Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Canonical Fully Open-Sources the Launchpad Code

Soulskill posted about 5 years ago | from the done-and-done dept.

Announcements 104

kfogel writes "Canonical has just fully open-sourced the code to Launchpad. Although we'd said earlier that a couple of components would be held back, we changed our mind. All the code has been released under the GNU Affero General Public License, version 3. 'Canonical will continue to run the Launchpad servers, taking care of production and deployment issues; opening up the code doesn't mean burdening the users with all of that stuff. At the same time, we'll institute processes to shepherd community-contributed code into the system, so that people who have ideas for how to improve Launchpad can quickly turn these ideas into reality.'"

cancel ×

104 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

sweet (3)

BladeMelbourne (518866) | about 5 years ago | (#28768915)

I [heart] this company and Ubuntu,

Re:sweet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28770061)

I [heart] this company and Ubuntu,

, comma.

Really? (3, Interesting)

CarpetShark (865376) | about 5 years ago | (#28770761)

Re:Really? (1)

Agent ME (1411269) | about 5 years ago | (#28773727)

Big deal, Canonical is a company that pushes a giant open-source project, and it not coincidentally has a lot of control over it and uses its name in a service they offer (it's not even necessarily a paid service - I believe the 2gb plan is free!). I think they've earned that much.

Debian (4, Interesting)

James_Duncan8181 (588316) | about 5 years ago | (#28768953)

Please now consider standardising on this. It's much better technically than Debian's current infrastructure, and will enable much, much easier sharing of patches. Finally the community could be reunified a bit, and PPAs for Stable would also be an important improvement for Debian.

Re:Debian (1)

draxil (198788) | about 5 years ago | (#28769109)

Sounds good to me!

Re:Debian (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28769287)

Me too!

Re:Debian (1)

dandart (1274360) | about 5 years ago | (#28769349)

Noo! Please! No more PPAs!

Re:Debian (3, Insightful)

Tweenk (1274968) | about 5 years ago | (#28770053)

That's ass backwards. We need *more* PPAs with the latest versions. What's missing is an easy way to pick them from a checklist while automatically fetching GPG keys. This way you have something like an open app store, and it solves the problem of not having recent enough versions in the repository - you need a bleeding edge version, you check the relevant PPA and the latest bells and whistles magically appear in the package manager.

Re:Debian (1)

dandart (1274360) | about 5 years ago | (#28770463)

The solution would be to stick the recent versions of every program in ONE repo so that we don't keep having to add them to our sources.list!

Re:Debian (2, Informative)

stevey (64018) | about 5 years ago | (#28770967)

And we could call that "unstable", right?

Actually launchpad for Debian would suck - we shouldn't have to sign up to a site to submit bug reports.

Re:Debian (1)

dandart (1274360) | about 5 years ago | (#28771131)

Unstable... or "testing"...haha Standardisation would be nice- but not everyone would agree with it.

Re:Debian (1)

tenco (773732) | about 5 years ago | (#28773215)

That's no solution, that's asking for trouble.

Re:Debian (1)

dandart (1274360) | about 5 years ago | (#28773587)

Alright, if you want to make getting all the newer software you want more difficult!

Re:Debian (2, Insightful)

Tweenk (1274968) | about 5 years ago | (#28770131)

Personally I'm waiting for them to add better integration of PPAs into Synaptic. For example, when I need a bleeding edge version of Banshee, or some application not in Debian like Handbrake, I pick its PPA from a list, enter the password and it magically appears in Synaptic. After this I'm asked which programs from this PPA I want to install (again a list for PPAs that have several). Since it allows only PPAs and not some arbitrary repositories, it could be protected against malware to some extent. This would change software installation on Ubuntu from good to groundbreaking.

Re:Debian (4, Informative)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | about 5 years ago | (#28770495)

The problem with this is that PPA means "Personal" Package archive and a lot of them are just that - an arbitrary repository. In many cases you are trusting some random stranger, and not Canonical, to have produced a package that doesn't contain horrendous malware. Every Launchpad user is entitled to a 1GB PPA just by signing up. Mine contains packages for MythTV with patches to fix a bug that hasn't made it out to the stable branch yet. You can install them if you really want to, but do you trust me? And how do you distinguish from all the other people with MythTV in their PPA?

