[11:52] <Saviq> hi all, something wrong with buildd's snap store uploads? https://code.launchpad.net/~saviq/+snap/subsurface-stable
[11:52] <Saviq> I've retried these a couple times now and the upload continues to fail
[12:00] <cjwatson> Saviq: -> #snapstore
[12:01] <cjwatson> folks have been investigating something similar this morning
[12:01] <cjwatson> (internal channel)
[12:01] <cjwatson> AFAIK it's not an LP problem
[12:01] <Saviq> ack
[16:20] <ricotz> cjwatson, hi :), would you have a moment for https://answers.launchpad.net/launchpad/+question/681165
[16:22] <Eickmeyer> This might be a stupid question, but I have a package that I have updated (I have PPU rights to this one) and it's been "pending publication" for a few days. Any idea what's going on? https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntustudio-look
[16:22] <Eickmeyer> "pending publication" in Proposed, might I add.
[16:25] <teward> Eickmeyer: NEW queue
[16:25] <teward> NEW binaries.
[16:25] <Eickmeyer> teward: That shouldn't be in the NEW queue, it's not new.
[16:26] <teward> Eickmeyer: you have a new binary
[16:26] <teward> ubuntustudio-wallpapers-disco_0.61_all.deb (7.0 MiB) NEW
[16:26] <teward> Eickmeyer: the SOURCE package isn't new
[16:26] <teward> but it produces a NEW binary
[16:26] <teward> that needs AA acceptance
[16:26] <teward> go to the queue at https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/eoan/+queue, set it to "new", exapdn ubuntustudio-look
[16:26] <teward> see the red "NEW" next to that package.
[16:27] <teward> NEW queue affects *new binary packages* as well as new source packages previouisly not introduced
[16:27] <teward> so you need AAs to look at it
[16:27] <Eickmeyer> Oh, I see.
[16:28] <teward> Eickmeyer: prime example was my recent 'nginx' upload which added the third party geoip2 module.  The new binary produced containing the dynamic module for that needed AA approval/review before it was published or made available in proposed.
[16:28] <teward> any new source **OR** produced binary needs AA review typically, AIUI
[16:29] <Eickmeyer> Okay, that makes sense.
[16:29] <Eickmeyer> Seems to be a slow process. Do we not have enough AAs?
[16:30] <teward> AAs have a lot of work ;)
[16:30] <Eickmeyer> Well, yes, but I have had a package that has been sitting in there for weeks.
[16:30] <Eickmeyer> (as you and I previously discussed)
[16:30] <teward> Eickmeyer: that's a discussion for elsewhere.
[16:30] <cjwatson> ricotz: done
[16:30] <Eickmeyer> Indeed.
[16:31] <teward> you can always ask an AA to look at it in #ubuntu-release though
[16:31] <teward> except vorlon who is always too busy :p
[16:31] <ricotz> cjwatson, thank you
[17:24] <gQuigs> this https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/nvidia-graphics-drivers-430 report bug always seems to Oops
[17:25] <cjwatson> It's end of week, please file a bug about it or it will be forgotten
[17:25] <gQuigs> cjwatson: rgr
[17:25] <cjwatson> I expect it has something to do with it not actually being a package in Ubuntu though
[17:25] <cjwatson> Are you sure you didn't typo the name?
[17:26] <gQuigs> cjwatson: it's only in PPAs at the moment, correct
[17:26] <cjwatson> It shouldn't OOPS, but we are unlikely to make it actually do anything.
[17:26] <cjwatson> PPAs don't support bugs
[17:26] <cjwatson> So any fix would just be to say no gracefully rather than to OOPS
[17:26] <gQuigs> so Report bug shouldn't even be an option, alright :)
[18:12] <gQuigs> relevant LP bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/179873
[18:22] <cjwatson> gQuigs: That indeed documents the fact that this feature is not present; the OOPS is a separate issue though
[18:23] <cjwatson> gQuigs: But it's https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/1635118
[18:24] <gQuigs> thanks, your bug search foo is better then mine :)
[18:24] <cjwatson> Coupled with vague memory ...