3 ms·

It's not "open source specific" when you have a support contract with Canonical. Also if it's a high profile package, there is a moral obligation to do a proper

by hp50g 14y ago

It's not "open source specific" when you have a support contract with Canonical. Also if it's a high profile package, there is a moral obligation to do a proper job. MySQL issue was fixed by a minor version upgrade on all other platforms including Debian stable! LTS should include that upgrade but it has been frozen at a broken version for 3 years. That is simply unacceptable and purely incompetent. Debian are actually responsive and take defects seriously. Canonical actually break more stuff than they improve. Seriously though, if I phone up Microsoft (we have a support contract along the same lines of Canonical), the actually get a fix to us in quite shockingly good times. We had an SQL server issue and we had a binary hotfix in two days flat. Canonical just do a shit job - simple as.

rlpb 14y ago
A minor version upgrade violates Ubuntu's stable release updates policy, which is to backport fixes only. And as I've said, this is very difficult when MySQL upstream keep their VCS private. An Ubuntu developer could try and get a micro release exception in place for MySQL, but as I say this is a MySQL-specific problem. Canonical cannot trump Ubuntu policy.
- hp50g 14y ago
  Tracking minor versions was part of the LTS policy at the time as we had minor updates before the shit version got thrown at us. This is 10.04 for ref. Were talking v5.0.30 -> v5.0.31 here (these aren't the actual versions as I don't have them in front of me). Also it says in our support contract what the policy is. We no longer have any support contract - waste of money.
  - rlpb 14y ago
    The security team have no option but to throw minor updates in for MySQL because upstream keep their security patches secret. Non-security updates don't currently get this treatment. It sounds like this is what happened to you.
    - hp50g 14y ago
      Fair point - thanks for the clarification! :)
- Evbn 14y ago
  I though Canonical owns Ubuntu. They can policy whatever they want.
  - rlpb 14y ago
    No. Ubuntu has its own community governance. Though Canonical does employ a number (perhaps the majority) of Ubuntu developers. Policies are ultimately managed by the Technical Board and the Community Council, both of which have members who are not Canonical employees. Mark Shuttleworth does have ultimate executive rights to do anything he wants, and he does own Canonical. So yes, Mark can set whatever policy he wants. But his use of this veto/executive ability is generally documented and he doesn't use it all that much. Certainly not in the details of MySQL and stable release updates.

by hp50g 14y ago

rlpb 14y ago

A minor version upgrade violates Ubuntu's stable release updates policy, which is to backport fixes only. And as I've said, this is very difficult when MySQL upstream keep their VCS private. An Ubuntu developer could try and get a micro release exception in place for MySQL, but as I say this is a MySQL-specific problem. Canonical cannot trump Ubuntu policy.

hp50g 14y ago
Tracking minor versions was part of the LTS policy at the time as we had minor updates before the shit version got thrown at us. This is 10.04 for ref. Were talking v5.0.30 -> v5.0.31 here (these aren't the actual versions as I don't have them in front of me). Also it says in our support contract what the policy is. We no longer have any support contract - waste of money.
- rlpb 14y ago
  The security team have no option but to throw minor updates in for MySQL because upstream keep their security patches secret. Non-security updates don't currently get this treatment. It sounds like this is what happened to you.
  - hp50g 14y ago
    Fair point - thanks for the clarification! :)
Evbn 14y ago
I though Canonical owns Ubuntu. They can policy whatever they want.
- rlpb 14y ago
  No. Ubuntu has its own community governance. Though Canonical does employ a number (perhaps the majority) of Ubuntu developers. Policies are ultimately managed by the Technical Board and the Community Council, both of which have members who are not Canonical employees. Mark Shuttleworth does have ultimate executive rights to do anything he wants, and he does own Canonical. So yes, Mark can set whatever policy he wants. But his use of this veto/executive ability is generally documented and he doesn't use it all that much. Certainly not in the details of MySQL and stable release updates.