[Touch-packages] [Bug 1624611] Re: package meld 3.14.2-1 failed to install/upgrade: subprocess installed pre-removal script returned error exit status 1

** Package changed: meld (Ubuntu) => python-defaults (Ubuntu) -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to python-defaults in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1624611 Title: package meld 3.14.2-1 failed to

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1675138] Re: Please transition to Boost 1.62

@Mattia: From the linked bug it seems reverse build dependencies needed those libs listed. I haven't tried changing those to unversioned depends, because IMO at this stage a safe fix like this one is more appropriate. The fix for both other transitioning packages are on their way, no need to

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1640320] Re: FTBFS in zesty

Thomas will merge the fix from bzr and will take care of zesty landing thus this debdiff is obsolete. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to location-service in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1640320 Title:

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1675138] Re: Please transition to Boost 1.62

fixed my email address in the patch ** Patch added: "debdiff performing the transition" https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/mir/+bug/1675138/+attachment/4842635/+files/mir_0.26.1+17.04.20170209.1-0ubuntu2.patch -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1640320] Re: FTBFS in zesty

** Changed in: location-service (Ubuntu) Status: Confirmed => In Progress ** Changed in: location-service (Ubuntu) Assignee: (unassigned) => Balint Reczey (rbalint) -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subs

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1675138] [NEW] Please transition to Boost 1.62

Public bug reported: There is an ongoing transition to Boost 1.62 and mir is one of the last affected packages: http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/transitions/html/boost1.62.html ** Affects: mir (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New ** Tags: boost1.62 ** Patch

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1640320] Re: FTBFS in zesty

The CMake part did not work for me, but the attached patch does. I kept the vector related part giving credit in d/changelog. Thanks! -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to location-service in Ubuntu.

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1640320] Re: FTBFS in zesty

Now it contains the build-dependency changes as well, tested with sbuild and ratt ** Patch added: "debdiff for fixing all build issues" https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/location-service/+bug/1640320/+attachment/4843340/+files/location-service_3.0.0+16.10.20160912-0ubuntu3.patch --

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1675138] Re: Please transition to Boost 1.62

Those were added in #1633537 -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to mir in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1675138 Title: Please transition to Boost 1.62 Status in mir package in Ubuntu: New Bug

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1675138] Re: Please transition to Boost 1.62

in LP:#1633537 -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to mir in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1675138 Title: Please transition to Boost 1.62 Status in mir package in Ubuntu: New Bug description: There

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1675138] Re: Please transition to Boost 1.62

The link will work: https://bugs.launchpad.net/mir/+bug/1633537 :-) -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to mir in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1675138 Title: Please transition to Boost 1.62 Status in

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1675138] Re: Please transition to Boost 1.62

Let me try once more: LP: #1633537 -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to mir in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1675138 Title: Please transition to Boost 1.62 Status in mir package in Ubuntu: New Bug

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1640320] Re: FTBFS in zesty

** Changed in: location-service (Ubuntu) Assignee: Balint Reczey (rbalint) => (unassigned) ** Changed in: location-service (Ubuntu) Status: In Progress => Confirmed -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subs

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1680143] [NEW] FTBFS in zesty-proposed

Public bug reported: Due to dpkg's different interpretation of DEB_BUILD_MAINT_OPTIONS = hardening=+all,-pie and DEB_BUILD_MAINT_OPTIONS = hardening=+all in Debian Stretch and Zesty 1.6.1-3 fails to build in Zesty. IMO the delta between 1.6.1-2 and 1.6.1-3 is small enough to leave 1.6.1-2 in

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1680169] [NEW] Makes mathicgb FTBFS and mathicgb autopkgtest fail

Public bug reported: Running mathicgb tests with valgrind reveals crash in tbb 4.4~20160526-0ubuntu1: g++ testMain.o Range.o gtestInclude.o gb-test.o ideals.o poly-test.o src/test/ideals.hpp SparseMatrix.o QuadMatrixBuilder.o F4MatrixBuilder.o F4MatrixReducer.o mathicgb.o PrimeField.o

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1680169] Re: Makes mathicgb FTBFS and mathicgb autopkgtest fail

