/srv/irclogs.ubuntu.com/2020/05/22/#ubuntu-devel.txt

=== wgrant_ is now known as wgrant
mwhudsonhuh libgit2 1.0.002:43
=== guiverc2 is now known as guiverc
rbalintxnox, thanks this is TIL :-)10:57
juliankchrisccoulson: do you want to submit the grub patch for bug 1878541 upstream? I think we can discuss it there?11:12
ubottubug 1878541 in grub2 (Ubuntu Groovy) "Grub fails to load kernel from squashfs if mem < 1500mb" [High,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/187854111:12
juliankgrub-devel@gnu.org11:12
juliankchrisccoulson: certainly sounds like the correct approach to me11:12
* juliank can push it upstream too11:12
irreleph4ntHi. Quick question: Does Ubuntu support dbus-broker as a replacement for dbus-daemon? Google yields no useful results for that query. Thank you.11:33
xnoxirreleph4nt:  at the moment, dbus-broker is still experimental and lacks feature parity. For example, whilst basic functionality is available. LSM mitigation are not. Thus using dbus-broker is less secure, than regular dbus.11:35
xnoxand we do use dbus apparmor mitigations by default, to secure leaking information over dbus from host to confined snaps. And vice versa.11:36
irreleph4ntxnox, thank you. So it sounds like using broker instead of daemon currently is anything between discouraged and impossible. Noted. :)11:36
xnoxirreleph4nt:  but otherwise one can experiment/install dbus-broker if one wants to. But you will get to keep both pieces or like help to improve integrating it.11:37
xnoxirreleph4nt:  i wish it was easier to use, but it currently is not.11:37
=== irreleph4nt is now known as Guest7554
irreleph4ntxnox, what you've said gives off the impression though that work is being done to get broker into Ubuntu. Is that right? I found a github issue against dbus which mentions AppArmor. It was raised in 2018 and is open to this day11:41
xnoxirreleph4nt: no, i didn't say anything remotely to that effect.11:46
xnoxirreleph4nt:  i'm not aware of anybody currently working on LSM mitigations in broker.11:46
xnoxcheck with upstream if that has changed. But that's what the status of this was since the inception of the project.11:47
irreleph4ntOkay, noted. Thanks again :)11:47
=== helio|afk is now known as heliocastro
rbasakahasenack: o/ I pinged you in https://github.com/certbot/certbot/issues/7954 but not sure if that means you see it.13:16
ahasenackjust replied13:16
rbasakOh13:16
rbasakThanks :)13:16
ahasenackI saw it13:16
seb128wgrant, hey, any chance you could investigate what's wrong with pulseaudio on riscv? dunno what changed but a test is failing in focal and groovy now, which is annoying because it means the recent SRU with important fixes is getting blocked now :/13:36
seb128though the security update got published with the arch failure it seems13:37
jaltHi, where can I find documentation for subiquity (or ubiquity) unattended installations of 20.04 (#ubuntu-installer points to here)?13:41
coreycbcpaelzer: hi, do you think we could get python3-ironicclient into main as of focal? it's py2 counterpart used to be in main.14:03
coreycbbug 137623814:04
ubottubug 1376238 in python-ironicclient (Ubuntu) "[MIR] python-ironicclient" [High,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/137623814:04
jdstrandriscv64 is considered a 'bonus' architecture for security updates. note, 1:13.99.1-1ubuntu3.1 also ftbfs on riscv64. the security updates was built on top of 1:13.99.1-1ubuntu3 which did build14:07
jdstrandI don't know if it was a toolchain chain. ubuntu3 built, ubuntu3.1 didn't (had part of the sru patch but not security), ubuntu3.2 ftbfs (had the security patch but not the sru patch)14:08
jdstrandtoolchain change*14:08
jdstrandubuntu3.3 and ubuntu5 have both the sru and the security patch14:09
jdstrandfyi seb128 ^14:28
jdstrand(and wgrant ^)14:28
jdstrand('bonus' for focal at this point; presumably some day it will be offical)14:29
seb128jdstrand, thanks14:43

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!