[08:35] <lordievader> Good morning.
[11:28] <sarthor> HI, python packages are not installed . how to change software source,
[11:29] <lordievader> sarthor: What python packages? And what errors do you get?
[11:30] <sarthor> sudo apt-get install python-cups python-dateutil python-decorator python-docutils python-feedparser python-gdata python-geoip python-gevent python-imaging python-jinja2 python-ldap python-libxslt1 python-lxml python-mako python-mock python-openid python-passlib python-psutil python-psycopg2 python-pybabel python-pychart python-pydot python-pyparsing python-pypdf python-reportlab python-requests python-simplejson python-tz python-unicodecsv pyth
[11:30] <sarthor> on-unittest2 python-vatnumber python-vobject python-werkzeug python-xlwt python-yaml wkhtmltopdf
[11:31] <sarthor> changed these in source.list .. Worked. deb http://suse.uni-leipzig.de/pub/releases.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty main
[11:31] <sarthor> deb-src http://suse.uni-leipzig.de/pub/releases.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty main
[11:31] <sarthor> deb http://ftp.freepark.org/ubuntu/ trusty main
[11:31] <sarthor> deb-src http://ftp.freepark.org/ubuntu/ trusty main
[11:31] <lordievader> !paste | sarthor
[11:31] <sarthor> Ooh. Great bot. OK.
[11:33] <pmatulis> sarthor: what happened to nginx yesterday?
[11:34] <sarthor> pmatulis, was unable to install yesterday. but today i changed a lot of software source from here " https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+archivemirrors " the one I pasted here, worked.
[11:35] <sarthor> pmatulis, no no . .nginx is still not installing.
[11:36] <sarthor> pmatulis, E: Failed to fetch http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/n/nginx/nginx_1.4.6-1ubuntu3.1_all.deb  Connection failed [IP: 91.189.91.15 80]
[11:36] <sarthor> Unable to fetch some archives, maybe run apt-get update or try with --fix-missing?
[11:36] <sarthor> I did that apt-get update --fix-missing but no result.
[11:37] <lordievader> Mirror out of date?
[11:38] <sarthor> lordievader, where to find the FRESH one. here is some lists but no success https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+archivemirrors
[11:38] <lordievader> Use the main archive.
[11:39] <lordievader> http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/
[11:42] <sarthor> lordievader, Failed to fetch http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/trusty/main/binary-amd64/Packages  404  Not Found [IP: 91.189.92.200 80]
[11:43] <sarthor> showing this all the day " 0% [Waiting for headers] "
[11:44] <sarthor> used " deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty main " and " deb-src http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty main "
[11:55] <lordievader> Hmm, that file ain't there. Let me see if I get the same error.
[11:56] <lordievader> Nope, no problems here with those sources.
[12:00] <lordievader> I wonder why it tries to get that file.
[12:14] <joners> Can anyone give me a hand with some ssh keys?
[12:17] <joners> ive created a public/private keypair using putty gen. I want two different servers to be able to talk to each other, i understand that ive got to add the public key to the remote server and the private key would stay on the local server
[12:18] <joners> Ill potentially have several other servers which may want to also communicate via ssh to the remote server using the same keypair, do i simply just add the private key to each local server?
[12:18] <bekks> joners: For two servers (which arent running putty), generate a keypair on each server, and exchange the public keys.
[12:18] <bekks> Putty has nothing to do with it.
[12:19] <joners> if im already connected to one of those servers using ssh it wont screw up anything or ask for a new key will it?
[12:22] <bekks> joners: I assume both servers have valid keypairs. Now configure server A to accpet the key of server B, and vice versa. No need to generate new keypairs.
[12:22] <joners> thanks, i havent generated any keypairs with them just connected via ssh after the install
[12:23] <bekks> joners: So if both servers dont have keypairs, you need to generate them.
[12:23] <joners> cool, will try that now. Thanks for the help
[14:02] <teward> rbasak: ping, when you get a moment can you start a parallel thread to the release team one with the tech board?  Release team says the TB should weigh in
[14:02] <teward> (the nginx request for exemption at LTS time)
[14:29] <rbasak> Daviey: ^^ thanks for the reply, but why a parallel thread?
[14:30] <rbasak> Daviey: won't that just confusingly fragment the conversation?
[14:31] <Daviey> rbasak: Really, just because i think it is rude to bring in a senior board as referral mid-thread, without a summary.
[14:31] <Daviey> But whatever, I won't cry if you bring them in. :)
[14:44] <teward> Daviey: i'm still hunting analytics, but i may be forced to manually pull them all
[14:44] <teward> which is a headache but doable
[14:44] <teward> (especially with that tool causing LP to error on its data pull)
[14:46] <Daviey> teward: That sucks, I had no idea it wasn't working.
