[06:49] <mitya57> vorlon: why are you trying to sync python-secretstorage? It is still in main, and jeepney is still in universe.
[06:49] <vorlon> mitya57: because I forgot that's why it wasn't synced and it showed up on merges
[06:49] <mitya57> Ok
[06:50]  * mitya57 should have mentioned that in changelog
[09:24] <mwhudson> xnox: no idea, sorry
[11:34] <xnox> juliank:  Saviq is stuck in a boot loop, where something creates Ubuntu entry, points it at grubx64 and mokmanager is not being booted (it did boot once, but he quit it rather than completing it)
[11:35] <Saviq> o/ juliank - I can boot, but I have to keep the grub entry, hopefully not default
[11:35] <Saviq> And yeah somehow there's nothing resembling mokmanager on my system…
[11:36] <Saviq> Not sure how to add
[11:36] <xnox> once booted,
[11:36] <Saviq> Or is that what mmx is?
[11:36] <xnox> yes it is
[11:36] <xnox> not memory test thing =)
[11:37] <xnox> i think in verbose mode you should be able to use efibootmgr to add a new entry and set it as bootnext
[11:38] <xnox> doko:  server team were already looking at xen mini-transition when i poked them due to auto-tracker detecting it. Also it looks like at https://launchpad.net/~lucaskanashiro/+archive/ubuntu/focal-ruby2.7-transition someone from server team is evaluating ruby2.7 transition.
[11:38] <Saviq> I was able to add it in setup, but it's unsigned…
[11:38] <xnox> sounds wrong, because it is signed
[11:38] <xnox> ah
[11:38] <xnox> well
[11:38] <xnox> one needs to make shim boot mmx
[11:39] <Saviq> Right :)
[11:39] <xnox> there was like a magic config file or variables to make shim boot mm, instead of grub
[11:43] <xnox> Saviq:  can you use mokutil
[11:43] <xnox> and like re-roll it with:
[11:44] <xnox> mokutil --disable-validation
[11:44] <xnox> mokutil --enable-validation
[11:44] <xnox> and after the --disable-validaion go through the whole password, reboot, type password flow
[11:44] <xnox> and again after enable-validation?
[11:47] <Saviq> Trying
[11:48] <Saviq> Got mm to start at least
[11:52] <Saviq> xnox: ok that got me through, thanks!
[11:53] <Saviq> juliank, I'd still like to talk to you about what went wrong here, maybe we can fix?
[12:00] <juliank> Saviq: sure we can do some digging on Monday
[12:00]  * juliank is out today
[12:03] <Saviq> ack!
[12:23] <ahasenack> tjaalton: hi, around? Got a question about your pkcs11 patch on bind9
[12:23] <ahasenack> bug #1565392 for reference
[12:24] <rbasak> Can someone remind me where the script is for email address collection for an election please?
[12:24] <ahasenack> tjaalton: is that still needed by freeipa? Debian dropped that in their 9.12.0 package, stating that there "is a better solution with openssl engines"
[12:43] <tjaalton> ahasenack: 9.12 reimplemented it in some way, I guess. fedora hasn't moved to it yet
[12:43] <tjaalton> just like they haven't moved to > jdk8
[12:43] <ahasenack> tjaalton: but does freeipa need a bind with pkcs11 support?
[12:43] <tjaalton> err, jdk > 8
[12:43] <tjaalton> yes
[12:44] <tjaalton> then again, it got removed from focal, so
[12:44] <ahasenack> and that cannot be achieved via openssl configuration?
[12:44] <ahasenack> ah, that was my next question
[12:44] <ahasenack> freeipa's state in focal
[12:46] <tjaalton> haven't decided if the server will be reuploaded
[12:46] <tjaalton> dogtag got removed and freeipa with it, but jdk8 will be in focal
[12:48] <tjaalton> so experimental has 9.15, you're going to move to it?
