[01:53] <Eickmeyer[m]> arraybolt3: rebuild of installer underway. Shouldn't be too long.
[01:54] <Eickmeyer[m]> Found a few other logic errors and variable issues along the way. This is why we test things.
[01:59] <arraybolt3[m]> 👍️, will test soon.
[04:33] <arraybolt3[m]> OK so the only package it actually tells me it's about to install is linux-lowlatency.
[04:33] <arraybolt3[m]> (I'm finally doing the test of the new Ubuntu Studio installer.)
[04:34] <arraybolt3[m]> I checked everything but ubuntustudio-menu and ubuntustudio-wallpapers, so that I have something to install the second time around for a test like last time.
[04:35] <Eickmeyer[m]> arraybolt3: If you uncheck a package, it will uninstall that package, FYI.
[04:35] <Eickmeyer[m]> (and any dependencies/recommends)
[04:36] <arraybolt3[m]> I didn't uncheck everything, I just checked everything that wasn't checked except those two (well, and kubuntu-backports).
[04:36] <arraybolt3[m]> s/everything/anything/
[04:36] <arraybolt3[m]> (I will test unchecking things, though.)
[04:36] <Eickmeyer[m]> I was just letting you know as an FYI. It's a feature.
[04:36] <arraybolt3[m]> Oh, nice!
[04:37] <arraybolt3[m]> But yeah, when I go to install things, it pops up something that tells me what packages are about to be installed, but it lists exactly one package, that being linux-lowlatency. It's taking long enough to download that I assume it's installing everything I checked, though.
[04:37] <Eickmeyer[m]> I mean, the reason it does that is because simply uninstalling a metapackage doesn't uninstall anything.
[04:37] <Eickmeyer[m]> Yeah, probably.
[04:39] <Eickmeyer[m]> It has a nice little warning and lists all the packages that could be uninstalled (but won't necessarily uninstall them because they could be deps/recommends of other packages).
[04:39] <arraybolt3[m]> I think I'm missing something then. Is the uninstallation logic possibly interfering with the logic for installation? It shouldn't be uninstalling any packages right now. I would expect it to tell me everything it's going to install though.
[04:39] <Eickmeyer[m]> Nah, uninstallation is processed first.
[04:40] <Eickmeyer[m]> If qapt is running then it's doing an install.
[04:40] <arraybolt3[m]> True.
[04:40] <arraybolt3[m]> I mean, qapt is running.
[04:41] <arraybolt3[m]> (lol, I'm tired, things I'm saying don't always make sense :P)
[04:41] <Eickmeyer[m]> You just need to remember to sleep, that's the whole problem.
[04:47]  * arraybolt3[m] uploaded an image: (362KiB) < https://libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/v3/download/lubuntu.me/QzSCcUEysFzINdYiIxzaGtSP/image.png >
[04:47] <arraybolt3[m]> OK so here's a screenshot of the problem, it happened again.
[04:48] <arraybolt3[m]> I checked both ubuntustudio-wallpapers and ubuntustudio-menu. I would expect both to be displayed here, but only one is.
[04:48] <Eickmeyer[m]> Ok, so that means it didn't catch the array. That's not a huge issue.
[04:48] <arraybolt3[m]> (And everything else is still checked from last time.)
[04:50] <Eickmeyer[m]> So, ubuntustudio-wallpapers and ubuntustudio-menu should've shown up. The others should not have shown up because they're already installed.
[04:52] <arraybolt3[m]> True.
[04:54] <Eickmeyer[m]> arraybolt3: Confirmed. I just didn't have the entire array in the string, only the string, so the array didn't get caught.
[04:54] <Eickmeyer[m]> In other words, only the first entry was shown.
[04:54] <arraybolt3[m]> Makes sense. $var rather than ${var[@]} I'm guessing?
[04:55] <arraybolt3[m]> (Man, I hate Bash symbol soup.)
[04:55] <Eickmeyer[m]> Close. ${var} rather than ${var[@]}
[04:56] <Eickmeyer[m]> arraybolt3[m]: Heh, even I don't quite know what it all means or the difference between [*] and [@].
[04:56] <arraybolt3[m]> I didn't even know [*] was valid.
