[00:01] <mdeslaur> np, thanks!
[04:59] <EvanCarroll> Any chance to get a ppa removed if it's unmaintained? Is there a procedure for that?
[04:59] <EvanCarroll> delisting or the like?
[05:00] <EvanCarroll> reason why: this is confusing a lot of people. It's been broke almost as long as it has worked and every package in the repo has failed.
[05:00] <EvanCarroll> https://launchpad.net/~videolan/+archive/ubuntu/master-daily
[05:00] <EvanCarroll> https://launchpad.net/~videolan/+archive/ubuntu/master-daily/+packages
[07:12] <seb128> hey there
[07:14] <seb128> could somebody remind me how to trigger autopkgtests to use proposed package versions
[07:17] <sil2100> seb128: IIRC adding &all-proposed=1 to the request was the trick, if that's what you're looking for
[07:18] <seb128> sil2100, thanks
[07:18] <seb128> I don't need full proposed though
[07:18] <seb128> I just want to use abi-compliance-checker from there
[07:18] <seb128> but I guess all-proposed would work as well
[07:20] <sil2100> seb128: I guess you can use multiple 'trigger' entries too
[07:20] <seb128> that's what https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ProposedMigration#How_to_re-run_autopkgtests_with_dependencies_on_other_packages_in_the_proposed_pocket suggests
[07:20] <seb128> I wonder if I need to encode version
[07:20] <seb128> or just use &trigger=abi-compliance-checker
[07:20] <sil2100> seb128: e.g. add something like trigger=abi-compliance-checker/version-from-proposed
[07:23] <seb128> sil2100, I tried, let's see if I got it right
[07:23] <seb128> sil2100, thanks
[07:23] <seb128> sil2100, oh, and hey, how are you? ;-)
[08:26] <LocutusOfBorg> tsimonq2, "kf5-messagelib" has symbols sadness... do you have an hint/patch?
[08:29] <LocutusOfBorg> I see acheronuk told me most of them are fixed in git, but I don't know where to look/fix
[08:29] <LocutusOfBorg> e.g. is this ok to upload? https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/kf5-messagelib/4:16.12.3-0ubuntu1
[08:30] <LocutusOfBorg> I mean the fixes on git
[08:30] <LocutusOfBorg> https://code.launchpad.net/~kubuntu-packagers/kubuntu-packaging/+git/messagelib I don't even know the right branch
[08:35] <acheronuk> LocutusOfBorg: They are fixed in git on the artful_archive branch, but for apps 17.04.3 which we have been getting ready to upload once transitions have calmed. So really have to look at symbols fixes and pick out what applies, or do a rebuild in a ppa of the 16.12.3 version and use pkgkde-symbolshelper to patch symbols and do some manual corrections
[08:49] <acheronuk> I will have time to do these later, but maybe not until this evening
[11:50] <mdeslaur> @pilot in
[13:01] <sdeziel> mdeslaur: good day
[13:02] <sdeziel> I've seen that you updated LP: #1709193, thanks. I just noticed that I had not use "-proposed" for any of the debdiffs, please let me know if that is a problem
[13:09] <mdeslaur> sdeziel: nope, we don't do that anymore
[13:09] <mdeslaur> sdeziel: would you mind if I added Bug-Debian and Bug-Ubuntu links to the patch and remove the debian bug number form the changelog?
[13:10] <mdeslaur> minor OCD nitpicks
[13:10] <sdeziel> not at all, go ahead
[13:10] <mdeslaur> thanks
[13:10] <sdeziel> I wasn't sure if I should leave the debian bug number in there
[13:10] <mdeslaur> I usually stick it in the patch itself, others may do differently
[13:13] <sdeziel> makes sense
[15:46] <mdeslaur> sdeziel: could you please update the gnutls bug description with the SRU template: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates#SRU_Bug_Template
[15:46] <mdeslaur> sdeziel: I'm about to upload the packages for processing
[15:46] <sdeziel> mdeslaur: yes, on it
[15:47] <mdeslaur> awesome, thanks
[16:01] <tsimonq2> Yayyyyyyy patch pilot \o/
[16:02] <sdeziel> I will clap my hands when those patches land safely in -updates ;)
[16:05] <tsimonq2> LocutusOfBorg: I see acheronuk took care of it :)
[16:33] <sdeziel> mdeslaur: let me know if the SRU justification is good enough
[16:35] <tomreyn> EvanCarroll: did this get sorted, yet?
