[00:34] <RAOF> rbasak: The current state of GNOME MRU clarification is I've talked with Seb and he's gone “yeah, I don't know; we should clarify that”, and I've written https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/scope-of-gnome-mru/18041
[01:17] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: ubuntustudio-default-settings (focal-proposed/universe) [20.04.2.1 => 20.04.2.2] (ubuntustudio)
[01:17] <Eickmeyer>  ^ bug 1892949
[01:17] <ubot5> bug 1892949 in ubuntustudio-default-settings (Ubuntu Groovy) "[SRU] grub can no longer detect kernels after ubuntustudio-lowlatency-settings is uninstalled" [High,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1892949
[05:35] <RAOF> Eickmeyer: Could I trouble you for a better changelog entry for that SRU? The changelog entry is the only user-visible notification of *why*  we're SRUing something, and “add ubuntustudio-lowlatency-settings.postrm” is entirely uninteresting to users.
[05:36] <RAOF> Yes, there's a link to the actual bug there. We'd still prefer that you summarise the fix (and what it fixes).
[05:37] <RAOF> Something like “Ensure removing ubuntustudio-lowlatency-settings package doesn't remove all kernels from GRUB boot menu” or, similar.
[07:15] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected ubuntustudio-default-settings [source] (focal-proposed) [20.04.2.2]
[07:37] <ginggs> ubuntu-archve would someone please remove pyhst2's amd64 binaries from -release?  this would help me by allowing nvidia-cuda-toolkit to migrate.  libhst2 can migrate later along with nvidia-graphics-drivers-450 and linux-restricted-modules-*
[07:48] <ginggs> ubuntu-archive even ^
[07:48] <apw> ginggs, would -450 migrating take libhst2 with it as things stand and solve your issue too?
[07:49] <ginggs> apw: yes it would
[07:50] <ginggs> apw: i'd like nvidia-cuda-toolkit to migrate so i can sync in the next version from experimental, before feature freeze though
[07:51] <apw> ginggs, sorry i left the context out; i am hoping that what i just did to the archive will let that pile migrate in the next run, maybe
[07:51] <ginggs> apw: ok, that sounds great, thanks!
[07:52] <apw> ginggs, if it doesn't (and all things are possible, i won't be supprised if there is something else hiding in here) then we can revisit the removal
[07:52] <ginggs> apw: ack
[08:42] <sil2100> RikMills, vorlon: ok, bileto login should now work once again
[08:43] <sil2100> Took a bit of digging in though, phew
[08:50] <RikMills> sil2100: excellent. thank you :)
[09:04] <ginggs> apw: it worked \o/ thanks!
[09:05] <apw> ginggs, miraculously
[10:58] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: s390-tools (groovy-proposed/main) [2.12.0-0ubuntu6 => 2.14.0-1ubuntu1] (core)
[11:42] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: sosreport (focal-proposed/main) [3.9.1-1ubuntu0.20.04.2 => 4.0-1~ubuntu0.20.04.1] (ubuntu-desktop, ubuntu-server)
[11:50] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: nvidia-cuda-toolkit [amd64] (groovy-proposed/multiverse) [11.0.3-1] (no packageset)
[12:14] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: sosreport (focal-proposed/main) [3.9.1-1ubuntu0.20.04.2 => 4.0-1~ubuntu0.20.04.1] (ubuntu-desktop, ubuntu-server)
[12:19] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected sosreport [source] (focal-proposed) [4.0-1~ubuntu0.20.04.1]
[12:26] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: secureboot-db (bionic-proposed/main) [1.4~ubuntu0.18.04.1 => 1.4.1] (core)
[12:26] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: secureboot-db (xenial-proposed/main) [1.4~ubuntu0.16.04.1 => 1.4.1~ubuntu0.16.04.1] (core)
[12:27] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: secureboot-db (trusty-proposed/main) [1.4~ubuntu0.14.04.1 => 1.4.1~ubuntu0.14.04.1] (core)
[12:28] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: secureboot-db (focal-proposed/main) [1.5 => 1.6~20.04.1] (core)
[12:28] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New source: nvidia-graphics-drivers-450 (bionic-proposed/primary) [450.66-0ubuntu0.18.04.1]
[12:28] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New source: nvidia-graphics-drivers-450 (focal-proposed/primary) [450.66-0ubuntu0.20.04.1]
[12:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New source: nvidia-graphics-drivers-450-server (bionic-proposed/primary) [450.51.06-0ubuntu0.18.04.1]
[12:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New source: nvidia-graphics-drivers-450-server (focal-proposed/primary) [450.51.06-0ubuntu0.20.04.1]
[13:20] <Eickmeyer> RAOF: Thanks, reuploaded.
