[08:58] <RikMills> jibel: is there really a fix committed for LP: #1901137 ?
[08:59] <RikMills> or is that wrongly marked
[09:25] <jibel> RikMills, no it is not
[09:26] <jibel> that's why I set it back to triaged
[09:52] <xnox> jibel:  commented on that bug. Have you managed to create a reproducer for it? It looks like everyone from dupes has dual-boot/tripple boot installs?
[09:52] <xnox> (aka attempting to add one more ubuntu, onto win+ubuntu combo?)
[09:52] <xnox> it's not clear if they are trying to replace old ubuntu with new, or something else?
[09:54] <jibel> xnox, no not yet, I've been busy with something else. Yeah the initial setup is not clear yet. Often there are several disks, other OSes installed in legacy mode and it seems they're trying to replace one of them with 20.10
[09:54] <jibel> I'll comment on the bug once I reproduce
[09:54] <jibel> the bug
[14:00] <seb128> RAOF (or someone else from SRU), any chance to review bug #1896073 again, I've answered the questions there
[15:13] <adiroiban> hi. is this the right place to request an update to the openssl library?
[15:13] <adiroiban> I hit this issue with PyPY3 on Ubuntu 20.04 and openssl/cryptography https://github.com/pyca/cryptography/issues/5521#issuecomment-717293145
[15:13] <adiroiban> Ubuntu 20.04 has openssl 1.1.1f  ... the issue is not observed with 1.1.1h  --- and most probably it was fixed here https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/35bb0e44c6168facbb3acedbc7d4f2dcbdd65224
[15:21] <cjwatson> xnox: ^ maybe?
[15:30] <xnox> opened https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/openssl/+bug/1901723 to track this.
[15:31] <cjwatson> Thanks
[15:45] <rbasak> xnox: FWIW, I'm dubious about backporting a bunch of refactoring that inadvertently fixes a bug and prefer to see just the bugfix. But I accept that needs weighing up against the risk of getting it wrong.
[17:45] <bdmurray> Why doesn't apt-get source work w/ bind9-libs?
[17:45] <bdmurray> Picking 'bind9' as source package instead of 'bind9-libs'
[17:50] <bdmurray> niedbalski: Can we talk about bug 1872118? I'm confused about how isc-dhcp-server would get fixed given that there is no relationship afaict between isc-dhcp and bind9-libs.
[17:53] <rbasak> bdmurray: it's confusing. bind9-libs is a binary package built from src:bind9 that depends on packages built by src:bind9-libs
[17:53] <bdmurray> then why is there a source package listing for it in LP?
[17:53] <bdmurray> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/bind9-libs/
[17:53] <rbasak> The source package does exist
[17:53] <rbasak> And is used
[17:54] <rbasak> But the binary package with the same name comes from a different source package
[17:54] <rbasak> Maybe "apt-get source" expects a binary package name and maps it to the source itself? The manpage isn't clear to me.
[17:55] <rbasak> Ah
[17:55] <rbasak> I think you want "apt-get --only-source bind9-libs"
[18:12] <bdmurray> niedbalski: I'm sorted now.
[18:12] <blackboxsw> bdmurray: related to the now stale convesation we had about broken translations in update-notifier package, I just filed a bug and a potential remedy so that debconf-updatepo "works" now on update-notifier: master. I'm not sure if that's the right approach or not, but wanted your input: https://code.launchpad.net/~chad.smith/update-notifier/+git/update-notifier/+merge/392896
[18:13] <blackboxsw> oops and force-pushed updated changelog version
[19:20] <niedbalski> bdmurray: oh sorry, late to the party, but seems you figured it out , isn't?
[19:27] <xnox> rbasak:  openssl stable point releases are odd..... stable fixes that all distros ship they don't take; and then new "features" that fix standard compliance and change interop they do take. Every bug / backport is very case by case with openssl, sadly =( i think there is someone that relies on every quirk in it =)
[19:38] <blackboxsw> waveform: heya, I saw you may have been related to uploading update-notifier for groovy rev  3.192.34 ... to which branch did you propose updates?  I'm confused that I see that commit in git-ubuntu clone update-notifer (pkg/ubuntu/devel) branch (and released to groovy) but not on the master branch https://code.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-core-dev/update-notifier/+git/update-notifier/+ref/master
[19:43] <blackboxsw> I had the impression that commits would have to hit the master branch, and then queue uploads for groovy separately.  I guess I was trying to dig into what branches/commits might exist which delivered the fix for https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/update-notifier/+bug/1836475
[19:45] <waveform> blackboxsw, I think bdmurray just uploaded from the PPA - no mp
[19:46] <blackboxsw> thanks waveform. I saw your ppa and couldn't find the rest of the breadcrumbs containing the commit (other than directly in git-ubuntu pkg branches). As I'm trying to add a followup which will ultimately collide with the existing deb pkg versioning:  https://code.launchpad.net/~chad.smith/update-notifier/+git/update-notifier/+merge/392896
[19:47] <blackboxsw> I can rebase my branch off of pkg/ubuntu/devel (groovy) at the moment and include your changeset, but I still feel we have a gap in commits due to master not containing your changeset
[19:47] <waveform> apologies, that was probably before I figured out cloning launchpad stuff without git-ubuntu (no arm build, and I'm working from a pi currently)
[19:48] <blackboxsw> I found another commit by Andreas that also fell into the same camp (added to pkg/ubuntu/focal) but not pulled into master
[19:49] <blackboxsw> waveform: I think there might just a policy unclarity on this pkg, so I'll try to iron that out while touching that to support ubuntu-advantage-tools needs
[19:49] <blackboxsw> the way this particular pkg is organized doesn't quite make sense to me at the moment :) So, we'll remedy. thanks again.
[19:51] <blackboxsw> the way this particular *project branches are* organized  upstream vs git-ubuntu branches is what is confusing, or seems partially migrated. Which is why I'm confused when I put up pull requests.