> Well, blaming Canonical for not implementing 6+ years ago a granular
> update mechanism to prevent Lucid Desktop users from receiving Lucid
> Server updates would not be the issue here.
> ...
> There is no matter to settle. The policies speak for themselves loud and clear.

Actually, that is the issue. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this 
conversation.
Also, the policy is obviously not clear, since you thought that support 
was based on original ISO installed rather than per package.

> It's like calling Microsoft for server support for Windows XP. You are going to
> get laughed off the phone.
Microsoft also pushed security updates to XP users after the EOL date. 
If those updates had severely broken the users' systems and they had 
refused to revert/fix those, MS would have gotten laughed right out of 
court.

> Please feel free to unmark the duplicates at your earliest convenience.
I can't think of a good response to that which doesn't violate the CoC...