[Bug 1965181] Re: ffmpeg: FFmpeg 5.0 (ppa:savoury1/ffmpeg5) uninstallable -- plus general SavOS discussion
Updated builds of FFmpeg 5.0 against libx264-164 and also libplacebo199 are now available at ppa:savoury1/ffmpeg5 for Xenial, Bionic, and Focal LTS. Enjoy. ** Changed in: savos Status: New => Fix Released -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1965181 Title: ffmpeg: FFmpeg 5.0 (ppa:savoury1/ffmpeg5) uninstallable -- plus general SavOS discussion To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/savos/+bug/1965181/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1965181] Re: ffmpeg: FFmpeg 5.0 (ppa:savoury1/ffmpeg5) uninstallable -- plus general SavOS discussion
<-- CONTINUED FROM ABOVE --> Regardless of solo effort or team, at least a sufficient percentage of the users of the project DO need to support the work, just as with any other notable projects like Linux Mint (Ubuntu of course has a well known corporation backing them). Without question the Linux Mint devs depend on the donations (now quite respectable amounts) each and every month to keep going. The Linux Mint blog gives a quite detailed statement regularly (monthly?) about who donated, the total amount received, and so on. Linux Mint is a world-renowned project and has a good flow of such support, due millions of users by now for sure. Whereas this project SavOS (based on the first three letters of my own name, evidently) is just “starting out”. Even though there has been 2.5 years getting it to this point, a consistent effort on my part as I do truly want it to flourish, and to serve the needs of a greater and greater number of people who for whatever reasons like and choose to run older hardware and/or operating system versions than the “latest” and often not “greatest”. That’s a good amount of candid commentary from the creator of the project, myself, for the public record. It’s not that I’m ever “giving up” and I’m always ready to continue and do even more. But this is dependent on a percentage of the community of the people who are using the software that I’ve been uploading (and who DO have the ability to do so) being willing to provide more real actual donation-level support in a regular fashion such that I CAN keep doing this work regularly, and don’t have to go and get some other silly and meaningless (to me) “day job” just to eat! ~Rob -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1965181 Title: ffmpeg: FFmpeg 5.0 (ppa:savoury1/ffmpeg5) uninstallable -- plus general SavOS discussion To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/savos/+bug/1965181/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1965181] Re: ffmpeg: FFmpeg 5.0 (ppa:savoury1/ffmpeg5) uninstallable -- plus general SavOS discussion
<-- CONTINUED FROM ABOVE --> Although I have built high-end web-server farms previously, and then maintained them as a server engineer, I have done very little actual website creation (only a couple of blog type photo sites, that kind of thing) and I don’t have a strong interest in it due my focus on the systems side of things. Of course I know how to read and code HTML, and had to do some basic bug-fixing of such during “systems emergencies” over the years when the web devs were not immediately available in a crisis. But it’s just that I’ve never got around to doing my own site for this project yet, always just keeping on pushing out more packages and more updates with my available time for the good of the user base! So anyone out there who might see this “bug report” and be reading this more general discussion who: a) likes and uses and supports this project; b) wants it to continue; c) has good experience with website development; and d) would be happy to help with such creation of a good website, please do contact me! To improve the marketing would make a distinct difference, but due me being a “one man team” so far and mainly still always focusing on just doing updates, I’ve never done much on the marketing as I am explaining. In terms of team effort, of course putting ALL of the Debian/Ubuntu packaging from my own build systems on to Github (or similar) would be necessary. Arch Linux has all their packaging on Github and it is a simple and workable system as far as I’m concerned, and I refer to their packaging frequently when their packages are newer or built in what could be described as a “fuller” or “better” way than the Debian/Ubuntu equivalents. Then there would also be full public record of exactly what packaging is being used to build the binaries, with people (including me) naturally liking that so everyone knows for sure that nothing untoward, buggy, or even malicious is being “put into the mix”. This can of course be confirmed on a package-by-package basis anyhow, by downloading any/all distinct *.debian.