[13:17] <mustafam> Hi everybody
[13:18] <mustafam> I think there is a problem in networkmanager dependencies
[13:18] <mustafam> It no longer uses ppp for pppoe/adsl connections, it uses pppoe binary
[13:18] <mustafam> Where should I report this
[13:23] <rbasak> mustafam: which pppoe binary exactly?
[13:24] <rbasak> The ppp package provides an rp-pppoe.so plugin. Does it use that, or does it use the separate pppoe pty wrapper?
[13:26] <mustafam> As per http://cgit.freedesktop.org/NetworkManager/NetworkManager/commit/?h=nm-0-9-10&id=7955806a02db64b20079267743056d7d9d45af3b
[13:27] <mustafam> "for now, work around this by using the userland pppoe client rather than the kernel code"
[13:27] <mustafam> ppp is not enough
[13:28] <mustafam> I use pppoe connection, it does not work unless I install pppoe package (binary executable)
[13:28] <rbasak> Ah, so this is a switch from rp-pppoe.so to the separate pppoe binary.
[13:29] <mustafam> I think so
[13:29] <rbasak> pppoe is in universe, so network-manager cannot depend on it or recommend it.
[13:29] <mustafam> I use the latest daily images and it is affected
[13:30] <mustafam> So will ubuntu ship with broken dsl/pppoe?
[13:30] <rbasak> You can file a bug against network-manager. Either pppoe will remain in universe, or it could be promoted to main.
[13:30] <mustafam> I have WiFi addon card, but what about ethernet only?
[13:30] <rbasak> If the decision is for it to remain in universe, then network-manager could suggest pppoe, but users would need to install it manually to get pppoe functionality.
[13:31] <mustafam> I'll report a bug, but if somebody have only wired pppoe, how should he connect to install it manually
[13:32] <teward> go to a coffee shop with free wifi or download the package separately on another system and then install it manually?
[13:32] <mustafam> Desktop?
[13:32] <mustafam> OK, I know it's the networkmanager folks decision
[13:33] <teward> desktop, laptop, android phone that can handle downloads the way you need it to, etc.
[13:33] <mustafam> OK, thank you.
[13:33] <teward> probably other methods, but that's probably the 'quickest' way to get the .deb package
[13:34] <teward> you should still file the bug though :)
[13:34] <mustafam> Of course I will
[13:34] <rbasak> mustafam: you do have a valid case to have the pppoe binary shipped there. You should point it out in the bug.
[13:34] <rbasak> It's pretty late in the day for Vivid though.
[13:35] <mustafam> Can it be "urgent"?
[13:35] <rbasak> Release is in two days.
[13:35] <mustafam> Right
[13:35] <rbasak> pppoe would be considered security sensitive, so it'd need a security review and possibly an apparmor profile before bringing it into main, which would be required for it to ship in the installer.
[13:36] <rbasak> PPPoE directly from a desktop machine is also a pretty extreme edge case. Most who use PPPoE use routers.
[13:36] <teward> indeed
[13:36] <mustafam> OK, I'll see what can they do :)
[13:37] <mustafam> Thank you, bye.
[14:11] <teward> so, https://lists.launchpad.net/ubuntu-bugcontrol/msg04322.html is something I haven't seen much of here.  Wouldn't the proposed change in the bug (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/samba4/+bug/1442039) not be a valid change for an SRU?
[14:11]  * teward is concerned about feature changes
[14:12] <teward> rbasak: you've commented on the bug previously, I don't think they listened to you in comment #3
[14:21] <teward> looks like lfaraone got to it and responded to the bug
[14:31] <lfaraone> :P
[14:31] <lfaraone> it isn't SRU-worthy
[14:33] <rbasak> lfaraone: ah, thanks. I thought it was a bug on first glance. Now that he's described it fully it definitely sounds like a feature.
[14:34] <mustafam> I reported this:
[14:34] <mustafam> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/network-manager/+bug/1446689
[14:35] <mustafam> It can be fixed by configuring --with-pppoe=/usr/sbin/pppd
[14:46] <teward> lfaraone: that's what i thought, i was going to say something to that effect but you beat me to it xD
[15:55] <Malizor> Hi, could someone nominate https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/totem-plugin-arte/+bug/1445829 for Trusty and Utopic ?
[17:30] <Malizor> Hi, I'm not sure my former message was sent so here it is again:
[17:30] <Malizor> Could someone nominate https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/totem-plugin-arte/+bug/1445829 for both Trusty and Utopic?
[17:34] <rbasak> Malizor: are you aware that this needs to be fixed in Vivid first, and then fixes backported to Trusty and Utopic?
[17:36] <Malizor> rbasak: That's another problem: this is not fixable in Vivid because Totem > 3.10 dropped support for "old" plugins like totem-plugin-arte
[17:37] <Malizor> The package should ideally be removed from Vivid, but I don't know how to request it
[17:37] <rbasak> Malizor: file a bug against the package requesting removal and subscribe ~ubuntu-archive.
[17:38] <rbasak> Malizor: I'll add the bug tasks for Trusty and Utopic for you, but please file that other bug, link to it from this one, explain in a comment what's going on and then mark the main task in this bug Invalid.
[17:38] <Malizor> rbasak: will do
[17:39] <rbasak> Thanks!
[17:39] <Malizor> rbasak: no, thank you :-)
[17:39] <rbasak> Malizor: well, you're doing the work, and we appreciate that :)
[17:56] <Malizor> rbasak: done
[17:56] <Malizor> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/totem-plugin-arte/+bug/1446775
[17:57] <rbasak> Malizor: looks great. Thank you!