alkisgHi, I'm upstream and Debian maintainer for the "ltsp" package. A rewritten version of it has just landed in Debian testing, and it'd be best if focal got it too.09:22
alkisgQuestion, will this be done automatically or do I need to do some action? https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ltsp lists it in "proposed".09:22
rbasakalkisg: hi! Thank you for looking out for your package in Ubuntu!09:35
rbasakThe reason something gets "stuck on proposed" is much the same as migration to testing in Debian09:35
rbasakhttps://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/proposed-migration/update_excuses.html#ltsp has the details09:35
rbasakIs there some kind of rearrangement in the binary packages produced?09:36
alkisgThanks, reading.. :)09:36
alkisgYes, many binary packages were removed09:37
alkisgThere's only one "ltsp" binary package now09:37
alkisgAnd it's "arch: all", interpreted09:37
rbasakI'm somewhat puzzled why this hasn't happened automatically.09:38
alkisgThe migration to debian testing only happened yesterday09:38
alkisgMaybe it just needs some time?09:39
rbasakNo Ubuntu doesn't have a mandatory delay like testing09:39
rbasakAnd the excuses file is clear that it's blocked09:40
rbasakI think deletion of the binaries in the release pocket would work, but I'm not sure that's definitely the right thing to do.09:40
rbasakWe need to ask an archive admin (equivalent of an ftpmaster) to take a look.09:40
rbasakUnless there's something I'm missing here09:40
alkisgWe did have to ping ftp master for the debian migration to testing09:40
alkisgMaybe something similar is needed here09:41
rbasakWhat happens if a user has the old binary packages installed?09:41
rbasakI don't see an upgrade path?09:41
alkisgIt should remain installed, and it should be possible to get autoremoved with apt09:42
alkisgIt was possible to have the old and the new ltsp coexist for some time, that's why this was preferred09:42
alkisgAlso the other debian developer said that way it would avoid the New queue for debian ;)09:42
alkisg(vagrantc is DD, I'm just DM, so I defer to him for such issues :))09:43
rbasakCould you file a bug against ltsp in Ubuntu please, and subscribe ~ubuntu-archive to it?09:43
alkisgSure, thank you09:43
rbasakI don't want to go into the technical detail myself because I'm not confident I understand the nuances here and I don't want to take you down a path that's wrong.09:43
rbasakAnd I don't have the authority to resolve it in the archive anyway.09:44
alkisgHopefully I got the correct list subscribed: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ltsp/+bug/185542209:48
ubottuLaunchpad bug 1855422 in ltsp (Ubuntu) "New ltsp package stuck in focal proposed" [Undecided,New]09:48
rbasakakelling: thanks! Yes, that subscription is correct.09:52
alkisgTy. alkisg :)09:52
rbasakThe archive admins tend to process things in batches though so the bug may not get attention quickly.09:52
rbasakAh, sorry!09:52
alkisgThere's no hurry, just making sure it requires no other action from my part09:53
rbasakYou were right to ask in here.09:53
rbasakAnd feel free to ask again if it doesn't get attention in a while.09:53
alkisgGreat, thank you09:53
rbasakI don't see any European archive admins in here right now09:53
rbasakAh, seb128 maybe? ^09:54
seb128rbasak, hey, sorry had to change wifi, I'm around now ... what's up?10:03
rbasakseb128: are you an active archive admin?10:03
rbasakalkisg has an issue with ltsp migrating. I think it needs some binary deletions but am not sure. On my advice he just filed bug 1855422 but then I saw you were online :)10:04
ubottubug 1855422 in ltsp (Ubuntu) "New ltsp package stuck in focal proposed" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/185542210:04
alkisgTy, I'm here if feedback's needed10:06
seb128alkisg, rbasak, seems like the old binaries have no rdepends and just need to be deleted10:20
cjwatsoncoreycb: those two pushes of yours should work now10:27
cjwatsonteward: wasn't around then.  what do you need?10:28
rbasakseb128: thank you!11:15
seb128rbasak, np!11:21