* tarballs such as via the .dsc downloads from the PPAs, as is required for properly published free and open source software in all cases (not just Debian/Ubuntu). So all of these matters have been bouncing around in my consideration about the project for actually more than two years as a matter of fact! Meanwhile I’ve just kept on with building and building the whole thing. Yet it’s all now at a point of maturity in terms of the sum-total of all available packages and the possibilities of significant cohesive upgrades across an entire “older” system that it is most certainly time to progress to the next level, or for it to fade away if I can’t even get enough income from it to survive! <-- CONTINUED BELOW --> -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1965181 Title: ffmpeg: FFmpeg 5.0 (ppa:savoury1/ffmpeg5) uninstallable -- plus general SavOS discussion To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/savos/+bug/1965181/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1965181] Re: ffmpeg: FFmpeg 5.0 (ppa:savoury1/ffmpeg5) uninstallable -- plus general SavOS discussion
<-- CONTINUED FROM ABOVE --> My own two systems that all the building is done on would no doubt even be considered "vintage" now, with one circa early 2012 and the other circa mid-2013! Yet they are power-houses that work brilliantly, and the base of them both is STILL the good ’ol Xenial (plus ALL relevant PPAs at my Launchpad site) and they are as rock solid as any computer systems I’ve ever run. This is coming from a former high-level server engineer of corporate systems, who used to architect, purchase, and build from scratch entire web farms serving millions upon millions of hits per day (some years ago now, yes, but that’s my background pre-Linux in the past five or so years), for some very big global corporations with well-known brand names (not worth mentioning). Yet even as someone with over 30 years professional experience providing high-level systems support I do my absolute best to never waste my own money, time, and even more of the planet’s finite resources on frequent trivial upgrades to my hardware or software, as I have better things to do (and better for the planet too). In response to your query about sharing the burden (open source being all about teamwork and all), until recently (and for at least many months, maybe a year and more) the main page of my Launchpad site did make one reference to the desire for a team to help with this work, which was only changed in late January 2022 when survival had to become the tantamount concern for me moving forwards. You can see the exact words that were on the main page here (the words quoted next are found just prior to the long table listing highlights of all the software): https://web.archive.org/web/20220126052554/https://launchpad.net/~savoury1 “This site represents a very large effort of time and energy by one person (so far, next step is for a team!) so all contributions make a difference.” An issue and one could say limitation with me professionally (and personally) is a lack of both experience and/or time/attention/interest on doing better marketing. My position on that is simple: if what I’m doing is not of a super high quality and good enough to sell itself to anyone who might come across it, then what am I selling? This ethos however is of course a bit restrictive, even if (to me) fully ethical, in a world driven mad by constant flashing ads and the like. It’s an area that I struggle with, as I’m saying. So a critical aspect of this whole project would be to finally manifest some level of website at https://savos.tech which has sat dormant for two years since I purchased the domain name for this work. <-- CONTINUED BELOW --> -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1965181 Title: ffmpeg: FFmpeg 5.0 (ppa:savoury1/ffmpeg5) uninstallable -- plus general SavOS discussion To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/savos/+bug/1965181/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1965181] Re: ffmpeg: FFmpeg 5.0 (ppa:savoury1/ffmpeg5) uninstallable -- plus general SavOS discussion
Well this “bug report” has turned somewhat philosophical, again due the nature of the times quite naturally! It’s useful to have these comments on the public record as far as I’m concerned, so I’m actually glad that the discussion here on this “bug report” is taking place. So I am changing the name of the bug report to reflect this also includes general discussion about the “SavOS” project altogether. Given the clear interest in FFmpeg 5.0 and given that two kind people (not specifically connected with this bug report) have made quite honourable donations just this morning (you know who you are and thank you!), being enough to cover at least a few hours of my work, I will simply do the FFmpeg 5.0 rebuilds against libx264-164 for everyone! OK?! It just hasn’t been a priority for me of late to do the rebuilds. This is due me using the FFmpeg build from ppa:savoury1/ffmpeg-git in any case, though it does also need to be rebuilt against libx264-164 as well. But I already have the older libx264-163 installed on my system