And the attached patch fixes the mathicgb tests and probably many other reverse dependencies. ** Patch added: "tbb_4.4~20160526-0ubuntu2.patch" https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/tbb/+bug/1680169/+attachment/4855575/+files/tbb_4.4~20160526-0ubuntu2.patch -- You received this bug

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1680169] Re: Makes mathicgb FTBFS and mathicgb autopkgtest fail

** Changed in: tbb (Ubuntu) Status: New => Fix Released -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to tbb in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1680169 Title: Makes mathicgb FTBFS and mathicgb autopkgtest

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1690980] Re: unattended-upgrades does not block shutdown of system, as it is designed to

@Julian: When running u-u at shutdown the expectation is that it runs to completion including the downloads (started by u-u-s). When running in periodic mode triggered by apt's timer it finishes the transaction on TERM signal then it exits to let the shutdown continue. In this case you are right

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1690980] Re: unattended-upgrades does not block shutdown of system, as it is designed to

The problem causing apport's slow installation mentioned in https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unattended- upgrades/+bug/1690980/comments/37 seems to be LP: #1320403. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to apt

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1690980] Re: unattended-upgrades does not block shutdown of system, as it is designed to

Re inhibitor: One can run u-u --download-only from cron first without the inhibitor then the full u-u with the inhibitor. While this method does not allow per-transaction granularity, it is a fairly good solution without added complexity. I someone comes up with a proper patch it may be

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1649709] Re: unatttended-upgrades 0.92ubuntu3 installs all updates but update-manager is set to only install security automatically

So I agree with Terry's comment. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to unattended-upgrades in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1649709 Title: unatttended-upgrades 0.92ubuntu3 installs all updates but

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1649709] Re: unatttended-upgrades 0.92ubuntu3 installs all updates but update-manager is set to only install security automatically

I think this is not really a bug. > update-manager is set to the default settings: > - Download and install security updates automatically > - Display other updates weekly > > I assume this is a regression caused by the fix for bug 1624641. > > Allowed origins are: ['o=Ubuntu,a=zesty',

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1690980] Re: unattended-upgrades does not block shutdown of system, as it is designed to

IMO the proper fix involves several changes which I collected in this GitHub branch to be merged to upstream: https://github.com/rbalint/unattended-upgrades/commits/lock-handling Since the changes are extensive I would prefer merging them upstream, releasing them to sid, then Artful, and then

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1690980] Re: unattended-upgrades does not block shutdown of system, as it is designed to

I opened a PR upstream with the proposed fix and also prepared a backport for Xenial in this PPA: https://launchpad.net/~rbalint/+archive/ubuntu/scratch The PPA has a build for Artful, too. PR: https://github.com/mvo5/unattended-upgrades/pull/64 -- You received this bug notification because

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1690980] Re: unattended-upgrades does not block shutdown of system, as it is designed to

** Changed in: unattended-upgrades (Ubuntu) Status: Incomplete => Confirmed -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to unattended-upgrades in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1690980 Title:

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1690980] Re: unattended-upgrades does not block shutdown of system, as it is designed to

The new set of commits for u-u are in https://github.com/rbalint /unattended-upgrades/commits/master -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to apt in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1690980 Title:

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1690980] Re: unattended-upgrades does not block shutdown of system, as it is designed to

Instead of providing the drop-in and placing it in u-u's preinst I think it would be better to fix apt instead. Apt already exits on SIGUSR1 thus even when u-u is not installed this seems to work correctly. I've uploaded apt and u-u for testing to ppa:rbalint/scratch, please give them a try.

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1690980] Re: unattended-upgrades does not block shutdown of system, as it is designed to

@Julian: Unattended-upgrades exits gracefully on USR1 and apt exits properly, too. Otherwise apt just gets killed on shutdown and without the kill changes u-u gets killed too which is the issue here. If the default KillMode=control-group is kept dpkg gets the signal, too, and u-u can't protect

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1690980] Re: unattended-upgrades does not block shutdown of system, as it is designed to

@Julian: OK, I'm changing u-u to handle TERM instead which seems reasonable. Looking at the history it used to use INT, but TERM would be the best choice. The KillMode still needs to be changed. Are you OK with that part? -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1690980] Re: unattended-upgrades does not block shutdown of system, as it is designed to

