=== 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 [08:30] 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. [08:31] * juliank just loves signed tags :) [08:58] Wimpress: Why'd you change ubuntu-mate-welcome in bug 1673258 to "Opinion"? Are you committing to keep maintaining aptdaemon? ;) [08:58] bug 1673258 in update-notifier (Ubuntu) "Remove aptdaemon and drop or port its reverse-dependencies" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1673258 [08:59] "Opinion" being a nicer word for "Won't fix" and all [09:01] Well, we are currently implementing PackageKit support in the new version. [09:02] I just don't see how Opinion fits here [09:03] But vorlon made a comment on that bug last night which suggests we have to choose between two unmaintained options. [09:03] Well, that's true-ish [09:03] Hence 'Opinion' [09:03] PackageKit is still better supported than aptdaemon [09:04] It just does not really get any features :) [09:04] Because I'm not certain which is the right path forward now, even though we're currently working towards PackageKit [09:04] I think the important point is to get rid of aptdaemon for 20.20 [09:05] Whether we end up with PackageKit + a new apt daemon, or just a new apt daemon is less worrying [09:05] s/20.20/20.04/ [09:06] I gotta do some more speccing on that and some prototyping [09:07] Really I think everything except update-manager can be ported to PackageKit to at least reduce aptdaemon impact [09:07] I don't think the changes are really huge [09:08] * juliank just ported software-properties to it [09:09] 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] well, major blocker anyway [09:10] That said: We use a hybrid approach: Use apt.Cache() to calculate the changes, and then apply them using PackageKit. [09:10] It's a bit racy [09:10] But PackageKit's always racy anway [09:12] ugh, my port is not done [09:12] I gotta translate from apt package names to packagekit package-ids [09:13] (which are essentially name;version;arch;repo - I think the flags are optional) [09:13] 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 [09:28] Huh, I just realized apt.Package.architecture is a function; but it should be a property. [09:28] ugh. === amurray` is now known as amurray [11:42] juliank: Join #lubuntu-devel and ping him by typing @HMollerCl (via Telegram) [11:43] Our channels are bridged. [11:45] I see [11:45] how odd [12:36] heh === 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 [18:17] 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? [18:18] Odd_Bloke: rm_conffile? Or are you wondering how to deal with local modifications? [18:19] 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. [18:20] rbasak: It's not something I've had to deal with before, so that is what I was asking. :) Thanks! [18:24] Odd_Bloke: I *think* install the new one in /usr/share, and use rm_conffile on the etc one [18:24] there is mv_conffile, [18:24] but maybe it's just for renaming [18:25] and I'm not sure it supports moving to /usr/share [18:25] but I would look into that too [18:27] 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] right [18:28] 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 [18:30] Agreed. [18:30] 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] s/intention/expectation/ [18:30] 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] Right [18:31] IMHO that's sufficient if the package is reorganising like that. [18:32] Cool, thanks again! [19:18] was python3-guacamole dropped from Ubuntu for disco, or is it just an oversite that it's missing? [19:20] bladernr: https://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2019/04/15/%23ubuntu-devel.html#t12:42 [19:21] Odd_Bloke, thanks! sigh... [21:23] cyphermox, bug #1825206 claims to be a SRU regression [21:23] 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] bdmurray, SRU team, ^ [21:26] also bug #1825402 claims to be an other SRU regression [21:26] bug 1825402 in systemd (Ubuntu) "Regression. Recent updates to cosmic broke hybrid-sleep " [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1825402 [21:26] ddstreet, ^ [21:27] 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] seb128: its not a long weekend for people in the US [21:27] k, I was unsure [21:27] bdmurray, thx :) [21:27] seb128: looking at it; I am skeptical that this is a regression introduced by the netplan SRU [21:28] oh he says he verified by re-downgrading [21:28] hmm [21:28] vorlon, the user said that downgrading fixed it though... but yeah [21:29] it's odd; I certainly don't expect this to be the case, but I'll have a look [21:40] cyphermox, thx [21:40] on that note calling it a day here, have a good evening/night :) [21:43] cyphermox, create a card please [21:43] or i can [21:43] (just tell me) [23:26] cyphermox: there's enough here that I am going to roll back the SRU while investigation continues