/srv/irclogs.ubuntu.com/2024/06/18/#ubuntu.txt

jardon_howdy00:40
jardon_how can exclude a directory in the root of a project from being tripped up by dpkg-source for unexpected upstream changes?00:42
leftyfbjardon_: huh?00:58
=== chris14_ is now known as chris14
=== cm-t1 is now known as cm-t
jardon_i have a fork of a debian package repo thats hosted on github, the .github file in the repo causes the build to fail when compared to the upstream tar.  is there a way to ignore that?03:23
webchat12I am trying to verify SHA256SUMS file and it isn't going as described in the tutorial at the Ubuntu site.03:55
=== pr3sonic is now known as highrate
Bashing-omwebchat12: what file, where did you get it - and describe the process you are doing.04:00
webchat12Well, there are two files; SHA256SUMS and SHA256SUMS.gpg04:01
webchat12I also downloaded the 24.04 ISO04:02
webchat12got them all from links listed at ubuntu.com04:02
webchat12So I am in the part where I am trying to verify the SHA256SUMS file. then of course I would use it to check the ISO04:03
webchat12I am getting stuck on this page:  https://ubuntu.com/tutorials/how-to-verify-ubuntu#4-retrieve-the-correct-signature-key04:05
webchat12when I do this command: 'gpg --keyid-format long --verify SHA256SUMS.gpg SHA256SUMS' I do get an error message but the error message looks nothing like they say it should.04:10
webchat12The next step it says to grab some information from the error message and use that information to do the following command: 'gpg --keyid-format long --keyserver hkp://keyserver.ubuntu.com --recv-keys 0x46181433FBB75451 0xD94AA3F0EFE210'04:11
webchat12Should I just do that command even though those are not the HEX numbers, in fact I only got the following HEX number: 'using RSA key 843938DF228D22F7B3742BC0D94AA3F0EFE21092'04:13
Bashing-omwebchat12: cd to the Downloads/ directory (assuming that is where the .ISO file is located) - run ' sha256sum <Ubuntu-xxxxx-yyy-zzz.iso> ' that generates a check sum - compare that sum to the advertised check sum on the page you downloaded the .ISO file from. I use a text editor to copy/paste the sums for comparison.04:14
Bashing-omwebchat12: the RSA key and the checksum are differnt security protocols.04:15
cobraman555It happened right after I selected to log out with the GUI menu that all three of my monitors (one native and two external) appear to have gotten stuck on a black screen with a flashing cursor cursor. I have left it be for 30+ mins but nothing has changed. What is the safe way to proceed?04:16
webchat12The part that I am doing is where you check the checksum file, no?04:16
Bashing-omwebchat12: Give me the URL where you got the .ISO file and I will advise on the listed check sum value. then we compare :D04:19
webchat12ok, sounds fun, one seconc04:19
webchat12https://ubuntu.com/desktop04:21
webchat1281fae9cc21e2b1e3a9a4526c7dad3131b668e346c580702235ad4d02645d9455 *ubuntu-24.04-desktop-amd64.iso04:22
webchat12that is what my SHA256SUMS file has in it04:22
Bashing-omwebchat12: Sorry for delay - not found a way to see the ubuntu desktop .ISO file without downloading it locally.04:39
webchat12ok, no big deal. my ISO did natch what is in my SHA256SUMS file, so the question is if the SHA256SUMS file has the real checksum. But considering this will only be for my personal use, I think the chances are slim that I got bad files considering I got them directly from Ubuntu.com.04:41
webchat12What says you?04:43
Bashing-omwell - if the sha256 sums match - you are good to go /// however I get " 118059616c57f251017462fbfc647dd213095c9f255ccfaa4c4cf56f2aab3691 " for a file named Unconfirmed 326556.crdownload downloading from Ubuntu's page.04:46
=== LuckyMan_ is now known as LuckyMan
webchat12yeah they match, but the question is if my SHA256SUMS file, that contains the checksum for the ISO is corrupted or not. I guess it is possible for a bad player to send a corrupted ISO and a checksum that matches and you would not know. but that is probably getting paranoid considering I got everything from the Ubuntu website. But if I was doing04:51
webchat12this for a business maybe then paranoia would be justified.04:51
