[00:21] I thought I completely removed firfox about a week ago but when I do an upgrade it pulls in `firefox-locale-en`. After seeing that I ran both `sudo apt remove --purge firefox` and get `Package 'firefox' is not installed, so not removed` in the output as well as `sudo snap remove firefox` and get `snap "firefox" is not installed`. I did this to double check that it is not installed. Also I saw: [00:21] https://askubuntu.com/questions/1424143/ubuntu-22-04-deleted-firefox-but-it-still-comes-up-when-i-click-website-links-in but the use case is slightly different and they don't tell you anything different that what I've described doing here. Running `sudo apt upgrade` once more (just now) and `firefox-locale-en` is not listed but nether are three other (seemingly) unrelated packages that were present [00:21] the previous run `vim-common`, `vim-tiny`, and `xxd`. What in the world is going on?! [00:22] try sudo purge firefox-locale-en [00:23] ok will do... fwiw I also just found out that `whereis firefox` outputs `firefox: /etc/firefox` and there is something there well a file in `firefox: /etc/firefox/pref` [00:25] It looks like ff has other remnants around and I'm not even sure what all there is. Plus it don't make sense whey `vim-common`, `vim-tiny`, and `xxd` would disappear from the upgrade list too [00:26] were they upgraded in a previous run? or overnight via unattended-upgrades? [00:30] sarnold: I'm not sure. I think ff was being updated regurlarly while I used it and after I dtopped using it but before I removed it (maybe about a week ago now). I hope I didn't hurt anything but I do `sudo apt pruge firefox*` and a handful of other stuff that seems related to ff was removed. `/etc/firefox/pref` and the file in it still is there tho [00:30] `sudo apt purge firefox*` === p is now known as Guest9467 [00:31] To be fair, '/etc/firefox' is just a directory and serves no function. [00:32] At least, not without the executing program. [00:33] Eickmeyer: True (just config) - it does have some file in it. But one would expect that when they remove stuff it would completely be removed. Especially when the purge flag is used. Certainly would not expect for upgrades to the package to get pulled in after it was purge removed. [00:33] I wonder, if you apt remove firefox and then apt purge firefox, will the purge actually clean up the orphaned directory? [00:34] did that and found the dir still there [00:35] both the apt purge and snap remove commands were run right after seeing the upgrade come in (to be sure ff really was removed) and then whereis firefox was run and the dir / file are there [00:35] blahboybaz: Depends on how it was installed to begin with. In Ubuntu (and most flavors), the metapackages listed firefox and its related packages separately, meaning removing firefox by itself wouldn't necessarily do it without purging e.g. the ubuntu-desktop meta as well. [00:35] I mean.. I can del it, sure, but the sitch just seems odd enough to talk about here [00:36] I'm not surprised about whereis, that relies upon a database that's constructed after new manpages are installed [00:36] i dont think there's a way for apt to know about added configs, probably it only removes the configs that are listed in the initial deb installation [00:36] that's not a good debugging tool [00:36] interesting [00:36] ok [00:37] EriC^^ is right. [00:38] I just went ahead and del the dir / file in /etc - it is what is it I guess [00:38] thanks === mark__ is now known as Cooter === chris14_ is now known as chris14 [01:46] It looks like security updates for packages in Ubuntu 20.04 LTS's 'Universe' channel are being without. Am I right? https://i.ibb.co/kB1LRmh/Untitled.png [01:47] *withheld [01:47] yes [01:47] Why? [01:48] so that we can have a vastly larger security team [01:48] Sorry, what does that mean? [01:48] historically, universe updates were provided only by the community [01:48] That's what was advertised. [01:48] this meant that half-dozen packages or so were taken care of, a few more would get the occasional update, and tens of thousands of packages got no security updates [01:49] So, how come Canonical is withholding the updates from me? [01:49] we kept doing security updates for different companies in PPAs and eventually decided to make all those updates available to everybody through an ubuntu pro subscription, instead, and that was *very* popular, so we got to hire another