[00:51] mwhudson: Yeah, symbols files for C++ projects that don't actively curate their exported symbols is a recipe for frustration. === pieq_ is now known as pieq [09:19] rbalint_, hey, is there any chance you could have a look at why systemd autopkgtests don't like the new plymouth? === rbalint_ is now known as rbalint [09:35] seb128, it is on my TODO list [09:42] rbalint, great, I would have poked at it but I'm not familiar enough with the systemd package to know how to just run that specific test easily [09:42] plymouth didn't change much so it's a bit weird :/ [09:50] *** Test killed: ran too long (1h31m0s). [09:50] FAIL runtime/pprof 5465.034s [09:50] um [10:29] I uploaded a new apt with http changes, please watch out for hanging builds [10:30] (once it is published in proposed :D) [10:31] or autopkgtests for that matter [11:12] o/ question: has python-raven been replaced by python3-sentry-sdk in ubuntu focal? [11:22] juliank: can you fix this at some point https://people.canonical.com/~laney/weird-things/whitespace.png ? at least I assume it's whitespace :D [11:22] Laney: seems like meh [11:22] Laney: this is progress output with \r and stuff [11:34] sil2100: hey, could you please accept the mutter SRU for focal? It contains a further fix fixing a regression in the SRU currently under verification [12:16] oh good, you can chain transactions in aptdaemon [12:16] * Laney hopes this works === M_hc[m] is now known as _hc [14:21] hmm [14:21] how to show progress of the chain though, looks like you have to handle those separately [14:21] juliank: ^- right? [14:22] I don't know, I just barely keep aptdaemon working [14:22] Um, passing it's Testsuite on one arch [14:23] ok, I thought you knew it [14:23] The answer I assume is yes [14:23] But also why use aptdaemon? [14:23] update-manager [14:23] What's it for? [14:23] I sed [14:24] see [14:24] you want me to first port it to packagekit? :p [14:24] I gotta add another upgrade mode to package kit for that [14:24] But hughsie does not want it [14:24] hmm [14:25] I don't remember if you can have chained PkTransactions either [14:25] i.e. if doing that would even help [14:25] not that there's any chance I will do that :-) [14:27] * Laney wibbles [14:27] what to do what to do [14:54] Trevinho: I can take a look at it today finally [14:54] sil2100: thanks [14:54] Trevinho: btw. which reminds me: the bionic mutter SRU FTBFS on all arches from what I see [14:55] mhmhm weird [14:55] fwiw https://github.com/getsentry/raven-python/blob/master/README.rst#L36 states python-raven has been phased out for Sentry-Python [14:56] not sure what changed, let me see === lucas_ is now known as lucascastro [16:52] what's the process to request a package be removed from the archive? file a bug (is there a template), or just ping a friendly AA ? [16:57] oSoMoN: file a bug with rationale, subscribe ~ubuntu-archive. I don't think there's a template [16:58] ok, thanks [17:05] done: bug #1890319 [17:05] bug 1890319 in tinyjsd (Ubuntu) "Please remove tinyjsd from the archive" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1890319 [18:44] ahasenack: hi, so yes, trusty queues get zero attention from the standard SRU process - pings required :) [18:44] vorlon: @archive-admins pings? [18:44] ahasenack: sru team pings really. anyway, looking no [18:44] w [18:45] I pinged one, but he said he had no idea how to process trusty srus [18:45] ahasenack: and where is this SRU supposed to go? Is it going to go in the security pocket in trusty? [18:46] I don't know, I assumed updates [18:46] ahasenack: in which case the package you need in order to ensure esm updates are automatically installed by default, will not be automatically installed by default [18:46] well, it's definitely not going into esm [18:46] because of what you said [18:46] oh wait this is update-notifier, not unattended-upgrades [18:46] right [18:47] hi there. since we're talking about "pings required", I'd like someone to take a look at https://code.launchpad.net/~sergiodj/britney/hints-ubuntu-xenial/+merge/388495 , please :) [18:47] ahasenack: I actually think this should go to esm instead [18:47] I wasn't sure if I should subscribe someone else directly as a reviewer. I just subscribed the SRU team because that's what I saw other MPs doing [18:48] because it's cosmetic, and only impacts the motd output aiui [18:48] vorlon: but that output is an incentive to enable esm [18:48] that's why I thought it should go into updates, so people without esm get that [18:48] and can see what esm would give [18:50] ahasenack: but this only matters for the newer version of ubuntu-advantage-tools, which wasn't published when trusty standard support ended... if users were running trusty unsupported from april 2019 to january 2020 without enabling esm, does it matter now? [18:52] vorlon: who know, it might convince some reluctant users to enable esm? Once they start seeing the security updates they are missing? [18:52] s/know/knows/ [19:09] ahasenack: I'm afraid I still don't think we should do this in trusty-updates and would like to see it go to esm instead [19:10] vorlon: that's fine, do I need to change anything in the packaging? [19:11] ahasenack: I don't believe so, you just need to work with the security team to get it uploaded to the right place [19:11] can they fetch it from wherever it is now? [19:12] ahasenack: technically, yes :) [19:12] the "limbo" [19:14] https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/trusty/+queue?queue_state=4&queue_text=update-notifier right [19:18] yep [19:20] ok, thanks, I pinged them