Alon Swartz's picture
Alon Swartz - Thu, 2010/12/16 - 22:58

We are finalizing the 11.0 release and I've been working my way through issues reported on the forum, bug tracker, my email archive and my own todo list.

Before we go into freeze, I'm asking anyone who hasn't reported an issue to do so, as well as those who did but never received a reply (sorry if we missed you). We'd like to solve as many issues as possible before we freeze so they get included.

A big shout out goes to everyone who has been reporting issues, and everyone who has been man'ing the forums, especially Jedmeister, Adrian Moya - you guys rock!

Forum: 
General
Adrian Moya's picture

Adrian Moya - Fri, 2010/12/17 - 16:37

Alon, in /etc/tomcat6/server.xml, you set up URIEncoding="UTF-8" for port 80, but not 443. I think port 443 should have it too. 

Alon Swartz's picture

Alon Swartz - Sat, 2010/12/18 - 18:03

Good catch Adrian, done.

Jeremy Davis's picture

Jeremy Davis - Sat, 2010/12/18 - 04:24

In lucid-updates/main there is an updated kernel. It's a Maverick kernel (currently 2.6.35.22.34). I personally have no need for an updated TKL kernel but some users may, particularly for hardware support (apparently it uses less power too - which is always a good thing IMO). Considering that it seems to be stable and its in updates/main (which is enabled by default in TKL) I think it is worthy of inclusion - unless of course there is a compelling reason not to?

For anyone who would like to test it out it can be installed like so:

apt-get update
apt-get install linux-image-generic-lts-backport-maverick linux-headers-generic-lts-backport-maverick

Then reboot.

Alon Swartz's picture

Alon Swartz - Sat, 2010/12/18 - 18:44

I wasn't aware that the maverick kernel backport was in main, good to know. I do however wonder what the policy is around maintaining the version. There are a couple of issues I can think of as to why I wouldn't want to use it:

  • All TKL images have depended on linux-image-generic (and their family for virtual/xen/etc.). These are of course meta-packages which make upgrading really easy and less error prone (auto-updates, sysadmin, TKLBAM).
  • They are the officially maintained versions, which gets most of the testing not to mention the security updates, and easy upgrading path.
  • Installing the maverick backport could potentially leave a system stranded (ie. what happens when Natty is released, will the Maverick backport get updated?)

I think the backport would be useful to tinkerers who need the latest kernel, but for some reason can't upgrade the base operating system, such as company policy or need for long-term-support.

Jeremy Davis's picture

Jeremy Davis - Mon, 2010/12/20 - 07:34

And you are right. Better to err on the side of stability, security and long term support than try to have the latest.

Thanks for your explanation because it helps me understand. I thought that the Cannonical update policy applied to lucid-updates 'main' repo as well as the lucid 'main' repo, ie that it would recieve updates for the life of the LTS. Obviously from your comments that is not the case. So getting a little off topic, does that mean that only the lucid 'main' repo is supported as LTS? I'm aware that the 'universe' and 'multiverse' repos are community supported, not by Cannonical.

Alon Swartz's picture

Alon Swartz - Tue, 2010/12/21 - 13:09

I'm actually not sure if lucid-updates falls under the same policy. Thats a very good question. I'm inclined to say that they do, but to be on the safe side I'll contact the folks at Canonical/Ubuntu and ask them.

With regards to the specific package (linux-image-generic-lts-backport-maverick) I am doubtful it will receive updates for the LTS lifespan. I say this because of its name - maverick. Maverick won't be around for the entire lifespan of the LTS.

This might just be bad naming convention and I'm completely mistaken. If so, I would recommend they just remove "maverick" from the package name, or come up with a better name altogether to avoid confusion.

Jeremy Davis's picture

Jeremy Davis - Mon, 2011/06/06 - 09:18

Hey Alon, just wondering if you ever heard back about this one? I note that the Maverick kernel is still there in updates and (so far) continues to get updates. Also it seems to be a good workaround for the issues some users are having with ESX/ESXi v4.1. Be good to know what longer term plans Cannonical have for it. Surely they won't keep updating it, especially once support for Maverick finishes in late 2012. But perhaps they will backport another (newer) kernel at some point?

Alon Swartz's picture

Alon Swartz - Mon, 2011/06/06 - 10:45

I dropped the ball on this one, sorry. I just sent an email to the ubuntu-devel mailing list and CC'd you. Once we get an answer I'll update this thread.

Jeremy Davis's picture

Jeremy Davis - Mon, 2011/06/06 - 11:50

That's cool, you've got plenty on! It's not like you're just sitting around twiddling your thumbs so all is forgiven! :)

Hopefully we'll hear back soon.

Jeremy Davis's picture

Jeremy Davis - Mon, 2011/06/06 - 17:17

For completeness here is the response received:

The discussion at UDS Lucid regarding these kernels resolved that these
kernels would be supported at least until the next LTS released as that
aligned well with the origin release. The idea being they would be a
vehicle to allow migration to the next LTS. I believe there was was also
an action to publish the support terms for these kernels, which I cannot
locate immediatly. Likely these should be explicitly called out on the
support matrix for Lucid and they are not currently.

Jeremy Davis's picture

Jeremy Davis - Sat, 2010/12/18 - 05:51

Probably not a great idea to put too many in, but these couple of simple ones may be useful to assist CLI newbs to not wreck stuff:

alias mv="mv -i"
alias cp="cp -i"
alias rm="rm -i"

Although I guess perhaps in some circumstance that behaviour may not be desirable. Not sure about this one, but thought I'd put it out there. Love to hear what others think and why.

Add new comment