[04:58] <arraybolt3[m]> I mean, Bash is awesome, but I feel like they tried to mix automation with easy interactivity, and made a giant mess doing so. Virtually everything in the language, there's a way that makes perfect sense that works 90% of the time, and then there's this miserable mess of write-only code that you have to use to cover the other 10% of edge cases.
[04:58] <Eickmeyer[m]> Right. Getting the index of arrays is a pain, but doable.
[04:58] <arraybolt3[m]> I still remember trying to Stack Overflow stuff while learning it, and just staring at some of the code examples in awe at the size of what you had to do to make something simple work.
[04:59] <arraybolt3[m]> Hey, it could be worse though, we could have to use sed for everything.
[04:59] <Eickmeyer[m]> OMG don't even get me started on regex. Can't wrap my head around that.
[05:00] <arraybolt3[m]> Yeah me neither. I have to have the whole symbol meaning map in front of me and construct it painstakingly one bit at a time, and I'm always surprised when they work. I avoid them like the plague if I can without making things crazy.
[05:00] <arraybolt3[m]> I stumbled on a website that helps you make them the other day (ok so I searched for one in desperation), it came in pretty handy for working with debian/watch files.
[05:01]  * arraybolt3[m] uploaded an image: (784KiB) < https://libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/v3/download/lubuntu.me/KoOGuHzCcEWfVxYMQMAZGwZU/image.png >
[05:02] <arraybolt3[m]> OK so Bash isn't that bad, I guess.
[05:03] <Eickmeyer[m]> Ok, imagine ppa.launchpad.net going down right now.
[05:03] <arraybolt3[m]> :-/ Looks like a bad certificate?
[05:04] <arraybolt3[m]> Or maybe it's just that it's not supposed to be opened in a browser?
[05:04] <Eickmeyer[m]> Connection failed, aborting. Check your network
[05:04] <Eickmeyer[m]> [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution
[05:04] <Eickmeyer[m]> Clearly I'm connectd.
[05:04] <Eickmeyer[m]> s/connectd/connected/
[05:04]  * arraybolt3[m] sent a code block: https://libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/v3/download/libera.chat/08110a6e9c133dcc681af85f86e9b23e0d915640
[05:05] <arraybolt3[m]> ?
[05:05] <Eickmeyer[m]> Well, it's back now!
[05:05] <arraybolt3[m]> Maybe change DNS server, perhaps something's gone awry? Temporary failure in name resolution doesn't seem like the site went down, that sounds like DNS has had a brain cra... oh good!
[05:07] <Eickmeyer[m]> Pretty sure it was on Launchpad's end. Canonical has had some screwy infra lately.
[05:11] <Eickmeyer[m]> Ok, new installer uploaded, built, and awaiting publication.
[05:50] <Eickmeyer[m]> And published, but I"m going to bed.
[19:40] <Eickmeyer[m]> OvenWerks, arraybolt3 : We might have to remove the PPA stuff:... (full message at <https://libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/v3/download/libera.chat/40b2ba426151855f371183fc47f0aa392cf70780>)
[19:42] <Eickmeyer[m]>  * OvenWerks, arraybolt3 : We might have to remove the PPA stuff:
[19:42] <Eickmeyer[m]> > 11:16:24 AM <Eickmeyer> ubuntu-archive: Does anybody have a spare cycle to review edubuntu-installer in NEW? It's not a system installer, it's more akin to ubuntustudio-installer in that it's a metapackage installer.
[19:42] <Eickmeyer[m]> > 11:36:15 AM <vorlon> hopefully not too much like ubuntustudio-installer which afaik has been out of compliance with TB guidance around third-party repositories for years.
[19:42] <Eickmeyer> Might be better to start actually using the official backports repo.
[19:43] <Eickmeyer> teward: How hard is it to get stuff approved into backports?
[19:44] <teward> depends, why?
[19:44] <teward> what're you looking to do/achieve?
[19:44] <teward> and have you read the updated backports rules?
[19:45] <Eickmeyer> I haven't seen the *updated* rules if it's been updated since the other week when I looked at them.
[19:45] <teward> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBackports
[19:45] <Eickmeyer> But basically, we have this: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntustudio-ppa/+archive/ubuntu/backports
[19:46] <teward> backports will not go to non-LTS releases
[19:46] <teward> we made a number of changes to backports policy because of $CHAOS
[19:46] <Eickmeyer> I see.
