=== salem_ is now known as _salem === manjo` is now known as manjo [04:58] buffer 10 [06:45] good morning === hikiko_ is now known as hikiko === synapse is now known as Guest89004 === _salem is now known as salem_ [11:37] mdeslaur, xnox: FTR: https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020601 only affects systemd 228, thus no debian or ubuntu release/pocket/backports/etc. [11:37] bugzilla.suse.com bug 1020601 in Incidents "VUL-0: CVE-2016-10156: systemd: world writable suid files local root vulnerability" [Major,Confirmed] === hikiko is now known as hikiko|ln [12:00] thanks pitti! === mardy_ is now known as mardy [12:15] @pilot in === udevbot changed the topic of #ubuntu-devel to: Yakkety Yak (16.10) Released | Archive: open | Devel of Ubuntu (not support or app devel) | build failures: http://qa.ubuntuwire.com/ftbfs/ | #ubuntu for support and discussion of precise-yakkety | #ubuntu-app-devel for app development on Ubuntu http://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment | Patch Pilots: mdeslaur === hikiko|ln is now known as hikiko [13:26] cpaelzer: hey! I see there's a libibverbs package on Bileto from you ready for release - you want me to release it for you? [14:04] rbasak: I have a few rather minimal merges done and in progress [14:05] rbasak: do you want to review them still, or do you think we can upload and just merge if it is really down to a trivial delta? [14:06] cpaelzer: I'd like to move towards getting peer review for all uploads, but I don't think there's any need for trivial things right now. [14:06] Might as well start with the large stuff. [14:06] There may be a squid3 merge review coming your way soon :-) [14:07] rbasak: makes sense - I'll go on with the trivials to get out of our way then [14:07] rbasak: I'll trade squid for a multipath review :-P [14:07] rbasak: in fact my personal timeline says I'll upload multipath on Friday as-is to get some practical testing if there is no review [14:08] sil2100: thanks for the proactive check, yeah ticket 2395 should be safe (minor upstream release, minimal delta) [14:08] cpaelzer: I think that's fine. If no reviewers appear after a while, just land it. [14:08] sil2100: except I wanted to try hitting publish myself and see what permissions might break [14:09] cpaelzer: do you have upload rights for this package? [14:09] cpaelzer: anyway, nothing wrong will happen if you press publish, it'll tell you if you have the rights to do it or not [14:10] sil2100: yeah I should have upload rights, let me check [14:11] sil2100: ok, it didn't reject me right away - now copying it seems [14:11] sil2100: "INFO Succeeded in 0m 6s" [14:12] sil2100: you might keep an extra eye open since this might be the first time a non core-dev hit publish - just in case anything weird comes up [14:12] cpaelzer: I guess all looks good! [14:13] \o/ [14:13] \o/ [14:45] python-apt 1.4 beta is coming, but there never was a 1.2 or 1.3 (not even a final 1.1) :) [14:45] So don't get confused, the version number is just matching the apt release series it requires! [14:48] is that a known issue of sbuild dep8 tests atm "FAIL stderr: W: Ignoring Provides line with non-equal DepCompareOp for package wine" [14:48] hitting that with an update to exim4 but I doubt to have caused that (https://objectstorage.prodstack4-5.canonical.com/v1/AUTH_77e2ada1e7a84929a74ba3b87153c0ac/autopkgtest-zesty-ci-train-ppa-service-2394/zesty/amd64/s/sbuild/20170124_111649_92763@/log.gz) [14:48] cpaelzer: Sounds like a bug in wine [14:49] cpaelzer: It also happens if you run apt update on a recent zesty system [14:50] Hmm, not sure why that happens. [14:51] oh wait, wrong chroot [14:51] * juliank is trying to find the broken package [14:52] Package: wine-stable [14:52] Version: 1.8.6-3ubuntu1 [14:52] Provides: wine (>= 1:1) [14:52] Oh, come on [14:52] jbicha: ^ you merged that? [14:53] jbicha: I assume that should be wine (= ${source:Version}) [14:54] Or wine (= 1.8) or something [15:00] oh, thanks juliank for looing === dannf` is now known as dannf [15:10] juliank, jbicha: looking at the previous versions, it was just 'Provides: wine' [15:11] ginggs: Oh, good to know. I'm not sure what the >= 1:1 is trying to achieve - I also just noticed the epoch [15:11] maybe it should provide wine with an epoch? [15:11] because some other "wine" package had an epoch [15:11] juliank: we are trying to get rid of the epoch [15:12] In that case, it could Provide: wine (= 1:${source:Version}) [15:12] juliank: hence the renaming of wine -> wine-stable until the next ubuntu LTS [15:13] ginggs: Right, but currently the provides is broken. It either needs to become unversioned or a useful version provide. [15:13] wine (= 1:${source:Version}) is a bit ugly, but has the advantage of simply just saying wine-stable X provides wine with the same version an epoch 1 [15:17] juliank: shall i just revert to 'Provides: wine'? i can upload shortly [15:18] ginggs: Well, I think it's better than keeping it broken. I'm not sure what the intention was, or if it was intentional at all. [15:19] juliank: ok, reverting now. i'd better check src:wine-development too [15:30] juliank: meow, got a second to check on my sanity? [15:31] juliank: https://launchpadlibrarian.net/303682921/buildlog_ubuntu_zesty_amd64_kubuntu_BUILDING.txt.gz [15:31] juliank: or schroot -c zesty-amd64 -u