[05:07] <alkisg> chrisccoulson: hi, with firefox 62.0+build2-0ubuntu<IP_ADDRESS> I don't see a greek spell checker, while with by downgrading to 59.0.2+build1-0ubuntu1 which is still in bionic repositories I do see the greek spell checker.
[05:07] <alkisg> I wonder if the ubuntu-specific packaging patch was dropped again, similar to https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/firefox/+bug/770719 ?
[05:08] <alkisg> "Look in /usr/share/hunspell for the system dictionaries on maverick     and later, rather than /usr/share/myspell/dicts. This got dropped    somehow in natty"
[05:28] <alkisg> Manually installing firefox deb = 61.0.1+build1-0ubuntu<IP_ADDRESS> from bionic/launchpad also works...
[05:43] <alkisg> So to sum up, 59 and 61 have both greek/english spell checkers, while 62 regressed and only has english spell checker.
[08:24] <LocutusOfBorg> cpaelzer, do you have any plan for libvirt?
[08:24] <LocutusOfBorg> there is a new bugfix release, I don't know if it is on your list or not...
[08:26] <cpaelzer> LocutusOfBorg: there is a release every 4 weeks
[08:26] <cpaelzer> this is not different to other ubuntu cycles
[08:27] <cpaelzer> we usually pick the qemu we want/need and the libvirt at least one after that (as libvirt contains cleanups/handling of that qmeu then)
[08:27] <cpaelzer> in some cases I stabilize the libvirt we have by selectively backporting from the newer releases in the following month
[08:27] <cpaelzer> but we don't go forward to e.g. 4.7 in this case
[08:28] <cpaelzer> as it would just as much introduce new issues/features
[08:28] <cpaelzer> and the effort for the selective backport I usually only do for LTS releases
[08:28] <cpaelzer> from there it depends on bug reports to backport one or the other fix as usual
[08:29] <cpaelzer> LocutusOfBorg: or is there a 4.6.1 or such that I totally missed
[08:29] <cpaelzer> hmm, no I only see 4.7 that I know
[08:31] <LocutusOfBorg> cpaelzer, I was interested in the kernel fixes
[08:31] <LocutusOfBorg> but as you wish, I get your point, better merge on next archive open?
[08:31] <cpaelzer> LocutusOfBorg: I do so every cycle anyway with plenty of regression tests as we have so much things depending on it
[08:31] <cpaelzer> LocutusOfBorg: if you have anything in particular open a bug and I can consider backporting the commit
[08:32] <cpaelzer> LocutusOfBorg: now I'm curious anyway, what kernel fixes are you referring to?
[08:33] <LocutusOfBorg> 4.18 fixes, but I see you probably have already backported them
[08:33] <cpaelzer> hehe
[08:33] <cpaelzer> I'm actually the upstream Author of them as well
[08:34] <cpaelzer> so yeah, that is already in Cosmic and on its SRU way to Bionic (so that the HWE will not cause trouble)
[08:34] <LocutusOfBorg> nice! thanks!
[08:34] <cpaelzer> never a fix is so easy as those that are already done :-)
[08:34] <cpaelzer> you are welcome
[08:42] <chrisccoulson> alkisg, yes, I'm aware of that
[08:42] <alkisg> chrisccoulson: thank you
[08:42] <chrisccoulson> just another thing to add to the long list of disasters for this update :/
[08:43] <alkisg> :D
[08:43] <alkisg> Yeah schools started and I'm having 10 issues per hour :D
[12:22] <cking> hi, the xenial version of zfsutils-linux for bug 1781364 was verified several weeks ago but the package is still in -proposed, can that be released sometime soon?
[12:37] <rbasak> Hmm. zfs-linux doesn't appear in http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/pending-sru.html
[12:38] <rbasak> cking: zfs-linux has nothing in xenial-propsed. xenial-updates shows <IP_ADDRESS>-0ubuntu24 published on 2018-08-23. Is what you need already done with an incorrect status?
