http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=967152 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=967152#c1 Andreas Stieger changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC| |astieger@suse.com Resolution|--- |INVALID --- Comment #1 from Andreas Stieger --- In sufficient details. Also expected behavior for some keys and configuration. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=967152 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=967152#c3 Andreas Stieger changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |illumilore@gmail.com Flags| |needinfo?(illumilore@gmail. | |com) --- Comment #3 from Andreas Stieger --- Add sufficient details: configuration, logs keys. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=967152 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=967152#c5 Andreas Stieger changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Component|Bootloader |Network Version|Leap 42.1 |2015* Assignee|jsrain@suse.com |tchvatal@suse.com Product|openSUSE Distribution |openSUSE Tumbleweed QA Contact|jsrain@suse.com |qa-bugs@suse.de Flags|needinfo?(illumilore@gmail. | |com) | --- Comment #5 from Andreas Stieger ---

This is not the network/openssh package.

heh, just updated yesterday with message: "bothed update, DO NOT TOUCH UNITL PROPERLY REVIEWED" Have fun with this one. Again your migration issue is expected. T, we should add some form of upgrade instructions to cover user issues like this? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=967152 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=967152#c7 Andreas Stieger changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|REOPENED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |INVALID --- Comment #7 from Andreas Stieger --- (In reply to ill lume from comment #6)

"This is not the network/openssh package."

Yes, it is.

I corrected that already. You installed an openSSH version where the behavior your describe is expected: Some host keys, client keys etc are no longer supported. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=967152 Andreas Stieger changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|REOPENED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |INVALID -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=967152 Andreas Stieger changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|REOPENED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |INVALID -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=967152 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=967152#c13 ill lume changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED Resolution|INVALID |--- --- Comment #13 from ill lume --- Still no reason for closing this. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=967152 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=967152#c15 Neil Rickert changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |nwr10cst-oslnx@yahoo.com --- Comment #15 from Neil Rickert --- A note to ill lume It is silly to keep re-opening this bug. You can still comment when it is marked "invalid" anyway. Why try to make it a fight? If you object to what the openssh developers are doing, then protest at the openssh site, not here. Currently, Tumbleweed seems to have openssh 6.6p1. So your bug report does not appear to have anything to do with what is currently in opensuse releases. I saw an announcement a while ago -- I think it was on the arch linux blog -- that openssh 7 would no longer support DSA keys. So, when openssh lands in Tumbleweed, I expect my DSA keys to stop working (I'm already prepared for that). This will not be an opensuse bug. If anything, it will be an opensuse feature. The reason given for dropping DSA key support is that there are some security issues with them. (Note that I am just an opensuse user). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=967152 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=967152#c16 ill lume changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED Resolution|INVALID |--- --- Comment #16 from ill lume --- "As was explained previously this is expected behaviour. openSSH is dropping support for some of the keys." I don't care that ssh dropped support for the keys. I care that there was no message telling me of a major change when I was simply doing an upgrade, unexpectedly breaking stuff that shouldn't happen for minor upgrades without notice. The only place I could find documentation for this change was archwiki. Is functionality breaking like this expected behaviour? "Also you yourself installed experimental version of openSSH and thus excluded yourself from any margins within we should actually provide documentation." Why are experimental versions being pushed to a 13.2 repo then? "If you reopen this I will ask for your account suspension because you behave this way on multiple bugs and it is unacceptable." The df bug that gives the user blatantly wrong information about how much disk space that they have left? If that isn't a bug to you people, then what is? "Currently, Tumbleweed seems to have openssh 6.6p1. So your bug report does not appear to have anything to do with what is currently in opensuse releases." I am not on tumbleweed. Andreas Stieger added that. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=967152 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=967152#c18 Richard Brown changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rbrown@suse.com --- Comment #18 from Richard Brown --- (In reply to ill lume from comment #16)

"Also you yourself installed experimental version of openSSH and thus excluded yourself from any margins within we should actually provide documentation."

Why are experimental versions being pushed to a 13.2 repo then?

