[04:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: containerd (bionic-proposed/universe) [1.3.3-0ubuntu1~18.04.1 => 1.3.3-0ubuntu1~18.04.2] (no packageset)
[09:47] <LocutusOfBorg> apw, hello, can you please trigger the forget past passes hint for camitk? it is NBS everywhere except amd64 autopkgtest for camitk/4.1.2-4build1: amd64: Pass, arm64: Regression ♻ , armhf: Regression ♻ , i386: Regression ♻ , ppc64el: Regression ♻ , s390x: Regression ♻
[09:47] <LocutusOfBorg> # libinsighttoolkit4 is only supported on amd64 now, this triggers
[09:47] <LocutusOfBorg> # dependencies on other architectures to remainin DEPWAIT.  Hint
[09:47] <LocutusOfBorg> # tests as needed.
[09:47] <LocutusOfBorg> force-badtest camitk/4.1.2-4/arm64 camitk/4.1.2-4/armhf camitk/4.1.2-4/i386 camitk/4.1.2-4/ppc64el camitk/4.1.2-4/s390x
[09:47] <LocutusOfBorg> this can then be removed
[12:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted pydrive [amd64] (focal-proposed) [1.3.1-0ubuntu1]
[12:28] <Laney> sil2100: gonna try the requests thing I think
[12:28] <Laney> sorry if proposed-migration dies a bit :-)
[12:40] <Laney> (done)
[13:06] <Laney> seems to be working
[14:27] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: clevis [amd64] (focal-proposed/universe) [12-1ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[14:59] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted clevis [amd64] (focal-proposed) [12-1ubuntu1]
[15:01] <sil2100> First focal language packs building o/
[15:23] <sil2100> (will have to re-upload the ckb ones, since they were missing from the packageset again
[15:23] <sil2100> )
[15:39] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Packageset: Added language-pack-ckb to langpack in focal
[15:39] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Packageset: Added language-pack-ckb-base to langpack in focal
[15:39] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Packageset: Added language-pack-gnome-ckb to langpack in focal
[15:39] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Packageset: Added language-pack-gnome-ckb-base to langpack in focal
[16:06] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: ceph (eoan-proposed/main) [14.2.4-0ubuntu0.19.10.2 => 14.2.8-0ubuntu0.19.10.1] (desktop-core, ubuntu-server)
[16:09] <Eickmeyer> xnox: Who tagged ubuntustudio-installer with bug 1851346?
[16:09] <ubot5> bug 1851346 in ubuntustudio-live (Ubuntu Focal) "Ubuntu Studio 19.10 Installer Causes Wanted Programs to be Removed" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1851346
[16:15] <sforshee> doko: ping on bug 1866882, this is still causing linux autopkgtest failures on s390
[16:15] <ubot5> bug 1866882 in llvm-toolchain-10 (Ubuntu) "segfault in libllvm-10 when building kernel bpf selftests on s390" [High,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1866882
[16:20] <doko> sforshee: please use LLVM on s390x for now
[16:22] <sforshee> doko: do you mean llvm-9?
[16:27] <xnox> Eickmeyer:  i meant ubuntustudio-live => because i believe the bug might be in the extra studio plugin, rather than in ubiquity itself
[16:28] <Eickmeyer> xnox: Well, maybe, but that plugin is part of ubiquity, is it not?
[16:28] <xnox> Eickmeyer:  no, it is shipped by ubuntustudio-live source code, not in the ubiquity source code.
[16:28] <xnox> from ubiquity's point of view it is a 3rd-party plugin which it loads and uses, but has no control if it is working correctly with new ubiquity or is buggy =)
[16:29] <Eickmeyer> xnox: Well, it was working properly up to 19.10, and we had no idea we even had control over that.
[16:30] <Eickmeyer> Basically, what's happening is the mechanism I described in the bug report.
