=== Martinp23 is now known as martinp23 [02:39] bdmurray thanks for getting back on my application === Guest78382 is now known as Hobbsee [03:18] Anyone having trouble with loosing wifi after rebooting? [03:18] Ubuntu 8.04, that is. === asac_ is now known as asac === ubot3` is now known as ubot3 [03:54] hey all [05:20] bug #236431 rather looks like a wish list [05:20] Malone bug 236431 in firefox-3.0 "alt + drag to favicon" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/236431 [05:44] techno_freak: is it reported to the mozilla bugtracker? [05:45] techno_freak: bah. there's a better way for him to do that, too [05:45] * Hobbsee hits it with the wontfix stick [05:46] :) [05:48] it always surprises me how many people don't know about drag-to-tab, either the extension for the older versions of firefox, or the built in dragging for newer versions of firefox. === rockstar` is now known as rockstar === rockstar` is now known as rockstar [07:46] G'morning [10:12] Hello. Anyone awake/ [10:13] no [10:15] cuz i found new bug [10:16] "deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ hardy main universe multiverse restricted web" <---- bug [10:16] already filed. [10:17] did you find out what caused it? [10:17] Where is it filed? [10:17] on launchpad somewhere. [10:17] * Hobbsee was looking at it for a while, months ago. [10:18] Yes, found it. [10:18] #? [10:18] ubufox [10:18] It adds the web service [10:19] and breaks rest of apt applications from fetching updates [10:19] including hardy-security line [10:20] So, if you find bug, ill add the package [10:23] when does it add the web service? it's really not being triggered for many people. [10:24] https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/update-manager/+bug/227191 [10:24] Malone bug 227191 in update-manager "Failed to fetch in Kubuntu" [Undecided,Invalid] [10:24] it not triggered for vlc plugin [10:25] Install a plugin with Firefox and he asks you something like « Do you want to enable the following component: 'web'? » [10:25] wonder which one that might be... [10:26] lol [10:26] Totem is one [10:26] yes, but i'll bet it's not giving that exact message. [10:26] someone got a global source mirror around here, or something? [10:27] yup [10:27] grep away, then. [10:27] It says do you want to add 'web' service [10:28] ohwait. it could be apturl? [10:28] https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/software-properties/+bug/210002 [10:28] Malone bug 210002 in software-properties "software-properties adds a non-existant 'web' to the list of repository components" [Undecided,New] [10:28] Window that popups up [10:28] could well be [10:28] is apturl [10:30] Hobbsee, im proud of myself to solving it [10:32] Hobbsee, Breaking source.list and adding 'web' keeps update-manager from getting updates, including security ones [10:32] yes, i'm aware [10:33] should i file under ubufox? [10:34] if you do, it'll get marked as a dupe of that software-properties one [10:34] you should probably ask mvo about it, during european working hours. [10:35] Hobbsee, Thats update-manager [10:36] It breaks anyone using it [10:36] anything* [10:37] yes, it does. how is that relevant? [10:40] and it's not apturl. [10:40] it can't be. [10:40] kahrytan: do you have anything installed from the partner repository, btw? [10:40] dunno? [10:41] do you have it enabled? [10:42] Hobbsee, not sure before today [10:42] and do you have any unofficial repositories? [10:42] Yeah. Medibuntu? [10:42] WineHQ [10:43] mmm [10:43] and banshee+1 ppa [10:44] The new Banshee beta is cool [10:44] * Hobbsee goes off to ask searching questions of medibuntu [10:51] Hobbsee, does kubuntu even use ubufox? [10:52] Hobbsee, https://edge.launchpad.net/+search?field.text=%22malformed+Release+file%22+web&field.actions.search=Search [10:52] not if you don't use firefox... [10:53] Hows that for search result [10:54] morning [10:55] bug #202170 [10:55] Malone bug 202170 in ubuntu "Unable to find expected entry web/binary-i386/Packages in Meta-index file (malformed Release file?)" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/202170 [10:55] Pretty popular bug [10:57] kahrytan: what does 'grep-dctrl -n -s Package -F Section -e '^web/' /var/lib/dpkg/status' output? [10:58] it doesnt have web anymore [10:58] in your sources list, yes, i know. [10:58] and? [10:58] but command not found [10:59] oh, install grep-dctrl first then. [10:59] Zero [10:59] or 0. as in null as in. no result [10:59] hmmm [10:59] that's annoying. [11:00] does it need sudo? [11:00] Oh, damn. [11:00] The status file doesn't store the component. [11:00] Only the section. [11:00] Close to half a dozen bugs related to this [11:02] Looks like they need to be linked [11:03] those that are still open, yeah. [11:03] it doesn't look like something official, though [11:03] They got solved but never fixed [11:03] there just aren't enough bugs there, and enough people screaming. [11:03] But it could be potential security issue [11:04] kahrytan: yes, but if it's not our bug, and i don't think it is, then how do you propose we fix it? [11:04] Someone new could add have 'web' added and go on for weeks w/o any fixes any any other bugs. There could be someone out there w/o ssh fix. [11:04] really, you'd have to go and scream blue murder at whoever wrote the broken package that modified your sources list. [11:05] Well, apt could be more forgiving about errors, or at least apt-python, or even update-manager trap the errors cleanly. [11:05] ssk key fix [11:05] not bloody likely cuz it was so public announced but point is valid. [11:05] persia: yeah, that might be nice. OTOH, for standard 404's, you probably don't want to be able to ignore htem anyway. [11:05] does apt really break when one component is unavailable? [11:06] afflux: it'll 404, and won't do the updates until all the repositories are OK again. [11:06] Hobbsee: Depends. aptitude works cleanly anyway, as it traps the error, presents a warning to the user, and updates the local cache. [11:06] It makes sense for it to break if a *component* is unavailable, but not a suite. [11:06] wgrant: suite? [11:06] Distro series. [11:06] Well, distro series pocket. [11:07] Components should never go missing, so failing on them being missing is good. [11:07] wgrant: Completely failing, or providing user feedback about possible issues? [11:07] Hobbsee, so what do i do with it? [11:07] kahrytan: You work out which dodgy package you installed, and scream at them. Then complain at mvo. [11:08] !info ubufox [11:08] ubufox: Ubuntu Firefox specific configuration defaults and apt support. In component main, is optional. Version 0.5~beta1-0ubuntu1 (hardy), package size 60 kB, installed size 396 kB [11:08] I doubt it. [11:09] thats the package the bug is related too [11:09] kahrytan: no it's not, because the dodgy package is passing things to it. [11:10] and apturl does as it's told. [11:10] then what [11:10] [20:08] kahrytan: You work out which dodgy package you installed, and scream at them. Then complain at mvo. [11:11] Which package [11:11] kahrytan: You might try "grep sources.list /var/lib/dpkg/info/*" to see if any of your maintainer scripts did something interesting. [11:11] kahrytan: i'm not psychic. something you installed, likely which was a firefox plugin of some kind. [11:11] It's one of the sources that come standard with ubuntu [11:12] why do you say that? [11:12] Totem Mozilla plugin. [11:12] I find it very, very unlikely. [11:12] It happened on a fresh install [11:12] Particularly as it's installed by default. [11:13] Before medibuntu, winehq and banshee ppa were added. [11:13] kahrytan: thats not true [11:13] yeah it is [11:14] Umm.. There's lots of ways that things could happen. It's not worth arguing about this point. [11:14] This is the second time it happened to me. first time, i thought it was a fluke [11:14] There is some package installed that caused an issue. It would be interesting to determine which, in the hopes of solving it. [11:15] !pastebin [11:15] pastebin is a service to post multiple-lined texts so you don't flood the channel. The Ubuntu pastebin is at http://paste.ubuntu.com (make sure you give us the URL for your paste - see also the channel topic) [11:15] bug 236482 is about several problems during upgades failing because of "read-only file system". any ideas on how this can happen? [11:15] Malone bug 236482 in language-pack-gnome-de "package language-pack-gnome-de 1:8.04+20080415ubuntu1 failed to install/upgrade: Kann ?/usr/share/doc/language-pack-gnome-de/changelog.gz? nicht entfernen" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/236482 [11:16] persia, here ya go http://paste.ubuntu.com/16162/ [11:16] afflux: Can't be our fault. [11:16] kahrytan: Not a maintainer script then. Must be something else somewhere. [11:16] If they mount their /usr RO... [11:16] wgrant: thought so too. suggestions on how to close it? :) [11:16] /var/lib/dpkg/info/libc6.preinst: echo "please add etch sources to your /etc/apt/sources.list and run:" [11:16] ? [11:17] afflux: Invalid. PEBKAC. [11:17] persia, any ideas [11:17] wgrant: okay, thanks [11:17] ikonia: For context, read the whole file. It's likely a workaround for some Debian