[14:48] <teward> Daviey: yeah, well, it's trying to pull all the data from 2k13 forward in one go
[14:48] <teward> and I'm not fluent enough in C to go digging to make it pull in smaller sets
[14:48] <teward> as I said I *can* pull stats, run them through my splunk instance for visualization generations..
[14:49] <teward> but eh
[14:50] <teward> kinda more important right now for me to get my systems to ping to my Landscape server... i hate self-signed certs though
[14:52] <teward> Daviey: i spent about 25 minutes on #launchpad seeing if it was their side, turns out the tool is just pulling too much data
[14:52] <Daviey> teward: Ugh, i didn't remember it being in C!
[14:52] <teward> i could pull from the staging PPAs if you'd like
[14:52] <teward> they're far newer
[14:52] <Daviey> teward: I was sure there was a python version...
[14:52] <teward> but you don't get as nice analytics
[14:53] <Daviey> teward: I don't think it is essential, it was just a nice data thing to add to the discussion
[14:53] <rbasak> Daviey, teward: I'm interested in the difference of opinion about whether to follow upstream git HEAD or not.
[14:53] <teward> Daviey: indeed.  ehhh this will have the same issue
[14:53] <rbasak> What Daviey said makes sense for Openstack.
[14:53] <teward> rbasak: s/git/hg/
[14:54] <rbasak> I'm wondering whether that applies to nginx here though.
[14:54] <teward> rbasak: replace nginx with apache and ask the question
[14:54] <rbasak> Because Openstack users don't really expect to consume Openstack in a stable way until it's actually out upstream.
[14:54] <teward> since that's the nearest analog
[14:54] <teward> s/analog/similar package/
[14:54] <teward> rbasak: i don't think it makes sense to track upstream hg for this - we'll end up with half-developed functions
[14:54] <teward> Daviey: ^
[14:54] <Daviey> rbasak: Are you expecting people to consume the version released with LTS, then be happy to jump to a major new version shortly after?
[14:54] <rbasak> Server users wanting a particular nginx will generally install the Ubuntu LTS that comes with the nginx that they want.
[14:54] <teward> Daviey: from a changes perspective, 1.10.x is cut from 1.9.x
[14:55] <teward> Daviey: that is to say, the actual delta will be minimal
[14:55] <teward> except for the potential of a new feature added in or finalized in development, with bugfixes as well
[14:55] <rbasak> Daviey: what teward says. The 1.9 to 1.10 bump is actually a no change branch AIUI, much like moving off rc.
[14:56] <Daviey> Ah, i did not know that.
[14:56] <teward> Daviey: the same happened from 1.6.x/1.7.x to 1.8.x/1.9.x -
[14:56] <rbasak> Except that upstream effectively keep 1.9 ("mainline") production ready at all times.
[14:56] <teward> in that 1.8.x is cut from the 1.7.x branch
[14:56] <teward> and 1.9.x is the in-development branch
[14:56] <teward> rbasak: with their tagged releases, yes
[14:56] <rbasak> Right
[14:56] <teward> not necessarily the same with the upstream repo
[14:56] <rbasak> brb, need to make a call
[14:56] <teward> ack
[14:56] <Daviey> I think the question still unclear to me is.. What will cause the least surprise to users of the next LTS?
[14:56] <teward> Daviey: i think sticking with stable will make them ask "WTF"
[14:57] <teward> Debian has actually had a req for mainline packages
[14:57] <teward> and during when they track stable they ahve the same req and it's refused
[14:57] <Daviey> Will it be, shipping a pre-release of the upstream LTS or the odd version point release number from prior?
[14:57] <teward> IDK why they do it that way but...
[14:57] <teward> Daviey: I... don't follow?
[14:57] <teward> sorry i'm still not at 100% - the holidays threw me a loop
[14:58] <teward> my sister decided to get me drunk and i have a headache from that still >.<
[14:58] <Daviey> teward: I mean, we are currently talking about the next LTS, what version is put in there at _release_ time.
[14:58] <rbasak> I don't think there's much scope for users to be surprised by a version bump in nginx within a month or two of LTS release.
[14:58] <Daviey> teward: nice
[14:58] <teward> Daviey: correct.  From 1.9.x to 1.10.x is not going to be a huge surprise
[14:58] <teward> Daviey: prior to release, it'll likely have 1.9.x tracking Debian
[14:58] <Daviey> rbasak: Right, so - releasing for the 1-2 months of a hg snapshot, then updating to final VS a major version jump in that 1-2 month window? right?
[14:59] <Daviey> Which one of those will cause least surprise to users?
