[00:15] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: gst-plugins-bad1.0 [arm64] (groovy-proposed/universe) [1.18.0-2ubuntu1] (i386-whitelist, kubuntu)
[01:05] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: gst-plugins-bad1.0 [riscv64] (groovy-proposed/universe) [1.18.0-2ubuntu1] (i386-whitelist, kubuntu)
[01:57] <vorlon> xnox: how do I vacation
[01:57] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed [amd64] (xenial-proposed/main) [4.4.0-191.221] (core, kernel)
[02:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed [amd64] (xenial-proposed) [4.4.0-191.221]
[06:46] <cpaelzer> hiho release-team would be someone around to take a look at this FFe before it is even later? https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/adcli/+bug/1893784
[06:46] <cpaelzer> Laney: I have seen you recently checked and acked a few, if you wouldn't mind ^^
[06:59] <LocutusOfBorg> please accept gst-plugins-bad1.0 so we can finally finish the gst migration :D
[07:37] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected gcc-10-cross-mipsen [sync] (focal-proposed) [2+c1ubuntu2]
[08:21] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: pulseaudio (focal-proposed/main) [1:13.99.1-1ubuntu3.6 => 1:13.99.1-1ubuntu3.8] (desktop-core, i386-whitelist, ubuntu-server)
[08:26] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted gst-plugins-bad1.0 [amd64] (groovy-proposed) [1.18.0-2ubuntu1]
[08:26] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted gst-plugins-bad1.0 [armhf] (groovy-proposed) [1.18.0-2ubuntu1]
[08:26] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted gst-plugins-bad1.0 [ppc64el] (groovy-proposed) [1.18.0-2ubuntu1]
[08:26] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted gst-plugins-bad1.0 [s390x] (groovy-proposed) [1.18.0-2ubuntu1]
[08:26] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted gst-plugins-bad1.0 [arm64] (groovy-proposed) [1.18.0-2ubuntu1]
[08:26] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted gst-plugins-bad1.0 [riscv64] (groovy-proposed) [1.18.0-2ubuntu1]
[08:26] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted gst-plugins-bad1.0 [i386] (groovy-proposed) [1.18.0-2ubuntu1]
[08:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted finalrd [amd64] (xenial-proposed) [6~ubuntu16.04.1]
[08:55] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected python2.7 [sync] (focal-proposed) [2.7.18-1~20.04]
[09:03] <sil2100> juliank: hey!
[09:03] <sil2100> juliank: I'm reviewing your grub2 SRU for focal right now and I need clafirication regarding something in the patch
[09:04] <sil2100> juliank: so in ubuntu-linuxefi-arm64.patch I see some uh, two lines that don't seem to do anything:
[09:05] <sil2100> +  (void) addr;
[09:05] <sil2100> +  (void) size;
[09:05] <sil2100> juliank: is this a leftover of some debugging attempt or something?
[09:30] <sil2100> waveform, xnox: looking now at the NEW pibootctl - "Initial release. (Closes: #XXXXXX)" in the changelog is quite unfortunate, I guess it would be best if we had the needs-packaging bug mentioned there (so LP: #1870100)
[09:31] <waveform> sil2100, I can upload another one to the PPA with a cleaned-up history if you want?
[09:31] <sil2100> I always like when NEW packages have those in the changelog, as then I don't have to look for it manually
[09:31] <sil2100> waveform: let me take a look at the whole package, since if it's just this I guess I can tweak it before accepting too!
[09:36] <Riot1> Hey everyone
[09:40] <Riot1> ubuntu-archive: does the archive for bionic only reflect 18.04 lts release but not the changes up to 18.04.5 ?
[09:41] <apw> Riot1, the release pocket (suite bionic) reflects things as they were on release, the updates pocket on top of that represents everything since
[09:41] <Riot1> also updates reflect the diff between release and now
[09:41] <Riot1> *so
[09:46] <Riot1> thank you good sir :) helped me a lot :)
[09:50] <juliank> sil2100: No, they mark the parameters as unused so it builds
[09:50] <juliank> sil2100: Because I did not want to pull in the entire refactoring that dropped those arguments
[09:51] <juliank> casting an argument to void is kind of the standard trick to get around unused parameter errors
[09:53] <sil2100> juliank: ah, sneaky!