[19:46] <teward> read that page i linked
[19:46] <teward> then decide if it works or not for your needs
[19:46] <teward> and complies with the policies
[19:48] <arraybolt3[m]> > <@eickmeyer:matrix.org> OvenWerks, arraybolt3 : We might have to remove the PPA stuff:... (full message at <https://libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/v3/download/libera.chat/a2ba06fb70eaac4be8d03d433ed06a4c57a8fbc4>)
[19:48] <Eickmeyer[m]> arraybolt3[m]: No, because you have to specify which repo you want., but I see your point.
[19:49] <arraybolt3[m]> I mean the installer literally tells you what repo you're going to install. If the user checks it and says to do it, have they not specified which repo they wanted?
[19:49] <arraybolt3[m]> Not that we have any say here, but it's something that could be argued.
[19:50] <Eickmeyer> It is. In the rewrite, that's completely valid, but in the tk/tcl version (pre-rewrite) it only had one option.
[19:51] <arraybolt3[m]> Ah, nice. So basically it was out of compliance but now is no longer?
[19:51] <arraybolt3[m]> I wonder what docs vorlon is referring to. /me tries to dig them up
[19:52] <Eickmeyer[m]> I'm sure it is an email somewhere.
[19:53] <arraybolt3[m]> How much do you think it would annoy vorlon for me to ask him for a link? Google is being unfriendly :P
[19:55] <Eickmeyer[m]> All I know is this came up with Ubuntu MATE a while back when their MATE Welcome app would enable some external repositories. Last I checked, the situation was unresolved, not that any decision was final, so that's why I'm a little taken aback by this.
[19:55] <arraybolt3[m]> I don't think I'm subscribed to much MATE-related stuff so I probably don't have the emails in my inbox.
[19:57] <Eickmeyer[m]> It was discussed a long time ago.
[20:02] <Eickmeyer[m]> Heh, I just searched the entire TB ML and couldn't find a thing.
[20:03] <arraybolt3[m]> Even vorlon thinks it's probably going to be tough to find :P
[20:03] <arraybolt3[m]> He said it was in "TB minutes", one assumes that's the Ubuntu Technical Board meetings that meetingology keeps track of?
[20:04] <arraybolt3[m]> If so, perhaps I could throw a shell script at irclogs.ubuntu.com and dig it up.
[20:09]  * arraybolt3[m] tests the installer again in the mean time
[20:12] <Eickmeyer[m]> Yeah, I'd look in 2018 or so.
[20:14] <Eickmeyer[m]> In the meantime, I'm thinking of a viable way to challenge it, but I need to see the conversation first as 1) I haven't seen it, and 2) it was written down on a document, so I can argue that it was never policy to begin with.
[20:14] <Eickmeyer[m]> arraybolt3: ^
[20:14] <arraybolt3[m]> Good idea. I'll try and dig it up att some point today. (Yikes, my system is lagging for some reason?)
[20:16] <Eickmeyer[m]> I mean, as it is, unless the TB has a specific document they can point to to show the policy (they don't), then we'll continue with the initial plans and keep the PPA handler. IRC logs don't count, those are merely discussion.
[20:17] <arraybolt3[m]> I see your point. Though unless we can refute the logic, we may just push them to put it into official policy with that argument.
[20:18] <Eickmeyer[m]> Right, which is why I don't wish to discuss it with vorlon any further.
[20:18] <Eickmeyer[m]> Also, why I won't bring it before the TB unless they do make a document.
[20:19] <Eickmeyer[m]> If they tell us that -installer needs to remove that code, then fine, we'll do it (and challenge it), but until that time, this is what it is. I could easily argue that add-apt-repository has code that enables 3rd party repositories as well.
[20:49] <arraybolt3[m]> Alright, testing the latest installer.
[20:52] <arraybolt3[m]> Interesting apt glitch, I guess:... (full message at <https://libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/v3/download/libera.chat/a62fb05c60532b6336b16e259948987f0f8a6bfd>)
[20:52] <Eickmeyer[m]> What?
[20:52] <Eickmeyer[m]> How the....
[20:52] <arraybolt3[m]> Just a random glitch I found funny.
[20:53] <arraybolt3[m]> :P, not sure how on earth that happened.
