[14:28] <simonizor> Well then... LXQt is super borked on 18.04 daily
[14:28] <simonizor> https://u.teknik.io/z7DgL.txt
[14:29] <simonizor> Just when I thought maybe pcmanfm-qt was going to start working again lol
[14:32] <wxl[m]> Well you are running a development version at the beginning of the cycle @simonizor:matrix.org (nice nick btw)
[14:33] <simonizor> Yeah, I'm aware, but kinda not a thing that should be happening
[14:33] <simonizor> running 0.12 on Tumbleweed without issue
[14:33] <wxl[m]> That said I think I heard @tsimonq2 twiddling with the packages yesterday so perhaps he can enlighten us
[14:33] <simonizor> like pcmanfm-qt has been broken for a week on 18.04 daily
[14:33] <wxl[m]> Yeah it's a packaging issue not an LXQt one
 @simonizor, This is why we call it an *experimental* *pre-Alpha*
[14:38] <simonizor> It's running in a VM
 Anyways, all of that should have migrated yesterday
 Update your system and reboot
[14:38] <simonizor> I'm just testing it
[14:39] <simonizor> And it's not going well so far lol
[14:39] <simonizor> TBH, it's gotten less stable with every LXQt update
[14:42] <simonizor> By contrast, the LXQt builds on Tumbleweed have been great.
[15:04] <simonizor> So, will you be updating lxqt-common to 0.12 on 18.04 soon?  pretty much entirely broken until that happens
 @simonizor, There is no lxqt-common 0.12
 It was deprecated upstream
[15:06] <simonizor> Well, I don't have a session manager without it right now
[15:06] <simonizor> I can't reboot, shutdown anything
[15:07] <simonizor> So whatever you changed there really broke things
 What do you think agaida?
 @simonizor, And that happens sometimes in Experimental Pre-alpha builds
[15:08] <simonizor> I mean, it's not happening to me on Tumbleweed
 That's not experimental and pre-alpha
[15:09] <simonizor> I'm just kinda confused how you break deps like this without noticing it
 Because agaida messed up dep management
 Oh well, it happens
[15:11] <simonizor> Oh well is right I guess.  Makes me glad I chose Tumbleweed for my main install; the *buntu based LXQt builds have not been all that great TBH
[15:12] <wxl> simonizor: it's really not fair to compare rolling releases to non-rolling releases
[15:13] <simonizor> I've been testing them on every release since 16.04, and the very start of 18.04 daily was pretty much the only time where I felt like it was really usable
 Fwd from tsimonq2: This is why we call it an *experimental* *pre-Alpha*
 Not ready to use yet
 Breakage is expected
 It will be much better in time for Alpha 1
[15:14] <simonizor> tfw reports bugs and just gets told breakage is expected
[15:15] <simonizor> I mean, not really asking you to fix my problems here or anything; just kinda trying to let it be known that shit is broken
[15:15] <wxl> this is a "bug report?"
 So yeah, wxl is right
 @simonizor, That's because we know about it already
[15:16] <simonizor> Then the nice thing to say would be "Known issue, here's the link"
 I run LXQt on all of my system
 *systems
 I wish I had a link to give
[15:17] <wxl> no one has filed a bug report XD
[15:17] <wxl> otherwise we'd have one!
[15:17] <wxl> and i mean tumbleweed claims breakage is to be expected
[15:18] <wxl> that's not an unreasonable thing to say
[15:18] <simonizor> This issue is on my 18.04 daily VM, not Tumbleweed FYI
[15:19] <wxl> i'm explaining that responding "breakage is to be expected" is not unreasonable
[15:20] <simonizor> I mean, they're not pushing experimental builds.  They're doing stable builds.  Honestly, it's a little shocking that you're still doing experimental builds when 18.04 is like 6 months away
[15:20] <wxl> that's exactly how every aspect of ubuntu has worked for years
[15:21] <wxl> all 17 years in fact XD
[15:21] <simonizor> Most other DEs are using their stable builds on 18.04 daily and fine tuning them
[15:22] <simonizor> Like the code freeze cannot be that far off
[15:22] <wxl> for this particular case stable means "most recent upstream release"
[15:22] <wxl> which, since it's new, is experimental
[15:22] <simonizor> It seems really silly to me to still be messing around with experimental stuff right now
[15:22] <wxl> it's less than 6 months, i'll give it that
[15:22] <simonizor> There's a  stable release of 0.12
[15:22] <wxl> but we've got 17 years experience of doing this
[15:23] <simonizor> Like breakage this serious is not at all something that I expect with 18.04 release being so close
[15:23] <wxl> we're trying to explain to you that's an unreasonable assumption
[15:24] <simonizor> and I'm not understanding it at all
[15:24] <wxl> but these are the facts
[15:24] <simonizor> because there are stable builds of LXQt
[15:24] <wxl> regardless of whether or not you understand
[15:24] <simonizor> but you're using the experimental ones for some reason
[15:24] <wxl> no, we're using the most recent RELEASE
[15:24] <simonizor> Don't.