so it being missing from the FFmpeg 5 related PPAs at this time hasn’t mattered to me personally. @henczati – Thanks for your feedback and also for your sympathy, and I am sorry to hear of both your own lack of income for some time, as well as the immediate and difficult effects of the neighbouring conflict relative to your own situation and survival. It is certainly even affecting everyone on Earth, as petrol prices are up 30%+ in my own area in only about three weeks, as well as many staple food items being up by at least the same (30%+) compared just one year ago. You seem to be understanding the nature of this project based on your comments. A critical idea is to help people keep on running perfectly good operating systems on perfectly good hardware, even if such OS and HW is now several (or even many!) years old. This has always been a passion of mine in my 30+ years of providing professional I.T. support to people, and is in many ways exactly in contract to the general trend of the industry as a whole (it never made me that popular with former colleagues!). To me it makes zero sense at all to force people to upgrade their entire OS just to get new multimedia or office productivity or security software, or Qt stack, or whatever. In fact, I personally loathe this “forced upgrade” mentality that is fully rampant in the I.T. industry in the recent years and for even decades in fact. It is to me (and based on hard scientific facts, beyond my own “opinions”) the absolute anti- thesis of “sustainable” and “resource conscious”. Consider the literal electricity (and the finite planetary resources of physical fuel required to provide such), as well as the massive amount of human “resources” relative the astronomical tally of human work-hours is (again, to me) largely “wasted” on what are often useless and in many situations regressive “upgrades” of computers, both software-wise and hardware-wise. My own two systems that all the building is done on would no doubt even be considered "vintage" now, with one circa early 2012 and the other circa mid-2013! Yet they are power-houses that work brilliantly, and the base of them both is STILL the good ’ol Xenial (plus ALL relevant PPAs at my Launchpad site) and they are as rock solid as any computer systems I’ve ever run. This is coming from a former high-level server engineer of corporate systems, who used to architect, purchase, and build from scratch entire web farms serving millions upon millions of hits per day (some years ago now, yes, but that’s my background pre-Linux in the past five or so years), for some very big global corporations with well-known brand names (not worth mentioning). Yet even as someone with over 30 years professional experience providing high-level systems support I do my absolute best to never waste my own money, time, and the even more of the planet’s finite resources on frequent trivial upgrades to my hardware or software, as I have better things to do (and better for the planet too). In response to your query about sharing the burden (open source being all about teamwork and all), until recently (and for at least many months, maybe a year and more) the main page of my Launchpad site did make one reference to the desire for a team to help with this work, which was only changed in late January 2022 when survival had to become the tantamount concern for me moving forwards. You can see the exact words that were on the main page here (the words quoted next are found just prior to the long table listing highlights of all the software): https://web.archive.org/web/20220126052554/https://launchpad.net/~savoury1 “This site represents a very large effort of time and energy by one person (so far, next step is for a team!) so all contributions make a difference.” An issue and one could say limitation with me professionally (and personally) is a lack of both experience and/or time/attention/interest on doing better
[Bug 1965181] Re: ffmpeg: from ppa:savoury1/ffmpeg5 on Bionic is uninstallable using instructions (libx264-163 unavailable)
Pieter, it's quite simple, FFmpeg 5 needs to be rebuilt against the new libx264-164 and I have been well aware of this for weeks. However, due FFmpeg 5 not being used by any other PPAs at my site it is not a priority. Also, in all likelihood the entire project that I've spent 2.5 years working on (all the various PPAs under https://launchpad.net/~savoury1) will be ending, due the fact that there is just such a tiny fraction of a percent of the many thousands and thousands (15,000 likely users based on recent stats) who even care enough about the work to support my effort doing it. Thus, now I have to urgently find some form of work that actually DOES bring in enough for me to literally survive. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1965181 Title: ffmpeg: from ppa:savoury1/ffmpeg5 on Bionic is uninstallable using instructions (libx264-163 unavailable) To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/savos/+bug/1965181/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1965181] Re: ffmpeg: from ppa:savoury1/ffmpeg5 on Bionic is uninstallable using instructions (libx264-163 unavailable)
