removing wslview from Ubuntu-only computers?

[Little Girl]

Hey there,

Oliver Grawert wrote:
>Am Montag, dem 03.04.2023 um 12:28 -0400 schrieb Little Girl:
 
>he's not the desktop team (snaps have a pretty large developer base
>in- house at canonical, that team operates completely stand-alone,
>not tied to server or desktop) :) and this is clearly a bug that was
>not forwarded to the snapd team, it definitely *should* be installed
>by default (and it is for everyone that upgraded from a former
>release, seemingy it is not seeded on the isos though, which is
>discussed in the duplicate bug i linked elsewhere in the thread, and
>a desktop team member actually marked the bug as high prio there
>already)

All of this is interesting, but shouldn't be necessary to explain,
especially since it sounds like the problem is internal procedural
issues which aren't really our business and, in a perfect world,
shouldn't impact us. I guess what I keep going back to is that I
understand that Ubuntu is always under development, but it has
Interim and LTS releases for a reason. It surprises me that something
like this could make it into an LTS release in its current condition.
One of the reasons I use LTS releases is to avoid this sort of
thing.

>> You might want to double-check this information, because although
>> the "firefox" package exists in the Ubuntu repositories, it is
>> not, and has never been, installed in my Kubuntu 22.04 LTS system.
>
>yes, mea culpa, i checked on all my machines here which all have been
>upgraded since something like 2012 ... there is definitely a bug with
>the isos not shipping the deb, all upgraded machines will have it and
>do not remove it ...

I did use an ISO to install. I never upgrade and always do a clean
installation, but I use what I normally trust to be reliable ISO
files to do the job.

>> Because it has a direct impact on performance and causes outright
>> issues that must be manually dealt with by the end-user, so it
>> shouldn't at all be kept as (very internal) technical details and
>> should either be announced as loudly as possible or, better yet,
>> dealt with so that it can stay as (very internal) technical
>> details. Either one would be better.

>i'm not sure what you mean about performance issues, the deb surely
>will not have any impact on this, it only provides the apt
>"Provides:" and the postinst hook to set the alternative ...

If the firefox package provides whatever it is that gimp-help-en
needs, then perhaps QApt will stop trying daily to give me the
unwanted wslu package that brings my computer to a complete halt,
making it a brick, for all intents and purposes, if I allow it to be
installed (and that I wouldn't want anyway as a matter of principle
in a GNU/Linux installation that has nothing to do with Windows). I'd
say that that's one of the most extreme performance impacts one can
have aside from complete data loss or a computer melting down into a
puddle on the floor (both of which I hope never happen to any of us).

There are other performance issues that must be dealt with manually
on a regular basis, and one that has to be frequently overlooked, all
of which have to do with the Snap version of Firefox that we're all
dealing with, but that's for a different thread and not this one.

>if you refer to the snap in general, i think there have been multiple
>blog posts about it, also about the initial performance issues the
>snap had on startup in its first few iterations and how they were
>solved ... none of these posts explained the very internal handling
>of apt dependencies, "Provides:" or the alternatives system though
>and how a transitional package exists to fulfill these, they are
>technical internals of the apt packaging system and i still dont
>think they would have been appropriate for a general blog post.

Normally, I'd agree, but since there's a dramatic impact on some of
us, it would have been nice to have been warned. When it happened to
me, I was alone. I'm just grateful that I happen to own other
devices, so I was able to get online and do quite a bit of research
and also reach out on IRC to try to get it sorted out and make my
computer usable again, which took a long time. That's worthy of at
least a heads-up, in my book, to prevent me from being blindsided the
way that I was (the details are in the bug report).

>yes, sorry again, i was not aware the (required) deb is missing from
>the isos...

No worries. There may yet be more to discover about all of this as it
gets looked into more deeply, so don't be surprised if you end up
participating in a few more confused conversations with folks who are
experiencing this and have something to add that we didn't cover here
that may also affect only some users.

>well, it was a requested change by mozilla, and while there was
>surely no resistance on our side from the desktop team, i wonder if
>mozilla would have reconsidered it when the desktop team had asked
>not to do the move ... but this is moot after all, now it is there
>and won't go away.

That's what I figured. Now we're left to hope that it will get solved
and that the other related issues we're currently experiencing will
eventually get worked on, too.

>> I'd like to know how they exist at all, since they're clearly part
>> of an elite group that I wasn't invited into.

>well, pretty much everyone who did a do-release-upgrade (or used the
>graphical update manager) is in that team :)

Yeah, I know that now, but had no idea.

>> That was a good try, but no. Telling someone about something in a
>> mailing list a year after she installed the operating system that's
>> causing it doesn't really count. I appreciate the effort, though.

>well, at least you got my attention to that bug and i'll do my best
>to poke my colleagues about it to get it fixed eventually ;)

Oh, nice. Thank you so much. When it does get fixed, will the fix be
applied as part of the normal updating process or will we need to
find out somehow that they've fixed it and manually take care of it?

>in teh interim, you can just install it manually yourself to not hit
>the issues with other packages using www-browser anymore.

I'd rather not, because I'm morbidly curious as to how long it will
take them to fix it. We're already at a year.

-- 
Little Girl

There is no spoon.