[01:05] <arraybolt3> 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] <bdrung> LocutusOfBorg, thanks
[02:11] <arraybolt3> (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] <bluesabre> vorlon, you somewhat-recently looked at the xubuntu-core merges that were really out-of-date.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] <vorlon> 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] <JackFrost> 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] <vorlon> certainly; some kind of reasonable transition plan would be in order
[05:06] <JackFrost> Definitely not the preferred option, but as a requirement to get this built on Canonical stuff...well might be worth it. :3
[05:07] <JackFrost> (With mini.iso gone, this is suddenly a lot more important.)
[05:08] <bluesabre> And I do appreciate the "Minimal" naming strategy for consistency sake.
[05:08] <JackFrost> Understandable, yes.
[05:41] <vorlon> bluesabre: what email address should I cc: for the TB discussion?
[05:48] <bluesabre> vorlon: sean@bluesabre.org will do
[05:48] <JackFrost> Not the list?
[05:49] <bluesabre> xubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
[06:23] <arraybolt3> 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] <arraybolt3> why we did that so I can defend it when I try to upstream it again.
[06:28] <vorlon> 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] <vorlon> splitting the data files out allows old and new runtime libraries to be coinstallable
[06:30] <arraybolt3> 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] <arraybolt3> And if so, does the splitting out of libfm-qt-common allow all of those Breaks/Replaces to be discarded?
[06:30] <arraybolt3> (In the most recent releases that have already used libfm-qt-common for a while, I mean.)
[06:31] <vorlon> it means that libfm-qt-common needs to Breaks/Replaces the old ones but libfm-qt12 does not need to
[06:31] <arraybolt3> Perfect, that's what I hoped. Thanks for your time and help!
[06:31] <vorlon> JackFrost, bluesabre: my email to xubuntu-devel is moderated fyi
[06:32] <JackFrost> Yeah I can approve it of course.
[06:33] <JackFrost> 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] <enyc> :O