fifteen people to do security updates [01:50] if you were fine with the old thing, you don't have to sign up [01:50] otto still updates mariadb periodically, and we sponsor that through to universe same as always [01:50] Ah okay. That policy just means I now have to find another distro. [01:50] why? you didn't care about them before [01:51] Yes, but Canonical's attitude isn't good. [01:51] It can patch me but chooses not to. [01:52] Canonical is coming across as Microsoft. [01:52] find a distro that gives universe updates then .. [01:53] ah yes, microsoft, a company famous for giving away operating systems, office suites, video games, scientific software, etc ;) [01:53] There isn't one, but I need to find a distro who's leadership puts the users first. [01:53] anyway, ubuntu pro has let us provide vastly more security updates per month [01:53] if you were happy to not get updates before, then nothing has changed [01:53] That's great but useless for me. [01:53] if you've got fewer than five machines, you can get them for free [01:53] Nah, before Canonical is giving me updates. Now its not. [01:53] if you've got more than five machines, you can get security support for them at a price that feels fair [01:54] all the packages in main continue to get free security support [01:54] LOL [01:54] Yes, but it only takes 1 outside main to put a machine at risk. [01:54] you could also configure your machine to not install packages from main [01:55] s/from main/from universe/ [01:55] Those packages I am being refused updates to are used by Evolution, my e-mail client. [01:55] Yes, but then Ubuntu becomes useless for my needs. [01:55] Phalanxer will never be happy. Don't bother [01:55] !pro [01:55] Ubuntu Pro is a service offered by Canonical for expanded CVE patching, ten-years security maintenance and optional support. Anyone can use Ubuntu Pro for free for personal use on up to 5 machines. For details please see https://ubuntu.com/pro and https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/ubuntu-pro-faq [01:55] Not happening [01:55] ah. then yes, perhaps you should find another distribution that meets your security needs. [01:55] Yep [02:00] Hi like how can I run something as root everytime the computer boots [02:00] What's the easiest way to do that? [02:00] sysystemd service [02:01] It seems complicated though [02:01] Like for a single exe I need to write a whole syntax [02:01] its a simple text file [02:01] with a few lines [02:02] I don't understand [02:02] I don't know what "wanted by" means really [02:02] WantedBy=multi-user.target [02:02] that says itll be started on boot [02:03] may be i can copy paste yes? [02:03] I just had a sad thought. As the 'Universe' is community looked after, then Canonical is withholding community updates. [02:03] use a pastebin please [02:03] !paste [02:03] For posting multi-line texts into the channel, please use https://dpaste.com | To post !screenshots use https://imgur.com | !pastebinit to paste directly from command line | Make sure you give us the URL for your paste - see also the channel topic. [02:03] Ok [02:03] https://dpaste.com/4JRHJJDZ9 [02:03] Phalanxer: no. literally only otto provides mariadb updates on a regular basis. universe was basically unmaintained before we started ubuntu pro. [02:04] Phalanxer, some projects have no developers anymore, who is to blame? [02:05] Phalanxer: perhaps now that there *is* an ubuntu pro that reduces the incentives that people have to prepare updates for us to sponsor, but aside from otto, it just wasn't very common. [02:05] The definition of the 'Universe' channel is that its community-maintained. Canonical is withholding packages in that channel, that means Canonical is withholding community security patches. That's really sad. [02:06] Phalanxer: canonical cannot withold something that does not exist. [02:06] Phalanxer: how many security patches did you provide to sponsor? [02:06] sarnold it exists by definition [02:07] sarnold I am not a developers. [02:07] Phalanxer: please provide links to launchpad bugs for sponsorship that were not sponsored [02:07] sarnold I am a user in the community, not a developer. [02:10] if so, ubuntu must make you happy. [02:10] It did. [02:11] you know how to get pro, for LTS only btw [02:13] im not paying FOSS [02:13] ever [02:14] What is the difference between 'focal' and 'focal-updates'? [02:15] ... [02:15] Is 'focal' the initial release version