[02:17] <jetsaredim> is there a way to upgrade a 14.04 ubuntu-server install to the latest ubuntu release?
[02:17] <jetsaredim> I tried do-release-upgrade but that reports nothing to update
[02:18] <patdk-lap> that is cause it won't, till 16.04 is released
[02:18] <patdk-lap> assuming 16.04 is the next lts
[02:18] <jetsaredim> I thought that's what the -d option was for
[02:18] <teward> patdk-lap: thought it was?
[02:19] <patdk-lap> hmm?
[02:19] <teward> [2015-07-25 22:18:39] <patdk-lap> assuming 16.04 is the next lts
[02:19] <jetsaredim>        -d, --devel-release
[02:19] <jetsaredim>               Check if upgrading to the latest devel release is possible
[02:19] <patdk-lap> it's was made official?
[02:19] <patdk-lap> it's *assumed*, but
[02:19] <teward> if they changed that policy then we all missed the announcement from the sabdfl
[02:19] <patdk-lap> jetsaredim, 14.10 is no longer supported
[02:19] <patdk-lap> so there is no devel release to upgrade to
[02:20] <teward> ^ that though is valid
[02:20] <jetsaredim> is 15.04 not a devel release?
[02:20] <patdk-lap> the last time I looked at the policy it sait lts releases, but defined no confirmed timetable, just a proposed
[02:20] <patdk-lap> 14.04 -> 15.04 is not supported
[02:21] <jetsaredim> why?
[02:21] <patdk-lap> cause, it never was
[02:21] <patdk-lap> lts -> lts, and dev -> dev
[02:21] <patdk-lap> no skipping allowed
[02:21] <teward> stop ninjaing me
[02:21]  * teward glares
[02:22] <teward> probably the 'adapting apache postinst to another package' is messing my speed XD
[02:22] <jetsaredim> that seems an arbitrary restriction
[02:22] <teward> anyways...
[02:22] <patdk-lap> jetsaredim, since when?
[02:22] <OerHeks> There is one way, a bit ugly, to use old-releases trick > https://help.ubuntu.com/community/EOLUpgrades#Upgrading
[02:22] <patdk-lap> packages in 16.04 will upgrade packages from 14.04
[02:23] <patdk-lap> but 15.10 will assume you have all upgrades and settings from 15.04
[02:23] <patdk-lap> not from however 14.04 left them
[02:23] <jetsaredim> is that only a restriction for server?
[02:23] <patdk-lap> no
[02:23] <teward> jetsaredim: it affects all releases
[02:24] <teward> desktop, server, and i think the other supported variants
[02:24] <jetsaredim> it just happened that I picked 14.04 to install my server because that was the latest that was out
[02:24] <teward> jetsaredim: i'd stick to the LTS (14.04) then, that's my recommendation when it comes to servers
[02:24] <jetsaredim> I just want to keep it current with the latest release and not have to reinstall
[02:24] <teward> unless you NEED the latest release's features
[02:24] <patdk-lap> you do know dev releases have a 9month shelf life, or is it longer?
[02:24] <teward> patdk-lap: i think it's 9months
[02:24] <patdk-lap> if you don't upgrade, your be in this position yet again
[02:24]  * teward checks the 14.10 timeperiod
[02:25] <jetsaredim> right i was hoping to upgrade it to 15.04
[02:25] <teward> jetsaredim: do you need any of the new features in software versions in 15.04?
[02:25] <patdk-lap> I mean, you only have till 16.01 to upgrade to 15.10
[02:25] <teward> do you need any of the hardware support?
[02:25] <patdk-lap> if you don't, this all happens again
[02:26] <jetsaredim> i mean - not specifically
[02:26] <jetsaredim> i just like to keep things current
[02:26]  * teward facedesks
[02:26] <teward> jetsaredim: 'keeping things current' in your case can lead to long term problems.
[02:26] <jetsaredim> i guess coming from gentoo background skews my perspective a little
[02:26] <teward> not ONLY is 14.10 no longer supported, and the oldreleases upgrade will be tricky and ugly...
[02:26] <patdk-lap> gentoo has packages?
[02:27] <teward> ... but with every release upgrade the chance of torpedoing everything increases
[02:27] <teward> substantially
[02:27] <jetsaredim> teward: who said anything about 14.10
[02:27] <teward> jetsaredim: the Upgrade Path
[02:27] <teward> jetsaredim: 14.04 -> 14.10 -> 15.04
[02:27] <jetsaredim> ah
[02:27] <teward> and later, -> 15.10 -> 16.04 -> 16.10 -> ...
[02:27] <jetsaredim> no skipping ahead then?