[12:48] <ahasenack> no, the package in experimental has too many packaging changes, and looks incomplete
[12:48] <ahasenack> it doesn't have devel libraries
[12:49] <ahasenack> no s ymbols files
[12:49] <ahasenack> (all lib packages were merged into bind9-libs, and no symbols with them)
[12:49] <ahasenack> no export version too, afaik
[12:49] <tjaalton> that was for a reason aiui
[12:49] <tjaalton> but anyway, maybe best to stick to 9.11.x
[12:49] <ahasenack> well, that's the thing
[12:49] <ahasenack> the upcoming 9.16 is their lts release
[12:50] <tjaalton> heh
[12:50] <ahasenack> we could really benefit from moving to it
[12:50] <tjaalton> your call
[12:50] <ahasenack> 9.16 will be released this week or the next
[12:54]  * rbasak finds https://bazaar.launchpad.net/~stefanor/+junk/election-tools/view/head:/voter-addresses.py
[12:57] <Laney> that's the one
[12:57] <tjaalton> ahasenack: I'm not going to block the update. apparently it's not an easy task to port bind-dyndb-ldap over
[12:57] <ahasenack> ah, there's that one
[12:58] <ahasenack> I haven't checked it
[12:58] <ahasenack> and samba, come to think of it
[13:16] <rbasak> 147 email addresses for the poll. 28 people are eligible but don't have an email address published that I can use
[13:17] <rbasak> Some of them are quite active. What have they done in the past? Asked for a poll manually?
[13:18] <Laney> We've previously said "if you don't receive a ballot, ask for one" in the CfV mail. I don't remember ever receiving such a request though, so maybe that's not enough?
[13:20] <rbasak> IMHO it's sufficient to have emailed u-d-a@
[13:20] <rbasak> (with instructions)
[13:20] <rbasak> As long as I don't get inundanted with manual requests. 28 seems rather a lot. But it sounds like that won't be a concern then :)
[13:21] <rbasak> inundanted
[13:21] <rbasak> My fingers seem incapable of typing that
[13:21] <rbasak> inundated
[13:22] <Laney> It does sound high for active uploaders, I'd have expected the GPG thingy to have found email addresses from their keys
[13:22] <rbasak> I disabled the GPG thingy
[13:22] <rbasak> Maybe I shouldn't have
[13:22] <rbasak> But don't we no longer trust SKS keyservers?
[13:23] <Laney> I think it should be OK to query keyserver.u.c with the full fingerprint
[13:23] <Laney> gtg have lunch, sorry
[13:24] <rbasak> The code has keyserver.leg.uct.ac.za hardcoded
[13:30]  * rbasak fights through some Python 2 induced UTF-8 goodness
[13:35] <rbasak> With the keyserver support fix, 28 errored goes down to 2.
[13:35] <rbasak> That's much better
[13:56] <LocutusOfBorg> sunweaver, Missing build dependencies: mate-common (>= 1.24.0-1~)
[13:56] <LocutusOfBorg> mate-common 1.24.0-0ubuntu1
[13:56] <LocutusOfBorg> meh
[14:01] <rbasak> "None of the above" is confusing because it'll appear backwards when people actually vote (on that particular page, "None of the below" would make more sense). What's a better term that doesn't rely on the ordering in which candidates appear?
[14:03] <slashd> rbasak, do you have an example so I can see ?
[14:05] <rafaeldtinoco> depmod: ERROR: ../libkmod/libkmod.c:515 lookup_builtin_file() could not open builtin file '/var/tmp/mkinitramfs_HAauWM/lib/modules/5.4.0-14-generic/modules.builtin.bin'
[14:05] <rafaeldtinoco> are you all getting this ^ for focal as well ?
[14:05] <rafaeldtinoco> (during update-initramfs)
[14:05] <rbasak> slashd: so a quick Google revealed https://civs.cs.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/vote.pl?id=E_7afed1599f666137&akey=09c624659290123f for instance. Imagine if "None" said "None of the above". Try to vote for two of those, and nothing else.
[14:05] <rbasak> (I don't mean that you should actually submit the vote, of course)
[14:06] <rbasak> How about "No further candidates"?
[14:07] <rbasak> Debian typically calls it "Further Discussion" but of course that doesn't make sense here.