[12:39] <cking> rbasak, I think I figured it out, I tested it against the kernel that was in -proposed and the zfsutils in my PPA, I forgot to upload it, stupid me
[12:40] <rbasak> np
[12:41]  * cking slaps himself
[13:54] <Yimo_> hey there! I know this is not the right channel but I figured the devs of ubuntu can help me with my case. You see, I have two linux distros on dualboot. That is fine. However ubuntu's grub installation causes my other OS to have a kernel panic, while the other distro's os keeps both working fine for me. What I want to do is ignore/disable grub in ubuntu and make sure that it doesn't reinstall itself after an update of whatnot,
[13:54] <Yimo_> Does anyone know how I can do this? all my search only lead me to removing ubuntu itself and not this
[13:59] <Yimo_> As I expected, silence :/
[14:00] <Faux> Ask in #ubuntu. This is never the right channel.
[14:00] <cjwatson> Geez, a five-minute delay isn't silence
[14:00] <Yimo_> alright
[14:01] <cjwatson> The preferred approach is to remove the GRUB packages that are defined as owning the system's boot process (normally grub-pc and grub-efi-amd64), but using dpkg-divert on grub-install would work too
[14:01] <Yimo_> what is the difference between the two approaches?
[14:04] <Yimo_> (trying the preferred method and hoping ubuntu won't reinstall grub)
[14:04] <cjwatson> While I'd prefer the former, it's possible that it will cause some other packages (beyond grub-*) to be removed and that you might determine that this is unacceptable for you (try it and see); in that case dpkg-divert is a fairly general "I want to put my own thing in place of this system-provided file and have it persist across upgrades"
[14:04] <cjwatson> I think the first approach should work though
[14:05] <Yimo_> Ah I get what you mean
[14:05] <Yimo_> generally any grub requiring package won't go too far beyond boot, I'm fine by first approach
[14:05] <Yimo_> thanks for the clarification though
[14:06] <cjwatson> np.  Faux is right that #ubuntu is really a better place for support, in general.  I just happened to be watching
[14:06] <Yimo_> well, in general yeah. However sometimes in extreme cases though I prefer digging closer to devs
[14:07] <Yimo_> thanks anyway and cya
[14:09] <doko> tumbleweed, cyphermox: any idea about https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/python-pkginfo/1.4.2-1 ?
[14:32] <msalvatore> Hey, doko. Will you still have time today to take a peek at that armhf build failure? https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-security-proposed/+archive/ubuntu/ppa/+build/15336959
[14:34] <tumbleweed> doko: simple enough. I'll poke it
[14:46] <doko> msalvatore: not a priority for me
[14:46] <tumbleweed> doko: uploaded to unstable
[14:53] <msalvatore> doko: ok. thanks anyway
[15:27] <sil2100> rbasak: hey! Are you done with your SRU shift for today? Since I wanted to review ipxe from the bionic queue and don't want to step on your toes
[15:30] <rbasak> sil2100: go ahead. I'm looking at gnome-software but won't look at any after that. Thank you for syncing.
[15:39] <BenderRodriguez> so, who's the person here who proposed that it would be a good idea to advertise bit.ly links in motd banners for Ubuntu *Server*
[15:39] <BenderRodriguez> like, what thought process went through to come to the conclusion that pushing this into a clearly enterprise centric version of the distro was a good idea
[15:39] <BenderRodriguez> like seriously, who was it -- I am both astounded and intrigued by either the madness or genius of this person
[15:39] <BenderRodriguez> any explainations?
[16:40] <dpb1> nice tone
[16:40] <dpb1> here's more info if you want it
[16:40] <dpb1> https://meet.google.com/linkredirect?authuser=0&dest=https%3A%2F%2Fbugs.launchpad.net%2Fubuntu%2F%2Bsource%2Fbase-files%2F%2Bbug%2F1701068%2Fcomments%2F11
[16:40] <dpb1> lol
[16:40] <dpb1> here
[16:40] <dpb1> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/base-files/+bug/1701068/comments/11
[16:41] <dpb1> (comment 11)
[17:27] <nacc> BenderRodriguez: "cleary enterprise centric" version implies a rather large misundrestanding of the difference between server and desktop, IMO.
