[00:01] <blackboxsw> bdmurray: I don't think I was able to get RAOF today for ubuntu-sru. Do you think there is time today for an SRU verification for cloud-init for xenial, bionic and eoan per https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cloud-init/+bug/1859725
[00:02] <RAOF> blackboxsw: Heh. I'm currently looking at that :)
[00:02] <bdmurray> well then my work here is done
[00:03] <powersj> \o/
[00:04] <RAOF> Is there a reason why the oracle tests are only run on xenial and bionic?
[00:06] <powersj> blackboxsw, ^ I think it has to do with image availability but will let him confirm
[00:07] <blackboxsw> RAOF awesome: and yes oracle only has LTS images
[00:07] <RAOF> That was my guess :)
[00:07] <blackboxsw> so eaon isn't available publicly (at least I can't launch those type of instances on my account type)(
[00:07] <blackboxsw> account type == grunt :)
[00:08] <RAOF> If normal people can't launch them then normal people can't run into any regressions with the SRU 😜
[00:10] <blackboxsw> heh.   RAOF: note only unique thing we ran into during testing was in maas-sru and curtin-proposed-sru attached logs. I annotated the top of those files with info about why the exceptions are known (haven't SRU'd yet for both maas and curtin)
[00:11] <RAOF> Yeah, thanks for that. It makes!
[00:11] <blackboxsw> I think we'll follow that general process if we happen to have any logs showing SRU verification failures test failures if they are known exceptions
[00:11] <blackboxsw> for future SRUs too
[00:11] <blackboxsw> good deal
[00:23] <RAOF> Bah! That's right! Focal's dropped python2-launchpadlib.
[01:47] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: lz4 (bionic-proposed/main) [0.0~r131-2ubuntu3 => 0.0~r131-2ubuntu3.1] (core)
[02:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: lz4 (xenial-proposed/main) [0.0~r131-2ubuntu2 => 0.0~r131-2ubuntu2.1] (core)
[07:54] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: pyside2 [s390x] (focal-proposed/universe) [5.14.0-1~exp1build1] (no packageset)
[08:12] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: pyside2 [amd64] (focal-proposed/universe) [5.14.0-1~exp1build1] (no packageset)
[08:17] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted pyside2 [amd64] (focal-proposed) [5.14.0-1~exp1build1]
[08:17] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted pyside2 [s390x] (focal-proposed) [5.14.0-1~exp1build1]
[08:17] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: pyside2 [ppc64el] (focal-proposed/universe) [5.14.0-1~exp1build1] (no packageset)
[08:20] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted pyside2 [ppc64el] (focal-proposed) [5.14.0-1~exp1build1]
[09:18] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: vala [s390x] (focal-proposed/universe) [0.47.3-1~ubuntu1] (i386-whitelist, ubuntu-desktop)
[09:19] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: vala [amd64] (focal-proposed/universe) [0.47.3-1~ubuntu1] (i386-whitelist, ubuntu-desktop)
[09:20] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: vala [i386] (focal-proposed/universe) [0.47.3-1~ubuntu1] (i386-whitelist, ubuntu-desktop)
[09:20] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: vala [ppc64el] (focal-proposed/universe) [0.47.3-1~ubuntu1] (i386-whitelist, ubuntu-desktop)
[09:50] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: vala [armhf] (focal-proposed/universe) [0.47.3-1~ubuntu1] (i386-whitelist, ubuntu-desktop)
[10:05] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: vala [arm64] (focal-proposed/universe) [0.47.3-1~ubuntu1] (i386-whitelist, ubuntu-desktop)
[10:13] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted vala [amd64] (focal-proposed) [0.47.3-1~ubuntu1]
[10:13] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted vala [armhf] (focal-proposed) [0.47.3-1~ubuntu1]
[10:13] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted vala [ppc64el] (focal-proposed) [0.47.3-1~ubuntu1]
[10:13] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted vala [arm64] (focal-proposed) [0.47.3-1~ubuntu1]
[10:13] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted vala [s390x] (focal-proposed) [0.47.3-1~ubuntu1]
[10:13] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted vala [i386] (focal-proposed) [0.47.3-1~ubuntu1]
[10:31] <LocutusOfBorg> hello, is it possible to NBS-proposed cleanup python-mpi4py and python-mpi4py-dbg? thanks
[11:35] <apw> locutus__, looking
[11:42] <doko> locutus__: you looked at pyside2 before. any idea why freecad can't find it?