Lots of projects have links to deb packages that install their GPG key and their PPA, after which you can see them in Synaptic, but this still isn't any guarantee. About the only thing you can do is be careful which groups you install keys and PPAs from. And I'd guess the reason that more of them aren't in the Universe repository is that the task of vetting them all is a mammoth one.

Re: PPA and GPG keys (1)

psyclone (187154) | about 5 years ago | (#28788823)

Lots of projects have links to deb packages that install their GPG key and their PPA, after which you can see them in Synaptic, but this still isn't any guarantee. About the only thing you can do is be careful which groups you install keys and PPAs from.

I'm curious if anyone thinks the "web of trust" around signing other GPG keys could work here. The idea being that more trustworthy PPA members would have their keys signed by many others, while less reputable PPA members would have limited key signatures. This would essentially be a rating system of trust for PPAs.

I know when I use add a new PPA, I try and do a bit of research (e.g. find a lot of links to, or comments about, the PPA) that makes me feel better about trusting some third party binary.

Re:Debian (2, Informative)

Nevyn (5505) | about 5 years ago | (#28773175)

Personally I'm waiting for them to add better integration of PPAs into Synaptic.

Well unless the authors become dumbasses overnight, you'll probably be waiting a long time. Package management needs to be a single coherent database, making it much more distributed than it needs to be is just asking for pain ... PPAs/KoPeRs aren't terrible in moderation, and solve a couple of problems. But if you make them easily available (ie. available to people who don't know what problems they cause) the solution is much worse than the problem.

Re:Debian (1)

jopsen (885607) | about 5 years ago | (#28773749)

... PPAs/KoPeRs aren't terrible in moderation, and solve a couple of problems. But if you make them easily available (ie. available to people who don't know what problems they cause) the solution is much worse than the problem.

I agree PPA are good if you want the newest software and understand that installing these packages might break your system... People who don't understand that shouldn't be using PPAs...

I guess it closes bug #393596 ? (3, Insightful)

migla (1099771) | about 5 years ago | (#28768995)

Status should be changed to "Fix released", then:

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-community/+bug/393596 [launchpad.net]

Re:I guess it closes bug #393596 ? (1)

James_Duncan8181 (588316) | about 5 years ago | (#28769089)

And as if by magic, it is done.

Re:I guess it closes bug #393596 ? (-1, Troll)

FireFury03 (653718) | about 5 years ago | (#28769111)

Status should be changed to "Fix released", then:

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-community/+bug/393596 [launchpad.net]

Not really - the bug is calling for code to be released under a Free licence. The AGPL isn't a Free licence.

Re:I guess it closes bug #393596 ? (4, Insightful)

James_Duncan8181 (588316) | about 5 years ago | (#28769179)

"Not really - the bug is calling for code to be released under a Free licence. The AGPL isn't a Free licence."

what.

It is approved by both the OSI [opensource.org] and, obviously, the FSF. [fsf.org] Are you trolling?

Re:I guess it closes bug #393596 ? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28769379)

The GNU affero is an abomination.

A customer of mine was skeptical about open source. Then one of their people started reading the Affero GPL, and was terrified ("this means they can do a surprise inspection on our premises!") now anything with GPL or open source is out of the question. They even bought an xserve for php

Re:I guess it closes bug #393596 ? (5, Interesting)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about 5 years ago | (#28769587)

The GNU affero is an abomination.

A customer of mine was skeptical about open source. Then one of their people started reading the Affero GPL, and was terrified ("this means they can do a surprise inspection on our premises!") now anything with GPL or open source is out of the question. They even bought an xserve for php

You mean as opposed to the Business Software Alliance? Which you agree to allow to do a surprise inspection on your premises if you buy software from their members (Microsoft, Adobe, etc). Yeah they better not use open source because, you know, those guys might launch a surprise inspection, not that I have ever seen a report of them doing so (unlike the BSA), but they might.
So they better stick to safe software from Microsoft and Adobe, they would never invade the privacy of their customers (except of course when they can make money from doing so).

