| lubot | [telegram] <teward001> pretty sure the btrfs issue that @Leokolb was poking at earlier is still there :P | 03:02 |
|---|---|---|
| lubot | [telegram] <teward001> maybe snaps don't work right on btrfs | 03:02 |
| lubot | [telegram] <Leokolb> could very well be - many snap issues - also with upgrades (re @teward001: maybe snaps don't work right on btrfs) | 04:04 |
| lubot | [telegram] <kc2bez> That stands to reason looking at the syslog. We've also not had a problem with BTRFS to date that I know of. (re @teward001: maybe snaps don't work right on btrfs) | 08:02 |
| lubot | [telegram] <kc2bez> Thanks guiverc for the Calamares logs. That helps. I am not sure we can blame Calamares for this one. Feels more like a snap issue and linking of files. | 08:50 |
| guiverc | I'm convinced it's not a calamares issue either.. My aim is to confirm that by Ubuntu install using BTRFS where it'll result in the same issue I bet.... I just gotta have time to do that.. | 08:52 |
| guiverc | @Leokolb had already added logs as well. | 08:53 |
| lubot | [telegram] <kc2bez> Yeah, you both have been helpful. | 08:53 |
| lubot | [telegram] <kc2bez> I think your plan makes perfect sense. | 08:54 |
| lubot | [telegram] <Leokolb> I can run an ubuntu test right now (re @lubuntu_bot: (irc) <guiverc> I'm convinced it's not a calamares issue either.. My aim is to confirm that by Ubuntu install using BTRFS where it'll result in the same issue I bet.... I just gotta have time to do that..) | 08:59 |
| lubot | [telegram] <kc2bez> That would be excellent thanks @Leokolb | 09:01 |
| lubot | [telegram] <Leokolb> underway | 09:01 |
| guiverc | Thanks @Leokolb, it's appreciated ! (gains us more details.. if it's not Lubuntu specific upstream Ubuntu can fix it :) | 09:01 |
| guiverc | fyi: @Leokolb, if you get a bug using Ubuntu daily ISO, I'd file a new report, then link them later.. I would have run test using http://iso.qa.ubuntu.com/qatracker/milestones/429/builds/246268/testcases/1302/results (manual partitioning - it allows you to create your own file-system if you look) - thus initially make it a all ubuntu test.. You can mention it was tested to gain extra detail on Lubuntu issue (ref. other bug now) - but | 09:10 |
| guiverc | that's just how I'd do it | 09:10 |
| guiverc | on the iso tracker gets it noticed on different reports I believe :) | 09:11 |
| lubot | [telegram] <Leokolb> already on iso tracker ubuntu -running test hang on 2 min (re @lubuntu_bot: (irc) <guiverc> fyi: @Leokolb, if you get a bug using Ubuntu daily ISO, I'd file a new report, then link them later.. I would have run test using http://iso.qa.ubuntu.com/qatracker/milestones/429/builds/246268/testcases/1302/results (manual partitioning - it allows you to create your own file-system if you look) - thus initially make it a all ubuntu test.. Yo | 09:11 |
| guiverc | :) | 09:12 |
| lubot | [telegram] <Leokolb> Ubuntu btrfs up and running - no error - back to calamares - i intended to test also the next studio ISO (last one was defective other bugs) | 09:16 |
| guiverc | Oh well; the issue can't be kicked upstream.. it's ours. :( I'm outta ideas, but thank you @Leokolb | 09:18 |
| lubot | [telegram] <kc2bez> btrfs did work in 21.10 right? | 10:34 |
| guiverc | @kc2bez, btrfs is a checklist install item, it's been tested since at least 19.04 & worked in all prior releases many times each cycle | 10:56 |
| guiverc | i can see i filed a bug on btfs 2021-09-09; it was marked a duplicate; I would have re-performed that test & it worked... (sfdisk --force --append issue on my old d755 box) 1943128 .. error message had changed slightly likely due calamares upgrade from prior run | 11:01 |
| lubot | [telegram] <Leokolb> I ran several test on btrfs on 21.10 never had a failure (re @kc2bez: btrfs did work in 21.10 right?) | 14:02 |
| lubot | [telegram] <Leokolb> wonder if I tried removing the firefox packages from the install iso @kc2bez @guiverc and tried that? any sense? | 14:05 |
| lubot | [telegram] <kc2bez> I don't think it is the snap. I saw other SystemD things failing before the final snapd failed to load. It looks like file permissions issues? Maybe a kpmcore related issue, or at least the interaction with Calamares. | 14:11 |
| lubot | [telegram] <Leokolb> ok tks for info (re @kc2bez: I don't think it is the snap. I saw other SystemD things failing before the final snapd failed to load. It looks like file permissions issues? Maybe a kpmcore related issue, or at least the interaction with Calamares.) | 14:11 |
| lubot | [telegram] <kc2bez> Sure thing. I still have more questions than answers at this point. | 14:14 |
| -queuebot:#lubuntu-devel- Builds: Lubuntu Desktop amd64 [Jammy Beta] has been updated (20220329.1) | 22:39 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!