[11:55] <RikMills> doko: this? https://tracker.freecadweb.org/view.php?id=4229
[11:56] <RikMills> I see /bin/sh: 1: PYSIDE2RCCBINARY-NOTFOUND: not found in the buildlog
[12:03] <doko> RikMills: yes
[12:15] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New source: nvidia-graphics-drivers-440 (eoan-proposed/primary) [440.44-0ubuntu0.19.10.1]
[12:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: nvidia-graphics-drivers-390 (eoan-proposed/restricted) [390.129-0ubuntu2 => 390.132-0ubuntu0.19.10.1] (core)
[12:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New source: nvidia-graphics-drivers-440 (bionic-proposed/primary) [440.44-0ubuntu0.18.04.1]
[12:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: nvidia-graphics-drivers-340 (bionic-proposed/restricted) [340.107-0ubuntu0.18.04.4 => 340.108-0ubuntu0.18.04.1] (ubuntu-desktop)
[12:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: nvidia-graphics-drivers-340 (eoan-proposed/restricted) [340.107-0ubuntu7 => 340.108-0ubuntu0.19.10.1] (ubuntu-desktop)
[12:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: nvidia-graphics-drivers-390 (bionic-proposed/restricted) [390.116-0ubuntu0.18.04.3 => 390.132-0ubuntu0.18.04.1] (ubuntu-desktop)
[12:17] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: nvidia-settings (bionic-proposed/main) [390.77-0ubuntu0.18.04.1 => 440.44-0ubuntu0.18.04.1] (ubuntu-desktop)
[12:17] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: nvidia-settings (eoan-proposed/main) [435.21-0ubuntu2 => 440.44-0ubuntu0.19.10.1] (ubuntu-desktop)
[12:20] <tseliot> hey sil2100, can you have a look at these ^ uploads, please? (some of them are in NEW). This is for LP: #1854485
[12:32] <sil2100> tseliot: hey! Looking in a moment
[12:32] <tseliot> thanks :)
[12:57] <sil2100> tseliot: ok, will try to go through some of them today, but if I won't be able to do all I'll pick the rest up tomorrow during my SRU shift ;)
[12:57] <sil2100> (if that's fine with you)
[13:03] <locutus__> doko, yes
[13:03] <locutus__> and I don't think syncing from experimental was a good idea...
[13:04] <tseliot> sil2100, that would be great, thanks :)
[13:15] <cpaelzer> need to do some pings ...
[13:15] <cpaelzer> first https://code.launchpad.net/~paelzer/britney/hints-ubuntu-focal-pgsql-i386-universe/+merge/378234 for a release Team member
[13:16] <cpaelzer> to get some more tests affected by i386 out of excuses
[13:21] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: pandas (bionic-proposed/universe) [0.22.0-4 => 0.22.0-4ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[13:32] <coreycb> rbasak: hello, I have new pandas uploads in the eoan and bionic unapproved queues. If you have some time today could you take a look? the bionic pandas update is blocking some of our openstack ussuri cloud archive backports.
[13:34] <rbasak> Sure, looking
[13:49] <locutus__> is it possible to blacklist also openjdk-13 on armhf?
[13:49] <locutus__> # timeouts on armhf
[13:49] <locutus__> force-badtest openjdk-lts/all/armhf
[13:49] <locutus__> timeout... same reason as the lts one (also 14 has probably to be blacklisted?)
[13:52] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted nvidia-graphics-drivers-340 [source] (eoan-proposed) [340.108-0ubuntu0.19.10.1]
[14:01] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted pandas [source] (eoan-proposed) [0.23.3+dfsg-4ubuntu1.1]
[14:01] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted pandas [source] (bionic-proposed) [0.22.0-4ubuntu1]
[14:04] <rbasak> coreycb: accepted, but just one thing - Eoan looks successfully built for armhf. So do we need to release the SRU to Eoan users after verification, or is it OK to hold that in proposed indefinitely?
[14:05] <seb128> locutus__, see #ubuntu-devel backlog from the past hour about openjdk
[14:05] <coreycb> rbasak: thank you. eoan should be ok to hold in proposed.
[14:06] <locutus__> seb128, so they are going to be blacklisted? thanks!
[14:06] <seb128> locutus__, np!
[14:06] <locutus__> I mean hinted :)
[14:12] <rbasak> coreycb: great, thanks!
