[00:30] <doko> finally, python-support removed from Debian
[00:33] <doko> barry, jtaylor tumbleweed: now let's ditch it for xenial ;-P
[00:50] <doko> cyphermox, one more shadow upload without a merge :-/
[00:50] <cyphermox> hrm?
[00:50] <cyphermox> that was an upload to trusty...
[00:50] <doko> cyphermox, ohh, trusty only
[00:51] <tumbleweed> doko: IIRC we're ready for that
[00:51] <cyphermox> I'll get back to merges soon, but for now 14.04.4 takes priority
[00:51] <tumbleweed> ginggs filed a RM bug, I think?
[00:52] <doko> tumbleweed, reverse-depends tells otherwise
[00:57] <tumbleweed> doko: LP: #1535318
[00:58] <doko> ahh, cool
[00:58] <tumbleweed> doko: basically, everything that's left was either removed from testing or is ubuntu cruft
[02:03] <kees> slangasek: openssh in proposed. wat? collided? do I need to reupload?
[02:04] <kees> oh, I see. no need to reupload.
[04:52] <pitti> Good morning
[06:59] <alkisg> bdrung, bdrung_work, hi, adblock from the xul ppa has stopped working, a signed version is now needed with firefox 44. Would it be possible to upload adblock 2.7.1? Thank you very much for maintaining this!
[07:12] <lukesoft> Hi Guys, Really trying to get going with contributing to ubuntu......but iam getting some bzr: ERROR: Not a branch: "bzr+ssh://bazaar.launchpad.net/+branch/ubuntu/tomboy/"
[07:12] <lukesoft> can you please point me in the right direction
[07:17] <pitti> lukesoft: don't use the UDD branches any more; they are not maintained any more and don't exist for xenial
[07:17] <pitti> lukesoft: just use "apt-get source tomboy" (there is no Ubuntu VCS for tomboy)
[07:18] <lukesoft> oooh ok thanks...let me try that
[07:20] <lukesoft> pitti: so when can i get the new tutorials, coz i was following the one on ubuntu packacking...Is this now obsolete
[07:20] <lukesoft> *where
[07:34] <pitti> lukesoft: the existing one mentions apt-get source; but we are currently working on providing git branches for all packages, until then I don't think that the tutorial will be changed
[09:08] <bdrung_work> alkisg, i'll put updating adblock-plus on my todo list
[09:08] <bdrung_work> alkisg, a new release won't fix the problem with the signature: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/firefox/+bug/1532484
[09:25] <lukemadzedze> Guys which programming languages are used if want to contribute to the so called MOTU
[09:26] <lukemadzedze> or it depends on the package
[09:26] <lukemadzedze> Do all packages use the same language
[09:35] <alkisg> bdrung_work: ouch, does that mean that the patch you proposed there won't be integrated in Ubuntu unless it's accepted by chrisccoulson or someone else?
[09:35] <alkisg> The patch does seem pretty simple and safe...
[09:36] <alkisg> Or should we spend effort on trying to convince upstream mozilla instead?
[09:40] <bdrung_work> alkisg, it's on my todo list to write a mail to ubuntu-devel to start a discussion about it. convincing upstream would be the best option (they should provide a configure switch for it)
[09:46] <alkisg> Thank you very much bdrung_work, I'll put that bug in the affects me too list and wish for the best :)
[09:47] <bdrung_work> alkisg, feel free to open an upstream bug and link it to the lp bug
[09:47]  * alkisg reads the debian bug to see if the folks there already filed an upstream bug...
[10:07] <cjwatson> lukemadzedze: depends entirely on the package; a wide variety of languages is used; the most common would probably be C, C++, Python, Perl, some Java and some of various functional languages, and various bits of shell and make and such in build systems.  Most important to be flexible
[10:17] <lukemadzedze> member:cjwatson: thanks a lot
[10:28] <LocutusOfBorg> sil2100, seems like a new ppp has been uploaded in debian
[10:28] <LocutusOfBorg> do you care to merge it?