[14:59] <teward> Daviey: then we run the 'Untested Bug Explosion" issues at LTS time
[14:59] <teward> if it takes nginx a week to go from 1.9.x to 1.10.x and they have bugs in there, which cause crashes, is that really the better option?
[14:59] <Daviey> does upstream stack all of their testing to the last week before release?
[14:59] <teward> Daviey: no, however we have no guarantee there's not a half-developed feature in there
[15:00] <Daviey> In that 1-2 month window, what causes it to become stable - enough that we'd be happy jumping major versions as a SRU?
[15:01] <Daviey> teward: right.  I am wondering if a release note stating that for 1-2 months nginx is a tech preview until it is updated.. vs throwing in an older version and possibly making the user experience worse by jumping feature versions post release
[15:01] <teward> Daviey: that's going to be a consideration either way for the Universe packages
[15:02] <teward> in that any version bump might need a corresponding third party module version bump for FTBFS fixes
[15:02] <teward> which i've seen 3 times iwth the 1.9.x branch so far
[15:02] <Daviey> right
[15:02] <teward> (especially the nginx-lua module, although there's a different discussion there)
[15:02] <teward> (with regards to Lua)
[15:03] <teward> (of which i think i've discussed briefly with rbasak)
[15:03] <Daviey> rbasak / teward: Have you thought about keeping 1.9 in universe for release, then adding 1.10 in main post release?
[15:04] <Daviey> Is that a better solution ?
[15:04] <teward> Daviey: we'd have to demote nginx-core
[15:04] <teward> or remove it
[15:04] <teward> (nginx-core was specifically created for the MIR)
[15:04] <Daviey> right
[15:05] <rbasak> We could do that, but what would that achieve?
[15:05] <rbasak> (demote then promote later I mean)
[15:05] <Daviey> rbasak: No, i mean having two versions in the archive.
[15:05] <rbasak> Oh.
[15:06] <rbasak> That's be a bit painful :-/
[15:06]  * teward shivers
[15:06] <rbasak> (in terms of maintenance work, etc)
[15:06] <Daviey> indeed
[15:06] <rbasak> For version, if the choice is between hg snapshots or 1.9 releases, I think I favour 1.9 releases. They're effectively stablised hg snapshots from upsteam AIUI.
[15:07] <teward> that's an accurate representation
[15:07] <teward> and 1.9 releases are tagged in hg, if we really wanted to pull from there (but they match the tarballs0
[15:07] <rbasak> Perhaps an analogy to Openstack is following RCs instead of upstream git?
[15:07]  * teward throws Apache out the window
[15:08] <teward> sorry, i'm annoyed at a VM right now >.<
[15:08] <Daviey> So this is interesting, not much happened between 1.7.12 -> 1.8.. Really just fixing a compile issue.
[15:08] <rbasak> Right, because the last 1.7s are effectively RCs for 1.8.
[15:08] <Daviey> Right
[15:08] <Daviey> I didn't know this.
[15:08] <rbasak> Though there's no feature freeze rule AFAIK.
[15:08] <teward> AIUI there's no feature freeze there, no.
[15:09] <teward> okay, i need a walk otherwise i'mma throw servers out the window next, back in a few
[15:09] <Daviey> I am guessing there is no 1.9 point release schedule ?
[15:09] <teward> Daviey: none
[15:09] <Daviey> teward: o/
[15:09] <rbasak> I'm also of the general opinion that if that's what upstream ship, that's what users expect from us.
[15:10] <rbasak> Or, at least, that is by definition acceptable for us to ship to users.
[15:10] <Daviey> rbasak: So a pre-release branch of 1.10 won't even exist.. it would be a case of tracking 1.9.X head?
[15:10] <rbasak> Though I accept there is a clash with our feature freeze policy.
[15:10] <rbasak> Daviey: yes, but I would want to follow 1.9.X _releases_ instead, which I think is what teward wants to do.
[15:11] <Daviey> rbasak: I mean, looking at the small gap here https://github.com/nginx/nginx/commits/branches/stable-1.8 .. going from 1.7.12 -> 1.8 post release would be fine! :)
[15:11] <rbasak> Daviey: it would, but we have no guarantee of that for 1.9.last -> 2.0 :-(
[15:11] <rbasak> (but we want to do it anyway)
[15:13] <rbasak> jcastro: you championed nginx into main when we did it a few years ago. I wonder if you have any thoughts on this? Guessing you're not aware of the discussion so far. Thread at https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-server/2015-June/007072.html (cross over into July: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-server/2015-July/007081.html)
[15:14]  * rbasak wonders if Sarah Novotny still works for nginx.
[15:14] <rbasak> Might be worth asking her too?
[15:15] <Daviey> rbasak: I think it might be worth getting upstreams perspective if possible.
