** Changed in: sosreport
Status: Unknown => 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/1892275
Title:
[sync][sru] sos upstream 4.0
To manage notifications about this bug go t
Settting Bionic to 'Won't fix' as I will focus effort on new 4.1 release
via LP: #1917894
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1892275
Title:
[sync][sru] sos upstream 4.0
To manage notific
** Changed in: sosreport (Ubuntu Bionic)
Status: In Progress => Won't Fix
** Changed in: sosreport (Ubuntu Bionic)
Assignee: Eric Desrochers (slashd) => (unassigned)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://
** Changed in: sosreport (Ubuntu Xenial)
Status: Confirmed => Won't Fix
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1892275
Title:
[sync][sru] sos upstream 4.0
To manage notifications abou
I ask SRU team to drop 'sosreport' in Bionic's upload queue, as I'd like
to add more things to the package after re-consideration.
Will re-submit soon.
- Eric
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net
Reviewing the Bionic SRU, I see some changes between Focal and the
Bionic backport:
debhelper compat moved back to 11
Removal of setuptools, sphinx and pexpect from Python dependencies
...but I don't see any mention of these changes in the changelog.
Were these changes intentional? Presumably th
** Changed in: sosreport (Ubuntu Bionic)
Importance: Undecided => Medium
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1892275
Title:
[sync][sru] sos upstream 4.0
To manage notifications about t
** Changed in: sosreport (Ubuntu Bionic)
Assignee: (unassigned) => Eric Desrochers (slashd)
** Changed in: sosreport (Ubuntu Xenial)
Status: In Progress => Confirmed
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://
** Changed in: sosreport (Ubuntu Bionic)
Assignee: Eric Desrochers (slashd) => (unassigned)
** Changed in: sosreport (Ubuntu Xenial)
Assignee: Eric Desrochers (slashd) => (unassigned)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to
This bug was fixed in the package sosreport - 4.0-1~ubuntu0.20.04.1
---
sosreport (4.0-1~ubuntu0.20.04.1) focal; urgency=medium
* New 4.0 upstream release. (LP: #1892275)
Release information and tarballs are available at:
- https://github.com/sosreport/sos/releases/tag/4.0
Since from my understanding the sos clean command is a new feature in
this release, I don't think we should block the release because of it
being imperfect. As long as all the issues have been reported and made
their way upstream, I think we are good to go as is.
--
You received this bug notifica
"
Users should review any resulting data and/or archives generated or processed by
this utility for remaining sensitive content before being passed to a third
party.
"
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.
@arif,
lvmdump obfuscation issue as well as other hostname unobfuscated bit
found) has been reported upstream:
https://github.com/sosreport/sos/issues/2236
I personally don't consider this a major blocker for the actual release,
because one still has to validate and check the content before passi
@arif,
lvmdump obfuscation issue reported upstream:
https://github.com/sosreport/sos/issues/2236
I personally don't consider this a major blocker for the actual release,
because one still has to validate and check the content before passing
it along to any 3rd party.
- Eric
** Bug watch added:
Initial Test
* sos report
Ran through the simple.sh as per the document. Had to change all the
/var/tmp to /tmp, and then all went through without a problem
sos report passed, and didn't have any problems
same test using sosreport instead, as that is what customers would be
used to
Ran all my
Thanks Jose.
1) There is a list of file to skip obfuscation:
https://github.com/sosreport/sos/blob/master/sos/cleaner/obfuscation_archive.py#L56-L77
2) Yes, sos keeps track of obfuscation directive in
/etc/sos/cleaner/default_mapping.
Most likely you still have the 'ubuntu' keyword saved in ther
Test report:
- Tested collection of logs, all looks OK.
- Tested obfuscation, extracted obfuscated sosreport and checked *some* of the
obfuscated files, all looks OK.
- I obfuscated the original sosreport again, this time I provided a keyword
(--keyword ubuntu) to obfuscate and did it OK. It add
[VERIFICATION FOCAL]
[sos report (new main binary) / sosreport (former binary name)]
Work as usual. It has been tested with simple.sh script, which runs
various/several sos scenarios/arguments/...).
[sos clean]
Obfuscation works as expect.