webchat12But the thing is, the instructions at the ubuntu website on how to check the SHA256SUMS file to determine if it is corrupted itself does not seem to be working for me.04:53
webchat12When I perform the following command as instructed: 'gpg --keyid-format long --verify SHA256SUMS.gpg SHA256SUMS' I only get information about my RSA key and not a DSA key as the Ubuntu instructions say I should04:55
webchat12and that is important because the next step in the instructions uses but the RSA key and the DSA keys04:56
webchat12So that kind of leaves me dead in the water in trying to verify the SHA256SUMS file I recieved.04:57
Bashing-omwebchat12: webchat12: I have not downloaded Ubuntu proper in years - my preference is xfce. Now with that as a reference: " https://cdimage.ubuntu.com/xubuntu/releases/noble/release/" on that page is a link to what the checksum must be - in this xubuntu desktop case it is "8c47b15c4089473bcc58e369a472cabf83d137c7bf8ad7d9465ad086e7bd5272" // If running the sha256sum command on the downloaded .ISO file04:58
Bashing-omdoes not match then yeah there is corruption.04:58
webchat12right, the xubuntu iso will not match my iso04:59
Bashing-omright - that is but an example of how I expected Ubuntu to still be also.05:00
Bashing-omwebchat12: Lemme see if there is still a published checksum list :D05:02
webchat12So xubuntu comes with the xfce desktop? Maybe I should use it since it gobbles up a lot less ram05:02
webchat12but I dunno, I really like the gnome.05:02
Bashing-omwebchat12: Well - I am an advocate of Xubuntu - just because I like simple and fast / does not suit everyone.05:03
webchat12I got my checksums from here: https://releases.ubuntu.com/24.04/05:04
webchat12so I am sure they are fine, but of course there is that small chance they got corrupted.05:04
webchat12and mind you, very very very small chance05:11
Bashing-omwebchat12: confirmed that your checksums match - there is absolutly little chance of any tampering or corruption.05:12
webchat12Bashing-om: yes I agree. and since this is only for personal use, the risk is well within tolerance. But thanks for your patience and help, I am out, gonna go install.05:14
Bashing-omwebchat12: yoyr .ISO file is named ' ubuntu-24.04-desktop-amd64.iso " ?05:14
webchat12yes05:14
Bashing-omthen when you run ' sha256sum ubuntu-24.04-desktop-amd64.iso ' and the sums match - there is no way that tampering or corruption is an issue. For anyone to go through the effort to make a sha256 sum match up to what is expected is totally unrealistic.05:17
webchat12yeah, I did that can the checksum does match what is in the SHA256SUMS file. I agree, very unrealistic.05:19
webchat12*and the checksum05:19
Bashing-omwebchat12: Good to go - simple is good :D05:22
Yakovtest05:58
Bashing-om!test | Yakov05:59
ubottuYakov: Testing... Testing... 1. 2.. 3...05:59
=== wr is now known as Guest1267
mkou_changed my password, but fogrot it. Doing entry changes in gurb - ro / rw init=/bin/bash ... but it is not saving the changes, after reboot its back to - ro quiet splash. Can you please help?07:31
mkou_I am changing it with crl +x. However if I reboot with F10 .. then I got Begin: running /scripts/init-premount .... /bin/bash: splash: No such file or dire07:35
mkou_im doing this on a VM if it matters07:37
mkou_it worked, never mind. my mouse and keyboard was not active07:39
YakovI have .so library on dir /home/App-Debug, but If I ldd it it does not see so itself (no such file or directory) BUT if I do ldconfig -v -n for same  folder its fine, can you guide me how to fix it? It worked for long time, now broken07:46
GET64All of a sudden, after I logged out user, my screen got stuck indefinitely on a black screen unresponsive. Finally i rebooted but now ubuntu does not load and i get instead another black screen. Except that this one at least gives information. Read the message that nscibed the texr verbatim here08:13
GET64Ihttps://pastebin.com/XuhiuyRS08:13
GET64https://pastebin.com/XuhiuyRS08:14
GET64https://pastebin.com/XuhiuyRS08:14
GET64https://pastebin.com/XuhiuyRS08:15
GET64P.S. Appologies for the duplicates and typo -- I'm working from my dinky phone now for obvious reasons08:18
GET64How should I proceed?08:19