@Julian: OK, I'm changing u-u to handle TERM instead which seems reasonable. Looking at the history it used to use INT, but TERM would be the best choice. The KillMode still needs to be changed. Are you OK with that part? -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1690980] Re: unattended-upgrades does not block shutdown of system, as it is designed to

I moved to handling TERM in u-u: https://github.com/rbalint/unattended-upgrades/commits/master I also attached the patch for APT which changes the KillMode and timeout. Since this affects only apt-daily-upgrade.service and it runs "apt.systemd.daily install" which perform minimal tasks when u-u

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1690980] Re: unattended-upgrades does not block shutdown of system, as it is designed to

The apport issue seems to be due to a bug in xenial's shared-mime-info: root@xenial-test:/home/rbalint# time apt-get install -y --allow-downgrades --reinstall apport=2.20.1-0ubuntu2 Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done The following

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1690980] Re: unattended-upgrades does not block shutdown of system, as it is designed to

@Brian: did you have the updated apt 1.2.25~rbalint2 package installed, too? -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to apt in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1690980 Title: unattended-upgrades does not block

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1690980] Re: unattended-upgrades does not block shutdown of system, as it is designed to

When InstallOnShutdown is not set u-u is still asked to stop gracefully during download/installation thus all updates may not get installed but the consistency of the system is kept. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1690980] Re: unattended-upgrades does not block shutdown of system, as it is designed to

** Changed in: unattended-upgrades (Ubuntu) Status: Confirmed => Fix Committed -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to unattended-upgrades in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1690980 Title:

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1690980] Re: unattended-upgrades does not block shutdown of system, as it is designed to

Thanks, this happened when Unattended-Upgrade::InstallOnShutdown was set. I have uploaded a new u-u package to the ppa and updated the GitHub PR with the fix. Please give the package a try, it now works fine on my system. I did not notice the issue because the download step was quick in my VM.

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1690980] Re: unattended-upgrades does not block shutdown of system, as it is designed to

** Changed in: apt (Ubuntu) Status: New => Fix Committed -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to unattended-upgrades in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1690980 Title: unattended-upgrades does not

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1686803] Re: sudo returns exit code 0 if child is killed with SIGTERM

The verification is simple and I did verify the patches but I don't count since I prepared the fix. :-) I've removed myself as assignee to encourage others to to perform the verification. ** Changed in: sudo (Ubuntu Yakkety) Assignee: Balint Reczey (rbalint) => (unassigned) ** Chan

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1690980] Re: unattended-upgrades does not block shutdown of system, as it is designed to

** Changed in: unattended-upgrades (Ubuntu) Status: Incomplete => In Progress -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to unattended-upgrades in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1690980 Title:

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1690980] Re: unattended-upgrades does not block shutdown of system, as it is designed to

Could you please test the attached patch on Xenial either by rebuilding the package or by grabbing it from https://launchpad.net/~rbalint/+archive/ubuntu/scratch ? It is expected to fix the communication between u-u and u-u-shutdown and make u-u-shutdown wait properly for u-u to finish. **

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1686803] Re: sudo returns exit code 0 if child is killed with SIGTERM

If the Security Team does not want to handle this themselves I will happily provide the SRUs. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to sudo in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1686803 Title: sudo returns exit

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1690980] Re: unattended-upgrades does not block shutdown of system, as it is designed to

We discussed the test with Brian, and ending in inconsistent states can still occur when running u-u manually/via cron. In those cases the apt fix does not protect dpkg from being terminated early. When running u-u manually or via cron it is recommended to use workaround 3. from #19, i.e.

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1690980] Re: unattended-upgrades does not block shutdown of system, as it is designed to

@Julian, @Michael: I think the timeout of 900 seconds should be increased to 1800 seconds and the 10 min delay in u-u-s should also be bumped to 25min. Ethan experienced updates taking ~10 minutes over wifi. I believe updates will keep accumulating and are getting bigger, thus letting u-u run

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1690980] Re: unattended-upgrades does not block shutdown of system, as it is designed to

@Brian: It looks like blocking shutdown did work properly but the upgrade itself took longer than 15 minutes which is the current timeout. (see u-u.log) I already filed a PR against u-u to bump the timeout to 30 mins: https://github.com/mvo5/unattended-upgrades/pull/69 , but in this case apt's