Take a bit of time to complete, but nothing preventing
I would like to see testing and feedbacks from others now.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1892275
Title:
[sync][sru] sos upstream 4.0
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
ht
[VERIFICATION FOCAL] [PART 2]
No ERROR nor WARNING found during my testing on container, VM and
physical machine (laptop/workstation)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1892275
Title:
[s
** Changed in: sosreport (Ubuntu Bionic)
Status: New => In Progress
** Changed in: sosreport (Ubuntu Bionic)
Assignee: (unassigned) => Eric Desrochers (slashd)
** Changed in: sosreport (Ubuntu Xenial)
Status: New => In Progress
** Changed in: sosreport (Ubuntu Xenial)
Ass
Approved sosreport 4.0 for focal. One thing I want to make sure people
testing this are aware of is this snippet from the regression potential
section:
"The old config (/etc/sos.conf) contents will not be carried over after
update. Users will have to modify the new file (/etc/sos/sos.conf)
instead
Hello Eric, or anyone else affected,
Accepted sosreport into focal-proposed. The package will build now and
be available at
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/sosreport/4.0-1~ubuntu0.20.04.1 in
a few hours, and then in the -proposed repository.
Please help us by testing this new package. See
h
** Description changed:
[Impact]
The sos team is pleased to announce the release of sos-4.0. This is a major
version release that represents a significant change to the sos project, new
features, and bug fixes.
https://github.com/sosreport/sos/releases/tag/4.0
[Test Case]
* Insta
Considering that "sos report" (AKA soreport) doesn't have any
feature/behavioural breaks (just usual plugins update/addition/...), and
that 4.X focuses more on addition such as "sos clean" and "sos collect",
I start to think it's not worth the maintenance of 2 splitting things
out.
After a discuss
As discussed the above proposal might require a meta package call
'sosreport4' in Groovy to ease the upgrade path.
Again let's wait for a Ubuntu archive admin to look at this.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bu
That's also going to involve more package work:
* Does sosreport and sosreport4 needs to break/conflict ? or can co-exist ?
I think it would make more sense to have one or the other.
* Make sure sosreport and sosreport4 follow the same upgrade path if one
upgrade from focal to groovy. Note that g
@arif-ali,
I like the idea.
Let me talk with an Ubuntu archive admin.
Most likely sosreport4 would have to go in universe at first and then go
over the MIR process if need be.
I also like to have sosreport4 in Universe and sosreport in Main, since
sosreport4 is still experimental ish.
Let's se
sosreport4 would also have to Conflicts with sosreport and vice versa
since they share same file and binaries name/location.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1892275
Title:
[sync][sru]
@arif-ali,
I like the idea.
@arif-ali,
I like the idea.
Let me talk with a Ubuntu archive admin.
Most likely sosreport4 would have to go in universe at first and then go
over the MIR process if we go that route.
Let me talk with an Ubuntu archive admin.
Most likely sosreport4 would have to g
I think we could go that route starting focal and downward, but groovy
would have sosreport only which would be 4.0.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1892275
Title:
[sync][sru] sos upst
@arif-ali,
I like the idea.
Let me talk with a Ubuntu archive admin.
Most likely sosreport4 would have to go in universe at first and then go
over the MIR process if we go that route.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
A suggestion on bringing sos 4.0 to bionic
Leave the original sosreport as it is, so that it doesn't break anything
for any users
Introduce a new package called sosreport4 which packages sos 4.0. This
would will then give the opportunity to use the new version of sos so
that newer data can be col
"4.0-1~ubuntu0.20.04.1" has been uploaded in the focal upload queue,
waiting for approval to start building in focal-proposed where more
verification will happen across Canonical support team.
- Eric
** Also affects: sosreport (Ubuntu Bionic)
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
** Also a
** Description changed:
[Impact]
The sos team is pleased to announce the relase of sos-4.0. This is a major
version release that represents a significant change to the sos project, new
features, and bug fixes.
https://github.com/sosreport/sos/releases/tag/4.0
[Test Case]
* Instal
** Description changed:
+ [Impact]
+
+ [Test Case]
+ * Install sosreport 4.0-1* package
+ ** Test new main binary 'sos' and it's former binary still present
'sosreport' (e.g. sosreport -a --all-logs & sos report -a --all-logs)
+ ** Test new features:
+ *** sos-collect (Collect sosreport f
36 matches
Mail list logo
