=== JanC_ is now known as JanC [06:46] teward, https://code.launchpad.net/~bryce/ubuntu/+source/nginx/+git/nginx/+merge/386231 [08:37] seb128: LocutusOfBorg: what's up with the sane stuff? libsane1 needs promoting after all or? [08:42] Laney, yes, LocutusOfBorg changed his mind, I will look at that after the meeting I'm currently in [08:43] right, I looked at the package and it seems that libsane is the one that should be demoted eventually [08:43] thanks! [08:46] right, libsane1 is the one to promote now [08:54] yes, sorry for saying the exact opposite :/ [08:55] we transitioned that library back and forth around 3-4 times in the last 2 years, and no ABI changes at all [08:55] Didn't I already promote that? [08:55] I think there was some confusion :P [08:55] this sucks a lot, because people kept syncing it over and over from experimental, debian changed its mind and reverted that change, but we had already transitioned [08:59] RAOF, the binary is still in universe, if you want to try again please do, otherwise I've a look after that meeting === ricab__ is now known as ricab [09:26] also RAOF please move src:libnma to main, the binaries are already in main :) https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/component-mismatches.html [09:27] and I think we can also demote libsane to universe, but I'm not quite sure about that [09:39] wait for component-mismatches to say [10:12] xnox, could you look at sponsoring the update on bug #1882185 ? Olivier is out this week but he said that's going to be needed for the new firefox that is due for next week [10:12] bug 1882185 in nodejs (Ubuntu) "Firefox 78 requires nodejs >= 10.21" [High,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1882185 [10:17] hum, security updates bypass the autopkgtest infra? :( [10:18] seb128, problem is that nodejs regressed a lot of stuff :/ [10:18] but meh, I can also have a look if x nox is away [10:18] LocutusOfBorg, how do you know if that version hasn't landed yet? [10:18] LocutusOfBorg, also we are going to need to update firefox one way or another [10:18] LocutusOfBorg, thanks [10:22] https://packages.qa.debian.org/nodejs [10:22] seb128, the debian tracker shows them, and nodejs are pretty much packages in sync... [10:22] in any case, lets upload and see what happens [10:23] LocutusOfBorg, thx [10:38] is ubuntuwire down? [10:40] mwhudson, seems so, probably something to mention to IS? [10:40] i don't think we run it though [10:41] wgrant might know [10:42] yeah he is on https://launchpad.net/~ubuntuwire-sysadmins/+members#active [10:42] there is a #ubuntuwire also [10:42] Looking [10:46] seb128, mwhudson: Is back. [10:46] wgrant, thx! [10:47] wgrant: thanks === alan_g_ is now known as alan_g [12:18] wgrant, can you please help understanding this setarch failure? https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/util-linux/2.35.2-4ubuntu1/+build/19497777 [12:20] LocutusOfBorg: It's not one I know about, but vorlon at least glanced at it a few weeks back., [12:26] I mean, wgrant this command setarch riscv64 -v --uname-2.6 seems to give segfault, but I don't know if qemu is to blame or not [12:26] do you have a possibility to launch that command? [12:26] and also setarch from the old util-linux in release has the same segfault, just to be sure... the regression might be in something else, kernel maybe? [12:33] LocutusOfBorg: Oh really, pretty sure that used to work [12:33] Let me see [12:33] I just put away my board because my cat was trying to bite the fan [12:33] She'll just have to deal with it [12:34] There was an issue with related code that assumed a glibc thing was static, but it become non-static and broke on like m68k and riscv64 [12:34] I wonder if this is related. [12:34] the code of setarch didn't change at all, so something else is going under the hood, but trying to gdb it gives lots of uninplemented stuff [12:34] mmm interesting [12:37] linux changed from 5.3 to 5.4, glibc from 2.31-0ubuntu7 to ubuntu10 [12:38] LocutusOfBorg: Where did you see that the old one has the same segfault? [12:38] Oh, building the old version in a PPA or something? [12:39] nope, ppa is sad [12:39] pbuilder chroot local [12:40] based on this build, https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/util-linux/2.35.1-5ubuntu2/+build/19330488 changes in toolchain are not that many [12:50] https://launchpad.net/~ci-train-ppa-service/+archive/ubuntu/4114/+build/19498613 [12:50] this is the focal version just no change rebuilt in bileto [14:03] old one still builds with focal [14:03] lets try the new one with focal https://launchpad.net/~ci-train-ppa-service/+archive/ubuntu/4114/+build/19499332 [14:31] LocutusOfBorg, argyll/riscv seems not happy (ftbfs) [14:57] seb128, nack, not a regression [14:57] LocutusOfBorg, I didn't speak of regression [14:57] https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/proposed-migration/update_excuses_by_team.html#desktop-packages just state [14:57] colord [14:57] Unsatisfiable depends: [14:57] argyll: riscv64 [14:57] I wanted to no change rebuild just because the riscv64 was not retryable [14:57] I see, the changelog was confusing [14:58] I though you meant it would build now :) [14:58] seb128, yes, but meh [14:58] I guess britney will consider it and let it migrate anyway [14:58] it is not installable on riscv64 but also on release pocket [15:00] what is the workflow for a library that was in main, not in universe, and we want it in main again? [15:00] https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xxhash [15:01] (new rsync is trying to use it in proposed) [15:03] LocutusOfBorg, read https://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2020/06/23/%23ubuntu-meeting.html [15:10] ta === grumble is now known as rawr [16:10] bryce: thanks for the link. cpaelzer brings up some good points, but I think we need to check to see the difference between Debian and us, some things may need poked up there for them failing for things. [16:25] Laney, looks like component is now saying it, thanks! libsane sane-backends [16:25] seb128, ^^ :) [17:07] slyon: bdmurray: Have you seen https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apport/+bug/1884221 ? (It appears to be fixed in lp:apport.) [17:07] Launchpad bug 1884221 in apport (Ubuntu) "`ubuntu-bug` fails with "UnboundLocalError: local variable 'project' referenced before assignment"" [Undecided,Confirmed] [17:09] Odd_Bloke: I've seen it but haven't dug into it yet [17:10] bdmurray: Want me to take a look? [17:12] Odd_Bloke: Sure if you are interested. [17:13] bdmurray: What's the appropriate way to propose the change? [17:16] Odd_Bloke: an MP against the groovy branch - not upstream [17:17] bdmurray: Including changelog entry? [17:18] Odd_Bloke: yes please [17:21] ahasenack: https://code.launchpad.net/~rafaeldtinoco/ubuntu/+source/autofs/+git/autofs/+merge/386267 [17:21] if you have time for a quick +1 [17:21] its the same as the previous, without the & quoting as well [17:21] I'll keep the & for the SRUs since its not backed by an upstream change and we are are fixing the $ behavior only === ijohnson is now known as ijohnson|lunch [17:25] rafaeldtinoco: ok [17:27] bdmurray: https://code.launchpad.net/~oddbloke/apport/lp1884221/+merge/386269 [17:32] Odd_Bloke: thanks! === ijohnson|lunch is now known as ijohnson [18:31] jibel / xnox: can the SRU information in bug 1875045 be updated? [18:31] bug 1875045 in ubiquity (Ubuntu) "Ubiquity 20.04 exports existing ZFS pools" [Low,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1875045 [18:31] and bug 1880869 [18:31] bug 1880869 in ubiquity (Ubuntu) "Use persistent device name for vdevs" [High,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1880869 [18:46] jibel: i did ask about it before. It's not blocking testing ubiquity for the point release. [18:46] jibel: shall i drop the zfs backports, and reupload SRU without them? [18:57] xnox, do not drop the backport, I'll update the bugs and do the verification this week [19:01] tah [20:33] are there any plans for ifupdown deprecation ? [20:34] didnt that happen in 18.04 ? [20:43] I meant removal, sorry [20:52] ddstreet: ^ this was for our merge-review discussion [20:52] I think the sync approach and "let it go" is the best way [20:52] will seek that