[05:05] vorlon: d-i uploaded for another reason! [05:06] xnox: cheers [08:00] vorlon, hey, so, libgphoto2 has a bit of a weird autopkgtest, it does autoreconf/configure/make check its source, which fails on i386 on configur not fiding ltdl [08:00] do you think it makes sense to try to cross compile or is it fine to just badtest that one on i386? [08:02] seb128: I think a cross-compile would be better [08:30] vorlon, k, adding to the backlog of things we need to look at then (webkitgtk is high on that list, I will try to make progress today) [08:40] hum, autopkgtest, so http://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/packages/s/sbd/focal/amd64 is often failing with [08:40] 'sudo: /tmp/autopkgtest-run-wrapper: command not found' [08:41] but sometime it success ... is that command supposed to be always available? or is it by luck on some images? [08:45] juliank, hey, do you know maybe about ^ ? [10:12] Hi! Any plans to port https://ubuntu.pkgs.org/18.04/ubuntu-universe-amd64/nfqueue-bindings-perl_0.6-1build2_amd64.deb.html to ubuntu 19? (Appologies if wrong channel) [10:31] OxThiebaut: it's not recent Ubuntu because of release critical debian bug #906495 [10:31] Debian bug 906495 in src:nfqueue-bindings "nfqueue-bindings: FTBFS in buster/sid (add_custom_target cannot create target "nfqueue_swig_compilation")" [Serious,Open] http://bugs.debian.org/906495 [10:33] Thanks for the quick and precise response. Have a good day! [10:57] Laney, do yo maybe know about my question from earlier and 'autopkgtest-run-wrapper: command not found' errors and if they are sign on an image issue usually? [10:58] seb128: no, probably the real error is further up [10:58] that is just something which gets printed as part of dumping some logs on failure [10:58] that's what I was wondering, thanks === led_dark_2 is now known as led_dark_1 [14:14] Is there any information available on how Ubuntu Base images are created? [14:49] Do we have any progress on bug 1851346? [14:49] bug 1851346 in ubiquity (Ubuntu Focal) "Ubuntu Studio 19.10 Installer Causes Wanted Programs to be Removed" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1851346 [15:21] vorlon, lp:ubuntu-themes isn't up-to-date with the contents of the archive, it's missing https://launchpadlibrarian.net/451540523/ubuntu-themes_19.04-0ubuntu1_19.04-0ubuntu2.diff.gz , would you mind pushing that change to the branch? [17:13] * ogra hugs sil2100 [17:31] hum, does anyone know what's the easiest way to 'simulate' an i386/focal autopkgtest environment? [17:35] seb128: Use amd64 and pass a --setup-command "dpkg --add-architecture i386; apt update" or something like that [17:36] Would be useful to add that to https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ProposedMigration/#autopkgtests if it works for you [17:37] Laney, I will try and update if it works, thanks [17:39] thanks to you! [17:39] I think I gave Steve a review comment on his MR upstream to make this automatic [18:05] kanashiro: so you want 1.3.0-5 in focal [18:05] plain 1.3.0-5? no ubuntu changes needed? [18:06] node-uglifyjs-webpack-plugin | 1.3.0-5 | unstable | source, all [18:06] kanashiro: needs that package in focal [18:06] ahasenack, exactly [18:06] but im thinking about upgrade path [18:06] you cant sync to the same version in focal [18:06] ok, and that failed because this existed in focal before, and was removed [18:06] "Depends on node-webpack, removed in favor of node-acorn transition" <-- do you know what this means? [18:07] ahasenack, during node-acorn transition node-webpack FTBFS I think [18:08] but the current version of it in Debian unstable is fixed [18:08] node-webpack we have in focal-proposed [18:08] from you, actually [18:08] yes, with a delta [18:08] I want to drop the delta [18:08] and make it a sync [18:09] to do that I need node-uglifyjs-webpack-plugin [18:09] ahasenack: and im proposing to upload node-uglifyjs-webpack-plugin with versioning [18:09] so its not the same as eoan [18:09] you will need to make node-uglifyjs-webpack-plugin something like 1.3.0-5build1 [18:09] and it allows eoan to upgrade (not that will upgrade) [18:09] 1.3.0-5build1 would be in eoans upgrade path [18:10] if it gets rebuilt [18:10] for whatever reasons [18:10] a "buildN" suffix also doesn't block future automatic syncs [18:10] hum I do a build1 [18:10] use dch -R (iric) for the changelog [18:10] and then after its good [18:10] a sync again ? [18:10] no [18:10] you will have to grab the source [18:11] do a -R and upload [18:11] with build1 versioned [18:11] add a new d/changelog entry, call it 1.3.0-5build1 [18:11] and upload [18:11] and that's it [18:11] yep.. my doubt [18:11] eoan has the same version [18:11] lets suppose SRU is done and a rebuild is needed in eoan [18:11] if debian releases 1.3.0-6, and the archive is open again (no FF), ubuntu will sync it automatically [18:11] build1 would be a version that eoan would also use [18:11] thats the main concern [18:11] then whoever is doing the sru to eoan has to come up with a version number that fits between 1.3.0-5 and 1.3.0-5build1 [18:11] of everything we are saying [18:12] ahasenack: gotcha. works for me [18:12] thanks for checking this [18:12] according to https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam/UpdatePreparation, that would be 1.3.0-5ubuntu0.1 [18:12] yep [18:12] 2.0-2build1 2.0-2ubuntu0.1 [18:12] from their example [18:12] no, wait [18:13] that's for focal [18:13] yep i was almost putting 1.3.0-5ubuntu1 for focal [18:13] and letting eoan to have 1.3.0-5ubuntu0 [18:13] some ~ might be involved [18:13] if ever needed [18:13] for an eoan sru [18:13] they could do 1.3.0-5~ubuntu1 [18:13] etc.. if needed [18:13] 2.0-2 in two releases 2.0-2ubuntu0.11.10.1 and 2.0-2ubuntu0.12.04.1 <-- that case I think, if the sru affects focal as well [18:13] but it has a solution [18:14] ok.. i'll go with a build1 [18:14] to keep things simple for now [18:14] it's correct for focal [18:14] cool thx! [18:14] kanashiro: ^ [18:28] rafaeldtinoco: It would be up to a future hypothetical SRUer not to collide. Just suffixing build1 is correct for the development series, indeed. [18:28] cjwatson: cool! thanks for clarifying [19:29] oSoMoN: sorry, I'm out of office today, probably best if you can push the changes there yourself?