[10:48] <sil2100> Oh, sure thing o/
[12:20] <LocutusOfBorg> thanks
[14:47] <lukesoft> guys is there a way to find out which language a package is developed in, before i start trying to fixing its bug...or even downloading the sorces
[14:47] <lukesoft> sources
[14:56] <dx> hi! how long do "debian imports" take? i see a freeze deadline in february 18 and i'm wondering when i should get the packages in debian testing to ensure they get in 16.04
[15:01] <cjwatson> dx: the auto-sync process runs from unstable, not testing; and it takes at worst around half a day from Debian upload, depending on the vagaries of dinstall timing and other similar cron jobs
[15:02] <dx> excellent
[15:03] <dx> it's like you just replied "-7 days"
[15:05] <gpiccoli> Hello, sorry to bother. I want to download kernel 4.4 for xenial, but it seems this kernel is not present in ppa unstable anymore
[15:05] <gpiccoli> Can someone help me with this?
[15:08] <bjf> gpiccoli, it's in -proposed
[15:10] <gpiccoli> Can you point me the URL bjf?
[15:12] <bjf> gpiccoli, https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/4.4.0-1.15/+build/8880824
[15:14] <gpiccoli> Thanks bjf! But I'm on ppc64el.
[15:14] <gpiccoli> Do you have a generic PPA or something like this?
[15:14] <bjf> gpiccoli, https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/4.4.0-1.15/+build/8880829
[15:15] <gpiccoli> Thanks very much bjf
[15:32] <cjwatson> dx: heh
[15:39] <dx> also, pidgin released 2.10.12, the debian package maintainer doesn't seem to be active and the pidgin in wily has buggy patches. what should i do to ensure the buggy package doesn't get in xenial?
[15:39] <dx> more launchpad tickets?
[15:45] <dx> the bug i'm referring to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/pidgin/+bug/1479715
[15:48] <seb128> dx, no, more tickets isn't helping to get work done, send rather a debdiff for the update if you want to help with it
[15:49] <dx> seb128: a debdiff with the version bump + removal of local patches?
[15:50] <dx> and attach it to that bug?
[16:09] <bdmurray> didrocks: Could you have a look at bug 1532355 since you've touched plymouth a fair bit recently?
[16:14] <didrocks> bdmurray: this shouldn't hang up boot anyway, on the warning, do you have a way to reproduce this setup?
[16:15] <Laney> did anyone look at gradle/component-mismatches yet?
[16:15]  * Laney doesn't see what is pulilng it into main immediately
[16:17] <pitti> Laney: ugh @ http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/component-mismatches.svg
[16:17] <Laney> pitti: I know right
[16:17] <Laney> I ran the dmb packageset script and it wanted to add haskell-* to "core"
[16:18] <Laney> "um, nope"
[16:18] <pitti>    [Reverse-Build-Depends: libspring-java]
[16:18] <pitti> hm, which is itself universe
[16:18] <Laney> indeed
[16:18] <bdmurray> didrocks: Some of the duplicates look like dist upgrades from Wily
[16:18] <Laney> I got approximately that far
[16:18] <Laney> germinate took me in a circle
[16:20] <cjwatson> Laney: pretty sure I looked through that a while back, let me find the log
[16:22] <pitti> looks like pandoc pulls in gradle?
[16:22] <cjwatson> the actual answer is higher up than that I think
[16:26] <cjwatson> aha
[16:26] <cjwatson> 02:16 <cjwatson>   "libcommons-net-java" -> "build-helper-maven-plugin" [label=" B" color="blue" fontcolor="blue"]
[16:26] <cjwatson> that ends up pulling in all the things via a tortuous path
[16:26] <cjwatson> infinity and I had to resort to crawling through graphviz output to find that
[16:26] <pitti> wow, that pulls in haskell now?
[16:26] <cjwatson> pandoc is haskell
[16:27] <cjwatson> and something wants that
[16:27] <Laney>  libcommons-net-java | 3.4-2         | xenial          | all
[16:27] <Laney>  libcommons-net-java | 3.4-2         | xenial/universe | source
[16:27] <cjwatson> but libcommons-net-java was the root of it last I looked
[16:27] <pitti> there must still be a bug somewhere -- there should be one green ("already in main") package somewhere in that cluster, but isn't
[16:27] <cjwatson> I think it's that way because of incomplete promotions/demotions
[16:27] <pitti> oh, source in uninverse, binary in main
[16:28] <cjwatson> I forget the exact reasoning but it made sense once I unpicked it
[16:29] <awe_> seb128, do you have some time to check out mp for bluez; it bumps us to 5.37 & syncs us with the fixes in touch...
