[08:45] <ratchanan> Hello. Has it been decided somewhere that `capnproto` will not be available in Noble armhf, or is it still possible to fix FTBFS on armhf? Apparently there's a new version on Debian which fixes the build.
[09:28] <mwhudson> ratchanan: it's getting very late but i guess it's not impossibly so
[09:43] <Skia> ratchanan: there is a sync ongoing, so should be available
[09:57] <ginggs> cgmb: "there's a Navi 22/23/24 bug from an older version..." would this be fixed by the no-change rebuilds, ot is this something else?
[10:02] <ratchanan> Skia: how does that work? Do I have to request a sync on the #ubuntu-release channel?
[10:07] <ratchanan> Skia: ok nevermind. I see capnproto mentioned by queuebot in #ubuntu-release.
[10:08] <Skia> ratchanan: I've used `requestsync` to open LP #2063194, and then got ginggs to sponsor it for me using `syncpackage`
[10:08] -ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Launchpad bug 2063194 in capnproto (Ubuntu) "Sync capnproto 1.0.1-4 (universe) from Debian unstable (main)" [Undecided, Fix Released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/2063194
[10:10] <ratchanan> Skia: Oh ok. Thank you.
[10:51] <slyon> @pilot in
[14:38] <enr0n> jbicha: it's not clear to me why you re-assigned bug 2063138 to u-r-u. Could you please provide some more context on the bug?
[14:38] -ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Bug 2063138 in ubuntu-release-upgrader (Ubuntu) "upgrade from mantic to noble disables gr lanaguage" [Undecided, New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/2063138
[14:43] <jbicha> enr0n: I don't think anyone would see the bug report against the language pack. I can reply to the bug asking if it is reproducible
[14:43] <enr0n> ack, thanks
[15:25] <slyon> @pilot out
[15:34] <lvoytek> @pilot in
[17:40] <nicolasbock> Hi! Could someone have a look at https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/octavia/+bug/2058286 and gently guide it along? Thanks!
[17:40] -ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Launchpad bug 2058286 in octavia (Ubuntu Jammy) "Requesting SRU for Octavia 10.1.1" [High, Triaged]
[17:42] <Eickmeyer> nicolasbock: Not SRU team here, but I'm certain everyone is all-hands-on-deck for the LTS release right now, so unfortunately that one is probably going to be waiting. :)
[17:43] <nicolasbock> Thanks Eickmeyer . Is there a better place to reach the SRU team?
[17:43] <Eickmeyer> nicolasbock: #ubuntu-release, but you're likely to get the same answer there.
[17:43] <nicolasbock> Thanks, I'll wait until after the release :)
[19:04] <lvoytek> @pilot out
[20:06] <ahasenack> we seem to have lost `pam_lastlog.so` in bin:libpam-modules in noble
[20:06] <ahasenack> I see it in mantic
[20:06] <ahasenack> Apr 23 20:03:16 n1 login[896]: PAM unable to dlopen(pam_lastlog.so): /usr/lib/security/pam_lastlog.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
[20:08] <dbungert> ahasenack: dropped in sid looks like, so I think this is merged behavior
[20:08] <ahasenack> did you find a changelog entry about it?
[20:08] <dbungert> looking
[20:11] <ahasenack> mantic build log has this: make[4]: Entering directory '/<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/modules/pam_lastlog'
[20:11] <ahasenack> the noble one doesn't
[20:11] <textshell> lastlog works on files that are not t64 safe, even on 64bit archs. And iirc it was deprecated upstream some while ago. But the situation is a bit confusing.
[20:12] <dbungert> right, the upstream changelog entry from 2023-02-15 sounds relevant
[20:12] <ahasenack> for 1.5.3
[20:12] <ahasenack> which is what noble ships, mantic has 1.5.2
[20:13] <textshell> i think debian kept it a bit longer but stopped doing that.
[20:13] <ahasenack> the bug in noble is that the pam config files are trying to load it still
[20:13] <textshell> also maybe see https://wiki.debian.org/PamLastlog2
[20:14] <ahasenack>  /etc/pam.d/login:session    optional   pam_lastlog.so
[20:14] <ahasenack> well, at least just login is
[20:14] <ahasenack> from what I have installed
[20:16] <textshell> without lastlog2 things might regress from what ubuntu did before. I i think things are not yet very settled on how things are going to work in the future in debian. But ubuntu is on a "slightly" different timeline.
[20:16] <sudip> afaik, it has been dropped by upstream - https://github.com/linux-pam/linux-pam/commit/357a4ddbe9b4b10ebd805d2af3e32f3ead5b8816
[20:16] -ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Commit 357a4dd in linux-pam/linux-pam "pam_lastlog: deprecate it and disable by default"
[20:16] <ahasenack> I'm checking the debian src:shadow package, that's where the pam config for login comes from
[20:17] <ahasenack> they also still have it, at least in git
[20:17] <ahasenack> https://salsa.debian.org/debian/shadow/-/blob/master/debian/login.pam?ref_type=heads#L82
[20:20] <textshell> droped but there is a replacement in a lastlog2. But iirc it does not replace all the database and of course apps might expect the old files to be updated. Or users might expect commands like "last" and "who" to work. But e.g. ssh does the old format files without pam. But login doesn't.
[20:21] <textshell> Debian is far away from a release, so they don't have to hurry much to get this sorted.
[20:26] <ahasenack> I filed https://salsa.debian.org/debian/shadow/-/blob/master/debian/login.pam?ref_type=heads#L82
[20:26] <ahasenack> er
[20:27] <ahasenack> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/shadow/+bug/2063257
[20:27] -ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Launchpad bug 2063257 in shadow (Ubuntu Noble) "Noble: default pam config for login tries do load non-existent pam module pam_lastlog.so" [Undecided, New]
[20:33] <sudip> fyi. https://bugs.debian.org/1068229
[20:33] -ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Debian bug 1068229 in login "login: remove pam_lastlog.so from config" [Normal, Open]
[20:33] <ahasenack> thx, I'll link it