[16:31] <doko> sforshee: yes
[16:59] <Eickmeyer> stgraber: Can I enlist your help? Your name is all over the code of https://launchpad.net/ubuntustudio-live, and I have no idea what I'm doing. RE: bug 1851346
[16:59] <ubot5> bug 1851346 in ubuntustudio-live (Ubuntu Focal) "Ubuntu Studio 19.10 Installer Causes Wanted Programs to be Removed" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1851346
[17:13] <juliank> Eickmeyer: i have that bug in my committed lane fwiw
[17:14] <juliank> Eickmeyer: need to figure out if that's a side effect from the autoremove changes in ubiquity or not
[17:14] <Eickmeyer> juliank: xnox seems to think it's the plugin's fault, so he put the ball in our court. Feels like a "this is not our problem" issue.
[17:14] <juliank> Eickmeyer: I'd expect this to like not happen anymore, but not produce a useful result either (that is, ubiquity now removes autoremovable packages at end of install, so they should not be autoremovable after reboot)
[17:15] <juliank> Eickmeyer: maybe don't do a blanket single commit import from bzr, and import it properly?
[17:15] <juliank> Eickmeyer: so that commit history is preserved?
[17:15] <Eickmeyer> juliank: I tried....
[17:16] <Eickmeyer> It failed.
[17:16] <juliank> Eickmeyer: maybe rbalint can help, he likes converting bzr to git repos
[17:16] <Eickmeyer> Got a ton of python errors from it.
[17:16] <juliank> :D
[17:17] <Eickmeyer> I mean, if someone wants to do a --force on it, be my guest. (rbalint, if you're reading this).
[17:17] <teward> #bzr-is-pain, convince me otherwise :P
[17:17] <Eickmeyer> ^ Agreed. Change my mind.
[17:18] <rbalint> Eickmeyer, hi :-)
[17:18] <Eickmeyer> rbalint: Hey there!
[17:19] <rbalint> Eickmeyer, which repo are we talking about ?
[17:20] <Eickmeyer> https://launchpad.net/ubuntustudio-live
[17:20] <rbalint> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/MigratingFromBzrToGit
[17:20] <rbalint> Eickmeyer, let me check it
[17:20] <Eickmeyer> I hate how that ^ didn't come up in a Google search.
[17:21] <xnox> Eickmeyer:  not quite, it is not trianged
[17:21] <rbalint> Eickmeyer, maybe i'm not good at SEO :o)
[17:21] <xnox> Eickmeyer:  i didn't remove ubiquity task from the bug
[17:21] <Eickmeyer> xnox: I realize that, but if it really is the plugin's fault, then the ball is in our court. Ideally, this needs to be resolved before Beta.
[17:22] <rbalint> Eickmeyer, would you like to give it a try and maybe convert other repos or would you like me to convert it?
[17:22]  * Laney gently redirects you all to #ubuntu-devel
[20:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted landscape-client [source] (eoan-proposed) [18.01-0ubuntu9.3]
[20:49] <ahasenack> hi release team
[20:49] <ahasenack> I mistakenly uploaded a package without the FFe approval
[20:49] <ahasenack> stgraber: ^
[20:50] <ahasenack> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1868609
[20:50] <ubot5> Ubuntu bug 1868609 in libcbor (Ubuntu) "FFe: update to 0.6.0 (MIR requirement)" [Undecided,New]
[20:50] <ahasenack> should it be removed?
[20:52] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: libcbor [amd64] (focal-proposed/universe) [0.6.0-0ubuntu1] (i386-whitelist)
[20:52] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: libcbor [ppc64el] (focal-proposed/universe) [0.6.0-0ubuntu1] (i386-whitelist)
[20:52] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: libcbor [i386] (focal-proposed/universe) [0.6.0-0ubuntu1] (i386-whitelist)
[20:52] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: libcbor [s390x] (focal-proposed/universe) [0.6.0-0ubuntu1] (i386-whitelist)
[20:53] <ahasenack> ^that one, good that it's stuck because of the new package that resulted from the soname change
[20:55] <locutus_> ahasenack, according to upstream changelog no new features are added?