[16:30] <Laney> It looks like libcommons-net-java took over from libcommons-net1-java
[16:30] <Laney> and has all the build-depends
[16:30] <Odd_Bloke> cjwatson: Do you have a minute for a livecd-rootfs merge and upload?  (https://code.launchpad.net/~daniel-thewatkins/livecd-rootfs/ppc64el/+merge/284152)
[16:31] <Odd_Bloke> cjwatson: Oh, actually, hold on; might need to tweak that slightly.
[16:33] <cjwatson> Odd_Bloke: urr.  too late
[16:33] <cjwatson> (rather, I saw that too late due to uploading rather than watching IRC)
[16:34] <Odd_Bloke> cjwatson: No worries, it's not broken, there's just another issue that needs fixing too.  Sorry for jumping the gun on the request. :(
[17:36] <rharper> rbasak: for https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libnl3/+bug/1511735 ; what am I missing for SRU to trusty, next steps?
[17:38] <rbasak> rharper: looks good process-wise. Just need review and sponsorship. How do you feel about the regression risk? Are you confident about the patches and their impact?
[17:38]  * rharper reviews what he wrote a while ago
[17:39] <rbasak> rharper: I'm swamped with MySQL now, and then we'll be straight into the sprint next week. So I'm really struggling on the review side right now.
[17:39] <rbasak> Maybe kirkland could help review and sponsor? I think he offered before and this one is nice and independent.
[17:39] <rharper> rbasak: sure; do I just need to find a sponser then ?
[17:39] <rbasak> I think so, yes.
[17:40] <rharper> cool
[17:40] <rharper> I'll poke around
[17:40] <teward> maybe you would subscribe the ubuntu sponsors team?
[17:40] <teward> (that way it gets on the list of stuff that needs poked?)
[17:40] <rharper> teward: good idea
[18:16] <LocutusOfBorg> mdeslaur, please merge libwmf with my debian upload, to ease libpng transition, thanks :)
[18:17] <mdeslaur> LocutusOfBorg: sure
[18:17] <LocutusOfBorg> thanks :)
[18:21] <LocutusOfBorg> yofel, can you please update khtml with my latest debian upload?
[18:21] <LocutusOfBorg> I fixed the libpng12-dev to libpng-dev :)
[18:26] <LocutusOfBorg> xnox, can you please update gdk-pixbuf the same libpng fix in debian :)
[18:40] <bdmurray> kenvandine: Could you have a look at https://code.launchpad.net/~vorlon/lxc-android-config/apport-job-cleanup/+merge/274497?
[18:42] <Shock> hello
[18:42] <Shock> I'm getting a warning that some packages cannot be authenticated (libgmpxx4ldbl libp11-kit-dev libidn11-dev libgmp-dev nettle-dev). is this normal?
[18:44] <slangasek> Shock: this question would be more appropriate for #ubuntu.  For the record, it is not normal, and it is strongly recommended that you not install unauthenticated packages on your system.  It probably does not indicate an active attack, you may just need to re-run 'apt-get update'; but you can't be sure unless you actually get rid of the message
[18:44] <kenvandine> bdmurray, i can have a look
[18:45] <Shock> slangasek: I'm asking here because this is the second time it's happened and went the #ubuntu->#ubuntu-dev route once
[18:45] <Shock> slangasek: last time the error was fixed by switching to the main server instead of mirror. now I'm using the main server and getting the error
[18:46] <Shock> slangasek: there's not much help #ubuntu can provide if the main archive is at fault :(
[18:46] <rww> re-run sudo apt-get update, try again, see if it still happens
[18:46] <rww> and odds are the main archive is not at fault, hence the #ubuntu recommendation
[18:46] <Shock> rww: already did that a couple of times
[18:48] <rbasak> Shock: is it possible that your connection is behind a bad caching proxy, perhaps a transparent one? Some ISPs are known to do that.