kanashirorbasak, did you see my message yesterday about the sphinxsearch issue? ruby-riddle regression is the only thing avoiding ruby-defaults migration atm11:52
rbasakkanashiro: yes. That research looks good. Did you have a question for me?12:20
kanashirorbasak, there was no question, I thought I was handing it over to someone else :p but that's fine, I can try to find the fix by myself12:31
kanashiroif I have any question I'll ping you12:32
rbasakkanashiro: oh, sorry for the confusion!12:34
kanashironp :)12:36
=== ricab is now known as ricab|bbl
coreycbcjwatson: thanks13:05
ahasenackcpaelzer: how does one build manual test-retrigger urls again? I'm trying to do it for one package specifically before going the all-proposed=1 route (learning experience)13:08
ahasenackhttps://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/request.cgi?release=focal&arch=amd64&package=samba&trigger=ldb%2F2.0.7-4 <-- failed with13:08
ahasenackYou submitted an invalid request: ldb/2.0.7-4 is not published in focal13:08
ahasenackwhich is correct, as ldb 2.0.7-4 is in focal-proposed13:08
ahasenackI want to run the samba test under https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/proposed-migration/update_excuses.html#ldb13:09
ahasenackbut with the samba package from focal-proposed13:09
ahasenacktest is green as is13:09
ahasenackor, to use a real case that is read13:11
ahasenacksamba under https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/proposed-migration/update_excuses.html#talloc13:11
ahasenackI need it to run with samba from focal-proposed13:11
ahasenackand didn't want to pass all-proposed=113:11
* ahasenack reads https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ProposedMigration in the mean time13:12
* ahasenack adds samba itself as a trigger13:14
* ahasenack feels smart13:15
* ahasenack waits for the outcome13:15
ahasenackUnpacking samba-libs:amd64 (2:4.11.1+dfsg-3ubuntu1) ...13:19
ahasenackyay, seems to have picked up the correct version13:20
seb128ddstreet, hey, please commit your network-manager changes to the packaging vcs13:32
seb128alkisg, rbasak, the ltsp update is in focal now15:03
rbasakThank you!15:15
alkisgGreat seb128, thank you, thanks to rbasak too15:19
=== ricab|bbl is now known as ricab
Odd_Blokerbasak: Thanks!16:14
ddstreetseb128 done, sorry17:50
seb128ddstreet, np, thanks!17:50
ddstreetvorlon will i386 autopkgtests on focal get properly tweaked somehow so they pull the right arch deps (I see you did some work for build-essential already), or will they all just get marked ignore?17:52
ddstreeti'm assuming for now, at least, i386 tests on focal can be ignored17:52
dokoseb128: python-pceclib: please don't depend on python, use python2 instead19:01
seb128doko, ack19:01
=== rkta_ is now known as rkta
vorlonddstreet: many autopkgtests will need adjusted individually to have correct cross-capable definitions; I've started working on uploading a number of these and will be posting to ubuntu-devel with some guidance on how to do this.  In the meantime, it's correct to mark any that are failing "ignore" since they have regressed in the release pocket20:15
santa_so ... i386 packages started to "dissapear", correct?20:31
santa_from focal I mean20:31
santa_ah, indeed20:34
* santa_ reads ubuntu-devel ML20:34
santa_yep, time to ditch my kde test rebuilds for i386 I guess20:35
vorlonfor focal, very much so ;)20:35
LocutusOfBorgfossfreedom, is it ok to sync nautilus-dropbox?21:38
LocutusOfBorgthe new release is fine with budgie or not?21:39
LocutusOfBorgspeaking wrt https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/nautilus-dropbox/+bug/168305121:39
ubottuLaunchpad bug 1683051 in nautilus-dropbox (Ubuntu) "Ubuntu Budgie: Bad integration with Dropbox" [Medium,Fix released]21:39
LocutusOfBorgmerged it21:56
LocutusOfBorgkanashiro, hello, any idea for this failure? I tried to sync ruby-riddle but failed https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ruby-riddle/2.3.1-2ubuntu122:27
LocutusOfBorglooks like the current version in focal is not even working with a no-change rebuild22:27

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!