[14:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: pep8 [amd64] (focal-proposed/main) [1.7.1-9ubuntu1] (ubuntu-desktop)
[14:24] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted pep8 [amd64] (focal-proposed) [1.7.1-9ubuntu1]
[14:42] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted nvidia-graphics-drivers-340 [source] (bionic-proposed) [340.108-0ubuntu0.18.04.1]
[15:34] <doko> locutus__: freecad built on arm64, but just on arm64. puzzled
[15:35] <locutus__> doko, I already have a patch
[15:39] <locutus__> + - [PYSIDE-1098] Replace pyside2-uic/pyside2-rcc by
[15:39] <locutus__> +                 uic/rcc which now have an option to generate Python
[15:49] <locutus__> reason is that the arm64 build picked up: Setting up shiboken2 (5.13.2-2.2) ...
[15:49] <locutus__> I will upload a fixed freecad after coffee, I leave to you fixing autopkgtest regressions
[16:30] <chiluk> mdeslaur https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/mysql-5.7/+bug/1861304
[16:36] <mdeslaur> chiluk: yep, sucks
[16:40] <chiluk> looks like the correct course of action is simply break people and force an upgrade to libssl1.1?  it really feels like there should have been a libssl meta package that updated to the new version.
[16:40] <chiluk> is there a reason that doesn't exist?
[16:41] <chiluk> and that libssl1.0 and libssl1.1 are explicitly versioned?
[16:47] <xnox> chiluk:  both 1.0.2 and 1.1.1 dev packages ship /usr/include/openssl/ssl.h and changing that path would break all software trying to build against both versions.
[16:48] <xnox> chiluk:  and mysql is a client binding library which must ensure that clients against that link against mysql library, also link and build against matching libssl, as one is not allowed to link and load both libssl's in a single binary
[16:53] <xnox> closed as invalid
[17:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: fonts-arundina [amd64] (focal-proposed/universe) [0.3.1-1] (no packageset)
[17:43] <chiluk> xnox, I understand why there are separte versioned libssl1.x packages, what I don't get is why there's not a meta-package to assist with updates.
[17:48] <xnox> chiluk:  what sort of metapackages? the libssl-dev is a metapackage that points to latest, and each binary app must be rebuild and relinked against the new libssl-dev which autogenerates the dependency on libssl1.0 or libssl1.1 binary packages through abi / symbol dependencies.
[17:49] <xnox> chiluk:  one cannot magically install a different libssl and expect all binaries to change abi, they need to be rebuilt.
[17:49] <cjwatson> Right, a metapackage for the runtime libraries would be anti-helpful
[17:50] <xnox> chiluk: it is highly unusual to install libssl1.0-dev and very few people ever do that. My question to you is why did installing "libssl1.0-dev" made it into your scripts on bionic in the first place.
[17:50] <xnox> as that package only exists on bionic, and doesn't exist on any other releases.
[17:51] <chiluk> I suspect that was done explicitly because the libraries were needed for development of applications here when we were on 16.04, and the scripts were not upgraded to libssl1.1 when upgraed to 18.04
[17:51] <chiluk> which was probably done to maintain stability of environment between 16.04 and 18.04
[17:52] <chiluk> it might have also been a dependency of some out-of-archive package.... which was from before my time.
[17:52] <xnox> some packages did declare "Build-Depends: libssl-dev (< 1.1.0) | libssl1.0-dev" to be buildable on 16.04 and 18.04 against openssl1.0.
[17:53] <chiluk> either way I think we have a solution... thanks guys, and I think I learned something as well.
[17:53] <xnox> chiluk:  by default, one must use matching series to build the binaries for..... i.e. the abis change significantly between releases, with required minimum versions, even if package name stays the same.
[17:54] <xnox> i.e. glibc generates higher version requirements in focal, than in bionic, which in turn is higher than xenial.....
[17:54] <xnox> chiluk:  please use libssl-dev everywhere, and please use libssl1.1 in bionic and up; and libssl1.0 in xenial and down.
[17:54] <chiluk> right.. that's the problem.
[17:54] <infinity> Well, or you build everything on the oldest release you have and hope for the best. :P
[17:55] <cjwatson> I'm not sure where this meme comes from that there ought to have been a libssl runtime library metapackage.  It's not something we do elsewhere.
[17:55] <chiluk> the developer environment at indeed explicitly installed libssl1.0 to be compatible accross 16.04 and 18.04...
[17:55] <chiluk> which was a poor decision made by those before me.
[17:56] <xnox> chiluk:  if we only had openssh ported in time for bionic release, we would not have shipped libssl1.0 there at all. but alas timing didn't work out.
[17:56] <xnox> chiluk:  libssl1.0 is dead and has been removed from ubuntu, focal will only have 1.1
[17:56] <chiluk> yep..
