[00:05] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Kylin Desktop amd64 [Focal 20.04.1] has been updated (20200728.1)
[00:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Server arm64+raspi [Focal 20.04.1] has been updated (20200728.1)
[00:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Desktop amd64 [Focal 20.04.1] has been updated (20200728.1)
[00:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Server armhf+raspi [Focal 20.04.1] has been updated (20200728.1)
[00:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Kubuntu Desktop amd64 [Focal 20.04.1] has been updated (20200728.1)
[00:17] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu MATE Desktop amd64 [Focal 20.04.1] has been updated (20200728.1)
[00:20] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Server Subiquity amd64 [Focal 20.04.1] has been updated (20200728.1)
[00:20] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Server Subiquity arm64 [Focal 20.04.1] has been updated (20200728.1)
[00:20] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Server Subiquity ppc64el [Focal 20.04.1] has been updated (20200728.1)
[00:20] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Server Subiquity s390x [Focal 20.04.1] has been updated (20200728.1)
[00:31] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Xubuntu Desktop amd64 [Focal 20.04.1] has been updated (20200728.1)
[00:36] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Lubuntu Desktop amd64 [Focal 20.04.1] has been updated (20200728.1)
[01:32] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Studio DVD amd64 [Focal 20.04.1] has been updated (20200728.1)
[06:52] <LocutusOfBorg> vorlon, will fix dnsdist
[06:53] <LocutusOfBorg> can you please rollback pokerth?
[07:04] <jamespage> bdmurray: the later one - check the details on the bug referenced
[07:05] <Laney> let me do a couple, I think we can get protobuf + re2 through with a couple of surgical tweaks
[07:10] <LocutusOfBorg> looks like somebody is rolling back pokerth and gazebo, thanks
[07:11] <LocutusOfBorg> I'm preparing dnsdist in bileto
[07:15] <Laney> ok
[07:15] <Laney> nobody touch anything, let's see what all of those did
[07:16] <Laney> pretty please
[08:23] <tjaalton> how unethical is it to review a package from the sru queue that I sponsored?
[08:24] <seb128> tjaalton, easy to workaround by pinging someone else from the SRU team
[08:24] <tjaalton> yes, so there's rtl8821ce-dkms for focal
[08:38] <apw> tjaalton, if you are sponsoring a package it is assumed the uploader is not yet trusted to be the first eyes, this makes you the first eyes; the general theory behind the sru queue is there should be two eyes, the uploader/sponsor and the accepting sru-team member
[08:39] <apw> tjaalton, so self-review is generally frowned upon outside exceptional circumstances; but asking someone explicitly to do so when it would not get done because it is your day etc is normal there
[08:43] <LocutusOfBorg> xnox, frogatto needs another rebuild, because riscv64 didn't pick the new boost
[08:44] <tjaalton> apw: yep, exactly as I thought so I haven't done that
[08:47] <LocutusOfBorg> Laney, 💖
[08:47] <LocutusOfBorg> you can copy-back stuff if you want :D
[08:48] <LocutusOfBorg> maybe after a publisher run
[08:48] <Laney> ah good
[08:48] <Laney> ok, I will put the things back shortly
[08:49] <LocutusOfBorg> I wasn't aware re2 was ready to go, I was preparing a dnsdist with only protobuf on bileto to disentangle them
[08:50] <LocutusOfBorg> I should have also finally fixed dkms sadness
[08:50] <LocutusOfBorg> will look at gnss-sdr now
[08:51] <LocutusOfBorg> thanks rbalint :) (wrt glibc)
[09:04] <Laney> that should do it, hopefully
[09:04] <Laney> others can have fun massaging boost/icu/node
[09:52] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: zsys (focal-proposed/main) [0.4.6 => 0.4.7] (no packageset)
[10:54] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected openvswitch [source] (bionic-proposed) [2.9.6-0ubuntu0.18.04.1]
[11:21] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: ifenslave [amd64] (groovy-proposed/universe) [2.10ubuntu2] (no packageset)
[11:34] <xnox> LocutusOfBorg:  fun.
[11:36] <ginggs> would someone please remove nvidia-graphics-drivers-tesla-450 from proposed and add it to sync-blacklist ?