and 'focal-updates' all the updates? [02:16] yes, focal is the package list at the time of release. [02:16] ... [02:16] oerheks thank you. [02:17] One of the packages that can be updated is 'libsdl2-2.0-0', but it is only found in 'focal' and not 'focal-updates'. Why is that? [02:18] https://packages.ubuntu.com/search?suite=default§ion=all&arch=any&keywords=libsdl2-2.0-0&searchon=names [02:19] it's more a matter of giving more when paid, rather than taking stuff away [02:20] topcat001 its a matter of not giving anything unless paid® [02:20] topcat001 that is Microsoft's business. [02:21] Canonical now wants to be Microsoft. [02:21] That's fair enough. [02:22] waiting for libsdl3 [02:23] I believe you misunderstand the situation (it's very common). Please read sarnold's comments above. Anyway, offtopic for this channel. [02:24] oerheks: cripes not even arch has that yet :( https://archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/sdl3/ [02:24] So if 'focal' is the initial release with the distribution and 'focal-updates' is the updates to the initial release then how come the update for the package 'libsdl2-2.0-0' it not found in 'focal-updates'? [02:24] Phalanxer: because that package update is distributed through ubuntu pro [02:24] sarnold, but I don't have that channel in my respository. [02:24] Phalanxer: feel free to subscribe to ubuntu pro [02:25] I'm not subscribing to it, ever. [02:25] suit yourself [02:25] Ok [02:25] Good luck [02:25] thanks, you too :) [02:25] :) [02:25] I think most of the confusion comes from the fact that now all the updates (which never existed in the first place before, but nobody was complaining) and now visible, but behind a pro subscription. [02:26] *nod* no one ever likes hearing "you didn't care about not getting updates before" [02:27] sarnold: it's a lost cause despite your very patient effort, they have already made up their mind [02:27] remember xchat? [02:27] oerheks: not well :) [02:28] Which licence is Canonical's Ubuntu Pro patches released under? [02:29] At work we had an internal IRC and everyone was on xchat (on Windows!). I got rid of it in favour of weechat (and got rid of windows in favour of Linux) ASAP. That's the last I saw it. [02:29] Phalanxer: it varies from patch to patch [02:30] sarnoid are they all FOSS? [02:30] mostly licensed the same as the code it patches, I presume? [02:30] administrader [02:30] especially for GPL & such [02:31] Phalanxer: probably; I doubt that there's been any packages in restricted or multiverse patched only via ubuntu pro. those are oddballs. [02:31] So these Ubuntu Pro patches being shown in apt, aren't actually in the 'Universe' channel, right? [02:32] they are in the universe component but not the -updates pocket [02:32] sarnoid could you please clarify that for me? [02:32] Hang on [02:32] I get it, let me get my head around it. :) [02:33] ive was up to 4:30 am over this problem [02:33] d'oh :) [02:33] this page has a bunch of descriptions around components and pockets https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam/FAQ [02:33] Phalanxer: how many personal Ubuntu machines do you have? [02:33] it might not be 100% right with respect to ubuntu pro, that's new enough and we haven't scrubbed all the docs yet to make sure it's all good [02:33] topcat001 my personal computer only. [02:33] lol just one machine? [02:34] get a free token man [02:34] I figured you had a fleet of fifty or something [02:34] I think you can get 5 free right sarnold? [02:34] sarnoid it requires signing up and identifying myself, [02:34] yeah [02:34] Yes, I know its free. [02:34] you can probably register as Phalanxer if you prefer [02:35] That is still an identifier. I'm just not into the game [02:35] nobody forcing you, all i read between the lines is that Canonical should share the work back? [02:35] or something random [02:35] the problem is that if you choose say 22.04 LTS, and that comes with a certain Universe package version, then after a bit you would NEVER get patches. Nobody would bother backporting. [02:36] say after about a year nobody bothers [02:36] I've been around since 10.04 LTS. I know how it works. [02:36] Never patched ALSA drivers. [02:36] sarnold, debian is already working on it http://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/libs/libsdl3/ [02:36] unstable [02:36] So, if Ubuntu Pro's patches are GPL, then I could take them all and submit them myself as