[13:21] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: ubuntustudio-default-settings (focal-proposed/universe) [20.04.2.1 => 20.04.2.2] (ubuntustudio)
[13:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-oem-5.6 [amd64] (focal-proposed/main) [5.6.0-1023.23] (no packageset)
[13:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-oracle-5.4 [amd64] (bionic-proposed/main) [5.4.0-1022.22~18.04.1] (no packageset)
[14:03] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: nvidia-cuda-toolkit [ppc64el] (groovy-proposed/multiverse) [11.0.3-1] (no packageset)
[14:19] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-oem-5.6 [amd64] (focal-proposed) [5.6.0-1023.23]
[14:22] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-oracle-5.4 [amd64] (bionic-proposed) [5.4.0-1022.22~18.04.1]
[15:07] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted command-not-found [source] (focal-proposed) [20.04.4]
[15:15]  * apw is looking at nvidia-*450*
[15:15] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted nvidia-graphics-drivers-450 [source] (bionic-proposed) [450.66-0ubuntu0.18.04.1]
[15:15] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted nvidia-graphics-drivers-450 [source] (focal-proposed) [450.66-0ubuntu0.20.04.1]
[15:20] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: nvidia-graphics-drivers-450 [i386] (bionic-proposed/multiverse) [450.66-0ubuntu0.18.04.1] (no packageset)
[15:20] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: nvidia-graphics-drivers-450 [i386] (focal-proposed/multiverse) [450.66-0ubuntu0.20.04.1] (i386-whitelist)
[15:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: nvidia-graphics-drivers-450 [amd64] (bionic-proposed/multiverse) [450.66-0ubuntu0.18.04.1] (no packageset)
[15:24] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: nvidia-graphics-drivers-450 [amd64] (focal-proposed/multiverse) [450.66-0ubuntu0.20.04.1] (i386-whitelist)
[15:34] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: nvidia-cuda-toolkit [arm64] (groovy-proposed/multiverse) [11.0.3-1] (no packageset)
[15:37] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: chromium-browser (focal-proposed/universe) [84.0.4147.105-0ubuntu0.20.04.1 => 1:85.0.4183.83-0ubuntu0.20.04.1] (ubuntu-desktop)
[16:49] <slashd> o/ sru vanguard, could you please reject my sosreport upload ? I'll re-upload later, I need to talk to sil2100 about some specifics first.
[16:49] <slashd> in focal ^ https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/focal/+queue?queue_state=1&queue_text=sosreport
[17:17] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: ubuntu-release-upgrader (focal-proposed/main) [1:20.04.24 => 1:20.04.25] (core)
[17:37] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected sosreport [source] (focal-proposed) [4.0-1~ubuntu0.20.04.1]
[18:07] <sergiodj> hi there, libapache2-mod-wsgi has been dropped on Debian and we've just sync'ed mod-wsgi, so I filed https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/mod-wsgi/+bug/1893100 to make sure we RM libapache2-mod-wsgi from groovy
[18:07] <ubot5> Ubuntu bug 1893100 in mod-wsgi (Ubuntu) "[RM] libapache2-mod-wsgi from groovy" [Undecided,New]
[19:25] <vorlon> Eickmeyer: hi, so I'm continuing the review of dragonfly-reverb, and I've just run into the same issue with the font as .cpp that RAOF previously noted to you.  The Open Font License is not GPL-compatible; we can't have binaries that contain both GPL code and compiled-in fonts that are under the SIL Open Font License, that's not distributable
[19:28] <vorlon> Eickmeyer: I also found some smaller issues with debian/copyright declaring wrong licenses for a few files; they're all GPL-compatible licenses so it's not a major issue but should still be fixed: https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/JHXQ3PDZnn/
[19:30] <vorlon> Eickmeyer: however, the embedded font makes the whole binary package nondistributable, so this is a reject, unless we could prove that the embedded font is not actually used
[19:30] <vorlon> (i.e. not compiled in)
[19:33] <vorlon> Eickmeyer: well I just checked, and it is definitely compiled into the binary.  So that needs to be addressed before this can be accepted.