[09:53] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: gstreamer-editing-services1.0 [amd64] (groovy-proposed/universe) [1.18.0-2] (no packageset)
[09:54] <Laney> __attribute__ ((unused))!
[09:56] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted grub2 [source] (focal-proposed) [2.04-1ubuntu26.5]
[10:02] <dosaboy> rbasak: ive updated groovy/victoria status for 1891673
[10:03] <dosaboy> assuming its correct to leave as Fix Committed since the release isnt actually out yet
[10:06] <rbasak> dosaboy: could you explain in a comment where the fix is up to please, if it's not actually in Groovy? That's a basic SRU requirement.
[10:08] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: grub2 (focal-proposed/main) [2.04-1ubuntu26.5 => 2.04-1ubuntu26.5] (core)
[10:08] <doko> rbasak: do you want to have a look at https://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/packages/g/glibc/groovy/armhf before I give it back?
[10:08] <doko> rbalint: ^^^
[10:12] <rbalint> doko, thanks, saved
[10:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted grub2 [arm64] (focal-proposed) [2.04-1ubuntu26.5]
[10:17] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted grub2-signed [source] (focal-proposed) [1.142.7]
[10:20] <dosaboy> rbasak: i think it is in groovy since that has the same package build as the victoria-staging uca ppa which does contain the fix
[10:20] <dosaboy> but since neither is released yet i dont think it makes sense to mark them as fix released
[10:20] <dosaboy> if the policy is something different then please let me know and i can change it
[10:21] <dosaboy> i.e. https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/neutron/2:17.0.0~git2020091014.215a541bd4-0ubuntu1
[10:22] <dosaboy> which matches https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-cloud-archive/+archive/ubuntu/victoria-staging/+build/19932691
[10:22] <dosaboy> rbasak: ^
[10:22] <dosaboy> i can put that in the LP if you want
[10:25] <dosaboy> rbasak: https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1891673/comments/16
[10:30] <LocutusOfBorg> please accept gstreamer-editing-services1.0 thanks
[10:35] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: grub2 (focal-proposed/main) [2.04-1ubuntu26.5 => 2.04-1ubuntu26.5] (core)
[10:35] <rbasak> dosaboy: I agree to leave the LP status itself as it is. Since "Fix Released" is usually an SRU expectation though, please do put the explanation in the bug, and then the SRU team can make a documented exception if appropriate.
[10:35] <rbasak> dosaboy: also that means whoever's on rota today will have the full information
[10:36] <rbalint> doko, will be fixed fully in next upload LP: #1895687
[10:40] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted gstreamer-editing-services1.0 [amd64] (groovy-proposed) [1.18.0-2]
[10:44] <Laney> k
[10:45] <Laney> just made an autopkgtest-cloud change that should fix ubuntu-release-upgrader/update-manager
[10:45] <Laney> IS shuffled it around a bit and the proxy setup needed changing
[10:45]  * Laney retries those
[11:05] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-hwe-5.4 [s390x] (bionic-proposed/main) [5.4.0-49.53~18.04.1] (no packageset)
[11:06] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-hwe-5.4 [amd64] (bionic-proposed/main) [5.4.0-49.53~18.04.1] (no packageset)
[11:06] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-gcp [amd64] (focal-proposed/main) [5.4.0-1026.26] (core, kernel)
[11:06] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-hwe-5.4 [ppc64el] (bionic-proposed/main) [5.4.0-49.53~18.04.1] (no packageset)
