ubuntu-bugcontrol team mailing list archive

["Christopher M. Penalver" <christopher.m.penalver@xxxxxxxxx>]

Just to touch on Brian Murray's comments (because I'm now being CC'ed,
and there is a lag on what gets posted to the Launchpad archive):

> Subsequently, if the bug is in fact with the kernel then it is still valid and likely should be marked as a duplicate.

If this regression in the kernel which caused a problem in, for
example, the package apt, and folks cannot add/remove packages,
agreed, the symptoms (apt not working) should be fixed in the kernel
(root cause). I disagree with marking a a duplicate of 1327300 for
symptom fixes of unsupported packages, because the supported package
had a regression.

> How did you make the determination that a system is a 10.04 Server or a 10.04 Desktop? There is no easy way to make that distinction as far as I know.

Apport catches the install ISO name and posts it in the Bug
Description. Also, one could clarify with the bug reporter at a worst
case.

>  Subsequently, the distinction between a Server and a Desktop seems rather moot, the support is provided on a per package basis not installation type.

Ok, then why even say Lucid Desktop is not supported on the release
page, since packages of either are supported on either? Based on this,
Lucid Desktop is fully supported on all the packages it's being
supported in, nothing different from Lucid Server. I could guess to
the intention of this (trying to be accommodating and not slam hammer
people to upgrade off Lucid Desktop). However, the support structure
from my vantage point is contradictory in saying one thing in one
place, and saying another in another.

> If I were working on these bugs I would add a comment regarding 10.04 desktop packages being End of Life
while marking them as a duplicate of bug 1327300 (if they are for
certain a duplicate).

Given the supported package regression (linux) would seem to have
caused issues with various unsupported packages situation these folks
are in, and the unsupported, and insecure Lucid Desktop they are
using, I would do everything but mark it a duplicate given the
security issue.

> If not then a comment about testing the new kernel from -proposed, while mentioning End of Life, and a status of Incomplete seems appropriate.

Fair enough.

On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Daniel Letzeisen <dtl131@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 06/14/2014 10:43 AM, Christopher M. Penalver wrote:
>
>> The support is based on that, as when one installs the Desktop ISO, it
>> installs the userspace that is now unsupported.
>
>
> False.

True. Firefox (which one of the bug reporters is complaining about) is
a userspace application pulled in by Lucid Desktop, which is an
unsupported package, as further advised to you by Brian Murray's
comments yesterday:
"...support for the 10.04 for "Desktop" systems has ended..."

and the supported package link
https://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-security/ubuntu-cve-tracker/master/view/head:/lucid-supported.txt
.

Having a supported package in the only supported ISO provided (Lucid
Server) that breaks unsupported packages in either Lucid Server or
Lucid Desktop would be unsupported. Nobody with a server is installing
a GUI and it's applications (ex. Firefox).

> "Additionally, the security team publishes a list of 5 year supported
> packages[1] found at their FAQ[2]. Any package in that list is supported and
> if there is a regression in that package due to a security update it should
> be fixed. Subsequently, the distinction between a Server and a Desktop seems
> rather moot, ***the support is provided on a per package basis not
> installation type.***
> -- Brian Murray, https://lists.launchpad.net/ubuntu-bugcontrol/msg04110.html

Quoting:
"...support for the 10.04 for "Desktop" systems has ended..."

>>
>> Second, this is support for Lucid Server on a per package basis, not
>> Lucid Desktop. That link doesn't trump
>> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Releases it sets the expectations in a more
>> granular fashion.
>
> False. See above quote...

True, and again quoting:
"...support for the 10.04 for "Desktop" systems has ended..."

>> Third, let's review each bug report you marked a duplicate on a line
>> item basis specifically to clarify the support they are looking for
>
> They've reported a lot of symptoms in packages that aren't supported?

Yes.

> So what?

That's what determines the support expectations for their problem.

>  The root cause is still the botched kernel. I know you think you're doing these people a favor by just telling them to upgrade, but you are flat-out lying (by omission)

Again, stop with your rude accusations.

>  to them if you don't tell them that their problem was caused by the -61 kernel update, can be easily worked around,
> and has a pending fix.

If the kernel being updated fixes their unsupported packages, that's
great. But no Ubuntu support would be available to them for their
unsupported packages.

>>>> 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).
>>
>> Not terribly relevant to this discussion.
>
>
> It's extremely relevant since you keep insisting that I'm "encouraging"
> people to run Lucid by telling them the truth.

You would be encouraging people to run Lucid Desktop by marking those
bugs duplicates, which is encouraging dangerous behavior running an
insecure operating system.

>  Marking bugs as duplicate of the actual bug isn't "support" any more than marking a bug Won't Fix and copy/pasting a
> response.

Agreed, it would be less so, because you are doing them a grave
disservice encouraging them to use an insecure operating system.

As well, your arguing for support for EoL operating systems and
packages shows security isn't very important to you, let alone the
security of those using Lucid Desktop, which is not a quality highly
valued in today's technology-driven marketplace where security is more
important than ever.

Christopher M. Penalver
E-Mail: christopher.m.penalver@xxxxxxxxx