[11:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted rpcbind [source] (xenial-proposed) [0.2.3-0.2ubuntu0.1]
[11:56] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-oem-osp1 [amd64] (bionic-proposed/universe) [5.0.0-1066.71] (no packageset)
[12:04] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted smart-notifier [source] (focal-proposed) [0.28-6~ubuntu20.04.1]
[12:08] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted gnome-shell-extension-desktop-icons [source] (focal-proposed) [20.04.0-3~ubuntu20.04.1]
[12:25] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-oem-osp1 [amd64] (bionic-proposed) [5.0.0-1066.71]
[12:44] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: bcache-tools (focal-proposed/main) [1.0.8-3 => 1.0.8-3ubuntu0.1] (edubuntu, i386-whitelist, ubuntu-server)
[13:33] <dannf> fyi, there's 2 extraneous "/focal" subdirs in the zsync link for arm64/server-live http://iso.qa.ubuntu.com/qatracker/milestones/414/builds/218103/downloads
[13:38] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: smokeping (focal-proposed/universe) [2.7.3-2 => 2.7.3-2ubuntu20.04.1] (no packageset)
[13:48] <Laney> ginggs: can you file a bug for paper trail please?
[13:48] <Laney> dannf: fixed
[13:48] <dannf> Laney: thx!
[13:50] <ginggs> Laney: I will if you really want, but if you look in the sync-blacklist.txt you'll see the previous versions are there with a comment
[13:52] <Laney> ginggs: ah ok, that seems fine then
[13:52] <ginggs> Laney: thanks :)
[14:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: rust-enum-iterator [amd64] (groovy-proposed/universe) [0.6.0-1] (no packageset)
[14:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: rust-libsystemd [amd64] (groovy-proposed/universe) [0.1.0-1] (no packageset)
[14:19] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: rust-enum-iterator [s390x] (groovy-proposed/universe) [0.6.0-1] (no packageset)
[14:19] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted horizon [source] (focal-proposed) [3:18.3.2-0ubuntu0.20.04.2]
[14:20] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: rust-enum-iterator [ppc64el] (groovy-proposed/universe) [0.6.0-1] (no packageset)
[14:20] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: rust-libsystemd [s390x] (groovy-proposed/universe) [0.1.0-1] (no packageset)
[14:21] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: rust-libsystemd [ppc64el] (groovy-proposed/universe) [0.1.0-1] (no packageset)
[14:24] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: rust-enum-iterator [arm64] (groovy-proposed/universe) [0.6.0-1] (no packageset)
[14:24] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: rust-enum-iterator [armhf] (groovy-proposed/universe) [0.6.0-1] (no packageset)
[14:25] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: rust-libsystemd [arm64] (groovy-proposed/universe) [0.1.0-1] (no packageset)
[14:27] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: rust-libsystemd [armhf] (groovy-proposed/universe) [0.1.0-1] (no packageset)
[14:35] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted rasdaemon [source] (focal-proposed) [0.6.5-1ubuntu1.1]
[14:37] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: rust-enum-iterator [riscv64] (groovy-proposed/universe) [0.6.0-1] (no packageset)
[14:44] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted apache2 [source] (xenial-proposed) [2.4.18-2ubuntu3.16]
[14:47] <LocutusOfBorg> Laney, some autopkgtest outage? https://objectstorage.prodstack4-5.canonical.com/v1/AUTH_77e2ada1e7a84929a74ba3b87153c0ac/autopkgtest-groovy/groovy/amd64/m/makedumpfile/20200729_141830_4829c@/log.gz
[14:52] <Laney> I don't think so, probably more likely to be to do with that package, feel free to try it yourself locally
[14:52] <LocutusOfBorg> ack!
[15:05] <LocutusOfBorg> crash                PASS
[15:05] <LocutusOfBorg> autopkgtest [17:04:08]: @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ summary
[15:05] <LocutusOfBorg> crash                PASS
[15:05] <LocutusOfBorg> qemu-system-x86_64: terminating on signal 15 from pid 32114 (/usr/bin/python3)
[15:05] <LocutusOfBorg> Laney, ^^
[15:05] <LocutusOfBorg> this is how I ran it sudo autopkgtest --shell-fail --apt-upgrade makedumpfile_1.6.7-3ubuntu1.dsc -- qemu --ram-size=1536 ~/autopkgtest-groovy-amd64.img
[15:06] <LocutusOfBorg> and looks like working correctly here
[15:06] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted kmod [source] (bionic-proposed) [24-1ubuntu3.5]
[15:14] <Laney> k, dunno, sorry I'm busy working on something else, maybe someone from the kernel team wants to look
[15:14] <Laney> can't debug random failures right now
[15:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted zfs-linux [source] (focal-proposed) [0.8.3-1ubuntu12.3]
[17:38] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: gnss-sdr [s390x] (groovy-proposed/universe) [0.0.13-1~build1] (no packageset)
[17:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: gnss-sdr [ppc64el] (groovy-proposed/universe) [0.0.13-1~build1] (no packageset)
[17:59] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: debian-installer (focal-proposed/main) [20101020ubuntu614 => 20101020ubuntu614.1] (core)
[18:07] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: gnss-sdr [amd64] (groovy-proposed/universe) [0.0.13-1~build1] (no packageset)
[18:14] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: debian-installer (bionic-proposed/main) [20101020ubuntu543.15 => 20101020ubuntu543.16] (core)
[18:22] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted debian-installer [source] (focal-proposed) [20101020ubuntu614.1]
[18:24] <xnox> apw:  bjf: i see there is linux kernel in xenial-proposed. Is that kernel for xenial point release, and it will be out soon?
[18:24] <xnox> will it be out by 13th of August?
[18:25] <bjf> xnox, it was my understanding that the xenial-updates kernel is for the .7 release. sil2100 ^ ?
[18:25] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: gnss-sdr [arm64] (groovy-proposed/universe) [0.0.13-1~build1] (no packageset)
[18:26] <bjf> apw, ^ (xnox query)
[18:26] <bjf> xnox, i do appreciate you thinking i still know any of this
[18:27] <xnox> apw:  bjf:  i must rebuild d-i against a kernel, to vendorize fixed grub.
[18:27] <xnox> apw:  bjf: thus i must have no kernel in -proposed.
[18:28] <xnox> apw:  bjf: so either linux should be removed from xenial-proposed, or it must migrate to updates, for me to rebuild d-i for the .7 release.
[18:28] <cjwatson> You could probably build it in a PPA with suitable dependencies set, and also a following wind
[18:28] <xnox> cjwatson:  i can, and i've done that before. But fiddly. Plus this is missmatch of expectations.
[18:29] <xnox> apw:  bjf: please confirm which one of the two kernels you want in xenial .7
[18:29] <apw> xnox, I can withdraw the current kernel from -proposed if needed
[18:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted rust-enum-iterator [amd64] (groovy-proposed) [0.6.0-1]
[18:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted rust-enum-iterator [armhf] (groovy-proposed) [0.6.0-1]
[18:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted rust-enum-iterator [riscv64] (groovy-proposed) [0.6.0-1]
[18:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted rust-libsystemd [amd64] (groovy-proposed) [0.1.0-1]
[18:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted rust-libsystemd [armhf] (groovy-proposed) [0.1.0-1]
[18:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted rust-libsystemd [s390x] (groovy-proposed) [0.1.0-1]
[18:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted rust-enum-iterator [arm64] (groovy-proposed) [0.6.0-1]
[18:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted rust-enum-iterator [s390x] (groovy-proposed) [0.6.0-1]
[18:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted rust-libsystemd [ppc64el] (groovy-proposed) [0.1.0-1]
[18:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted rust-enum-iterator [ppc64el] (groovy-proposed) [0.6.0-1]
[18:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted rust-libsystemd [arm64] (groovy-proposed) [0.1.0-1]
[18:30] <apw> klebers: ^^ which xenial kernel would you prefer in the point release
[18:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted glusterfs [ppc64el] (groovy-proposed) [8.0-1]
[18:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted r-bioc-rsubread [arm64] (groovy-proposed) [2.2.5-1]
[18:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted r-bioc-rsubread [riscv64] (groovy-proposed) [2.2.5-1]
[18:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted r-bioc-rsubread [amd64] (groovy-proposed) [2.2.5-1]
[18:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted r-bioc-rsubread [s390x] (groovy-proposed) [2.2.5-1]
[18:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted r-bioc-rsubread [ppc64el] (groovy-proposed) [2.2.5-1]
[18:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Netboot amd64 [Focal 20.04.1] (20101020ubuntu614.1) has been added
[18:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Netboot arm64 [Focal 20.04.1] (20101020ubuntu614.1) has been added
[18:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Netboot armhf [Focal 20.04.1] (20101020ubuntu614.1) has been added
[18:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Netboot ppc64el [Focal 20.04.1] (20101020ubuntu614.1) has been added
[18:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Netboot s390x [Focal 20.04.1] (20101020ubuntu614.1) has been added
[18:37] <sil2100> xnox: the one in -updates is the kernel we want
[18:37] <sil2100> apw: ^
[18:38] <sil2100> At least that came out from my discussions with klebers, the -proposed one wasn't prepared with images in mind
[18:39] <xnox> apw: please remove linux from xenial-proposed temporarily, for me to rebuild d-i, and let that migrate to updates. Then resurrect xenial proposed kernel.
[18:39] <sil2100> xnox: I guess you can build d-i in a PPA without -proposed enabled and then bin-copy?
[18:39] <xnox> apw:  effectively d-i upload is security upload.
[18:39] <xnox> sil2100:  i can do that too, but it makes review harder.
[18:40] <xnox> apw:  i guess removal is pain, and bileto is pain, but i guess bileto ppa is less pain overall.
[18:40] <sil2100> True, but if you use bileto, this should not be that bad! I guess it's up to apw at this point, as I don't know how problematic it will be
[18:41] <xnox> apw: bjf: klebers: building d-i in bileto against updates only. should not require removing any kernels.
[18:41] <sil2100> xnox: ping me when you have something ready! Or if you need any help with those
[18:42] <sil2100> I'm at your service
[18:52] <xnox> ddstreet:  https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/bionic/+source/systemd/+bug/1881972 & https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/bionic/+source/systemd/+bug/1832754 test cases need improvement. It is now blocking building & releasing debian-installer security update.
[19:16] <xnox> sil2100:  bileto didn't help, becuase d-i itself encodes -proposed. purging that, testbuilding, if good will upload.
[19:18] <sil2100> Crap
[19:21] <xnox> sil2100:  it's not critical
[19:24] <vorlon> we still have the option of removing the kernel from -proposed and then readding
[19:28] <vorlon> xnox: d-i build failure: because grub2 signed artifacts are only accepted for focal-proposed and not for focal-updates
[19:29] <vorlon> I don't recall this having been a thing but it seems I need to accept them in focal-updates also
[19:29] <vorlon> (or else manually copy from focal-proposed to focal-updates)
[19:29] <vorlon> cjwatson: ^^ do you recall what the intent has been here?
[19:30] <xnox> vorlon:  i am at the same conclusion
[19:30] <xnox> http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/focal-updates/main/uefi/grub2-amd64
[19:30] <xnox> http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/xenial-updates/main/uefi/grub2-amd64/
[19:30] <xnox> are both out of date
[19:32] <vorlon> Binary files focal-proposed/5.4.0-42.46/vmlinuz-5.4.0-42-generic.efi.signed and focal-updates/5.4.0-42.46/vmlinuz-5.4.0-42-generic.efi.signed differ
[19:32] <ddstreet> rbalint_ xnox can you review the patches for lp #1832754; it's unlikely i will be spending time to try to figure out a specific reproducer
[19:32] <vorlon> so it seems re-signing is the existing procedure
[19:33] <xnox> vorlon:  sigh
[19:33] <xnox> vorlon:  it would be nice if signing used audit logs of signatures created. And reuse existing sigs, if one gets re-requested.
[19:34] <apw> vorlon: we have to resign as they are not copied with the debs. resigning is idempotent so is ok
[19:34] <apw> if we don't then when proposed is purged we don't have a full set in -updates
[19:35] <vorlon> apw: if it were idempotent, my diff command wouldn't have reported a difference
[19:36] <vorlon> the signatures are different (possibly due to date stamps), and that increases the amount of crypto material that could potentially be used to attack the key
[19:37] <vorlon> xnox: accepted now for -updates, all series
[19:37] <xnox> tah
[19:38] <xnox> apw:  vorlon: we could make them idempotent / reproducible. I.e. if they used the changelog date of the source build. Or like include the timestamp in the tarball that one wants to use.
[19:38] <apw> vorlon: hrm, now why do I think they are meant to come out the same ... odd
[19:39] <vorlon> apw: it is /merely/ a doubling of the number of signed artifacts, which are already quite numerous, so maybe it's not worth worrying about in practice
[19:39] <vorlon> xnox: having signature dates be manipulatable via the changelog, WHAT COULD GO WRONG
[19:40] <xnox> vorlon:  inside the signing tarball.
[19:40] <vorlon> still :)
[19:40] <xnox> vorlon:  or like take the timestamp of the thing one build.
[19:41] <xnox> vorlon:  surely it's /trippling/ because -proposed, -updates, -security?
[19:41] <vorlon> xnox: possibly
[19:41] <xnox> vorlon:  keeping track of all signatures made, and reusing for the same signature for the same binary => also sounds dubious.
[19:43] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: gnss-sdr [riscv64] (groovy-proposed/universe) [0.0.13-1~build1] (no packageset)
[19:49] <cjwatson> vorlon: I do not.  We should probably arrange to copy the signature but I'd have to check (and am EOW)
[19:59] <bdmurray> vorlon: Should the grub updates be phasing?
[20:04] <xnox> bdmurray: yes
[20:04] <xnox> bdmurray: as per normal.
[20:27] <sil2100> So how are you proceeding? Are we pulling out the kernel from xenial-proposed?
[20:30] <xnox> sil2100: no, not yet.
[20:30] <xnox> sil2100:  i had pizza, and signatures were not published. retried focal build waiting for it to pass.
[20:31] <xnox> sil2100: retries of xenial in bileto, without proposed in either source code and the build still seems to fail. SO not sure what's going on, maybe i got my numbers wrong.
[20:34] <xnox> sil2100:  so if you look at https://launchpad.net/~ci-train-ppa-service/+archive/ubuntu/4171/+packages
[20:34] <xnox> you can see that it build fine on all architectures, but amd64
[20:34] <xnox> what's missing / wrong about it?
[20:37] <xnox> focal d-i now built fine!
[20:42] <xnox> oooooh
[20:42] <xnox> i wonder if our signing is all wrong in xenial
[20:43] <xnox> aha
[20:44] <xnox> apw:  last time we built xenial the kernel-signed-image-4.4.0-142-generic-di_4.4.0-142.168_amd64.udeb package had ./boot/vmlinuz-4.4.0-142-generic.efi.signed
[20:45] <xnox> apw: whereas kernel-signed-image-4.4.0-186-generic-di_4.4.0-186.216_amd64.udeb ships ./boot/vmlinuz-4.4.0-186-generic and kernel-signed-image-4.4.0-187-generic-di_4.4.0-187.217_amd64.udeb ships ./boot/vmlinuz-4.4.0-187-generic
[20:46] <xnox> apw: klebers: is that intentional that signing got changed and rename in xenial since .6 release?
[20:46] <apw> xnox, yes... the names changed with the drive to only booting signed kernels, and thus there only being signed kernels
[20:46] <xnox> apw:  klebers: i can backport changes to support '.signed'-less things in d-i.
[20:47] <apw> xnox, we used to have vmlinuz and vmlinuz.efi
[20:47] <apw> .signed
[20:47] <apw> and grub picked the right one, now ... we only have vmlinuz
[20:56] <xnox> cool. test building.
[21:13] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: network-manager-applet (focal-proposed/main) [1.8.24-1ubuntu2 => 1.8.24-1ubuntu3] (desktop-core)
[21:25] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: debian-installer (xenial-proposed/main) [20101020ubuntu451.28 => 20101020ubuntu451.29] (core)
[21:26] <xnox> vorlon:  ^ the above d-i should hopefully build fine in xenial.
[21:26] <xnox> or bdmurray or sil2100
[21:28] <vorlon> looking
[21:29] <vorlon> accepted
[21:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted debian-installer [source] (xenial-proposed) [20101020ubuntu451.29]
[21:30] <sil2100> o/
[21:54] <vorlon> xnox: all grub2-triggered autopkgtests passed
[22:15] <xnox> horay.
[22:16] <xnox> vorlon:  d-i in focal is odd in britney
[22:16] <xnox> debian-installer-udebs/amd64 has unsatisfiable dependency
[22:16] <xnox> debian-installer-udebs/arm64 has unsatisfiable dependency
[22:16] <xnox> but what is it? does britney know aobut udebs?
[22:18] <sil2100> hm
[22:24] <sil2100> Wonder which dependency britney considers unsatisfiable
[22:54] <xnox> vorlon:  sil2100: what needs doing to get d-i in xenial & focal released to updates?
[22:55] <xnox> we don't have automated tests for d-i do we.... do we manually test them first?
[23:10] <sil2100> xnox: usually we build -proposed based images to test those, but then again, I guess we could just publish them to -updates and simply re-spin the candidate images
[23:10] <sil2100> As there is no risk of breakage
[23:10] <sil2100> (other than on the new images)
[23:14] <sil2100> xnox: let me release those into -updates, focal looks fine so I'll proceed with that one
[23:14] <sil2100> (and I can then spin up the images)
[23:15] <sil2100> focal done
[23:25] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: iotjs [ppc64el] (groovy-proposed/universe) [1.0-2] (no packageset)
[23:28] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: gnss-sdr [s390x] (groovy-proposed/universe) [0.0.13-1] (no packageset)
[23:28] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: gnss-sdr [amd64] (groovy-proposed/universe) [0.0.13-1] (no packageset)
[23:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: iotjs [amd64] (groovy-proposed/universe) [1.0-2] (no packageset)
[23:32] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: gnss-sdr [ppc64el] (groovy-proposed/universe) [0.0.13-1] (no packageset)
[23:33] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: iotjs [s390x] (groovy-proposed/universe) [1.0-2] (no packageset)
[23:33] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: iotjs [riscv64] (groovy-proposed/universe) [1.0-2] (no packageset)