| === ErichEickmeyer is now known as Eickmeyer | ||
| === tacocat` is now known as tacocat | ||
| === tedg_ is now known as tedg | ||
| === bluesabre_ is now known as bluesabre | ||
| === coreycb_ is now known as coreycb | ||
| === bashfulrobot_ is now known as bashfulrobot | ||
| === ShibaInu is now known as Shibe | ||
| juliank | tsimonq2: Trying to find hmollercl, you sponsored two software-properties uploads for him, and pushed commits to git, but no tags. I can add some myself, but if possible I'd like to get signed tags from the person who uploaded it. | 08:30 |
|---|---|---|
| * juliank just loves signed tags :) | 08:31 | |
| juliank | Wimpress: Why'd you change ubuntu-mate-welcome in bug 1673258 to "Opinion"? Are you committing to keep maintaining aptdaemon? ;) | 08:58 |
| ubottu | bug 1673258 in update-notifier (Ubuntu) "Remove aptdaemon and drop or port its reverse-dependencies" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1673258 | 08:58 |
| juliank | "Opinion" being a nicer word for "Won't fix" and all | 08:59 |
| Wimpress | Well, we are currently implementing PackageKit support in the new version. | 09:01 |
| juliank | I just don't see how Opinion fits here | 09:02 |
| Wimpress | But vorlon made a comment on that bug last night which suggests we have to choose between two unmaintained options. | 09:03 |
| juliank | Well, that's true-ish | 09:03 |
| Wimpress | Hence 'Opinion' | 09:03 |
| juliank | PackageKit is still better supported than aptdaemon | 09:03 |
| juliank | It just does not really get any features :) | 09:04 |
| Wimpress | Because I'm not certain which is the right path forward now, even though we're currently working towards PackageKit | 09:04 |
| juliank | I think the important point is to get rid of aptdaemon for 20.20 | 09:04 |
| juliank | Whether we end up with PackageKit + a new apt daemon, or just a new apt daemon is less worrying | 09:05 |
| juliank | s/20.20/20.04/ | 09:05 |
| juliank | I gotta do some more speccing on that and some prototyping | 09:06 |
| juliank | Really I think everything except update-manager can be ported to PackageKit to at least reduce aptdaemon impact | 09:07 |
| juliank | I don't think the changes are really huge | 09:07 |
| * juliank just ported software-properties to it | 09:08 | |
| juliank | I think the blocker for update-manager is that PackageKit can essentially only install _or_ remove packages, but you can't specify both in one transaction. | 09:09 |
| juliank | well, major blocker anyway | 09:09 |
| juliank | That said: We use a hybrid approach: Use apt.Cache() to calculate the changes, and then apply them using PackageKit. | 09:10 |
| juliank | It's a bit racy | 09:10 |
| juliank | But PackageKit's always racy anway | 09:10 |
| juliank | ugh, my port is not done | 09:12 |
| juliank | I gotta translate from apt package names to packagekit package-ids | 09:12 |
| juliank | (which are essentially name;version;arch;repo - I think the flags are optional) | 09:13 |
| Wimpress | Thanks for the info. We're planning to land the new version of Software Boutique for 19.10 and the current backends are PackageKit and snapd-glib | 09:13 |
| juliank | Huh, I just realized apt.Package.architecture is a function; but it should be a property. | 09:28 |
| juliank | ugh. | 09:28 |
| === amurray` is now known as amurray | ||
| tsimonq2 | juliank: Join #lubuntu-devel and ping him by typing @HMollerCl (via Telegram) | 11:42 |
| tsimonq2 | Our channels are bridged. | 11:43 |
| juliank | I see | 11:45 |
| juliank | how odd | 11:45 |
| tsimonq2 | heh | 12:36 |
| === ricab is now known as ricab|lunch | ||
| === Unit193 changed the topic of #ubuntu-devel to: Archive: FF, DIF | 19.04 Released! | Devel of Ubuntu (not support) | Build failures: http://qa.ubuntuwire.com/ftbfs/ | #ubuntu for support and discussion of Trusty-Disco | If you can't send messages here, authenticate to NickServ first | Patch Pilots: | ||
| === ricab|lunch is now known as ricab | ||
