[00:40] howdy [00:42] how can exclude a directory in the root of a project from being tripped up by dpkg-source for unexpected upstream changes? [00:58] jardon_: huh? === chris14_ is now known as chris14 === cm-t1 is now known as cm-t [03:23] 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? [03:55] I am trying to verify SHA256SUMS file and it isn't going as described in the tutorial at the Ubuntu site. === pr3sonic is now known as highrate [04:00] webchat12: what file, where did you get it - and describe the process you are doing. [04:01] Well, there are two files; SHA256SUMS and SHA256SUMS.gpg [04:02] I also downloaded the 24.04 ISO [04:02] got them all from links listed at ubuntu.com [04:03] So I am in the part where I am trying to verify the SHA256SUMS file. then of course I would use it to check the ISO [04:05] I am getting stuck on this page: https://ubuntu.com/tutorials/how-to-verify-ubuntu#4-retrieve-the-correct-signature-key [04:10] when 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. [04:11] The 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' [04:13] Should 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' [04:14] webchat12: cd to the Downloads/ directory (assuming that is where the .ISO file is located) - run ' sha256sum ' 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. [04:15] webchat12: the RSA key and the checksum are differnt security protocols. [04:16] It 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] The part that I am doing is where you check the checksum file, no? [04:19] webchat12: Give me the URL where you got the .ISO file and I will advise on the listed check sum value. then we compare :D [04:19] ok, sounds fun, one seconc [04:21] https://ubuntu.com/desktop [04:22] 81fae9cc21e2b1e3a9a4526c7dad3131b668e346c580702235ad4d02645d9455 *ubuntu-24.04-desktop-amd64.iso [04:22] that is what my SHA256SUMS file has in it [04:39] webchat12: Sorry for delay - not found a way to see the ubuntu desktop .ISO file without downloading it locally. [04:41] ok, 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. [04:43] What says you? [04:46] well - 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. === LuckyMan_ is now known as LuckyMan [04:51] yeah 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 doing [04:51] this for a business maybe then paranoia would be justified. [04:53] But 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. [04:55] When 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 should [04:56] and that is important because the next step in the instructions uses but the RSA key and the DSA keys [04:57] So that kind of leaves me dead in the water in trying to verify the SHA256SUMS file I recieved. [04:58] webchat12: 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 file [04:58] does not match then yeah there is corruption. [04:59] right, the xubuntu iso will not match my iso [05:00] right - that is but an example of how I expected Ubuntu to still be also. [05:02] webchat12: Lemme see if there is still a published checksum list :D [05:02] So xubuntu comes with the xfce desktop? Maybe I should use it since it gobbles up a lot less ram [05:02] but I dunno, I really like the gnome. [05:03] webchat12: Well - I am an advocate of Xubuntu - just because I like simple and fast / does not suit everyone. [05:04] I got my checksums from here: https://releases.ubuntu.com/24.04/ [05:04] so I am sure they are fine, but of course there is that small chance they got corrupted. [05:11] and mind you, very very very small chance [05:12] webchat12: confirmed that your checksums match - there is absolutly little chance of any tampering or corruption. [05:14] Bashing-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] webchat12: yoyr .ISO file is named ' ubuntu-24.04-desktop-amd64.iso " ? [05:14] yes [05:17] then 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. [05:19] yeah, I did that can the checksum does match what is in the SHA256SUMS file. I agree, very unrealistic. [05:19] *and the checksum [05:22] webchat12: Good to go - simple is good :D [05:58] test [05:59] !test | Yakov [05:59] Yakov: Testing... Testing... 1. 2.. 