a member of the community, and Canonical won't have a problem, right? [02:36] Putting them in Universe 'focal-updates'... [02:37] .. not as PPA on launchpad [02:37] You guys asked me for submissions... [02:37] Phalanxer: good question, no idea [02:37] sarnoid we already know the answer to that. [02:37] that's going to be a hell of a lot of work :P [02:37] haha :) [02:38] oerheks: woo! [02:38] oerheks why not as PPA on launchpad? [02:39] Oh never mind, I am confused. [02:39] You mean a new, individual repository channel. [02:41] I think if I were to take Ubuntu Pro's GPL patches and submit them for Universe, Canonical would refuse it because it is a conflict of interest with its commercial goals. And this is what makes me sad. [02:41] wouldn't it be more productive to supply patches that we haven't gotten to yet? [02:42] sarnoid it depends on your philosophy and goals. [02:42] And values [02:43] I'm in big trouble [02:43] there are probably still non-Canonical people who can sponsor packages... [02:44] in universe [02:44] those folks won't sponsor a security update into -updates [02:44] JanC its not that, its the attitude of Canonical that now undermines my trust in Ubuntu. This today, what tomorrow? [02:45] This is a user help thing believe it or not. lol [02:45] We are already past that point. [02:45] oerheks what do you mean mate? [02:46] Hah, yeah [02:46] just a rant, no Pro token for free, there is no user help left. [02:47] I am about to start a business and the server was to run Ubuntu. I've written up full documentation setup for everything and have configuration files ready for deployment. This now changes everything. [02:47] Not a rant, a concern that you cannot see. [02:47] then configure your system to not install universe packages [02:47] done and done [02:48] sarnoid yes I have to check out the packages I will be using. If just one of them is Universe I'm in trouble. [02:48] I might be okay [02:48] sed -i '/s/universe//' /etc/apt/sources.list /etc/apt/sources.list.d/* will probably do it [02:48] Its LAMPy [02:49] yes, evolution is in universe.. [02:50] Yes, but Evolution is not part of the server. [02:58] Synaptic package manager is in Universe. What am I suppose to use, Ubuntu Software or that disaster snaps project? :( [02:58] apt [02:58] Yeah [03:01] synaptic is one of the projects that are under development/sec. patching, by itself [03:01] or heck, you didn't care that it wasn't getting security updates two years ago [03:02] so don't care now? [03:02] https://github.com/mvo5/synaptic [03:03] hah I didn't know mvo was the lead maintainer these days [03:03] Its not that I wasn't getting security updates, its the spirit of Canonical that I don't like. [03:03] cazala dropped it [03:03] I just checked my apps from Universe. My server will be okay without them, so I can relax. [03:05] Evolution, Pluma, GIMP, Synaptic and Traceroute is the only thing populating them, and generic install video drivers that can be installed without taking things with them. I'm not sure if they came with Ubuntu or have made their way in somewhere through something. I hope Ubuntu doesn't install packages from Universe by default. [03:06] Multiverse and Restricted I don't care about, they are disabled on install. [03:06] Multiverse is disabled. [03:08] universe too .. see the hidden copy; /usr/share/doc/apt/examples/sources.list [03:08] Universe too, what? [03:08] Disabled on install? [03:08] I must have enabled it. [03:08] too many times i had to give that doc, to fix broken sources.list, until sources.list.d came around [03:08] Yeah I did. [03:10] Has canonical introduced its own Ubuntu Pro repository in the latest version of Ubuntu? Highjacking Universe gives a misleading impression. [03:10] please write sabdfl@canonical [03:10] not here [03:11] ubuntu pro is provided via https://esm.ubuntu.com/ [03:11] Who's that? [03:11] I am asking a user question. [03:11] self appointed benevolente dictator .. for life [03:11] mark shuttleworth himself. [03:12] If I use the latest version of Ubuntu, am I going to find that Canonical has their own sources channel for Ubuntu Pro or are they using Universe to slip them in? [03:12] that question doesn't make sense [03:12] True [03:12] I suggest coming back wqhen it's not 5:13 am :) [03:12] go there for your legal fight, please [03:12] I'm off for the night, have fun [03:13] I''m not after a fight, I'm after information so when I use a newer