[04:19] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed [amd64] (xenial-proposed/main) [4.4.0-177.207] (core, kernel) [05:02] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed [amd64] (xenial-proposed) [4.4.0-177.207] [05:11] who wants to sort out node-chokidar/amd64 for nodejs? (blocks icu) [05:13] vorlon: how bad is it that libicu depends on tzdata? [05:13] I don't know, what's the issue? [05:14] ruby-defaults isn't ready to go yet, is it? [05:14] vorlon: somehow i thought we have people removing tzdata, but i see that it is in minimal so should be fine. [05:14] it's not in the minimal images [05:15] vorlon: ..... because task:minimal != minimal images =) [05:15] right [05:15] yep [05:15] that's what i thought, but is libicu in the minimal images? [05:15] php7.4 also not a candidate yet [05:15] xnox: no, but if one installs something using it and doesn't also install tzdata, things are broken? [05:16] in principle you run the minimal images as a starting point for running workloads, and one of the supported ways of installing workloads is as debs, so [05:16] vorlon: no, but wrong out-of-date built-in timezone data is used [05:16] for all the U_TIME apis [05:16] i.e. i'm fixing the fact that php never gets tzdata updates [05:17] https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/tzdata/2019c-3ubuntu1 & https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/icu/66.1-2ubuntu1 [05:17] ok [05:17] but now i'm not sure if Depends: tzdata is appropriate in this case or not [05:17] on release day it doesn't matter, it will matter the first time we update tzdata [05:17] so it looks like the blockers for icu right now are webkit2gtk (which seb128 said he was going to take responsibility for), libical3, php7.4, ruby, and nodejs [05:18] xnox: it sounds appropriate to me [05:18] all of the packages in that list smell! =) [05:22] nodejs is only one amd64-specific autopkgtest regression away [05:30] vorlon: given https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/nodejs/+bug/1863463 do you want to badtest that test, let it migrate, sync new nodejs, and do all of this again? [05:30] Ubuntu bug 1863463 in nodejs (Ubuntu) "Firefox 75 requires nodejs >= 10.19" [High,Confirmed] [05:31] but i love how 10.19 ftbfs on all arches in debian [05:36] xnox: I don't want to sync new nodejs at all, I just want the icu transition through [05:36] ack [05:36] (and I want the uploader to take responsibility for it, but, well) [05:37] the first one or the second one? [05:37] =))))) [05:37] or both of them? [05:37] both ;P [05:44] i fear all of horde stuff was not merged since bionic and needs merge to 3.10 [10:43] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted hud [amd64] (focal-proposed) [14.10+17.10.20170619-0ubuntu3.1] [10:43] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted hud [armhf] (focal-proposed) [14.10+17.10.20170619-0ubuntu3.1] [10:43] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted hud [s390x] (focal-proposed) [14.10+17.10.20170619-0ubuntu3.1] [10:43] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted hud [arm64] (focal-proposed) [14.10+17.10.20170619-0ubuntu3.1] [10:43] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted hud [ppc64el] (focal-proposed) [14.10+17.10.20170619-0ubuntu3.1] [12:17] Can arm64 be added to the Ubuntu Desktop product on isotracker? KeyError: "Product 'Ubuntu Desktop arm64' not found" [12:18] okey [12:21] should be there... perhaps? [12:21] Laney: or maybe I need to remove it from qa products? there is traceback in cd-build-logs, which doesn't fail the build but doesn't look tidy [12:22] Laney: i plan to submit iso tracker test results for the two arm64 laptops i have [12:22] I think it's OK to post it there [12:22] we'll see what happens after the next build [12:23] tah! [12:47] I've requested uploads of some node packages from Debian to fix a src:jekyll's dependency issue, could someone please approve them for me? they are node-webassemblyjs and node-webpack [12:49] where did you request them? [12:49] Laney: do you have powers to commit to debian-cd? I want to land https://code.launchpad.net/~xnox/debian-cd/ux-review-uefi-labels/+merge/379769 which has been reviewed and has agreed wording with mpt and is now final. [12:49] Laney: and steve is afk today [12:49] This isn't really the channel for making general sponsorship requests, BTW [12:50] xnox: yeah, ok, let me look later [12:50] * xnox slaps myself on the rist [12:50] * xnox slaps myself on the wrist [12:50] kanashiro: where did you request them? [12:51] xnox, I filed some sync requests and provided some patches, but