[00:25] <vorlon> rbalint: burp/armhf is smelling like a real regression introduced by new glibc :/
[02:46] <jeremysu> rbasak hi, could you please help to review https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/alsa-ucm-conf/+bug/1895669
[02:46] <ubot5> Ubuntu bug 1895669 in HWE Next "Add more support to Lenovo ThinkStation P620" [Undecided,New]
[04:02] <tjaalton> jeremysu: are you asking for a sponsor to upload it?
[04:02] <jeremysu>  tjaalton yes
[04:03] <tjaalton> there's another sru now in focal-proposed...
[04:04] <tjaalton> acceptdd on tuesday
[04:04] <jeremysu> tjaalton yes, I'm negotiating with the owner of Dell dock project to see whether possible to respin for P620
[06:22] <tjaalton> so it was sponsored already yesterday
[06:35] <tjaalton> jeremysu: I've released the current one, explanation in the bug if someone is curious
[06:59] <jeremysu> thank you very much. Is it possible to have your attention on https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/alsa-ucm-conf/+bug/1895669 to land it in -proposed?
[06:59] <ubot5> Ubuntu bug 1895669 in HWE Next "Add more support to Lenovo ThinkStation P620" [Undecided,New]
[06:59] <tjaalton> yes
[07:00] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted alsa-ucm-conf [source] (focal-proposed) [1.2.2-1ubuntu0.4]
[07:00] <tjaalton> jeremysu: ^
[07:01] <jeremysu> many thanks!
[09:42] <Laney> rbalint: any thought on
[09:42] <Laney>  TEMPORARY_TEST_FAIL_STRINGS = ['Temporary failure resolving',
[09:42] <Laney>                                 'Temporary failure in name resolution',
[09:42] <Laney> +                               'Unable to connect to ftpmaster.internal:http:',
[09:42] <Laney> ?
[09:43] <Laney> re https://objectstorage.prodstack4-5.canonical.com/v1/AUTH_77e2ada1e7a84929a74ba3b87153c0ac/autopkgtest-groovy/groovy/armhf/f/fpylll/20200917_024927_2aab3@/log.gz and https://objectstorage.prodstack4-5.canonical.com/v1/AUTH_77e2ada1e7a84929a74ba3b87153c0ac/autopkgtest-groovy/groovy/armhf/k/kcompletion/20200917_061002_60056@/log.gz
[09:44] <Laney> also https://objectstorage.prodstack4-5.canonical.com/v1/AUTH_77e2ada1e7a84929a74ba3b87153c0ac/autopkgtest-groovy/groovy/armhf/g/glibc/20200917_035400_0d794@/log.gz: gcc ICE
[09:44] <juliank> Laney: +1
[09:44] <juliank> I wasn't asked, but still voice my opinion :)
[09:46] <Laney> LA LA LA WAS THAT THE WIND?
[09:46] <Laney> thanks juliank :P
[09:46] <Laney> although I notice one of the strings in https://objectstorage.prodstack4-5.canonical.com/v1/AUTH_77e2ada1e7a84929a74ba3b87153c0ac/autopkgtest-groovy/groovy/armhf/g/gcc-7/20200917_034016_83a73@/log.gz
[09:47] <Laney> did it really fail 3x in a row?
[09:47] <juliank> Laney: Eventually things will be better once apt gets sensible automatic retries with backoff
[09:48] <Laney> mmm
[09:48] <Laney> I dunno what happens, we never managed to catch it interactively
[09:48] <Laney> I guess lxd's network blips out for a few seconds?