[15:16] <Daviey> rbasak: If you do this, can you press on reluctance to have feature changes post-release, avoiding config changes and generally surprising the user least :)
[15:19] <jcastro> rbasak: yeah so I think it'd be nice to get at least semi-official response from them on what they'd like us to ship
[15:19] <jcastro> I am going to bet that it's 1.9
[15:20] <Daviey> Yeah, based on stable verisons being a cut from odd branches, this does change my opinion.
[15:21] <jcastro> does someone want me to ping sarah?
[15:22]  * teward spawns again
[15:23] <teward> rbasak: she does, you may want to ask LinuxJedi (Andrew HUtchings) as his role is pretty much being the advocate in this case
[15:23] <teward> the liason between us and them, AIUI
[15:23] <teward> he's been more responsive than Sarah has, TBH
[15:23] <Daviey> teward: LinuxJedi of get-iplayer?
[15:23] <teward> Daviey: not sure, but LinuxJedi as in the LinuxJedi in this channel now
[15:24] <teward> Daviey: i don't know his whole background
[15:24] <teward> i could find out but i'd rather eat my lunch xD
[15:25] <Daviey> I'm probably confused.
[15:25]  * teward shrugs
[15:26] <teward> Daviey: i'm already confused, but that's not atypical of me when i'm multitasking in quantities of tasks more than i usually work with at once xD
[15:27] <teward> I do know that the LinuxJedi currently in this channel here was present at my request (with Sarah joining in while he was in Moscow) to answer questions I might not be able to from the nginx side of things
[15:28] <teward> they're also my contact for forwarding questions/concerns up to nginx and getting timely responses to inquiries back
[15:28] <teward> Sarah's also a valid contact too if you wish to reach out
[15:29] <teward> jcastro: AIUI from Andrew, they support 1.9.x as well
[15:29]  * jcastro nods
[15:29] <teward> or 1.10.x, but with the timeline of releasing being so close to LTS release it wouldn't get in until after FeatureFreeze or possibly even FinalFreeze
[15:29] <teward> or after release
[15:35] <jcastro> hey so thinking aloud, could we do whatever snapshot of 1.10.x and then commit to putting final in 16.04.1?
[15:35] <Daviey> jcastro: Nice idea. Why didn't I think of that? :)
[15:35] <teward> jcastro: 1.10.x pre-snapshots are 1.9.x
[15:35] <jcastro> oh ok
[15:35] <rbasak> jcastro: we can do that, sure. Though wouldn't it be better to do it even earlier?
[15:35] <jcastro> Daviey: it's the maas-model
[15:35] <teward> they don't have a 1.10.x tag series until they cut 1.10.x
[15:35] <jcastro> ok
[15:36] <teward> which means we'd be following 1.9.x tags/snapshots
[15:36] <teward> until 1.10.x releases
[15:36] <teward> and 'snapshots' aren't necessarily guaranteed as 'stable'
[15:36] <teward> (could have some bugs, etc.)
[15:37] <rbasak> LinuxJedi: so I think the key part of the difficulty we're having is that Ubuntu expects to have a feature freeze for everything in its release around mid-Feb 2016 (exact date TBA)
[15:38] <rbasak> LinuxJedi: and there is some dissonance between that and nginx's policy of doing anything to a 1.10 candidate (effectively the last 1.9 releases I guess) until 1.10 is actually out.
[15:38] <rbasak> LinuxJedi: is there anything you can to do accomodate us on this please?
[15:38] <teward> note i don't think they're awake atm
[15:38] <rbasak> ack
[15:38] <jcastro> rbasak/teward: I'm of the opinion that doing it earlier and getting a non-LTS cycle in will be better for you come next spring
[15:39] <teward> jcastro: the consideration of this is whatever lands in wily will likely land in lts
[15:39] <teward> so deciding ahead of LTS to have 1.9.x before LTS release will be the go-ahead to merge
[15:39] <teward> failing that, i do nothing, and wily gets 1.6.x or w/e is currently in vivid
[15:39] <teward> !info nginx-core vivid
[15:40] <teward> oh right bots are evil
[15:40] <jcastro> I don't think the old one should even be an option
[15:40] <teward> jcastro: that's what lands if i do nothing
[15:40] <jcastro> like that's opposite to what people expect in nginx right?
[15:40] <jcastro> If we ship the LTS with 1.6.x we're basically telling people "this is useless for you go use a PPA."
[15:41] <teward> jcastro: for LTS the big thing is "Do we keep it on 1.9.x or do we get an exemption for 1.10.x?"
[15:41] <teward> i'm OK with nothing happening for wily xD
[15:41] <rbasak> jcastro: right. So 1.6 is out IMHO.
