[06:00] <jibel> Good morning
[06:58] <didrocks> good morning
[07:01] <duflu> Morning didrocks
[07:02] <didrocks> hey duflu
[07:08] <seb128> hey didrocks, duflu
[07:08] <seb128> good morning desktopers
[07:08] <didrocks> hey seb128
[07:08] <duflu> Hi seb128
[08:33] <clobrano> hi all 0/
[09:02] <Laney> moin
[09:02] <Laney> WOH
[09:05] <Laney> ok that's better
[09:05] <Laney> got some new and exciting graphics corruption then
[09:08] <seb128> hey Laney, how are you?
[09:08] <didrocks> hey Laney
[09:09] <didrocks> Laney: seb128: do you know how ubuntu-session and others have been removed from ubuntu-meta from s390x by Ken? http://launchpadlibrarian.net/391700885/ubuntu-meta_1.424_1.425.diff.gz ubuntu-session is arch:all, so I don't see how ubuntu-meta didn't pick it up in 1.425 for that arch
[09:09] <Laney> hey seb128 didrocks
[09:10] <Laney> yes it depends on gnome-shell so you can't install it there
[09:10] <didrocks> do you think this was hacked by hand?
[09:10] <Laney> doubt it
[09:10] <Laney> what's the problem?
[09:11] <didrocks> ubuntu-session has been readded automatically for s390x in 1.426
[09:11] <didrocks> which is normal, it's in the archive and arch: all (was already arch: all in cosmic)
[09:11] <seb128> hum, I've no idea about those changes, sorry
[09:11] <didrocks> I wonder thus how it was removed in last ubuntu-meta upload
[09:11] <didrocks> (apart from "by hand hacking")
[09:12] <didrocks> seb128: yeah, doesn't make sense, right?
[09:12] <seb128> its weird indeed
[09:12] <didrocks> (this is what holds 1.426 in proposed)
[09:13] <Laney> it probably wasn't arch: all when that upload happened
[09:14] <seb128> that was changed in https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-session/3.30.0-0ubuntu4
[09:14] <didrocks> ah, it was hold in proposed at that time
[09:14] <didrocks> uploaded before, but stuck there
[09:15] <didrocks> so yeah, not present in the release pocket
[09:15] <didrocks> I guess we need to make it arch-specific again
[09:16] <Laney> just exclude it in the seed
[09:16] <didrocks> yeah, good idea as well
[09:17] <didrocks> does [!s390x] works? (I don't see any negative syntax in the seed)
[09:17] <didrocks> work*
[09:18] <didrocks> or you need to list all arch "in"? (which doesn't seem a big advantage compared to have ubuntu-session mentioning the arches itself)
[09:19] <Laney> yes it works
[09:19] <Laney> try something like "git log -p -S !s390x"
[09:20] <didrocks> with a \, indeed, there are some examples
[09:21] <Laney> :3
[09:22] <didrocks> Thx!
[09:25] <oSoMoN> good morning desktoppers
[09:26] <didrocks> Added ubuntu-session to desktop [s390x]
[09:26] <didrocks> grrrr
[09:26] <didrocks> I blacklisted it in desktop-minimal
[09:26] <duflu> Hi oSoMoN, Laney, world
[09:26] <didrocks> but as there desktop -> desktop-minimal
[09:26] <didrocks> it includes it without blacklisting it seems
[09:26] <didrocks> do we really want ubuntu-session to be arch:all ?
[09:27] <didrocks> it's not installable on s390x anyway, so why making it available for it?
[09:27] <Laney> that's normal for arch:all packages
[09:28] <Laney> it doesn't mean installable on all architectures, it means a build on one architecture can be installed on all of them
[09:28] <Laney> hey duflu
[09:28] <didrocks> so, I have to duplicate in 2 seeds, just this one package, which doesn't sound right to me
[09:31] <seb128> lut oSoMoN, en forme?
[09:32] <oSoMoN> seb128, bien, et toi?
[09:32] <seb128> nickel!
[09:36] <seb128> oSoMoN, do you know how to flag bugs like https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ibus-unikey/+bug/1803270 so we have them on our backlog to triage? (unsure if it's a real issue or not, I guess maybe we need to bundle more ibus-* to solve it?)
[09:38] <Laney> didrocks: I get
[09:38] <Laney> Removed ubuntu-session from desktop [s390x], desktop-minimal [s390x]
[09:38] <Laney> isn't that right?
[09:39] <didrocks> Laney: this is because of my last commit
[09:39] <didrocks> where I doubled the removal in desktop seed
[09:39] <didrocks> try without it, you will see
[09:39] <Laney> I pointed it at my local branch
[09:40] <didrocks> you specified the arch blacklist yourself?
[09:40] <didrocks> only in desktop-minimal?
[09:40] <Laney> top commit is 1aa52ff97feb1d1a2b8cc6db0c7baa74318a7666
[09:40]  * Laney reads the log
[09:40] <Laney> maybe it cloned it anyway
[09:42] <didrocks> weird, I'm on cosmic and this wasn't what I got… are you sure it didn't pull from the server?