[09:49] <juliank> maybe
[09:49] <Laney> well, not sure if it does or if the instance's network just dies
[09:49] <Laney> in which case no amount of retrying will help
[09:50] <juliank> Laney: Right, maybe it's worth adding a 20s sleep and retry and see if that helps
[09:50] <juliank> like, if it does not recover within 20s, it's probably dead
[09:52] <Laney> that'd be an improvement
[09:52] <Laney> hmm
[09:52] <Laney> rbalint: https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/BsXx8wBKF5/
[09:53] <Laney> I'd have expected to see a retry there from your code
[09:54] <Laney> AH
[09:54] <Laney> you didn't include 20 in the codes to look for
[09:54] <juliank> that reminds me of something but I'm not sure what
[09:55] <juliank> and it's surprisingly unrelated
[10:17] <Laney> ¬_¬
[10:18] <Laney> rbalint: (fixed)
[10:33] <LocutusOfBorg> doko, if you plan to bump llvm-defaults to 11, please get the package from debian/experimental (uploaded one hour ago)
[10:58]  * enyc meows
[10:59] <enyc> LocutusOfBorg: the linux-guest-resizing guest-additions-prblem  in vbox linux guests (maybe 32bit-only affected!)  looks like officially fixeh in  addons 6.1.16  ... but using your .deb virtualbox-guest- packges from 6.1.14 works too, interestingly...
[11:00] <enyc> LocutusOfBorg: in short, my preference would be to hold off any virtualbox focal SRU's for a bit unless there is some other urgent problem
[11:39] <seb128> hey there, is anyone feeling giving a review to https://code.launchpad.net/~seb128/ubuntu-archive-scripts/display-broken-binaries/+merge/390362 ?
[11:39] <seb128> it would make some of the items on the team report have a reason rather than being empty
[11:43] <Laney> I'll have a look
[11:43] <Laney> +1 ftw
[11:46] <seb128> Laney, thanks!
[12:09] <ginggs> turn llvm up to eleven!
[12:27] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-gkeop-5.4 [amd64] (bionic-proposed/universe) [5.4.0-1001.1] (no packageset)
[12:28] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: gdb (focal-proposed/main) [9.1-0ubuntu1 => 9.2-0ubuntu1~20.04] (core, i386-whitelist) (sync)
[12:40] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New source: cvise (bionic-proposed/primary) [1.6.0-2~18.04]
[12:40] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New source: cvise (focal-proposed/primary) [1.6.0-2~20.04]
[12:42] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New source: python-pebble (bionic-proposed/primary) [4.5.3-1~18.04]
[12:42] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New source: python-pebble (focal-proposed/primary) [4.5.3-1~20.04]
[12:44] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: python2.7 (focal-proposed/universe) [2.7.18~rc1-2 => 2.7.18-1~20.04] (i386-whitelist, kubuntu) (sync)
[12:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New sync: python3.9 (focal-proposed/primary) [3.9.0~rc1-1~20.04]
[12:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: python3-stdlib-extensions (focal-proposed/main) [3.8.2-1ubuntu1 => 3.8.5-1~20.04.1] (core, i386-whitelist) (sync)
[12:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: python3.8 (focal-proposed/main) [3.8.2-1ubuntu1.2 => 3.8.5-1~20.04] (i386-whitelist) (sync)
[13:11] <slashd> Hi SRU vanguard, (iirc sil2100 is out atm). Could you please promote 'sosreport' from focal-proposed to focal-updates when time permits? Thanks in advance !
[13:54] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-gkeop-5.4 [amd64] (bionic-proposed) [5.4.0-1001.1]
[13:59] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: sane-backends (focal-proposed/main) [1.0.29-0ubuntu5.1 => 1.0.29-0ubuntu5.2] (desktop-core, i386-whitelist, ubuntu-server)
[14:00] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: sane-backends (bionic-proposed/main) [1.0.27-1~experimental3ubuntu2.3 => 1.0.27-1~experimental3ubuntu2.4] (desktop-core, ubuntu-server)
[15:12] <xnox> ubuntu-archive please reject https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/focal/+queue?queue_state=0&queue_text=zfcpdump-kernel-signed it is wrong
[15:13] <seb128> xnox, rejected
[15:14] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: rejected zfcpdump-kernel-signed [source] (focal-proposed) [5.4-0ubuntu1]
[15:14] <apw> interesting, my queue screen says i rejected it
[15:14] <Laney> check the queue page and see who won ;-)
[15:14] <seb128> apw, I clicked the button and got an error so you probably beat me to it?