[15:41] <teward> ^ that
[15:42]  * jcastro nods
[15:42] <teward> at least for LTS
[15:42] <teward> wily, decision is do we deviate from Debian and put 1.8.x in in the interim
[15:42] <jcastro> yeah so like do 1.9.x and get an exception to upgrade it to 1.10 for the point release
[15:42] <teward> or do we pull in 1.9.x, and then what do we do for LTS
[15:42] <rbasak> jcastro: and I think the same is for 1.8 really. It'll EOL upstream when 1.10 is out, just after our 16.04 release.
[15:42] <teward> ^ that
[15:42] <jcastro> well, I love not deviating from Debian also, but if it's dead upstream that's even worse IMO
[15:42] <teward> heheh
[15:43] <teward> urgh i have too many emails >.<
[15:43] <teward> jcastro: you're of the opinion rbasak and I have - 1.9.x for LTS, following Debian, and 1.10.x when it releases assuming a TB exemption
[15:43] <teward> (almost like a one-off MRE)
[15:43] <jcastro> yeah
[15:43] <jcastro> also, I don't see in the thread but what do the security team think?
[15:44] <teward> jcastro: we didn't loop them in, but I know sarnold gave an opinion early on in the server team thread
[15:44] <rbasak> IIRC sarnold was in favour of 1.9.x then MRE to 1.10.x too.
[15:44] <teward> mhm
[15:44] <teward> but i don't know if that was a security team opinion or his own
[15:44] <teward> (that's in the ubuntu-server thread from a few weeks ago pre-server team meeting)
[15:45] <jcastro> I see it now, thanks
[15:45] <jcastro> ok so it seems like everyone is in violent agreement then
[15:45] <teward> except with what to do come LTS release
[15:46] <teward> we've had releases which had the 'mainline' version in it before during the debian syncups, but since there's a delta everything's manually merged
[15:46] <rbasak> Well we know what we _want_ to do. Just need permission from the release team and/or TB.
[15:46] <teward> ^ that
[15:46] <jcastro> right.
[15:46] <rbasak> I think we've concluded that it needs to be the TB.
[15:46] <teward> rbasak: and I think Daviey said the TB should be looped in
[15:46] <teward> rbasak: agreed there, actually I think we even discussed privately and came to the conclusion the TB would likely need looped in
[15:46] <teward> that is you and I discussed privately
[15:46] <teward> as LTS approaches, I'm more curious what we're going to do with the Lua issue
[15:47] <jcastro> yeah, like to me it seems that just a note in the release notes for nginx users outlining that 1.10 will come later would be fine
[15:47] <jcastro> we've done that before with things
[15:47] <rbasak> +1 for release note
[15:47] <teward> rbasak: the second part of this is regardless of nginx version, what do we do with Lua
[15:47] <teward> is the release team and others still gunning to drop the older lua?
[15:47] <teward> i think 5.1... it was?
[15:47]  * teward pulls the code
[15:47] <rbasak> I'm not too worried about lua TBH
[15:48] <rbasak> AIUI, 5.2 is quite different from 5.1. Like a major bump with ABI breaks. More like lua 6.
[15:48] <jcastro> actually, we did this exact thing with Ceph .79->.80 for 14.04
[15:48] <jcastro> so there's precendent there
[15:48] <rbasak> We can just follow what upstreams do. If the distro wants to drop 5.1 and upstream nginx doesn't support 5.2, then we have no choice but to drop lua support. Not really our decision.
[15:49] <rbasak> IIRC the same applies to Apache.
[15:49] <teward> rbasak: indeed, i'm fine with that, as the PPAs will continue to have Lua support provided 5.1 exists in the repos - failing that there will be outrage
[15:49] <rbasak> How many people actually _use_ nginx with lua?
[15:49] <teward> 'cause i know there's quite a few who use the Lua modules
[15:49] <rbasak> Hmm, OK.
[15:49] <teward> rbasak: enough for me to know that if Debian dropped it there'd be people screaming and blood flowing
[15:49] <rbasak> Perhaps their outrage should be directed at the implementation of 5.2 support? :)
[15:50] <teward> I had some outcry when I temporarily disabled it in the PPAs due to FTBFS problems
[15:50] <teward> ended up screeing my emails for two weeks
[15:51] <jcastro> I still think btw, that people who constantly flame you over mail or whatever over the PPA should really not do that.
[15:51] <teward> i agree with you
[15:51] <rbasak> Empty vessels and all that. The majority of users probably just get on with things, build their own, etc.
[15:51] <teward> this is now why i forward all "Hey, the PPA has a problem" emails with an autoresponder saying "File a bug on it on Launchpad at [link]."