=== nathanabels is now known as theToadWizard
=== sonOfRa_ is now known as sonOfRa
meco123456789hi09:46
meco123456789!list09:46
ubottumeco123456789: No warez here! This is not a file sharing channel (or network); read the channel topic. If you're looking for information about me, type «/msg ubottu !bot». If you're looking for a channel, see «/msg ubottu !alis».09:46
=== JanC is now known as Guest1606
=== invisiblek_ is now known as invisiblek
=== PasiZ9 is now known as PasiZ
=== royks_ is now known as royks
=== masterkorp0 is now known as masterkorp
=== jpw_alt is now known as jpw
=== Roy_Mustang is now known as A_Dragon
tomreynjardon_: configure your build process to ignore dotfiles or just this one, or build in a subdirectory. this channel is mostly for user support, less so for packaging on 3rd party platforms, though. a better place to ask may be the support channels (if any, not necessarily on IRC) of the build tooling you're using.11:55
=== iconoclasthero_ is now known as iconoclasthero
mgedminjardon_: IIRC you pass the -i flag to debuild to tell it to ignore the usual chaff12:05
mgedmindebuild passes it to dpkg-buildpackage, which passes it to dpkg-source, so it's dpkg-source's man page that explains what it does and how to use it, if you need something other than "the default regex"12:06
=== madmax_ is now known as madmax
BluesKajHi all12:26
fscholzHello together, I am looking for a difference between 20.04.05 and 20.04.06 (both with 5.4.0-126 kernel). On 20.04.06, I can attach lsf filters by setsockopt SO_ATTACH_FILTER in the kernel and the selected packages arrive. In 20.04.05 nothing arrives.  It's a mac address filter based on /* generated with 'tcpdump ether src aa:bb:cc:11:22:33 -dd */.  Do you have any idea? Which is the correct irc channel13:03
fscholzto ask?13:03
fscholzJust to note: It's in kernel space and I'm talking about sock_setsockopt.13:05
tomreynfscholz: possibly #ubuntu-kernel (with much patience, so hours/potentially days), or, maybe better for such specific questions, a suitable mailing list (https://lists.ubuntu.com), or a bug report  (if there seems to be sufficient indication that it's a regression and no prior report exists)13:10
tomreynbtw. i think it's 20.04.5 and 20.04.6 for the version strings13:11
fscholztomreyn: Thank you very much, I wrote to the kernel mailinglist.13:38
tomreynyou're welcome13:44
gepavelhola13:51
gepavelque es estooooo13:51
gepavelXd13:51
soumyadghoshhello14:03
=== todi_away is now known as todi
=== deepSleep is now known as Guest2233
=== leftyfb_ is now known as leftyfb
=== topcat_001 is now known as topcat001
kutgood morning16:45
luke-jris there any way to downgrade my kernel to 6.8.0-1001-raspi?17:14
mutanteif you can see the package for that with apt, apt install it, then select the different kernel in grub or change the grub config17:17
luke-jrI don't know how to get different versions in apt17:17
mutanteluke-jr: apt-cache search linux-image17:18
luke-jrthat just shows packages, not different versions thereof...17:19
luke-jrhm, I guess it does for kernels17:19
mutantethe kernel versions are part of the package name17:19
luke-jrbut 1001 is missing17:19
mutantetry searching for it on packages.ubuntu.com17:20
mutantethere is a reason it's missing17:20
luke-jrperhaps so, but unfortunately all the newer ones are broken17:21
mutanteluke-jr:  did you have that version before?17:21
luke-jryes17:21
mutantewhat do you mean by broken17:21
luke-jrapt just deleted it last update :/17:21
luke-jrmutante: they disabled 32-bit time syscalls, which is necessary for my use case17:22
mutantego to /var/cache/apt/archives/ .. if you are lucky you still have the .deb file on your disk17:22
mutantethen you could install it from there17:22
luke-jrit's empty17:22
lotuspsychjeluke-jr: whats the reason you need another kernel version then 6.8 ecactly?17:28
luke-jr[13:22] <luke-jr> mutante: they disabled 32-bit time syscalls, which is necessary for my use case17:29
luke-jrsupposedly this is going to be reverted/fixed, but hasn't been yet17:30
mutanteI tried archive.org wayback machine for previous version of http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/l/linux-raspi/  but then only 6.7.0 :p17:30
