[01:31] <arraybolt3> ahasenack: From what I know of the Secure Boot inner workings of Ubuntu, that *should* be safe, but I don't know everything about this so...
[01:32] <arraybolt3> I suppose if one of those GRUB updates changes the UEFI DBX, that could land you in trouble.
[01:51] <arraybolt3> Is anyone aware of recent changes to the Firefox snap that may cause odd behavior? We're noticing strange Openbox crashes in Lubuntu that seem somehow related to having Snaps open, and also our Firefox theming is entirely wrong. Both of these on Lubuntu Lunar.
[01:56] <jbicha> most of us always have Snaps running
[01:59] <arraybolt3> jbicha: lol, yes, I know, that's part of the problem. It seems like having multiple snaps open (or possibly just Firefox) is somehow causing Openbox to crash for no apparent reason.
[01:59] <arraybolt3> And I think Firefox is ignoring Lubuntu's XDG settings. So I'm sorta hoping there's some recent change that might be at fault.
[02:00] <arraybolt3> See https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/openbox/+bug/2011753
[02:00] -ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Launchpad bug 2011753 in openbox (Ubuntu) "openbox crashes with at least three snaps open." [Undecided, New]
[02:00] <arraybolt3> And I'm filing the bug about the theme problems right now.
[02:05] <arraybolt3> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/snapd/+bug/2011758
[02:05] -ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Launchpad bug 2011758 in snapd (Ubuntu) "Firefox is ignoring Lubuntu's theme settings entirely" [Undecided, New]
[02:08] <jbicha> I'm concerned that glib2.0 may be less stable than usual 😢
[02:09] <sarnold> interesting, guiverc's still-private bug https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/openbox/+bug/2011751 has a crash going through glib/gmain.c
[02:09] <arraybolt3> jbicha: That's quite possible. At least one of the Openbox crashes seems Glib-related.
[02:09] <arraybolt3> sarnold: Heh, you saw it.
[02:24] <jbicha> there's a newer glib release available in Experimental but we want to fix ostree's autopkgtest before pushing it to lunar since things get stuck if glib doesn't migrate out of proposed quickly
[02:24] <jbicha> I don't think the new glib fixes these crashes though
[02:26] <arraybolt3> (For the weird Firefox theming, I notice that Chromium obeys Lubuntu's theming.)
[05:37] <murlidhar> how can i make a particular distro as the default booting distro in the grub menu ?
[05:38] <murlidhar> is there any article that explains this?
[08:19] <seb128> hum, autopkgtests on i386 are failing on
[08:19] <seb128> Unpacking linux-libc-dev:i386 (6.1.0-16.16) ...
[08:19] <seb128> dpkg: error processing archive /tmp/apt-dpkg-install-ZVGkO9/096-linux-libc-dev_6.1.0-16.16_i386.deb (--unpack):
[08:19] <seb128>  trying to overwrite shared '/arch/x86/include/generated/asm/.syscalls_32.h.cmd', which is different from other instances of package linux-libc-dev:i386
[08:37] <zhsj> seb128: bug 2009355
[08:37] -ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Bug 2009355 in linux (Ubuntu Lunar) "linux-libc-dev is no longer multi-arch safe" [Critical, Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/2009355
[08:38] <seb128> zhsj, thanks, I wonder why the only started showing in our autopkgtest results today
[08:39] <zhsj> seb128: not just today :/
[08:40] <seb128> zhsj, well for our desktop packages we had things migrating without hitting that in previous days but maybe we just got lucky on packages and their depends
[08:41] <seb128> is there any known workaround?
[08:41] <zhsj> seb128: trigger a reference test
[08:41] <seb128> zhsj, ack, thanks!
[08:44] <zhsj> we need to trigger all failed i386 reference test after it's fixed, to see if any real problem reveals
[09:02] <utkarsh2102> ogayot: hi! mailman3 is failing tests on ppc64el  and I think it's a legit failure. Can you please TAL?
[09:47] <arraybolt3> For in the future, what's the proper way to file bugs against the Firefox Snap that aren't upstream bugs but nevertheless affect Firefox on Ubuntu? I just filed it against snapd last time, but that seems wrong.
[09:47]  * arraybolt3 goes to bed, will read any responses in the morning
[10:25] <ginggs> utkarsh2102: ogayot did take a look, and wrote his notes in LP: #2006961
[10:25] -ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Launchpad bug 2006961 in mailman3 (Ubuntu) "autopkgtest mailman3-nose2 failing on ppc64el" [Undecided, New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/2006961
[10:26] <ginggs> utkarsh2102: this would be a good thing to pick up on your +1
[10:27] <ginggs> fwiw, the failure on ppc64el in ubuntu seems similar to failures on riscv64 in debian
[10:27] <ginggs> https://ci.debian.net/packages/m/mailman3/unstable/riscv64/
[12:15] <jbicha> arraybolt3: I think it's preferred to report bugs on mozilla, but you can also file against firefox on Launchpad. Launchpad is still being watch because there are older Ubuntu versions using the Firefox deb
[16:11] <Eickmeyer> paride: Can I protest UIF on behalf of Ubuntu Studio being so early in the day for those of us in the United States?
[16:12] <Eickmeyer> We are on the cusp of updating wallpapers, and I don't want to file a UIFe for something so silly.