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1690980] Re: unattended-upgrades does not block shutdown of system, as it is designed to

For being on the safe side on slow machines I would bump the timeout even higher. I'll also file a PR setting --minimal-upgrade-steps the default which will allow upgrading in transactions by default. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1649709] Re: unatttended-upgrades 0.92ubuntu3 installs all updates but update-manager is set to only install security automatically on development release

** Summary changed: - unatttended-upgrades 0.92ubuntu3 installs all updates but update-manager is set to only install security automatically + unatttended-upgrades 0.92ubuntu3 installs all updates but update-manager is set to only install security automatically on development release -- You

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1690980] Re: unattended-upgrades does not block shutdown of system, as it is designed to

I've filed the PR to default to minimal steps fixing a few related issues: https://github.com/mvo5/unattended-upgrades/pull/70 @Brian: This should really work in your tests leaving a consistent system behind on shutdown. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1690980] Re: unattended-upgrades does not block shutdown of system, as it is designed to

@Ethan Yes, the "All upgrades installed" message is still misleading. Note however that there are two modes of u-u you can operate in on shutdown and they are picked by setting Unattended- Upgrade::InstallOnShutdown. When it is set to True u-u runs to completion (unless it times out after 15

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1690980] Re: unattended-upgrades does not block shutdown of system, as it is designed to

@Brian: Thanks! Verbose/debug mode seems to cause the errors and possibly the inconsistent state, too, due to u-u crashing early. The other case where you can still get an inconsistent state is when u-u takes more than 15 minutes to install all the packages in a way that it can't be interrupted

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1685484] Re: DHCP exit hook for setting NTP servers doesn't work

I tried reproducing the issue, but without NM it worked. Seems to be LP: #293139, but I dig further and test in a VM with NM. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to systemd in Ubuntu.

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1685484] Re: DHCP exit hook for setting NTP servers doesn't work

** Changed in: systemd (Ubuntu) Status: New => In Progress -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to systemd in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1685484 Title: DHCP exit hook for setting NTP servers

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1685484] Re: DHCP exit hook for setting systemd-timesyncd NTP servers doesn't work

Submitted patch in the bug for Debian, waiting for comments. ** Summary changed: - DHCP exit hook for setting NTP servers doesn't work + DHCP exit hook for setting systemd-timesyncd NTP servers doesn't work ** Bug watch added: Debian Bug tracker #861769

[Touch-packages] [Bug 293139] Re: NetworkManager does not use dhclient-exit-hooks.d

** Bug watch added: Debian Bug tracker #537358 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=537358 ** Also affects: network-manager (Debian) via http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=537358 Importance: Unknown Status: Unknown -- You received this bug notification

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1675138] Re: Please transition to Boost 1.62

Fixed in xenial-proposed, verified in 0.26.3+16.04.20170510-0ubuntu1. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to mir in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1675138 Title: Please transition to Boost 1.62 Status in

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1675138] Re: Please transition to Boost 1.62

The package does not actually transition to Boost 1.62 in Xenial because this Boost version is not present there, but mirtest-dev properly depends on unversioned Boost development libraries. ** Tags removed: verification-needed ** Tags added: verification-done -- You received this bug

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1696970] Re: softlockup DoS causes systemd-journald.service to abort with SIGABORT

The journal restart can be observed on zesty as well. However, the journal is not corrupted, the renaming and replacing took place as a safety measure due to unclean shutdown. $ sudo journalctl --verify --file=/run/log/journal/*/* PASS:

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1663157] Re: Guest session processes are not confined in 16.10 and newer releases

** Changed in: lightdm (Ubuntu Artful) Status: Triaged => In Progress -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to lightdm in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1663157 Title: Guest session processes are not

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1629226] Re: systemd's service killed by cgroup controller pids

** Changed in: bash (Ubuntu) Status: Triaged => In Progress -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to bash in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1629226 Title: systemd's service killed by cgroup

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1629226] Re: systemd's service killed by cgroup controller pids

Regarding the original report this is a simple program which keeps the maximal allowed children running and it does not get killed by cgroups, just the fork() call fails: --- #include #include #include #include #include #include #include #include #define MASTER_SLEEP_NS 100L #define

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1686803] Re: sudo returns exit code 0 if child is killed with SIGTERM

** Patch added: "yakkety patch" https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/sudo/+bug/1686803/+attachment/4895118/+files/sudo_1.8.16-0ubuntu3.3.patch -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to sudo in Ubuntu.