Re:I guess it closes bug #393596 ? (5, Informative)

gbjbaanb (229885) | about 5 years ago | (#28769807)

its not quite like that - we had a surprise inspection from Microsoft.. well, they surprised us by telling us we'd be inspected, and they kindly offered to come and do an analysis of our software licences to see which ones we'd accidentally forgotten to buy.

Unfortunately, the analysis required the use of a 3rd party who were very happy to charge us only a reasonable sum to let us run a licence-checker tool on every workstation and send the results to them where they'd put it in excel and tell us how many licences we should have bought, leaving us to compare that to the number we had bought.

so in effect, we had to pay to inspect ourselves. And we still owe MS a bundle!

Re:I guess it closes bug #393596 ? (1)

Pvt_Ryan (1102363) | about 5 years ago | (#28769699)

What is the difference between GPL and AGPL?

Re:I guess it closes bug #393596 ? (2, Informative)

the_womble (580291) | about 5 years ago | (#28769805)

The AGPL requires you to make the source code available to people who use the software over a network - so you cannot use AGPL code in a web app on the public internet without releasing the source.

The stuff about inspecting premises is FUD. I think this is a new version of an old troll comment.

Re:I guess it closes bug #393596 ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28769867)

...

This only means both you and your customer are fucking idiots.

Re:I guess it closes bug #393596 ? (1)

impaledsunset (1337701) | about 5 years ago | (#28769895)

While I feel that Affero GPL goes a little bit too far, your story only proves that your customer was an idiot.

Re:I guess it closes bug #393596 ? (1)

glodime (1015179) | about 5 years ago | (#28770045)

...one of their people started reading the Affero GPL, and was terrified ("this means they can do a surprise inspection on our premises!")

What section(s) and/or line(s) of the license imply an authorization of surprise inspections?

Re: Ask Sterling Ball (2, Interesting)

AshboryBass (1539705) | about 5 years ago | (#28770767)

Show me any time open software has done anything like what the BSA/Microsoft did to the makers of Music Man guitars (Ernie Ball) and we'll talk: http://news.cnet.com/2008-1082_3-5065859.html [cnet.com] Worrying about what could happen is one thing, but knowing what has happened is more significant.

Re:I guess it closes bug #393596 ? (1)

pirhana (577758) | about 5 years ago | (#28770881)

> "this means they can do a surprise inspection on our premises!"

Same is true with almost all of the proprietary licenses too. They can do a surprise inspection. So your customer would be terrified either

Re:I guess it closes bug #393596 ? (1)

shentino (1139071) | about 5 years ago | (#28776053)

Your customer's management got fudded. Which is one reason that IT managers should be well grounded in the people they manage. Letting a higher up get politically bullshitted into pushing his subbies the wrong way is just plain not good.

Re:I guess it closes bug #393596 ? (1)

JBdH (613927) | about 5 years ago | (#28776201)

I don't get it. Buying a X serve doesn't undo the GPL for the GPL'ed stuff that Apple uses (like PHP), does it? It just means some stuff is proprietary (like the OSX kernel) running with a lot of GPL stuff on top of it.

Re:I guess it closes bug #393596 ? (2, Interesting)

rbanffy (584143) | about 5 years ago | (#28778131)

This is actually the first clever use of AGPL I am aware of: it prevents a competitor to form around an altered version of Launchpad. If they try, they have to give it to their users and thus Canonical.

It prevents fragmentation of the code base. Very, very clever.

Re:I guess it closes bug #393596 ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28782243)

it's also irrelevant. The code is shared in such a way that it's booby-trapped.

Try getting Google to use AGPL code. See how far you get.

Re:I guess it closes bug #393596 ? (1)

rbanffy (584143) | about 5 years ago | (#28787709)

But that's because of the business model. AGPL is to be used when you are not bothered by competition but you don't want fragmentation of your codebase.

Remember (A)GPL is for protecting the right of the users, not of the coders. If you want to protect your rights as the provider of a software-as-a-service solution, you'd better _not_ use AGPL.

If all you want is a free ride on the work of others, stay away of the AGPL.

