[01:15] xnox: I'm thinking the d-i-requirements seed should just be dropped === guiverc2 is now known as guiverc [10:29] does ubuntu maintain a list / feed of known bug that are yet to be patched ? think of the one that made containers crash host kernel a few weeks ago, so people consumingt his feed would refrain from upgrade [10:33] Piraty: there's a public bug tracker: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu. But many people report bugs that turn out not to be bugs, and there are plenty of low priority bugs that never get patched. So I don't think it'd be useful for the purpose you suggest. [10:33] Too many people argue about the importance of individual bugs for a list to be useful to someone else with different priorities. [10:34] But if there's a particular bug that you care about, then the bug tracker will tell you about the status of that bug. [10:34] known bugs are also in the release notes and these are usually getting fixed fast ... but that is indeed only true for all bugs found *before* release ... [10:38] i'm afraid i'm incompetent on terminology here, regarding "release" . i mean i'm on 22.04 and would like to know before i `apt update && apt upgrade` if possibly run into stuff like https://lwn.net/Articles/899420/ , given it is known / publicly announced and has not yet been patched . (i know , might be unlikely but not impossible) [10:39] release notes are published once 22.04 tagged / branched i assume. are there release notes mid-lifetime of a release ? [10:39] or bug announcements ? [10:40] in a specific plase i could subscribe to [10:40] * place [10:41] on bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu, when clicking on a item to 'order by', i get "Server error, please contact an administrator. OOPS ID:OOPS-8cd4373eb3b28edd752c6a54c7c0d861" [10:58] Open bugs known to affect 22.04: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/jammy/ [10:58] That's a more manageable number. But it's still dependent on people actually marking the bugs, and the accuracy of that list. [12:05] thanks rbasak [15:46] juliank: I was asking about this in #ubuntu and it was suggested I ask you here, I am seeing this dist-upgrade result today on 22.04, with lots of removals that seem to maybe be a relate to the held back phased updates(?), https://pastebin.com/raw/tztEuqmY [15:49] s/be a// [15:57] sil2100: ^ [16:48] oSoMoN: Do you know what 'cannot use snap "firefox": default provider "hunspell-dictionaries-1-7-2004" is missing' from a livefs build failure might be about? https://launchpadlibrarian.net/624942173/buildlog_ubuntu_kinetic_amd64_ubuntu_BUILDING.txt.gz [16:49] bdmurray, yes, that's https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1792006, and we're working on it [16:49] Mozilla bug 1792006 in Core "[snap] Dependency on the hunspell-dictionaries-1-7-2004 content snap breaks building Ubuntu desktop images" [S1, New] [16:50] oSoMoN: ah, thanks! [17:25] oSoMoN: Is there a timeline for getting this sorted? ginggs just reminded me the beta is very soon [17:49] anyone using proposed repo in kinetic kudu? [17:50] The following packages have unmet dependencies: [17:50] gnome-shell-extension-ubuntu-dock : Depends: gnome-shell (< 43) but 43.0-1ubuntu1 is to be installed [17:50] E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages. [17:51] hopefully not, it's not supposed to be used [17:51] need to remove the 3 packages: gnome-shell-extension-ubuntu-dock ubuntu-desktop ubuntu-desktop-minimal [17:52] Using -proposed for the development release of Ubuntu is not recommended [17:53] @bdmurray: for sure we need to accept the consequence before enabled it .. wink .. but just asking the dev here [17:53] * fenris finger cross [17:54] fenris: I'm not sure what kind of answer you are looking for but you've heard from two Ubuntu Core Developers not to use -proposed. [17:57] noted @bdmurray , the answer i might or expect is there will be another build with those related packages will support gnome-shell 43 [18:03] I am looking for a MOTU or core dev to review and sponsor bug 1990562 [18:04] Bug 1990562 in dh-python (Ubuntu) "attempting to diff static library files raises UnicodeDecodeError" [Medium, Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1990562 [18:05] ginggs: ^ this resolves the numpy FTBFS in the test rebuild [18:11] fenris: yes, we already know about the ubuntu-dock issue & will fix it. But even the devs don't run proposed during the development release [18:15] bdmurray, yes, I'm hoping for a fix to land tomorrow, Monday at the latest [18:16] nteodosio is working on the fix [18:19] oSoMoN: ack, thanks [18:20] thanks @jbicha [18:29] oSoMoN: do you want to push an older firefox to the latest/stable/ubuntu-22.10 channel so that we can keep building ISOs until it's fixed? [18:42] enr0n: nice! i suspect that will be picked up in debian quickly and we'll be able to sync [18:46] ginggs: sounds good, I did forward it [18:48] jbicha, I can do that, but that will be an outdated version (CVE-wise) [19:03] oSoMoN: I just thought it would be interesting practice since I don't think we've used the distro series channel before. But it sounds like the fix will be soon so either way. [21:04] bdmurray: see the earlier discussion about python3 phased updates causing users problems on jammy. Should we fully phase python3* [21:07] or set the phasing to 0% temporarily? [21:08] users can avoid this problem by running `sudo apt upgrade` instead of blindly running `sudo apt dist-upgrade` and not paying attention [21:08] I was able to reproduce the problem by changing my /etc/machine-id to something that triggered the right mismatched phasing [21:10] jbicha: actually modifying the phasing will require an AA e.g. vorlon [21:14] fully phasing it seems better than the alternative though [21:21] I opened bug 1990586 [21:21] Bug 1990586 in python3.10 (Ubuntu) "22.04: python3* mismatched phasing breaks dist-upgrades" [Critical, Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1990586 [21:28] thanks [22:02] bdmurray, jbicha, juliank: yes, python3.10 / python3-defaults / python3-stdlib-extensions phased to 100% [23:47] vorlon: this feels like something you might know off the top of your head https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/shim/+bug/1990326 [23:47] Launchpad bug 1990326 in shim (Ubuntu) "ubuntu server 20.04.5 cannot be installed after enable secure boot" [Undecided, New]