In jammy I notice there is a delta to the packaging:
--- snapd-2.58+22.04/debian/snapd.links 2022-12-01 08:52:23.000000000 +0000
+++ snapd-2.60.2+22.04/debian/snapd.links 2023-08-04 10:14:04.000000000 +0000
@@ -4,3 +4,4 @@
# This should be removed once we can rely on debhelper >= 11.5:
# https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=764678
/usr/lib/systemd/user/snapd.session-agent.socket /usr/lib/systemd/user/sockets.target.wants/snapd.session-agent.socket
+/usr/lib/systemd/user/snapd.aa-prompt-ui.service /usr/lib/systemd/user/default.target.wants/snapd.aa-prompt-ui.service
This was not present in the lunar upload. And the comment about debhelper >= 11.5 isn't material, we actually have >= 11.5 all the way back to focal. So why is this being added?
It's also not a new service, the file is present in snapd 2.58+22.04.
Packaging changes should be explained separately in an SRU. I am not confident that the effect of enabling a new systemd user unit by default will have been covered by CI given that it only affects user sessions.
In jammy I notice there is a delta to the packaging:
--- snapd-2. 58+22.04/ debian/ snapd.links 2022-12-01 08:52:23.000000000 +0000 60.2+22. 04/debian/ snapd.links 2023-08-04 10:14:04.000000000 +0000 /bugs.debian. org/cgi- bin/bugreport. cgi?bug= 764678 systemd/ user/snapd. session- agent.socket /usr/lib/ systemd/ user/sockets. target. wants/snapd. session- agent.socket systemd/ user/snapd. aa-prompt- ui.service /usr/lib/ systemd/ user/default. target. wants/snapd. aa-prompt- ui.service
+++ snapd-2.
@@ -4,3 +4,4 @@
# This should be removed once we can rely on debhelper >= 11.5:
# https:/
/usr/lib/
+/usr/lib/
This was not present in the lunar upload. And the comment about debhelper >= 11.5 isn't material, we actually have >= 11.5 all the way back to focal. So why is this being added?
It's also not a new service, the file is present in snapd 2.58+22.04.
Packaging changes should be explained separately in an SRU. I am not confident that the effect of enabling a new systemd user unit by default will have been covered by CI given that it only affects user sessions.