Re:I guess it closes bug #393596 ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28789705)

how does this protect the rights of the user?

Re:I guess it closes bug #393596 ? (1)

Perky_Goth (594327) | about 5 years ago | (#28793173)

Because he can choose to use the software however he pleases, or change it to suit his needs, etc.

Re:I guess it closes bug #393596 ? (2, Informative)

quantic_oscillation7 (973678) | about 5 years ago | (#28769431)

"This is a free software, copyleft license. Its terms effectively consist of the terms of GPLv3, with an additional paragraph in section 13 to allow users who interact with the licensed software over a network to receive the source for that program. We recommend that developers consider using the GNU AGPL for any software which will commonly be run over a network." http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLCompatibleLicenses [fsf.org]

Re:I guess it closes bug #393596 ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28769483)

Are you accusing someone of trolling as a cheap way of shutting them down? Not much different than the Supreme Leader accusing those who disagree with him of being enemies of the revolution.

Address the argument, don't poison the well. It's bad for your soul, stop acting like a weasel.

Re:I guess it closes bug #393596 ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28769601)

He did address the argument. I see that you didn't.

Re:I guess it closes bug #393596 ? (1)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | about 5 years ago | (#28769657)

It is approved by both the OSI [opensource.org] and, obviously, the FSF. [fsf.org] Are you trolling?

GFDL (with those "invariant sections") also came from the FSF, is that "Free" too?

It is perfectly reasonable to not agree with how the FSF chooses to define things.

Is the AGPL a EULA? (1)

Late Adopter (1492849) | about 5 years ago | (#28770885)

Here's my issue with the AGPL: it imposes restrictions on you even if you don't distribute the software. Free Software advocates (myself included) have always insisted the GPL was beneficial because it granted you rights that you didn't have to begin with under copyright law, and so you were always free to reject it and still use the software.

But the AGPL says you have to release source if you run the code on a server exposed to the public... That's scarily close to a EULA: it takes away rights you have (the right to use the code given to you; the intermediate copying steps are protected in part explicitly by law and in part implicitly under fair use). What happens if I don't accept the AGPL and use the code anyway?

Re:Is the AGPL a EULA? (1)

Homburg (213427) | about 5 years ago | (#28774051)

The relevant language in the AGPL technically sidesteps this problem, although I'm not sure whether it addresses the spirit of your concern. The key point is section 13:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software.

So, the rule is that you can't modify AGPL software to remove an offer to provide source code to networked users; it's not technically a restriction on use, but rather on modification. The odd thing is that it applies to a modification that isn't distributed. Asserting the ability to use copyright to restrict that kind of modification is very similar to the reasoning that was used to enforce World of Warcraft's EULA; in that case, WoW mods that modified the software when it was loaded were held to violate copyright. So the AGPL could be a slippery slope to the validation of EULAs.

Re:Is the AGPL a EULA? (1)

gottabeme (590848) | about 5 years ago | (#28775313)

It makes sense to me. Imagine something like Facebook, but on a much smaller scale, got open-sourced with the AGPL. Then someone took it, made a lot of improvements, and started a new site to compete with it. They're benefiting from the source, but they aren't giving back, because their modified code runs on their server and provides a service to others over the net. They aren't distributing the code, but they're distributing the resulting service, and no one else can also benefit from the improvements they've made. This isn't fair, because they're benefiting from the code that was initially open-sourced. The AGPL addresses that.

Re:Is the AGPL a EULA? (1)

shentino (1139071) | about 5 years ago | (#28776127)

Stop your god-damned fudding. The AGPL does not forbid you from modifying your software. In fact, it explicity allows it. It just means you have to share your modifications.

Re:Is the AGPL a EULA? (1)

Homburg (213427) | about 5 years ago | (#28776285)

I didn't say anywhere that AGPL prevents you from modifying software. The concern is that, by relying on the same legal reasoning that allows other software producers to use EULAs to restrict people's use of their software, the AGPL might have the unintended consequence of reinforcing these restrictions.

