[00:48] <mwhudson> RikMills: yay
[02:24] <vicamo> hi, need sponsor for https://launchpad.net/~vicamo/+archive/ubuntu/ppa-1886911, anyone has some time to help review/landing to bionic?
[03:15] <mwhudson> kanashiro: thanks for https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/golang-github-hashicorp-memberlist/0.1.7-1ubuntu1
[08:35] <seb128> shrug, autopkgtest retry needs a dup request filter :/
[08:36] <seb128> LocutusOfBorg, http://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/packages/u/util-linux/groovy/armhf we managed to trigger three time the same thing there :/
[08:40] <Laney> there's a merge proposal from tsimonq2 for that!
[08:40] <seb128> way to go :)
[08:40] <tsimonq2> Laney: You mean the one that still needs review?
[08:41] <Laney> yeah
[08:41] <tsimonq2> I started it when my Python skills were terrible and refactored recently.
[08:41] <tsimonq2> (I'm not calling myself great it at but I'm much better now.)
[08:41] <Laney> :>
[08:41] <tsimonq2> I *think* the last thing left there were tests. I'll get to that...
[08:41] <tsimonq2> :P
[08:42] <Laney> I did try to ping Łukasz about it but he's not here atm
[08:42] <Laney> (since he reviewed before)
[08:42] <tsimonq2> No worries.
[08:45] <LocutusOfBorg> seb128, yes, it sucks sometimes, I discovered it too :/
[08:52] <tsimonq2> Laney: That reminds me, I spent a solid amount of time digging re: making index.html on autopkgtest.u.c faster. It came up mostly fruitless, unfortunately.
[08:53] <tsimonq2> I couldn't tell whether the bottleneck was from cold-connecting to the SQLite DB every time, since it's a CGI script triggered by Apache (from what I remember), or from SELECT taking so long.
[08:54] <tsimonq2> (Actually activating the connection shouldn't be the issue, it's that it can't really be cached effectively without writing to an external file.)
[08:55] <tsimonq2> Any insight you're able to provide would be appreciated, since seeing that puzzle solved would be cool.
[08:59] <Laney> It might be locking on the database with multiple concurrent clients accessing it
[09:03] <Laney> I reckon it might be worth thinking about switching to a proper database server - you could then also avoid some of the other annoying stuff like having to download the results out of swift
[09:03] <Laney> but that's obviously a medium sized project
[09:05] <tsimonq2> At the very minimum that would require knowledge about what is considered the best "proper database server" from an administrative standpoint.
[09:07] <tsimonq2> The downside would be that users could no longer just download the database as a single file, unless we really wanted to go through the effort of providing a publicly-accessible dump every so often (or at least a clone that ~ubuntu-dev could access, I'm thinking along the same lines as what DDs can do).
[09:08] <tsimonq2> Those aren't really questions I can answer or Just Decide, even if I volunteered to do the work.
[09:09] <tsimonq2> (I would start a thread on ubuntu-release/devel but I certainly don't want to start a DB flamewar.)
[09:21] <Laney> I think the maintainers could just decide :-)
[09:21] <Laney> but yes, if that's a valuable thing for people to use, you'd need to replace it with an API or something
[09:26] <tsimonq2> I don't consider myself a maintainer until I have commit access. :P
[09:27] <tsimonq2> I will however volunteer to put some work towards it.
[09:27] <tsimonq2> Feel free to loop me in once the maintainers decide. ;)
[10:19] <oSoMoN> if there are MOTUs around, this trivial patch could use sponsoring: https://people.canonical.com/~osomon/+1maintenance/node-buffer-shims.debdiff
[11:00] <LocutusOfBorg> oSoMoN, I do if you provide the patch to the Debian bug
[11:00] <LocutusOfBorg> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=963457
[11:01] <oSoMoN> LocutusOfBorg, oh I already submitted it to salsa (https://salsa.debian.org/js-team/node-buffer-shims/-/merge_requests/1), but I didn't think of checking whether there was a bug report for it
[11:01] <LocutusOfBorg> oh, even better
[11:01] <oSoMoN> I'll share the link to the merge request in the bug
[11:02] <oSoMoN> LocutusOfBorg, FYI I filed and am looking into bug #1887144
[11:03] <LocutusOfBorg> oSoMoN, please update the merge request with "Closes: #963457" if that fix is for that RC bug
[11:03] <LocutusOfBorg> and I'll merge it
[11:03] <oSoMoN> doing that now
[11:05] <oSoMoN> LocutusOfBorg, done
[11:28] <AsciiWolf> kenvandine, hi, I have sent MR to fix the Snap Store name in Czech translation in two remaining active branches: https://gitlab.gnome.org/Community/Ubuntu/gnome-software/-/merge_requests - feel free to merge :) thanks!
[11:29] <kenvandine> AsciiWolf: thanks, I have it on my list to look at.
[11:29] <AsciiWolf> kenvandine, nice! thanks :)
[12:07] <kanashiro> yw mwhudson
[12:08] <kanashiro> now I am trying to figure out why nomad is FTBFS on arm{64,hf}, every time I try to build it I got a different error
[14:27] <kanashiro> vorlon: I am reviewing a fix for ruby-ncurses in bionic and I have a question: what would be the correct version string for a bionic SRU if in bionic we have 1.4.9-1build3 and in focal 1.4.9-1build5?
[14:28] <kanashiro> in bionic it was built against ruby 2.5 and it does not work, but in focal where it was built against ruby 2.7 it works fine
[14:31] <oSoMoN> Laney, would you mind retrying https://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/request.cgi?release=groovy&arch=armhf&package=node-depd&trigger=nodejs/12.18.1%7Edfsg-1ubuntu1 for me?
[14:31] <oSoMoN> (looks flaky)
[14:37] <kanashiro> oSoMoN: I can do it if you want ^
[14:37] <oSoMoN> kanashiro, please
[14:38] <kanashiro> done
[14:38] <oSoMoN> cheers
[14:39] <oSoMoN> Laney, excuse my pinging you directly, I should have asked MOTUs in general before asking my favourite retrier
[15:36] <vorlon> kanashiro: the problem I see with having the package in bionic with a version higher than the focal version, then, is that on upgrade from bionic to focal, the system will fail to upgrade to a ruby2.7 version of the package
[15:36] <vorlon> kanashiro: it's ugly, but how about 1.4.9-1build3ubuntu0.18.04.1?
[15:48] <oSoMoN> LocutusOfBorg, I attached a debdiff to https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=963063, can you sponsor that one?
[15:49] <oSoMoN> (the version in salsa and experimental is much newer, it probably doesn't suffer from this bug, and the patch doesn't apply, which is why I didn't submit a MR)
[15:50] <oSoMoN> LocutusOfBorg, if we'd rather apply the patch in Ubuntu only (considering the new upstream version in experimental), here's the corresponding debdiff: https://people.canonical.com/~osomon/+1maintenance/node-diff-ubuntu.debdiff
[15:56] <kanashiro> vorlon: I was thinking about something on this line, that will avoid upgrade issues
[15:56] <kanashiro> rbasak: FYI ^
[16:05] <rbasak> vorlon: good point - thanks. I agree it's ugly which is why I wasn't sure, but that does seem like the best option.
[16:27] <oSoMoN> can a MOTU please retry https://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/request.cgi?release=groovy&arch=armhf&package=node-editor&trigger=nodejs/12.18.1%7Edfsg-1ubuntu1 ?
[16:31] <oSoMoN> also, the node-encoding tests need to be retried with an additional trigger on the new node-iconv: https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/7p6zbxcw7R/
[16:36] <oSoMoN> same for node-expat: https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/fYxyk2jF6y/
[16:39] <oSoMoN> and node-express, too: https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/NdvvgYtgxp/
[16:40] <oSoMoN> Laney, I love the new proposed-migration report where passing tests are hidden, that's much easier to read
[16:41] <oSoMoN> node-form-data/armhf needs to be retried: https://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/request.cgi?release=groovy&arch=armhf&package=node-form-data&trigger=nodejs/12.18.1%7Edfsg-1ubuntu1
[16:51] <Laney> oSoMoN: yeah, nicer isn't it
[16:52] <Laney> where's all the green gone?!?!?!?!
[16:52] <Laney> that made me suspicious when I first saw it
[16:52] <Laney> did your retry
[16:59] <oSoMoN> thanks
[17:00] <oSoMoN> Laney, there's a series of other retries that need triggering, in the lines just above (pastebin links)
[17:00] <oSoMoN> if you don't mind
[17:05] <Laney> oSoMoN: Going out for a walk now, will look later if nobody else does
[17:12] <oSoMoN> thanks, enjoy the walk
[18:46] <Eickmeyer[m]> xnox: Where did we land with the Ubuntu Studio Focal FTBFS?
[19:27] <xnox> Eickmeyer[m]:  we have not
[19:39] <Eickmeyer[m]> xnox: Ok, I'm just getting a little concerned with 20.04.1 being about a month away.
[21:13] <LocutusOfBorg> ahasenack, I did merge the new zoneminder version
[21:13] <LocutusOfBorg> I had to add a patch because of some missing stuff https://github.com/ZoneMinder/zoneminder/pull/2975
[21:13] <LocutusOfBorg> can you please ping me in case something bad happens (or fix it :) ) ?
[21:14] <ahasenack> zoneminder, I have to check my cold storage to remember what I did with it :)
[21:25] <ahasenack> ah, my_bool stuff
[21:26] <ahasenack> and reserved keywords
[21:26] <ahasenack> ok