[20:44] <bkero> Wow, upgrade process really sucks.
[20:45] <bkero> 1) ppa-purge all ppas else face the 'broken packages' silent failure of update-manager or do-release-upgrade, 2) reinstall ubuntu-desktop metapackage, 3) reboot, 4) do-release-upgrade/update-manager, 5) reboot, 6) install ppas, 7) reboot
[21:01] <adam_g> PPAs <3
[22:55] <blkperl> slangasek: :( https://bugs.launchpad.net/indicator-session/+bug/474392
[22:55] <lubotu1> Ubuntu bug 474392 in indicator-session (Ubuntu) "indicator-session menus are not policykit aware" [Low,Confirmed]
[22:55] <blkperl> how how am I suppose to stop users from clicking suspend <.<
[22:57] <nibalizer> move the pm-suspend binary to somewhere else lol
[22:57] <nibalizer> replace it with a shell script that says 'NO'
[22:57] <nibalizer> or better yet figlet no
[22:58] <blkperl> it doesn't call pm-suspend it calls the xorg-libs directly
[22:58] <nibalizer> oh wtf
[23:00] <nibalizer> blkperl: it looks like someone has a suggestion on how to patch it to work
[23:01] <nibalizer> i bet you could get that working in a day or 2
[23:01] <nibalizer> probably would be pretty fun
[23:01] <blkperl> nope, don't want to maintain that
[23:01] <nibalizer> or incredibly frustrating
[23:01] <nibalizer> i mean the patch would likely be accepted into ubuntu
[23:05] <slangasek> blkperl: umm, that bug is ancient, how is that your bug?
[23:06] <blkperl> slangasek: read Trusty comment
[23:06] <blkperl> they re-broke it
[23:06] <slangasek> also, how does indicator-session being policykit aware or not have to do with anything?  the indicator-session itself has no privileges to trigger a suspend; the bug is elsewhere
[23:06] <blkperl> I'm not saying the bug is correclty named
[23:06] <blkperl> but yes its broken in Trusty :)
[23:06] <slangasek> no, that bug is about the options being *displayed* when they shouldn't be
[23:07] <slangasek> but a non-policykit-aware indicator doesn't mean that users have privs to trigger a suspend
[23:07] <blkperl> but they do
[23:07] <slangasek> *because of an unrelated bug*
[23:08] <blkperl> bug number?
[23:08] <blkperl> or should I file one
[23:08] <slangasek> you should file one
[23:08] <blkperl> ok thanks!
[23:08] <slangasek> because the problem you're describing (users can suspend when they shouldn't) is not the same as that bug (users who can't suspend are shown a menu option)
[23:09] <blkperl> should I file it agasint indicator-session?
[23:09] <slangasek> it's not an indicator bug, better to file it on whatever indicator-session is calling that's not respecting policykit
[23:10] <slangasek> systemd might be the best choice initially (for logind)
[23:10] <blkperl> so file against logind or systemd?
[23:10] <slangasek> systemd
[23:10] <slangasek> logind isn't a package
[23:10] <blkperl> k
[23:11] <blkperl> https://bugs.launchpad.net/indicator-session/+bug/1165027
[23:11] <lubotu1> Ubuntu bug 1165027 in Session Menu "Indicator-session Hibernate/Suspend capabilities are inconsistent with unity dialogue" [Medium,Triaged]
[23:11] <blkperl> what about that ^ slangasek
[23:12] <slangasek> arguably a duplicate of the first bug
[23:12] <slangasek> your bug is that logind is honoring a suspend/hibernate request that you believe it should not
[23:14]  * blkperl tries to remember how to verify policykit rules
[23:21] <blkperl> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/systemd/+bug/1310845
[23:21] <lubotu1> Ubuntu bug 1310845 in systemd (Ubuntu) "systemd-logind is not honoring polickykit rules for suspend/reboot/shutdown" [Undecided,New]
[23:21] <blkperl> not really sure what else to put in the bug report
[23:22] <blkperl> thanks for the help slangasek :)
[23:22] <nibalizer> ya slangasek thanks :)
[23:23] <slangasek> n/p