3 ms·

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-meta/+bug/1930914/comments/15 https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-meta/+bug/1... seems to have a w

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-meta/+bug/1930914/comments/15 https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-meta/+bug/1... seems to have a workaround which seems to be a .deb package with matching package metadata that is otherwise empty. Is it really that easy? Would ubuntu-advantage-tools "benefit" from being cryptographically validated to ensure that users do not substitute the original release from Canonical with "counterfeit" replacements?

teddyh 4y ago
In that case, is ubuntu-minimal also a metapackage? If that’s true, I assume that you could just as well replace the ubuntu-minimal package with your own package with equivalent dependencies, except the dependency on ubuntu-advantage-tools.
- phoe-krk 4y ago
  > In that case, is ubuntu-minimal also a metapackage? Yes - https://packages.ubuntu.com/bionic/ubuntu-minimal https://packages.ubuntu.com/bionic/ubuntu-minimal shows a lot of dependencies and two actual files with documentation. I think the main issue would be getting this ubuntu-other-minimal package into Canonical's official repositories. Otherwise, you've just made another Ubuntu remix.
jeroenhd 4y ago
As far as I can see, this package doesn't replace the existing package, it merely contains metadata to prevent the existing package from being reinstalled. I'd prefer a set of build files over a package like this, but if it's as empty as it claims to be then this is a great solution to this ridiculousness.