Have updated the description of the FFmpeg 5 PPA with the following: *** THIS PPA IS "EXPERIMENTAL" -- NO SUPPORT IS OFFERED FOR FFMPEG 5 *** No attention to bugs with FFmpeg 5 will be given at this time, due it not being used by any other software at any other PPAs of mine. ** Changed in: savos Importance: Undecided => Low ** Changed in: savos Assignee: (unassigned) => Rob Savoury (savoury1) -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1965181 Title: ffmpeg: from ppa:savoury1/ffmpeg5 on Bionic is uninstallable using instructions (libx264-163 unavailable) To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/savos/+bug/1965181/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1947424] Re: Cannot set pbuilder build locale
OK, so it DOESN'T work for me when using a custom configfile. Putting "export LC_ALL=C.UTF-8" into that custom config file and starting the pbuilder build results in the same "LC_ALL=C" still being set, although other LC_* env vars are now set to "C.UTF-8". So although it might be INTENDED to work by using the custom configfile, I'm still seeing LC_ALL=C regardless. Also, the point is not that a "policy-conforming" package doesn't build, it's that in the real world various real builds fail due the incorrect locale. So in a "perfect" world then perhaps it wouldn't matter that pbuilder is using a DIFFERENT locale than all official sbuild Debian and Ubuntu builds. But in the actual real world it does matter, and therefore I still consider it a serious bug and limitation. In any case, thank you all for your feedback, and have a nice day! -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1947424 Title: Cannot set pbuilder build locale To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/pbuilder/+bug/1947424/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1947424] Re: Cannot set pbuilder build locale
So any use of a config file does not actually allowing setting LANG/LC_ALL for the dpkg-buildpackage invocation. Already in use on my personal build system is a detailed $HOME/.pbuilderrc config file and adding LANG/LC_ALL exports to this file did not affect the used locales for the actual build. When looking at the pbuilder-buildpackage script LANG/LC_ALL are both explicitly exported as "C" at the beginning of this main build script. This clearly makes any attempts to set them for the actual dpkg-buildpackage invocation fail. Based on the above that is why the solution of adding two new variables BUILD_LANG and BUILD_LC_ALL was chosen, as these do not then conflict with the explicit exports in pbuilder-buildpackage. Given that I have not had time to debug all implications of changing those explicit exports in the main build script (and what changing them might potentially break) adding two new distinctly named variables was an easy and workable solution. Also, I wouldn't really call this a "wishlist" bug due the fact that without addressing the issue of the locale exports in the pbuilder package one way or another it makes it impossible to actually use the same locale as for all official sbuild Debian and Ubuntu builds. This seems to be a serious limitation to me actually, as I've stated in the patch preamble. Perhaps Jessica's suggestion of simply changing the two explicit exports in pbuilder-buildpackage to the same as used for official builds (ie. to "C.UTF-8") is a good one, but that would obviously require debugging the whole script to prevent possible breakage. In any case, the patched version that I've uploaded to my Launchpad build-tools PPA (ppa:savoury1/build-tools) works exactly as intended for anyone who actually does want a pbuilder that is capable of setting the locale for the actual build process. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1947424 Title: Cannot set pbuilder build locale To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/pbuilder/+bug/1947424/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1947424] [NEW] Cannot set pbuilder build locale
Public bug reported: The build locale cannot be set with pbuilder and always defaults to "C" (for both LANG and LC_ALL on Launchpad builds) rather than to "C.UTF-8" as used by sbuild for all official Debian and Ubuntu builds. This causes FTBFS of various packages that depend on the correct locale being set on the build system, often noticeable with the test suites of Python packages for instance. The attached patch changes only five lines of code (pbuilder- buildpackage and pbuilderrc) to allow easy setting of the pbuilder build locale. Based on local testing the patch works as intended, in that packages depending on the correct locale which FTBFS using unpatched pbuilder (yet build successfully with sbuild on Launchpad) now also build successfully with the local patched pbuilder. Please consider applying the patch. ** Affects: pbuilder (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New ** Patch added: "allow-setting-pbuilder-build-locale.patch" https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1947424/+attachment/5533328/+files/allow-setting-pbuilder-build-locale.patch -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1947424 Title: Cannot set pbuilder build locale To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/pbuilder/+bug/1947424/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1937316] Re: Cannot download source packages provided by Ubuntu ESM
