[07:03] <eoli3n> Hi
[07:03] <eoli3n> is raharper on IRC ? to talk a min
[07:07] <rbasak> He's rharper here
[07:20] <alkisg> Hi, when flash becomes deprecated next month, will the package be forcefully removed from users due to security concerns (e.g. via a dummy package update)?
[07:20] <alkisg> Do users that need flash need to keep a backup of this package and use apt-mark hold?
[07:37] <tarzeau> do users need flash?
[07:42] <Unit193> I think the answer to that is the same as "Do users still need i386?" :3
[07:47] <alkisg> We have around 20 GB of educational software that is still in use
[07:47] <alkisg> Palemoon promises to keep flash working after 2020, but I guess it'll need the adobe-flashplugin.deb
[07:48] <alkisg> I hear similar situations in other countries
[07:50] <tarzeau> Unit193: no :)
[07:50] <tarzeau> besides i haven't seen any up to date linux running on i386 (maybe i486 still would work, considering it has enough ram)
[07:51] <tarzeau> (i'm aware you probably were just referring to any x86 hardware running in 32bit mode)
[07:51] <tarzeau> and i'm thankful for apple to have actively helped killing flash, and adobe gave it up finally!
[07:54] <eoli3n> hey alkisg o/
[07:54] <eoli3n> thanks rbasak
[07:54] <Unit193> tarzeau: i386 as Debian/Ubuntu define it, yes.
[07:55] <alkisg> hey eoli3n
[07:55] <alkisg> We have around 10.000 pentium 4's running 18.04/32bit here, but no complains there, it's fine
[08:00] <tarzeau> Unit193: where can i read more about their definition? (especiall with details about fpu)?
[08:00] <tarzeau> Unit193: linux itself also has some definition
[08:01] <tarzeau> alkisg: with what gui? (if at all)
[08:01] <tarzeau> alkisg: we used to run some ltsp clients 32bit but now that ltsp changed, we don't have ltsp anymore
[08:01] <alkisg> tarzeau: with ubuntu mate 18.04.5
[08:01] <alkisg> They work fine as fat clients with 1 or 2 GB RAM
[08:02] <alkisg> 1GB is enough for educational programs, while with 2GB they can do actual surfing
[08:02] <tarzeau> are you enabling zram? and nohang?
[08:02] <tarzeau> which web browser do you use?
[08:02] <alkisg> Firefox
[08:02] <alkisg> And chromium-browser
[08:02] <alkisg> No zram, it wastes RAM
[09:31] <eoli3n> rharper https://bugs.launchpad.net/subiquity/+bug/1905731/comments/4
[09:32] <eoli3n> can i mix this with non chrooted command ?
[09:32] <eoli3n> how to run "01_run_shellcmd: ['curtin', 'in-target', '--', 'sh', '-c', *shellcmd]" and others commands in late_commands
[09:38] <eoli3n> if i use that syntax, then i can't use a list anymore, right ?
[09:38] <eoli3n> i need to define a entry for each "group" of commands
[11:48] <mdeslaur> alkisg: I believe the flash binary has a time bomb and will stop working on 2021-01-12: https://www.adobe.com/uk/products/flashplayer/end-of-life.html
[11:49] <mdeslaur> alkisg: so if you're still using flash stuff, I'm afraid you're out of luck unless someone finds a workaround
[11:49] <mdeslaur> but the package is the least of your issues
[11:54] <tarzeau> mdeslaur: setting the time back??
[11:59] <mdeslaur> maybe? I don't know how they implement the check, but perhaps that will work
[11:59] <mdeslaur> they may check the date, or they may be doing an online check with an adobe server, I have no idea
[12:21] <eoli3n> https://bugs.launchpad.net/subiquity/+bug/1907107
[12:51] <alkisg> Thank you mdeslaur, reading...
[13:20] <alkisg> > As of mid-October 2020, users started being prompted by Adobe to  uninstall Flash Player on their machines since Flash-based content will  be blocked from running in Adobe Flash Player after the EOL Date.
[13:21] <alkisg> Heh... I guess we'll have another use for the faketime package :D
[13:28] <alkisg> Last version without a time bomb seems to be 32.0.0.363, https://community.adobe.com/t5/flash-player/flash-player-will-be-blocked-after-2021-time-bomb-proof-price-for-harman-packaged-browser/td-p/11312048?page=1
[13:28] <alkisg> /me tests with version of http://archive.canonical.com/ubuntu/pool/partner/a/adobe-flashplugin/ is lower than that...
[17:05] <Laney> waveform: have you seen https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/proposed-migration/update_excuses.html#ubuntu-meta ? I just noticed this
[17:06] <Laney> Was wondering if we should move those to being installed in livecd-rootfs instead
[17:06] <Laney> or something ...
[17:07] <sil2100> Laney: eh, darn, I mean, we did that via livecd-rootfs previously and now wanted to do it 'properly' by being pulled via the meta packages and seeds
[17:08] <Laney> don't see how that can work
[17:08] <Laney> it doesn't look particularly deliberate either, this just happens to be the first ubuntu-meta upload since we promoted last cycle
[17:09] <Laney> well
[17:11] <Laney> sil2100: I dunno, maybe we could remove restricted from update.cfg in the meta instead, perhaps that would work, not sure if it's a bad idea for some reason
[17:23] <Laney> (all that changes is dropping those two)
[18:49] <kanashiro> vorlon, could you please take a look at the docker.io MP again?
[19:24] <vorlon> kanashiro: acked
[19:26] <vorlon> kanashiro: btw, what should we do about rails autopkgtest regressions?  testsuite grew a dependency on chromium, so uninstallable on ppc64el + s390x, and fails on armhf due to containerization
[19:27] <kanashiro> vorlon, in Debian the maintainers were discussing an alternative today for chromium. See https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=976291
[19:27] <vorlon> \o/
[19:28] <kanashiro> hopefully it will be dropped soon
[22:50] <eoli3n> Hi