[20:26] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: smartmontools (xenial-proposed/main) [6.4+svn4214-1 => 6.4+svn4214-1ubuntu0.1] (ubuntu-server)
[20:38] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: smartmontools (bionic-proposed/main) [7.0-0ubuntu1~ubuntu18.04.1 => 6.5+svn4324-1ubuntu0.1] (ubuntu-server)
[20:53] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: rejected dragonfly-reverb [source] (groovy-proposed) [3.2.0-0ubuntu1]
[20:57] <teward> vorlon: i'll copy/paste this to them in Telegram, I seem to remember they're suffering from system-not-available problems.  Ten bucks says this won't get in on the groovy cycle this close to freezes
[20:57] <teward> (re: dragonfly-reverb)
[20:59] <vorlon> given that it will require an upstream fix, I'm not surprised, unfortunate that it is
[21:02] <teward> yup
[21:09] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: livecd-rootfs (focal-proposed/main) [2.664.5 => 2.664.6] (desktop-core, i386-whitelist)
[21:10] <teward> vorlon: this will sound a liiiiiitle bit janky, but... assuming that single font isn't crucial to the application could it be yanked out during build-time before ti actually builds so the font isn't compiled in?
[21:10] <teward> just wondering :p
[21:10] <teward> (it's a janky approach but still)
[21:10] <teward> ... oh ffs, 18.04 -> 20.04 upgrade broke my sbuild envs locally >.>
[21:12] <teward> *spends the next hour redoing his sbuild*
[21:13] <sarnold> any application that has compiled in a specific font is unlikely to handle that font going missing
[21:14] <sarnold> if you're lucky you wind up with big blank areas where text should be
[21:14] <sarnold> if you're unlucky it'll fall over and won't let you do anything
[21:14] <sarnold> if you're very unlucky they've never read danluu's page about file IO, and it'll corrupt stuff while falling over
[21:45] <teward> hah lol sarnold
[21:58] <RikMills> vorlon: quick query on your copyright comments. I note you imply that some incompatible copyright files may be ok if not compiled in/used? reason I ask as I want to get a source uploaded that opensuse had to repack the tar to remove unittests with non-free licenses, if we are not running or shipping the tests, can I avoid doing that repack?
[21:59] <vorlon> teward: well there is an api call, that's scattered throughout the source code, that returns this font; so I don't know what the consequences are for making this internal api call fail
[21:59] <RikMills> I should also note that the issues are fixed in upstream git, so this problem will go away when they do a new release
[22:00] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted fonts-noto [source] (focal-proposed) [20200323-1build1~ubuntu20.04.1]
[22:02] <RikMills> or maybe I should play safe and do a git snapshot?
[22:09] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted util-linux [source] (focal-proposed) [2.34-0.1ubuntu9.1]
[22:12] <vorlon> RikMills: if they're not embedded, it's at least not a combined work; but even a hard-coded requirement for a specific font that is loaded externally is a license issue under the GPL
[22:13] <vorlon> RikMills: unit tests in source code under a different license are not a GPL problem
[22:15] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted kazam [source] (focal-proposed) [1.4.5-3ubuntu0.1]
[22:18] <RikMills> vorlon: understood. in that case I think I will upload as it is, and let the review decide. should there in the end be as issue, I can always the re-do the source
[22:18] <RikMills> vorlon: thanks :)
[22:20] <RikMills> ps. it is the example files for the unittests that were the issue. upstream grabbed some form somewhere on the internet without thinking about licences
[22:20] <RikMills> *from somewhere
[22:29] <RikMills> vorlon: damn. you are talking about combining incompatible free licenses are you not? penny just dropped. I think I am going to have to repack/snapshot after all
[22:29]  * RikMills blames the lateness of the hour in the UK
[22:34] <RikMills> it is a weird thing, but I often find the copyright stuff MORE mind-bending than the quantum physics exams I had to do at Uni!
[23:14] <teward> RikMills: you mean RE: dragonfly-reverb?
[23:15] <teward> yeah that one's incompatible free licenses
[23:15] <teward> SIL Open Font License isn't compatible with GPL
[23:15] <teward> :P
[23:34] <vorlon> RikMills: if the test suite is not being shipped in a binary package, it still doesn't matter.  You're allowed to combine GPL and non-GPL code into a single binary /which you don't distribute/.