 so it plasma 5.12.8 landed in bionic backports..... (I was looling all over for it)..... no issues with backport upgrade... :)
 s/so it/so it appears/
 5.17 fixes a pet peave of mine when KDE 5.0 was introduced (as per this article: https://notmart.org/blog/2019/07/a-week-in-valencia/ and this bug https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=360478) \o/
 @DarinMiller, Thank, but is is the packages in the archive proposed pocket I really need to have verified
 https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/plasma-desktop/+bug/1819075
[08:45] -kubuntu-ci:#kubuntu-devel- Project mgmt_docker » linode-01 build #3065: SUCCESS in 58 sec: https://kci.pangea.pub/job/mgmt_docker/label=linode-01/3065/
[08:46] -kubuntu-ci:#kubuntu-devel- Project mgmt_docker » master build #3065: SUCCESS in 1 min 56 sec: https://kci.pangea.pub/job/mgmt_docker/label=master/3065/
[08:49] -kubuntu-ci:#kubuntu-devel- Project mgmt_docker » swy-01 build #3065: SUCCESS in 4 min 31 sec: https://kci.pangea.pub/job/mgmt_docker/label=swy-01/3065/
[14:45] -kubuntu-ci:#kubuntu-devel- Project mgmt_docker » linode-01 build #3066: SUCCESS in 52 sec: https://kci.pangea.pub/job/mgmt_docker/label=linode-01/3066/
[14:46] -kubuntu-ci:#kubuntu-devel- Project mgmt_docker » master build #3066: SUCCESS in 1 min 28 sec: https://kci.pangea.pub/job/mgmt_docker/label=master/3066/
[14:49] -kubuntu-ci:#kubuntu-devel- Project mgmt_docker » swy-01 build #3066: SUCCESS in 4 min 18 sec: https://kci.pangea.pub/job/mgmt_docker/label=swy-01/3066/
 Is ppa:kubuntu-ppa/ppa  the correct ppa to test?  When I added that ppa, no updates were found....
 @DarinMiller The updates to test are in the proposed pocket of the main archive
 example: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/plasma-desktop/4:5.12.8-0ubuntu0.1
 enable via the software-sources menu?
 yep
 @DarinMiller, Probably as you have the backports ppa enabled? The versions in there are deliberately higher that the updates PPA or archive
 What really needs tesing here is a stock 18.04.2 install, updated without any PPAs, the the plasma in -proposed adding
 Having the backports PPA on an install screws that up. This is a test of packages to go on 18.04.3 iso
 When enabled, 29 packages available for update but I was expecting more "plasma" specific packages: https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/PCC5N5WFdn/
 @DarinMiller, Do you have the backports PPA on that install?
 You must have
 As i said above, the 5.12.8 version in the backports PPA are delibertely versioned higher than anything else. Having that enabled borks this test.
 back later
 OK, so ppa purging and trying again....
 ppa purge croaked... re-installing....
 thanks for testing, I'm considering to do an upgrade round of all my VMs and test the proposed packages
 Are you running 18.04 in your vm's?
 I have everything supported with and without backports
 (Photo, 1280x719) https://irc-attachments.kde.org/zm0WPn9k/file_16391.jpg
 upgrading now, whenever I have some time I will try to test
 wow, that's an impressive VM list!
 haha
 btw I'm benchmarking area51 right now. I replaced the processor yesterday. I had to fix some bent pins 😱
 How much disk space is reserved for each VM?
 20G
 I have all of that in the laptop, which has a 250G SSD and a 1TB classic magnetic hard disk for this kind of stuff
 I replaced some time ago the CD/DVD drive with a caddy, so I have now these 2 devices
 What was the old processor and what is the new one?
 the old processor from area51 was a phenom II x4, the "new" one is a second hand amd fx 4100
 I changed it to have one with proper security support
 Rik, the 180.4 staging upgrade to 12.8 worked flawlessly here.  No issues running basic tests...
 According to this website, the 4100 is a slower CPU.... https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Phenom-II-X4-965-vs-AMD-FX-4100/606vs2878
 I guess, but I got it just to get microcode updates
 I could get a six core or eight core fx which would be faster than this fx 4100, but that might alter the memory peaks when building in parallel so I got this one to be conservative wrt that
 also it was just 20€
 cheap as hell XD
 oh wow, that is cheap!
 @DarinMiller, Once again, it is the paackages in the main archive that need testing, not PPAs
 that phenom was 100€ back in the days
 @RikMills, how are we suposed to test this, just adding -proposed to sources or what?
 RIk, no PPAs added after re-install. I only used the proposed option.
 @Santa, Yes, and then selectively upgrading the new plasma packages.
 how you do the selection?
 (I suspect I have a better way to do the "selection"...)
 everything is working... but I can retest with fresh install if needed.
 @Santa, I just install synaptic, search for all packages with version 5.12, and then in the result list right click to upgrade ones where there is a new 5.12.8 version to upgrade to
 allright, I have a better way in mind, I will try to come up with a better idea later
 @Santa, Yeah, I am sure some scripting can do a better job
 Yeah, I was thinking in composing with some scriptery an apt pinning file using what we have in ka-metadata
 If I'm speaking chinese just wait to see the thing XD
 Nah. I Know what you mean. I'm just lazy. If it had been a 200+ source apps release I might have tried to script it!
 ok
 another option would be creating a reprepro repository with a literal copy of the involved packages
 While we know that would be ok, release team would I think be not impressed.
 so better the apt pinning I guess
 I can vouch that the enitre proposed stack is working fine here...
 @Santa, I think so
 ok, so from there, I could write a script to generate the file automatically and attach it to the SRU bug report
 That would be cool
 @DarinMiller http://tritemio-area51.ddns.net/benchmark/test-compilacion/composite.xml
 the results of that benchmark
 not a catastrophic difference given with microcode security patched is suposed to perform worse
 Agreed, fairly close.  Is compilacion-malvo also yours?
 yes
 malvo is the laptop, compilacion-groomlake-xxx are tests in the other server, tested 3 different bios settings