[05:14] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: libinsane [amd64] (focal-proposed/universe) [1.0.2-1] (no packageset)
[07:29] <cpaelzer> rbasak: is there more to do for https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/open-vm-tools/+bug/1844834/comments/19 right now than adding block-proposed ?
[07:30] <cpaelzer> to "hold it back more" :-)
[07:34] <rbasak> cpaelzer: you can ask for a phasing stop for Eoan
[07:51] <cpaelzer> rbasak: I did in the bug update
[07:51] <cpaelzer> rbasak: usually bdmurray is dealing with phasing and I sent him a mail pointing to my added comment already
[09:48] <mwhudson> if an aa is bored and wants to remove focal/i386 binary for containerd i wouldn't complain
[10:58] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: ubiquity (bionic-proposed/main) [18.04.14.12 => 18.04.14.13] (core)
[13:24] <sforshee> LocutusOfBorg: did you see my last comment on bug #1848594 ? virtualbox-guest-dkms is still failing to build with 5.4
[14:04] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed [amd64] (bionic-proposed/main) [4.15.0-73.82] (core, kernel)
[14:04] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed [ppc64el] (disco-proposed/main) [5.0.0-38.41] (core, kernel)
[14:04] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed [ppc64el] (bionic-proposed/main) [4.15.0-73.82] (core, kernel)
[14:05] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed [amd64] (disco-proposed/main) [5.0.0-38.41] (core, kernel)
[14:05] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed [arm64] (disco-proposed/main) [5.0.0-38.41] (core, kernel)
[14:05] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed [amd64] (bionic-proposed) [4.15.0-73.82]
[14:05] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed [amd64] (disco-proposed) [5.0.0-38.41]
[14:05] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed [ppc64el] (disco-proposed) [5.0.0-38.41]
[14:05] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed [ppc64el] (bionic-proposed) [4.15.0-73.82]
[14:05] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed [arm64] (disco-proposed) [5.0.0-38.41]
[14:09] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: cargo (xenial-proposed/universe) [0.37.0-3ubuntu1~16.04.1 => 0.37.0-3ubuntu1~16.04.2] (no packageset)
[14:10] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: cargo (disco-proposed/universe) [0.37.0-3ubuntu1~19.04.1 => 0.37.0-3ubuntu1~19.04.2] (no packageset)
[14:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted jimtcl [amd64] (focal-proposed) [0.79+dfsg0-2]
[14:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted jimtcl [armhf] (focal-proposed) [0.79+dfsg0-2]
[14:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted jimtcl [s390x] (focal-proposed) [0.79+dfsg0-2]
[14:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted jimtcl [arm64] (focal-proposed) [0.79+dfsg0-2]
[14:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted python-asynctest [amd64] (focal-proposed) [0.13.0-4]
[14:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted jimtcl [ppc64el] (focal-proposed) [0.79+dfsg0-2]
[14:31] <doko> vorlon: please add gcc-10, gcc-10-cross and gcc-10-cross-ports to the i386 white list, gcc-defaults-ports too. They don't even build in ppa's now
[14:35] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: stress-ng (disco-proposed/universe) [0.09.57-0ubuntu3 => 0.09.57-0ubuntu4] (no packageset)
[14:35] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: stress-ng (eoan-proposed/universe) [0.10.07-1ubuntu1 => 0.10.07-1ubuntu2] (no packageset)
[14:36] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: stress-ng (bionic-proposed/universe) [0.09.25-1ubuntu4 => 0.09.25-1ubuntu5] (no packageset)
[14:48] <LocutusOfBorg> sforshee, unless you convince an AA to let gsoap go in release, the fix won't migrate
[14:48] <LocutusOfBorg> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/virtualbox/6.0.14-dfsg-3
[14:48] <LocutusOfBorg> we need an i386 removal, and an hint of something regressed in release
[14:49] <LocutusOfBorg> voms/i386 removed, and hint for kopanocore/all and apparmor/i386, both regressed in release
[14:49] <LocutusOfBorg> vorlon, ^^
[15:00] <kanashiro> seb128, re rrdtool: I am talking to cpaelzer about this MR excluding python3-rrdtool-dbg: https://code.launchpad.net/~lucaskanashiro/ubuntu-seeds/+git/ubuntu/+merge/376068
[15:00] <kanashiro> I'd like your feedback if it is still needed to avoid the same problem in the future
[15:01] <kanashiro> cpaelzer, was explaining that it can be auto-promoted because the source is in main
[15:01] <seb128> kanashiro, yes it's needed, currently the dbg shows as to be promoted on https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/component-mismatches-proposed.html
[15:01] <seb128> yes, we could promote the python binding as well if you prefer that
[15:02] <kanashiro> seb128, IMO promoting the python3 binding is preferable, what do you think cpaelzer ?
