=== arraybolt3[m] is now known as Guest8318
=== Guest8318 is now known as arraybolt3[m]
=== zenadm1n_ is now known as zenadm1n
[13:28] <zenadm1n> Why does this make me feel dirty, "The following security updates require Ubuntu Pro ..."
[13:30] <oerheks> known issue
[13:30] <oerheks> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-advantage-tools/+bug/1992026
[13:30] -ubottu:#ubuntu-discuss- Launchpad bug 1992026 in ubuntu-advantage-tools (Ubuntu) "Ubuntu Pro APT integration is a bit much" [Critical, In Progress]
[13:31] <zenadm1n> I should just write some scripts that download the source debs and build them in my own PPA. 
[13:34] <zenadm1n> I know what's going on. This is just the first time I've encountered this myself. It's funny how Canonical will rely on Debian for development and maintenence for upstream, but they're going to start charging for their contributions. I was building packages for Ubuntu's early versions before they even built the Launchpad build system. 
[13:36] <oerheks> its all about universe packages that get support after 5 years. https://ubuntu.com/pro
[13:36] <oerheks> who would use such old linux ..
[13:37] <zenadm1n> For versions before Launchpad Canonical had no capacity to build universe, so they put it out to the community.
[13:40] <zenadm1n> I don't even remember which packages I built I basically just took the debian source and repackaged it. I taught myself Linux on Gentoo building everything myself so it was not difficult. 
[13:42] <ogra> there were no ubuntu versions before launchpad ... it has been our build system from day one (in fac it pre-dates ubuntu by about a year)
[13:48] <zenadm1n> I worked on version 5 and actually got a letter from Shuttleworth thanking me. My handle at the time was "smokeslikeapoet". Ubuntu 4.10 was released in 2004. Launchpad didn't come along until 4 years later. 
[13:49] <zenadm1n> I'm looking at wikipedia right now to verify I'm not in some sort of Mandela effect. I've been running Linux for 21 years. 
[13:50] <zenadm1n> I graduated school in 2007 and had Ubuntu on my laptop from the inital 4.10 release all through school. 
[13:51] <ravage> 👍
[13:52] <zenadm1n> "Do not quote the dark magic to me, I was there when it was written."
[14:28] <leftyfb> zenadm1n: Bug #1 was filed on August 19th 2004. Ubuntu 4.10 was released October 04 2004.
[14:28] -ubottu:#ubuntu-discuss- Bug 1 in Ubuntu Malaysia LoCo Team "Microsoft has a majority market share" [Critical, In Progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1
[14:30] <leftyfb> The initial public release of launchpad was June 15th 2005
[14:30] <leftyfb> so not 4 years later
[14:30] <leftyfb> but that doesn't mean it wasn't already in use
[14:31] <leftyfb> the wiki page also says the website was launched "January 2004"
[14:34] <leftyfb> Multiple people here have been working with linux and Ubuntu for 20+ years. 
[15:02] <zenadm1n> leftyfb, yes, I had to go to my Lanchpad acct, it's been a while. I joined 6/2005, started my own PPA in 2007. 
[15:04] <zenadm1n> Nevertheless, my point stands. Canonical has asked volunteers to port, maintain upstream universe for close to 2 decades. It kinda leave a bad taste in my mouth for them to try and monetize universe security in my command line. 
[16:07] <zenadm1n> Where can one find the source packages for these Ubuntu Pro universe updates? Is there a source repo I can add?
[16:08] <zenadm1n> I'm serious about building them in my own PPA. 
[16:11] <oerheks> There is no such list published.
[16:13] <PaulW2U> zenadm1n: You get access to the packages if you enable Pro. I assume the same applies to the source packages.
[16:48] <zenadm1n> PaulW2U, it is a violation of the GPL to distribute binaries without making availble the source and modifications.
[16:50] <oerheks> maybe the source will be available?
[18:48] <popey> zenadm1n https://askubuntu.com/questions/1454409/where-do-i-get-the-source-for-esm-packages
[18:51] <leftyfb> man, if popey doesn't know the answer, Canonical is doing a really horrible job at documentation and informing it's users
[18:51] <popey> lulz
[18:51] <ravage> popey is just one of us now :)
[18:51] <popey> yeah, I'm just a pleb like the rest of you :D
[18:52] <leftyfb> bah, you still know whats up and how to find answers and have connections
[18:52] <leftyfb> even I do, to a point
[18:53] <aaronprisk[m]> Let me see if I can get an answer on this.
[18:56] <ravage> i think apt-source just does not understand the login method
[18:57] <ravage> as in it does not use "/etc/apt/auth.conf.d/90ubuntu-advantage"
[18:58] <ravage> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiBz5uT0Yv9AhXuS_EDHYynDVIQFnoECAYQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fbugs.launchpad.net%2Fbugs%2F1904068&usg=AOvVaw2j3OSC3SNBdKN__39xjD2k
[18:58] <ravage> sorry
[18:58] <ravage> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apt/+bug/1904068
[18:58] <ravage> this
[18:58] -ubottu:#ubuntu-discuss- Launchpad bug 1904068 in apt (Ubuntu) "apt(-get) source fails to use credentials from /etc/apt/auth.conf(.d)" [Undecided, Confirmed]
[18:59] <arraybolt3> That looks promising.
[19:01] <ViatonWidz[m]> sudo apt source <esm-packagename> works for me
[19:02] <ravage> i get the same error as described on askubuntu
[19:03]  * arraybolt3 doesn't use esm or Ubuntu Pro yet so I can't test :P
[19:03] <ViatonWidz[m]> ravage: did you use sudo?
[19:04] <arraybolt3> zenadm1n: Looks like it's just an apt bug, a person in the bug report ravage linked to was able to pull the source packages.
[19:04] <ravage> heh
[19:04] <ravage> it works with sudo
[19:05] <ravage> let me see if changing the permissions of that authfile helps too
[19:05] <ravage> yep
[19:06] <ravage> some info that it cant read the file would be useful maybe
[19:07] <arraybolt3> ravage: You're able to add that info to the bug report right?
[19:07] <arraybolt3> That sounds like a very easy fix if it's just a permissions issue.
[19:07] <arraybolt3> (And knowing that sudo works as a workaround it awesome.)
[19:07] <ViatonWidz[m]> If you chmod 644 /etc/apt/auth.conf.d/90ubuntu-advantage it works as regular user
[19:08] <ravage> yes
[19:09] <ravage> added a comment
[19:10] <ViatonWidz[m]> Of course you leave the login and password open though 😬
[19:10] <ravage> true
[19:11] <ravage> on my system i really dont care :)
[19:12] <arraybolt3> ravage: Just added a comment there, can you test with it?
[19:13] <arraybolt3> Some people probably do have systems where they care, so if there's a way to avoid opening up everything that would be good - I suggested changing the permissions back to something strict and then changing the file ownership.
[19:13] <ravage> as long as the user can read the file it works
[19:14] <ravage> so yes. if you add yourself to a group that can read the file thats fine too
[19:17] <ravage> i removed the example
[19:17] <ravage> pretty sure that bug will be closed anyway. works as intended :D
[19:41] <aaronprisk[m]> Hey folks, got verification that using sudo with apt source is indeed the correct and safe method for obtaining these esm source files. One of our devs updated the bug report with a comment providing some additional context. 
[19:42] <ravage> thanks aaronprisk[m]