Re:Is the AGPL a EULA? (2, Interesting)

styrotech (136124) | about 5 years ago | (#28778271)

So when (assuming it was under the AGPL rather than the GPL) I modify my Drupal settings.php file to include the connection string to my database, do I have to share that with my site visitors? Or do passwords want to be free as well?

The legal advice the Drupal community has got from the FSF with regards to the GPL is that with PHP apps any PHP include files fall under their linking clauses and are subject to the GPL as well. Which means that every Drupal (and also many other similar PHP apps) sites out there are running with code modifications.

I couldn't see anything obvious in the license that provides for situations like this.

Then use settings.json not settings.php (1)

tepples (727027) | about 5 years ago | (#28780707)

So when (assuming it was under the AGPL rather than the GPL) I modify my Drupal settings.php file to include the connection string to my database, do I have to share that with my site visitors?

Then modify the software to store the passwords in a container other than a PHP source code file, and share your modification with your users. This container might be a JSON or XML document, which is deemed data, not code, under the license.

Re:Is the AGPL a EULA? (1)

Rysc (136391) | about 5 years ago | (#28780797)

How about you don't store your passwords in your scripts? Config files are where you want this kind of thing. I recommend a hashed passsword stored in YAML.

Re:Is the AGPL a EULA? (1)

Late Adopter (1492849) | about 5 years ago | (#28777201)

The relevant language in the AGPL technically sidesteps this problem, although I'm not sure whether it addresses the spirit of your concern... it's not technically a restriction on use, but rather on modification.

Yeah again, it's trying to take away a right I had (modification without distribution, that's ok under default copyright law, right?). So if I reject the AGPL and use the code anyway, am I doing anything wrong, from a legal point of view?

Re:Is the AGPL a EULA? (1)

tepples (727027) | about 5 years ago | (#28780731)

Yeah again, it's trying to take away a right I had (modification without distribution, that's ok under default copyright law, right?).

That's not entirely clear under the copyright law of the United States, where FSF is headquartered. MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1993).

So if I reject the AGPL and use the code anyway, am I doing anything wrong, from a legal point of view?

I wouldn't be surprised if an attorney enforcing the copyright in her client's AGPL software were to argue that making software available for interactive use over a network is a public performance.

Public performance (1)

tepples (727027) | about 5 years ago | (#28780673)

But the AGPL says you have to release source if you run the code on a server exposed to the public... That's scarily close to a EULA: it takes away rights you have (the right to use the code given to you; the intermediate copying steps are protected in part explicitly by law and in part implicitly under fair use).

When a computer program is used interactively over a network, one could argue that it is performed publicly. Performing a work publicly is the exclusive right of the copyright owner.

Re:I guess it closes bug #393596 ? (1)

rbanffy (584143) | about 5 years ago | (#28778117)

Are you trolling?

No. He just wants it under a BSD license so he can close it up, take a free ride on the work of others and make it part of his product.

Re:I guess it closes bug #393596 ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28769199)

In what way is it not a Free license?

Re:I guess it closes bug #393596 ? (4, Informative)

migla (1099771) | about 5 years ago | (#28769221)

Wrong. Straight from the GNU:s mouth:

"The GNU Affero General Public License is a free, copyleft license [...]"

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/agpl-3.0.html [fsf.org]

Re:I guess it closes bug #393596 ? (0)

petermgreen (876956) | about 5 years ago | (#28770663)

It is clearly less free than the GPL just as the GPL is less free than BSD.

Whether it is free enough to count as free is a matter of opinion.

Re:I guess it closes bug #393596 ? (2, Informative)

Espinas217 (677297) | about 5 years ago | (#28771147)

It is clearly less free than the GPL just as the GPL is less free than BSD.

Whether it is free enough to count as free is a matter of opinion.

Less free to whom? to the end user is just the same as they don't intend to redistribute the software. To some user who wants to distribute the code, it's less free. To the original developer no, it gives him the freedom to choose how his code is being distributed.

Not less free (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28771489)

It is more free to end users, but less free to developers wishing to use the code.

Re:I guess it closes bug #393596 ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28769223)

Idiot.

