[06:59] <enyc> Ubuntu 22.04LTS Thunderbird package lagging... should be 91.13.1  (or 102.x)  in jammy-updates !??!!??
[08:06] <ebarretto> hank, hopefully the publicdate won't be bogus anymore as we altered the cve generation script, but feel free to let us know if you still find issues 
[14:25] <hank> ebarretto: thanks
[17:44] <ahasenack> jjohansen: hi, will we get an updated apparmor in kinetic before the beta freeze on monday?
[17:44] <ahasenack> (if you know)
[17:45] <jjohansen> ahasenack: maybe I assume that means you need it today?
[17:45] <ahasenack> no, not at all
[17:45] <ahasenack> I'm working on a staged SRU for jammy, and wanted to check if the bug will be present in kinetic as well
[17:46] <ahasenack> it's in one of the apparmor profiles that is shipped in the extra apparmor-profiles-extra package
[17:47] <jjohansen> which bug?
[17:47] <ahasenack> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/samba/+bug/1979879
[17:47] <ahasenack> it's part of the onboarding process of a new colleague
[17:47] <ahasenack> it in itself does not warrant an SRU at all
[17:47] <ahasenack> hence staging
[17:47] <jjohansen> and if we are talking just before Monday, yes absolutely.
[17:53] <jjohansen> ahasenack: so for the bug I think we can get it fixed. Originally we had an FF exception for apparmor 3.1.1 but that has run really late for reasons I don't know, so we are cherry-picking just a couple things for the FF. I can make sure we pick the fix for this bug as well
[17:54] <ahasenack> so you think we can check with what is in kinetic right now?
[17:54] <jjohansen> no
[17:54] <ahasenack> the path fix (samba-bgqd) won't be needed, but there were other changes in samba, more binaries being spawn
[17:54] <jjohansen> kinetic unfortuately has exactly what is in jammy
[17:54] <ahasenack> and I did check kinetic a few weeks ago and these new binaries wouldn't start either, if apparmor was in enforce mode
[17:55] <ahasenack> ok, so how about I test kinetic as it is, with samba, apply the profile in enforce mode, and file bugs if needed?
[17:55] <ahasenack> kinetic has 3.0.7, jammy has 3.0.4
[17:56] <ahasenack> I don't know if the samba profiles (in -extras) changed
[17:56] <jjohansen> ah, okay not exactly the same. but close
[17:56] <ahasenack> again, not super important, I just want to help to get this onboarding task done
[17:56] <jjohansen> I will look into it and make sure we have some fixes
[17:57] <ahasenack> ok
[18:01] <ahasenack> jjohansen: incidentally, how would you feel if an effort was started to move these profiles shipped in apparmor-profiles{-,extra} to each respective package, keeping the complain (or disabled) status?
[18:05] <jjohansen> I'm not opposed to it, we tried doing it years ago, and a few packages started doing it. I am not sure why doing that stopped
[18:05] <ahasenack> my reasoning is that it's awkward to update apparmor (and impact all ubuntu users) if I want to update a specific profile that it ships for a specific package
[18:06] <ahasenack> 100% of users have apparmor profile, but (let's say) 1% have package foo installed, and the profile for foo is in src:apparmor
[18:06] <ahasenack> 10)% of users have apparmor *installed*, is what I meant
[18:07] <ahasenack> I'll try to seed this idea, at least regarding packages we maintain
[19:10] <ahasenack> jjohansen: ok, filed this for kinetic: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apparmor/+bug/1990692
[19:11] <jjohansen> thanks
[19:11] <ahasenack> many (if not all) of these only show up when actually using a printer, or as close to a printer as one can fake
[19:11] <ahasenack> hence the instructions at the top of the bug to create a fake printer
[19:15] <jjohansen> yeah