[05:08] good morning to all [05:20] morning EriC^^ [05:21] morning lotuspsychje [05:21] had a nice weekend EriC^^ ? [05:21] yeah [05:21] we too, but cold :p [05:22] :D [07:05] Good morning [07:10] good morning [07:13] Hey ducasse [07:13] How are you doing? [07:15] hey ducasse lordievader === lotuspsychje_ is now known as lotuspsychje [07:16] hi lotuspsychje, lordievader. fine here, thanks, how are you guys? [07:16] Hey lotuspsychje_ [07:16] How are you doing? [07:16] Doing good here [07:16] great here tnx [07:19] updating bionic [07:24] https://www.deviantart.com/art/Obscured-732416896 [08:09] :) [08:11] morning jink [08:13] 'sup? :) [08:14] almost goto work : ( [08:16] Awwwwwwwwwwwww [08:16] -6 with you as well? [08:17] yeah its freezing all week [08:17] Same here. [08:17] Frozen floofs in the backyard. :P [08:17] -14 in deeper belgium [08:17] Dafuq. O__o [08:26] -17 expected here tomorrow and thursday [08:28] yikes [08:30] ok prepare for work here guys [08:30] cu tonight [08:30] have a nice (cold) day :p [14:23] Hi folks [14:30] Hey Kaj. [14:34] Hi jink [17:22] good evening to all [20:58] [21:06] hi everyone [21:06] good evening \o [21:06] :) [21:21] hey TJ, do you still remember the set of commands you suggested to me ad an alternative to my apt-show-versions wrapper? [21:22] looks like i forgot to make a note. but it was much better than my approach. [21:22] i.e. the better alternative to https://github.com/tomreyn/scripts/blob/master/foreign_packages you came up with [21:24] hmm actually ubuntu-support-status --list-unsupported now does something quite similar. and maybe better. [21:27] tomreyn: let me look [21:35] tomreyn: would it be this? https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/8Ct9dQ6Xzp/ [21:41] TJ-: thanks! this doesn't seem to ever quit here (16.04), though [21:42] tomreyn: I'll test it here [21:44] on an installed system there will be a lot to go through; I'm testing in a container [21:47] tomreyn: not surprised it takes a while "apt-cache pkgnames | wc -l" generates over 60K lines [21:48] tomreyn: the point was to detect orphaned packages wasn't it? (I assume since the irc log command ends with "grep -v http" [21:49] TJ-: yes, orphaned packages, but also packages whose version # mismatches the one available from the current apt sources (i.e. is higher) [21:50] tomreyn: Ahh, well the IRC command is only going to find orphaned, but it is searching the entire archive list :D [21:50] maybe you need an additional filter to only 'madison' the installed packages [21:52] looks like [21:53] thanks for digging this up in your logs :) [22:03] tomreyn: this is more like it to only list the installed packges "apt-cache madison $( cut -d / -f 1 <(apt list --installed 2>/dev/null) | sort -b )" [22:05] I like how madison's output is the pachage followed by any dependencies... not sure if that causes duplicates though; if so, will need another sort possibly with the -u option, or fed through uniq [22:20] TJ-: hmm this lists many packages i dont have installed (indented) [22:21] maybe those are virtual [22:24] tomreyn: oh, I wonder if madison is listing recommends and suggests ? can you pick some and check (will help that the depends/recommends/suggests appear to follow the installed package [22:26] # dpkg -l boost1.58 [22:26] dpkg-query: no packages found matching boost1.58 [22:27] !info boost1.58 xenial [22:27] libboost1.58-all-dev (source: boost1.58): Boost C++ Libraries development files (ALL). In component universe, is optional. Version 1.58.0+dfsg-5ubuntu3.1 (xenial), package size 4 kB, installed size 36 kB [22:28] so i guess that's virtual [22:29] so i guess madison lists reverse depends for virtual packages or something [22:29] hmm bot used to say it was meta i thought [22:29] i asked the bot about "boost1.58", it responded with "libboost1.58-all-dev" [22:30] I wonder if we can filter those out too [22:30] tomreyn: Hummm ... " sysop@x1604:~$ apt list boost1.58 >> Listing... Done" . Not in the repo . [22:31] https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/gj4zhcBGPf/ [22:33] for filtering out: apt-cache madison $( cut -d / -f 1 <(apt list --installed 2>/dev/null) | sort -b ) | grep '^[^ ]' | sort | uniq [22:33] the 'sort' may be superfluous [22:33] tomreyn: it looks like the virtual packages are indented by 1 space [22:33] tomreyn: try "apt-cache madison libboost1.58-all-dev" [22:34] i think so, too [22:35] tomreyn: ahhh no, it's source packages [22:35] which is why ... grep '^[^ ]' [22:35] oh right, that makes more sense [22:36] 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 [22:39] 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 [22:52] 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/' [22:55] 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 [22:56] but it doesn't for me, it returns an empty set. [22:57] whereas