[20:53] <Eickmeyer[m]> Go home apt, you're drunk.
[20:53] <arraybolt3[m]> It "Just Worked" the second time.
[21:15] <arraybolt3[m]> Looks like the installer is working smoothly this time around!
[21:15] <Eickmeyer[m]> Nice!
[21:16] <arraybolt3[m]> Somehow the list of "packages to be installed" missed ubuntustudio-pipewire-config, but it dawns on me that was checked when I first opened the installer, which makes me think that it's probably picking up on the fact that Lubuntu uses Pipewire by default and so (rightfully) thinks that the pipewire configuration is already installed?
[21:17] <arraybolt3[m]> I'm pretty sure that's intended behavior, not a bug.
[21:18] <Eickmeyer[m]> That package isn't available in Kinetic.
[21:18] <arraybolt3[m]> Ah, and I'm using Lubuntu Kinetic.
[21:18] <Eickmeyer[m]> The config is completely based on Lunar.
[21:25] <Eickmeyer[m]> arraybolt3: Did you try uninstalling one of the metas by unselecting a package?
[21:26] <arraybolt3[m]> Not yet, I'll try that now. Forgot about it.
[21:26] <arraybolt3[m]> Also I need to try on a flavor other than Lubuntu as well.
[21:26] <Eickmeyer[m]> To be fair, it's DE agnostic, so that shouldn't matter.
[21:27] <arraybolt3[m]> Right but some flavors may use different audio guts (not everyone's switched to Pipewire yet, I don't think.) I dunno if that makes any difference though.
[21:27] <Eickmeyer[m]> Shouldn't. There's nothing in -installer that is pipewire per se.
[21:28] <arraybolt3[m]> For some reason, trying to remove ubuntustudio-video is threatening to take away... Audacity?
[21:28] <arraybolt3[m]> And Inkscape. Both of those seem wrong to me.
[21:28] <arraybolt3[m]> k3b might be wrong but that's debatable.
[21:29] <Eickmeyer[m]> Yes, those are part of the meta. BUT, read the text. It might not actually do that.
[21:29] <arraybolt3[m]> Ah, I see, because it says "may be removed".
[21:29] <arraybolt3[m]> Trying the removal now, let's see what happens.
[21:29] <Eickmeyer[m]> Exactly. Also, if it's a dep or rec of another meta, it won't because it's still needed by that other meta.
[21:30] <arraybolt3[m]> OK, so removing ubuntustudio-video does appear to have worked (a bunch of the video stuff vanished), and Audacity was still left. 👍️
[21:31] <arraybolt3[m]> Might be slightly confusing to the end user though, maybe (and I don't know how hard this is, but this is what I'm thinking) it should run "apt -s remove ubuntustudio-video" and then see what all packages are now autoremovable that are also a part of the metas that are being removed?
[21:31] <arraybolt3[m]> (Also how does it handle the edge case of when there are autoremovable packages other than the ones in the meta that is being purged?)
[21:32] <Eickmeyer[m]> It's doing an "apt autoremove ubuntustudio-video", but before that, it's going through all of the recommends for that meta and marking them as auto.
[21:32] <Eickmeyer[m]> Basically, if it's already autoremovable, it's gone.
[21:33] <arraybolt3[m]> OK. I'm testing the edge case now (removed some Lubuntu packages that resulted in a lot of other autoremovable things that shouldn't be removed, and am now trying to remove another ubuntustudio package. This shouldn't touch the autoremovable things that aren't Studio-related.)
[21:34] <arraybolt3[m]> OK so it autoremoved everything that was autoremovable, including things that weren't Studio-related.
[21:35] <arraybolt3[m]> I think that's a bug, because if a user removes something that takes away a desktop package, resulting in most of the OS becoming "autoremovable", then removing anything with ubuntustudio-installer will immediately trash the system.
[21:36] <Eickmeyer[m]> To be fair, if they're removing those packages causing the entire system to be autoremovable, then they're already trashing their system.
[21:36] <Eickmeyer[m]> This is meant for people who, when they first install Ubuntu Studio that don't want it for certain things. For instance, graphic designers might not want the entire audio production suite. 
[21:36] <arraybolt3[m]> Arguably, yes, but they may not know that since the lubuntu-desktop package specifically says it's safe to remove.