[02:27] <teward> jetsaredim: that's what patdk-lap said
[02:27] <teward> jetsaredim: no skipping
[02:27] <teward> jetsaredim: the only 'skipping' happens with LTS releases
[02:27] <jetsaredim> must've missed that
[02:27] <teward> going backwards in time:
[02:28] <teward> and assuming 12.04 as a start point
[02:28]  * patdk-lap would perfer the big bang, or creation, personally
[02:28] <teward> 12.04 LTS -> 12.10 -> 13.04 -> 13.10 -> 14.04 LTS -> 14.10 LTS -> 15.04 -> 15.10 -> 16.04 (Assumed LTS) -> 16.10 -> ...
[02:28] <teward> patdk-lap: lol
[02:28] <teward> jetsaredim: above is the release 'chain' so to speak
[02:29] <jetsaredim> yea
[02:29] <jetsaredim> that's ugly
[02:29] <teward> jetsaredim: LTS to LTS is the only way to 'skip'
[02:29] <jetsaredim> got it
[02:29] <teward> jetsaredim: such that 12.04 LTS -> 14.04 LTS -> 16.04 (Assumed LTS) -> 18.04 (Assumed LTS), etc.
[02:29] <teward> jetsaredim: to go from 14.04 to 15.04, you have to first go through 14.10, and given that that EOL'd you have the headache of going the 'old-releases' upgrade route, which is a headache
[02:29] <jetsaredim> so had I installed this from the start with 14.10, I'd be free to upgrade it to 15.04
[02:30] <teward> jetsaredim: so unless you have an *absolute need* for the newer software versions in 15.04 or newer hardware support, stick to the LTS
[02:31] <teward> jetsaredim: no, if you had asked this question a month ago you'd be able to go 14.04 -> 14.10, and up until Thursday you would've been easily able to go 14.04 -> 14.10 -> 15.04
[02:31] <teward> if by 'easily' i mean under ideal, 'this will not nuke everything', conditions
[02:31] <teward> in a production environment such upgrade 'chaining' can result in a LOT of mini explosions
[02:32] <jetsaredim> indeed
[02:32] <teward> which ultimately end up with you needing to back up your data and reinstall anyways
[02:32] <teward> which is why LTS -> LTS is supported since that's a viable LTS upgrade path
[02:32] <jetsaredim> this is just a home file server that's not super mission-critical
[02:32] <teward> jetsaredim: back up your files anyways
[02:32] <jetsaredim> yea i do
[02:32] <teward> and if you REALLY want to do that, upgrade to 14.10 with the old-releases trick (https://help.ubuntu.com/community/EOLUpgrades#Upgrading)
[02:32] <jetsaredim> have my main shares on a raid 5 array too
[02:32] <teward> then to 15.04
[02:32] <teward> um
[02:32] <jetsaredim> no its fine
[02:32] <teward> jetsaredim: RAID5 won't help you
[02:32] <teward> not if your OS takes a crap on you during the upgrade
[02:32] <teward> :P
[02:33] <jetsaredim> true but its easily rebuildable
[02:33] <teward> (RAID is also NOT a backup solution)
[02:33] <jetsaredim> no
[02:33] <jetsaredim> i didn't say it was
[02:33] <teward> your statement could've been interpreted in that way
[02:33] <jetsaredim> ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
[02:34] <teward> oops my earlier chain failed i had LTS next to 14.10
[02:34] <teward> i need more coffee...
[02:34]  * teward goes to brew more
[02:34] <jetsaredim> message was understood
[02:34] <teward> right, that was key
[02:35] <teward> but still :)
[02:35] <teward> (coffee's brewing, wait time :/)
[05:35] <AppAraat> HI
[05:36] <AppAraat> http://apaste.info/WkM - This is my .bashrc - can anyone please comment on why my bash completion is broken on 14.04? When I do ll .tmux for example, it doesn't complete (there is .tmux.conf and .tmux/) also when I try to ll /etc/ it doesn't complete the files and dirs there.
[06:22] <DonRichie> Is the usenet centralized like IRC or do I get the same newsgroups regardless of the provider I choose except of the possibility to access binary newsgroups?
[08:22] <bekks> DonRichie: The Usenet is decentralized.
[09:04] <DonRichie> Okay, usenet is decentralized. But it is not like irc and the commonly used freenode right? Every user has the same full list of newsgroups regardless of its provider (except binary file newsgroups). But then I ask myself: If I would set up a usenet server. Which server would I ask to give me a list of all newsgroups
[09:11] <AppAraat> IRC is federated IIRC.
[10:47] <No_one_at_all> Hi, got a Compleat Noob question. My server allegedly has an IPv6 set of /64 addresses, but only responds to pings of the first address. Is this expected behavior, or have I misconfigured something? (My obvious guess is #2.) If I've misconfigured something, what should I look for? First things first, this is the case whether there are any IPv6 iptables rules or none.