those packages were already uploaded, I just need an approval because those are not in focal atm [12:51] xnox: actually that was for kanashiro, yours is *slightly* more on topic [12:51] Laney, it is not a sponsorship request, they are in NEW I think [12:52] yeap they are https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/focal/+queue [12:53] kanashiro: you need an archive-admin for those, of which neither laney or I, are =( [12:54] xnox, ok, thanks anyway [12:54] but here is the right place to find archive-admins, right? [12:59] yeah, I think they are supposed to respond to ubuntu-archive highlight (cf. the /topic) [12:59] I don't know if they expect people to ping for each new review though, or wait until it's done [13:01] I am just pinging because they are blocking some the other syncs I need, but ok, let's wait [13:01] kanashiro: What's the dependency issue here? I don't see any dependency on node-webassemblyjs in the current jekyll [13:02] cjwatson, node-uglifyjs-webpack-plugin depends no node-webassemblyjs [13:02] this is my next sync request [13:02] kanashiro: How did https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/jekyll/3.8.6+dfsg-3/+build/18759718 build then? [13:03] (I'm assuming you're trying to upgrade something, and am mainly trying to get you to tell me what the overall goal here is) [13:04] cjwatson, if you try to build jekyll now it will fail, I didn't investigate why it built previously [13:05] it needs webpack which is provided by node-webpack [13:05] Oh right, node-uglifyjs-webpack-plugin was removed [13:06] So yes, if you're committing to getting this all the way through, I guess that's fine [13:07] (indeed currently we try to make nodejs icu php ruby migrate) [13:07] yes, I already sorted it out locally, just need to get those packages in the archive [13:07] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted node-webassemblyjs [sync] (focal-proposed) [1.9.0+dfsg-2] [13:07] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted node-webpack [source] (focal-proposed) [4.30.0-7~ubuntu1] [13:08] I don't think these should interfere with any transitions in progress, since they're both new [13:08] cjwatson, FYI my next step is: request a sync of node-uglifyjs-webpack-plugin and node-webpack [13:14] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: node-webassemblyjs [amd64] (focal-proposed/universe) [1.9.0+dfsg-2] (no packageset) [13:15] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted node-webassemblyjs [amd64] (focal-proposed) [1.9.0+dfsg-2] [13:30] hopefully they will help with autopkgtest regressions eventually [13:33] they will fix at least jekyll's autopkgtest regression [14:03] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New sync: yagf (focal-proposed/primary) [0.9.5+repack1-1] [14:22] vorlon: Laney: any guidance on what review analysis you want for the s390-tools FFe for this codedrop diffstat https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/pB5TxkbMjs/ ? [14:22] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed [amd64] (bionic-proposed/main) [4.15.0-92.93] (core, kernel) [14:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed [ppc64el] (bionic-proposed/main) [4.15.0-92.93] (core, kernel) [14:23] Can anyone get to this https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1867714 supposed to be a bug report for ubiquity not starting on the current MATE ISO [14:23] Error: ubuntu bug 1867714 not found [14:23] vorlon: Laney: the genprotimg stuff is "new" and thus well can't regress. But the zipl/ stuff is effectively a refactor of the bootloader affecting all s390x substrates; interlined with bug fixes; and features; and whitespace changes; some dating to 2018 but only code-dropped released yesterday [14:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed [amd64] (bionic-proposed) [4.15.0-92.93] [14:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed [ppc64el] (bionic-proposed) [4.15.0-92.93] [14:36] xnox: I dunno, what's your existing testing strategy? [14:46] Laney: do line by line codereview + boot install test on our z13 (lpar, z/vm, kvm). But we have no access to do boot testing on z14 and z15. [15:18] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New sync: node-uglifyjs-webpack-plugin (focal-proposed/primary) [1.3.0-5] [15:19] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New source: what-is-python (focal-proposed/primary) [1] [15:37] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed [s390x] (eoan-proposed/main) [5.3.0-43.36] (core, kernel) [15:38] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed [amd64] (eoan-proposed/main) [5.3.0-43.36] (core, kernel) [15:38] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed [ppc64el] (eoan-proposed/main) [5.3.0-43.36] (core, kernel) [15:38] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed [arm64] (eoan-proposed/main) [5.3.0-43.36] (core, kernel) [15:39] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed [amd64] (eoan-proposed) [5.3.0-43.36] [15:39] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed [ppc64el] (eoan-proposed) [5.3.0-43.36] [15:39] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed [arm64] (eoan-proposed) [5.3.0-43.36] [15:39] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed [s390x] (eoan-proposed) [5.3.0-43.36] [16:09] doko: what-is-python uploaded into the New queue, please review if you like it or not. [16:09] doko: do feel free to like reject it, if you don't. [16:42] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-gcp [amd64] (bionic-proposed/main) [5.0.0-1034.35] (kernel) [16:43] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-gke-5.0 [amd64] (bionic-proposed/universe) [5.0.0-1033.34] (kernel) [16:43] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-gcp [amd64] (xenial-proposed/main) [4.15.0-1059.63] (kernel) [16:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-gcp [amd64] (bionic-proposed) [5.0.0-1034.35] [16:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-gke-5.0 [amd64] (bionic-proposed) [5.0.0-1033.34] [17:10] please can the ceph SRU in the eoan-proposed UNAPPROVED queue be rejected - I need to fold in the security update that was just released [17:12] ditto on bionic-proposed - thanks! [17:14] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: ceph (eoan-proposed/main) [14.2.4-0ubuntu0.19.10.2 => 14.2.7-0ubuntu0.19.10.1] (desktop-core, ubuntu-server) [17:19] I've uploaded revised version so the newer uploads are valid - please reject the older ones [17:20] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: ceph (bionic-proposed/main) [12.2.12-0ubuntu0.18.04.5 => 12.2.13-0ubuntu0.18.04.1] (desktop-core, ubuntu-server) [17:38] could someone approve node-uglifyjs-webpack-plugin in the focal NEW queue? It is needed to fix a src:jekyll's autopkgtest regression [17:42] done [17:43] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: rejected node-uglifyjs-webpack-plugin [sync] (focal-proposed) [1.3.0-5] [17:47] thanks [17:48] Uh what? I accepted it [17:49] Oh, because that version was previously in focal so the sync attempt failed, probably [17:49] kanashiro: You'll need to upload a 1.3.0-5build1 [17:49] cjwatson, ack [17:57] cjwatson: sorry for that, I did the syncpackage [17:57] a question there.. if we do 1.3.0-5build1 theoretically eoan can have the same version [17:57] if a build1 is made there [17:57] correct ? [17:58] should I do 1.3.0-5ubuntu0.20.04.1 instead ? [17:58] kanashiro: would that ^ version work for u ? [17:59] or ~ubuntu0.20.04.1 [17:59] sorry +ubuntu0.20.04 [17:59] just thinking in upgrade path =) [18:01] 1.3.0-5 to 1.3.0-5ubuntu0.1 (SRU in Eoan) and 1.3.0-5ubuntu1 (Focal) would work [18:02] rafaeldtinoco, I think node-uglifyjs-webpack-plugin will unlikely be rebuilt in eoan but yeah there is a chance, the version string you are proposing should work fine [18:02] kanashiro: instead of a sync, i suggest we go for the later ^ if that works for u [18:02] ahasenack: could u re-check this for me ? ^ [18:02] hm? [18:02] kanashiro needs a "sync" from debian but eoan already has the version [18:02] my suggestion is: [18:02] 15:01 1.3.0-5 to 1.3.0-5ubuntu0.1 (SRU in Eoan) and 1.3.0-5ubuntu1 (Focal) would work [18:03] to submit the source package in focal with 1.3.0-5ubuntu1 [18:03] leaving ubuntu0.xxx for eoan if ever needed [18:05] so you want 1.3.0-5 in focal [18:05] let's take this into #ubuntu-devel [18:05] yep [18:28] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New source: node-uglifyjs-webpack-plugin (focal-proposed/primary) [1.3.0-5build1] [18:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted node-uglifyjs-webpack-plugin [source] (focal-proposed) [1.3.0-5build1] [18:35] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: node-uglifyjs-webpack-plugin [amd64] (focal-proposed/none) [1.3.0-5build1] (no packageset) [18:41] cjwatson, node-uglifyjs-webpack-plugin version 1.3.0-5build1 is in the NEW queue, could you please approve it? [18:42] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted node-uglifyjs-webpack-plugin [amd64] (focal-proposed) [1.3.0-5build1] [18:42] ^ thanks! [18:43] Yep, was on it :) [21:47] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-gcp [amd64] (xenial-proposed) [4.15.0-1059.63]