[06:15] <cpaelzer> bryceh: so your local build which isn't a full container more a chroot did change your systems time, that sounds wrong :-) Was that reproducible or didn't you try to not mess up the system more?
[06:16] <cpaelzer> as sdeziel said, for real containers you do not have CAP_SYS_TIME which some handle better than others, but if your env was really just a (s)chroot then your case isn't the same
[06:53] <bryceh> cpaelzer, very reproducible.  I created a second fresh lxc container and reproduced it there as well.
[06:57] <cpaelzer> oh so it really was lxd container then
[06:58] <bryceh> correct
[06:58] <cpaelzer> bryceh: any chance we could replace ntpd in that env with chrony (the meant to work and supported ntp server) or at least (more a drop in replacement) ntpsec ?
[06:58] <cpaelzer> the world is about to stop caring for classic ntpd in favor of one or the other
[06:59] <bryceh> do you mean temporarily for testing, or permanently as in the autopkgtest config?
[07:05] <bryceh> cpaelzer, I think my next step will be to redo the merge from scratch and see if it occurs again, or if I can spot where an error crept in.  If that still repro's I'll post the branch for someone else to doublecheck.
[07:06] <cpaelzer> sounds fine if it wasn't a 5 day effort that you are now re-doing :-)
[07:06] <cpaelzer> and I meant temporarily for testing, depending on the outcome we can then make long term decisions
[11:52] <ahasenack> good morning
[11:54]  * kanashiro waves
[14:45] <ahasenack> quick non-scientific poll: do you use ansible on ubuntu server? Or is it too old?
[14:49] <rbasak> I do. I use the version of ansible currently packaged in Focal.
[15:21] <cpaelzer> ahasenack: I'm sure you've seen it, but there is feedback on the FRR MIR
[16:03] <ahasenack> cpaelzer: yes, I saw it in the morning
[16:28] <ahasenack> paride: https://pypi.org/project/ansible/ says latest ansible is 5.2.0, but the github project has "stable-2.X" branches
[16:28] <ahasenack> and there is a split somewhere, ansible-core
[16:28] <ahasenack> can you give a quick tl;dr?
[16:28] <ahasenack> 2.12 seems to be the latest stable, is that? What is 5.2.0 then?
[16:29] <ahasenack> https://groups.google.com/g/ansible-announce/c/Aw5eGIHgpkg <-- announcement for 2.12.1, ansible-core 2.11.7, ansible-base 2.10.16, just a few months old
[16:39] <paride> ahasenack, it seems that they ramped up the versions numbers rather quickly https://groups.google.com/g/ansible-announce/search?q=release
[16:39] <ahasenack> The homepage ansible.com is impossible to use :/
[16:45] <paride> ahasenack, the timeline in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansible_(software) is useful but lacks sources
[16:45] <paride> I mean, lacks references to official sources
[16:46] <ahasenack> and meaning
[16:46] <ahasenack> I see yellow for "extended support" in the legend, but no yellow in the graph
[16:47] <ahasenack> maybe worth asking in their channel
[16:47] <ahasenack> their #topic: " * latest releases: ansible 5.2.0, 2.9.27; ansible-core 2.12.2, 2.11.8; ansible-base 2.10.17; ansible 2.8 is EOL 💀; ansible 2.9 EOL announcement https://groups.google.com/g/ansible-announce/c/kegIH5_okmg/"
[16:48] <paride> maybe https://docs.ansible.com/ansible/devel/reference_appendices/release_and_maintenance.html  explains, reading...
[16:56] <paride> ahasenack, actually the latest NEWS entry helps: https://salsa.debian.org/debian/ansible/-/blob/master/debian/NEWS
[16:58] <ahasenack> is there another source in debian too?
[16:59] <paride> yes, ansible-core
[17:02] <paride> but ansible (2.10.7+merged+base+2.10.8+dfsg-1) they merged ansible-base (= ansible-core) into ansible, for some reason. 
[17:06] <ahasenack> aha, that's what "merged" means in that version
[17:07] <ahasenack> sounds like debian is still experimenting with this
[17:07] <ahasenack> hmml, that is not the experimental one even
[17:21] <ahasenack> it's a huge package, over 200Mb installed
[17:21] <ahasenack> looks like it has tests installed as well
[17:52] <ahasenack> paride: I'm finding that many fixes that were in ansible-core (deb) were not pulled into the new merged ansible package
[17:52] <ahasenack> maybe they were just in experimental at that time, could be
[18:54] <znf> ahasenack, there's a reason ansible folks recommend using ansible from pip :)
[18:55] <ahasenack> pip has 5.2, which from my understanding is a bundle
[18:55] <ahasenack> the core/base bits, and some "curated" playbooks I think
[18:57] <rbasak> znf: that's a really common recommendation from most upstreams. Yet most of us use most of our software from distribution packages :)
[18:59] <znf> some packages have a very fast release/development cycle (like ansible)
[19:00] <znf> and there's a certain point you kinda want the new features :)
[19:02] <rbasak> Every two years, when there's a new LTS out. Then it's on a nice, predictable cadence :)
[19:04] <rbasak> Then it's nicely in phase with the support cycles of the machines I'm actually managing, too. The last thing I want is to find some issue with the playbook of an existing deployment that worked previously because something did a major version bump without coordination, or for me to be unable to reproduce a setup that worked previously.
[19:18] <sergiodj> kanashiro: FWIW https://code.launchpad.net/~sergiodj/britney/+git/hints-ubuntu/+merge/414905
[19:19] <kanashiro> sergiodj, thanks!
[19:20] <sergiodj> after that's processed, there'll be only jekyll
[19:38] <kanashiro> I have jekyll almost fixed locally