[10:49] <No_one_at_all> so the firewall ain't the issue
[10:50] <bekks> No_one_at_all: So how many IPv6 addresses are configured on that server?
[10:51] <No_one_at_all> bekks: ip a show eth0 shows /64, so ... however many that is, I guess? ("A bunch.")
[10:51] <bekks> That /64 is the subnet mask.
[10:51] <bekks> How many IP addresses are configured?
[10:53] <No_one_at_all> bekks: hey would you believe I have no idea how to check that? :D
[10:53] <bekks> No_one_at_all: How many address dows "ip show eth0" list?
[10:55] <No_one_at_all> bekks: inet6 2001:XXXX:X:XXX::/64 scope global     valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
[10:55] <bekks> No_one_at_all: Thats one IP.
[10:56] <No_one_at_all> so /64 refers to...?
[10:56] <bekks> No_one_at_all: Does that command list IPv4 addresses on your eth0 interface?
[10:56] <No_one_at_all> yeah.
[10:56] <bekks> No_one_at_all: "0726 125111 < bekks> That /64 is the subnet mask."
[10:56] <No_one_at_all> ohhhh, ok.
[10:57] <bekks> No_one_at_all: Is the last digit of that IPv6 address ":1"?
[10:57] <No_one_at_all> nope.
[10:57] <No_one_at_all> ::, so it ends in "0000:0000:0000:0000"
[10:59] <No_one_at_all> bekks: ^
[11:03] <No_one_at_all> bekks: one of the reasons I'm confused is that we allegedly have 16+ IPv6 addresses. The second reason is that I'm an idiot.
[11:03] <bekks> You have only 1 IP configured.
[11:04] <No_one_at_all> 'k.
[11:05] <bekks> Thats what you said :)
[11:07] <No_one_at_all> bekks: yeah, I'm just not yet familiar with IPv6 stuff, so I wasn't aware how 16 different addresses would show up. I would know with IPv4, because there'd be one per line. the CIDR confoozled me.
[14:40] <AppAraat> hi, I want to download and install a package on an offline computer. The machine with Internet is 12.04 but the offline machine is 14.04 - what is the best method to go about doing this, can I use apt / aptitude?
[15:53] <teward> AppAraat: that will only download the 12.04 packages - you'll need the 14.04 packages so you may unfortunately have to do manual downloading and package searching
[15:53] <teward> there may be other options but i"m not aware of them personally (so you may want to still wait a bit)
[15:55] <AppAraat> teward: yeah I just plugged it in the ethernet jack to download rfkill (to turn on wifi block). The only thing I found which didn't have a GUI was apt-offline... but you have to install apt-offline on the offline computer first :p
[15:56] <teward> :P
[16:55] <WaqAssss> sarthor, Hello
[16:55] <sarthor> WaqAssss, what OS you are using...
[19:32] <kaligne> hello I just set my public_html folder, I can access it but only with LAN. I would like to access it from the internet but does not work.  type in my browser "my.ip.add.ress/~me" but i fail to connet to it. Do yuo know why:
[19:32] <kaligne> ?
[19:33] <kaligne> oops let me do t again please :)
[19:34] <kaligne> Hello I am trying to access my public_html folder, I can access it but only on my LAN. I would like to access it from the internet but it does not work.  When I type in my browser "my.ip.add.ress/~me" it fails to   connect to it. Do you know why?
[19:35] <kaligne> also my iptables are set to accept everything
[19:36] <lordievader> kaligne: Is there a router in between the internet and your server?
[19:38] <kaligne> lordievader depends, is my livebox a router? Sorry I am trying to get my hands on networking and I still cannot fully grasp some concepts
[19:39]  * lordievader is not familiar with a livebox
[19:39] <lordievader> kaligne: Is port forwarding set up?
[19:40] <kaligne> Its a box that stands between my internet provider and my compputer. I mostly communicate with it using wifi
[19:40] <kaligne> lordievader: is port forwarding something I set up on my computer?
[19:41] <lordievader> No, on your router.
[19:43] <kaligne> lordievader: I found ssme documentation on the net about port forwarding. It appears my box is he router and some manipulations need to be done. Ill give it a try
[19:44] <kaligne> I would like to know in advance, someone told me I should not forward my port 80, is there a reason for this?
[19:44] <lordievader> kaligne: Exactly, the router needs to know that incoming connections to port 80 need to be forwarded towards your server.
[19:44] <lordievader> kaligne: Not that I can think of.
[19:53] <kaligne> Then I wonder.. Do I need to forward the specified port to access my computer with ssh? Or is it totally unrelated?
[19:54] <lordievader> kaligne: The router does the port forwarding.
[19:55] <skylite_> If I have eth0, eth1, and eth2 configured in /etc/network/interfaces why can I have only one gateway entry?
[19:57] <lordievader> Because else you have a packet that goes in three directions.
