[00:32] <tsimonq2> vorlon: ack, thanks.
[06:49] <mitya57> xnox: thanks to you :)
[10:20] <LocutusOfBorg> xnox, boxbackup merge/sync please? there is an openssl 1.1 build fix
[10:20] <LocutusOfBorg> also xonsh might be syncable now...
[10:22] <LocutusOfBorg> also meson and something more...
[10:32] <xnox> LocutusOfBorg:  can try these.
[11:00] <LocutusOfBorg> ta
[11:04] <xnox> LocutusOfBorg:  i beleive meson will require a merge, but can try doing force sync to see if it got better or not
[11:12] <LocutusOfBorg> xnox, yes that was my intention, prepare a merge and upload or not based on autopkgtests
[12:06] <odc> the launchpad.net certificate has expired :(
[12:06] <odc> or is it just me?
[12:06] <LocutusOfBorg> September 15, 2019
[12:07] <LocutusOfBorg> I would say just you
[12:07] <rikmills> bugs.launchpad.net has expired
[12:07] <LocutusOfBorg> that one is expired, indeed
[12:07] <odc> yes, it only happens on bugs.lp.net
[12:07] <odc> thought it was the same
[12:07] <rikmills> just been flagged to #canonical-sysadmin channel
[12:08] <LocutusOfBorg> notAfter=Jun 25 12:00:00 2019 GMT
[12:36] <LocutusOfBorg> x
[12:37] <LocutusOfBorg> sahid, hello, I fixed your python-ddt upload, otherwise cinder was not building at all
[12:37] <LocutusOfBorg> please be careful about your upstream tarballs next time :)
[12:37] <LocutusOfBorg> and sync from Debian if possible
[12:37] <LocutusOfBorg> mismatching tarballs are PITA to have
[12:38] <LocutusOfBorg> xnox, looks lie boxbackup needs help...
[12:59] <sahid> LocutusOfBorg: yes true i was actually working on it, how did you fixed it?
[12:59] <sahid> I can't see your change in ubuntu-server-dev
[12:59] <sahid> the problem is that debian.net does not provide doc with the tarball
[13:00] <sahid> and jamespage just proposed to me to use the one from debian experimental
[13:03] <jamespage> sahid, LocutusOfBorg: pkg-openstack in debian generally snapshot from git, so they don't use a sdist generated tarball
[13:04] <jamespage> hence why the version in experimental has the docs subfolder.
[13:09] <LocutusOfBorg> sahid, that one, syncing from experimental did the trick
[13:10] <LocutusOfBorg> I don't honestly care about how debian generated it :) it works
[13:10] <LocutusOfBorg> maybe bugging upstream about fixing their tarball is worth doing
[13:24] <sahid> LocutusOfBorg: in all cases thanks for your help on it :)
[13:38] <jamespage> LocutusOfBorg: yup - that was the next step (patch upstream to include docs folder in release sdist)
[13:40] <jamespage> ok so now for a broader eoan question - I know python2.7 is going to universe this cycle; do we have an objective to remove all of the python-* packages in archive?
[13:41] <jamespage> debian experimental seems to contain alot of pre-work towards that goal
[13:41] <jamespage> LocutusOfBorg: python-ddt being a case in point - the reverse-depends list of binary:python-ddt is quite long
[13:44] <jamespage> which is why we had not synced (yet)
[14:34] <LocutusOfBorg> jamespage, uploading a broken 1.2.1-0ubuntu1 makes no difference wrt syncing 1.2.1-1 from experimental... does it?
[14:51] <Eickmeyer> Working on some packaging and I'm having trouble getting some lintian-overrides to take. Any idea what I'm doing wrong? https://code.launchpad.net/~eeickmeyer/+git/raysession (I'm still learning)
[14:55] <vorlon> Eickmeyer: I see you've created debian/source/lintian-overrides.  I don't recall if this is a supported path (the path I'm used to is debian/source.lintian-overrides; debian/source/lintian-overrides may be supported nowadays but it looks jarring to me to include this in debian/source which is otherwise instructions to dpkg-source).  But the real problem is that the overrides you're declaring there
[14:55] <vorlon> are overrides for binary packages, not for the source
[14:55] <vorlon> Eickmeyer: you need a debian/$binary_package.lintian-overrides for the binary-level overrides
[14:56] <Eickmeyer> vorlon: Thanks, I'll give that a shot.
[14:57] <cjwatson> vorlon: It's the path that Lintian prefers and documents nowadays
[14:58] <cjwatson> There's a pedantic-severity tag for using debian/source.lintian-overrides
[14:58] <cjwatson> (Not disagreeing with you about debian/$binary_package.lintian-overrides)
[14:59] <Eickmeyer> cjwatson, vorlon: Yeah, that's what I read in the documentation.