[16:36] <tomreyn> i notice LocutusOfBorg is amongst the "newset members" of this PPA and s/he was active here not too long after you posted.
[16:42] <tomreyn> in case it did not: the generic answer is probably 'no' (however, this is just a guess of someone not formally involved in ubuntu or launchpad). PPAs are generally unsupported and extra care needs to be taken before one decides to trust them (and one should re-check occasionally). did you contact the owners, yet?
[16:53] <mdeslaur> sdeziel: I think it's ok, let's see what the sru team says
[16:55] <EvanCarroll> tomreyn: no
[16:56] <EvanCarroll> tomreyn: I have contacted the owners
[16:56] <EvanCarroll> tomreyn: they're unresponsive.
[16:56] <tomreyn> every single one of them?
[16:57] <EvanCarroll> tomreyn: Also, in it's infinite Wisdom you can file an bug on a PPA. So essentially the only visual indicator is the failure to build, but because it's unsupported it's just fails all the time, it's wasting resources building (knowing it will fail), and it's confusing users as old questions point to it from when it worked.
[16:57] <EvanCarroll> tomreyn: yes, iirc, and multiple times.
[16:58] <EvanCarroll> There should be a method of delisting, especially in this case. The situaion with VLC and Ubuntu is really poor right now
[16:59] <tomreyn> EvanCarroll: PPAs are not part of ubuntu
[16:59] <tomreyn> are you referring to other issues?
[17:00] <tomreyn> may i ask about your motivation, just out of interest?
[17:00] <tomreyn> (as a reminder, i'm just anothe rubuntu user, no one special)
[17:03] <tomreyn> EvanCarroll: also did you try this? https://help.launchpad.net/Feedback
[17:04] <EvanCarroll> tomreyn: s/ubuntu/launchpad/ whereever it makes a difference.
[17:04] <EvanCarroll> motivation: eliminating confusion with official but unmaintained ppas.
[17:05] <EvanCarroll> I suppose I could join the right channel
[17:05] <tomreyn> EvanCarroll: i'm just wondering what makes you care, i bet there are a LOT of other PPAs which create failing builds on a regular schedule.
[17:05] <EvanCarroll> I didn't realize there was a launchpad channel
[17:05] <nacc> EvanCarroll: to be clear, not s/ubuntu/launchpad/. tomreyn's point is that PPAs are not part of ubuntu
[17:06] <EvanCarroll> tomreyn: that's not the right description of the domain, there are a lot of other ppas which are offiical with an upstream project or where at one point in time but are entirely unmaintained now?
[17:06] <EvanCarroll> this isn't a failure to build this is problem for the past year that's confusing 83,000+ people.
[17:07] <EvanCarroll> just going by askubuntu view counts.
[17:08] <tomreyn> EvanCarroll: declared official by an upstream does not make it part of supported ubuntu
[17:08] <EvanCarroll> no one said it was officially support by anything
[17:08] <EvanCarroll> it's clearly not /supported/ at all.
[17:08] <slangase`> it's not against launchpad policy for someone to have a ppa that produces broken / out of date contents; it's also not something that the Ubuntu community can fix by fiat if someone is giving directions to a bad ppa.  This is a social problem
[17:08] <tomreyn> sure, upstream might decide to support some PPA, but that's nothing ubuntu folks could be held responsible for
[17:08] <EvanCarroll> the problem is the launchpad confuses people and makes them /think/ it is.
[17:09] <slangase`> if there is documentation on any official Ubuntu sites directing users to the ppa, that's something we could fix
[17:09] <EvanCarroll> ok, so that's the problem then the launchpad policy supports confusing users.
[17:09] <EvanCarroll> that's not a good policy.
[17:09] <tomreyn> "You can update your system with unsupported packages from this untrusted PPA by adding ppa:videolan/master-daily to your system's Software Sources. (Read about installing) "
[17:09] <EvanCarroll> it's not the packages.
[17:09] <EvanCarroll> it's the page.