[11:06] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-oracle [amd64] (focal-proposed/main) [5.4.0-1026.26] (core, kernel)
[11:06] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-azure [amd64] (focal-proposed/main) [5.4.0-1027.27] (core, kernel)
[11:06] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-kvm [amd64] (focal-proposed/main) [5.4.0-1025.25] (no packageset)
[11:07] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-gcp-4.15 [amd64] (bionic-proposed/universe) [4.15.0-1085.96] (no packageset)
[11:07] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-gke-4.15 [amd64] (bionic-proposed/main) [4.15.0-1071.74] (no packageset)
[11:08] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-hwe-5.4 [arm64] (bionic-proposed/main) [5.4.0-49.53~18.04.1] (no packageset)
[11:12] <doko> apw, sforshee: did something change with the riscv64 kernel? https://launchpadlibrarian.net/498529278/buildlog_ubuntu-groovy-riscv64.oprofile_1.3.0-0ubuntu17_BUILDING.txt.gz
[11:36] <doko> ahh, wait, that didn't build before either
[11:39] <xnox> rbalint:  ooooh glibc upload? i want something in too
[11:41] <rbalint> xnox, ok, please add it to the repo
[11:42] <rbalint> RAOF, bdmurray: please release glibc to focal
[11:58] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted python3.9 [sync] (focal-proposed) [3.9.0~rc1-1~20.04]
[12:24] <sforshee> doko: since when exactly? Our kernels are constantly changing, we did move to 5.8 fairly recently
[12:36] <doko> sforshee: see my second message
[12:37] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-azure [amd64] (focal-proposed) [5.4.0-1027.27]
[12:37] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-kvm [amd64] (focal-proposed) [5.4.0-1025.25]
[12:37] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-gcp [amd64] (focal-proposed) [5.4.0-1026.26]
[12:37] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-oracle [amd64] (focal-proposed) [5.4.0-1026.26]
[12:38] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected gcc-9-cross-mipsen [sync] (focal-proposed) [4+c2ubuntu3]
[12:40] <sforshee> doko: I only got one message, seems the second never made it to me for some reason
[12:52] <juliank> sil2100: can you approve the grub2:amd64 binaries too?
[12:52] <juliank> heh I just realized I only need the arm64 one to verify the bug
[12:54] <juliank> Also new qemu just broke my arm64 boot
[12:57] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted grub2 [amd64] (focal-proposed) [2.04-1ubuntu26.5]
[13:08] <LocutusOfBorg> sforshee, it never built there according to the second message
[13:10] <sforshee> LocutusOfBorg: thanks
[13:10] <LocutusOfBorg> :)
[13:36] <Trevinho> bdmurray: hey, could you  have a look at the mutter focal SRU when you've time? There's also gnome-shell in queue, but that's less priority, but mutter fixes the quite popular bug #1892440
[13:44] <LocutusOfBorg> ubuntu-archive, can you please do a dbg cleanup in proposed?
[13:44] <LocutusOfBorg> old binaries left on ppc64el: gstreamer1.0-rtsp-dbg, libgstrtspserver-1.0-0-dbg (from 1.16.2-3)
[13:44] <LocutusOfBorg> old binaries left on s390x: gstreamer1.0-rtsp-dbg, libgstrtspserver-1.0-0-dbg (from 1.16.2-3)
[13:45] <LocutusOfBorg> old binaries left on s390x: libges-1.0-0-dbg (from 1.16.2-2)
[14:16] <cpaelzer> juliank: which "new qemu" do you refer to?
[14:16] <cpaelzer> juliank: there wasn't a major update in -dev or focal that should affect arm much
[14:16] <cpaelzer> groovy had 5.0 since 8th August
[14:17] <juliank> cpaelzer:  qemu-system-common:amd64 (1:5.0-5ubuntu6, 1:5.0-5ubuntu8)
[14:17] <cpaelzer> just in case I should know about that issue you mentioned ...