3... === wr is now known as Guest1267 [07:31] 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? [07:35] 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 dire [07:37] im doing this on a VM if it matters [07:39] it worked, never mind. my mouse and keyboard was not active [07:46] I 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 broken [08:13] All 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 here [08:13] Ihttps://pastebin.com/XuhiuyRS [08:14] https://pastebin.com/XuhiuyRS [08:14] https://pastebin.com/XuhiuyRS [08:15] https://pastebin.com/XuhiuyRS [08:18] P.S. Appologies for the duplicates and typo -- I'm working from my dinky phone now for obvious reasons [08:19] How should I proceed? === nathanabels is now known as theToadWizard === sonOfRa_ is now known as sonOfRa [09:46] hi [09:46] !list [09:46] meco123456789: 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». === 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 [11:55] jardon_: 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. === iconoclasthero_ is now known as iconoclasthero [12:05] jardon_: IIRC you pass the -i flag to debuild to tell it to ignore the usual chaff [12:06] debuild 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" === madmax_ is now known as madmax [12:26] Hi all [13:03] Hello 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 channel [13:03] to ask? [13:05] Just to note: It's in kernel space and I'm talking about sock_setsockopt. [13:10] fscholz: 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) [13:11] btw. i think it's 20.04.5 and 20.04.6 for the version strings [13:38] tomreyn: Thank you very much, I wrote to the kernel mailinglist. [13:44] you're welcome [13:51] hola [13:51] que es estooooo [13:51] Xd [14:03] hello === 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 [16:45] good morning [17:14] is there any way to downgrade my kernel to 6.8.0-1001-raspi? [17:17] if you can see the package for that with apt, apt install it, then select the different kernel in grub or change the grub config [17:17] I don't know how to get different versions in apt [17:18] luke-jr: apt-cache search linux-image [17:19] that just shows packages, not different versions thereof... [17:19] hm, I guess it does for kernels [17:19] the kernel versions are part of the package name [17:19] but 1001 is missing [17:20] try searching for it on packages.ubuntu.com [17:20] there is a reason it's missing [17:21] perhaps so, but unfortunately all the newer ones are broken [17:21] luke-jr: did you have that version before? [17:21] yes [17:21] what do you mean by broken [17:21] apt just deleted it last update :/ [17:22] mutante: they disabled 32-bit time syscalls, which is necessary for my use case [17:22] go to /var/cache/apt/archives/ .. if you are lucky you still have the .deb file on your disk [17:22] then you could install it from there [17:22] it's empty [17:28] luke-jr: whats the reason you need another kernel version then 6.8 ecactly? [17:29] [13:22] mutante: they disabled 32-bit time syscalls, which is necessary for my use case [17:30] supposedly this is going to be reverted/fixed, but hasn't been yet [17:30] I 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 :p [17:32] in 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.gz [17:32] but sounds like a hssle [17:33] or you could try to change the linux-raspi_6.8.0-1004.4.diff.gz to remove the part you dont want [17:33] building it sounds like a hassle :\ [17:33] it _might_ be just removing a couple lines from the patch file [17:34] but yea.. it effectively means a custom kernel then [17:54] mutante: and installing every build dep [17:56] and some deb-src modifications that don't appear to be documented on the build kernel page nor in the default sources [17:58] ...page last updated for disco x.x [18:06] seems the instructions assume an unsigned kernel, whcih doesn't exist for raspi -.- [18:09] luke-jr, i don't know if a previous 23.10 kernel might work, but you can try [18:37] anyone else happen to have it in /var/cache/apt/archives? particularly the linux-modules part [18:40] can't believe Ubuntu just breaks the stable version, destroys all ability to downgrade, and still hasn't released a fix weeks later [19:00] phew, found a copy of the contents at least [19:36] iaee [19:40] Just wanted to thank the overlords of ubuntu for shoving snap down my throat [19:41] guest754: not here [19:42] this is a support channel [20:08] I installed emacs through apt [20:08] of course it forced me to use snap [20:08] and snap is running the daemon (which I don't want) [20:08] Is there any option other than to uninstall and build from sourc [20:09] guest754: what release of ubuntu? [20:09] 24.04 LTS [20:15] guest754: sudo snap remove emacs ; sudo apt install emacs [20:17] leftyfb: this opens a curses dialog that says postfix configuration [20:17] but I don't seem to be able to do anything there [20:17] guest754: because postfix is a dependency of emacs apparently [20:17] you choose local only there [20:18] ah ok, thanks leftyfb ravage1 [20:19] I think maybe I couldn't see the options due to my color theme [20:20] Hi, I hope this is the room with the Ubuntu Magicians (a name akin to Apple Geniuses)... [20:20] I'd like to run Linux on my android. Already got termux. [20:21] I'd like to do everything a computer can do. [20:21] On the phone. 