Re:I guess it closes bug #393596 ? (1)

clang_jangle (975789) | about 5 years ago | (#28769233)

-1, wrong.
According to the FSF [fsf.org] :

The GNU Affero General Public License is a free, copyleft license for software and other kinds of works, specifically designed to ensure cooperation with the community in the case of network server software.

Re:I guess it closes bug #393596 ? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28769251)

Everybody calm down; take a deep breath. Parent is a troll: just let it slide. Move along now.

Re:I guess it closes bug #393596 ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28769255)

Massive Bullshit Alert

Re:I guess it closes bug #393596 ? (1)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | about 5 years ago | (#28769329)

The AGPL isn't a Free licence.

Sure it is. You can get it here [fsf.org] , doesn't cost a thing except the time to read 33kB of text, and we all know (your) time is worthless.

Re:I guess it closes bug #393596 ? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28769495)

BURN!!!!

Bazaar only? (1)

tcopeland (32225) | about 5 years ago | (#28769031)

Hm, kind of like GitHub in that regard, then. The nice thing about just picking one source code mgmt system is that you can write a good UI specifically for it. Of course, the cost is that folks have to move over from Subversion or whatever.

Re:Bazaar only? (2, Interesting)

Keyper7 (1160079) | about 5 years ago | (#28769215)

You can avoid an abrupt transition, though. I've heard that the Bazaar svn plugin is quite good.

Re:Bazaar only? (1)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | about 5 years ago | (#28769857)

It's gotten to be very good ; I interact with SVN solely through Bazaar these days, not least because it makes the pain of our ludicrous network topology much less.

It also makes branching much easier - and you're much more likely to branch, because your boss isn't going to say "hey, who keeps cluttering the repo with new branches".

Although if he's the kind of boss who watches the commit RSS feed he might start to think you're slacking until you merge and push your first big patch.....

Re:Bazaar only? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28771087)

I've heard that the Bazaar svn plugin is quite good.

It has to be because practically nobody outside ubuntu weenies uses "bizarre". There's currently 3 sensible choices of SCM for open source projects.

  1. Git
  2. Mercurial
  3. Subversion

The only 'win' you get from using 'bizarre' for your open source project is that nobody even bothers checking out your code on account of the kooky SCM.

Re:Bazaar only? (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 5 years ago | (#28769835)

I don't understand why people have to move. PPA isn't exclusive of Subversion, or any other system, is it? I have some PPA's on my systems, some Subs, I mostly use Synaptic for over all management, but sometimes I find myself going CLI with apt-get - especially when dependencies just won't "resolve themselves". If/when PPA can do everything a person might want to do, then a lot of people probably will move. But, I don't see this happening soon, nor do I see it being a unanimous mass movement. Maybe among the primary Ubuntu audience, that being the unsophisticated, and migrants coming over from Windows, yes, but there are a lot of other people who use Ubuntu derivatives who may or may not adopt PPA.

Re:Bazaar only? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28773545)

I don't understand why people have to move. PPA isn't exclusive of Subversion, or any other system, is it?

Launchpad's PPAs use existing Debian tools to submit source packages, along with some custom scripts to compile them.

To add a package to a PPA, you only need to upload a few files to a FTP server (after signing them with GPG).

Launchpad uses Bazaar for its hosted version control system. This is independent of the PPAs (and the Bug tracker, translation tool, and most everything else).

Talk about hoops (2, Informative)

Norsefire (1494323) | about 5 years ago | (#28769063)

It's as if they don't want anyone to download it.

First problem is they require bzr 1.16.1 to download their rocket-fuel-setup script, the latest available version in the Ubuntu repo is 1.13.1 -- so you have to manually add the PPA source.
Why do they not have the version *they* use in the repo for *their* operating system?

That aside, the rocket-fuel script then downloads, unpacks, installs, alters and generally takes too long. And if that wasn't enough ...

## Note that this will make changes to your Apache configuration if ## you already have an Apache server on your box. It will also add ## entries to /etc/hosts and it will setup a postgresql server on ## you box. ## If you want to play safe with regards to your existing Apache, ## try this out in a virtual environment first.

And because there's no way to just _get the source_ (ie. a tarball with source files in it) there's no way to download it without screwing with Apache.

