[16:30] <tsimonq2> FYI for us and Eickmeyer @eickmeyer:matrix.org: I fixed a(n unfiled) bug a few days ago which improves translations on fresh installs of 23.04+
[16:30] <tsimonq2> Many applications use the GNOME or KDE langpacks, and installing those increases the installed footprint by... 20-30 MB?
[16:31] <tsimonq2> Anyway, please pay attention to translations this cycle, and make sure people in e.g. español communities have better translations
[16:31] <Eickmeyer[m]> Oh awesome! But... that doesn't exactly help with the language of the live session.
[16:31] <tsimonq2> That's true, and I was looking into that a bit
[16:31] <tsimonq2> A) we need a universal, working "try or install" menu
[16:31] <tsimonq2> B) that menu needs a language prompt which automatically changes the live session language 
[16:32] <tsimonq2> So yeah, more work to be done :)
[16:33] <Eickmeyer[m]> I'm a little irked with the Ubuntu Desktop team, tbh, for not giving us the docs for even attempting to switch to the new installer, which might do that. Now we have to wait a whole cycle to try it out.
[16:33] <tsimonq2> I don't think Lubuntu will be switching before the LTS, to be frank.
[16:34] <Eickmeyer[m]> I think Studio probably will. We've got too many complaints about Calamares as it is.
[16:34] <tsimonq2> Meh, those are bugs we're working through. I don't know that switching to an installer newer than Calamares will make things substantially better
[16:35] <tsimonq2> I'm guessing OEM and minimal install options?
[16:35] <Eickmeyer[m]> OEM and minimal install, and language of the live session.
[16:35] <Eickmeyer[m]> Those are chief.
[16:35] <tsimonq2> OEM already has an upstream solution that just needs implementing 
[16:36] <tsimonq2> Minimal install just needs a custom module, the backend bits are already in place
[16:36] <tsimonq2> And live language is almost there too... so we probably won't be switching before the LTS
[16:36] <Eickmeyer[m]> Yes, but we've been sitting on it for a long time.
[16:36] <tsimonq2> ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ we're volunteers
[16:36] <Eickmeyer[m]> I know, and same. 
[16:36] <tsimonq2> You're welcome to do as you wish for Studio :)
[16:37] <arraybolt3[m]> I really hope at least one flavor sticks with Calamares (preferably us) unless the Ubuntu Desktop Installer gets a lot more powerful and lighter. guiverc mentioned in -offtopic yesterday that the bloat added by the installer appears to be more than an entire gigabyte.
[16:38] <arraybolt3[m]> And I know that it's missing advanced partitioning options that I personally have used in Lubuntu.
[16:38] <tsimonq2> To me, the fact that Debian is shipping Calamares by default in Bookworm adds a lot to its credibility 
[16:38] <arraybolt3[m]> (And Ubuntu Studio, come to think of it.)
[16:38] <tsimonq2> (As in, default on their live ISOs)
[16:38] <tsimonq2> The current DPL is the Calamares maintainer in Debian 
[16:38] <arraybolt3[m]> I filed a bug about the lack of advanced partitioning options two months ago during the last Flavor Sync meeting, and no one has responded.
[16:39] <Eickmeyer[m]> arraybolt3[m]: Means it's probably on the radar.
[16:39] <tsimonq2> I've been told that they consider it ready 
[16:39] <arraybolt3[m]> Heh, valid. And I get that sometimes it takes time for them to do things - they have a whole entire OS and a ton of other stuff to juggle. But we have a better solution that works for us, so...
[16:40] <arraybolt3[m]> arraybolt3[m]: this was supposed to be in reply to "means it's probably on the radar"
[16:42] <Eickmeyer[m]> arraybolt3[m]: Right. Thing is, they want it to have every feature Ubiquity has. They're also keeping a secondary image for Ubuntu Desktop around with Ubiquity still, so they're still somewhat supporting that in a best-effort.
[16:42] <arraybolt3[m]> tsimonq2: The new installer probably *is* ready in comparison to Ubiquity. Ubiquity is missing the useful features from Calamares too.
[16:44] <arraybolt3[m]> I just hope they don't decide that the installer is a critical enough part of the Ubuntu experience that they do to Calamares what they did to Flatpak. I understood Flatpak. But I'll be more than a little upset if they kick non-standard installers without making the standard one at feature parity with the one we're using.
[16:45] <Eickmeyer[m]> Nah, there was a more optical reason for that. The press was getting ahold of flavors including the flatpak package and interpreting it as Ubuntu supporting flatpaks, which is false.
[16:48] <tsimonq2> To be fair, I got reemed pretty hard when we first switched to Calamares. It's not "standard"
[16:48] <tsimonq2> That being said, I'm glad we pioneered some of that
[16:48] <Eickmeyer[m]> I don't agree that we should have a separate installer experience between flavors, but I also don't agree with how the Foundations team handles the Qt frontends of any of the packages they handle, considering them second-class. So, until they change their attitude, I agree with Calamares being used.
[16:50] <Eickmeyer[m]> Actually, worse than second-class. Pretty much deprecated. You try to approach them about it, they basically don't want to support it at all.
[16:52] <tsimonq2> I remember hearing in the meeting that they don't know what the point of a Qt frontend would be... so I'm not counting on getting bugs fixed even if we do write a Qt frontend for jt
[16:52] <tsimonq2> And that being said, I think curtain is snap-only now
[16:52] <tsimonq2> As mentioned before, snaps take up a LOT of the ISO footprint
[16:53] <Eickmeyer[m]> curtain?
[16:53] <arraybolt3[m]> Eickmeyer[m]: I wonder if we need to integrate the Qt frontends of important stuff into our own separate packages in Universe and allow the "main" ones to be truly deprecated?
[16:53] <arraybolt3[m]> Eickmeyer[m]: curtin
[16:53] <Eickmeyer[m]> ah.
[16:54] <Eickmeyer[m]> No matching snap
[16:54] <tsimonq2> I dunno, I may be misremembering that
[16:55] <tsimonq2> Anyway, I'll be in a car for the next flavor sync (we drove to SCaLE from WI)... please wait for me to make a solid decision if they push for it
[16:56] <Eickmeyer[m]> Highly doubt they will. What's irking me is that they didn't involve the flavor leads in the decision to go 100% netplan.
[16:57] <Eickmeyer[m]> Only involving us in the testing phase.
[16:58] <arraybolt3[m]> I mean, I'd be kind of irked by their decisions too except for I think a lot of them are really good decisions :P
[16:58] <tsimonq2> I'm glad arraybolt3 tested it and gave them verbose feedback. That's the way to do it, show them bug reports :P
[16:59] <arraybolt3[m]> tsimonq2: I do need to file one more bug report :P
[17:00] <arraybolt3[m]> arraybolt3[m]: to be fair, though, I do feel like we are slightly getting left out of some stuff.
[17:00] <Eickmeyer[m]> I mean, agreed, but it's the kind of decisions that we're supposed to be given a much bigger heads-up on.
[17:09] <arraybolt3[m]> OK, got the other Netplan bug filed.
[17:24] <tsimonq2> Sweeet