foreign_packages lists several packages as it should be [22:57] e.g. brscan4:amd64 0.4.4-3 installed: No available version in archive [22:57] 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? [22:58] $ apt-cache madison brscan4 [22:58] $ [22:59] no output at all [22:59] ahhh, because it isn't found at all. that's weird [23:00] best to stick with what you've got then, and require install of apt-show-versions [23:02] or use ubuntu-support-status --show-unsupported [23:02] thanks for your time! [23:04] that last has a major bug I think! [23:04] which? [23:04] u-s-s [23:05] i mean what is the bug [23:06] this? https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/update-manager/+bug/1574670 [23:06] Ubuntu bug 1574670 in update-manager (Ubuntu Artful) "ubuntu-support-status returns inaccurate information" [High,Fix released] [23:07] (fixed) [23:08] TJ-: yeah it finally got fixed [23:08] not sure if it's been backported everywhere or not [23:09] it was, check the nominated releases [23:09] so it's not usable by people who don't have the latest updates installed, but once they have, they can use it ;-) [23:10] tomreyn: ah cool ( i just ahdn't chekced) [23:10] actuall yi lied, it's not in 12.04 ESM [23:10] tomreyn: heh [23:11] but all other supported releases got a backport [23:11] :) [23:12] I don't see it [23:13] which version are you referring to in 16.04? update-manager (1:16.04.12) xenial-security; urgency=medium [23:15] it was fixed in .11 per the bug [23:16] it failed her just now [23:16] TJ-: i would comment in the bug, as i expect it's assumed to be working :) [23:17] wait, did the patch not get distributed? [23:17] i patched it locally here with the patches posted on the bug tracker and those seem to work correctly [23:18] but i didn't check whether the version distributed is patched [23:19] excuse all the powerline terminal codes but http://paste.ubuntu.com/p/rKfTfx9s2D/ [23:20] the changelog quotes that bug report (LP: #1574670 [23:20] Launchpad bug 1574670 in update-manager (Ubuntu Artful) "ubuntu-support-status returns inaccurate information" [High,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1574670 [23:22] can you say what seems to be wrong about the output? i'm not getting it [23:23] like, those "no longer downloadable" packages are porbably no longer downloadable, and the "unsupported" packages may well be unsupported? [23:23] it reports as "not downloadable" for e2fslibs (whereas apt-cache policy e2fslibs shows its there) and not supported for apt-file amongst many others [23:24] e2fslibs is in main; apt-file is in universe [23:24] your e2fslibs version is a mnewer version than what is available on the apt archives you have configured [23:24] TJ-: your e2fslibs fversion is not hte ubuntu one [23:24] :) [23:25] wow, yes, well spotted! where the heck did that come from I wonder... tomreyn get your script working!! [23:25] so that's actually a 'foreign package' in my definition of that term [23:26] heh [23:26] i'm wondering about unsupported [23:26] nacc: how about apt-file though, is 'unsupported' because it's in universe [23:26] yes [23:26] that's a pretty poor definition if so [23:26] it should be community not unsupported [23:27] i wonder if it's due to stale distro-info-data [23:27] or buggy [23:27] well there is no guarantee for support, it's the security team's perspective on things [23:27] TJ-: i'll try and dig into later, need to run errands [23:27] dnsmasq in that list too, definitely looks very wrong [23:27] 'unsupported' is emitted when it can't find a component [23:27] so that's a bug [23:28] TJ-: put a comment in the bug and i'll make sure the right folks see it [23:28] i only have dnsmasq-base installed, not dnsmasq [23:29] nacc: I'll generate a clean log file first and attach it [23:29] I think -base is for the NM dependency isn't it? [23:29] dnsmasq-base -> main whereas dnsmaq -> universe [23:30] i think so, yes [23:30] 'apt-cache rdepends dnsmasq-base' lists network-manager amongst many other [23:31] yes, it's a split-component, service in dnsmasq, executable in -base (for NM) [23:32] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam/FAQ#Official%20Support discusses the policies on components [23:32] 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!) [23:33] yes, i agree a better wording + distincion would be an improvement there [23:34] but generally i'm very happy that it works at all again. [23:35] there should probably separate outputs for "comunity supported" vs "unsupported / support policy could not be determined" [23:36] 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" [23:37] ahhh, my e2fsprogs was a self-build to include some advanced features Ubuntu lacks [23:37] right, worth a feature request i guess [23:39] I added shingled drive support to the ext4 driver and needed the support in e2fsprogs