[01:24] <eangulo> I am searching for devs so I came here. I have modeled a 32bit computer with logisim and have working pseudo-assy compiler. Thinking on next step I want to use a real compiler that, in this state of development, must generate my own pseudo-assy. Is that possible? See it working: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpXJ4YQjSkt5EWqJIXcYN9w
[07:23] <LocutusOfBorg> hello juliank ... feature request...
[07:23] <LocutusOfBorg> E: Type 'deb[trusted=yes]' is not known on line 3 in source list /etc/apt/sources.list
[07:23] <LocutusOfBorg> can we please have apt working also when I forget to put the space? :)
[07:24] <LocutusOfBorg> or having a better error message might help too ;)
=== Unit193 is now known as Guest71156
[07:49] <tseliot> slangasek, bdmurray: hey, can you approve ubuntu-drivers-common in LP: #1778011 , please? It's blocking my SRU.
[07:49] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 1778011 in ubuntu-drivers-common (Ubuntu Bionic) "SRU: PRIME Power Saving mode draws too much power" [High,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1778011
[07:59] <andrewsh> jbicha: fwiw, that patch alone doesn’t fix all issues Unity has
[07:59] <andrewsh> but only the most notable ones
[09:06] <andrewsh> juliank: could you please remove old/unnecessary patches from wpa?
[09:06] <andrewsh> e.g. debian/patches/session-ticket.patch
[09:06] <andrewsh> or android_hal_fw_path_change.patch
[09:07] <andrewsh> or CONFIG_ANDROID_HAL
[09:07] <andrewsh> I don’t think Android support is used these days by anyone
[09:29] <realitix> Hello Ubuntu team. Can someone merge this patch for Xenial: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/tomcat8/+bug/1644144
[09:29] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 1644144 in tomcat8 (Ubuntu Xenial) "Tomcat 8.0.32 has ClassLoader Issues" [Medium,In progress]
[09:29] <realitix> Thanks a lot
[09:32] <rbasak> realitix: it can be done, but it looks like nobody responded to nacc's request to test his trial fix.
[09:33] <rbasak> If nobody can be bothered to test our work, then I'm not sure it's worth spending the time on fixing it.
[09:33] <realitix> I have a client that can test it
[09:34] <realitix> What is the procedure to test the fix ?
[09:35] <rbasak> Please use nacc's PPA that he linked in the bug.
[09:35] <realitix> ok, I will tell my client to do it, are you sure the ppa is for xenial ?
[09:37] <rbasak> https://launchpad.net/~nacc/+archive/ubuntu/tomcat8v2/+packages says Xenial
[09:38] <rbasak> Note that the current PPA version will be a downgrade and will undo security fixes, so use it for testing only
[09:38] <rbasak> If it is confirmed to still work, then it'll need rebasing on top of the security fixes
[09:39] <rbasak> Then tested again. And then we can look into releasing it officially
[09:39] <realitix> ok thanks
[09:44] <gpunk> bumblebee broken on ubuntu?
[09:48] <sarnold> gpunk: what bug number? perhaps someone can suggest something
[09:49] <gpunk> I dont have in mind the bug number, i am using 18.10
[09:49] <gpunk> i found it broken on 18.04 too
[10:20] <juliank> andrewsh: I don't know
[10:20] <juliank> LocutusOfBorg: um
[10:21] <juliank> LocutusOfBorg: We do need better parsers for everything in apt
[10:23] <juliank> andrewsh: The Android HAL is probably used by ubports
[10:23] <juliank> session ticketing patch idk
[10:23] <cyphermox> ubports?
[10:23] <juliank> Also we're frozen
[10:23] <cyphermox> it tended to be used for the phone IIRC.
[10:23] <juliank> cyphermox: yes
[10:23] <juliank> cyphermox: ubports are maintaining ubuntu phone
[10:24] <cyphermox> eh
[10:24] <andrewsh> juliank: session ticketing definitely not needed anymore
[10:24] <andrewsh> juliank: ubports could ship the patch themselves?
[10:24] <juliank> andrewsh: Does it do harm?
[10:24] <juliank> Is it wise to drop it weeks before the release?
[10:24] <andrewsh> juliank: umm… why ship extra patches with no purpose?
