[00:34] <vorlon> cyphermox: ocfs2-tools/1.8.6-1ubuntu1 is already hinted, and is the version in the release pocket; something has gone weird with autopkgtest looking at -proposed instead of the release pocket to figure out binaries for the arch (the same thing happened with jellyfish).  Laney, juliank, do you know what's changed?
[00:35] <vorlon> cyphermox: and neutral is different than erroring, there needs to be a clearer rationale than this
[01:27] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted zfs-linux [source] (eoan-proposed) [0.8.1-1ubuntu14.3]
[01:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted binutils [source] (eoan-proposed) [2.33-2ubuntu1.1]
[05:13] <vorlon> xnox: what review has the smbios module gone through before being added to the efi prebuilt images?
[05:13] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: bareos [amd64] (focal-proposed/universe) [17.2.7-2.1] (no packageset)
[05:14] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: bareos [ppc64el] (focal-proposed/universe) [17.2.7-2.1] (no packageset)
[05:17] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: bareos [arm64] (focal-proposed/universe) [17.2.7-2.1] (no packageset)
[05:18] <xnox> vorlon: from canonical just me
[05:18] <xnox> vorlon: I don't think cyphermox reviewed it, nor colin
[05:18] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: bareos [armhf] (focal-proposed/universe) [17.2.7-2.1] (no packageset)
[05:19] <xnox> It mostly just dumps memory, that was already accessible anyway
[05:19] <xnox> In a nicer syntax, and stores to var
[05:21] <xnox> vorlon: also my chain loader patch is self authored :-/ submitted to RHEL sb but no reviews there
[05:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: bareos [s390x] (focal-proposed/universe) [17.2.7-2.1] (no packageset)
[07:54] <vorlon> xnox: adding modules to the signed grub efi has a higher barrier due to the security sensitivity.  It looks like this is a completely new module upstream, I'd like comments from cyphermox or cjwatson as well on whether it's appropriate to include
[10:47] <Laney> vorlon: changed> can you be more verbose about the problem you're describing please? I'm not sure if you're talking about a britney or an autopkgtest problem
[10:50] <Laney> If the latter, rebasing autopkgtest on upstream should get you a --shell-fail which breaks at the point where that bails out (if that's not in our branch already) so it should be easy to have a look at what apt thinks is going on there
[10:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted bareos [amd64] (focal-proposed) [17.2.7-2.1]
[10:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted bareos [armhf] (focal-proposed) [17.2.7-2.1]
[10:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted bareos [s390x] (focal-proposed) [17.2.7-2.1]
[10:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted paraview [arm64] (focal-proposed) [5.7.0-3]
[10:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted rust-sequoia-sqv [amd64] (focal-proposed) [0.12.0-2]
[10:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted bareos [arm64] (focal-proposed) [17.2.7-2.1]
[10:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted paraview [amd64] (focal-proposed) [5.7.0-3]
[10:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted bareos [ppc64el] (focal-proposed) [17.2.7-2.1]
[10:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted rust-sequoia-sqv [amd64] (focal-proposed) [0.12.0-1]
[15:10] <LocutusOfBorg> vorlon, I made erlang migrate, can you please fix this?
[15:10] <LocutusOfBorg> erlang-mimerl/i386 unsatisfiable Depends: erlang-base (>= 1:22.1.1+dfsg) | erlang-base-hipe (>= 1:22.1.1+dfsg)
[15:17] <LocutusOfBorg> same for erlang-unicode-util-compat erlang-p1-acme and so on...
[15:18] <LocutusOfBorg> searching for "/i386 unsatisfiable" on excuses brings other 245 references...
[15:37] <LocutusOfBorg> also, please NBS cleanup starpu-contrib
[16:39] <xnox> vorlon:  for context, the smbios module is for completing the OEM kernel integration as being worked on by Wimpress & co
[16:40] <xnox> vorlon:  the chainloading patch is for UC20
[16:40] <xnox> vorlon:  what would you like me to do in the mean time? a) drop smbios module altogether b) drop smbios from prebuilt efi images c) just let it rot in unapproved as is?
[17:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: librandomx [amd64] (focal-proposed/none) [1.1.7-2] (no packageset)
[17:12] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: librandomx [ppc64el] (focal-proposed/none) [1.1.7-2] (no packageset)
[17:13] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: librandomx [arm64] (focal-proposed/none) [1.1.7-2] (no packageset)
[17:13] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: librandomx [armhf] (focal-proposed/none) [1.1.7-2] (no packageset)
[17:33] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: librandomx [s390x] (focal-proposed/universe) [1.1.7-2] (no packageset)
[18:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: plymouth (eoan-proposed/main) [0.9.4git20190712-0ubuntu4 => 0.9.4git20190712-0ubuntu4.1] (core)
[20:09] <vorlon> Laney: my question is, have you recently deployed changes from upstream that could have changed the behavior of the horrible awk script that calculates the pin (so, autopkgtest) as something is now going wrong at that stage where I don't think it was before
[20:23] <vorlon> xnox: please revert the build-efi-image change and file a bug with rationale that we can attach a review to; I'll reject these binaries from unapproved
[20:24] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected grub2 [amd64] (focal-proposed) [2.04-1ubuntu15]
[20:25] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected grub2 [arm64] (focal-proposed) [2.04-1ubuntu15]
[23:36] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: kitemmodels [arm64] (focal-proposed/universe) [5.65.0-0ubuntu1] (kubuntu)
[23:38] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: kitemmodels [armhf] (focal-proposed/universe) [5.65.0-0ubuntu1] (kubuntu)
[23:43] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: kitemmodels [amd64] (focal-proposed/universe) [5.65.0-0ubuntu1] (kubuntu)
[23:44] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: kitemmodels [ppc64el] (focal-proposed/universe) [5.65.0-0ubuntu1] (kubuntu)