[00:51] <RAOF> mwhudson: Yeah, symbols files for C++ projects that don't actively curate their exported symbols is a recipe for frustration.
[09:19] <seb128> rbalint_, hey, is there any chance you could have a look at why systemd autopkgtests don't like the new plymouth?
[09:35] <rbalint> seb128, it is on my TODO list
[09:42] <seb128> 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] <seb128> plymouth didn't change much so it's a bit weird :/
[09:50] <mwhudson> *** Test killed: ran too long (1h31m0s).
[09:50] <mwhudson> FAIL	runtime/pprof	5465.034s
[09:50] <mwhudson> um
[10:29] <juliank> I uploaded a new apt with http changes, please watch out for hanging builds
[10:30] <juliank> (once it is published in proposed :D)
[10:31] <juliank> or autopkgtests for that matter
[11:12] <niub> o/ question: has python-raven been replaced by python3-sentry-sdk in ubuntu focal?
[11:22] <Laney> 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] <juliank> Laney: seems like meh
[11:22] <juliank> Laney: this is progress output with \r and stuff
[11:34] <Trevinho> 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] <Laney> oh good, you can chain transactions in aptdaemon
[12:16]  * Laney hopes this works
[14:21] <Laney> hmm
[14:21] <Laney> how to show progress of the chain though, looks like you have to handle those separately
[14:21] <Laney> juliank: ^- right?
[14:22] <juliank> I don't know, I just barely keep aptdaemon working
[14:22] <juliank> Um, passing it's Testsuite on one arch
[14:23] <Laney> ok, I thought you knew it
[14:23] <juliank> The answer I assume is yes
[14:23] <juliank> But also why use aptdaemon?
[14:23] <Laney> update-manager
[14:23] <juliank> What's it for?
[14:23] <juliank> I sed
[14:24] <juliank> see
[14:24] <Laney> you want me to first port it to packagekit? :p
[14:24] <juliank> I gotta add another upgrade mode to package kit for that
[14:24] <juliank> But hughsie does not want it
[14:24] <Laney> hmm
[14:25] <Laney> I don't remember if you can have chained PkTransactions either
[14:25] <Laney> i.e. if doing that would even help
[14:25] <Laney> not that there's any chance I will do that :-)
[14:27]  * Laney wibbles
[14:27] <Laney> what to do what to do
[14:54] <sil2100> Trevinho: I can take a look at it today finally
[14:54] <Trevinho> sil2100: thanks
[14:54] <sil2100> Trevinho: btw. which reminds me: the bionic mutter SRU FTBFS on all arches from what I see
[14:55] <Trevinho> mhmhm weird
[14:55] <niub> fwiw https://github.com/getsentry/raven-python/blob/master/README.rst#L36 states python-raven has been phased out for Sentry-Python
[14:56] <Trevinho> not sure what changed, let me see
[16:52] <oSoMoN> 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] <cjwatson> oSoMoN: file a bug with rationale, subscribe ~ubuntu-archive.  I don't think there's a template
[16:58] <oSoMoN> ok, thanks
[17:05] <oSoMoN> done: bug #1890319
[18:44] <vorlon> ahasenack: hi, so yes, trusty queues get zero attention from the standard SRU process - pings required :)
[18:44] <ahasenack> vorlon: @archive-admins pings?
[18:44] <vorlon> ahasenack: sru team pings really.  anyway, looking no
[18:44] <vorlon> w
[18:45] <ahasenack> I pinged one, but he said he had no idea how to process trusty srus
[18:45] <vorlon> ahasenack: and where is this SRU supposed to go?  Is it going to go in the security pocket in trusty?
[18:46] <ahasenack> I don't know, I assumed updates
[18:46] <vorlon> 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] <ahasenack> well, it's definitely not going into esm
[18:46] <ahasenack> because of what you said
[18:46] <vorlon> oh wait this is update-notifier, not unattended-upgrades
[18:46] <ahasenack> right
[18:47] <sergiodj> 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] <vorlon> ahasenack: I actually think this should go to esm instead
[18:47] <sergiodj> 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] <vorlon> because it's cosmetic, and only impacts the motd output aiui
[18:48] <ahasenack> vorlon: but that output is an incentive to enable esm
[18:48] <ahasenack> that's why I thought it should go into updates, so people without esm get that
[18:48] <ahasenack> and can see what esm would give
[18:50] <vorlon> 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] <ahasenack> vorlon: who know, it might convince some reluctant users to enable esm? Once they start seeing the security updates they are missing?
[18:52] <ahasenack> s/know/knows/
[19:09] <vorlon> 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] <ahasenack> vorlon: that's fine, do I need to change anything in the packaging?
[19:11] <vorlon> 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] <ahasenack> can they fetch it from wherever it is now?
[19:12] <vorlon> ahasenack: technically, yes :)
[19:12] <ahasenack> the "limbo"
[19:14] <ahasenack> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/trusty/+queue?queue_state=4&queue_text=update-notifier right
[19:18] <vorlon> yep
[19:20] <ahasenack> ok, thanks, I pinged them