[Touch-packages] [Bug 2025965] Re: aptsources deb822 Section constructor fails on valid .sources file

2023-07-04 Thread Mike Vastola
Also, if it helps, here's a minimal example python file, triggering the error (requires attached `00ubuntu.sources` to be in cwd) ** Attachment added: "Minimal example of error (requires other attached `00ubuntu.sources` file)" https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/python-apt/+bug/2025965

[Touch-packages] [Bug 2025965] Re: aptsources deb822 Section constructor fails on valid .sources file

2023-07-04 Thread Mike Vastola
-- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to python-apt in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2025965 Title: aptsources deb822 Section constructor fails on valid .sources file Status in command-not-found package in

[Touch-packages] [Bug 2025965] [NEW] aptsources deb822 Section constructor fails on valid .sources file

2023-07-04 Thread Mike Vastola
Public bug reported: When attempting to parse (what I believe is) a perfectly valid deb822-formated `.sources` file, the library's `_deb822.Section` constructor parses my file incorrectly, resulting in an exception being thrown. At a low level, the error is `ValueError: Unable to parse section da

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1786125] Re: Incorrect UpgradeStatus field value in saved crash file

2018-08-10 Thread Mike Vastola
Ahh.. That's what it checks. No need. My problem then is I haven't been using do-release-upgrade to do updates for a long time. I have a ton of complicated dependencies that always seem to fail on upgrade, so I've been manually replacing the codename in /etc/apt/sources.list for each upgrade. So

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1786125] [NEW] Incorrect UpgradeStatus field value in saved crash file

2018-08-08 Thread Mike Vastola
Public bug reported: For whatever reason, when I run apport-bug or apport-cli, the crash file that is generated/submitted contains the line: UpgradeStatus: Upgraded to bionic on 2014-12-03 (1344 days ago) Obviously this is wildly incorrect, and I'm not even sure how this value was obtained. (I i