| Odd_Bloke | I'm updating a package to install its bash completion scripts in to /usr/share instead of /etc. What is the right way to clean up the old /etc file on upgrade? | 18:17 |
| rbasak | Odd_Bloke: rm_conffile? Or are you wondering how to deal with local modifications? | 18:18 |
| rbasak | If you're looking for rm_conffile, see dh_installdeb(1) on package.maintscript, and also dpkg-maintscript-helper(1), but I'm not sure if that's what you're asking, or already know that and are asking more specifically about the move. | 18:19 |
| Odd_Bloke | rbasak: It's not something I've had to deal with before, so that is what I was asking. :) Thanks! | 18:20 |
| ahasenack | Odd_Bloke: I *think* install the new one in /usr/share, and use rm_conffile on the etc one | 18:24 |
| ahasenack | there is mv_conffile, | 18:24 |
| ahasenack | but maybe it's just for renaming | 18:24 |
| ahasenack | and I'm not sure it supports moving to /usr/share | 18:25 |
| ahasenack | but I would look into that too | 18:25 |
| Odd_Bloke | My feeling is that rm_conffile is the right move, because it being in /usr/share is pretty much a declaration that we no longer consider bash completions to be conffiles, right? | 18:27 |
| ahasenack | right | 18:27 |
| ahasenack | also moving it from etc to usr/share, and at the same installing the default one in usr/share, looks weird and prone to failure | 18:28 |
| rbasak | Agreed. | 18:30 |
| rbasak | The only thing you're losing is that you're not preserving user modifications to the file in /etc, which is normally the intention. | 18:30 |
| rbasak | s/intention/expectation/ | 18:30 |
| Odd_Bloke | And rm_conffile will leave a backup behind in the unlikely event that someone has felt the need to customise their cloud-init bash completions. | 18:30 |
| rbasak | Right | 18:30 |
| rbasak | IMHO that's sufficient if the package is reorganising like that. | 18:31 |
| Odd_Bloke | Cool, thanks again! | 18:32 |
| bladernr | was python3-guacamole dropped from Ubuntu for disco, or is it just an oversite that it's missing? | 19:18 |
| Odd_Bloke | bladernr: https://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2019/04/15/%23ubuntu-devel.html#t12:42 | 19:20 |
| bladernr | Odd_Bloke, thanks! sigh... | 19:21 |
| seb128 | cyphermox, bug #1825206 claims to be a SRU regression | 21:23 |
| ubottu | bug 1825206 in netplan.io (Ubuntu) "No wifi adapter present in Gnome after upgrade to 0.96-0ubuntu0.18.10.2" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1825206 | 21:23 |
| seb128 | bdmurray, SRU team, ^ | 21:23 |
| seb128 | also bug #1825402 claims to be an other SRU regression | 21:26 |
| ubottu | bug 1825402 in systemd (Ubuntu) "Regression. Recent updates to cosmic broke hybrid-sleep " [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1825402 | 21:26 |
| seb128 | ddstreet, ^ | 21:26 |
| seb128 | vorlon, ^ unsure if people are still around/if tomorrow is off for them/if we should do something about those SRUs before the long w.e? | 21:27 |
| bdmurray | seb128: its not a long weekend for people in the US | 21:27 |
| seb128 | k, I was unsure | 21:27 |
| seb128 | bdmurray, thx :) | 21:27 |
| vorlon | seb128: looking at it; I am skeptical that this is a regression introduced by the netplan SRU | 21:27 |
| vorlon | oh he says he verified by re-downgrading | 21:28 |
| vorlon | hmm | 21:28 |
| seb128 | vorlon, the user said that downgrading fixed it though... but yeah | 21:28 |
| cyphermox | it's odd; I certainly don't expect this to be the case, but I'll have a look | 21:29 |
| seb128 | cyphermox, thx | 21:40 |
| seb128 | on that note calling it a day here, have a good evening/night :) | 21:40 |
| gaughen | cyphermox, create a card please | 21:43 |
| gaughen | or i can | 21:43 |
| gaughen | (just tell me) | 21:43 |
| vorlon | cyphermox: there's enough here that I am going to roll back the SRU while investigation continues | 23:26 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!