[15:52] <rbasak> Daviey: so are you OK with releasing 16.04 with 1.9 and seeking an exception from the TB for a bump to 1.10 in -updates?
[15:54] <teward> rbasak: (WRT Lua, it reminds me of Wireshark, in that newer Wireshark minor bumps (1.12 to 1.13 for instance) would break the earlier version and custom-compiled modules.  (There are buisnesses that fit that criterion))
[15:54] <Daviey> rbasak: Based on learning that 1.10 is cut from 1.9.X mostly.  What is the unknown is how long there will be between the 1.9.X in LTS to the 1.10 version.
[15:55] <teward> Daviey: matter of weeks, using April 21 (the last cut date nginx had done this with) as a base guideline, within a few weeks either direction of release
[15:55] <rbasak> Daviey: I believe their schedule is "April 2016", so assuming a regular schedule for us then not more than a couple of weeks at most I think. Though of course like us nobody can commit to that.
[15:56] <teward> so my guess would be within a week or two after, or a week before, we release
[15:56] <teward> i can ask for LinuxJedi to poke the devels at nginx to get a more firm date when we get locser to April
[16:23] <ciscam> there's a cifs share I need to mount on my ubuntu server. I use credentials for an account with full_set permissions (tested working with an android and a windows machine), but get no chmod/chown permissions inside ubuntu, for neither users nor root
[16:24] <ciscam> the mount options I used are: credentials=*,iocharset=utf8,nounix,file_mode=0777,dir_mode=0777
[16:24] <ciscam> nounix to get write permission at all and dir/file-mode to grant users on that machine write permissions
[16:42] <arvislacis> Hello all, I have problem with Ubuntu 14.04 VPS when trying to upgrade or dist-upgrade system - Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)
[16:47] <teward> arvislacis: what's the entire error say
[16:47] <teward> that's one section of it, and by far not the whole error
[16:50] <arvislacis> teward: http://pastebin.com/TwAJ29ya
[16:50] <teward> rbasak: Daviey: jcastro: are we all in agreement, at least for Wily, to do the merge from Debian?
[16:53] <jcastro> teward: debian is on 1.9 currently iirc?
[16:53] <jcastro> sorry I am starting to get mixed up, heh
[16:54] <teward> jcastro: correct
[16:54] <teward> jcastro: so for Wily it's just a merge
[16:54] <teward> which I can do
[16:54] <teward> provided my sbuild schroots didn't implode again
[16:55] <jcastro> sounds good to me
[17:11] <Daviey> teward: Please outline the plan to TB first
[17:11] <teward> ack
[17:12] <teward> rbasak is more eloquent with thorough messages to the TB about such things, though, he may want to start, and then make a note my plan will be laid out in the next message or such
[17:12] <teward> brb.  again.
[17:16] <lala> Say if I want to use my Ubuntu Server 14.04.2 LTS not only on my local network, but configure it with a subdomain, how would I do so? I already made the IP address static on my local network by using `sudo nano /etc/network/interfaces/`.
[17:39] <cwillu_at_work> are there any gotchas with setting up a ubuntu samba ad dc?
[17:40] <jpds> lala: Have you given your server a public IP or are you NAT'ing?
[17:40] <cwillu_at_work> I'm unable to join another ubuntu machine as a member server; net ads join fails with a kinit succeeded but ads_sasl_spnego_krb5_bind failed: Invalid credentials;;  Failed to join domain: failed to connect to AD: Invalid credentials error
[17:56] <lala> jpds: My server doesn't have a public IP yet.
[17:56] <lala> I've made my server's local IP static.
[17:57] <lala> Not sure how to configure a public IP.
[17:57] <jpds> lala: OK, so you've set up NAT on your router?
[17:57] <lala> jpds: Not sure.
[17:57] <lala> Not sure what that is.
[17:57] <jpds> lala: OK, so outside of your private network, noone can get to that machine because it sits behind a router that's on the internet.
[17:58] <lala> jpds: Yes.
[17:59] <jpds> lala: So you'll have to configure that router so that it "port forwards" ports on the public IP to a port on your server.
[18:00] <jpds> lala: I suggest you look up your router documentation.
[18:01] <sarnold> http://portforward.com/english/routers/port_forwarding/
[18:02] <sarnold> wow, they've really scammed-up the website since the last time I looked at it
[18:10] <lala> sarnold: Because of the scam adware links?
[18:12] <sarnold> lala: the full-screen "download our software" interstitials, etc..
[18:14] <lala> jpds: My router shows that it has NAT enabled.
[18:14] <jpds> lala: No idea what you're seeing, but there should be like a port-forward section.
[18:19] <lala> Found the settings!
[18:20] <lala> Let me see.