[14:07] <slashd> rbasak, I'm good with "No further candidates"
[14:08] <ddstreet> rbasak possibly instead of allowing a vote for 'None' it would be better to clarify voters should use 'no opinion' for anyone they don't want to vote for, e.g. https://civs.cs.cornell.edu/faq.html
[14:08] <ddstreet> adding a 'None' candidate just means that if it wins, the DMB will be short 1 member, right?
[14:08] <rbasak> ddstreet: correct, but multiple people have suggested to me that it will give more credibility to the vote to permit that as an option
[14:09] <rbasak> I don't see it happening that "No further candidates" will rank higher than any of the current candidates, but giving the electorate that option does make sense I guess.
[14:09] <slashd> ddstreet, "no opinion" for me sound I don't care-ish ... while I think the vote should be decisive
[14:09] <ddstreet> i hope 'None' doesn't win then, unless that also adjusts the threshhold for quorum :)
[14:10] <rbasak> I don't think it'll happen, but if it does, I'll ask the TB to decide what to do.
[14:10] <ddstreet> slashd no, the 'no option' is an actual ranking choice in the poll, not a title of something you can vote for
[14:10] <ddstreet> the faq explains it in that first question
[14:11] <slashd> https://civs.cs.cornell.edu/faq.html
[14:11]  * slashd reading
[14:11] <slashd> rbasak, ^^
[14:12] <slashd> "Voters often pick “no opinion” when what they mean is that they don't like the choice or that they don't have any information about it."
[14:12] <rbasak> *If* we want to give the electorate an option to reject a candidate, then I think a "No further candidates" option makes sense to allow the electorate to positively specify that.
[14:13] <rbasak> On the If, there seems to be consensus from the current DMB that we do what to do that.
[14:13] <rbasak> So I intend to go ahead with "No further candidates" rather than enable the no opinion option.
[14:13] <slashd> rbasak, sound good to me
[14:15] <ddstreet> i guess this means there are only 8 candidates ;-)
[14:20] <rbasak> ddstreet: why do you say that?
[14:20] <rbasak> ddstreet: the FAQ "Setting up a poll" question 3 seems to cover this case.
[14:21] <ddstreet> rbasak well i assumed we don't need 'None' option if there are more candidates than open positions
[14:21] <ddstreet> but i suppose 'None' could still win over multiple candidates
[14:21] <rbasak> It could
[14:23] <ddstreet> rbasak option 3 is possible but it's different than just a 'None', if 'Unacceptable' won first place, then effectively the voters would have chosen *nobody* to serve on the DMB
[14:23] <ddstreet> not just 1 member short
[14:23] <ddstreet> anyway, whatever you think is best
[14:24] <slashd> if this case happens we will ask TBD to decide what is the next step ^^^
[14:24] <rbasak> ddstreet: yes. I think that's intentional. It allows the electorate to decide that everyone is unacceptable, which is a valid position to hold and be reflected in the vote.
[14:24] <rbasak> It doesn't help staff the DMB of course, but if that's what the electorate wants... :)
[14:26] <ddstreet> sounds like the entry should be named as suggested then, 'choices ranked below this are unacceptable'
[14:31] <sladen> aka  "None of the above", which is always included on Debian votes
[14:34] <sladen> so you get a result normally like   Alice, Bob, Charlies, None-of-the-above, Drew, Erin, Francis,
[14:39] <rbasak> OK poll created, and announcement sent to u-d-a@
[14:40] <rbasak> Now let's see how many mistakes I made :-/
[14:41] <slashd> rbasak, thanks for the work on this
[14:42] <slashd> rbasak, there is a typo in rafaeldtinoco nickname, but I don't think it's big enough to generate confusion about who he is, ... but prefer to let you know
[14:43] <rbasak> Thanks
[14:43] <rbasak> Sorry rafaeldtinoco!