[18:49] <rbasak> I would check the sha256sums and sizes in the packages file (/var/lib/apt/lists) against the downloaded files (/var/cache/apt/archives/partial) manually.
[18:50] <Shock> I'm getting the following warnings http://paste.ubuntu.com/14681447/
[18:50] <sarnold> "unauthenticated" makes me think there's another configured archive; does apt-cache policy libgmpxx4ldbl   etc look sane?
[18:51] <Shock> sarnold: apt-cache madison listed only the main archive, I'll check policy
[18:51] <Shock> policy also lists only the main archive
[18:52] <rbasak> That's odd. Looks like your verification public keys are broken.
[18:53] <Shock> rbasak: how could that happen?
[18:53] <ogra_> or someone on the way to the archive has a transparent proxy in the line
[18:53] <rbasak> Shock: pastebin "apt-key list"
[18:57] <Shock> http://paste.ubuntu.com/14681507/
[18:58] <Shock> rbasak: done
[18:58] <sarnold> gpg: keyblock resource `/etc/apt/trusted.gpg.d/zulcss-libvirt.gpg': resource limit   -- well that's odd..
[18:59] <sarnold> and there's the keys that it reported missing a few minutes earlier.
[19:00] <rbasak> It is odd. Looks like the keys are there but apt sees something different from apt-key.
[19:00] <rbasak> Either that or you have a man in the middle. Unless you check the full key fingerprints you can't be sure.
[19:01] <rbasak> (PGP key IDs are easy to duplicate)
[19:01] <Shock> rbasak: how do I do that?
[19:01] <rbasak> I'm not sure exactly, and I have to run now, sorry. You can certainly use gpg directly. There may be an easier way.
[19:02] <Shock> rbasak: thanks!
[19:03] <Shock> I've run apt-get update again, it's still showing signature verification errors. I'm not sure how to proceed further, any help would be welcome
[19:03] <sarnold> check /var/lib/apt/lists/*InRelease  and see if those reflect the apt-get update you ran a few seconds ago; run gpg --verify  on those, that should include the full fingerprint of the keys that signed those files
[19:05] <Shock> am I right in assuming that "W: Failed to fetch http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/trusty-updates/InRelease" is because the signature couldn't be verified? I can open the url just fine in the browser
[19:05] <sarnold> the fingerprints should match the first two here https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam/FAQ#GPG_Keys_used_by_Ubuntu
[19:06] <rbasak> Shock: I think so, yes.
[19:09] <Shock> gpg --verify says "gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found"
[19:10] <cjwatson> gpg --verify will only work if you happen to have the right key in your *own* keyring
[19:10] <cjwatson> try "apt-key adv --verify" instead
[19:10] <cjwatson> (you can ignore any "gpg: WARNING: Using untrusted key!" warnings)
[19:11] <cjwatson> http://paste.ubuntu.com/14681623/ <- good output
[19:12] <cjwatson> in your position I would look more closely at /etc/apt/trusted.gpg.d/zulcss-libvirt.gpg
[19:12] <cjwatson> is it a huge file or something?
[19:13] <Shock> 362 bytes
[19:13] <doko> bdmurray, could you review two changes for whoopsie? #1538705 and #1508653 ?
[19:14] <Shock> cjwatson: all I'm seeing is "Good signature"
[19:14] <Shock> cjwatson: I can remove the libvirt ppa, will that also remove the key?
[19:15] <cjwatson> depends on the method you use ...
[19:15] <cjwatson> you could try just moving that file aside though, and seeing what happens
[19:15] <Shock> software-properties-gtk
[19:17] <cjwatson> I think software-properties will remove the key, yes
[19:18] <Shock> cjwatson: I've moved the file aside and re-ran apt-get update -- now the only gpg error I'm getting is for a ppa, presumably the ppa I've removed the key for
[19:18] <cjwatson> right, so I guess remove the PPA properly with s-p, and then re-add it (which should refetch the key)?
[19:19] <Shock> cjwatson: I don't need it anymore, I'm gonna build the packages manually. Should I re-add it in this case or just remove it?