[15:13] <sil2100> RAOF, rbasak, infinity, bdmurray, apw: hey! Since we are working currently on some eoan image respins, could you, for now, not release any updates from eoan-proposed to eoan-updates? Accepting into -proposed is fine, but I'd like us to keep having a stable updates pocket for a bit
[15:13] <sil2100> Thanks!
[15:15] <bdmurray> sil2100: I won't do anything!
[15:16] <cpaelzer> seb128: kanashiro: I'd prefer to ack and merge  the MP
[15:16] <cpaelzer> seb128: kanashiro: which lets the -dbg stay in universe
[15:17] <cpaelzer> and not trigger the component mismatch that we see (whcih we know will trigger the next one)
[15:17] <rbasak> sil2100: ack
[15:17] <cpaelzer> kanashiro: seb128: we are not keen (have no reason atm) to provide support for the python-binding
[15:18] <cpaelzer> if we would, then clearly promoting both would be the most straight forward call to make
[15:18] <seb128> right, makes sense to me to no promote/support things if we don't need to
[15:18] <cpaelzer> ok, then it seems we agree - let me merge that seed change ...
[15:19] <kanashiro> ok then, you're more experienced than me on this :)
[15:21] <seb128> what 19.10  images are being respinned and why?
[15:22] <RikMills> ^ was wondering as well
[15:22] <seb128> sil2100, ^
[15:27] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: python-aioresponses [amd64] (focal-proposed/universe) [0.6.1-2] (no packageset)
[15:28] <sil2100> seb128, RikMills: just the raspi preinstalled images we're respinning, no worries - those had a few issues for certain pi versions
[15:28] <seb128> k, cool thx
[15:28] <sil2100> Nothing worrying, just well, subpar experience, bootability issues
[15:29] <sil2100> So we're making it much better
[15:29] <seb128> nice, I just wanted ot make sure it was not the desktop iso :)
[15:29] <seb128> or that we know about it if it its
[15:29] <RikMills> ditto. thanks
[15:30] <seb128> can someone hint the dbus in focal-proposed to migrate? openjdk-lts/armhf just worked once and keep failing otherwise (should probably be flagged as badtest?) and systemd/i386 which seems a fallout if i386 being decomissioned
[15:30] <seb128> sil2100, ^ since you are around is that something you can do or who should be pinged rather? :)
[15:30] <sil2100> seb128: I guess I can!
[15:30] <sil2100> Let me do that
[15:31] <seb128> I guess we want to badtest openjdk-lts/armhf maybe?
[15:31] <seb128> it blocks other things as well
[15:31] <seb128> want a mp for that?
[15:31] <tdaitx> seb128: sil2100: it's timming out, weirdly it is set as a flaky test, I wonder why it is blocking anything
[15:33] <tdaitx> so yeah, badtest it for now
[15:33] <sil2100> seb128: yeah, if that's not big enough of a problem, an MP could be conveninent ;)
[15:34]  * sil2100 is jumping between stuff
[15:52] <seb128> sil2100, https://code.launchpad.net/~seb128/britney/openjdk-lts-armhf/+merge/376286
[15:53] <seb128> sil2100, sorry, editing, I put it in a i386 block
[15:56] <seb128> sil2100, k, pushed again
[15:57] <sil2100> Ok! Looking, thanks!
