[07:42] <xu-irc0w> hey guys so a quick question. I try to install xubuntu on portable virtual box. it always errors out on installation saying read only directory closer to the end. anyone has clue why? my disc is fixed size 45 gb
[07:46] <xu-irc0w> i have logs but im unsure whether they contain any private info i should cut out before sharing
[15:13] <bodiccea> I am burning xubuntu 20-04.1. I noticed that there is no checksum (MD5 or SHA) for the ISO image. They exist for the 20.04 ISO. I checked two mirrors (France, USA). I am not sure how to report that. Any idea ?
[15:20] <tomreyn> bodiccea: where did you download from?
[15:20] <tomreyn> i see checksums at http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/xubuntu/releases/20.04.1/release/
[15:21] <tomreyn> oh, but indeed only the SHA256sum file was updated, because the other ones are no longe rconsidered proper hashing methods
[15:21] <bodiccea> France mirror: http://ftp.free.fr/mirrors/ftp.xubuntu.com/releases/20.04/release/. I checked also US mirror: http://mirror.us.leaseweb.net/ubuntu-cdimage/xubuntu/releases/20.04/release/
[15:22] <bodiccea> tomreyn, your mirror shows the same as mine: MD5 and SHA are for 20-04, not 20-04.1
[15:22] <tomreyn> http://ftp.free.fr/mirrors/ftp.xubuntu.com/releases/20.04/release/SHA256SUMS looks good to me
[15:23] <tomreyn> http://mirror.us.leaseweb.net/ubuntu-cdimage/xubuntu/releases/20.04/release/SHA256SUMS also
[15:23] <bodiccea> Just check files dates, checksums cannot have been done in April, while 20-04.1 were made in July
[15:23] <tomreyn> i did
[15:23] <tomreyn> you're referring to MD5SUMS* and SHA1SUMS*
[15:23] <bodiccea> your last link is 20.04, not 20-04.1
[15:24] <tomreyn> are you referring to the "20.04" in the urll?
[15:24] <bodiccea> I refer to both.
[15:24] <bodiccea> My URL has links to both images (20-04", and "20-04.1".
[15:25] <tomreyn> please do this:   curl https://mirror.us.leaseweb.net/ubuntu-cdimage/xubuntu/releases/20.04/release/SHA256SUMS
[15:25] <bodiccea> Your URL too, and your URL too has only 20-04 checksums
[15:25] <tomreyn> what is the output you see?
[15:26] <tomreyn> there should be two lines of output, you can paste them here
[15:26] <tomreyn> if it's more than two, please use a pastebin
[15:26] <bodiccea> MD5SUMS: c8977ce50d175dfce8e309dcaef8f1b3 *xubuntu-20.04-desktop-amd64.iso
[15:27] <tomreyn> that's the output the above command provides?
[15:28] <bodiccea> No, yours has 2 lines.
[15:28] <tomreyn> maybe you just missed this line (the third i wrote in response to you):
 oh, but indeed only the SHA256sum file was updated, because the other ones are no longe rconsidered proper hashing methods
[15:29] <adder`> seems like this still hasn't been solved? https://askubuntu.com/questions/1230959/power-management-issues-on-xubuntu-20-04
[15:29] <bodiccea> tomreyn, it means the links provided in https://xubuntu.org/download are not good mirrors.
[15:30] <tomreyn> bodiccea: i agree that the MD5SUM and SHA1SUM files should be removed off all mirrors, to prevent confusion, if that's what you're suggesting.
[15:31] <bodiccea> Whatever, I checked only 2 methods, SHA1 and MD5SUM, which wwre wrong. Did not check SHA256.
[15:32] <bodiccea> The checksums should either be updated or removed, yes.
[15:33] <tomreyn> bodiccea: i suggest bringing it up in #xubuntu-devel
[15:34] <tomreyn> i previously brought this up about a week ago, but i don'T remember where exactly or whom i talked to then.