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1686803] Re: sudo returns exit code 0 if child is killed with SIGTERM

** Patch added: "zesty patch" https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/sudo/+bug/1686803/+attachment/4895117/+files/sudo_1.8.19p1-1ubuntu1.2.patch -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to sudo in Ubuntu.

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1686803] Re: sudo returns exit code 0 if child is killed with SIGTERM

** Patch added: "xenial patch" https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/sudo/+bug/1686803/+attachment/4895119/+files/sudo_1.8.16-0ubuntu1.5.patch ** Changed in: sudo (Ubuntu Artful) Assignee: Balint Reczey (rbalint) => (unassigned) -- You received this bug notificatio

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1686803] Re: sudo returns exit code 0 if child is killed with SIGTERM

** Description changed: + [Impact] + + * sudo returns exit code 0 if child is killed with signals other than SIGINT + * This can break scripts assuming successful execution of the command ran by +sudo + + [Test Case] + + * Open two separate shells +1. In shell 1. run: +

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1697587] Re: Please merge sudo (main) 1.8.20p2-1 from Debian unstable (main)

** Patch added: "debdiff compared to latest Ubuntu version" https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/sudo/+bug/1697587/+attachment/4894983/+files/sudo_1.8.19p1-1ubuntu1_1.8.20p2-1ubuntu1.patch -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages,

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1697587] Re: Please merge sudo (main) 1.8.20p2-1 from Debian unstable (main)

** Patch added: "debdiff compared to Debian's version" https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/sudo/+bug/1697587/+attachment/4894982/+files/sudo_1.8.20p2-1ubuntu1.patch -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1697587] Re: Please merge sudo (main) 1.8.20p2-1 from Debian unstable (main)

** Patch added: "debdiff compared to Debian's version" https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/sudo/+bug/1697587/+attachment/4894987/+files/sudo_1.8.20p2-1ubuntu1.patch -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1697587] Re: Please merge sudo (main) 1.8.20p2-1 from Debian unstable (main)

sudo (Ubuntu) Assignee: Balint Reczey (rbalint) => (unassigned) -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to sudo in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1697587 Title: Please merge sudo (main) 1.8.20p2-1 from

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1697587] Re: Please merge sudo (main) 1.8.20p2-1 from Debian unstable (main)

Changes: sudo (1.8.20p2-1ubuntu1) artful; urgency=low . * Merge from Debian unstable. (LP: #1697587) Remaining changes: - Use tmpfs location to store timestamp files + debian/rules: change --with-rundir to /var/run/sudo + debian/rules, debian/sudo.service,

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1697587] Re: Please merge sudo (main) 1.8.20p2-1 from Debian unstable (main)

** Tags added: patch -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to sudo in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1697587 Title: Please merge sudo (main) 1.8.20p2-1 from Debian unstable (main) Status in sudo package

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1697587] [NEW] Please merge sudo (main) 1.8.20p2-1 from Debian unstable (main)

Public bug reported: It fixes #LP: 1686803 and contains new upstream releases. ** Affects: sudo (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Assignee: Balint Reczey (rbalint) Status: In Progress ** Changed in: sudo (Ubuntu) Assignee: (unassigned) => Balint Reczey (rbalint) ** Chan

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1686803] Re: sudo returns exit code 0 if child is killed with SIGTERM

Artful will get the fix by merge in LP: #1697587. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to sudo in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1686803 Title: sudo returns exit code 0 if child is killed with SIGTERM

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1576341] Re: systemd in degraded state on startup in LXD containers

Patch for lvm2, tested in zesty lxc container and VM (for regressions). ** Patch added: "lvm2_2.02.167-1ubuntu7.patch" https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/open-iscsi/+bug/1576341/+attachment/4873198/+files/lvm2_2.02.167-1ubuntu7.patch -- You received this bug notification because you

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1576341] Re: systemd in degraded state on startup in LXD containers

Fixed the format of the open-iscsi conditions, it works nicely in (privileged and not privileged) artful containers. ** Patch added: "open-iscsi_2.0.873+git0.3b4b4500-14ubuntu18.patch"

