The release candidate for 22.04.1 LTS

sudodus · August 9, 2022, 10:28am

Hi everybody,

I am surprised that only the Ubuntu Desktop release candidate was upgraded August 8. Are we waiting for a new release candidate for 22.04.1 LTS? Or should we expect that the current Lubuntu release candidate (dated August 5) will be the final one?

People seem reluctant to test (or at least report testing) at http://iso.qa.ubuntu.com/qatracker/milestones/437/builds, but now at least Lubuntu testers are active.

guiverc · August 9, 2022, 10:52am

I’ve noticed some testing via comments on bug reports (including by our latest member @ArrayBolt3), but the prime issue relates to OEM for Ubuntu Desktop, and I didn’t notice any issues with any flavors. I’ve looked at the link you provided daily too yesterday (my Monday), & day before (my Sunday), but I didn’t expect to run any testing before today.

@leok and myself have spoken, and I’m happy if we at a minimum do smoke tests for Lubuntu, which I only started today.

Is what we have a RC/final; I sure hope so, but I’ll continue with testing tomorrow regardless.

Myself, I’ve heard nothing from other teams, nor about ISO expectations, but I’ve also not really gone looking for it (okay I just went & peeked in Ubuntu-MATE QA (I’m in that team too) and it’s quiet on jammy; I see only kinetic and that’s not recent either). My understanding is only changes occurring were those necessary for snap/OEM/desktop

FYI: The only difference I saw in the diff of the manifests was

guiverc@dc780-deb:/de2900/lubuntu_64$   diff jammy-desktop-amd64.manifest jammy-desktop-amd64.manifest.2022-08-02 
605c605
< libgnutls30:amd64     3.7.3-4ubuntu1.1
---
> libgnutls30:amd64     3.7.3-4ubuntu1

so I don’t see a great need of testing, given we’d completed for the 2-August-2022 ISO for 4 August 2022 release (which was delayed). I expect the same for other flavors, but I’ve not looked sorry. I do intent looking further tomorrow though, but I’d be surprised if other flavors aren’t rather like our ISO with regards diffs.

added in case helpful; the two manifests I’m comparing (AEST)

-rw-rw-r-- 1 guiverc guiverc 55K Aug  6 00:51 jammy-desktop-amd64.manifest
-rw-r--r-- 1 guiverc guiverc 55K Aug  2 03:17 jammy-desktop-amd64.manifest.2022-08-02

guiverc · August 9, 2022, 12:07pm

I just saw in #ubuntu-flavors

Ubuntu Chat Bridge Bot, [9/8/22 10:05 PM]
(irc) <sil2100> Hello flavors! New images building for 22.04.1!
(irc) <sil2100> Hopefully these will be the final ones

Edit: I just saw

https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-release/2022-August/005462.html

As you know, we had to delay 22.04.1 by a week to get an additional fix in. This has now happened and new release candidate images are building as we speak. Please start testing as soon as the new images for your favorite flavors appear on the tracker:

http://iso.qa.ubuntu.com/qatracker/milestones/437/builds

sudodus · August 9, 2022, 2:50pm

So now it is time to go ahead and test

ArrayBolt3 · August 9, 2022, 3:31pm

At least one of the flavors that used Ubiquity were having problems too (Budgie, namely), so I wouldn’t put it past the realm of possibility that our flavor could have been affected - hopefully the fix will have worked Ubuntu-wide, but I think we should put a tiny bit of extra “elbow grease” into testing Firefox and maybe do an OEM install if that’s a thing for Lubuntu and Ubuntu Studio.

sudodus · August 9, 2022, 5:19pm

The current release candidate for the Lubuntu 22.04.1 LTS iso file seems to be good.

The only issue I have found is outside the standard testing (and inherited from the April version 22.04 LTS): Firefox needs a fix to work in persistent live systems, and that fix is already there in the ‘dus-persistent’ method of mkusb.

guiverc · August 9, 2022, 7:10pm

Yeah I noticed Ubuntu Budgie (fossfreedom) has said OEM works for them now.

We don’t have an OEM install, so have nothing to test there, but the more testing we have, the better.

guiverc · August 10, 2022, 1:07am

What I hope will be my last zsync of Lubuntu 22.04.1 included the following at the end of my download script

** full diff
1504c1504
< python3-distupgrade   1:22.04.12
---
> python3-distupgrade   1:22.04.13
1610c1610
< snapd 2.55.5+22.04
---
> snapd 2.56.2+22.04ubuntu1
1649,1650c1649,1650
< ubuntu-release-upgrader-core  1:22.04.12
< ubuntu-release-upgrader-qt    1:22.04.12
---
> ubuntu-release-upgrader-core  1:22.04.13
> ubuntu-release-upgrader-qt    1:22.04.13
** prior ISO
calamares       3.2.60-0ubuntu0.1
calamares-settings-lubuntu      1:22.04.4.1
calamares-settings-ubuntu-common        1:22.04.4.1
casper  1.470
lubuntu-default-settings        22.04.2
** latest ISO
calamares       3.2.60-0ubuntu0.1
calamares-settings-lubuntu      1:22.04.4.1
calamares-settings-ubuntu-common        1:22.04.4.1
casper  1.470
lubuntu-default-settings        22.04.2
** diff

My final “** diff” had no results, because it limits itself to what I’ve marked as key packages. The “** full diff” being the differences between the prior ISO I zsync’d (0802) & current one.

I don’t see anything impacting our installs, but I’ll run another uEFI, and legacy BIOS install (thanks to @leok for running heaps already & esp. covering Secure-uEFI) & the “install using existing partition” I didn’t get to yesterday.