[00:57] <Unit193> jbicha: It'd be rather nice if you didn't sync packages that are seeded in other flavors.  xfce4-power-manager has a regression in .6, we were specifically avoiding sync'ing it since it's in our (Xubuntu) and Ubuntu Studio's packagsets..
[00:57] <Unit193> Specifically when past feature freeze*
[00:59] <Eickmeyer> ^ Ditto. While I do welcome the MyPaint sync, the xfce4-power-manager sync is not good if it's going to mess us up.
[01:00] <Unit193> Eickmeyer: There should be a new release soon, we'll fix it.  In the meantime I think it was suspend that's a bit off.
[01:02] <Eickmeyer> Unit193: I haven't looked at it, but that's good to know.
[01:03] <Unit193> With regards to interaction with xfce4-screensaver, suspend/lock interaction.
[01:03] <Eickmeyer> Oh, yeah. Not good if it's regressing that.
[01:04] <Unit193> Like I said, there should be a new release soon™
[01:05] <Eickmeyer> Hehe
[01:51] <valorie> Eickmeyer only had to wait two years for a new release!
[01:52] <Eickmeyer> valorie: Seriously! :D
[10:17] <jbicha> Unit193: sorry about the headache :/
[10:44] <Unit193> jbicha: With the screensaver and -session just uploaded (or uploaded soon), it wasn't broken for too long at least. :)
[11:20] <tjaalton> hum, sbuild is very slow here.. the actual compile part is quick but everything else is very slow.. what could cause that?
[11:25] <tjaalton> apache build takes 10min instead of 3
[11:25] <tjaalton> as an example
[11:30] <Unit193> To speed up unpack/configure of packages, I have pbuilder use eatmydata.
[11:31] <tjaalton> I mean everything is slow, like setting the chroot up, listing contents of the built packages etc..
[11:32] <tjaalton> it's not I/O bound, there's no process eating time or anything..
[11:33] <tjaalton> installing build-deps is quick
[12:31] <tkamppeter> doko, Somohow I am not understanding what is happening with Ghostscript on ppl64el. Is there some new bug, not the -O3 of gcc?
[12:32] <tkamppeter> doko, is there any evidence that 9.52 would build?
[12:33] <doko> tkamppeter: I told you that the GCC issues had to be reverted, and ghostscript needs to be built with -O2 for now
[12:35] <tkamppeter> doko, sorry, this I had perhaps overlooked. So I will re-introduce it as quick as possible.
[12:36] <tkamppeter> doko, what happened, did the upstream fix cause a regression and upstream has pulled it back?
[12:48] <doko> tkamppeter: yes
[12:50] <tkamppeter> doko, so we should re-open bug 1862053 as there is no solution in sight yet.
[12:59] <tkamppeter> doko, I will put the exception back in and to avoid flip-flopping all the time around with it I will keep it until shortly before 20.10.
[13:59] <ahasenack> tjaalton: hi, have you checked if we need this in ubuntu? https://salsa.debian.org/apache-team/apache2/-/merge_requests/11/diffs
[13:59] <tjaalton> ahasenack: hehe :)
[13:59] <tjaalton> ahasenack: that'd allow freeipa to support tls1.3, it's currently forced to use 1.2
[14:01] <ahasenack> presumably other clients could benefit?
[14:01] <tjaalton> maybe
[14:03] <tjaalton> poked yadd about it
[14:16] <ddstreet> juliank hi, just checking if you had a chance to review https://salsa.debian.org/apt-team/python-apt/-/merge_requests/43
[14:18] <tjaalton> ahasenack: note that I'll sync freeipa back in a bit.. so that MR would be nice though not essential
[14:26] <juliank> ddstreet: not yet
[14:27] <ddstreet> juliank ack, maybe after focal release?
[14:27] <juliank> probably
[14:27] <ddstreet> thanks
[14:29] <tkamppeter> doko, ghostscript uploaded, please remove the ppc64el exception only if upstream fixes the problem in a way which actually stays.
[15:22] <rafaeldtinoco> ahasenack:
[15:22] <rafaeldtinoco> execd_commands.c: In function ‘stonith_recurring_op_helper’:
[15:22] <rafaeldtinoco> execd_commands.c:257:5: error: ‘ftime’ is deprecated [-Werror=deprecated-declarations]
[15:22] <rafaeldtinoco> I'll fix this in the merge I'm preparing to address public bugs
[15:22] <rafaeldtinoco> (pacemaker FTBFS)
[15:23] <ahasenack> rafaeldtinoco: that s the ftbfs?
[15:23] <rafaeldtinoco> looks like we have new compiler warnings =)
[15:23] <rafaeldtinoco> ahasenack: yep
[15:23] <rafaeldtinoco> I'll add the Wno-error for it
[15:23] <rafaeldtinoco> let me open a bug
[15:23] <ahasenack> that's not a "fix" :)
[15:23] <ahasenack> but if there is no alternative, nothing from upstream...
