Since I don't have a clear point to reply to, I'll just delete the
message history rather than top-post.
I would simply like to interject that, all other things equal, a new LTS
is a fantastic time to change behavior, because it also offers a bright,
shining opportunity to document a change
LXD images called "Ubuntu Server" should behave as similarly as possible
to bare metal images called "Ubuntu Server". Unless there is a
documented technical reason for the delta, I suspect the difference is a
consequence of org boundaries and should be revisited.
There is definitely a need
On Wed, Jan 05, 2022 at 09:40:32AM -0600, John Chittum wrote:
> From Steve:
>
> > First, I think unattended-upgrades should be directly seeded everywhere;
> > its inclusion in the images should not be a side-effect of including
> > software-properties.
> On one hand, I generally agree with this
On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 6:12 PM Michael Hudson-Doyle
wrote:
>
> So I think we should probably change the server-minimal seed to only
> recommend, not depend, on unattended-upgrades. Changing to a hard dependency
> was not intended when I wrote that seed and a change like this should
> probably
So I think we should probably change the server-minimal seed to only
recommend, not depend, on unattended-upgrades. Changing to a hard
dependency was not intended when I wrote that seed and a change like this
should probably be a conscious thing.
On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 at 22:25, John Chittum
wrote:
Going to backtrack slightly to answer Matthew's question:
Why is Jammy Server semantically different from Cloud images or
> Container images?
The Cloud Image and the LXD Container image are the same. Both are
generated by the `ubuntu-cpc` project, and thus take the same initial paths
in
On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 6:18 PM Steve Langasek
wrote:
>
> Matthew, Jay, thanks for pressing on this.
>
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 05:36:15PM -0800, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
> > Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > >Hi Matthew,
>
> > >On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 03:28:32PM +1300, Matthew Ruffell wrote:
>
> > >It's
Hi Steve,
On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 2:36 PM Jay Vosburgh wrote:
> >It's not necessary to remove the unattended-upgrades package in order to
> >achieve this. unattended-upgrades is configurable, and it's sufficient to
> >set 'APT::Periodic::Unattended-Upgrade "0";' in
>
Steve Langasek wrote:
>Hi Matthew,
>
>On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 03:28:32PM +1300, Matthew Ruffell wrote:
>
>> I was testing Jammy and happened to notice that unattended-upgrades
>> Depends on ubuntu-server-minimal, and when removing unattended-upgrades,
>> ubuntu-server-minimal is removed along
Matthew, Jay, thanks for pressing on this.
On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 05:36:15PM -0800, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> >Hi Matthew,
> >On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 03:28:32PM +1300, Matthew Ruffell wrote:
> >It's not necessary to remove the unattended-upgrades package in order to
>
Hi Matthew,
On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 03:28:32PM +1300, Matthew Ruffell wrote:
> I was testing Jammy and happened to notice that unattended-upgrades
> Depends on ubuntu-server-minimal, and when removing unattended-upgrades,
> ubuntu-server-minimal is removed along with it:
> $ sudo apt remove
Hey Matthew!
When you check what the ./update script does, it actually executes
germinate-update-metapackage from germinate, which on the other hand
uses the ubuntu and platform seeds to repopulate the metapackage
contents. So to get it removed from ubuntu-server-minimal, you will
first need to
12 matches
Mail list logo
