[01:05] mmikowski and others who are interested: Would love input on this new wishlist bug I just filed: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/initramfs-tools/+bug/2002230 [01:05] -ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Launchpad bug 2002230 in initramfs-tools (Ubuntu) "Set MODULES=dep by default in new installations?" [Wishlist, New] [01:36] LocutusOfBorg, thanks [02:11] (re the bug I pasted a bit ago) Nevermind, I missed that there was an ongoing effort to fix the problem mentioned in my bug report. Marking my new one as a duplicate since it seems that I misunderstood how the setting works and there's a better fix. [04:43] vorlon, you somewhat-recently looked at the xubuntu-core merges that were really out-of-date. They've been refreshed, in case you want to take a look? https://code.launchpad.net/~xubuntu-dev/debian-cd/+git/debian-cd/+merge/435314 - https://code.launchpad.net/~xubuntu-dev/livecd-rootfs/+git/livecd-rootfs/+merge/435315 - https://code.launchpad.net/~xubuntu-dev/ubuntu-cdimage/+git/ubuntu-cdimage/+merge/435316 [04:55] bluesabre: thanks, I've just left a comment on one of them. Haven't reviewed the code yet, have some higher-level concerns that need talked through [05:04] Given that it's already gone under this name for ~7 years, at the very least to some extent it will have to continue to be used ("Formerly Xubuntu Core", etc) for a while still. [05:05] certainly; some kind of reasonable transition plan would be in order [05:06] Definitely not the preferred option, but as a requirement to get this built on Canonical stuff...well might be worth it. :3 [05:07] (With mini.iso gone, this is suddenly a lot more important.) [05:08] And I do appreciate the "Minimal" naming strategy for consistency sake. [05:08] Understandable, yes. [05:41] bluesabre: what email address should I cc: for the TB discussion? [05:48] vorlon: sean@bluesabre.org will do [05:48] Not the list? [05:49] xubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com [06:23] vorlon: I hate to bother you, but I have a question relating to a suggestion I believe you made for libfm-qt. Currently it's split into libfm-qt and libfm-qt common in Ubuntu, but not in Debian, and when I tried to upstream that change to Debian, it got questioned. I asked the other Lubuntu developers about it and the answer was basically "I think vorlon suggested that", so I was wondering [06:23] why we did that so I can defend it when I try to upstream it again. [06:28] arraybolt3: as I recall, the runtime library package was previously shipping soname-independent and unversioned arch: all data files; this resulted in different sonames of the library conflicting with each other, which is not normally what you want for runtime library packages [06:29] splitting the data files out allows old and new runtime libraries to be coinstallable [06:30] Ah, so that's why we have a ton of Breaks/Replaces against older libfm-qt versions (was because of these data files)? [06:30] And if so, does the splitting out of libfm-qt-common allow all of those Breaks/Replaces to be discarded? [06:30] (In the most recent releases that have already used libfm-qt-common for a while, I mean.) [06:31] it means that libfm-qt-common needs to Breaks/Replaces the old ones but libfm-qt12 does not need to [06:31] Perfect, that's what I hoped. Thanks for your time and help! [06:31] JackFrost, bluesabre: my email to xubuntu-devel is moderated fyi [06:32] Yeah I can approve it of course. [06:33] Neat, test rebuild in there too. [08:13] * enyc meows [08:14] * arraybolt3 hears the meow from across the room and wonders how the cat got in this time [08:21] :O === justache is now known as justReddy === blahdeblah_ is now known as blahblahblah === blahblahblah is now known as blahdeblah_