mutantein theory you just need to find linux-raspi_6.8.0-1001.1.diff.gz or something. then you can patch linux-raspi_6.8.0.orig.tar.gz17:32
mutantebut sounds like a hssle17:32
mutanteor you could try to change the linux-raspi_6.8.0-1004.4.diff.gz to remove the part you dont want17:33
luke-jrbuilding it sounds like a hassle :\17:33
mutanteit _might_ be just removing a couple lines from the patch file17:33
mutantebut yea.. it effectively means a custom kernel then17:34
luke-jrmutante: and installing every build dep17:54
luke-jrand some deb-src modifications that don't appear to be documented on the build kernel page nor in the default sources17:56
luke-jr...page last updated for disco x.x17:58
luke-jrseems the instructions assume an unsigned kernel, whcih doesn't exist for raspi -.-18:06
iorialuke-jr, i don't know if a previous 23.10 kernel might work, but you can try18:09
luke-jranyone else happen to have it in /var/cache/apt/archives? particularly the linux-modules part18:37
luke-jrcan't believe Ubuntu just breaks the stable version, destroys all ability to downgrade, and still hasn't released a fix weeks later18:40
luke-jrphew, found a copy of the contents at least19:00
emersonricardodaiaee19:36
guest754Just wanted to thank the overlords of ubuntu for shoving snap down my throat19:40
leftyfbguest754: not here19:41
leftyfbthis is a support channel19:42
guest754I installed emacs through apt20:08
guest754of course it forced me to use snap20:08
guest754and snap is running the daemon (which I don't want)20:08
guest754Is there any option other than to uninstall and build from sourc20:08
leftyfbguest754: what release of ubuntu?20:09
guest75424.04 LTS20:09
leftyfbguest754: sudo snap remove emacs ; sudo apt install emacs20:15
guest754leftyfb: this opens a curses dialog that says postfix configuration20:17
guest754but I don't seem to be able to do anything there20:17
leftyfbguest754: because postfix is a dependency of emacs apparently20:17
ravage1you choose local only there20:17
guest754ah ok, thanks leftyfb ravage120:18
guest754I think maybe I couldn't see the options due to my color theme20:19
BrassPin88Hi, I hope this is the room with the Ubuntu Magicians (a name akin to Apple Geniuses)...20:20
BrassPin88I'd like to run Linux on my android. Already got termux.20:20
BrassPin88I'd like to do everything a computer can do.20:21
BrassPin88On the phone. 🤳🏻20:21
BrassPin88I would like to call that era : the age of mobile computing20:21
leftyfbBrassPin88: https://ubuntu-touch.io/en_GB/20:21
leftyfbBrassPin88: more directly https://github.com/ubports20:22
BrassPin88I'm on the first link thinking about downloading the AppImage20:23
leftyfbBrassPin88: all support is done through the UBports project20:23
ravage1you need a supported device: https://devices.ubuntu-touch.io/20:24
ravage1then follow https://docs.ubports.com/en/latest/userguide/install.html20:24
BrassPin88Thanks left and ravage. I don't have a supported device but I'm glad to learn about Ubuntu touch20:43
guest754I am trying to install LTSpice using these instructions https://gist.github.com/Manarabdelaty/49082187bb500a592dd746aa01f0817d23:28
guest754unfortunately Ubuntu is telling me there is no wine32:i38623:28
sarnoldeven noble still has i386 builds of wine https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/wine/9.0~repack-4build323:30
guest754I have run as sudo dpkg --add-architecture i386 && apt-get update && apt-get install wine32:i38623:30
guest754but that fails23:30
sarnoldyou might need to add a new arch= thing to your apt sources, too23:30
sarnolddeb [arch=amd64,i386]   sort of thing23:31
sarnoldhttps://wiki.debian.org/Multiarch/HOWTO#Setting_up_apt_sources23:31
oerheks"wget https://ltspice.analog.com/software/LTspiceXVII.exe               This will install LTspice as a 64-bit application ......"23:34
oerhekslolz23:34
oerheksso many good slicers on linux23:34
guest754sarnold: I added 'deb [arch=i386] http://uk.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ quantal main universe' to /etc/apt/sources.list.d/ubuntu.sources but apt-get update reported that E: Malformed stanza 3 in source list /etc/apt/sources.list.d/ubuntu.sources (type)23:35