version I know what to expect. [03:13] Could've fooled me. [03:14] Canonical are using a community-maintained channel to deliver their Ubuntu Pro stuff. [03:14] I'm wanting to know if they are doing this still in newer Ubuntu's? [03:14] How many hours do you sleep? [03:16] Well yeah, I hope Canonical have sorted this wholesale disaster out in whatever is the latest version number of Ubuntu [03:16] i just got here and have an idea but dont want to sound off topic ... a suggestion if someone doesn't like/trust Ubuntu anymore (an easy fix for said user) [03:16] Huh? [03:18] Phalanxer: again, your question there doesn't actually make sense. I suggest returning to the documentation when you're not sleep deprived. [03:20] sarnold how doesn't it make sense? I have packages installed from the 'Universe' channel which is suppose to be community-maintained, but the updates for the software in that channel is not coming from the community. [03:20] Phalanxer: yes :( [03:20] sarnold so its a wholesale disaster, because its misleading users, like myself. [03:21] Phalanxer: it would have been better if they had said "completely unsupported" back in 2006 or whenever they set it up, but they had dreams. [03:21] So I was just wondering if Canonical has stopped doing this in Ubuntu 22.10 or what ever the latest version is. [03:21] there is no pro for 22.10, LTS only [03:22] Phalanxer: Community is a synonym for volunteer, in this case, so unless those volunteers keep up with security updates, it simply won't happen. It's not like security updates were ever or are intentionally being kept back, just nobody was doing the work. [03:22] except otto [03:22] otto is awesome :) [03:22] (yes, other people contributed fixes once in a while, but it was nowhere near even 1% of the packages that needed help) [03:22] sarnoid that is fine, but Canonical need to stop calling it a community-supported channel. This is what I mean when I use the term wholesale disaster. And this is why I asked if Canonical do it in the latest Ubuntu, or if they have made it clear. [03:23] !pro [03:23] Ubuntu Pro is a service offered by Canonical for expanded CVE patching, ten-years security maintenance and optional support. Anyone can use Ubuntu Pro for free for personal use on up to 5 machines. For details please see https://ubuntu.com/pro and https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/ubuntu-pro-faq [03:23] it is all there... [03:23] anyway we're going around in circles. you need sleep and I need food. goodnight. [03:23] yeah, good nichtynight sarnold [03:23] gn8 oerheks :) [03:23] I'm understanding what is happening fine. [03:23] That's why I came back. [03:24] But it was a near miss [03:25] I mentioned earlier I am not a developer. I'm just a user. So just wondering if Canonical still doing the same with newer versions of Ubuntu so I can know what to expect. [03:25] yes, next LTS will have them too [03:25] Well, Phalanxer, you've kindof already broken the rules of this channel by breaking the Ubuntu Code of Conduct by assuming ill-intentions, so I'd say drop the subject and move on. [03:26] Eickmeyer lol you must be fun at parties. [03:26] My friends love me. :_ [03:26] :) [03:26] oerheks so the next version has Canonical pushing Ubuntu Pro to 'Universe' packages? [03:27] this is indeed totally going too long, offtopic. more suitable for #ubuntu-discuss. [03:27] !ot | Phalanxer [03:27] Phalanxer: #ubuntu is the Ubuntu support channel, for all Ubuntu-related support questions. Please use #ubuntu-offtopic for other topics (though our !guidelines apply there too). Thanks! [03:27] So, it is or it isn't? [03:27] !ot | Phalanxer [03:27] What's wrong with you people? [03:27] I want to know how I will be using Ubuntu in the future? [03:27] !ops | Phalanxer off-topic, violated Code of Conduct, assuming ill-intentions [03:27] Phalanxer off-topic, violated Code of Conduct, assuming ill-intentions: Help! Channel emergency! (ONLY use this trigger in emergencies) - CarlFK, DJones, el, Flannel, genii, hggdh, ikonia, krytarik, mneptok, mwsb, nhandler, ogra, Pici, popey, sarnold, tomreyn, Unit193, wgrant [03:28] LOL okay.. [03:28] So no one wants to help me... [03:28] Sorry, you've been helped. Move on. [03:28] Eickmeyer your new to this conversation. [03:28] I've read the entire backscroll. Move on. [03:29] Eickmeyer you move on. [03:29] I'm on the ops team. [03:29] What do you want, a medal? [03:29] or discuss