upgrade issue. [11:17] just reading through it now [11:17] it's not mentioned on my box though [11:17] which seems odd as it's libc [11:18] and the reporter is violating the CoC... [11:19] persia, so? [11:20] kahrytan: Erm. grep -ri sources.list /usr? /home? It's likely somewhere, unless someone went to some length to make it hard to find. [11:20] Why not just grep / [11:21] and look on the entire hdd [11:28] i doubt it's related to third party addon [11:29] kahrytan: It's much, much more likely to be related to a third-party component that an Ubuntu one. [11:29] wgrant, want to bet? [11:29] if it was an ubuntu core packages the majority of users would be having this problem [11:29] Not particularly. [11:29] it would have failed test [11:29] ikonia: Exactly. [11:30] #ubuntu would be full of "I can't update" [11:30] where as dodgy 3rd party light tested stuff.....hmmm [11:31] Is ubufox default installed? [11:32] ok, I'll install it now [11:32] lets test [11:32] it's already on my system [11:32] I don't have the problem [11:32] ubufox is? [11:32] yes [11:32] ubufox is already the newest version. [11:33] then install totem-mozilla through the plugin service it uses. [11:33] already installed [11:33] totem-mozilla is already the newest version. [11:33] through ubufox? [11:33] no, through synaptic [11:34] try through ubufox [11:34] Um. [11:35] totem-mozilla is in the ubuntu-desktop task. [11:35] yup [11:35] It should be installed by default. [11:35] just walking through the dependencies [11:36] i wonder if i removed -desktop [11:36] that wouldn't remove totem [11:36] true [11:36] I tend to scale down ubuntu installs ALLOT [11:37] Gnome-games .. gone. Openoffice... gone for most part [11:37] wow - thats great [11:37] did you get any complaints after I told you to make the file read only ? [11:37] Open Office is bloated and default games suck' [11:37] did anything complain ? [11:37] kahrytan: is this relevant ? [11:37] No. And I dont have to [11:38] did you make it read only as I suggested ? [11:38] It's the install of Totem-Mozilla through Ubufox [11:38] right, I'll do that now [11:39] kahrytan: explain how you installed it exactly through ubufox and I'll do it now [11:39] I've removed totem-mozilla [11:39] Goto a website that needs plugin to play a video, click on install plug, get plugin finder service, and choose totem-Mozilla from list [11:40] can you suggest a url that would trigger it ? [11:40] so it asks for the same things you got asked for [11:41] ooops [11:41] ikonia, http://www.honolulu.gov/multimed/waikiki.asp [11:42] ah, it's trying to use mplayer on my machine [11:42] one moment [11:43] i like vlc [11:44] kahrytan: thats not a bug [11:44] kahrytan: when you click totem it asks "do you wish to enable the following components "web" [11:44] So you did get it [11:44] so by clicking "yes" your telling it to add web [11:45] yes [11:45] And saying yes, breaks source.list [11:45] yes [11:45] thus bug [11:45] as it will add "yes" [11:45] or incompatible [11:45] add "web" [11:46] it's only on the totem download, xine, or mplayer doesn't ask for it [11:46] What would you call a feature that suppose to make things easier to install plugins but breaks apt and source.list? [11:46] ikonia, I know it's just that plugin [11:47] kahrytan: You really could have said this from the start. [11:47] That the installation asked you. [11:47] That would have made it much easier to track down. [11:47] wgrant, Actually. I did [11:47] I didn't see it. [11:47] * wgrant searches. [11:47] Discussing with hobbsee [11:48] Ah, 1.5 hours ago, but using incorrect terminology and a lack of quotes. [11:48] lol [11:48] I still said it. [11:48] its not the totem-mozilla plugin [11:49] It's ubufox. [11:49] totem-mozilla is not installed on my machine [11:49] I phrased that badley [11:49] * wgrant apt-get sources. [11:49] it's not the actual totem-mozilla install routine [11:50] i install totem-mozilla trough apt so I knows that the package [11:50] ?? [11:50] you know the package ? [11:50] The reason it doesn't happen with the others is that totem-mozilla is in main. [11:50] And it's so rare because totem-mozilla is installed by default. [11:50] i meant that I install totem-mozilla manually [11:50] I removed that thing long time ago since it never worked for me [11:51] And the problem is nppapt.py:77 [11:51] looking [11:51] wgrant, you found code issue already? [11:51] kahrytan: Of course. It took me about 10 seconds to find. [11:51] that was fast [11:52] Basically, packages outside main have their component specified on the front. [11:52] But main doesn't. [11:52] So if