guest754E: The list of sources could not be read.23:36
leftyfbuh23:36
leftyfbubuntu quantal?23:36
guest754this was the line given here https://wiki.debian.org/Multiarch/HOWTO#Setting_up_apt_sources23:36
leftyfbguest754: please run this and paste the resulting URL here:   ( uname -a ; cat /etc/os-release ) | nc termbin.com 999923:37
guest754why?23:37
leftyfbit will share the kernel and release you're running23:37
oerheksquantal is EOL, that debian url is dated23:38
sarnoldguest754: well, (a) quantal is *ancient*, use whatever you're actually using today23:38
sarnoldguest754: (b) you also want amd64, because that's the other 99.99% of software that'll be running on your computer (and is currently 100%)23:38
leftyfbit would be good to get an understanding of what kernel/release they are running as well23:39
guest754The thing is /etc/apt/sources.list.d/ubuntu.sources looks nothing like that link you sent23:39
guest754leftyfb: Ubuntu 24.04 LTS23:39
guest754kernel is 6.8.0-35-generic23:39
guest754Ubuntu makes installing and managing packages a real pain23:40
sarnoldguest754: ah, 24.04 has a new format, yeah :/ I don't know off-hand how to add a new arch to that, but it ought to be a one-line change23:41
mutanteguest754: agreed, all that snap and flatpack stuff on top of apt.. mixing package management systems.. eww23:42
leftyfbmutante: lets not23:42
oerhekshttps://askubuntu.com/questions/1514281/ubuntu-24-04-apt-specify-architecture-using-sources-files23:43
mutanteleftyfb: dont care, bye23:43
oerheksArchitectures: amd6423:43
oerheksArchitectures: amd64 i386 to be precise?23:44
oerhekslong story short; wine64 would do > from your url "wget https://ltspice.analog.com/software/LTspiceXVII.exe               This will install LTspice as a 64-bit application ......"23:45
guest754i have no idea. I can't really understand a lot of this its very nonintuitive23:45
oerheksso many good linux slicers ..23:46
guest754oerheks: yeah that doesn't work tho23:46
guest754imagine a world where you could just run `apt install ltspice` and stuff #justWorked23:47
leftyfbguest754: feel free to reach to the vendor to add linux compatibility23:47
leftyfboerheks: I don't think it's a slicer23:47
guest754leftyfb: it just works with other linux distros. only Ubuntu makes this difficult23:48
guest754arch, gentoo, fedora, rhel, etc have zero issues installing ltspice normally, through a package manager23:48
oerheksoh, my bad23:48
leftyfbguest754: ok, so ask the vendor to make a debian package for their 3rd party application23:49
oerheks2 years ago it seem to work :LTspice64.exe   https://github.com/joaocarvalhoopen/LTSpice_on_Linux_Ubuntu__How_to_install_and_use23:49
guest754leftyfb: sorry mate, but the problem here is ubuntu23:50
guest754oerheks: yes, these instructions are what I tried to follow alos23:50
guest754sudo apt-get install wine-stable23:50
guest754oops23:51
guest754oerheks: https://bpa.st/UG4A23:52
guest754that's the output23:52
leftyfbguest754: and what do you get when you run: sudo apt install wine32:i38623:53
guest754actually it says its installed now if I'm reading this correctly23:54
guest754wine32:i386 is already the newest version (9.0~repack-4build3).23:54
guest754but `wine LTspiceXVII.exe` reports wine: could not load kernel32.dll, status c000013523:55
leftyfb!winehq | guest754 you might have better luck asking in here:23:55
ubottuguest754 you might have better luck asking in here:: WINE is a compatibility layer for running Windows programs on GNU/Linux - More information: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Wine - Search the !AppDB for application compatibility ratings - Join #winehq for application help - See !virtualizers for running Windows (or another OS) inside Ubuntu23:55
oerhekswine LTspice64.exe is the 64 bit, LTspiceXVII just 3223:56
oerhekswhatever, use Kicad23:56
guest754lmao actually I'm installing kicad next23:57
guest754hopefully Ubuntu doesn't make that too difficult23:57
guest754`wine LTspice64.com` gave the same error wine: could not load kernel32.dll, status c000013523:57
guest754sorry .exe23:58
guest754might need sudo23:59
leftyfbno23:59
leftyfbyou don't run wine as sudo23:59

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!