[15:34] <tomreyn> and it may not have been xubuntu folks
[15:34] <bodiccea> You did on #xubuntu-devel ?
[15:35] <tomreyn> i do not remember
[15:36] <tomreyn> it won't hurt if you repeat it.
[15:42] <tomreyn> adder`: did you or someone else file a bug report about it, yet?
[15:42] <adder`> tomreyn, no, can you direct me to a place where i can file a bug?
[15:43] <tomreyn> on your computer, you can run: ubuntu-bug linux
[15:44] <tomreyn> it's good practice to check https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux for similar reports, though
[15:45] <adder`> thanks
[15:47] <bodiccea> thanks tomreyn. The good news is that the ISO I burnt has the correct checksum :)
[15:47] <adder> m, it just sent my specs somewhere?
[15:50] <tomreyn> adder: ubuntu-bug will gather some relevant logs from your system and post them to the bug tracker
[15:51] <tomreyn> it should also open a form to post a bug report (and link it to these logs) in your web browser
[15:51] <tomreyn> where you'd need to login with your ubuntu sso login.
[15:51] <tomreyn> (or create one, if none, yet)
[15:52] <tomreyn> i don't think the logs it uploads are available to anyone other than the system administrators, probably not even the developers, until you logged in and posted the bug report
[16:30] <adder> thanks, tomreyn, didn't notice it opened the page, browser was on another workspace
[16:30] <adder> filed
[16:41] <tomreyn> adder: your mainboard firmware ("BIOS") is old, you should look for a current one.
[16:43] <adder> tomreyn, ok, let's google
[16:43] <tomreyn> https://www.asus.com/Motherboards/PRIME-A320M-K/HelpDesk_BIOS/   current: Version 5602 2020/07/27   you have: Version 5207 2019/08/30
[16:46] <tomreyn> looking at your dmesg, the main problem seems to be with rtl8822b
[16:47] <adder> i downloaded new version of bios, but i don't know how to install it since it's a .cap file
[16:53] <tomreyn> adder: kind of out of scope here (try ##hardware), but this is the general approach: https://www.asus.com/support/FAQ/1008859/
[16:56] <tomreyn> basically: create mbr partition table on usb attached storage, create ~2 GB partition, create fat32 file system on this partition, copy the .CAT file there. then reboot , eter bios setup, use the ez-flash utility to look for the bios upgrade file (.cat) and apply it.
[17:14] <adder> tomreyn, no luck :( i updated it, and it turned off, but it took a bit longer to turn back on again, but the problem persists
[17:14] <adder> re rtl thing, isn't that like some network thingy?
[17:19] <adder> i think that's my new wifi adapter
[17:19] <adder> (the problem dates way earlier)
[17:38] <adder> so i plugged in vga instead of hdmi and it works
[18:14] <bodiccea> My system currently boots the BIOS way (GPT partitions). I will create a second bootable disk, mostly by copying the first one and changing some stuff, fstab, etc... But I would like the second one to be able to boot the UEFI way. I would like to know what are the steps (beside having the FAT EFI partition) to do this. Googling on the subject did not help a lot...
[18:25] <diogenes_> bodiccea, just switch BIOS in UEFI mode and proceed with installation.
[18:25] <bodiccea> The plan being no re-install. No reboot.
[18:26] <bodiccea> From my current system, I would like to create an UEFI bootable disk.
[18:27] <diogenes_> if it's MBR then it most likely won't work.
[18:29] <bodiccea> I can do what I want on second disk. No MBR then.
[18:30] <diogenes_> if UEFI is not on then grub won't detect an UEFI system and won't create the efi binary.
[18:32] <bodiccea> UEFI is just a partitioning type, nothing special on disk, beside that. AFAIU.
[18:32] <bodiccea> I mean an "EFI" VFAT" partition in a GPT disk.
[18:33] <bodiccea> s/VFAT/FAT/