[18:20] <lala> https://usercontent.irccloud-cdn.com/file/3622q4Gi/Screen%20Shot%202015-07-06%20at%202.20.19%20PM.png
[18:22] <jpds> lala: You probably want the single one.
[18:24] <lala> jpds: Okay. Which port should I use?
[18:24] <jpds> lala: Well, you map a port on the router to a port on your server.
[18:24] <lala> jpds: A single port?
[18:25] <lala> Okay.
[18:25] <jpds> lala: If you're trying to forward a website, you usually forward something to port 80 on your static IP.
[18:25] <lala> So which port should it be?
[18:25] <jpds> lala: Just pick one to test, 8080?
[18:25] <lala> What if I also want to ssh. And also ftp (in case?) or others.
[18:26] <lala> Is 8080 used by anything else?
[18:26] <jpds> lala: Shouldn't be by default.
[18:26] <jpds> lala: You can add rules for them later?
[18:27] <lala> jpds: I'm not sure why that was a question.
[18:27] <lala> Not sure what you're asking.
[18:28] <jpds> later? → later.
[18:30] <teward> if i have an issue with a server being unable to be registered in a self-hosted personal landscape instance, is that something you all can help me with or am I screwed
[18:31] <sarnold> lala: please don't use ftp, it's a terrible protocol with horrible implementations.
[18:51] <lala> I've messed up my internet by accident and fixed it again! Yay!
[18:51] <lala> Messed up the /etc/network/interfaces file.
[18:52] <lala> And then used `/etc/init.d/networking restart` and it was fixed!
[18:52] <lala> Well it was fixed after I fixed the `/etc/network/interfaces` file.
[18:53] <brett__> An upgrade from 12.04 to 14.04 appears to have broken the ability for users to change their password in Samba. I've searched eveyrwhere I can think of - any hints?
[18:53] <lala> The `iface eth0 inet6 static` part messed it up.
[18:53] <brett__> It appears to be an issue in PAM " smb_pam_passchange: PAM: Password Change Failed for user XXX"
[18:58] <lala> Never mind. I messed it up again.
[19:15] <lala> Okay. I think I've messed up my network configuration.
[19:18] <lala> Now everything is unresponsive.
[19:28] <ash_m> when I'm setting up a user account for the first time; it says it's for non-administrative activities.... it suggests my full name, but honestly, I don't think I'll be logging in as anything but admin anyway.
[19:30] <ash_m> erm
[19:30] <ash_m> then I looked at this post: Specifically, the first user you create (when you install) and all users in the 'sudo' group are considered 'administrators' and have the ability to use 'sudo' for administrative tasks. So if you want to have a non-administrative user, make a new user account and don't put it in the 'sudo' group, then that user won't be able to make any system-wide changes.
[19:31] <ash_m> but it specifically says: "A user account will be created for you to use instead of the root account for non-administrative activities.
[19:32] <sarnold> ash_m: by default, the root account isn't used for interactive users on ubuntu
[19:32] <sarnold> ash_m: feel free to configure it that way if you wish
[19:33] <ash_m> sarnold: I am happy to sudo everything if that's what you're saying...
[19:33] <ash_m> sarnold: but I am confused as to what this account is because of the contradicting message and post
[19:33] <ash_m> sarnold: also, "admin" is not allowed.
[19:34] <sarnold> ash_m: once the account is created, log in to it, and run 'id' or 'groups' to see if it is in the 'sudo' group; if it is, then it's an administrative account
[19:35] <sarnold> I'm surprised about 'admin' being forbidden; I don't see that account on my system, which is the only reason I can think of for i to be forbidden..
[19:35] <ash_m> sarnold: I've reinstalled a couple times before and last time I was able to run sudo apt-get upgrade with no problems; does that make it seem like it's attributed to the sudoer's group?
[19:35] <ash_m> sarnold: yeah, I didn't see it either
[19:36] <ash_m> sarnold: but the message says: "Reserved username\n The username you entered (admin) is reserved for use by the system. Please select a different one."
[19:36] <sarnold> interesting, I've not seen that before.
[19:37] <ash_m> sarnold: I'm running 14.04 LTS if that makes a difference
[19:37] <ash_m> anyway, I'm sure you probably named your account sarnold ... right?
[19:38] <sarnold> ash_m: exactly :)
[19:38] <ash_m> mkay.
[19:41] <ash_m> out of curiousity, do you have your home directory encrypted?
[19:41] <ash_m> sarnold: ^
[19:42] <sarnold> ash_m: no
[19:42] <ash_m> thanks :P
[19:42] <ash_m> what LVM?
[19:43] <patdk-wk> I normally never use lvm, unless  Ihave an explicit use for it on that system
[19:43] <patdk-wk> but others, love lvm
[19:44] <ash_m> hmm... I'll skip it, but I'll look into it later I guess.