[21:37] <arraybolt3[m]> (For instance.)
[21:37]  * arraybolt3[m] sent a code block: https://libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/v3/download/libera.chat/9bb6a39347ea618002a5c6f52ad6c24fa8d09d05
[21:38] <arraybolt3[m]> It appears that Xubuntu and Kubuntu both have similar text in their descriptions.
[21:38] <Eickmeyer[m]> Why does the lubuntu-desktop package say it's safe to remove? That's ludicrous. 
[21:38] <Eickmeyer[m]> Ok, but if you remove lubuntu-desktop and then autoremove does that not break the system?
[21:38] <arraybolt3[m]> Eickmeyer: For instance, I used to remove a certain default package in Lubuntu, which, because lubuntu-desktop depended on it, took lubuntu-desktop with it. The system still worked just fine after.
[21:38] <arraybolt3[m]> I was entirely unable to use autoremove after that, which is the problem.
[21:39] <arraybolt3[m]> Perhaps this is a problem with Lubuntu, Xubuntu, and Kubuntu though.
[21:39] <arraybolt3[m]> And also removing lubuntu-desktop in Lubuntu doesn't seem to leave everything autoremovable anymore (thank goodness!).
[21:40] <Eickmeyer[m]> Ok, but it seems like we're talking across use-cases then. 
[21:40] <arraybolt3[m]> This is in Kinetic anyway, I don't know how Jammy behaves.
[21:41] <Eickmeyer[m]> Well, this functionality is already present in the existing ubuntustudio-installer package as ubuntustudio-feature-uninstaller.
[21:41] <arraybolt3[m]> Eickmeyer: Possibly. ubuntustudio-installer is designed to install Ubuntu Studio on other flavors though, so it seems like having a path where removing video components also takes out the desktop might be bad. Then again, this sounds to me more like a fundamental (and perhaps no-longer-existing) problem with the desktop metapackages.
[21:43] <Eickmeyer[m]> I think that evaluation is more than likely, as removing the desktop metapackages 1) should never happen nor should be encouraged, and 2) shouldn't put the system into a broken state.
[21:44] <arraybolt3[m]> Strongly agreed.
[21:45] <arraybolt3[m]> Yeah, and I know of no other situation in which removing autoremovable things is a bad thing.
[21:45] <arraybolt3[m]> It still makes me a bit uneasy that the installer would uninstall packages that it had nothing to do with, but I don't see a practical scenario in which that's a problem, at least in Kinetic.
[21:45] <Eickmeyer[m]> Exactly. Apt is very good at handling autoremoves, which is why I considered it a "nbd" situation.
[21:46] <arraybolt3[m]> I'll do testing in Jammy too, just to make sure that things don't utterly explode there. If they do, that might be a practical issue.
[21:46] <arraybolt3[m]> (Not everyone needs or wants all of the default packages in a flavor, and I don't think we want the system accidentally taking vengeance on a user for doing something as innocent as removing, say, aisleriot or 2048-qt.)
[21:47] <Eickmeyer[m]> Code is identical in Jammy.
[21:48] <arraybolt3[m]> Right, but the behavior of removing lubuntu-desktop might not be. (In Focal, removing the Bluetooth stack would end up with just about everything up for getting destroyed by the autoremover.)
[21:49] <arraybolt3[m]> Which again, wouldn't be ubuntustudio-installer's bug, but it might be a user error that we'd want to be more gracious to.
[21:49] <Eickmeyer[m]> Well, I'm not sure there would be any backporting either.
[21:50] <Eickmeyer[m]> I was mostly uploading multiple builds just so that someone could test other than me.
[21:51] <Eickmeyer[m]> And I know OvenWerks doesn't run the dev build.
[21:51] <arraybolt3[m]> oh ok that makes sense
[21:51] <arraybolt3[m]> For some reason the whole time I thought that the installer was going to be for Jammy, Kinetic, and Lunar. I haven't done even one Lunar test so far 🤣
[21:52] <Eickmeyer[m]> I've been doing the Lunar testing. The PPA functionality does and doesn't work because there's nothing in those PPAs, but everything else works fine.
[21:53] <arraybolt3> Nice!
[23:21] <Eickmeyer[m]> Alright, uploaded new -installer to Lunar.
[23:44] <arraybolt3[m]> \o/