[14:17] <juliank> cpaelzer: Maybe it's unrelated
[14:17] <juliank> cpaelzer: But my kernel did not boot with ramfb, but it boots fine with virtio-gpu
[14:17] <cpaelzer> juliank: between those two versions only s390x changes are applied
[14:17] <juliank> cpaelzer: arm64 is not super stable anyway
[14:18] <juliank> i hate emulation
[14:18] <cpaelzer> not sure what you are doing, but canonistack has real arm64 for you
[14:18] <juliank> but then I don't have nested kvm on my chromebook, so sanest arm64 I can get
[14:18] <juliank> cpaelzer: Bootloader testing
[14:19] <juliank> EFI secure boot
[14:19] <juliank> cpaelzer: I tried launching arm64 instances earlier this month of varying sizes to build a grub, but it complained about not having any hosts available
[14:19] <cpaelzer> IMHO you could ask dannf  and folks to get you maas access to a bare metal arm64
[14:19] <juliank> Used my chromebook instead :)
[14:20] <cpaelzer> juliank: I just used arm64 on canonistack two days ago, hosts were free at that time
[14:20] <juliank> Hmm
[14:21] <cpaelzer> --flavor cpu8-ram16-disk20 is what I used
[14:21]  * Laney uses the rpi, works nicely for most stuff
[14:21] <juliank> Laney: that works too, well, not for UEFI secure boot testing
[14:22] <juliank> Laney: my chromebook has twice as many cores, though
[14:22] <cpaelzer> Laney: mine lands in the drawer too quickly if being idle and then I openstack-cli is much easier than standing up to fetch it :-)
[14:23] <juliank> latency to canonistack isn't much fun though
[14:24] <juliank> chromebook has lxd and 8 cores, so it's quite decent
[14:24] <juliank> And I can SSH into it
[14:25] <juliank> cpaelzer: that cpu8-ram16-disk20 worked
[14:25] <cpaelzer> \o/
[14:25] <juliank> I was trying m1.{medium,large} last time
[14:25] <juliank> and cpu8-ram2-disk10
[14:51] <bdmurray> sil2100: Did you see my comment / question about bug 1894919?
[15:00] <sil2100> bdmurray: hey! Let me check
[15:00] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New source: pibootctl (groovy-proposed/primary) [0.5.2-0ubuntu1]
[15:04] <sil2100> bdmurray: hm, do you have an idea right now why these remaining packages were still not purged during the autoremoval phase?
[15:07] <bdmurray> sil2100: nope, with version 20.04.25 there are messages regarding "unwanted removal" in /var/log/dist-upgrade/main.log but with 20.04.27 there are no such messages in main.log. I guess I could try 'sudo apt-get dist-upgrade' and see if they are also left.
[15:07] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: rejected pibootctl [source] (groovy-proposed) [0.5.2-0ubuntu1]
[15:09] <sil2100> bdmurray: generally in such cases I don't mind releasing the update, even if it's not a complete fix - we can always re-open the bug or have a new one created for the remaining bits
[15:09] <sil2100> So maybe you could do that (new bug for clean context?), and then we'd just
[15:09] <sil2100> ...relase
[15:09] <sil2100> *release
[15:09] <sil2100> Darn
[15:13] <bdmurray> sil2100: Okay, I'll add all my verification notes to the bug then.
[15:14] <sil2100> Thanks!
[15:18] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted pibootctl [source] (groovy-proposed) [0.5.2-0ubuntu1]
[15:21] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: pibootctl [amd64] (groovy-proposed/none) [0.5.2-0ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[15:25] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-gcp-4.15 [amd64] (bionic-proposed) [4.15.0-1085.96]
[15:25] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-hwe-5.4 [amd64] (bionic-proposed) [5.4.0-49.53~18.04.1]
[15:25] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-hwe-5.4 [ppc64el] (bionic-proposed) [5.4.0-49.53~18.04.1]
[15:25] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-gke-4.15 [amd64] (bionic-proposed) [4.15.0-1071.74]
[15:25] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-hwe-5.4 [s390x] (bionic-proposed) [5.4.0-49.53~18.04.1]
[15:25] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-hwe-5.4 [arm64] (bionic-proposed) [5.4.0-49.53~18.04.1]
[15:25] <bdmurray> rbalint: For what package is the crash report in comment #1 of bug 1889190 created? Did you do any duplicate searching?