totem-mozilla was in universe, the section would be universe/web. [11:52] So, easily patched then [11:52] But it's ommitted if in main. [11:53] The ubufox code doesn't take this into account, and it's quite understandable that this wasn't a tested codepath. [11:53] And thats python code too [11:53] wgrant: ahhh so main is seen as root [11:54] wgrant: so the entries.append is the issue [11:54] So, I found a actual bug ? [11:54] it would appear that way [11:54] although, its pretty clear in what it's doing [11:54] ikonia: I'd add a conditional at line 78, checking for emptiness of tail. [11:54] "hi - I'm going to put web in your source.list - do you want me to do this" [11:54] your clicking "yes" [11:54] what do you expect [11:54] If tail is empty, set real_section to main. [11:54] It would seem codepath that didnt get tested because totem-mozilla is installed by default. [11:55] It is a bug, and it will likely murder new users, right. [11:55] kahrytan: are you just copying what wgrant said ? [11:55] kahrytan: Correct. So the gigantic majority of people won't notice. [11:55] * kahrytan thinks to himself [11:55] I'll test a patch now. [11:56] Another question is: which of these bugs (https://edge.launchpad.net/+search?field.text=%22malformed+Release+file%22+web&field.actions.search=Search) are related to it [11:57] kahrytan: Fairly close to all. [11:57] about 5 is my guess [11:57] Most solved to 'web' removal [11:58] well, that is the fix [11:58] Bug #187994 would make resolution more obvious. [11:58] Malone bug 187994 in apt "Misleading error message on incorrect component in sources.list (was: Failed to fetch http://archive.canonical.com/ubuntu/dists/gutsy/Release Unable to find expected entry commercial/binary-i386/Packages in Meta-index file (malformed Release file?))" [Low,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/187994 [11:59] thats in gutdy [11:59] gutdy [11:59] darn it gutsy [12:00] Did mvo get it wrong? [12:01] has anyone noticed recently that some images in firefox come out a bit blurry [12:01] wgrant: if you want to make a patch that works, i can upload it [12:01] * Hobbsee goes back to dinner [12:01] Hobbsee: We'd best wait for asac, as it's all in some strange bzr setup. [12:02] wgrant: ubufox? [12:02] that's core-dev-uploadable, iirc [12:02] There's no Hardy branch set up yet, though, so it'd be best not to touch it. [12:03] Shall I hijack #202170? [12:03] go ahead [12:04] * wgrant checks if totem-mozilla was the only thing able to cause the issue. [12:04] wgrant: presumably anything in main that is a codec which isn't installed by default - or that gets removed by uesrs, then tries to reinstall. [12:05] No, it's the only one. [12:05] There's nothing else that can do it. [12:05] as me and ikonia established , wgrant [12:06] kahrytan: Were you able to definitively determine that only installation of totem-mozilla through ubufox could possibly cause it? [12:07] I tried all plugin install in the list.. thats only one. [12:07] kahrytan: OK, now to test my fix - do you have a URL of a page that triggers the plugin installation? [12:07] Whatcha mean [12:08] I need a URL that results in a prompt for plugin installation. [12:08] I can't think of any right now. [12:08] http://www.honolulu.gov/multimed/waikiki.asp [12:08] Web cam that faces statue in Waikiki :-P [12:09] Hmm, no suitable plugins were found. [12:09] its wmv video [12:10] Would need the codec for it first? [12:12] I've got to do more bug hunting [12:13] Aha, got it. === ompaulafk is now known as ompaul [12:16] Aloha, ompaul [12:16] And it doesn't even need an SRU to fix it. [12:17] As it's all in asac's ~. [12:17] * kahrytan wont even pretend to understand that [12:18] How long does it take to fix, upload and cycle to through update manager? [12:19] kahrytan: It doesn't actually need to. [12:19] The code isn't installed on user systems. [12:19] It's all on Canonical servers behind the plugin finder service. [12:20] wgrant: Are you preventing the problem, or processing the exception for those who got hit? [12:20] So adding two lines on one server will fix it. [12:20] persia: The former. [12:20] There's no way to fix the latter. [12:20] * persia looks at python-apt to see if there is any useful way to catch the error [12:21] I didnt know finder is based off the canonical server [12:21] persia: We can't do anything, as users can't upgrade. [12:22] wgrant: Ah. Right. The user will need to have fixed it before they can fix it. [12:22] Ironic [12:23] wgrant: In that case, it needs a poke to mvo: there's a hook in the DistUpgrader that pulls an update when