[15:24] <wxl> not the HEAD of git
[15:24] <simonizor> Use the stable.
[15:24] <wxl> the recent release is the stable one
[15:24] <simonizor> This is LTS
[15:25] <simonizor> Not time to be messing with not stable software
 @simonizor, I literally uploaded LXQt 0.12 a few days ago. Things got untangled less than 24 hours ago. So it's gonna be unstable because we *just* got it in the archive
[15:25] <wxl> we're not
[15:25] <simonizor> Well, then I'm getting conflicting reports here
[15:25] <wxl> nope
[15:25] <wxl> you're just not understanding
[15:26] <simonizor> You're telling me that you're using experimental builds, and you're telling me that it's the stable release
[15:26] <simonizor> which is it?
[15:26] <simonizor> I don't think it's being explained very well
[15:27] <wxl> do you understand what packaging is?
[15:27] <simonizor> Either you're using stable builds of LXQt or you're not
[15:27] <simonizor> Yes.
[15:27] <wxl> then you can imagine that a fresh package of a stable upstream release is experimental
[15:28] <simonizor> Now that makes sense.
[15:28] <wxl> that's pretty much the case for EVERYTHING in the development release of non-rolling releases
[15:29] <simonizor> Still doesn't validate my complaint of this much breakage so close to LTS release, though.  Someone's gotta be better at managing this stuff
[15:29] <simonizor> pcmanfm-qt shouldn't be broken for a week; my system shouldn't be broken when you depreciate lxqt-common
 @simonizor, Lubuntu Next won't be LTS so there's that too
 It's not ready
[15:31] <simonizor> Yeah, but it be in the repos
[15:32] <simonizor> it will*
 Either way, the LTS cycle doesn't differ in that we have breakage at the beginning of the cycle.
 We update to new things. Less so in the LTS, but Lubuntu Next isn't LTS.
[15:32] <simonizor> The packages will be available on LTS, no?
[15:33] <simonizor> That in and of itself says they are stable
[15:33] <simonizor> If they are not stable, they should not be in the LTS repos
 @simonizor, No it doesn't.
 Do you know how flavor support cycles actually work?
[15:36] <simonizor> Pretty sure Canonical would disagree with that
[15:37] <simonizor> Packages in the LTS repos are supposed to be stable packages that only get security updates for the most part
[15:38] <wxl[m]> Canonical only provides infrastructure except for their core products, of which lx anything is not
[15:38] <simonizor> That's not the point; the point is that packages that are accepted into the LTS repos are supposed to be stable packages that for the most part only get security updates
 @simonizor, Except that Canonical doesn't provide security support for flavors. We do that.
[15:40] <wxl[m]> Also LTS is a distribution version thing, not a per package one
[15:41] <simonizor> Yes, but at this point, it's seeming like LXQt would need far more than security updates when LTS hits
 @simonizor, Feel free to ask the Ubuntu Release Team
[15:41] <simonizor> Therefore, LXQt should not be in the LTS repos unless it plans on being stable by LTS
 They can confirm what I've said.
[15:41] <wxl[m]> You're right it does need more and we're working on it
[15:42] <simonizor> Like LXQt in 16.04 is pretty broken too
[15:42] <simonizor> It's not acceptable IMO to have broken packages in LTS repos
 @simonizor, But that's flawed logic. The only reason a flavor is LTS is because that team is willing to support it for that long, which we aren't.
[15:42] <simonizor> Then you shouldn't be in the LTS repos, honestly
[15:43] <simonizor> If you are not willing to support your package for the entire LTS term, it should not be in the LTS repos
 @simonizor, There are no "LTS repos"
[15:44] <simonizor> The repos that are used by the LTS release.