[15:58] <sil2100> seb128: did you bzr push for sure?
[15:58] <seb128> thx
[15:59] <seb128> sil2100, sorry, it remembered a previous location as default, done to the right place now
[15:59] <rbalint> RAOF, bdmurray: could you please release LP: #1853343 in your sru cycles?
[16:00] <sil2100> seb128: all done o/
[16:00] <seb128> great, thank you!
[16:29] <vorlon> doko: they don't even build in ppas now> right, that's as I mentioned in my email to ubuntu-devel, but why do you need the -cross ones built at all for an i386 host?  That seems like a waste of launchpad resources to me ;-)
[16:38] <vorlon> LocutusOfBorg: removing voms requires removing an annoying stack of lcmaps revdeps which is why I didn't dig into it.  Is there an urgency here that justifies me doing that by hand, vs waiting for the i386 mass-removals?
[16:45] <doko> vorlon: you may see it as "waste", however I'd like to make sure these build on 32bit platforms. Plus it's not uncommon that I backport those
[16:46] <doko> there's a lot more "waste" going on with daily and nightly package builds ...
[16:46] <vorlon> doko: so why not build them in the ppa for the target release instead of in focal?
[16:46] <vorlon> doko: yes, I would've thought you'd be sympathetic to the waste argument on that basis
[16:47] <doko> do I really have to argue with you abou that?
[16:48] <infinity> Not if you don't want to argue.
[16:49] <sforshee> vorlon: LocutusOfBorg is saying this is a blocker for getting a vbox version which supports 5.4, which is a blocks getting a 5.4 kernel into focal
[16:52] <vorlon> sforshee: ok, I'll work through the tree
[16:52] <doko> no, I'm doing this work on trunk, not on any release. so please add those
[16:52] <vorlon> doko: you do have commit rights
[16:52] <doko> ok
[16:53] <vorlon> I still don't think any of the cross packages belong on the whitelist, but it's not really worth arguing about
[17:01] <vorlon> jdstrand: so the apparmor/i386 autopkgtests now fail because they have test deps on binary packages that have been removed.  Is there a subset of tests that test the library functionality and that we should care about continuing to have good results from, or should we just ignore apparmor test failures on i386 going forward?
[17:01] <vorlon> jdstrand: (to the extent that we are running tests on i386, they're all going to be with the amd64 generic kernel, and most of the test deps are going to be satisfied via the amd64 versions)
[17:02] <jdstrand> vorlon: let me look at the tests
[17:02] <vorlon> jdstrand: cheers
[17:03] <jdstrand> vorlon: unrelated, I'm planning an apparmor merge soonish to resolve the py2 stuff
[17:03] <vorlon> \o/
[17:03] <jdstrand> (and super unrelated, also ufw)
[17:04] <jdstrand> well, that is an upload to unstable then merge, but anyway
[17:07] <jdstrand> vorlon: ok, the bad test is 'compile-policy' and it needs to be reworked to avoid i386, both in its Depends and since there won't be an apparmor_parser i386 binary
[17:08] <vorlon> jdstrand: there will be an apparmor_parser i386 binary, despite it not normally being the one that's installed
[17:08] <vorlon> jdstrand: I can help with the refactoring of the test declarations to be cross-friendly, my question is whether once I've done that there will be any tests left worth running
[17:11] <jdstrand> vorlon: so, apparmor and apparmor-utils aren't in the list of i386 binaries we will keep, correct?
[17:11] <vorlon> jdstrand: they are. whitelisting is by source package, not binary package
[17:12] <jdstrand> vorlon: did something pull in libapparmor?