Understood. It is simply a distinction therefore between ESM supported systems and regular LTS supported systems (still in the usual five year support window). Good to have that clarified. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1937316 Title: Cannot download source packages provided by Ubuntu ESM To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-advantage-tools/+bug/1937316/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1937316] Re: Cannot download source packages provided by Ubuntu ESM
An update is that this seems to be due the fact that only root has permissions to /etc/apt/auth.conf.d/90ubuntu-advantage which is evidently the critical file required to authenticate with the Ubuntu ESM servers. Running "sudo apt-get source" instead does work. So perhaps this is how the ubuntu-advantage-tools package is intended to work rather than a "bug" as such. However, normally one does not have to run "apt-get source" as root for it to work, so this is certainly distinct functionality with ubuntu-advantage-tools than in general for a Ubuntu system. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1937316 Title: Cannot download source packages provided by Ubuntu ESM To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-advantage-tools/+bug/1937316/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1937316] [NEW] Cannot download source packages provided by Ubuntu ESM
Public bug reported: Running ubuntu-advantage-tools 27.1~16.04.1 on a Xenial 16.04 system which is attached to my Ubuntu Advantage subscription as follows: $ ua status SERVICE ENTITLED STATUSDESCRIPTION cis yes disabled Center for Internet Security Audit Tools esm-infra yes enabled UA Infra: Extended Security Maintenance (ESM) fips yes disabled NIST-certified FIPS modules fips-updates yes disabled Uncertified security updates to FIPS modules livepatch yes disabled Canonical Livepatch service Enable services with: ua enable Account: (redacted) Subscription: (redacted) --- When attempting to download source packages via the usual "apt-get source" command it always results in the following error: 401 Unauthorized [IP: 91.189.91.46 443] The expected result is for the source package (via the .dsc file) to download successfully. ** Affects: ubuntu-advantage-tools (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1937316 Title: Cannot download source packages provided by Ubuntu ESM To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-advantage-tools/+bug/1937316/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1932094] [NEW] Make libutfcpp-dev arch-indep to allow dependent package i386 builds
Public bug reported: Due libutfcpp-dev from utfcpp source being architecture dependent and not on the Launchpad i386 whitelist other software that depends on libutfcpp-dev cannot build i386 binaries for Focal and newer series. This includes software that is on the i386 whitelist such as taglib, which as of version 1.12~beta (currently in Debian experimental) build- depends on libutfcpp-dev. Various other software on the i386 whitelist such as VLC then build- depends on libtag1-dev from taglib source. So for example the future builds once taglib 1.12 has been released to Debian/Ubuntu archives will require libutfcpp-dev be arch-independent to allow successful builds of i386 binaries of other dependent packages. As utfcpp provides four headers only there should be no issue with making libutfcpp-dev arch- independent. ** Affects: utfcpp (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1932094 Title: Make libutfcpp-dev arch-indep to allow dependent package i386 builds To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/utfcpp/+bug/1932094/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1901355] Re: Groovy: libsmbclient users FTBFS against Samba 4.12.5
Patch fixes issue with libsmbclient users FTBFS against Samba 4.12.5 in Groovy. ** Patch added: "add-missing-time-h-include.patch" https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/samba/+bug/1901355/+attachment/5430848/+files/add-missing-time-h-include.patch -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1901355 Title: Groovy: libsmbclient users FTBFS against Samba 4.12.5 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/samba/+bug/1901355/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1901355] Re: Groovy: libsmbclient users FTBFS against Samba 4.12.5