[17:27] <BenderRodriguez> nacc: let's not divert from the issue here
[17:27] <BenderRodriguez> call it what you please
[17:27] <BenderRodriguez> but it doesn't belong on this variant of the distro
[17:27] <nacc> BenderRodriguez: "doesn't belong" is an opinion.
[17:28] <nacc> I don't defend it myself, but you sound rather FUD-y right now
[17:28] <BenderRodriguez> nacc: so you think there's objective benefits in pushing potentially unwanted, potentially malicious, unknown links to operating systems that may be part of critical infrastructure?
[17:28] <jbicha> BenderRodriguez: the LP bug comment explains how to disable it if you want for your enterprise
[17:28] <jbicha> unknown to who? malicious how?
[17:29] <BenderRodriguez> jbicha: oh I'm sure there are various way to thrwart the functionality, but it should never even be introduced for someone to have to work to disable it
[17:29] <BenderRodriguez> jbicha: I don't know what theit bit.ly link is for
[17:29] <BenderRodriguez> i don't know where it would take me
[17:29] <BenderRodriguez> so i have to believe that there's a non-zero chance that it's a malicious link
[17:29] <nacc> BenderRodriguez: ... "unwanted", "unknown", etc.
[17:29] <nacc> BenderRodriguez: total FUD.
[17:29] <nacc> BenderRodriguez: unknown to *you*
[17:29] <BenderRodriguez> right
[17:29] <BenderRodriguez> exactly
[17:30] <BenderRodriguez> unknown to the user
[17:30] <nacc> BenderRodriguez: also, critical infrastructure ... why is the motd relevant?
[17:30] <nacc> BenderRodriguez: don't use the internet, btw, if you're worried about potential unwanted, malicious links
[17:30] <jbicha> enterprises pay their sysadmins to disable unwanted functionality. Hire me if you want me to disable it for your enterprise
[17:30] <BenderRodriguez> Again, there will be a scenario where the OS *has* to have internet connectivity
[17:31] <nacc> BenderRodriguez: basically, you have an opinion, that's great. Your opinion wasn't shared by someone who works on the product. That's how it goes sometimes.
[17:31] <nacc> BenderRodriguez: I'm saying, not about this specific case.
[17:31] <nacc> BenderRodriguez: if you are worried about URLs, don't use the internet ever
[17:31] <nacc> I'm pretty sure that's the only solution to your concern about them
[17:32] <BenderRodriguez> nacc: but given the vocal outrage from the linux community, the only thing that should have been done was a well written apology and a patch swiftly distirbuted to excise this feature
[17:32] <nacc> BenderRodriguez: "linux community"?
[17:32] <nacc> BenderRodriguez: ubuntu != linux.
[17:32] <BenderRodriguez> nacc: yes, you don't have to quote it
[17:32] <BenderRodriguez> nacc: again, uneeded pendantry
[17:33] <BenderRodriguez> the open source community, linux, GNU/Linux, Ubuntu, call it what you want -- people aren't happy about this
[17:33] <nacc> BenderRodriguez: so you now speak for millions of people?
[17:33] <nacc> BenderRodriguez: and all of those people are now unanimous in this opinion?
[17:33] <BenderRodriguez> I speak based on a tally of the negative criticisms on the various launchpad bugs on this
[17:33] <BenderRodriguez> so there is quantitative data to show that yes
[17:34] <BenderRodriguez> people aren't happy
[17:34] <nacc> BenderRodriguez: what's the count there, then?
[17:34] <BenderRodriguez> nacc: you have access -- you wanted this info? then go look for it yourself
[17:34] <nacc> BenderRodriguez: no, you are asserting there is some great outrage. Prove it to me.