[19:19] <cjwatson> that's sounding like you want to remove it, but up to you
[19:20] <Shock> cjwatson: thanks
[19:21] <Shock> I've removed the ppa and now apt-get update finishes successfully without any errors
[19:21] <Shock> thank you everyone for your help!
[19:21] <Shock> is this a bug in apt-get or gpg?
[19:22] <bdmurray> doko: I'll have a look.
[19:23] <cjwatson> bug> pass, best way to tell would be to figure out how to reproduce it reliably; hope you kept a copy of that zulcss-libvirt.gpg key file, I should have mentioned that
[19:25] <Shock> cjwatson: damn, I've just deleted it
[19:26] <Shock> cjwatson: do you want me to re-add the ppa and see if it's reproducible?
[19:26] <cjwatson> Shock: I'm just driving by here; perhaps that would be a useful thing to try, but I'm not a relevant package maintainer or anything here
[19:27] <cjwatson> (I mean, I'm a developer, just not of either apt or gnupg)
[19:34] <rbasak> Shock: it sounds to me that the zulcss-libvirt.gpg was truncated or corrupted somehow. I suspect it'll be really hard to pin down what happened there.
[20:01] <teward> anyone know how frequently the autopkgtests pages update?
[20:02] <teward> nevermind, i have different questions now
[20:25] <wolsen> bdmurray, thx for the feedback on the patch for bug 1089013, I've updated the patch fwiw
[20:59] <smoser> anyone have an idea what would be triggering /usr/lib/update-notifier/update-motd-updates-available to run
[20:59] <smoser> bug 1527710
[21:00] <smoser> i dont think its an apt-get udpate. but i think that thing is responsible for failures i was seeing in curtin installs and also for failures we're seeing in d-i server installs
[21:00] <smoser> such as the one seen https://platform-qa-jenkins.ubuntu.com/view/smoke-default/job/ubuntu-xenial-server-amd64-smoke-default/28/console
[21:01] <smoser> i believe d-i is refusing to unmount the target filesystem because something is running inside, and i belive update-motd to be that thing.
[21:30] <chiluk> mterry do you want to do an upload for pad.lv/1535349
[21:31] <tedg> How do I find out the same as "lsb_release --codename" for a package that is building, for which target it is building to?
[21:31] <kenvandine> bdmurray, that branch looks good, but i need to test it on a device
[21:31] <kenvandine> bdmurray, i'll make sure I do that tomorrow morning
[21:31] <chiluk> mterry, arges, pitti would any of you be interested in sponsoring an upload for bug 1535349
[21:32] <arges> chiluk: i can take a look
[21:32] <chiluk> thanks arges.
[21:33] <chiluk> or at least reviewing.
[21:41] <lukesoft>  is there a way of know the language used in a package, before downloading the sources....i want to try out fixing a bug or 2 but only if its a java application...but i dont seem to see any other way to know its a java programm before downloading the sources
[21:42] <TheMuso> lukesoft: You could check the package dependencies. That can probably give you a clue, particularly if its a java application.
[21:46] <Shock> cjwatson & rbasak: I've re-added the ppa and now I'm getting the signature verification errors again
[21:46] <lukesoft> TheMuso: thanks for the response, iam sorry that iam probably asking stupid questions as all this is still confusing.
[21:46] <smoser> ok... so now i'm 99% certain that the apt-check thing is indeed caused by 'apt-get update' (
[21:46] <smoser>  /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/99update-notifier:APT::Update::Post-Invoke-Success
[21:47] <Shock> cjwatson & rbasak: and the gpg error is the same "gpg: keyblock resource `/etc/apt/trusted.gpg.d/zulcss-libvirt.gpg': resource limit"
[21:50] <doko> so what am I doing wrong here? https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/tbb/4.4~20151115-0ubuntu2  this builds locally ...
[22:23] <bdmurray> smoser: Why did you change update-notifier the way you did when you mentioned 99update-notifier being the issue?
[22:37] <infinity> doko: Looks like a missing build-dep on dh-exec to me.
[22:50] <doko> infinity, oh, of course
[23:05] <kirkland> smoser: did you get to the bottom of the update-motd / d-i / umount problem?