| lotuspsychje | good morning to all | 05:08 |
|---|---|---|
| lotuspsychje | morning EriC^^ | 05:20 |
| EriC^^ | morning lotuspsychje | 05:21 |
| lotuspsychje | had a nice weekend EriC^^ ? | 05:21 |
| EriC^^ | yeah | 05:21 |
| lotuspsychje | we too, but cold :p | 05:21 |
| EriC^^ | :D | 05:22 |
| lordievader | Good morning | 07:05 |
| ducasse | good morning | 07:10 |
| lordievader | Hey ducasse | 07:13 |
| lordievader | How are you doing? | 07:13 |
| lotuspsychje_ | hey ducasse lordievader | 07:15 |
| === lotuspsychje_ is now known as lotuspsychje | ||
| ducasse | hi lotuspsychje, lordievader. fine here, thanks, how are you guys? | 07:16 |
| lordievader | Hey lotuspsychje_ | 07:16 |
| lordievader | How are you doing? | 07:16 |
| lordievader | Doing good here | 07:16 |
| lotuspsychje | great here tnx | 07:16 |
| lotuspsychje | updating bionic | 07:19 |
| lotuspsychje | https://www.deviantart.com/art/Obscured-732416896 | 07:24 |
| jink | :) | 08:09 |
| lotuspsychje | morning jink | 08:11 |
| jink | 'sup? :) | 08:13 |
| lotuspsychje | almost goto work : ( | 08:14 |
| jink | Awwwwwwwwwwwww | 08:16 |
| jink | -6 with you as well? | 08:16 |
| lotuspsychje | yeah its freezing all week | 08:17 |
| jink | Same here. | 08:17 |
| jink | Frozen floofs in the backyard. :P | 08:17 |
| lotuspsychje | -14 in deeper belgium | 08:17 |
| jink | Dafuq. O__o | 08:17 |
| ducasse | -17 expected here tomorrow and thursday | 08:26 |
| lotuspsychje | yikes | 08:28 |
| lotuspsychje | ok prepare for work here guys | 08:30 |
| lotuspsychje | cu tonight | 08:30 |
| lotuspsychje | have a nice (cold) day :p | 08:30 |
| BluesKaj | Hi folks | 14:23 |
| jink | Hey Kaj. | 14:30 |
| BluesKaj | Hi jink | 14:34 |
| lotuspsychje | good evening to all | 17:22 |
| OerHeks | 20:58 | |
| pauljw | hi everyone | 21:06 |
| daftykins | good evening \o | 21:06 |
| pauljw | :) | 21:06 |
| tomreyn | hey TJ, do you still remember the set of commands you suggested to me ad an alternative to my apt-show-versions wrapper? | 21:21 |
| tomreyn | looks like i forgot to make a note. but it was much better than my approach. | 21:22 |
| tomreyn | i.e. the better alternative to https://github.com/tomreyn/scripts/blob/master/foreign_packages you came up with | 21:22 |
| tomreyn | hmm actually ubuntu-support-status --list-unsupported now does something quite similar. and maybe better. | 21:24 |
| TJ- | tomreyn: let me look | 21:27 |
| TJ- | tomreyn: would it be this? https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/8Ct9dQ6Xzp/ | 21:35 |
| tomreyn | TJ-: thanks! this doesn't seem to ever quit here (16.04), though | 21:41 |
| TJ- | tomreyn: I'll test it here | 21:42 |
| TJ- | on an installed system there will be a lot to go through; I'm testing in a container | 21:44 |
| TJ- | tomreyn: not surprised it takes a while "apt-cache pkgnames | wc -l" generates over 60K lines | 21:47 |
| TJ- | tomreyn: the point was to detect orphaned packages wasn't it? (I assume since the irc log command ends with "grep -v http" | 21:48 |
| tomreyn | TJ-: yes, orphaned packages, but also packages whose version # mismatches the one available from the current apt sources (i.e. is higher) | 21:49 |
| TJ- | tomreyn: Ahh, well the IRC command is only going to find orphaned, but it is searching the entire archive list :D | 21:50 |
| TJ- | maybe you need an additional filter to only 'madison' the installed packages | 21:50 |
| tomreyn | looks like | 21:52 |
| tomreyn | thanks for digging this up in your logs :) | 21:53 |
| TJ- | tomreyn: this is more like it to only list the installed packges "apt-cache madison $( cut -d / -f 1 <(apt list --installed 2>/dev/null) | sort -b )" | 22:03 |
| TJ- | I like how madison's output is the pachage followed by any dependencies... not sure if that causes duplicates though; if so, will need another sort possibly with the -u option, or fed through uniq | 22:05 |
| tomreyn | TJ-: hmm this lists many packages i dont have installed (indented) | 22:20 |
| tomreyn | maybe those are virtual | 22:21 |
| TJ- | tomreyn: oh, I wonder if madison is listing recommends and suggests ? can you pick some and check (will help that the depends/recommends/suggests appear to follow the installed package | 22:24 |
| tomreyn | # dpkg -l boost1.58 | 22:26 |