root --directory / -- sh -c 'apt -y install appstream; apt -o Acquire::IndexTargets::deb::DEP-11-icons-hidpi::DefaultEnabled=true -o Acquire::IndexTargets::deb::DEP-11-icons::DefaultEnabled=true update' [15:31] Laney: Ah [15:31] Don't undertand why the hash sum mismatch [15:32] Have you seen http://bugs.debian.org/838441 [15:32] Debian bug 838441 in apt "apt-get update fails with "Hash Sum mismatch", mixes hashes between tar.gz and tar file" [Normal,Open] [15:32] there's a bug somewhere in APT causing it to take the uncompressed hashes for the compressed file, but no constant reproducer yet [15:33] juliank: ah right, nope [15:33] src:wine-development has 'Provides: wine' [15:33] that one up there works for me, let me see what you want [15:33] sec, got to go give a weekly report [15:45] Laney: I added zesty-sec to my Deb system, and can't reproduce it, so it's officially complicated. [15:47] juliank: Hmmmm [15:47] for me it happens with *only* zesty-security in there [15:48] which is good for reducing the size of the output ... [15:51] Laney: Hmm, not happening for me [15:51] Ah wait [15:51] it only downloaded the inrelease file [15:52] Laney: The problem happens while copying the file from partial to the main directory [15:53] juliank: you reproed it? [15:53] APT tells the copy method it should expect uncompressed hashes for the compressed file [15:53] Laney: No, but that's what the log say [15:53] s [15:54] E: Failed to fetch copy:/var/lib/apt/lists/partial/security.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_zesty-security_main_dep11_icons-64x64.tar.gz Hash Sum mismatch [15:54] Also it only happens if I enable both the IndexTargets [15:57] Ah [15:59] ximion added that in https://launchpadlibrarian.net/303563290/plasma-discover_5.8.5-0ubuntu1_5.8.5-3ubuntu1.diff.gz [15:59] bet that's why it's now happening for kubuntu [16:01] Laney: Oh well, it might not actually be coppying but just an implementation artefact. [16:04] Laney: Maybe talk to donkult in #debian-apt on OFTC, and add some logs with Debug::Acquire::Transaction set [16:05] and take a copy of the repo for further debugging :) [16:07] Debug::pkgAcquire::Auth [16:07] Debug::Acquire::HashSumMismatch" [16:07] Laney: ^ some more debugging options [16:09] I'll give repro a last try [16:10] And now I can repro :) [16:11] oh sweet [16:16] infinity: I looked at liblockfile merge, but I wonder if dropping that old Delta would be fine - especially since this would make liblockfile a sync then. [16:16] infinity: TL;DR is just dh/dh_auto_configure cross build safe enough these days? I'm not a cross build expert so I wanted to ask and the old delta is yours. [16:16] infinity: Also it wasn't merged for a long time - if there is a hidden reason please let me know. [16:17] this is the old delta and the currend d/rules http://paste.ubuntu.com/23858458/ [16:20] hmm just checked the dates on the upstream changelog - there seems to be a flurry of activity just recently [16:21] What do you do if you have TPM_Error code 7 (i.e. you can not boot anymore ) and you have no recovery mode in boot ( Note that I never choose to deactivate it so it is a choice of the distro maker, which I would like to understand as welll....) [16:21] that explains why we had 1.09 for so long [16:32] @pilot out === udevbot changed the topic of #ubuntu-devel to: Yakkety Yak (16.10) Released | Archive: open | Devel of Ubuntu (not support or app devel) | build failures: http://qa.ubuntuwire.com/ftbfs/ | #ubuntu for support and discussion of precise-yakkety | #ubuntu-app-devel for app development on Ubuntu http://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment | Patch Pilots: [16:43] davmor2: howdy. just wanted to let you know that i haven't forgotten about aptdaemon. been having some trouble with its autopkgtests so i'm trying to suss that out so it won't fail to promote in zesty once i've uploaded it [16:44] barry: awesome thanks dude, seb128 flexiondotorg ^ [16:44] davmor2, barry: thanks [16:46] davmor2, flexiondotorg, seb128 you can test the change in lp:aptdaemon but the package isn't yet ready. i added the fix as a quilt patch in the packaging because i don't think there's been an upstream release of aptdaemon in a long time (probably never will be; i think it's been more or less orphaned) [16:47] barry, you could probably take over it/update the vcs if you wanted [16:47] seb128: it's the "if" that's the problem :) [16:47] :-) [16:47] barry, well in theory foundations is supposed to maintain it... [16:48] barry, or somebody should look at deprecating it for good and replace it by e.g packagekit on the default install [16:48] seb128: true. i certainly don't mind helping out in cases like this, i just don't want to assume ownership of the upstream and package :/ [16:48] right [16:48] seb128: yes +1 to that [16:49] pretty sure it's been dropped in debian, so we're looking at gnome-software, language-selector-gnome, oem-config-gtk, and sessioninstaller as revdeps [16:50] aaaannyway [18:09] bdmurray, hi can you reject the barbican upload from 2017-01-09 from the xenial review queue? had to add a missing bug # to the changelog. [18:22] bdmurray, thanks [19:19] ginggs: thanks for fixing the wine merge [19:22] jbicha: np! === salem_ is now known as _salem === alexisb is now known as alexisb-afk === alexisb-afk is now known as alexisb