[14:43] <rafaeldtinoco> lol
[14:43] <rafaeldtinoco> no problem, i just realized that now
[14:43] <rafaeldtinoco> that slashd pointed out
[14:45] <rbasak> I'm going to pull https://code.launchpad.net/~stefanor/+junk/election-tools into a git repository inside ~ubuntu-core-dev or similar. I have a bunch of fixes to the script, port to Python 3, etc. Any other choices for a good team?
[14:49] <rafaeldtinoco> u mean a team to place it ? or a name for a new team ?
[14:49] <rbasak> An existing team to place it
[14:49] <rbasak> Maybe even ~ubuntu-dev actually
[14:50] <rafaeldtinoco> +1 on ubuntu-dev
[14:50] <rbasak> No reason the electorate can't help maintain the script that helps with their own elections
[14:50] <rafaeldtinoco> actually its really transparent =)
[15:01] <sunweaver> LocutusOfBorg: temporary issue...
[15:05] <sunweaver> LocutusOfBorg: I uploaded mate-common 1.24.0-1 to unstable now. Wimpress will see that it syncs over. Then this should be amended.
[15:23] <Laney> oof
[15:23] <Laney> rbasak: I used NOTB before: https://civs.cs.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/results.pl?id=E_7ce24ee3e589e440
[15:23] <Laney> sorry if this is underdocumented, must have escaped my parting brain dump AKA the knowledge base
[15:27] <Laney> would be good to update that while it's fresh :)
[15:28] <Laney> what a great slate of candidates!
[16:10] <LocutusOfBorg> sunweaver, nice!
[16:23] <rafaeldtinoco> bryce: https://code.launchpad.net/~rafaeldtinoco/ubuntu/+source/initramfs-tools/+git/initramfs-tools/+merge/379222
[16:23] <rafaeldtinoco> u think u can +1 this ? its very easy to reproduce and check (if you have time of course)
[16:23] <bryce> rafaeldtinoco, alright, coffee first
[16:23] <rafaeldtinoco> deal
[17:15] <bryce> rafaeldtinoco, it's taking me a while to get kvm set up, I don't usually use kvm...  it's coming up with no network and so I can't run update-initramfs -u
[17:16] <bryce> well, I mean I can run it, but I can't add the ppa before doing so
[17:49] <ahasenack> bryce: tried multipass?
[17:49] <ahasenack> or you need more low level access, like tweak qemu's command line?
[17:50] <bryce> ahasenack, I think I need to set up a bridge network device in NetworkManager
[17:50] <ahasenack> that sounds too complicated to be true
[17:50] <bryce> ahasenack, I know... :-/
[17:50] <ahasenack> if you install libvirt, it creates a virbr0 bridge for you
[17:50] <ahasenack> same if you install multipass, it creates a bridge for you
[17:53] <cpaelzer> why would you create a bridge yourself - do you need a VM that can be reached from the outside?
[17:53] <cpaelzer> bryce: ^^
[17:54] <bryce> cpaelzer, no, I just need to get a kvm vm that can install a ppa
[17:55] <bryce> but I rarely use kvm so the directions I'm googling are confusing
[17:56] <ahasenack> easiest I think is multipass; snap install multipass. multipass launch daily:focal
[17:56] <ahasenack> multipass shell <name-it-gave-you>
[18:08] <bryce> ahasenack, thanks that worked
[18:08] <ahasenack> cool
[18:08] <Saviq> w00t
[18:15] <bryce> rafaeldtinoco, ok, mp looks good, +1 -- https://code.launchpad.net/~rafaeldtinoco/ubuntu/+source/initramfs-tools/+git/initramfs-tools/+merge/379222
[18:16] <rafaeldtinoco> bryce: cool! thx bryce !!
[19:49] <cjwatson> ricotz: Shouldn't these new transitional packages in libreoffice (-gtk2 and -kde4) actually depend on the things they're being transitional to?  As it stands it's not clear that they achieve anything
[19:51] <cjwatson> ricotz: I'll accept them to get things moving, but they look kind of pointless
[22:59] <ahasenack> any idea why apr-util has a build-depends on python:any?
[23:00] <ahasenack> a grep for "python" in the entire source returns only a d/changelog entry saying that the python b-d was annotated with ":any"