[09:42] <Laney> * Cloning branch disco of file:///home/laney/dev/canonical/release/seeds/ubuntu/
[09:42] <didrocks> hum…
[09:43] <didrocks> I clearly had Removed ubuntu-session from desktop-minimal [s390x]
[09:43] <didrocks> + Add on desktop
[09:43] <didrocks> before the commit in HEAD
[09:43] <oSoMoN> seb128, not sure how to ensure this kind of bug doesn't slip through, a "snap" tag maybe?
[09:43] <didrocks> Laney: cosmic as well, I guess?
[09:43] <Laney> yeah
[09:43]  * didrocks puzzled
[09:44] <seb128> oSoMoN, k, let's do that, I was asking in case there was a process for triaging those already
[09:44] <didrocks> Laney: at worst, we can try reverting the last commit, see this is a no-op
[09:44] <didrocks> (doesn't impact ubuntu-meta)
[09:44] <oSoMoN> seb128, not a formal one, no
[09:44] <didrocks> but I pasted the exact output above :(
[09:44] <Laney> :<
[09:44] <oSoMoN> seb128, I asked the reported for more info
[09:44] <seb128> oSoMoN, thx
[09:44] <didrocks> well, if the hack isn't needed in the end, would be for the better…
[09:45] <Laney> it would be really weird, probably a germinate bug, if that was needed
[09:45] <didrocks> yeah
[09:46] <didrocks> Laney: not related, but all those removals are listed because there is only one deep dep taken by germinate (so all desktop-common packages are unlisted)
[09:46] <didrocks> then, we have the dep between ubuntu-desktop -> ubuntu-desktop-minimal which fullfills the deps
[09:48] <Laney> I probably would have expected -minimal packages to have Task: ubuntu-desktop too
[09:48] <Laney> but dunno if that's a legitimate expectation
[09:48] <didrocks> we want to install the minimal tasks independently though, no?
[09:49] <Laney> like apt install ubuntu-desktop^ to select every desktop package directly
[09:49] <didrocks> this would still work, no? as we have the metapackage dep…
[09:50] <didrocks> (but I might be wrong, feel free to do the changes you feel are necessary)
[09:51] <Laney> I know it *works* because of the dependency, I'm saying that I would have probably expected them to still also be in the full ubuntu-desktop task
[09:51] <didrocks> so you mean: ubuntu-desktop: ubuntu-desktop-minimal desktop-common
[09:51] <didrocks> correct?
[09:51] <didrocks> (but we could argue the same for minimal and standard, no?)
[09:52] <didrocks> as desktop-common deps on those
[09:52] <didrocks> and were never included on ubuntu-desktop
[09:56] <Laney> those get Priority fields to match, so seem a bit different to me
[09:56] <Laney> I think ubuntustudio did a 'core' split or something in the way I'm talking about
[09:57] <didrocks> I'm not opposed to readding desktop-common as well
[09:58] <didrocks> noting it down
[09:58] <Laney> probably not a very big deal
[09:58] <didrocks> I have no clear opinion TBH, the benefit is that the diff between ubuntu-desktop and ubuntu-desktop-minimal would only show what's in addition for ubuntu-desktop
[09:59] <Laney> you'd still be able to look for packages that have Task: ubuntu-desktop and *not* Task: ubuntu-desktop-minimal
[09:59] <didrocks> yeah
[10:00] <Laney> grep-aptavail -sPackage -FTask ubuntustudio-desktop --and --not -FTask ubuntustudio-desktop-core
[10:00] <didrocks> yeah, just not as trivial than pure apt :p so ok, we can add the dep (probably later, once the image thingy would be more advance, keeping a note)
[10:01] <didrocks> reverted HEAD here, let's see
[10:08]  * didrocks puzzled, no change found as well now… It's not even like it took a commit in between as I had Add/Remove
[10:08] <didrocks> anyway, let's revert this, and see if someone else triggers it, net benefit: one less hack :p
[10:08] <didrocks> adding desktop-common while I'm at it
[10:50] <doko> mozjs60 ftbfs with test failures on s390x. would you terribly mind if I remove the binaries? or do you want to have a look at fixing that?
[10:52] <Laney> neither of those, why not leave it?
[10:52] <Laney> (what binaries?)
[12:23]  * Laney cries at nautilus
[12:44] <seb128> Laney, what's the issue?
[12:45] <Laney> patch rebasing is a pain
[12:56] <doko> Laney: blocking icu, so if you're ok with the removal ...
[12:57] <Laney> doko: it failed to build everywhere?
[12:58] <doko> no, just s390x
[12:58] <Laney> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/mozjs60/60.2.3-1build1
[12:58] <doko> and there's also texlive-bin uninstallability which would require two MIRs
[12:59] <jbicha> doko: I think the texlive problem for transitions is just Debian bug 913542
[13:00] <doko> mozjs looks like a rounding error
[13:00] <doko> jbicha: I fixed that already
[13:01] <jbicha> oh, are you going to NMU it then?
[13:02] <Laney> I should make a card for this nautilus stuff
[13:03] <doko> no, you could do these NMUs the same as I can do
[13:05] <Laney> a bit more civility would be nice
[15:31] <dgadomski> seb128: hey, re: bug #1755490 - sorry, my filters ate the notification about your reply and I noticed it today, provided the information you requested
[17:16] <seb128> dgadomski, hey, thx