| tomreyn | dpkg-query: no packages found matching boost1.58 | 22:26 |
| tomreyn | !info boost1.58 xenial | 22:27 |
| ubot5` | libboost1.58-all-dev (source: boost1.58): Boost C++ Libraries development files (ALL). In component universe, is optional. Version 1.58.0+dfsg-5ubuntu3.1 (xenial), package size 4 kB, installed size 36 kB | 22:27 |
| tomreyn | so i guess that's virtual | 22:28 |
| tomreyn | so i guess madison lists reverse depends for virtual packages or something | 22:29 |
| daftykins | hmm bot used to say it was meta i thought | 22:29 |
| tomreyn | i asked the bot about "boost1.58", it responded with "libboost1.58-all-dev" | 22:29 |
| TJ- | I wonder if we can filter those out too | 22:30 |
| Bashing-om | tomreyn: Hummm ... " sysop@x1604:~$ apt list boost1.58 >> Listing... Done" . Not in the repo . | 22:30 |
| tomreyn | https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/gj4zhcBGPf/ | 22:31 |
| tomreyn | for filtering out: apt-cache madison $( cut -d / -f 1 <(apt list --installed 2>/dev/null) | sort -b ) | grep '^[^ ]' | sort | uniq | 22:33 |
| tomreyn | the 'sort' may be superfluous | 22:33 |
| TJ- | tomreyn: it looks like the virtual packages are indented by 1 space | 22:33 |
| TJ- | tomreyn: try "apt-cache madison libboost1.58-all-dev" | 22:33 |
| tomreyn | i think so, too | 22:34 |
| TJ- | tomreyn: ahhh no, it's source packages | 22:35 |
| tomreyn | which is why ... grep '^[^ ]' | 22:35 |
| tomreyn | oh right, that makes more sense | 22:35 |
| TJ- | hmmm, could be both... /but/ ... end of the lines we have where it came from "Sources" or "Packages" so that can be used to filter out sources | 22:36 |
| TJ- | oh, the indentation is to try to align columns, and it's right-justifying the package name so inserts the blanks to push the | over | 22:39 |
| TJ- | tomreyn: here's a nicer one apt-cache madison $( cut -d / -f 1 <(apt list --installed 2>/dev/null) | sort -b ) | sed -r '/Sources$/ d; /Packages$/ s/^[[:space:]]*(.*)$/\1/' | 22:52 |
| tomreyn | so to get back to the original question, this would supposedly list only those orphaned packages? apt-cache madison $( cut -d / -f 1 <(apt list --installed 2>/dev/null) | sort -b ) | sed -r '/Sources$/ d; /Packages$/ s/^[[:space:]]*(.*)$/\1/' | grep -v http | 22:55 |
| tomreyn | but it doesn't for me, it returns an empty set. | 22:56 |
| tomreyn | whereas foreign_packages lists several packages as it should be | 22:57 |
| tomreyn | e.g. brscan4:amd64 0.4.4-3 installed: No available version in archive | 22:57 |
| TJ- | well, the grep -v http is supposed to discard all entries without a known download URL... does madison show a URL for those foreign packages? | 22:57 |
| tomreyn | $ apt-cache madison brscan4 | 22:58 |
| tomreyn | $ | 22:58 |
| tomreyn | no output at all | 22:59 |
| TJ- | ahhh, because it isn't found at all. that's weird | 22:59 |
| TJ- | best to stick with what you've got then, and require install of apt-show-versions | 23:00 |
| tomreyn | or use ubuntu-support-status --show-unsupported | 23:02 |
| tomreyn | thanks for your time! | 23:02 |
| TJ- | that last has a major bug I think! | 23:04 |
| tomreyn | which? | 23:04 |
| TJ- | u-s-s | 23:04 |
| tomreyn | i mean what is the bug | 23:05 |
| tomreyn | this? https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/update-manager/+bug/1574670 | 23:06 |
| ubot5` | Ubuntu bug 1574670 in update-manager (Ubuntu Artful) "ubuntu-support-status returns inaccurate information" [High,Fix released] | 23:06 |
| tomreyn | (fixed) | 23:07 |
| nacc | TJ-: yeah it finally got fixed | 23:08 |
| nacc | not sure if it's been backported everywhere or not | 23:08 |
| tomreyn | it was, check the nominated releases | 23:09 |
| tomreyn | so it's not usable by people who don't have the latest updates installed, but once they have, they can use it ;-) | 23:09 |
| nacc | tomreyn: ah cool ( i just ahdn't chekced) | 23:10 |
| tomreyn | actuall yi lied, it's not in 12.04 ESM | 23:10 |
| nacc | tomreyn: heh | 23:10 |
| tomreyn | but all other supported releases got a backport | 23:11 |
| tomreyn | :) | 23:11 |
| TJ- | I don't see it | 23:12 |
| TJ- | which version are you referring to in 16.04? update-manager (1:16.04.12) xenial-security; urgency=medium | 23:13 |
| nacc | it was fixed in .11 per the bug | 23:15 |
| TJ- | it failed her just now | 23:16 |