[17:12] <vorlon> so since libapparmor1 is pulled in, apparmor + apparmor-utils are also there
[17:12]  * jdstrand wonders what pulled that in
[17:12] <vorlon> actually, let's see
[17:12] <bdmurray> cpaelzer: open-vm-tools has already been released to -updates so block-proposed won't do anything. An AA needs to manually set the phased-update percentage to 0 for it.
[17:13] <vorlon> jdstrand: dh-apparmor is a cups build-dependency and libapparmor-dev is a dbus build-dependency, that's what pulls it in
[17:13] <vorlon> (plus dbus runtime dep on libapparmor1)
[17:14] <vorlon> jdstrand: since libapparmor1 is a dep of the dbus binary package, which users won't install, rather than libdbus-1-3, it may be reasonable to just say we don't care about testing apparmor on i386 and the packages are just there as a side-effect
[17:14] <jdstrand> vorlon: the fact that the binaries are there at all suggests the tests are worth keeping, but the fact that no one will use apparmor_parser, aa-enabled or aa-exec from the i386 binary packages means the tests don't mean anything
[17:15] <vorlon> jdstrand: that's enough for me; I'll badtest them and move on with life
[17:15] <jdstrand> vorlon: yes, that is my conclusion
[17:15] <vorlon> jdstrand: ta
[17:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: oops-datedir-repo [amd64] (focal-proposed/universe) [0.0.24-0ubuntu2] (no packageset)
[17:16] <jdstrand> vorlon: when I do the merge, I'm thinking I should try to adjust the tests so they don't run at all?
[17:16] <vorlon> jdstrand: doesn't matter, they'll run and fail, it's cheap and not worth you spending time on :)
[17:18] <LocutusOfBorg> sforshee, actually, you can upload 5.4 in focal-proposed pocket
[17:18] <LocutusOfBorg> tests will be green if you run them with the proposed vbox trigger
[17:20] <sforshee> LocutusOfBorg: oh, the version in -proposed has the fix? Based on the changelog entry I didn't think that it did, let me try it
[17:22] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: python-mne [amd64] (focal-proposed/universe) [0.19.1+dfsg-1] (no packageset)
[17:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: golang-gopkg-libgit2-git2go.v28 [amd64] (focal-proposed/universe) [0.28+git20190813.37e5b53-3] (no packageset)
[17:26] <jdstrand> vorlon: ack. is that badtesting them in a git commit somewhere that we discussed it and why it is ok to badtest them?
[17:27] <jdstrand> vorlon: (just in case someone else from the team is asked about it)
[17:29] <LocutusOfBorg> sforshee,   * Drop 81649 and take the archlinux version, that contains also rev 81586 and
[17:29] <LocutusOfBorg>     81587 (LP: #1848594)
[17:30] <LocutusOfBorg> this is from virtualbox 6.0.14-dfsg-3 changelog
[17:30] <LocutusOfBorg> (with a gsoap fix added)
[17:33] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted cargo [source] (disco-proposed) [0.37.0-3ubuntu1~19.04.2]
[17:42] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: thunderbird (eoan-proposed/main) [1:68.2.1+build1-0ubuntu0.19.10.1 => 1:68.2.2+build1-0ubuntu0.19.10.1] (mozilla, ubuntu-desktop)
[17:42] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted cargo [source] (xenial-proposed) [0.37.0-3ubuntu1~16.04.2]
[17:46] <sforshee> LocutusOfBorg: 6.0.14-dfsg-3 still fails with the same errors as in my last comment on bug 1848594
[18:34] <vorlon> jdstrand: https://code.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-release/britney/hints-ubuntu
[19:00] <vorlon> sforshee: fwiw I can't find evidence in the autopkgtest history for LocutusOfBorg's statement that kopanocore has regressed in release, I only see failures on the version in -proposed; so that needs unpicking still
[20:20] <sbeattie> apw, vorlon: heya, linux-oem 4.15.0.1065.69 got forward copied from bionic-security to disco-security and eoan-security respectively but linux-signed-oem was only forward-copied to disco-updates and not disco-security, leading to an abi mismatch. (linux-signed-oem did get copied to eoan-security correctly)
[20:21] <sbeattie> (that's linux-signed-oem 4.15.0-1065.75 )
[20:22] <vorlon> sbeattie: looking
[20:22] <vorlon> sbeattie: copied
[20:22] <sbeattie> vorlon: thanks!