[10:24] <juliank> because we're close to release
[10:25] <andrewsh> mm, okay…
[10:25] <cyphermox> andrewsh: I tend to agree session ticketing is perhaps not needed
[10:25] <cyphermox> OTOH, if it's not clearly busted, we probably best avoid changing wpa
[10:26] <cyphermox> I'm no longer really in any position to test WPA enterprise, for one thing
[10:26] <cyphermox> oh
[10:26] <cyphermox> actually, that's not quite true, I could set it up at home easier now.
[10:28] <cyphermox> andrewsh: I'm +1 on dropping the patches when we're not frozen and after checking that the android HAL is no longer necessary (but I suspect it always will be, because android hardware tends to have half-baked badly written drivers with tons of missing features that make them unsuitable to being included in a real kernel
[10:29] <andrewsh> cyphermox: the bug in question has been fixed ages ago in a different way as I remember
[10:29] <cyphermox> ie. proper firmware loading, proper rfkill, etc.
[10:29] <cyphermox> ah?
[10:29] <cyphermox> re ticketing or android?
[10:29] <andrewsh> it's not android-specific
[10:31] <andrewsh> cyphermox: well, but if Ubuntu doesn't run on Android hardware anymore, and UBports build their own packages anyway, why can't they ship wpa with Android things enabled?
[10:31] <cyphermox> the android patch did use android-specific APIs to get/change fw path
[10:31] <andrewsh> (btw I do agree re freeze, I didn't know it is on now)
[10:31] <cyphermox> I don't think they do anything that isn't in the ubuntu archive?
[10:31] <andrewsh> oh
[10:31] <cyphermox> tbh, I don't know
[10:31] <andrewsh> I thought they run a separate packaging infra
[10:31] <cyphermox> fwiw, I'm not particularly proud of that patch, I'll be happy when it dies
[10:32] <andrewsh> oh, it was you who wrote it :)
[10:32] <tdaitx> cjwatson: I added you to 2 merge proposals (xenial and bionic sru) for initramfs-tools as it includes the sync change
[10:32] <tdaitx> wouldn't mind another pair of eyes looking over the old-dkms change as well if you happen to have the time ;-)
[10:32] <cyphermox> I prefer when the evidence of my ugly hacks don't stick around indefinitely ;)
[11:40] <mwhudson> cyphermox: just waiting until all current LTSes are EOL is hardly indefinite!!
[11:44] <doko> didrocks: you started with LP: #1709164, today I was called out to not process this further. Please could you follow-up on that, setting it to Committed if appropriate?
[11:44] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 1709164 in bubblewrap (Ubuntu) "[MIR] bubblewrap" [High,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1709164
[12:31] <bluesabre> Is anybody familiar with how the live session gdm doesn't ask (and knows not to ask) for a password? I'd like to do the same with lightdm-gtk-greeter and xubuntu
[12:34] <jbicha> bluesabre: casper package, scripts/casper-bottom/15autologin , there is also an adjustment in 25adduser
[12:35] <bluesabre> jbicha: excellent, thanks!
[15:57] <teward> doko: jbicha: can you confirm whether exim (who technically owns PCRE2 supposedly?) supports PCRE2 over PCRE3?
[15:58] <teward> doko: jbicha: http://mailman.nginx.org/pipermail/nginx-devel/2018-September/011448.html is why I asked - I don't think PCRE2 is actually 'supported' everywhere...
[16:02] <jbicha> I'm not really working on getting old pcre out of main (and I would be surprised if that happened before 20.04 LTS), I just want the new pcre in
[16:05] <teward> jbicha: is there any reason to not have both in `main`?
[16:05] <teward> other than the headaches of "Which do we support"
[16:06] <slangasek> It's not a question of confusion over which we support.  It's a matter that actually supporting them costs, and we seek to avoid code duplication wherever possible.
[16:06] <jbicha> Ubuntu generally only has one of a "thing" in main but there are exceptions. So the question is whether pcre and pcre2 are the same thing or whether an exception is appropriate
[16:07] <jbicha> pcre does have a security vulnerability history so it is going to be some amount of extra work for the Security team
[16:30] <nacc> rbasak: i can rebase it at some point, if i'm reminded :)
[23:23] <tsimonq2> rbasak, bdmurray: In hindsight, I believe I politely deferred bug 1773811, but can I get some confirmation that these changes are not suitable for an SRU?
[23:23] <ubottu> bug 1773811 in gazebo (Ubuntu) "[SRU] Missing static libs in the -dev package metadata" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1773811
[23:23] <tsimonq2> (If not a violation of Debian Policy.)