[15:03] <vorlon> cjwatson: :)
[15:32] <tsimonq2> @pilot in
[15:33] <tsimonq2> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2019-June/040751.html
[15:37] <tsimonq2> Wimpress, popey: Would someone with more experience with snaps than I be able to confirm that this bugfix works? bug 1802483
[15:37] <tsimonq2> It's been in the sponsorship queue for a while.
[15:41] <Laney> That fix needs properly reviewing
[15:42] <tsimonq2> Laney: I agree.
[15:43] <tsimonq2> Bug 1770093 needs review from someone who works with Pi stuff more than I do; I have a Pi 3 and I'll circle back once I can get an SD card for it later this week, if needed.
[15:45] <tsimonq2> sil2100: Poke on reviewing bug 1814118 when you get the chance.
[15:48] <tsimonq2> bluesabre: I'm looking at bug 1822380 and I wanted to get your feedback as to what's left here. I don't see any other debdiff specifically that needs sponsoring, so I'll unsubscribe sponsors, but it does seem there's a GTK bug here.
[15:50] <tsimonq2> Hmm, it looks like the upstream GTK issue isn't getting much traction. https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gtk/issues/1843
[15:50] <tsimonq2> I'm willing to bet a Git bisect will reveal the issue. I'll circle back later this week when I look at Pi stuff.
[15:52] <tsimonq2> Well, I do see a random patch from an obscure forum post. What could go wrong? :P
[16:10] <tsimonq2> jamespage: Would you (or someone else with knowledge of the swift package) be able to take a look at bug 1827340? It's been in the sponsorship queue for a bit.
[16:18] <tsimonq2> juliank: Debian bug 927876 's Ubuntu counterpart, bug 1766068, has been in the sponsorship queue for a bit. Would you be able to review the patch when you can?
[16:22] <tsimonq2> cyphermox: Did you plan on driving the SRU for bug 1828948 as well?
[16:31] <cyphermox> tsimonq2: yes
[16:32] <tsimonq2> cyphermox: Sounds good, thanks.
[16:34] <Eickmeyer> vorlon: RE: lintian-overrides, that did not work. lintian is still throwing invalid errors on the binary.
[16:35] <vorlon> Eickmeyer: I don't believe ' binary' is part of the expected content of the override
[16:35] <vorlon> i.e. it should be $bin_pkg_name: $lintian_tag_name $other_info
[16:36] <Eickmeyer> vorlon: Thanks for the hint, will make the change.
[16:46] <Eickmeyer> vorlon: That didn't work. Does it need "#/usr/bin/python3" appended?
[16:50] <Eickmeyer> rather, #!/usr/bin/python3
[16:51] <tsimonq2> @pilot out
[16:52] <tsimonq2> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2019-June/040752.html
[16:56] <Eickmeyer> tsimonq2: I (very quickly) provided the links you requested.
[17:44] <tsimonq2> Eickmeyer: Thanks.
[17:46] <Eickmeyer> vorlon: Answered my own question. It needed the #! line too. Thanks!
[17:50] <sarnold> is that the lintian thing?
[17:50] <Eickmeyer> sarnold: Yep. You can look for yourself at what it needed.
[17:50] <Eickmeyer> If you want...
[17:50] <sarnold> woot
[17:51] <Eickmeyer> \o/
[18:41] <bdmurray> ahasenack: We, the foundations team, would close bug 1810780 but it is assigned to you. Are you still planning on doing any work there?
[18:41] <ahasenack> oh, ow
[18:41] <ahasenack> let me check
[18:42] <ahasenack> bdmurray: it can be closed. My mp was rejected because debian fixed in while it was in review, so no changes needed.
[18:42] <ahasenack> bdmurray: is cosmic still affected, though?
[18:43] <ahasenack> my mp was for disco
[18:43] <bdmurray> ahasenack: It could be but end of life for cosmic is near
[18:44] <ahasenack> I see. Well, I'm not working on that, and if this package needs an sru for another reason, the ftbfs fix is simple enough
[18:44] <ahasenack> I think this is fix released for disco, and a cosmic task may or may not be added
[18:46] <ahasenack> adjusted
[19:31] <juliank> tsimonq2: Sure, but note that Ubuntu is upstream, Debian is downstream
[19:31] <juliank> Debian tracks the latest LTS version of c-n-f, and software-properties
[19:32] <juliank> I'll be tracking stuff more aggressively post buster I think, as this improves quality for everyone
[20:10] <bdmurray> ahasenack: Thanks!