| nacc | TJ-: i would comment in the bug, as i expect it's assumed to be working :) | 23:16 |
| tomreyn | wait, did the patch not get distributed? | 23:17 |
| tomreyn | i patched it locally here with the patches posted on the bug tracker and those seem to work correctly | 23:17 |
| tomreyn | but i didn't check whether the version distributed is patched | 23:18 |
| TJ- | excuse all the powerline terminal codes but http://paste.ubuntu.com/p/rKfTfx9s2D/ | 23:19 |
| TJ- | the changelog quotes that bug report (LP: #1574670 | 23:20 |
| ubot5` | Launchpad bug 1574670 in update-manager (Ubuntu Artful) "ubuntu-support-status returns inaccurate information" [High,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1574670 | 23:20 |
| tomreyn | can you say what seems to be wrong about the output? i'm not getting it | 23:22 |
| tomreyn | like, those "no longer downloadable" packages are porbably no longer downloadable, and the "unsupported" packages may well be unsupported? | 23:23 |
| TJ- | it reports as "not downloadable" for e2fslibs (whereas apt-cache policy e2fslibs shows its there) and not supported for apt-file amongst many others | 23:23 |
| TJ- | e2fslibs is in main; apt-file is in universe | 23:24 |
| tomreyn | your e2fslibs version is a mnewer version than what is available on the apt archives you have configured | 23:24 |
| nacc | TJ-: your e2fslibs fversion is not hte ubuntu one | 23:24 |
| nacc | :) | 23:24 |
| TJ- | wow, yes, well spotted! where the heck did that come from I wonder... tomreyn get your script working!! | 23:25 |
| tomreyn | so that's actually a 'foreign package' in my definition of that term | 23:25 |
| nacc | heh | 23:26 |
| nacc | i'm wondering about unsupported | 23:26 |
| TJ- | nacc: how about apt-file though, is 'unsupported' because it's in universe | 23:26 |
| tomreyn | yes | 23:26 |
| TJ- | that's a pretty poor definition if so | 23:26 |
| nacc | it should be community not unsupported | 23:26 |
| nacc | i wonder if it's due to stale distro-info-data | 23:27 |
| nacc | or buggy | 23:27 |
| tomreyn | well there is no guarantee for support, it's the security team's perspective on things | 23:27 |
| nacc | TJ-: i'll try and dig into later, need to run errands | 23:27 |
| TJ- | dnsmasq in that list too, definitely looks very wrong | 23:27 |
| nacc | 'unsupported' is emitted when it can't find a component | 23:27 |
| nacc | so that's a bug | 23:27 |
| nacc | TJ-: put a comment in the bug and i'll make sure the right folks see it | 23:28 |
| tomreyn | i only have dnsmasq-base installed, not dnsmasq | 23:28 |
| TJ- | nacc: I'll generate a clean log file first and attach it | 23:29 |
| TJ- | I think -base is for the NM dependency isn't it? | 23:29 |
| tomreyn | dnsmasq-base -> main whereas dnsmaq -> universe | 23:29 |
| tomreyn | i think so, yes | 23:30 |
| tomreyn | 'apt-cache rdepends dnsmasq-base' lists network-manager amongst many other | 23:30 |
| TJ- | yes, it's a split-component, service in dnsmasq, executable in -base (for NM) | 23:31 |
| tomreyn | https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam/FAQ#Official%20Support discusses the policies on components | 23:32 |
| TJ- | Choice of words is very poor - we've got multiple extremely different meanings for "supported" - Canonical paid support, actively upgraded packages (main), possibly upgraded (universe) and IRC/Askubuntu/forums (basically everything in the archive!) | 23:32 |
| tomreyn | yes, i agree a better wording + distincion would be an improvement there | 23:33 |
| tomreyn | but generally i'm very happy that it works at all again. | 23:34 |
| tomreyn | there should probably separate outputs for "comunity supported" vs "unsupported / support policy could not be determined" | 23:35 |
| TJ- | I think the supported word is a bad choice... 'support' implies help is available. "maintained" would be a better choice for upgrade/patch policy "canonical mantained" "community maintained" | 23:36 |
| TJ- | ahhh, my e2fsprogs was a self-build to include some advanced features Ubuntu lacks | 23:37 |
| tomreyn | right, worth a feature request i guess | 23:37 |
| TJ- | I added shingled drive support to the ext4 driver and needed the support in e2fsprogs | 23:39 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!