[21:21] <pjotr> Hello, there's a rather annoying bug in the package lubuntu-meta for Bionic:
[21:21] <pjotr> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lubuntu-meta/+bug/1759395
[21:22] <wxl> we ship numlockx?
[21:22] <wxl> or was that an addition?
[21:22] <pjotr> JulienLavergnegi (or any other dev): can this still be fixed in time for Bionic?
[21:23] <pjotr> wxl: it's installed by default....
[21:23] <wxl> pjotr: are you sure? i don't find it in the list of the current daily
[21:24] <pjotr> I may have used a daily build of two days ago, I'm not very sure. But not older than that...
[21:25] <wxl> your bug report says today
[21:25] <wxl> i'm looking at the list for today
[21:25] <pjotr> yes, I'm sorry.
[21:25] <pjotr> I'll update the description.
[21:26] <wxl> http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/lubuntu/daily-live/current/bionic-desktop-amd64.manifest
[21:28] <wxl> it's not the list (i.e. what's on the installer) either
[21:28] <pjotr> that looks as if it has been fixed then?
[21:28] <wxl> or that it didn't exist? :)
[21:29] <tsimonq2> $ seeded-in-ubuntu numlockx
[21:29] <tsimonq2> numlockx (from numlockx) is seeded in:
[21:29] <tsimonq2>   xubuntu: daily-live
[21:29] <wxl> it is certainly possible there's something wrong with numlockx, but we don't ship it by default. i've never known us to, frankly.
[21:29]  * tsimonq2 checks the germinate output
[21:29] <pjotr> It most certainly did exist, I can assure you. I'll test the new daily build
[21:29] <wxl> that said, i would rewrite the bug against numlockx
[21:29] <wxl> it's not a lubuntu bug anyways
[21:30] <wxl> i.e. it's not a problem with the distribution, but with that particular piece of software
[21:30] <tsimonq2> True, but we shouldn't be pulling it in.
[21:30] <pjotr> well, it would count as a lubuntu bug when numlockx was pulled, right? I mean: in Ubuntu it's not installed by default
[21:30] <wxl> in much the same way, if you had a problem with abiword (did i say "if?") you would file a bug against abiword, even if it was installed by installing lubuntu
[21:31] <wxl> no. if numlockx is not working correctly, the problem is with numlockx.
[21:31] <tsimonq2> wxl: By the way, I found this gem the other day when Steve was helping Ubuntu Budgie with some problems: http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/germinate-output/
[21:31] <pjotr> but numlockx works as it should. It should just not be installed by default
[21:31] <wxl> tsimonq2: yeah xnox and i were digging in there and couldn't find anything related to that issue with xiterm+thai
[21:32] <pjotr> because it wreaks havoc on keyboards with "hidden" numeric keypads
[21:32] <wxl> pjotr: if it works correctly, then what's the problem? 
[21:32] <wxl> pjotr: ah, so that's the problem. it doesn't work correctly on such keyboards.
[21:32] <wxl> again, it's still a numlockx problem
[21:32] <pjotr> have you ever seen a small keyboard of a netbook? It contains a "hidden" numpad which can be activates by means of an Fn key combo
[21:33] <pjotr> activates = activated
[21:33] <wxl> yep. don't see any reason why numlockx shouldn't work with it.
[21:33] <pjotr> It's hell if you don't know why half of your keyboard suddenly produces the "wrong" stuff
[21:34] <tsimonq2> pjotr: Idea; don't actually go through with it, but can you give the output of "sudo apt remove numlockx"? apt is smart, maybe that'll tell us what gets removed...
[21:34] <wxl> again, target that bug at numlockx and remove references to lubuntu. it's not a lubuntu issue. you may want to talk to xubuntu and ask if they've had any experience with the subject since they're seeding it.
[21:35] <wxl> apt-get can --simulate
[21:35] <tsimonq2> Oh, that too.
[21:35] <wxl> but honestly i wouldn't faff too much with it when (A) i've never known us to distribute it and (B) the manifest shows we dno't and (C) germinate only shows xubuntu seeding it
[21:36] <pjotr> I've already posted the same issue on Launchpad for Xubuntu, and also addressed the Xubuntu devs on IRC. One dev (Krytarik) told me they're already on it: 
[21:36] <wxl> and even beyond all that, it's STILL not a lubuntu bug :)
[21:36] <wxl> you should make this bug a duplicate of the bug against xubuntu
[21:36] <wxl> and THAT bug should be filed against numlockx
[21:37] <pjotr> The problem is only there for Lubuntu and Xubuntu. In Ubuntu, numlockx is not being installed automatically, which is the right situation
[21:37] <pjotr> I've tested all three
[21:37] <wxl> i'm not sure why you're not hearing me, but the issue is numlockx
[21:37] <wxl> if it would work correctly, it woudln't matter whether or not anyone would install it or not
[21:38] <wxl> what's the xubuntu bug number?
[21:39] <pjotr> sorry, but numlockx should just not be installed by default at all. That's the one and only problem there is with numlockx. :)
[21:39] <wxl> if it worked, woudl it matteR?
[21:39] <pjotr> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xubuntu-meta/+bug/1759390
[21:40] <pjotr> it matters, exactly because it works.
[21:40] <wxl> abiword has had bugs
[21:40] <wxl> yet we continued to ship it
[21:40] <wxl> are you saying that was a bug against lubuntu?
[21:43] <pjotr> I repeat: numlockx has no bug that I'm aware of. It's doing what it should, which is exactly why it should not be present by default on my small netbook. Apparently the Xubuntu devs see it as a problem: on IRC a Xubuntu dev (krytarik) just told me they're already working on it.
[21:44] <wxl> so you think that numlockx activating the hidden numeric keypad is the way it should be?
[21:44] <pjotr> Yes. It activates a numpad whenever it can. That's its only job, which it does well.
[21:45] <wxl> then what's the problem at all?
[21:45] <wxl> your bug report says it's *wrongly* activating the "hidden" numeric keypad
[21:45] <wxl> you also refer to that as "undesireable"
[21:45] <wxl> are you saying that all of that is untrue and it's working as it is supposed to?
[21:46] <pjotr> Have you ever seen a small netbook keyboard? If so, would you want half its letter keys being turned into figures?
[21:46] <pjotr> By default?
[21:46] <wxl> i probably wouldn't. some people might.
[21:47] <wxl> that's why you would use numlockx-- you can specify the state you want the numlock key in
[21:47] <pjotr> wxl: goodbye and may you live happily ever after.
[21:48] <wxl> sheesh