[15:24] <rafaeldtinoco> ahasenack: oh well, for this release its a "fix" as ftime will continue being deprecated but not yet removed
[15:24] <rafaeldtinoco> further releases will have to make sure to remove ftime, but likely upstream will take care of it
[15:25] <rafaeldtinoco> NOTE: This function is deprecated, and will be removed in a future version of the GNU C library.  Use clock_gettime(2) instead.
[15:25] <rafaeldtinoco> man page already mentions that =o)
[15:26] <rafaeldtinoco> i guess I can suggest upstream a fix as well
[15:26] <rbasak> ghostscript (9.50~dfsg-5ubuntu4) focal; urgency=medium
[15:26] <rbasak> ...
[15:26] <rbasak>  -- Till Kamppeter <till.kamppeter@gmail.com>  Mon, 30 Feb 2020 15:50:58 +0200
[15:27] <rbasak> git-ubuntu is unable to parse that date :-/
[15:27] <ahasenack> feb had no 30th
[15:27] <rbasak> Indeed :)
[15:27] <ahasenack> was that added manually?
[15:27] <rbasak> tkamppeter: ^ :)
[15:28] <rbasak> I don't know, but I guess if Launchpad accepts it, git-ubuntu will have to accept it
[15:28] <rbasak> I need to specify what that should map to, I suppose.
[15:28] <rafaeldtinoco> ROFL
[15:28] <rafaeldtinoco> 30 Feb
[15:29] <rafaeldtinoco> thats the sextile year
[15:29] <rafaeldtinoco> in flat earth
[15:29] <rafaeldtinoco> ok ok i'll shut up
[15:29] <ahasenack> even the changes file has it
[15:29] <ahasenack> http://launchpadlibrarian.net/471742374/ghostscript_9.50~dfsg-5ubuntu4_source.changes
[15:30] <ahasenack> I mean, ingested it
[15:30] <ahasenack> that's also a bug in the tooling that builds the package
[15:31] <ahasenack> unless the thought is that the tooling can be behind legislation, tz data, etc, and failing hard on what looks like an invalid date could be too harsh
[15:32] <rbasak> Nothing much (if anything?) in the build machinery needs to parse that date really.
[15:32] <rbasak> git-ubuntu is trying to convert it into a git commit authorship timestamp - that's why it's parsing it.
[15:32] <rbasak> Perhaps I should just define it to use the epoch if it doesn't parse.
[15:32] <rafaeldtinoco> rbasak: try {} except { pass } ?
[15:33] <rafaeldtinoco> :o)
[15:33] <rbasak> I have to set it to _something_ :)
[15:37] <rbasak> There is some debate here as to whether 30 Feb was a Saturday or a Sunday. We agree though that it certainly wasn't a Monday!
[15:44] <rbasak> ahasenack: git-ubuntu is trying to import linux-kvm and linux-gcp. Had you already investigated those?
[15:44] <rbasak> Ah yes, you did, sorry.
[15:44] <rbasak> My manual meddling bypassed the whitelist.
[16:10] <yossarianuk> hi - if I were to download the daily image of 20.04 now
[16:11] <yossarianuk> when 20.04 stable came out would I stick to the 20.04 branch or as i would be running the development branch would I then startr using 20.10 branch ?
[16:12] <yossarianuk> I believe when the beta for 20.04 that would stick to the 20.04 branch - just not sure if the same thing happens using the daily image ?>
[16:40] <ahasenack> rbasak: oops :)
[16:40] <ahasenack> yossarianuk: you would be running 20.04 final
[16:41] <ahasenack> yossarianuk: the sources.list entries are already pointing at the focal pockets
[16:41] <ahasenack> yossarianuk: I believe there is one difference though, please check if focal-proposed is enabled in those images. You might want to disable that
[16:54] <yossarianuk> ahasenack: thanks !
[17:09] <cjwatson> rbasak: I suspect LP simply doesn't parse that field at all
[17:11] <cjwatson> Yeah, it looks like it extracts it but only as unparsed text
[17:16] <rbasak> Thanks
[19:22] <arunpyasi> Hello everyone, is PPA upload working for you ?
[19:32] <RikMills> arunpyasi: seems fine
[19:32] <arunpyasi> RikMills, thats weird. Let me try to upload another package then.
[19:33] <arunpyasi> Though, it said Successfully uploaded packages. I didn't receive any email and there is no package upload stuff going on the Launchpad
[19:48] <RikMills> arunpyasi: you did sign them properly? otherwise, ask in #launchpad
[19:49] <cjwatson> Lack of notification is usually some problem with the signature
[19:49] <arunpyasi> RikMills, yes, else an email should have come I think.
[19:49] <cjwatson> No that is absolutely not true
[19:49] <arunpyasi> cjwatson, oh ok.
[19:49] <cjwatson> e.g. lack of signature is one of the main reasons that a notification is specifically and deliberately *not* sent
[19:50] <cjwatson> (in order that people don't get non-consensually spammed with confusing error messages about things they didn't do)
[19:50] <arunpyasi> cjwatson, Oh ok. Thanks for the information. Let me check.
[19:50] <cjwatson> Come to #launchpad and give us details of the attempted upload
[20:01] <RikMills> 'sudo hwclock -s' is broken in focal :/
[20:02] <RikMills> glibc 2.31 perhaps