DistUpgrading, so while users can't update, we ought be able to allow upgrade to intrepid anyway. [12:23] (but we can't trigger that hook until Intrepid is released...) [12:24] persia: Good point. [12:24] Very good point. [12:25] persia, Mind explaining that in english for me? [12:25] I wonder if we might be able to do something with 8.04.1. I don't think that will generate an update signal, but I'm not sure. [12:26] kahrytan: Yes, actually. I only understand a very little bit (I've spent a total of about 70 hours in the update-manger code, so really am not that familiar). [12:26] persia: It generates an upgrade signal from LTS only. [12:26] wgrant: Is this bug new in hardy (LTS)? [12:26] persia: Not sure about that. [12:27] How long has it been on the server [12:27] But 8.04.1 should only generate an upgrade signal from 6.06. [12:27] As it's not a new version number as such, it's just the point in time that meta-release-lts will be updated. [12:27] wgrant: Ah. I understand now. So 8.04 users won't get the update signal. I wonder if we can adjust that in the upgrade-signal-handler, just in case people were bitten. [12:28] Right. No. It's meta-release vs. meta-release-lts. [12:28] People should be able to fix it themselves if they've removed totem-mozilla, I guess. [12:28] And those that can't will file questions. [12:28] * persia goes off to archive.ubuntu.com in hopes of understanding this in sufficient detail to discuss it [12:29] Or bugs. [12:29] wgrant, but removing it doesnt fix source.list [12:29] kahrytan: I know, but they only get into that broken situation if they've removed totem-mozilla. [12:29] Hmm, unless Xubuntu doesn't install it by default. [12:30] kubuntu? [12:30] Gah, it doesn't. [12:30] Does Kubuntu use ubufox? [12:30] No, only Xubuntu has ubufox but not totem-mozilla. [12:31] How many people who use kubuntu install firefox and ubufox for plugin help? [12:31] Approximately none, I would posit. [12:32] Could always do sticky in forums [12:33] kahrytan: While possibly useful, that hits only a subset of affected users. [12:33] large subset though [12:34] And it's google searchable. [12:34] kahrytan: In terms of numbers, maybe. In terms of percentages, it's hard to judge. Google might help there, but it might not. [12:35] At least it wont make it to ibex [12:35] Will it be fixed with the .1 upgrade? [12:36] even if bitten [12:36] kahrytan: Within a few minutes nobody will be hit by this - the database is now being regenerated. [12:37] I get that. and those who have? [12:38] That's eomthing I haven't worked out. It's not easy to fix. [12:38] The million dollar question. How to fix machines that are not getting update lists? [12:38] They should notice, and if they ask anywhere it should be pretty obvious for any support people how to fix it. [12:40] like forums and #ubuntu [12:40] I'm afraid there's not much more we can do before people upgrade to Intrepid. [12:40] Right. [12:40] And Launchpad. [12:41] dont forget 202170 [12:41] And the multitude of others. [12:41] I'll comment on it. [12:41] /them [12:42] yet another bug confirmed and fixed by William Grant. [12:43] \o/ [12:45] kahrytan: Thanks for pushing this, and sorry for disagreeing with you earlier. It's such a corner case that it's not entirely surprising it wasn't caught. [12:46] wgrant, Sorry for not using correct terminology so you can catch it. [12:47] If only Debian archives weren't such strange beasts :( [12:47] I've run into the very same problem with some of my QA code. [12:47] Except it didn't break user systems. [12:47] I'm also suspicious of packages that pull from external sources to adjust configurations. Very confusing. [12:48] persia: Indeed. [12:51] So. Will 8.04.1 upgrade get a fix? [12:53] kahrytan: It's probably not possible to fix existing broken Hardy systems. [12:53] That sucks [12:54] It does. [12:54] Probably should pass the word around to people who help then [12:54] Apt could use safe guard against these kinds of bugs ? [12:55] Perhaps a source rebuild? [12:55] asac says that Gutsy probably isn't affected, so it's not too bad. [12:55] Source rebuild? [12:56] like a tool or command that can rebuild source.list [12:56] tool being software sources, notification in apt error. [12:57] So if source.list was to ever get malformed like this again, even new user can fix it. [12:57] The problem here is that it in apt's eyes it's not an issue in sources.list. [12:57] s/it // [12:57] it only appears to be a small ammount of users [12:58] harldy worth passing word around [12:58] there is a solution in some of the bug reports to remove web repo's [12:58]