[14:13] <hydro-b> netboot question here: anyone knows how to force dhcp6 and disable dhcp? ip=dhcp6 is not understood by 22.04 live server (casper). It takes 10 minutes (2 * 5 minutes) to actually start the boot sequence of the live-server ...
[14:14] <hydro-b> as a dhcpv4 client in a IPv6 only network apparently has to timeout many times
[14:16] <hydro-b> ISC dhcp client is used. Being able to force this to use dhclient -6 would also work for me
[18:15] <baldpope> attempting to upgrade from 16.04.07 and receiving an error about bad signature - i'm guessing the signature for 2012 is just expired?
[18:16] <baldpope> https://paste.linux.chat/?e1739cb4a506e550#3jBsBv1ifG6pEV21jN5cBKz79ELGTg3uu9Q33nsv3Don
[18:23] <Eickmeyer> !eolupgrade | baldpope
[18:24] <Eickmeyer> Ope, looks like you crossposted.
[18:36] <baldpope> I did - wasn't sure which channel was more active - that said - the instructions for the EOL upgrade aren't working either
[18:37] <baldpope> and (at least from the releases page) 16.04 isn't EOL, just end of standard support
[18:37] <baldpope> so agreed - a little late to the party, but trying to upgrade from 16.04 to at least 20.04 
[18:37] <baldpope> i know I have to step through 18.04
[19:27] <baldpope> is anyone using apt-cacher-ng as a pull through proxy for packages?
[19:42] <sergiodj_> yes
[19:44] <baldpope> sergiodj_, am I misunderstanding what it's used for - if I have other servers attempting to use the apt-cacher-ng proxy, doesn't the apt-cacher-ng system download the packages instead of the internal server?
[19:45] <sergiodj_> baldpope: yes, the proxy will download the package and serve it
[19:46] <baldpope> for some reason, my instance is not downloading files for the internal server
[19:47] <sergiodj_> what do the logs say?
[19:48] <baldpope> in /var/log/apt-cacher-ng/apt-cacher-log : 1697744853|O|73022|192.168.1.49|uburep/pool/universe/t/twisted/python-twisted-web_17.9.0-2ubuntu0.3_all.deb
[19:51] <sergiodj> that's not very helpful.  what makes you say that the internal server is downloading the package?
[19:52] <sergiodj> can you see the request reach apt-cacher-ng?
[19:52] <sergiodj> can you check if apt-cacher-ng is downloading/serving the package to the requestee?
[19:55] <baldpope> yes, if I run apt upgrade - I see the request coming into the server (packet dump) but I don't know how I would know if apt-cacher-ng is actually downloading the file
[19:56] <sergiodj> well, if the package has already been downloaded (due to a previous request for the same package/version, for example), then apt-cacher-ng will just send what it has to the machine requesting it
[19:57] <baldpope> ok, different question - do you store the packages locally on each server - or do you have a central mount that contains all the packages downloaded by apt-cacher-ng ?
[19:59] <sergiodj> apt-cacher-ng will have a cache where it's running.  on top of that, apt also has its own cache (/var/cache/apt/archives/)
[20:00] <sergiodj> you don't need to replicate the cache; the purpose of apt-cacher-ng is exactly to cache & proxy package requests
[20:02] <baldpope> yea - it's not that I want to replicate the cache, but I thought I could reduce my local storage per server by mounting a common NFS directory that would have a copy of what apt-cacher-ng downloaded - or am I thinking about that in the wrong way?
[20:06] <sergiodj> if the package has already been downloaded, just let apt-cacher-ng serve it over the local network.  I don't think it makes sense to mount the cache over NFS
[20:06] <patdk-lap> think he wants to disable the local cache to save diskspace, like say
[20:06] <patdk-lap> https://linuxhint.com/disable-apt-cache-ubuntu/
[20:08] <baldpope> yes, but still have apt-cacher-ng download it
[20:09] <patdk-lap> ya, you just need to point all your systems to the location apt-cacher-ng is installed
[20:09] <patdk-lap> is the goal to keep diskspace usage thin? or to save internet transfers?
[20:09] <baldpope> ok, so instead of trying to use nfs, just turn off caching, but keep apt-cacher-ng configure as the proxy
[20:10] <baldpope> the former, keep disk space thin
[20:10] <patdk-lap> then you dont need apt-cacher-ng at all then
[20:10] <patdk-lap> it only decreases internet traffic
[20:11] <baldpope> eh, both then - i don't really care about the internet usage (we're not metered) but it does save time when we're updating this many boxes at one time - so a combination of the two 
[20:11] <patdk-lap> ya, you can play with it
[20:12] <patdk-lap> just remember to setup an expiration in apt-cacher-ng so it doesn't grow forever