ubuntu-bugcontrol team mailing list archive

["Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dave@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

* Christopher M. Penalver (christopher.m.penalver@xxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> 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.

Looking at the fix described in another message it seems a fundamental
breakage in futex calls; it's going to be a shotgun causing bugs all over
the place.

> > 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.

No, there are packages that are specifically in Lucid Desktop; but
packages that are in both; if I happen to have installed from a Desktop
iso but the bug is in a package included in a server install then
the bug is still valid.

Lets imagine that some unfortunate Desktop user hits a bug, and they
give a good report, but that bug is in a common package and that
helps fix it for users of server, it would be a shame to lose the information
that helps fix it for the supported users.

Remember, the point of bugcontrol is not to act as harsh policemen; it's
to get bugs fixed, yes that sometimes means throwing out the old crud,
but in the end it also means recognising when the bug is important/shared.

Dave

> 
> > 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-bugcontrol
> Post to     : ubuntu-bugcontrol@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-bugcontrol
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
-- 
 -----Open up your eyes, open up your mind, open up your code -------   
/ Dr. David Alan Gilbert    |       Running GNU/Linux       | Happy  \ 
\ gro.gilbert @ treblig.org |                               | In Hex /
 \ _________________________|_____ http://www.treblig.org   |_______/