 pretty sure the btrfs issue that @Leokolb was poking at earlier is still there :P
 maybe snaps don't work right on btrfs
 could very well be - many snap issues - also with upgrades (re @teward001: maybe snaps don't work right on btrfs)
 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)
 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.
[08:52] <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..
[08:53] <guiverc> @Leokolb had already added logs as well.
 Yeah, you both have been helpful.
 I think your plan makes perfect sense.
 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..)
 That would be excellent thanks @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 :)
[09:10] <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
[09:11] <guiverc> on the iso tracker gets it noticed on different reports I believe :)
 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
[09:12] <guiverc> :)
 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)
[09:18] <guiverc> Oh well; the issue can't be kicked upstream.. it's ours.  :(  I'm outta ideas, but thank you @Leokolb
 btrfs did work in 21.10 right?
[10:56] <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
[11:01] <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
 I ran several test on btrfs on 21.10 never had a failure (re @kc2bez: btrfs did work in 21.10 right?)
 wonder if I tried removing the firefox packages from the install iso @kc2bez @guiverc and tried that? any sense?
 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.
 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.)
 Sure thing. I still have more questions than answers at this point.
[22:39] -queuebot:#lubuntu-devel- Builds: Lubuntu Desktop amd64 [Jammy Beta] has been updated (20220329.1)