[16:22] <bdmurray> Eickmeyer: There was some miscommunication about the moderating of the email post. Somebody let it through and other people intended to have it appear near my EoD.
[16:23] <Eickmeyer[m]> bdmurray: That would've made it much more palatable since that's basically my EoD, as it were (unemployment doesn't really have an EoD, does it?).
[16:35] <Eickmeyer> I do apologize for my knee-jerk reaction.
[16:46] <paride> no problem, and thanks bdmurray for clarifying
[18:12] <arraybolt3> jbicha: I meant for problems with the Snap itself that are *not* true Firefox bugs. Things that are Ubuntu-specific that Mozilla can't help with and probably doesn't want to see.
[18:28] <ahasenack> Eickmeyer: hi, in https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/sddm/+bug/2009074/comments/7 are you stating that you checked the update on kinetic?
[18:28] -ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Launchpad bug 2009074 in sddm (Ubuntu Kinetic) "[SRU Regression] SDDM display inset patch crashes" [Critical, Fix Committed]
[18:29] <Eickmeyer> ahasenack: Hi! Yes, that was my intention there. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
[18:29] <ahasenack> you said "I was able to verify that in a VM myself and it validates the previous SRU." without specifying the ubuntu release nor the package version
[18:30] <Eickmeyer> ahasenack: I meant to follow-up the comment with that. I have been seriously sidetracked lately. Jammy (which was key) is clearly good to go.
[18:30] <ahasenack> yes, but kinetic comes after, so if it's not confirmed, we can't release jammy (which is before)
[18:31] <arraybolt3> ahasenack: I thought SRUs were allowed to skip non-LTS?
[18:31] <ahasenack> so that the fix is not reverted if one upgrades
[18:31] <ahasenack> really? I didn't know
[18:32] <Eickmeyer> ahasenack: aiui, as long as the fix is in the development version, it can go into the LTS and skip the non-LTS.
[18:32] <arraybolt3> "We recognise that making it a hard requirement to fix all subsequent interim releases would mandate more work, and that a team may not have the resources available to fix and verify (say) an LTS as well as a subsequent interim release that has fewer users. We wouldn't want to block a fix from landing at all, so we are not making it a hard requirement that subsequent interim releases be fixed."
[18:32] <arraybolt3> From https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates
[18:33] <arraybolt3> Anyway it looks like Kinetic is being targeted anyway, so it probably doesn't affect this particular SRU, but fwiw, there it is.
[18:33] <ahasenack> and it continues with "However, we strongly recommend that subsequent interim releases be fixed" :)
[18:33] <Eickmeyer> Kinetic is being targeted, I just didn't do the full package version that was tested.
[18:34] <ahasenack> yes
[18:35] <Eickmeyer> ahasenack: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/sddm/+bug/2009074/comments/9
[18:35] -ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Launchpad bug 2009074 in sddm (Ubuntu Kinetic) "[SRU Regression] SDDM display inset patch crashes" [Critical, Fix Committed]
[18:36] <ahasenack> Eickmeyer: excellent, thank you
[18:51] <ahasenack> sil2100: hi, did you skip jammy on purpose on https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/openldap/+bug/2007625 ?
[18:51] -ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Launchpad bug 2007625 in openldap (Ubuntu Jammy) "New upstream microrelease 2.5.14" [High, Fix Committed]
[18:51] <ahasenack> it's focal that is in soft freeze, not jammy
[18:51] <sil2100> ahasenack: hey! I didn't get to it yet!
[18:51] <sil2100> I'm going series by series and I got stuck on kinetic
[18:51] <ahasenack> ah, because you released kinetic earlier today
[18:51] <ahasenack> aha, ok
[18:52] <sil2100> ...and then .6 took me over
[22:06] <seb128> vorlon, https://ubuntu-archive-team.ubuntu.com/cd-build-logs/ubuntu/lunar/daily-live-20230316.1.log is weird, on normal builds like https://ubuntu-archive-team.ubuntu.com/cd-build-logs/ubuntu/lunar/daily-live-20230316.log it goes to the next steps shortly, is that sign that the job failed somehow?
[22:07] <vorlon> seb128: checking
[22:07] <seb128> thanks
[22:11] <vorlon> seb128: it just happened to get synced before the arm64 build had finished so the script was still waiting for that result
[22:12] <seb128> vorlon, the arm build finished 17min ago according to https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-cdimage/+livefs/ubuntu/lunar/ubuntu shouldn't it have unblocked by now?
[22:13] <vorlon> seb128: RT#156529
[22:13] <vorlon> the web frontend only syncs hourly
[22:14] <seb128> vorlon, ack, thanks
[23:58] <arraybolt3> Would like to draw some attention to https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/snapd/+bug/2011758, as this is a regression in Lubuntu and I believe I've found a fix for it. However, it would require a modification to the Snap packaging, and I'm hoping someone who's more experienced with that can help me out.
[23:58] -ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Launchpad bug 2011758 in snapd (Ubuntu) "[REGRESSION] Firefox is ignoring Lubuntu's theme settings entirely" [Undecided, New]
[23:59] <arraybolt3> I think this is actually a regression in all flavors since I've seen something similar to what's wrong in Lubuntu happening to Kubuntu as well, if I remember correctly, and I believe the suggested fix would fix it everywhere.