[15:15] <apw> heh, when do we ever have so much cover we get a human race-condition
[15:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: tracker (focal-proposed/main) [2.3.4-1 => 2.3.6-0ubuntu1] (desktop-extra, ubuntugnome)
[15:40] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: zfcpdump-kernel (focal-proposed/universe) [4.13-0ubuntu1 => 5.4-0ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[15:40] <vorlon> bdmurray: should the test case for LP: #1894919 cover comparing the installed packages at end of upgrade with and without -proposed, to verify that only the autoremoved packages are different?
[15:40] <ubot5> Launchpad bug 1894919 in ubuntu-release-upgrader (Ubuntu Focal) "gnome-software-plugin-snap consider an unwanted removal for 20.04 ubuntu-desktop" [Undecided,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1894919
[15:42] <bdmurray> vorlon: sure that sounds fine
[15:43] <vorlon> bdmurray: will you update the test case?
[15:48] <bdmurray> vorlon: I put it in the regression potential section
[15:48] <bdmurray> Additionally, we should ensure that nothing extra is autoremoved...
[15:54] <vorlon> bdmurray: I'm worried that if it's only listed in regression potential rather than test case that it might be missed on verification
[15:55] <bdmurray> vorlon: I'm sure I'm the one doing the verification but I can move it.
[16:01] <bdmurray> I've moved it anyway
[16:02] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted ubuntu-release-upgrader [source] (focal-proposed) [1:20.04.27]
[16:48] <vorlon> seb128: dbus/i386 passed
[16:48] <Laney> retrying those glibc/unknown failures, looks like they just slipped in before the fixes earlier today
[17:03] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted finalrd [source] (xenial-proposed) [6~ubuntu16.04.1]
[17:08] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: finalrd [amd64] (xenial-proposed/universe) [6~ubuntu16.04.1] (no packageset)
[17:20] <vorlon> Laney: ah I think I already hit retry on those
=== ijohnson is now known as ijohnson|lunch
=== ijohnson|lunch is now known as ijohnson
[18:42] <rbalint> vorlon, burp/armhf passed locally and also suprisingly with new glibc - not that i would be unhappy about it :-)
[19:01] <vorlon> rbalint: hmm ok
[19:02] <vorlon> rbalint: I'd appreciate your input on LP: #1894195 since the stated rationale is fixes to the nftables backend
[19:02] <ubot5> Launchpad bug 1894195 in iptables (Ubuntu) "FFe: Merge iptables 1.8.5-3 (main) from Debian sid (main)" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1894195
[19:32] <rbalint> vorlon, left a comment, i could do it after glibcs, guest packages and systemd are done
[19:33] <vorlon> rbalint: not asking you to do it, just asking if you think it's sane :)
[20:08] <vorlon> bdmurray: one thing I wonder, is whether the email we send when stopping phasing should say that the SRUs are subject to reverting if not fixed
[20:14] <bdmurray> vorlon: I guess we can say that without having a revert plan because it'll still be subect to reverting
[20:15]  * vorlon nods
[21:09] <bdmurray> vorlon, Laney: who is sending the UI freeze email?
[21:10] <bdmurray> or rather should I send it?
[21:40] <bdmurray> Laney, vorlon: I could use an autopkgtest-cloud update for a big package
[22:28] <vorlon> bdmurray: if you were to send the mail that'd be keen
[22:29] <vorlon> looking at autopkgtest-cloud now
[22:30] <vorlon> bdmurray: done
[22:30] <bdmurray> thanks
[23:08] <rbasak> RAOF: I was going to post to Discourse about the GNOME MRE. Am I right in thinking you're still planning to generate the list of packages within scope? Or if not, how will that come about?
[23:09] <RAOF> [rbasak](https://matrix.to/#/@freenode_rbasak:matrix.org): I am planning to generate a list of packages that are in-scope.
[23:14] <rbasak> Thanks! I'll comment in Discourse on the vala and gnome-shell end.