Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

An Ubuntu 22.04 LTS Fix Is Coming For A Very Annoying & Serious APT Problem

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Originally posted by mdedetrich View Post

    Uhh QA would have found this, Michael from Phoronix was literally the QA for Ubuntu in this regard. Its pretty much the exact same problem that Linus dealt with Popos, thats what QA is for.

    Test cases are written by developers and they often target very specific circumstances and/or they start with states that are "clean". The whole point of QA is to have people that do really weird shit with your software which is not immediately obvious in an attempt to break your software.
    Yeah, Canonical would have systems that are clean installs to install a new package, something that not many users do, and install the new package for every update they do in their repositories. Yeah, no, if I was the product manager I would have shot down that outright. Heck, not even apt has something like that on the test, but instead they implemented a regression test on a limited circumstance with non-standard packages.
    Last edited by braiam; 14 July 2022, 01:18 PM.

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by braiam View Post

      Yeah, Canonical would have systems that are clean installs to install a new package, something that not many users do, and install the new package for every update they do in their repositories. Yeah, no, if I was the product manager I would have shot down that outright. Heck, not even apt has something like that on the test, but instead they implemented a regression test on a limited circumstance with non-standard packages.
      Good thing you are not a product manager. If you think that users installed a package on a new system is rare then there isn't much to add.

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by mdedetrich View Post

        Good thing you are not a product manager. If you think that users installed a package on a new system is rare then there isn't much to add.
        It's rare, since there are *runs apt-cache search* upwards 60k packages. Each of them I would just be happy as a package maintainer that it doesn't FTBFS and doesn't have obvious impossible packages references (unlike 3rd party repositories). I do not need to install the package on a brand new system, since my very own documentation and installation process asks the user to update and upgrade their system on installation... So, yeah, I'm a bad product manager because there are bigger issues on my repository.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by Sin2x View Post

          Yep, and this is exactly what we have QA for. A concept that Canonical, apparently, deems obsolete.
          bah, QA, this is ubunut, they will fix this with a DLC.

          Comment


          • #25
            Why does apt keep doing this.

            Everyone panicked when Linus did that "trying out linux for gaming" series and this happened, and were like "oh no now everyone will think this happens all the time!"

            IT DOES HAPPEN ALL THE TIME

            I have sworn off all apt-based distros years ago, it was the last straw for me.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by d3coder View Post
              PopOs strikes again?
              No, our ISOs are fine. They're also updated frequently. We did not have this issue in our 22.04 release. I've been carefully handling this and some other packages for upgrades.

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by mmstick View Post

                No, our ISOs are fine. They're also updated frequently. We did not have this issue in our 22.04 release. I've been carefully handling this and some other packages for upgrades.
                I was joking about when pop os had similar issue and everybody blamed popos

                Comment


                • #28
                  This is why Pacman and ZYpp are so much better.
                  pacman will refuse to install in this situation, and Zypper asks you whether to replace dependencies, install anyway or not.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by V1tol View Post
                    One of the best days in my life was when I first installed Manjaro. I was very upset about how many years I just spent fixing different "something went wrong" Ubuntu issues. Two years since then I am still running that same Manjaro install that survived two hardware changes, one SSD migration and numerous attempts to break it like compiling my own kernel, mesa and millions of other things. I never managed to get Ubuntu running for so long even in near-default configuration.
                    I just read your post and i thought ok lets try it in a VM download newest iso, 1st try it does not support secure boot and does not boot, ok shut down secure boot, ok it boots installed the plasma version looked at the kernel dmesg and i thought ok this stuff is not for me.

                    Fedora or SuSE tumbleweed are more my thing.

                    PS: I wonder when that happend i allways thought that RPM was crap and i was so happy with sudo apt-get but nowdays i allways go back to RPM based instead of debian based.
                    Last edited by erniv2; 14 July 2022, 03:53 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      I have libudev1 installed, on my many times upgraded Kubuntu (not a clean install). I don't see any issues like described so there must have been a way for apt to resolve this.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X