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1576341] Re: systemd in degraded state on startup in LXD containers

>> 1.b i'd like another way to do that, but not sure what a better way would >> be. > > Yeah, I spent some time looking at the CPC generater and it seems like > this is pretty hard-coded: > > 999-cpc-fixes.chroot: > ## -- > # for maverick and newer, use LABEL= for the '/' entry in

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1576341] Re: systemd in degraded state on startup in LXD containers

Adding patch for systemd to skip starting systemd-remount-fs.service in containers. This is the last piece of the puzzle to see systemd in running state in an Artful container, comments are welcome! :-) ** Patch added: "0001-Skip-starting-systemd-remount-fs.service-in-containe.patch"

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1576341] Re: systemd in degraded state on startup in LXD containers

>> 1.c does lvm also fail in privileged containers? I can see no use to >> running it (for now) in an unprivileged container, so the same solution >> as 1.a seems reasonable. > > It also fails in privileged containers in the same way (see 2.b in > comment 20). Note that it works if I manually

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1576341] Re: systemd in degraded state on startup in LXD containers

Regarding the systemd patch there can be configurations where systemd- remount-fs is needed and does useful work. In those configurations the .service file can be overridden by a local one to start. One other - not too clean - option is locally diverting /lib/systemd /systemd-remount-fs in image

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1624644] Re: Unable to automatically remove packages that become unused in conjunction with updating by other software

@Jarno I added update-manager based on my experience with (less experienced) users, who kept their system up-to-date by saying yes to everything regarding updates which popped up on their system. They never touched apt or synaptic nor installed packages by themselves by other means. I think

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1690980] Re: unattended-upgrades does not block shutdown of system, as it is designed to

@Ethan, On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 12:04 PM, ethan.hsieh wrote: > @Balint > > Here is my test result: (InstallOnShutdown:true) > > Packages will be installed when rebooting system. > I rebooted system five times, but system still didn't finish the update. > It took too

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1690980] Re: unattended-upgrades does not block shutdown of system, as it is designed to

@Ethan: Thanks for the test and the logs. Those show that the fix works but the move to minimal steps slowed down u-u a lot. I tried fixing the slowdown by finishing the concept of pre-calculating the steps then performing them but IMO this direction is not safe and can potentially leave

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1690980] Re: unattended-upgrades does not block shutdown of system, as it is designed to

It is also worth noting that users should rarely meet such slow upgrade as the number of packages to upgrade with each run is usually much lower. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to apt in Ubuntu.

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1717280] Re: systemctl stop unattended-upgrades.service hangs during upgrade

I believe i fixed this issue in 0.95, with this commit: https://github.com/mvo5/unattended-upgrades/commit/ffd53631219b32dfd28cd5dfd447bddd3d8b3d5e -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to unattended-upgrades in

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1717280] Re: systemctl stop unattended-upgrades.service hangs during upgrade

Needs SRU, IMO. ** Changed in: unattended-upgrades (Ubuntu) Status: New => Fix Released -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to unattended-upgrades in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1717280 Title:

Re: [Touch-packages] [Bug 1690980] Re: unattended-upgrades does not block shutdown of system, as it is designed to

@Ethan On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 9:29 AM, ethan.hsieh wrote: > @Balint > > Here is test result for InstallOnShutdown:true > > "Errors were encountered while processing: apport" > u-u still has packages to upgrade after this issue happens. > So, when I reboot system every

Re: [Touch-packages] [Bug 1690980] Re: unattended-upgrades does not block shutdown of system, as it is designed to

@Ethan On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 12:21 PM, ethan.hsieh wrote: > @Balint > > Here is test result for InstallOnShutdown:false > > Timestamp: > 1. 13:25:10~13:40:32: 15mins > 2. reboot system > 3. 14:59:17~16:44:18: 1hr45mins > Total: 2hr > > Comparing to the test result in

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1718419] Re: Please merge unattended-upgrades 0.97 (main) from Debian unstable (main)

** Tags added: artful -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to unattended-upgrades in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1718419 Title: Please merge unattended-upgrades 0.97 (main) from Debian unstable

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1690980] Re: unattended-upgrades does not block shutdown of system, as it is designed to