[15:44] <simonizor> Y'know what I mean lol
 I'm guessing you're basing your logic on the way OpenSUSE does things, and we don't do it that way.
[15:44] <simonizor> No
[15:44] <simonizor> I'm a long time *buntu user
[15:44] <simonizor> just switched to Tumbleweed
 We don't pull packages in to the LTS release. We release what we have in the development release as an LTS
[15:45] <simonizor> That's silly
[15:45] <simonizor> No one should do tht
[15:45] <simonizor> that*
[15:46] <simonizor> You don't put development releases in the LTS release
[15:46] <simonizor> Unless it clearly says in the package name
[15:46] <wxl[m]> Where are these LTS repos?
[15:46] <simonizor> check your apt sources list
[15:46] <simonizor> Those would be the repos I'm talking about
[15:47] <wxl[m]> I just see repos not LTS ones
[15:47] <simonizor> If it says xenial, it's LTS
[15:48] <wxl[m]> Nope
[15:48] <simonizor> Yes.
[15:48] <simonizor> Xenial is the LTS release
[15:48] <simonizor> therefore the xenial repos are the LTS repos
[15:49] <wxl[m]> LTS refers to support of a whole flavor and its packages, not every package in the repos
[15:49] <wxl[m]> And no flavor has a stable release including lxqt
[15:50] <simonizor> The repos for the LTS release are supposed to have stable packages in them
[15:50] <simonizor> the packages in those repos are not supposed to get updates other than security updates
[15:50] <wxl[m]> Not true
[15:50] <simonizor> It is, though
[15:51] <simonizor> What other software do you see pushing development releases to LTS repos?
[15:51] <simonizor> as their main package
[15:51] <wxl[m]> Read about SRUs and Backports
[15:51] <simonizor> Those are PPAs
[15:51] <wxl[m]> No
[15:52] <wxl[m]> I understand why you think what you do but it does not match reality
[15:53] <agaida> Maybe the wrong understanding of stable
[15:54] <wxl[m]> If you want to question this more ask #ubuntu-release or -devel or just read free documentation on the wiki
[15:57] <wxl[m]> Weirdest bug report ever
[16:01] <wxl[m]> How DOES development work on rolling releases?
[16:05] <agaida> thats easy - upstream yell "Release!", someone get the code and upload the new release as far as possible without to much testing - thats what users are for
[16:06] <agaida> and the most or well known rolling releases try not to patch the original sources because sources and patches will change over time - to much work, to slow
[16:07] <wxl> yeesh
[16:08] <wxl> bug 1734147
[16:08] <agaida> and thats fine - users will get the most unfiltered upstream bugs from all projects and can write meaningful bug reports - and because such distributions are harder to run as debian or ubuntu the most people have more knowledge about their systems - so the bug reports are mostly useful :D
[16:09] <wxl> yeah
[16:09] <wxl> emphasis on most and mostly XD
[16:12] <agaida> at least it was at the time i left arch for siduction
[16:13] <agaida> ok - six - seven years ago, times may change - and i don't see manjaro as a rolling geekly linux ...
[17:30] <wxl> i like it
[17:30] <wxl> neovim?
[17:31] <wxl> i will say for lisp languages, i do prefer evil-mode emacs
[17:31] <wxl> from a user perspective, it's pretty vimmy
[17:34] <wxl> cyphermox: i think we're still running into this issue. https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubiquity/+bug/1205397 any idea on how we could fix this? outside of getting rid of zram, which is consistent with lubuntu's goals
[18:05] <cyphermox> wxl: whatever checks for that might need to be told that zram is okay
[18:05] <cyphermox> or maybe there's something to tell zram, I don't know
[18:05] <cyphermox> I'll have a look
[18:05] <wxl> cyphermox: if there's someone else i should hit with this, let me know
[18:05] <cyphermox> well, sounds like a uiquity thing, so it's me
[18:06] <wxl> that's what i figured :)
[20:07] <wxl> we need tasks on gci, tsimonq2
 @wxl, Make a task in Phab and I'll get to it. Give suggestions you might have from a QA POV
[21:02] <wxl> can we set a redirect to phab from phabulous.lubuntu.me? XD
[21:10] <wxl> hm wonder if this is still a thing https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1376380
 You can file that RT XD
 @tsimonq2, That was to wxl about Phab domain
[21:54] <wxl> heheh