The new ceph 15.2.5-0ubuntu1.1 package (https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu- security/+archive/ubuntu/ppa/+build/20200352) fixes the issue, published a few days after I submitted the above bug report. Renaming bug report to "Groovy: libsmbclient users FTBFS against Samba 4.12.5" due that bug still being in the Groovy Samba package. See last paragraph and then link in above report. Software including FFmpeg 4.3.1 (if smbclient support is enabled) FTBFS against Samba 4.12.5 due the missing time.h header issue. ** Summary changed: - Groovy: Samba 4.12.5 FTBFS against Ceph 15.2.5 + Groovy: libsmbclient users FTBFS against Samba 4.12.5 -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1901355 Title: Groovy: libsmbclient users FTBFS against Samba 4.12.5 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/samba/+bug/1901355/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1901355] [NEW] Groovy: Samba 4.12.5 FTBFS against Ceph 15.2.5
Public bug reported: Samba 4.12.5 as shipped in Groovy FTBFS (specifically amd64, not i386 which builds fine due no Ceph support, other arches untested) against Ceph 15.2.5 also shipped in Groovy, due changes in Ceph > 15.2.3 to cephfs. Samba 4.12.5 was successfully built against Ceph 15.2.3 for Groovy release repos on 2020-09-28 (https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/samba/2:4.12.5+dfsg- 3ubuntu4/+build/20085494) and then ceph 15.2.5 was built for Groovy release repos on 2020-10-07 (https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ceph/15.2.5-0ubuntu1/+build/20121251). So it seems that no official Ubuntu build of Samba 4.12.5 has yet been attempted against new Ceph 15.2.5, though Samba may well need a security patch or two in the lifetime of the Groovy release (almost a certainty!) so this Samba build failure relative Ceph will need to be resolved one way or another, prior to any such possible security patch of Samba. Here are the relevant excerpts from the Launchpad build log (see https://launchpad.net/~savoury1/+archive/ubuntu/build-tools- stage/+build/20183191 for full log): --- debian/rules override_dh_auto_configure make[1]: Entering directory '/<>/samba-4.12.5+dfsg' . . . Checking for header cephfs/libcephfs.h : 08:35:23 runner ['/usr/bin/gcc', '-D_SAMBA_BUILD_=4', '-DHAVE_CONFIG_H=1', '-g', '-O2', '-fdebug-prefix-map=/<>/samba-4.12.5+dfsg=.', '-fstack-protector-strong', '-Wformat', '-Werror=format-security', '-MMD', '-D_GNU_SOURCE=1', '-D_XOPEN_SOURCE_EXTENDED=1', '-DHAVE_CONFIG_H=1', '-D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64', '-D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64', '../../test.c', '-c', '-o/<>/samba-4.12.5+dfsg/bin/.conf_check_3436ec45740b8b4a1c7dcc71b48a3f82/testbuild/default/test.c.1.o', '-Wdate-time', '-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2'] no . . . dpkg-shlibdeps: error: cannot read debian/samba-vfs-modules/usr/lib/*/samba/vfs/ceph.so: No such file or directory dh_shlibdeps: error: dpkg-shlibdeps -Tdebian/registry-tools.substvars -pvfsceph -dRecommends -e debian/samba-vfs-modules/usr/lib/\*/samba/vfs/ceph.so debian/registry-tools/usr/bin/regpatch debian/registry-tools/usr/bin/regtree debian/registry-tools/usr/bin/regdiff debian/registry-tools/usr/bin/regshell returned exit code 2 dpkg-shlibdeps: error: cannot read debian/samba-vfs-modules/usr/lib/*/samba/vfs/ceph.so: No such file or directory . . . dh_shlibdeps: error: Aborting due to earlier error make[1]: *** [debian/rules:288: override_dh_shlibdeps] Error 25 --- Ceph history here https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commits/master/src/include/cephfs shows various relevant changes to source (especially changes on Apr 30, 2020 with commits 4436f27, 8370f70, adcf12d, e3b9df7). It seems the Samba waf script (source3/wscript) might need modifications to account for the changes to cephfs? And are the changes to cephfs actually compatible with Samba's current usage or not, ie. does Samba source need to be patched beyond a change to the waf build script(s)? Questions I can't answer, having very little familiarity with the code base of either Samba or Ceph (or with waf). So far I've been unable to find any relevant upstream commits to Samba that account for the changes evident in Ceph 15.2.5 to cephfs. Reason for rebuilding Samba in my PPA is the missing time.h header that results in FTBFS for libsmbclient users (ie. FFmpeg, when smbclient support is explicitly enabled). Might be useful to have Samba in Ubuntu repos officially patched for the time.h header issue too, though maybe that's for another bug report than this one? See https://gitlab.com/samba- team/samba/-/commit/1114b02a72ce0c86a5301816560d270ec47f8be3 for more details. ** Affects: samba (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1901355 Title: Groovy: Samba 4.12.5 FTBFS against Ceph 15.2.5 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/samba/+bug/1901355/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