@Ethan Based on profiling real-life scenario (updating unstable with 100+ packages) I believe I was able to make u-u ~10 > times faster that should bring down the time of your test of upgrading xenial with all security updates to below one hour. Since running only dpkg's part took more than 30

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1624644] Re: Unable to automatically remove packages that become unused in conjunction with updating by other software

Added update-manager as affected package because update-manager is the tool leaving newly unused packages around. ** Also affects: update-manager (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages,

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1718419] Re: Please merge unattended-upgrades 0.97 (main) from Debian unstable (main)

** Patch added: "debdiff compared to latest Ubuntu version" https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unattended-upgrades/+bug/1718419/+attachment/4953526/+files/unattended-upgrades_0.96ubuntu1_to_0.97ubuntu1.patch -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1718419] Re: Please merge unattended-upgrades 0.97 (main) from Debian unstable (main)

d ** Changed in: unattended-upgrades (Ubuntu) Assignee: Balint Reczey (rbalint) => (unassigned) ** Description changed: The update fixes issues which surfaced when u-u switched installing updates in minimal steps, most notably the minimal-steps method being very slow - 0.97 speeds u

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1714429] Re: hang on shutdown with static network configuration

When you see the messages appearing on the screenshot u-u is downloading/installing packages in the background and unattended- upgrade-shutdown is waiting for u-u to finish. Do you see related activity in /var/log/unattended-upgrades/* ? I assume you have not changed u-u configuration. There

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1718419] [NEW] Please merge unattended-upgrades 0.97 (main) from Debian unstable (main)

Public bug reported: The update fixes issues which surfaced when u-u switched installing updates in minimal steps, most notably the minimal-steps method being very slow 0.97 speeds up u-u ~90% which brings current worst-case (xenial with no security fixes -> fully updates) run-time down to

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1718419] Re: Please merge unattended-upgrades 0.97 (main) from Debian unstable (main)

** Changed in: unattended-upgrades (Ubuntu) Status: New => In Progress ** Changed in: unattended-upgrades (Ubuntu) Assignee: (unassigned) => Balint Reczey (rbalint) -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subs

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1722426] Re: Please merge unattended-upgrades 0.98 (main) from Debian unstable (main) Edit

I uploaded the updated package here: https://launchpad.net/~rbalint/+archive/ubuntu/scratch The autopkgtests also pass:

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1722426] Re: Please merge unattended-upgrades 0.98 (main) from Debian unstable (main) Edit

Interestingly autopkgtest ran with 0.97ubuntu2. Investigating while running test on my machine. Tests are passing in Debian: https://ci.debian.net/packages/u/unattended-upgrades/unstable/amd64/ -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages,

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1722426] Re: Please merge unattended-upgrades 0.98 (main) from Debian unstable (main) Edit

Autopkgtest passed on my system: ... autopkgtest [11:51:12]: test test-systemd.py: [--- bash: line 1: 5437 Killed /tmp/autopkgtest.lIv7Of/build.fbn/unattended-upgrades-0.98ubuntu1/debian/tests/test-systemd.py 2> >(tee -a

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1723761] Re: unattended-upgrade hangs on shutdown when network is required for updates

There are two modes of running u-u chosen by setting Unattended- Upgrade::InstallOnShutdown to "false" (default) or "true". When InstallOnShutdown is "false" apt's apt-daily-upgrade.service runs u-u thus this service needs to ensure that network is still up, to not break similar packages. Note

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1690980] Re: unattended-upgrades does not block shutdown of system, as it is designed to

@Ethan: Re: ping over IRC, yes, please apt_1.2.25-rbalint2 for testing u-u. When Unattended-Upgrade::InstallOnShutdown is set u-u should also work properly with apt 1.2.24 from -updates. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1624644] Re: Unable to automatically remove packages that become unused in conjunction with updating by other software

@Jarno: IMO Unattended-Upgrade::Remove-Unused-Dependencies is already a risky option and I don't recommend enabling it because it may remove packages which are not used according the to package-dependency chain but which users rely on using software that is not packaged. The only place I would

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1624644] Re: Unable to automatically remove packages that become unused in conjunction with updating by other software

I suggest marking that bug as Won't Fix. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to unattended-upgrades in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1624644 Title: Unable to automatically remove packages that become

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >