-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: openjfx (focal-proposed/universe) [11.0.7+0-2ubuntu1 => 11.0.7+0-5ubuntu1~20.04] (no packageset)00:03
RAOFhellsworth: For the libreoffice focal SRU, there's special code in sru-release warning refusing to release libreoffice without also releasing libreoffice-l10n.02:36
RAOFhellsworth: My investigation suggests that this is an outdated check, and that libreoffice-l10n is now no longer a separate source package, and so we should be good to release, but I'd like to check first :)02:36
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted sshuttle [source] (focal-proposed) [0.78.5-1ubuntu1.1]03:29
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: libsejda-java (focal-proposed/universe) [3.2.84-1 => 3.2.84-2~20.04] (no packageset)04:01
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: pdfsam (focal-proposed/universe) [4.0.4-1 => 4.0.4-1ubuntu2~20.04] (no packageset)04:08
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected sshuttle [source] (bionic-proposed) [0.78.3-1ubuntu1.1]04:31
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected sshuttle [source] (xenial-proposed) [0.76-1ubuntu1.1]04:32
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted sshuttle [source] (bionic-proposed) [0.78.3-1ubuntu1.1]04:34
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted sshuttle [source] (xenial-proposed) [0.76-1ubuntu1.1]04:37
LocutusOfBorgvorlon, I don't really know, it was strange to me too...06:52
dosaboyrbasak: ive hit an odd build failure for focal-proposed - https://launchpadlibrarian.net/498597149/buildlog_ubuntu-focal-amd64.neutron_2%3A16.1.0-0ubuntu2_BUILDING.txt.gz10:17
dosaboyit looks like it just timed out10:17
dosaboyis there a way to retrigger the build?10:17
LocutusOfBorgdosaboy, yes (done)10:19
dosaboyLocutusOfBorg: thanks10:20
LocutusOfBorgthanks to you10:20
LocutusOfBorgusually better directly ping the uploader for the package or the sponsor, coreycb in this case :)10:20
dosaboyLocutusOfBorg: ack will do10:21
LocutusOfBorglets see if this time the build passes10:22
iceyLocutusOfBorg: he won't be online for a couple of hours yet ;-)10:36
LocutusOfBorgnot a big deal, I just want him to be aware of the fact that somebody retried his build :) btw, there is an open Debian bug against "flaky tests" so I presume its a known problem already10:40
dokosil2100, rbalint: please can we ignore the glibc/armhf test failure to let binutils migrate? afaiu there is a glibc upload pending to ignore that test failure11:01
LocutusOfBorgdosaboy, it built, happy testing11:24
dokodjview4 (4.11-2build1 to 4.11-3)11:35
dokoMigration status for djview4 (4.11-2build1 to 4.11-3): BLOCKED: Rejected/violates migration policy/introduces a regression11:35
dokoIssues preventing migration:11:35
dokoold binaries left on ppc64el: djview-plugin (from 4.11-2build1)11:35
dokoold binaries left on s390x: djview-plugin (from 4.11-2build1)11:35
dokovorlon, Laney: trying to remove those binaries shows that they don't exist ...11:35
xnoxdoko:  hm, i do see djview-plugin in groovy-release on 5 arches, and such package doesn't exist in groovy-prosed at all (so dropped)11:57
xnoxalso djvulibre-plugin11:57
=== acheronuk is now known as RikMills
Laneyseems wrong, I'll take a look12:05
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected pulseaudio [source] (focal-proposed) [1:13.99.1-1ubuntu3.8]12:56
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-dell300x [amd64] (bionic-proposed/universe) [4.15.0-1004.6] (no packageset)13:21
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-oracle-5.4 [amd64] (bionic-proposed/main) [5.4.0-1026.26~18.04.1] (no packageset)13:21
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-gcp [amd64] (xenial-proposed/main) [4.15.0-1085.96~16.04.1] (kernel)13:21
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-gke-5.4 [amd64] (bionic-proposed/main) [5.4.0-1026.26~18.04.1] (no packageset)13:22
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-oracle [amd64] (bionic-proposed/main) [4.15.0-1055.59] (kernel)13:22
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-gkeop-5.4 [amd64] (bionic-proposed/universe) [5.4.0-1002.2] (no packageset)13:22
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-gcp-5.4 [amd64] (bionic-proposed/main) [5.4.0-1026.26~18.04.1] (no packageset)13:24
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-dell300x [amd64] (bionic-proposed) [4.15.0-1004.6]14:18
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-gke-5.4 [amd64] (bionic-proposed) [5.4.0-1026.26~18.04.1]14:18
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-oracle-5.4 [amd64] (bionic-proposed) [5.4.0-1026.26~18.04.1]14:18
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-gcp [amd64] (xenial-proposed) [4.15.0-1085.96~16.04.1]14:18
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-gcp-5.4 [amd64] (bionic-proposed) [5.4.0-1026.26~18.04.1]14:18
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-oracle [amd64] (bionic-proposed) [4.15.0-1055.59]14:18
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-gkeop-5.4 [amd64] (bionic-proposed) [5.4.0-1002.2]14:18
tdaitxbdmurray: could you please remove scilab from focal and bionic? bileto is getting confused on testing the stuff in the ppa while the packages are also in the unapproved queue14:18
tdaitxs/from focal and bionic/from focal and bionic queues/14:19
hellsworthRAOF: re libreoffice-l10n.. there is not a package called this but there are several packages for each language like libreoffice-l10n-af, libreoffice-l10n-am, etc14:21
hellsworthso if the sru code is looking for a one off libreoffice-l10n package, it doesn't exist and is an antiquated idea14:22
bdmurrayhellsworth: I'll finish off releasing libreoffice today14:33
dokoLaney: are you working on that? the alternative solution would be to remove it in the release pocket to let it migrate14:40
LaneyI went to eat some avocado on toast14:41
Laneybut now I am looking at the code14:41
Laneyand full of delicious green goo14:41
dokohappy mashing14:43
Laneycan sort of see the problem14:53
Laneybut I don't exactly know how to fix it14:53
Laneybelieve it or not it's to do with partial i38614:53
bdmurraytdaitx: Okay, keep in mind we can review it from the rejected queue so you don't necessarily need to reupload it.14:56
tdaitxbdmurray: ack, thanks for the info15:00
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected scilab [source] (bionic-proposed) [6.0.2-1ubuntu1]15:14
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected scilab [source] (focal-proposed) [6.1.0+dfsg1-1ubuntu4]15:14
sil2100Laney, bdmurray, vorlon: I'd like to request some ubuntu-release eyes on a FFe for ubuntu-image 1.10: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-image/+bug/189674415:25
ubot5Ubuntu bug 1896744 in ubuntu-image (Ubuntu Focal) "[FFe] SRU 1.10 tracking bug" [Critical,New]15:25
sil2100It's the usual thing, most changes are UC20 related15:25
seb128vorlon, launchpad hints that you are the one who did a copy of libdrm / i386 earlier today which did lead to the arch all common binary to vanish as superseeded, I opened https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/1896790 and Colin restored the binary but you might have details about what you did exactly to add to the report?15:25
ubot5Ubuntu bug 1896790 in Launchpad itself "libdrm-common binary incorrectly superseeded after an i386 copy" [Undecided,New]15:25
cjwatsonI think it was an override change rather than a copy in fact15:57
cjwatsonThough a slightly weird one, possibly inconsistent across architectures?15:57
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected gnome-shell [source] (bionic-proposed) [3.28.4-0ubuntu18.04.5]16:04
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: netplan.io (focal-proposed/main) [0.99-0ubuntu3~20.04.2 => 0.100-0ubuntu4~20.04.1] (core)16:21
Laneydoko: ok, should be fixed for the next round16:23
Laneyhoepfully I didn't break anything else, don't think so16:23
LocutusOfBorgvorlon, I *think* libdc1394-22 on i386 can be dropped, and libdc1394 should be used instead (ffmpeg switched to it)16:25
LocutusOfBorgthe library changed just name, and the new release has just two bugfixes16:26
LocutusOfBorg(I think we should for now build them both, waiting for gst-plugins-bad1.0 and vlc to do the switch, something I presume will come in the next few days)16:30
LocutusOfBorgthe switch is a matter of switching a build-dependency, nothing difficult to do, but I don't want to introduce delta16:30
bdmurrayRAOF: I don't think the check should be removed be libreoffice-l10n is still a think for bionic afaict16:44
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: gnome-shell-extension-appindicator (focal-proposed/main) [33-1 => 33.1-0ubuntu0.20.04.1] (ubuntu-desktop)16:50
hellsworthbdmurray: thanks re libreoffice17:00
bdmurrayhellsworth: no problem, I'm glad we worked through that stuff17:02
hellsworthdefinitely. and improved what future srus look like17:02
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-oem-5.6 [amd64] (focal-proposed/main) [5.6.0-1029.29] (no packageset)18:03
ijohnsonbdmurray: hi, I seem to have lost permission to assign importance to bugs in the snapd source project on LP, can you help with that? I can still assign importance to the snapd project directly, just not the ubuntu project for snapd18:06
ijohnsoni.e. I can't assign this bug for snapd to anyone or set the importance: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/snapd/+bug/187929018:07
ubot5Ubuntu bug 1879290 in linux (Ubuntu) "pc: no message on the screen for ~30s on fast HW" [Undecided,Incomplete]18:07
bdmurrayijohnson: That's the snapd source package18:08
ijohnsonbdmurray: right18:09
bdmurrayijohnson: okay you'd said snpad source project previously and I just trying to make sure we are using the same terms18:10
ijohnsonsorry yes I need access to set bug things on the snapd source package18:10
bdmurrayI don't know how long ago this happened but the snappy-dev team expired from the ubuntu-bugcontrol and an admin or the owner of the snappy dev team needs to accept the invite to join ubuntu-bugcontrol18:11
ijohnsonbdmurray: ah ok, I will ask mvo to look at that tomorrow thanks18:12
bdmurraylet me know if it gets sorted and I'll make sure snappy-dev doesn't expire18:12
ijohnsonack, thanks for checking18:13
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-oem-5.6 [amd64] (focal-proposed) [5.6.0-1029.29]18:23
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: gnome-shell (bionic-proposed/main) [3.28.4-0ubuntu18.04.3 => 3.28.4-0ubuntu18.04.6] (desktop-extra, mozilla, ubuntu-desktop)18:23
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: livecd-rootfs (focal-proposed/main) [2.664.6 => 2.664.7] (desktop-core, i386-whitelist)18:40
bdmurraysil2100: I've added more SRU information to bug 1894919 if you could have a look.19:15
ubot5bug 1894919 in ubuntu-release-upgrader (Ubuntu Focal) "gnome-software-plugin-snap consider an unwanted removal for 20.04 ubuntu-desktop" [Undecided,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/189491919:15
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: mutter (bionic-proposed/main) [3.28.4+git20200505-0ubuntu18.04.1 => 3.28.4+git20200505-0ubuntu18.04.2] (desktop-extra, ubuntu-desktop)19:36
Trevinhosil2100: hey, I've finally found the root cause of mutter not compiling anymore in bionic, so I've uploaded a new version ^^, can you maybe look at that (given it was already approved)?19:39
tdaitxbdmurray: I am satisfied with the builds for scilab and I have updated bug 1870813 last night, I would appreciate if you have any further feedback before we get it back from the rejected queue19:47
ubot5bug 1870813 in scilab (Ubuntu Focal) "Scilab does not start on bionic and focal" [High,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/187081319:47
tdaitxsil2100: ^ fiy since you worked on the openjdk 11 transition in bionic (this is about fixing a regression from an later openjdk-11 security update)19:48
tdaitxbdmurray: it's not urgent, so peek at it when you have the time ;-)19:50
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: cryptsetup (bionic-proposed/main) [2:2.0.2-1ubuntu1.1 => 2:2.0.2-1ubuntu1.2] (core)19:56
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: cryptsetup (focal-proposed/main) [2:2.2.2-3ubuntu2.2 => 2:2.2.2-3ubuntu2.3] (core, i386-whitelist)19:57
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: mutter (focal-proposed/main) [3.36.6-1ubuntu0.20.04.1 => 3.36.6-1ubuntu0.20.04.2] (desktop-core, desktop-extra)20:08
Trevinhobdmurray: we got a sru-regression due to some merge issue it seems in latest mutter, I've uploaded a fixup ^20:19
vorlonhttps://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/nbs.html shows some revdep cleanup is needed for the gst transition20:20
vorlonLocutusOfBorg: libdc1394> can you point me specifically to what is dependent on libdc1394 being available on i386?20:24
vorlonseb128, cjwatson: I was processing https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/priority-mismatches.html and thus demoting libdrm-common/libdrm2 to priority: optional; I guess this confuses launchpad due to having a different per-arch priority on an arch: all package (libdrm-common)?20:27
vorlonLaney: what did you have to change to fix the "out of date on {ppc64el,riscv64,s390x}" problem?20:29
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted ubuntu-release-upgrader [source] (bionic-proposed) [1:18.04.39]20:41
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted ubuntu-release-upgrader [source] (xenial-proposed) [1:16.04.31]20:42
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: zlib (focal-proposed/main) [1:1.2.11.dfsg-2ubuntu1 => 1:1.2.11.dfsg-2ubuntu1.1] (core, i386-whitelist)20:43
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted livecd-rootfs [source] (xenial-proposed) [2.408.60]20:45
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: initramfs-tools (bionic-proposed/main) [0.130ubuntu3.10 => 0.130ubuntu3.11] (core)21:01
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: initramfs-tools (xenial-proposed/main) [0.122ubuntu8.16 => 0.122ubuntu8.17] (core)21:01
tdaitxper robie's comment, please remove openjfx 11.0.7+0-5ubuntu1~20.04 from the queue, I will rework it and do another upload21:13
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected openjfx [source] (focal-proposed) [11.0.7+0-5ubuntu1~20.04]21:16
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: mediathekview (bionic-proposed/universe) [13.0.6-1 => 13.0.6-3~18.04] (no packageset) (sync)21:50
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted mutter [source] (focal-proposed) [3.36.6-1ubuntu0.20.04.2]22:13

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!