[00:59] bigon: (qa-regression-testing) QRT is a separate test framework, generally used by the Ubuntu Security Team - https://code.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-security/qa-regression-testing/+git/qa-regression-testing - I'm not familiar with the dep8 + QRT intersection but I am guessing it is so dep8 tests can reuse the QRT tests [07:00] amurray: thx === ricab is now known as ricab|lunch [12:31] Hi, I'm new in Ubuntu Development. I've found a little bug reported in subiquity that is actually a string modification. My question is if it is installer - how should I build it and test? Shall I modify somehow installer on live CD? Maybe you have some sites with instructions for that to recommend? I would appreciate your help. [12:59] maks_piechota: mwhudson might be able to help you, but he's in UTC+12 so you may have to wait a while. [13:21] having an issue whilst testing my debian package, --force-confold is not being respected [13:21] $ sudo DEBIAN_FRONTEND=noninteractive dpkg --force-confold -i teleport_4.0.0-rc.4-42-5_amd64_41633__expires-14.49pm-mon-05-aug-2019.deb [13:22] "Installing new version of config file /etc/teleport.yaml ..." [13:23] but the whole point of specifying the "--force-confold" flag is so that it doesn't do that !!!! [13:27] jamespage, LocutusOfBorg o/ - I updated sphinxcontrib-pecanwsme to 0.10.0 that is required by the ironic project [13:27] https://salsa.debian.org/sahid-guest/sphinxcontrib-pecanwsme/tree/debian/unstable [13:27] if one of you can have a look whn a moment [13:27] coreycb: ^ === ricab|lunch is now known as ricab [13:32] dreamcat4: is /etc/teleport.yaml a conffile or is the package using ucf? [13:43] sahid, do you want it on Debian, right? [13:44] you can ask zigo, send him a merge request directly on salsa.d.o [13:44] he is on OFTC/#debian-devel [13:44] LocutusOfBorg: yes then we could just copy the packages in ubuntu i guess [13:44] ok thanks i will do that [13:46] that will be the best and easiest solution [14:07] rbasak: its specified to be a conf file, i checked here: [14:07] https://www.irccloud.com/pastebin/n1Ml8oUY/ [14:08] created the package with fpm, its not using ucf [14:09] Oh [14:09] You're not developing Ubuntu itself then? [14:09] trying to find a -Dxxxx debug level to get some detailed trace of what is happening. but it's not clear which -D flag i should specify. they dont seem to add anything more relevant to the log output [14:09] This channel is for development of Ubuntu itself. [14:10] We don't do fpm here. [14:10] so where do i go for my issue ? [14:10] I'm not sure. [14:10] We understand it's really painful for third parties to make packages outside the distribution that integrate properly. That's why we made snaps. [14:11] Maybe look for fpm community support? [14:11] That's a community that does exactly what you're doing, right? [14:11] There's also #ubuntu-packaging, for making packages _for_ Ubuntu. [14:11] ok thanks [14:11] maybe i should also check the control file too [14:12] but it's kindda beyond me why this isn't some bug in dpkg [14:13] according to its man page anyhow [14:13] I'm pretty sure that we'd have noticed a bug like that in dpkg by now.] [14:13] yeah [14:13] But if you really think there is one, please file it with full steps to reproduce. [14:13] Without using fpm or other unsupported stuff. [14:13] ok then. thanks for your help here today [14:14] bye then [14:31] turned out everything was fine. dpkg just was not logging / saying the decision was when it detected the previous version of the config file had not been edited from the default the old config file [14:32] i guess i can file a bug / enhancement for that [15:34] dreamcat4: I don't think it would be a bug, since it's (IMO) clearly documented to behave that way. Maybe could have clearer logging. [15:35] (I mean, not a bug in the sense of "incorrect behaviour", though maybe an entry in the bug database.)( [15:40] yeah that's what i meant cjwatson - have now filed a request in debian bug tracker for "clearer logging" as you put it [15:40] enhancement / whatever. they can ignore it if they want to [15:43] Sounds reasonable [16:26] tjaalton: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xserver-xorg-video-intel-hwe-18.04/+bug/1838698 [16:26] Launchpad bug 1838698 in xserver-xorg-video-intel-hwe-18.04 (Ubuntu) "Cannot boot ISO unless using nomodeset" [Undecided,New] [17:35] infinity: 64bit works, not too worried.. fossfreedom, attach logs, at least dmesg [17:38] tjaalton: k ... will boot to live session with nomodeset and attach anything I can find ... unless there is a specific way to collect the most useful logs? [17:39] uh [17:39] sorry [17:39] no use for logs with nomodeset [17:40] and with nomodeset you get software emulation, meaning llvmpipe [17:40] Umm ... how do I collect logs during the middle of the boot sequence? [17:41] you'd need to install it, then boot without nomodeset and collect logs from the bad boot afterwards [17:42] Ok will do. Will have to be tomorrow since I am travelling. Thx [21:13] maks_piechota: hi [21:14] maks_piechota: i have this terrible command line for testing changes, one sec [21:14] git diff --no-ext-diff --exit-code && git diff --no-ext-diff --exit-code --cached && sudo ls && git clean -ffdx && snapcraft snap && sudo ~/src/subiquity/scripts/inject-subiquity-snap.sh ~/isos/bionic-live-server-amd64.iso ~/src/subiquity/subiquity*.snap ~/isos/custom.iso && kvm -m 1024 -boot d -cdrom ~/isos/custom.iso -hda ~/images/root.img [21:15] ah this is mostly bundled up into ./scripts/test-this-branch.sh [21:29] er what's the best way to test a change to ubiquity [21:31] i guess i can build it in a ppa, run a live session, add the ppa, upgrade ubiquity from my ppa and then run it?