[17:34] <BenderRodriguez> nacc: look at all the closed/open launchpad bugs on this
[17:34] <BenderRodriguez> there's your proof
[17:36] <nacc> BenderRodriguez: that's 1) not proof that the entire "open source community, linux, GNU/linux, Ubuntu" care at all about this and 2) no, you seem unwilling to try and actually prove your point. I refer you back to FUD. And will now move on to something useful in my day.
[17:47] <nacc> BenderRodriguez: again, I don't disagree with your sentiment. But I don't think it's the scary thing you are trying to make it out to be.
[17:52] <BenderRodriguez> nacc: it is a major breach in trust and a potential security hazard
[17:52] <BenderRodriguez> these aren't opinions
[17:52] <BenderRodriguez> this is an objective statement
[17:53] <nacc> BenderRodriguez: how is it either?
[17:54] <BenderRodriguez> nacc: 1) This feature was implemented without ample warning or discussion with the community at large   2) This feature can easily be commandeered in various way to supply potentially malicious content
[17:57] <nacc> BenderRodriguez: 1) I can understand that perspective. Canonical made a choice here. You trust Canonical, by using their software (IMO). As to 2) I don't see what obvious commandeering you are implying.
[17:59] <StevenK> nacc: Set http_proxy to something that can rewrite bit.ly URLs, boom, malicious content
[18:00] <nacc> StevenK: for the root user.
[18:00] <nacc> StevenK: which implies your root user is compromised?
[18:01] <StevenK> nacc: Setting environment variables does not require special privledges
[18:01] <nacc> StevenK: setting environment variables that are read by the update-motd process would, though?
[18:01] <StevenK> nacc: update-motd is not involved here, it's the process of *following* the links
[18:02] <nacc> StevenK: err, sorry the systemd timer, i think
[18:06] <nacc> StevenK: oh, you are saying, you as the user click on a link with a compromised http_proxy?
[18:06] <nacc> StevenK: ... so the issue is you have a compromised system, and you are complaining about the MOTD?
[18:08] <StevenK> nacc: I wasn't complaining, I was just pointing out how easy it is
[18:10] <nacc> StevenK: how easy it is to have a compromised system? ... I don't see what having a URL in motd has to do with your system being compromised.
[18:10] <nacc> StevenK: and it also means you shouldn't open *any* URLs on said system, not just MOTD.
[18:11] <nacc> again, don't use the internet if you can't trust your system
[18:11] <nacc> it seems like blatant FUD
[18:11] <StevenK> How easy it is subvert bit.ly URLs, but I have more important things to do
[18:11] <nacc> me too! :)
[18:13] <BenderRodriguez> nacc: and if motd.ubuntu.com is compromised?
[18:14] <nacc> BenderRodriguez: then probably a lot more of ubuntu.com is too
[18:15] <BenderRodriguez> right but you see where I'm getting at right?
[18:15] <nacc> BenderRodriguez: yes, you trust ubuntu.com to be what it is supposed to be.
[18:15] <BenderRodriguez> it's an uncessary vector of attack being introduced
[18:15] <nacc> BenderRodriguez: I don't see it as a breach of trust, to use that trust in a URL.
[18:15] <BenderRodriguez> for a server operating system...
[18:15] <nacc> whatever, I'm done talking about this
[18:20]  * sladen tries to read the scrollback
[18:21] <sladen> is there a bug report?
[18:21] <nacc> sladen: LP: #1701068
[18:21] <nacc> sladen: and others, iirc
[18:26] <sladen> nacc: this bug report is from over one year ago? (June 2017)  Is it still current?
[18:26] <nacc> sladen: dunno :)
[18:30] <hggdh> well, it is sort-of current. It has been set as Opinion, which is a terminal state (meaning somebody decided this will not be looked at further), but is basically a difference of opinions
[23:21] <desti> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libsdl2/+bug/1740517 anyone here responsible for libsdl2 can look at this?
[23:39] <nacc> desti: is it still broken on 18.10? it will need to be fixed there before 18.04 can be SRU'd
[23:40] <desti> i guess so
[23:42] <nacc> desti: that's not exactly good enough, and is information that's needed in the bug. LocutusOfBorg, i think you TIL?