[17:09] <tomreyn> this sentence i just quoted is pronted on every PPA page
[17:09] <tomreyn> *printed
[17:10] <slangasek> EvanCarroll: sorry, what other policy would you expect?  Launchpad is a platform; do you want the Launchpad team to be deciding whose ppas are supported "well enough"?
[17:10] <nacc> EvanCarroll: what page are you referring to?
[17:10] <tomreyn> if people cannot read or decide not to read they will probbalky make a lot fo bad choices in life
[17:12] <slangasek> fwiw, I don't expect most users to ever browse to the ppa in a web browser before enabling it, but here is the banner you get for this particular ppa in add-apt-repository: http://paste.ubuntu.com/25291536/
[17:13] <EvanCarroll> slangasek: I would expect the policy of "repositories that are unmaintained and cease to function with all supported version of Ubuntu will be delisted."
[17:13] <EvanCarroll> slangasek: good question though.
[17:13] <nacc> what is 'maintained'? 'cease to function'? delisted by whom?
[17:13] <slangasek> The issue here is not "there is a ppa".  The issue is "someone thought it was a good idea to tell other people to use a ppa that says right on its cover that it's only for testing purposes"
[17:13] <EvanCarroll> cease to function = cease to build.
[17:14] <EvanCarroll> unmatained = no intention to maintan, not working for any use case.
[17:14] <EvanCarroll> Delisted by whom = delisted by launchpad.net
[17:14] <slangasek> why not ask upstream to delete the ppa?
[17:15] <slangasek> last successful build in that ppa was 17 hours ago for xenial (https://launchpad.net/~videolan/+archive/ubuntu/master-daily/+builds?build_text=&build_state=all)
[17:15] <EvanCarroll> slangasek: I have. Multiple. Multiple times.
[17:15] <EvanCarroll> https://launchpad.net/~videolan/+contactuser
[17:16] <EvanCarroll> no one responds slangasek where do you see that?
[17:16] <slangasek> EvanCarroll: ok.  then you certainly can ask the Launchpad Team to intervene; I'm just not sure why they would
[17:16] <EvanCarroll> slangasek: that's the xenial build start that succeeded, the build fails.
[17:18] <EvanCarroll> actually wait, I'm looking into this. I didn't think it was still building on Xenial
[17:19] <slangasek> EvanCarroll: ah, heh; I've never noticed before that the "build start" shows as a different record, ahwell
[17:20] <EvanCarroll> Yea, I think this is just build start record.
[17:20] <slangasek> ok, last successful build was precisely a year ago :) https://launchpad.net/~videolan/+archive/ubuntu/master-daily/+builds?build_text=vlc&build_state=built
[17:20] <EvanCarroll> slangasek: there ya go
[17:20] <EvanCarroll> that's about when the confusion started.
[17:21] <slangasek> that's certainly an argument that it should be sunset. Maybe the launchpad team would care because it wastes build resources? :)
[17:21] <EvanCarroll> I would hope the confusion it's causing is more of an issue. But, at this point whatever.
[17:22] <EvanCarroll> It's a very common question people want vlc 3.x, and they the ppa just isn't there and the snap is broken and doesn't do h.265, and building vlc isn't exactly a walk in the park
[17:22] <slangasek> EvanCarroll: so are you following up with the Launchpad team about this?  again, Ubuntu has no authority here
[17:23] <slangasek> "and the snap is broken"> oh?  that's a different matter entirely; I certainly had the impression the snap was working well
[17:24] <EvanCarroll> slangasek: yes, I'm in the wrong channel I'll admit
[17:24] <EvanCarroll> slangasek: the snap is pretty borked too. I don't know where to view the change logs on that or the build options, but the meta data is wrong on the snap
[17:27] <EvanCarroll> `snap info vlc` should tell me the git/version not just "daily" https://askubuntu.com/a/915164/29097 I don't think the snap is being updated either though
[17:27] <EvanCarroll> it's certainly not updated daily
[17:27] <EvanCarroll> win 3
[17:29] <nacc> EvanCarroll: that's a choice made by the snap's owner
[18:57] <mdeslaur> @pilot out
[21:54] <Unit193> Bah, creating build chroots still failing for me.