How about a way to browse it online? I just wanted to see what language it was in, according to the docs it's Python but it would have been nice to be able to take a look at it without spending "a few hours to get everything" jumping through hoops.

Re:Talk about hoops (1)

migla (1099771) | about 5 years ago | (#28769149)

I haven't looked that closely, but can't you go to https://launchpad.net/launchpad-project [launchpad.net] then click on a sub-project and then on the "Code"-tab?

Re:Talk about hoops (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28769171)

First problem is they require bzr 1.16.1 to download their rocket-fuel-setup script, the latest available version in the Ubuntu repo is 1.13.1 -- so you have to manually add the PPA source.

Why do they not have the version *they* use in the repo for *their* operating system?

Don't be a drama queen now, 1.16.1 was only recently released and you know Ubuntu policy about stable releases.

And because there's no way to just _get the source_ (ie. a tarball with source files in it) there's no way to download it without screwing with Apache.

bzr get lp:launchpad

Is that easy enough for you? ;)

How about a way to browse it online? I just wanted to see what language it was in, according to the docs it's Python but it would have been nice to be able to take a look at it without spending "a few hours to get everything" jumping through hoops.

https://bazaar.launchpad.net/~launchpad-pqm/launchpad/stable/files

Re:Talk about hoops (1)

Norsefire (1494323) | about 5 years ago | (#28769213)

Thank you. Why do they not have this info in their announcement?
I was in the process of checking out the code using: bzr branch http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~launchpad-pqm/launchpad/devel/ [launchpad.net] Which I found after looking in the code for the setup script, but that's exactly what I wanted.

Re:Talk about hoops (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28769241)

In response to your comment it has been added to the FAQ found at https://dev.launchpad.net/FAQ

Re:Talk about hoops (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28771929)

Thanks, Mark.

Re:Talk about hoops (1)

Dukhat (198764) | about 5 years ago | (#28769195)

There is a link to the source code on this page.

https://code.launchpad.net/~launchpad-pqm/launchpad/db-devel/ [launchpad.net]

Re:Talk about hoops (1)

Dukhat (198764) | about 5 years ago | (#28769237)

BTW, you can get to that page by searching for the "launchpad" project on launchpad, clicking on the "Code" tab, and then clicking on the "lp:launchpad" branch.

https://code.edge.launchpad.net/launchpad [launchpad.net]

Re:Talk about hoops (1)

allenap (1602587) | about 5 years ago | (#28769269)

It's as if they don't want anyone to download it.

...

And because there's no way to just _get the source_ (ie. a tarball with source files in it) there's no way to download it without screwing with Apache.

Once you've got bzr 1.16.1 or later you can do bzr branch lp:launchpad to get the Launchpad code. That's pretty easy. Then, if you find yourself fixing a bug, you have a working tree in which to commit your changes. A tarball is a static lump with no history and no future, and if you want tomorrow's code, you'll have another big tarball to download.

How about a way to browse it online?

http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~launchpad-pqm/launchpad/db-devel/changes [launchpad.net]

Bzr 1.17.1 is in Karmic (1)

ciroknight (601098) | about 5 years ago | (#28769345)

http://packages.ubuntu.com/karmic/bzr [ubuntu.com]

So in other words, Launchpad developers are also Ubuntu developers. Imagine that.

Re:Talk about hoops (1)

tolan-b (230077) | about 5 years ago | (#28769741)

Whinge moan :)

They decided to release early so people can have a go with it, give them a chance fs.

Re:Talk about hoops (1)

Nevyn (5505) | about 5 years ago | (#28772745)

First problem is they require bzr 1.16.1 to download their rocket-fuel-setup script, the latest available version in the Ubuntu repo is 1.13.1 -- so you have to manually add the PPA source.

bzr-1.16.1-1.fc11 is the current version in Fedora 11 :)

Re:Talk about hoops (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28780411)

And because there's no way to just _get the source_ (ie. a tarball with source files in it) there's no way to download it without screwing with Apache.