it in the room asked for [03:29] Help me then. [03:29] seems like a friendly reminder [03:29] You've been told to take the conversation elsewhere, Phalanxer [03:29] Is this channel about asking help for using Ubuntu or not? [03:30] Please do so. Leave the channel for people who need help with their systems specifically. Your solution is to sign up for pro, everything else your'e asking requires sphyrical glass vision. [03:30] Is this channel about asking help for using Ubuntu or not? [03:30] not legal answers .. [03:30] We don't have those. We're volunteers here. [03:30] I have a question about using Ubuntu I would appreciate help with. [03:30] You've taken too much time here. [03:31] You're being argumentative and picking fights. [03:31] Phalanxer: "#ubuntu supports Ubuntu and official flavors; versions 20.04, 22.04, 23.04, 23.10" [03:31] Eichmeyer everything was fine until you came. You are toxic. [03:31] Look in the mirror please. [03:31] NickH my query related to Ubuntu 23.10. [03:32] NickH: Not quite accurate. #ubuntu-next for 23.10 [03:32] Eickmeyer: its in the channel descriptin. [03:32] Phalanxer, read the url with the valuable info.. no pro for 23.10 [03:32] lol [03:32] Do Ubuntu Pro packages in Ubuntu 23.04 apply to packages in Universe? [03:32] That's not right. [03:33] I'll talk to the other ops to have 23.10 removed, it should be in #ubuntu-next. 23.10 isn't even out until October, so no support is given. [03:34] 20.04, 22.04 ... wait, why am i explaining LTS [03:34] !lts [03:34] LTS means Long Term Support. LTS versions are supported for 5 years on the desktop and server. The latest LTS version of Ubuntu is !Jammy (Jammy Jellyfish 22.04). Ubuntu !flavors may have different support durations, check their release notes for information. [03:35] * xmetal sees how this is going and i will just say out of it [03:43] Where is this friendly FOSS community people kept telling me about when they were pushing me to try out Linux? :) [03:44] Phalanxer: you're in a support channel. Plenty of "community" channels. [03:45] I want to know if security updates issued through Ubuntu Pro in Ubuntu 23.04 apply to packages in 'Universe', but no one will help me? [03:46] that has been answered. [03:46] It has already been explained that Ubuntu Pro is for LTS releases, 23.04 is not an LTS release, and the this channel is not for support of 23.04. [03:46] oerheks where? [03:47] soffy, last point was wrong, but first two still stand [03:47] Phalanxer, read back, and dont address to me again, thanks [03:47] NickH the channel titles say that it is for supporting 23.10. [03:48] NickH okay, thanks for letting me know that Ubuntu Pro applies to support releases only. [03:48] 23.04 and 23.10 are different... and it was explained that listing 23.10 in the description seems to be a mistake. [03:48] I want to know if security updates issued through Ubuntu Pro in Ubuntu 22.04 LTS apply to packages in 'Universe'? [03:51] Read this page https://ubuntu.com/pro [03:51] When I mentioned the friendly FOSS community people kept telling me about when they were pushing me to try out Linux, they were telling me not to worry if I need help because the friendly FOSS community will help me out with it. === Unit193 changed the topic of #ubuntu to: Official Ubuntu Support Channel | IRC Guidelines: https://ubottu.com/y/gl | #ubuntu supports Ubuntu and official flavors; versions 20.04, 22.04, 23.04. #ubuntu-next for 23.10 | Unofficial derivatives: Use your distro's support channel, not here | IRC info: https://ubottu.com/y/irc | Pastes to https://paste.ubuntu.com | Download: https://ubottu.com/y/dl [03:51] Thanks NickH [03:52] So it does apply to Universe. Thanks. === tinky is now known as BlossomingTinkaW [03:56] Watch out for the snitch Eickmeyer people, he will call ops on your and stink out the vicinity with his toxic persona. Better you stay away from him and keep him away from users. [03:56] See ya's === tristan123 is now known as tristan_ [05:48] Anyone using openfoam on ubuntu or debian? Are the openfoam.com and openfoam.org versions basically compatible? Is it possible to have both installed and functional without problems? [05:54] I see there is an openfoam version 2019-12 in the Ubuntu repositories, and then newer versions available from the (upstream) openfoam repositories. [05:54] circle: 1) Debian isn't supported here. 2) Nothing outside of the Ubuntu repositories is supported here, so