The repo you added and installed openssh from is an experimental repo The only official binary repositories for openSUSE 13.2 are http://download.opensuse.org/distribution/13.2/repo/oss/ http://download.opensuse.org/distribution/13.2/repo/non-oss/ http://download.opensuse.org/update/13.2/ anything else is not supported, will not be supported, and used at your own risk Therefore requests for features such as warning you when a major package change occurs will not be accepted. We support updates for openSUSE 13.2 from http://download.opensuse.org/update/13.2/ and no other repository The purpose of the 'network' repo is for the development of experimental packages before they are put in our supported distributions (Leap and Tumbleweed). It is WHERE things like you report are meant to be broken, in order to enable us to improve the situation. This bug is invalid, please cease arguing otherwise -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=967152 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=967152#c20 ill lume changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(mpluskal@suse.com | |) --- Comment #20 from ill lume --- "In other words most of "bugs" you report are bogus," Maybe my definition of "bug" is faulty then. Maybe you can help me understand what a bug is? Like snapper using up 15GB of your 30GB root partition. Is that not a bug then? Is the user expected to manually go in and have to remove the snapshots every so often to keep the system from failing from having no disk space? Something that will irrevocably cause the system to fail because snapper can't trim its snapshots correctly is not a bug? What is a bug to you then? What is a bogus report to you? "very often you fail to provide requested info." I wait until it happens again. If I can't reproduce it at the time, how do I provide the info? Many happen only so often. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=967152 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=967152#c21 --- Comment #21 from Richard Brown --- (In reply to ill lume from comment #20)

"In other words most of "bugs" you report are bogus,"

Maybe my definition of "bug" is faulty then. Maybe you can help me understand what a bug is? Like snapper using up 15GB of your 30GB root partition. Is that not a bug then?

Snapper is designed to (by default) take snapshots of your btrfs root filesystem. Our standard btrfs config is configured in such a way that subvolumes prevent the snapshotting of folders like /home, and certain /var/lib/* folders where databases and such are kept in Outside of those subvolumes, everything on that root partition is going to be snapshotted If you have 15GB of change on your 30GB root partition in a short period of time, it is not a bug if snapper therefore fills up that space Your reports do not assert, nor suggest, that the the behaviour you are reporting is anything less than the expected behaviour of snapper, and therefore, yes, it is not a bug. A bug would be something like 'I changed nothing on the system, did nothing in the root filesystem, installed no packages, but still btrfs filled up my disk with snapshots' The recommended root partition size for an openSUSE btrfs root filesystem is *at least* 40GB. This has proven to be a sane default for the vast majority of the openSUSE userbase. Changes to that default have been made, when bug reporters have been able to demonstrably explain how and why the default settings needed to be changed. But your bug reports are woefully lacking in detailed information to be helpful to any such considerations. If you're an exceptionally heavy user, making lots of changes to your packages, then you either need more, or you need to adjust your snapper configuration accordingly to clean up based on your environment. That is your responsibility as the administrator of the system, but again, to be absolutely clear, that doesn't mean it's a bug. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=967152 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=967152#c23 --- Comment #23 from ill lume --- "The recommended root partition size for an openSUSE btrfs root filesystem is *at least* 40GB" I didn't know that. It is not in the documentation I read about 13.2 or in the info that displays as the machine is installing. Is there no way for the installer to warn the user that at install time if it is too small? It already tells you about missing swap partition, subvolume stuff, etc. " If you're an exceptionally heavy user, making lots of changes to your packages, then you either need more," I update that machine like once a month, if that. "or you need to adjust your snapper configuration accordingly to clean up based on your environment." Is it possible to set snapper to not keep so many snapshots if the free space on the drive falls below a certain amount? Or for zypper to check if there is enough space available before it starts an upgrade? It already knows how much will be used doesn't it? "none of mentioned above required reproducing, either logs which are present on affected system would be enough or output of commands that were asked for would be sufficient." in all but one of those listed, I either find a workaround, rendering the system info asked for useless because it has stopped happening, or changed my system, like a reinstall, or it stopped happening after a subsequent update, or I were just one off bugs that I no longer happen. If you want me to change them myself to resolved, I can try to do that. In bugs like 965027 it gets marked invalid, then if I resubmit it it gets fixed, so it seems to me like some mods will fix it others just mark it invalid without telling me why or what's going on. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.