Thanks a lot @joebonrichie! Your work is very much appreciated ?

With the Software Centre change could you have all the updates checked by default? Now when somebody goes to updates and presses update, it will only install necessary updates. And if all were checked, all would be install. This could slightly raise the number of fully up to date systems and save a few clicks for most users.

In T8629#164499, @Jacek wrote:

With the Software Centre change could you have all the updates checked by default? Now when somebody goes to updates and presses update, it will only install necessary updates. And if all were checked, all would be install. This could slightly raise the number of fully up to date systems and save a few clicks for most users.

It's going to be a list view, there isn't going to be anything to check.

In T8629#164500, @JoshStrobl wrote:

In T8629#164499, @Jacek wrote:

With the Software Centre change could you have all the updates checked by default? Now when somebody goes to updates and presses update, it will only install necessary updates. And if all were checked, all would be install. This could slightly raise the number of fully up to date systems and save a few clicks for most users.

It's going to be a list view, there isn't going to be anything to check.

So no option to omit updates of certain packages?
I guess you don't trust your users ;) But I guess that makes sense.

I guess you don't trust your users ;) But I guess that makes sense.

With the current implementation of the Software Center and eopkg, it is my view that in order to ensure the safe and complete upgrade of a user's system, package updates should not be treated as optional for the time being. "Optional" updates introduce the potential for a broken upgrade, packages which require newer ABIs not being forced to update in addition to their deps, etc.

This is something we may re-evaluate with the rewrite of the Software Center as well as the introduction of our new package manager, but now I'm wanting to err on the side of caution.

Hello, does the upgrade to GNOME 3.36 includes Nautilus upgrade?

Perhaps Binutils 3.34 and glibc 2.31 could make it in now that they are released?

Binutils 2.34 has removed some essential macros and I cannot build the reverse dependencies, that's why we would need to see if they are updated against this new changes, maybe I'll need to patch the source code.

In T8629#164576, @Jacalz wrote:

Perhaps Binutils 3.34 and glibc 2.31 could make it in now that they are released?

Let's keep it with the current list and not add more to it. Additional items should also only be pursued by Core Team or Global Maintainers, I don't want to be blocked otherwise (no offense).

Removed comment. If you have concerns about a specific update e.g. if it includes specific fixes Core Team / Global Maintainers should take a look at, please use the appropriate Phabricator forms. Thanks!

Will there be more fixes in Budgie than the new desktop icons system?

@ermo that is because Python3.7 is marked as done.

Is there any reason why AVX2 was turned of in the blender update? The summary had no mention of it so I guess it was accidentally left inside the commit after local testing?

In T8629#168370, @Jacalz wrote:

Is there any reason why AVX2 was turned of in the blender update? The summary had no mention of it so I guess it was accidentally left inside the commit after local testing?

Yes, there's no libraries so it doubles the compile time for no benefit (I assume they discovered that the hard way). Technically not turned off when it's always been off.

In T8629#168370, @Jacalz wrote:

Is there any reason why AVX2 was turned of in the blender update? The summary had no mention of it so I guess it was accidentally left inside the commit after local testing?

I deleted that line again in the local package.yml but apparently forgot to git add it before committing. At least it's already disabled.

Last time i ran objdump -d /usr/bin/blender | grep ymm it returned a bunch of results. I think blender is already using avx2 kernels with runtime cpu detection.

Could we in some way make sure that D8542 gets included in the formal write up of 4.2 when it is released? I think it is a really nice addition that it worth mentioning in release notes :)

Please remove xorg-driver-video-intel from the default installed packages, people like me with an Intel GPU end up with an unusable PC.
Otherwise you can apply this patch https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/xorg-x11-server/blob/master/f/06_use-intel-only-on-pre-gen4.diff

https://dev.getsol.us/T8752
https://dev.getsol.us/T8715
https://dev.getsol.us/T8927

@linuxkernel while I agree that patch is probably a good idea, let's not overstate the importance of this. Most people running Intel have zero problems with the Intel DDX driver. Even with much newer chipsets. And no, we can't remove the package entirely as it would harm the experience of users with older chipsets who actually need the optimizations that the DDX driver performs.

Is there an estimated release time?
There used to be a timer on here.
Just asking because the 4.1 ISO kernel isn't up-to-date with the latest Radeon GPUs (which is why I cannot install Solus).
If it'll take a while I can plan ahead and manage.

@Darius we don't give ETAs. The timer was meant to give us developers a target for how long the tasks should take to finish, but life loves to throw a wrench into things. We decided to let the timer expire and continue rolling forward without it.

Aight fair enough, thanks for the reply.

I went ahead and added birdtray and iio-sensor-proxy to the Budgie and GNOME ISOs. I'll leave it up to @Girtablulu and @kyrios123 whether to not they wish to added them on the Plasma and MATE ISOs respectively. In particular, I am unaware if or how iio-sensor-proxy integrates with those DEs.

I don't have tabletPC like devices but if someone confirms iio-sensor-proxy works fine on MATE, it could be added on the ISO. Regarding birdtray, I am not really keen of having it installed by default.

Please consider adding Mesa 20.2.x to this tasklist, for hardware support purposes.

It's good time for released??

Probably not because a bunch of users are having issues with 5.10