Check section 'Alternative Sourcecode Download' at https://dev.launchpad.net/Getting [launchpad.net]

What influenced this move? (-1, Troll)

bogaboga (793279) | about 5 years ago | (#28769123)

Did Google's Chrome OS have something to do with this move, I think so. Why you may ask: Because entry of another Linux based Open Source OS into the Linux playground does nothing to further Canonical's ambitions.

Now waiting on Adobe and its Flash Technologies to do likewise.

Re:What influenced this move? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28769157)

Did Google's Chrome OS have something to do with this move, I think so.

Shut the fuck up. Seriously.

Re:What influenced this move? (5, Informative)

fandingo (1541045) | about 5 years ago | (#28769197)

Did Google's Chrome OS have something to do with this move, I think so. Why you may ask: Because entry of another Linux based Open Source OS into the Linux playground does nothing to further Canonical's ambitions.

Now waiting on Adobe and its Flash Technologies to do likewise.

What on earth are you talking about? This has nothing to do with a desktop operating system. Furthermore, Canonical promised a year ago tomorrow to release the source code within a year. This pre-dates the announcement of Chrome OS by at least 11 months.

Re:What influenced this move? (3, Insightful)

ciroknight (601098) | about 5 years ago | (#28769393)

Actually they promised something like four years ago (give or take a few months), but only set a date for its open sourcing about 7 months ago. They were behind their own deadline, but they also released the source for Soyuz and Code Hosting, so I guess they spent those extra few weeks well.

Re:What influenced this move? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28769283)

Nope, it was announced ages ago [launchpad.net]

Re:What influenced this move? (4, Funny)

Norsefire (1494323) | about 5 years ago | (#28769293)

Did Google's Chrome OS have something to do with this move

No, I think it was more that Microsoft contributed code the Kernel and they didn't want to be accused of having closed-sourced software when even Microsoft was opening up. Or maybe it was the vulnerabilities found in the Kernel, they decided if exploits could slip into the most-watched open source project they need to get more eyes on their code. It could have even been that because the world is supposed to end in 2012, but I think I would be drawing a correlation where there isn't one if I said that.

Re:What influenced this move? (2, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 5 years ago | (#28769999)

People from slashdotters, to bloggers, to self appointed tech reviewers, to wall street lackwits try to read drama into everything that happens in the computing world. A new Firefox is the IE Killer, Chrome was the FF and IE killer, Android was the iPhone killer, etc ad nauseum. It's almost as if people DEMAND that one killer OS, and a handful of killer apps rule the world. God help us if that ever does happen. It would be pure hell trying to be "different". It would be like - like - well - it would be like loving Linux in a Microsoft world!!!

No, I don't think that Canonical released the source code for PPA in response to Google's new operating system. In fact, if you think about it, they have just GIVEN Google a somewhat tested means to release their OS and updates. I mean, it's OPEN SOURCE - even Microsoft can take it and use it! (Hole shit, what an idea!!! What if Microsoft picks up on it, and gives people a decent update system? The world might actually change for the better!)

What does this mean? (1)

sherriw (794536) | about 5 years ago | (#28770781)

Is it the code to the Launchpad site itself? Like I could use a copy of it to manage and track bugs and development on my own projects? Or are they talking about some kind of framework / os that Launchpad runs on?

As far as I can tell from my limited browse of Launchpad, it seems like an alternative to Sourceforge no?

Re:What does this mean? (1)

Beuno (740018) | about 5 years ago | (#28772603)

Is it the code to the Launchpad site itself? Like I could use a copy of it to manage and track bugs and development on my own projects? Or are they talking about some kind of framework / os that Launchpad runs on?

As far as I can tell from my limited browse of Launchpad, it seems like an alternative to Sourceforge no?

This is the full exact source code launchpad.net runs.

Re:What does this mean? (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | about 5 years ago | (#28779071)

Is it the code to the Launchpad site itself? Like I could use a copy of it to manage and track bugs and development on my own projects?

Yes.

As far as I can tell from my limited browse of Launchpad, it seems like an alternative to Sourceforge no?

There already were alternatives to sourceforge. Google GNU Savanna, for instance, which is running the same software (sourceforge runs a commercial fork of the original code iirc).

Fp Troll!? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28771725)

bombshell hit During which I things in the future holds problems; that I've
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>