[20:55] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: libcbor [arm64] (focal-proposed/universe) [0.6.0-0ubuntu1] (i386-whitelist)
[20:55] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: libcbor [armhf] (focal-proposed/universe) [0.6.0-0ubuntu1] (i386-whitelist)
[20:55] <locutus_> but why no debian bug with patch or upload?
[20:56] <ahasenack> it's part of a mir, and I was changing the package to conform to the mir requirements
[20:56] <ahasenack> I'll submit to debian still, just did the same for libfido, part of the same mir
[20:57] <ahasenack> about the release notes, it has the usual "BREAKING" and "WARNING" remarks that triggered my FFe warning
[20:57] <locutus_> yes, but I mean, FFe is for new features, that package seems to be a bugfix update, not a FFe
[20:57] <locutus_> breaking change because a bugfix changed soname, and the old soname was wrongly detected as 0.0, while the new one is "correct"
[20:57] <locutus_> but still a bugfix to me?
[20:57] <ahasenack> I usually error on the side of caution
[20:58] <ahasenack> and there was this "All cbor_new_ and cbor_build_ functions will now explicitly return NULL
[20:58] <ahasenack> when memory allocation fails"
[20:58] <ahasenack> part of a fix, one could argue
[20:58] <ahasenack> but let's argue in the FFe :)
[20:58] <locutus_> still a bugfix, for a package that has no reverse-dependencies :)
[20:58] <ahasenack> it has one, libfido2
[20:58] <ahasenack> also part of the mir
[20:59] <locutus_> so, no even risk of breaking reverse-deps
[20:59] <ahasenack> quite the team
[20:59] <ahasenack> I'll need an archive admin anyway
[20:59] <locutus_> yep, so just check libfido2 for that api change, and I think we are happy to go?
[20:59] <ahasenack> and, if it's really just bug fixes, even easier for the release team (although they might have their hands full)
[20:59] <ahasenack> locutus_: wait, are you in the release team?
[20:59] <ahasenack> libfido is fine
[20:59] <locutus_> nope, I'm just to avoid giving them too much work :)
[21:00] <ahasenack> I actually added tests to both packages (was a MIR requirement)
[21:00] <ahasenack> yeah, there is that
[21:00] <locutus_> I would explictly add something to the bug, with references to this conversation
[21:00] <ahasenack> but I hope the ffe description, mp, all that, makes an AA feel better when looking at this
[21:00] <locutus_> and upstream changelog, saying that they are bugfixes that changed the API, but no new features
[21:00] <locutus_> doko, ^^
[21:01] <ahasenack> I added these details to the bug (upstream changelog, highlighted what I think are the biggest changes)
[21:01] <ahasenack> and also that there is only one rdep
[21:12] <locutus_> nice :) I hope this will make the approval process smooth
[21:12] <locutus_> g night
[21:50] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted libcbor [amd64] (focal-proposed) [0.6.0-0ubuntu1]
[21:50] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted libcbor [armhf] (focal-proposed) [0.6.0-0ubuntu1]
[21:50] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted libcbor [ppc64el] (focal-proposed) [0.6.0-0ubuntu1]
[21:50] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted libcbor [arm64] (focal-proposed) [0.6.0-0ubuntu1]
[21:50] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted libcbor [s390x] (focal-proposed) [0.6.0-0ubuntu1]
[21:50] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted libcbor [i386] (focal-proposed) [0.6.0-0ubuntu1]
[22:00] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-azure-4.15 [amd64] (bionic-proposed/main) [4.15.0-1080.90] (no packageset)
[22:04] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-azure-4.15 [amd64] (bionic-proposed) [4.15.0-1080.90]
[22:26] <bryce> alright, I think php7.3 can safely be removed now - LP: #1869087 - could an archive admin take a look?
[22:26] <ubot5> Launchpad bug 1869087 in php7.3 (Ubuntu) "Remove "php7.3" from Focal, which has transitioned to php7.4" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1869087
[22:30] <powersj> \o/