[01:15] <vorlon> xnox: I'm thinking the d-i-requirements seed should just be dropped
[10:29] <Piraty> 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] <rbasak> 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] <rbasak> Too many people argue about the importance of individual bugs for a list to be useful to someone else with different priorities.
[10:34] <rbasak> 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] <ogra> 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] <Piraty> 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] <Piraty> release notes are published once 22.04 tagged / branched i assume. are there release notes mid-lifetime of a release ?
[10:39] <Piraty> or bug announcements ?
[10:40] <Piraty> in a specific plase i could subscribe to
[10:40] <Piraty> * place
[10:41] <Piraty> 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] <rbasak> Open bugs known to affect 22.04: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/jammy/
[10:58] <rbasak> 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] <Piraty> thanks rbasak
[15:46] <hawk> 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] <hawk> s/be a//
[15:57] <jbicha> sil2100: ^
[16:48] <bdmurray> 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] <oSoMoN> bdmurray, yes, that's https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1792006, and we're working on it
[16:50] <bdmurray> oSoMoN: ah, thanks!
[17:25] <bdmurray> oSoMoN: Is there a timeline for getting this sorted? ginggs just reminded me the beta is very soon
[17:49] <fenris> anyone using proposed repo in kinetic kudu?
[17:50] <fenris> The following packages have unmet dependencies:
[17:50] <fenris>  gnome-shell-extension-ubuntu-dock : Depends: gnome-shell (< 43) but 43.0-1ubuntu1 is to be installed
[17:50] <fenris> E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.
[17:51] <mdeslaur> hopefully not, it's not supposed to be used
[17:51] <fenris> need to remove the 3 packages: gnome-shell-extension-ubuntu-dock ubuntu-desktop ubuntu-desktop-minimal
[17:52] <bdmurray> Using -proposed for the development release of Ubuntu is not recommended
[17:53] <fenris> @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] <bdmurray> 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] <fenris> 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] <enr0n> I am looking for a MOTU or core dev to review and sponsor bug 1990562
[18:05] <enr0n> ginggs: ^ this resolves the numpy FTBFS in the test rebuild
[18:11] <jbicha> 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] <oSoMoN> bdmurray, yes, I'm hoping for a fix to land tomorrow, Monday at the latest
[18:16] <oSoMoN> nteodosio is working on the fix
[18:19] <bdmurray> oSoMoN: ack, thanks
[18:20] <fenris> thanks @jbicha
[18:29] <jbicha> 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] <ginggs> enr0n: nice!  i suspect that will be picked up in debian quickly and we'll be able to sync
[18:46] <enr0n> ginggs: sounds good, I did forward it
[18:48] <oSoMoN> jbicha, I can do that, but that will be an outdated version (CVE-wise)
[19:03] <jbicha> 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] <jbicha> bdmurray: see the earlier discussion about python3 phased updates causing users problems on jammy. Should we fully phase python3*
[21:07] <jbicha> or set the phasing to 0% temporarily?
[21:08] <jbicha> users can avoid this problem by running `sudo apt upgrade` instead of blindly running `sudo apt dist-upgrade` and not paying attention
[21:08] <jbicha> I was able to reproduce the problem by changing my /etc/machine-id to something that triggered the right mismatched phasing
[21:10] <bdmurray> jbicha: actually modifying the phasing will require an AA e.g. vorlon
[21:14] <bdmurray> fully phasing it seems better than the alternative though
[21:21] <jbicha> I opened bug 1990586
[21:28] <bdmurray> thanks
[22:02] <vorlon> bdmurray, jbicha, juliank: yes, python3.10 / python3-defaults / python3-stdlib-extensions phased to 100%
[23:47] <sarnold> vorlon: this feels like something you might know off the top of your head https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/shim/+bug/1990326