[17:57] <xnox> and by default it will require TLSv1.2, DTLSv1.2, 2k RSA keys, SHA256 signatures on certificates, etc.....
[17:57] <xnox> thus one has to ensure TLSv1.2 is up and running on those 16.04 software, cause anything lower than that is useless on the public internet today.
[17:58] <infinity> bdmurray: These walinuxagent backports don't have the dh-python build-dep fix.  Did you want to re-backport with that?
[17:59] <infinity> bdmurray: Oh, but python3-all depends on it in earlier releases, so it's probably fine.
[18:02] <infinity> bdmurray: Oh, and one that needs to be fixed...
[18:02] <infinity> bdmurray: python3-distro was addeed to build-deps in focal "for python3.8 support".  There's probably no harm in that being backported to eoan.  And you correctly removed it for xenial.  But you left it for bionic, where it will generate a runtime dep on python3-distro, which is in universe there.
[18:03] <infinity> bdmurray: So bionic needs re-uploading with the same revert as xenial.
[18:03] <xnox> vorlon:  bump livecd-rootfs again? livecd-rootfs:i386:any in the log
[18:03] <xnox> badtest livecd-rootfs on i386?
[18:03] <vorlon> xnox: Laney already did
[18:03] <xnox> awesome!
[18:04] <vorlon> xnox: bumped it.  We haven't made it an all-version hint, that's a decision still to be taken
[18:06] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected walinuxagent [source] (bionic-proposed) [2.2.45-0ubuntu1~18.04.1]
[18:09] <infinity> bdmurray: If you want to retain the ability to do straight backports without deltas, you might want to change that to something tricksy like "python3 (<< 3.8.0) || python3-distro (>> 1.3.0)"
[18:12] <infinity> bdmurray: Also, I'm reminded by my own fuzzy brain that you're off today, so I might JFDI and reupload myself.
[18:15] <doko> s/||/|/
[18:15] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: rdkit [s390x] (focal-proposed/universe) [201909.1-2ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[18:16] <infinity> doko: Yeah, brain's not in the right language yet. :)
[18:17] <doko> I'm happy seeing you preparing the glibc update ;p
[18:19] <ahasenack> wait, wat
[18:19] <ahasenack> is there a glibc update coming up? :)
[18:19] <infinity> 2.31 releases early feb, so yes.
[18:19] <infinity> If only this happened every 6 months, so people would stop being surprised.
[18:22] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: rdkit [amd64] (focal-proposed/universe) [201909.1-2ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[18:22] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted fonts-arundina [amd64] (focal-proposed) [0.3.1-1]
[18:22] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted rdkit [s390x] (focal-proposed) [201909.1-2ubuntu1]
[18:22] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted rdkit [amd64] (focal-proposed) [201909.1-2ubuntu1]
[18:27] <doko> ahasenack: sssd, and it even builds \o/
[18:58] <ahasenack> doko: yeah, fixed it
[18:58] <ahasenack> once it lands fully in proposed (missing arm* I think), I can rebuild autofs (which also broke)
[18:58] <ahasenack> and that should be the last piece of the samba stack
[19:24] <ahasenack> ok, autofs now builds as well
[19:24]  * ahasenack lets the magic happen
[19:59] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: linux-firmware (bionic-proposed/main) [1.173.14 => 1.173.15] (core, kernel)
[20:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: linux-firmware (eoan-proposed/main) [1.183.3 => 1.183.4] (core, kernel)
[23:15] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: s390-tools (focal-proposed/main) [2.11.0-0ubuntu2 => 2.12.0-0ubuntu1] (core)
[23:21] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: liblnk [amd64] (focal-proposed/none) [20181227-1.1] (no packageset)
[23:21] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: liblnk [s390x] (focal-proposed/none) [20181227-1.1] (no packageset)
[23:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: liblnk [arm64] (focal-proposed/none) [20181227-1.1] (no packageset)
[23:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: liblnk [armhf] (focal-proposed/none) [20181227-1.1] (no packageset)
[23:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: liblnk [ppc64el] (focal-proposed/none) [20181227-1.1] (no packageset)
[23:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted liblnk [amd64] (focal-proposed) [20181227-1.1]
[23:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted liblnk [armhf] (focal-proposed) [20181227-1.1]
[23:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted liblnk [s390x] (focal-proposed) [20181227-1.1]
[23:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted liblnk [arm64] (focal-proposed) [20181227-1.1]
[23:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted liblnk [ppc64el] (focal-proposed) [20181227-1.1]