while upstream may support their builds, we don't. [05:55] circle: Looks like the openfoam packages are synced without changes from Debian, so newer packages would have to come from there first. [05:57] Contact is the Deban Science Team. === nkshirsa_ is now known as nkshirsa [06:12] If anyone has experience using the Ubuntu repository version of openfoam 1912, please PM me [06:22] is there a command to update all apps installed with snap? [06:22] and, would such a command make sense? [06:27] loswedseded: ' sudo snap refresh ' <- will update all the snap apps. [06:38] How to view reviews in Snap Store? How to edit my review? === TomTom_ is now known as TomTom === zofrex2 is now known as zofrex === ord is now known as quem === MiguelX4130 is now known as MiguelX413 [09:56] why is /usr/bin/free opening /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/liblzma.so.5 ? what could it possibly need liblzma for? [09:58] my best guess is that it's a false dependency opened by accident? [10:10] My guess is zram or zswap related thing. [10:21] hans_: - d you have a symbolic link pinting there? [10:21] try just free and see if it works then? [10:24] Hi there, i have a systemd file which tries to run a shell script and that shell script tries to download the binary, but unfortunately the binary is not in the current directory [10:24] how can i solve this [10:25] i have the binary in /usr/local/bin [10:32] weedmic: don't know what you mean by "symbolic link pinting", is it a typo for "printing" ? anyway was running strace. free works fine :) === docmax_ is now known as docmax [10:33] pointing, soz [10:33] ok, if free works, but the whole path doesn't, perhaps try "which free" - perhaps you are using the worng one? [10:37] fdan you can set env variables like PATH in systemd unit files. [10:39] NickH i tried doing sym link [10:39] but still i get the same error [10:40] can you give me an example of how you set the PATH in the systemd unit file [10:41] Environment="PATH=/usr/local/bin:/usr./bin" [10:41] Environment="PATH=/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin" [10:41] Goes in the [Service] section [10:42] but problem is the file that the shell script calls has ./op-node [10:42] Might be easier if you tell us exactly what you are trying to do. I suspect that this may be an A B problem. [10:42] it does exec ./op-node [10:43] im trying to start a service [10:43] when i do a journalctl , i get /home/base/node-main/op-node-entrypoint: line 16: /home/base/op-node: No such file or directory [10:43] Where did this unit file come from? [10:43] i have this from my ansible playbook [10:44] So you created it from scratch? [10:44] I suggest you paste bin it. [10:44] the unit file calls the shell script A, and the shell script A calls which does exec ./B [10:45] NickH https://bpa.st/ [10:46] redacted many things but those are the core section where i m facing the problem [10:46] That's not the right link. [10:47] Did you try using setting "WorkingDirectory=/usr/local/bin"? [10:47] Or whereever ./B is. [10:47] https://bpa.st/ASVQ [10:47] B is at /usr/local/bin [10:48] I'd suggest fixin the script though. [10:48] script is downloaded from a repo, we dont have control on it [10:49] Edit home/base/node-main/op-node-entrypoint to fix B using [10:49] sed or awk or something. === LordKalma0 is now known as LordKalma [10:50] But honestly, I really don't think a unit file should be downloading another script and launching it. [10:52] i agree [10:53] You could add a line like "sed -i 's%exec ./B%exec /usr/local/B%'" in A just after the line that downloads B. [10:55] But I'm getting a bit lost with A, B, and op-node-entry-point. [10:55] oh ok let me try [10:57] NickH the sym link should work right? [10:57] First guess is yes. [11:00] Did you confirm that the symlink was made correctly? [11:00] yes i did. but let me give it a spin [11:20] greetings, after running "sudo nvme format /dev/nvme0n1 --ses=1" I can no longer see the nvme0 drive. It' like it disappeared completely. === akik_ is now known as akik === gnubio is now known as biodigital [12:55] ni hao [12:55] can you run google /play-apps with ubuntu touch ?? [12:55] Is it lighter then android system ? === Szadek45 is now known as Szadek4 [13:40] hi [13:41] moshi moshi [13:42] can you run google/play apps on ubuntu touch ? [13:43] i never tried, sorry [13:44] hmm ok.. [13:44] firefox doesn´t run well on the smurfphone [13:44]