removing wslview from Ubuntu-only computers?

[Oliver Grawert]

hi,
Am Montag, dem 03.04.2023 um 12:28 -0400 schrieb Little Girl:
> 
> > and the transitional firefox deb is the only way to please both
> > worlds on a technical level ...
> 
> And isn't installed by default in Kubuntu 22.04 LTS, which is why I'm
> not convinced he knew any of this.

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)


> > this is why the package exists at all and is normally used by all
> > existing installs to cross-grade to the snap...
> 
> 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 ...

> 
> > > Thank you for the information, but why am I hearing this from you
> > > and not from the Ubuntu team? 
> 
> > not sure what you expect here or why you think the (very internal)
> > technical details of an implementation need something like a blog
> > post that only 5% of the readers might remotely understand ... 
> 
> 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 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.

> > (i.e. i know you since years from this ML and clearly consider you
> > a
> > very advanced technical user, i also think i'm not too shabby at
> > explaining things, yet it took both of us several days and posts to
> > get to this point of understanding of the topic ...)
> 
> Yes, you're familiar to me, too. In this case, though, you're jumping
> to an incorrect conclusion about another user and me (and possibly
> others who are experiencing this type of issue). Hopefully by now you
> realize that neither the other user nor I (and probably the others
> who are experiencing this type of issue) have removed anything #

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

> and
> are simply baffled by a strange piece of software that doesn't have
> what it needs that was foisted upon us as part of the release we are
> using and is, thus, causing us more than one issue that we must
> manually intervene with on a regular basis.

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.

> 
> > people that do not remove the firefox deb from their installation
> > will simply not hit such issues
> 
> 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 :)

> 
> > and people that *do* remove it are somewhat expected to have
> > inspected what they are removing and that they have the in-depth
> > technical knowledge about it ...
> 
> Once again, I'd like to know how the folks who have the opportunity
> to make such a choice exist at all, since they're clearly part of an
> elite group that I wasn't invited into.
> 
> > regarding "the Ubuntu team", does 18y working at Canonical and me
> > telling you about the setup qualify me as part of: 
> > 
> > "the Ubuntu team telling you about it" ? 
> > 
> > :)
> 
> 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 ;)

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

ciao
	oli
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/attachments/20230403/9a4c73a0/attachment.sig>