[15:26] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted pibootctl [amd64] (groovy-proposed) [0.5.2-0ubuntu1]
[15:30] <LocutusOfBorg> ubuntu-archive ping for NBS proposed cleanup (gstreamer1.0)
[15:30] <LocutusOfBorg> old binaries left on ppc64el: gstreamer1.0-rtsp-dbg, libgstrtspserver-1.0-0-dbg (from 1.16.2-3)
[15:47] <rbalint> bdmurray, i have not checked the crash report nor looked for duplicates. i've reproduced the issue in a clean lxc container and considered the crash itself to be enough of a proof
[15:48] <rbalint> bdmurray, now looking at errors.u.c there are not many glibc crashes and i don't see a duplicate
[15:49] <bdmurray> rbalint: okay, I'll have a look around launchpad
[17:02] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-hwe [amd64] (xenial-proposed/main) [4.15.0-119.120~16.04.1] (kernel)
[17:02] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-hwe [ppc64el] (xenial-proposed/main) [4.15.0-119.120~16.04.1] (kernel)
[17:38] <juliank> cpaelzer: Now that I saw it again - What happens is that qemu aarch64 sometimes gets "Synchronous Exception at 0x0000000137EF9040" instead of booting. I haven't seen this before today, but it might not really be a regression
[17:45] <ahasenack> hi release team, just a ping about two adcli FFes I have, if someone could take a look at some point: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/sssd/+bug/1868703 and https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/adcli/+bug/1893784
[17:59] <bdmurray> Trevinho: The mutter upload will end up reopening some bugs like 1870867 because of it being based on 3.36.2
[18:00] <Trevinho> bdmurray: how that? it's 3.36.6-1ubuntu0.20.04.1
[18:03] <bdmurray> Trevinho: maybe I misstated the reason but that bug is included in the changelog entry for 3.36.4-1 although it was already SRU'ed for ubuntu. Because its in Launchpad-Bugs-Fixed the sru tools will act on it and it will need verification
[18:07] <Trevinho> bdmurray: mhmh, which bug sorry?
[18:07] <bdmurray> bug 1870867, bug 1857947 at least
[18:08] <Trevinho> ah, i was trying the tool right now
[18:08] <Trevinho> mhhmh
[18:09] <Trevinho> bdmurray: ah, i seee... that's because those are in the changes files..
[18:09] <Trevinho> bdmurray: so, those bugs got fixed in ubuntu earlier, but this release merges with debian changelogs that includes them again
[18:10] <Trevinho> but we had them already fixed indeed
[18:10] <bdmurray> yes
[18:10] <hellsworth> bdmurray: could we please publish libreoffice 6.4.6 for focal? https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libreoffice/+bug/1892783
[18:10] <Trevinho> I might make a changes without such version, but... well wouldn't be correct
[18:11] <bdmurray> hellsworth: I'm personally not comfortable releasing that https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-release/2020-September/005089.html
[18:11] <Trevinho> bdmurray: I think we can just make the tool to reopen them, I will mark them as verified explaingin that... would be ok?
[18:13] <bdmurray> Trevinho: okay
[18:13] <Trevinho> nice
[18:26] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted mutter [source] (focal-proposed) [3.36.6-1ubuntu0.20.04.1]
[18:29] <hellsworth> bdmurray: alright then i'll go draft a microrelease exception
[18:29] <cpaelzer> juliank: we didn't have such a report recently, but they occur every now and then over the last few yeras - so far sometimes being kernel or bootloader bugs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1319083 or (more often) flaky and non reproducible https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/grub2/+bug/1675522
[18:30] <juliank> cpaelzer: yup flaky, saw it twice in 10 boots or so
[18:32] <bdmurray> hellsworth: I also think if the bullet points here were true then that would work instead of an exception https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates#New_upstream_microreleases
[18:35] <hellsworth> I think the four bullet points in "New upstream microreleases" is true
[18:40] <bdmurray> hellsworth: then maybe making the bug more clearly match that wiki page would help. Not being familiar with libreoffice I'd like it if the results of the upstream version testing were pointed to and maybe a link to a description of what testing upstream does.