[21:13] <apw> sbeattie: likely I have yet another launchpad oops in my inbox
[21:13] <vorlon> hmmm cups is not seeded but libcups is; and cups depends on cups-filters which is not whitelisted; what to do
[21:20] <LocutusOfBorg> sforshee, fixed.
[21:22] <sforshee> thanks LocutusOfBorg
[21:50] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted golang-gopkg-libgit2-git2go.v28 [amd64] (focal-proposed) [0.28+git20190813.37e5b53-3]
[21:50] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted oops-datedir-repo [amd64] (focal-proposed) [0.0.24-0ubuntu2]
[21:50] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted python-mne [amd64] (focal-proposed) [0.19.1+dfsg-1]
[21:50] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted libinsane [amd64] (focal-proposed) [1.0.2-1]
[21:50] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted ruby-atlassian-jwt [amd64] (focal-proposed) [0.2.0-2]
[21:50] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted python-aioresponses [amd64] (focal-proposed) [0.6.1-2]
[21:50] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted golang-github-bmatcuk-doublestar [amd64] (focal-proposed) [1.1.5-1]
[21:50] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted vistrails [amd64] (focal-proposed) [3.0~git+9dc22bd-2]
[21:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted golang-github-pearkes-cloudflare [amd64] (focal-proposed) [0.0~git20160103.765ac18-1]
[23:03] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: cloud-init (xenial-proposed/main) [19.2-36-g059d049c-0ubuntu2~16.04.1 => 19.3-41-gc4735dd3-0ubuntu1~16.04.1] (edubuntu, ubuntu-cloud, ubuntu-server)
[23:07] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: cloud-init (bionic-proposed/main) [19.2-36-g059d049c-0ubuntu2~18.04.1 => 19.3-41-gc4735dd3-0ubuntu1~18.04.1] (edubuntu, ubuntu-cloud, ubuntu-server)
[23:10] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: cloud-init (disco-proposed/main) [19.2-36-g059d049c-0ubuntu2~19.04.1 => 19.3-41-gc4735dd3-0ubuntu1~19.04.1] (core, edubuntu, ubuntu-cloud)
[23:14] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: hypopg [amd64] (focal-proposed/universe) [1.1.3-1] (no packageset)
[23:14] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: hypopg [s390x] (focal-proposed/universe) [1.1.3-1] (no packageset)
[23:14] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: hypopg [ppc64el] (focal-proposed/universe) [1.1.3-1] (no packageset)
[23:15] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: hypopg [armhf] (focal-proposed/universe) [1.1.3-1] (no packageset)
[23:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: hypopg [arm64] (focal-proposed/universe) [1.1.3-1] (no packageset)
[23:23] <blackboxsw> hi RAOF or bdmurray (as I think RAOF is EOD) we've queued an SRU for cloud-init that we'd like to check into -proposed to start validation for a couple of ec2/azure related fixes. The cloud-init SRU is queued against Xenial, Bionic, Disco and Eoan
[23:25] <blackboxsw> If there is time, we'd love to get that reviewed. If not, we can pick it up tomorrow with Robie
[23:28] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: cloud-init (eoan-proposed/main) [19.2-36-g059d049c-0ubuntu3 => 19.3-41-gc4735dd3-0ubuntu1~19.10.1] (core, edubuntu, ubuntu-cloud)
[23:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-oem-osp1 [amd64] (bionic-proposed/universe) [5.0.0-1031.35] (no packageset)
[23:48] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-oem-osp1 [amd64] (bionic-proposed) [5.0.0-1031.35]