🤳🏻 [20:21] I would like to call that era : the age of mobile computing [20:21] BrassPin88: https://ubuntu-touch.io/en_GB/ [20:22] BrassPin88: more directly https://github.com/ubports [20:23] I'm on the first link thinking about downloading the AppImage [20:23] BrassPin88: all support is done through the UBports project [20:24] you need a supported device: https://devices.ubuntu-touch.io/ [20:24] then follow https://docs.ubports.com/en/latest/userguide/install.html [20:43] Thanks left and ravage. I don't have a supported device but I'm glad to learn about Ubuntu touch [23:28] I am trying to install LTSpice using these instructions https://gist.github.com/Manarabdelaty/49082187bb500a592dd746aa01f0817d [23:28] unfortunately Ubuntu is telling me there is no wine32:i386 [23:30] even noble still has i386 builds of wine https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/wine/9.0~repack-4build3 [23:30] I have run as sudo dpkg --add-architecture i386 && apt-get update && apt-get install wine32:i386 [23:30] but that fails [23:30] you might need to add a new arch= thing to your apt sources, too [23:31] deb [arch=amd64,i386] sort of thing [23:31] https://wiki.debian.org/Multiarch/HOWTO#Setting_up_apt_sources [23:34] "wget https://ltspice.analog.com/software/LTspiceXVII.exe This will install LTspice as a 64-bit application ......" [23:34] lolz [23:34] so many good slicers on linux [23:35] sarnold: 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) [23:36] E: The list of sources could not be read. [23:36] uh [23:36] ubuntu quantal? [23:36] this was the line given here https://wiki.debian.org/Multiarch/HOWTO#Setting_up_apt_sources [23:37] guest754: please run this and paste the resulting URL here: ( uname -a ; cat /etc/os-release ) | nc termbin.com 9999 [23:37] why? [23:37] it will share the kernel and release you're running [23:38] quantal is EOL, that debian url is dated [23:38] guest754: well, (a) quantal is *ancient*, use whatever you're actually using today [23:38] guest754: (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%) [23:39] it would be good to get an understanding of what kernel/release they are running as well [23:39] The thing is /etc/apt/sources.list.d/ubuntu.sources looks nothing like that link you sent [23:39] leftyfb: Ubuntu 24.04 LTS [23:39] kernel is 6.8.0-35-generic [23:40] Ubuntu makes installing and managing packages a real pain [23:41] guest754: 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 change [23:42] guest754: agreed, all that snap and flatpack stuff on top of apt.. mixing package management systems.. eww [23:42] mutante: lets not [23:43] https://askubuntu.com/questions/1514281/ubuntu-24-04-apt-specify-architecture-using-sources-files [23:43] leftyfb: dont care, bye [23:43] Architectures: amd64 [23:44] Architectures: amd64 i386 to be precise? [23:45] long 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] i have no idea. I can't really understand a lot of this its very nonintuitive [23:46] so many good linux slicers .. [23:46] oerheks: yeah that doesn't work tho [23:47] imagine a world where you could just run `apt install ltspice` and stuff #justWorked [23:47] guest754: feel free to reach to the vendor to add linux compatibility [23:47] oerheks: I don't think it's a slicer [23:48] leftyfb: it just works with other linux distros. only Ubuntu makes this difficult [23:48] arch, gentoo, fedora, rhel, etc have zero issues installing ltspice normally, through a package manager [23:48] oh, my bad [23:49] guest754: ok, so ask the vendor to make a debian package for their 3rd party application [23:49] 2 years ago it seem to work :LTspice64.exe https://github.com/joaocarvalhoopen/LTSpice_on_Linux_Ubuntu__How_to_install_and_use [23:50] leftyfb: sorry mate, but the problem here is ubuntu [23:50] oerheks: yes, these instructions are what I tried to follow alos [23:50] sudo apt-get install wine-stable [23:51] oops [23:52] oerheks: https://bpa.st/UG4A [23:52] that's the output [23:53] guest754: and what do you get when you run: sudo apt install wine32:i386 [23:54] actually it says its installed now if I'm reading this correctly [23:54] wine32:i386 is already the newest version (9.0~repack-4build3). [23:55] but `wine LTspiceXVII.exe` reports wine: could not load kernel32.dll, status c0000135 [23:55] !winehq | guest754 you might have better luck asking in here: [23:55] guest754 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 Ubuntu [23:56] wine LTspice64.exe is the 64 bit, LTspiceXVII just 32 [23:56] whatever, use Kicad [23:57] lmao actually I'm installing kicad next [23:57] hopefully Ubuntu doesn't make that too difficult [23:57] `wine LTspice64.com` gave the same error wine: could not load kernel32.dll, status c0000135 [23:58] sorry .exe [23:59] might need sudo [23:59] no [23:59] you don't run wine as sudo