[19:58] <maxb> Fundamentally a gateway is a property of your computer's routing table, not of any one interface
[19:58] <maxb> It will be related to an interface, but something needs to control which interface is used
[20:02] <skylite_> I dont get it... say I have eth0 as 192.168.1.5, and eth1 as 192.168.2.5, eth2 as 192.168.3.5, if a request comes from 192.168.3.9 to 192.168.3.5 how it gets its answer?
[20:02] <skylite_> if only eth0 has a gateway like 192.168.1.2
[20:04] <lordievader> skylite_: Look at your routing table, 192.168.3.0/24 is defined.
[20:04] <lordievader> The default gateway is used if your routing table cannot resolve it.
[20:05] <skylite_> I see.. it is there indeed but how did it know that?
[20:07] <lordievader> skylite_: You likely told it to add that route ;)
[20:07] <skylite_> lordievader I did not o_O
[20:08] <skylite_> did I?
[20:08] <lordievader> skylite_: Could you pastebin your /etc/network/interfaces?
[20:08] <skylite_> sure one sec
[20:10] <skylite_> http://pastebin.com/7pfttNvc
[20:12] <lordievader> It likely gets it from your netmask setting.
[20:13] <skylite_> hm
[20:13] <skylite_> but the gateway to 192.168.2.5 should be 192.168.2.2 how does it know that?
[20:15] <lordievader> I was talking about the 192.168.2.0/24 route, not the gateway ;)
[20:15] <lordievader> skylite_: It doesn't, even better it doesn't even use it.
[20:16] <skylite_> o_O why?
[20:16] <lordievader> skylite_: Anything that it cannot resolve to its local network gets send to 192.168.1.2.
[20:17] <kaligne> OK I set up a new NAT/PAT rule on my router: service=web server; internal port=80; external port=80; protocole=TCP; device=myDevice.
[20:17] <kaligne> Hw should I connect? I tried: "http://my.router.ip.add", "http://my.router.ip.add:80", "http://my.router.ip.add:8080".. Doesnt seem to work. Am I doing it wrong?
[20:18] <skylite_> lordievader Its still a bit strange but Im starting to accept it:) thx
[20:19] <lordievader> kaligne: Your public ip address.
[20:20] <lordievader> skylite_: It is pretty simple, 'is this destination in my local network?', no, 'let someone else bother with it ;)'
[20:20] <skylite_> lordievader but if you have multiple local network...
[20:21] <lordievader> Then you check all of them.
[20:26] <kaligne> lordievader: I tried "http://my.publi.c.ip", "http://my.publi.c.ip/myDevice", "http://my.publi.c.ip:80", "http://my.publi.c.ip:8080". It stll does not work, I get his message "No route to host"
[20:28] <bekks> kaligne: And you are at a remote location now?
[20:28] <bekks> kaligne: If not, you will not be able to connect.
[20:29] <kaligne> bekks: I am testing by connecting my mobile phone to the 3G network. Is that ok?
[20:29] <kaligne> And my laptop is no connected to my router via wifi
[20:30] <kaligne> *is NOW connected
[20:32] <lordievader> kaligne: Your http://my.router.ip.add is an actual ip address?
[20:35] <kaligne> I googled "my ip" and it returned "86.217.107.32 Your public ip address"
[20:36] <kaligne> so what I typed "http://86.217.107.32" in the address bar
[20:37] <kaligne> should this be enough?
[20:38] <kaligne> lordievader: also as I told bekks, I am testing the connection with my mobile phone, through the 3G network.
[20:40] <lordievader> kaligne: The port aint (fully) open: 80/tcp filtered http
[20:40] <bekks> kaligne: So you typed that in the address bar on your mobile?
[20:42] <kaligne> bekks: yes I typed "http://86.217.107.32" in the address bar on my mobile. That's correct right?
[20:43] <kaligne> lordivader: how did you check that? WIth a ping maybe?
[20:43] <lordievader> kaligne: nmap
[20:43] <bekks> kaligne: Yeah. And you configured your router to respond on port 80, 8080, etc.?
[20:46] <kaligne> bekks: I set up a new NAT/PAT rule on my router: service=web server; internal port=80; external port=80; protocole=TCP; device=myDevice
[20:51] <kaligne> lordievader: do you think the router's firewall might be involved? I selected the lowest security rule that says that all internet connections will be rejected unless the right NAT/PAT rule has been defined. Which I believe I did?
[20:51] <lordievader> kaligne: It could be, yes.
[20:51] <kaligne> (see my previous message)
[20:54] <lordievader> kaligne: I know you set up the forward rule, and usually that is enough, but it might be a different implementation.
[21:03] <TJ-> kaligne: "nmap -Pn -p 80  86.217.107.32" ==> "80/tcp filtered http"
[21:12]  * lordievader goes to bed