[19:48] <ash_m> erm... I don't remember setting a root password in the setup
[19:48] <patdk-wk> why would you?
[19:49] <patdk-wk> what does one need a root password for?
[19:49] <ash_m> :: shrug :: I'm following a tut
[19:49] <sarnold> brute-force login attempts :)
[19:49] <patdk-wk> heh, tutorials are full of fail
[19:49] <teward> that includes ones on help.ubuntu.com too :P
[19:50] <patdk-wk> even if they are 100% accurate, they fail, cause they assume you have some level of understanding, that is never meet
[19:50] <teward> (there's a few that should be revised :P)
[19:50] <patdk-wk> yes
[19:50] <teward> sarnold: mind if I pick your brain with a question?
[19:50] <sarnold> teward: sure
[19:50] <teward> see PM
[19:51] <ash_m> By default root does not have a password and the root account is locked until you give it a password.
[19:51] <ash_m> apparently
[19:51] <patdk-wk> not locked, but unable to directly login, without sudo
[19:54] <brett__> What is the correct way to force a Windows user to change their password at the next login in Samba in 14.04?
[19:57] <crucidal_> Hi, I disabled a virtual host with a2dissite and reloaded my apache service afterwards. even after clearing my cache the virtual host is still accesible. Does anyone know how to solve this?
[19:58] <ash_m> I'm confused... do I _not_ need to see my username in sudoers or sudoers.d in order to be part of the sudoers group?
[19:59] <crucidal_> afaik sudoers is enough ash_m
[19:59] <ash_m> :q1
[19:59] <ash_m> oops
[19:59] <sarnold> ash_m: this bit here normally suffices:
[19:59] <sarnold> # Allow members of group sudo to execute any command
[19:59] <sarnold> %sudo   ALL=(ALL:ALL) ALL
[19:59] <ash_m> sarnold: I see
[20:00] <ash_m> and only someone in that group can make another user part of that group
[20:00] <ash_m> right?
[20:02] <crucidal_> ok Dont mind my question: I used a copy of my old virtualhost to create a wildcard.conf... and in there I was still referring to the old html
[20:25] <ash_m> is there a ctrl+v equivalent in vbox?
[20:26] <bekks> host+v
[20:26] <bekks> maybe.
[20:26] <bekks> Whats the actual issue behind your question?
[20:27] <ash_m> bekks: that didn't work
[20:27] <teward> ash_m: what's the actual issue behind your question
[20:27] <ash_m> I want to paste from my windows computer to the vbox
[20:28] <teward> install VBox Guest Additions
[20:28] <teward> and does server even have a clipboard?
[20:28] <teward> bekks: ^
[20:28] <ash_m> :: shrug ::
[20:28] <ash_m> under Devices it says "shared clipboard"
[20:28] <bekks> Enable clipboard sharing for your VM.
[20:28] <ash_m> but I don't know how to access the clipboard
[20:28] <teward> ash_m: but also install the guest additions (i don't think they're default installed?)
[20:28] <bekks> Where exactly inside the guest do you want to copy things into?
[20:29] <ash_m> bekks: vim... I'm editing the interfaces file
[20:29] <bekks> In a console?
[20:29] <ash_m> bekks: well, it's a vbox
[20:29] <teward> better question, why do you need to *paste* anything in there
[20:29] <bekks> Thats not the answer.
[20:29] <teward> why not type it out
[20:30] <ash_m> teward: paste is a useful function to know regardless
[20:30] <bekks> clipboard sharing technically doesnt work without a graphical environment inside the guest.
[20:30] <teward> ash_m: if you're running server as a guest clipboard sharing isn't guaranteed
[20:30] <teward> it usually has/needs a graphical component
[20:30] <teward> ash_m: and again you haven't answered MY question - why do you need to paste into there
[20:30] <teward> why not type it out
[20:31] <ash_m> teward: it would seem that's my only option.
[20:31] <ash_m> teward: but to answer your question, it's simply faster
[20:31] <teward> no, it's not
[20:32] <teward> :P
[20:32] <teward> trust me, i work in VMs all the time, it's not faster to paste something from the host - especially if you end up typing it out once already
[20:32]  * teward points to the three server VMs on this system right now :P
[20:36]  * ash_m trusts teward 
[20:39] <sarnold> ash_m: it's usually easier to just ssh to your vms
[20:40] <sarnold> ash_m: then you could use e.g. putty's paste feature
[21:51] <teward> ash_m: agreed with sarnold - set up openssh on your VMs, set up NAT rules, etc. if it's on the VBox NAT network device (or, add a host-only one, etc.), then use PuTTY or such
[21:51] <teward> it saves a lot of headache