[18:42] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted neutron [source] (focal-proposed) [2:16.1.0-0ubuntu2]
[18:44] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted neutron [source] (bionic-proposed) [2:12.1.1-0ubuntu2]
[18:51] <Trevinho> bdmurray: thanks for the quick review :)
[19:00] <hellsworth> bdmurray: ok I've added links to the testing upstream does and the test results. In the future I can link to these things in the SRU description
[19:00] <hellsworth> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libreoffice/+bug/1892783/comments/4
[19:03] <hellsworth> bdmurray: future libreoffice SRUs will point to the upstream testing and results. but what else would you like to happen first, allowing 6.4.6 to be released?
[19:03] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted memcached [source] (focal-proposed) [1.5.22-2ubuntu0.2]
[19:06] <bdmurray> hellsworth: looking
[19:07] <bdmurray> hellsworth: which one of these gerrit results maps to what is in 6.4.6?
[19:15] <hellsworth> well i'm trying to map it right now. it's not so straightforward
[19:16] <bdmurray> okay, I think that would help a lot
[19:32] <rafaeldtinoco> hello release team, sorry to bother, I have a FFe that is important for MSSQL support (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/pacemaker/+bug/1896223) <- I have subscribed release team already. The merge request contains the feature patchset and PPA its build. thank you
[19:37] <hellsworth> bdmurray: perhaps it would be more relevant to link to the autopkgtests that were run on this package in lp before asking you all to upload it.
[19:38] <bdmurray> hellsworth: I'm not following that statement
[19:39] <hellsworth> so we have a little bit of a perfect storm here.. that ppa is gone becuase i just cleaned up my ppas and didn't think I needed this one around. so the autopkgtests that were run on it are gone
[19:40] <hellsworth> well upstream runs their tests. then debian pulls upstream. then we pull debian. so you might be able to see how it's hard to map the ubuntu exact commit to the commit tested upstream
[19:40] <hellsworth> i always run autopkgtests for all of the archs before asking marcus to upload them
[19:40] <hellsworth> unfortunately though, that ppa is gone that had the passing tests.
[19:42] <hellsworth> actually nevermind. my autopkgtest result url was wrong and the results are still there even though the ppa is gone
[19:43] <hellsworth> so i'll go ahead and add that info to the sru too
[19:43] <hellsworth> (another great thing to always add to the description)
[19:43] <rbalint> bdmurray, please merge https://code.launchpad.net/~rbalint/britney/hints-ubuntu/+merge/390633 to unblock systemd, the next upload is almost ready
[19:47] <bdmurray> Yeah, I think autopkgtest results are only deleted for EOL releases
[19:58] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-hwe [amd64] (xenial-proposed) [4.15.0-119.120~16.04.1]
[19:58] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-hwe [ppc64el] (xenial-proposed) [4.15.0-119.120~16.04.1]
[20:06] <bdmurray> rbalint: Why did you not bump the version instead of adding another version? I don't see any other hints with multiple package versions...
[20:35] <hellsworth> bdmurray: i found the libreoffice upstream ci job that did the testing for 6.4.6 as it's been submitted to your team and added it to the bug
[20:36] <hellsworth> what other information can I provide about 6.4.6?
[20:51] <bdmurray> hellsworth: Do you know why "There is not enough time for a full regression test" with bug fix releases?
[20:55] <hellsworth> i don't.. where did you see that?
[20:55] <bdmurray> https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/Testing/Regression_Tests
[20:56] <bdmurray> In the Basic Regression Test section
[20:59] <hellsworth> i see.. well after spending the last 1+ hour digging around in their jenkins instance, it's really busy. they could be limited on resources
[21:00] <bdmurray> Okay. Linking to https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/Testing/Feature_Tests doesn't seem too useful given that it is marked as inactive
[21:01] <hellsworth> good point
[21:55] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted thermald [source] (focal-proposed) [1.9.1-1ubuntu0.3]
[23:35] <vorlon> LocutusOfBorg: any idea why britney is complaining about gstreamer1.0-rtsp-dbg, libgstrtspserver-1.0-0-dbg on ppc64el s390x riscv64 but not other archs?
[23:36] <vorlon> LocutusOfBorg: the whole output looks rather suspect, britney should handle these normally as NBS packages