[00:03] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: openjfx (focal-proposed/universe) [11.0.7+0-2ubuntu1 => 11.0.7+0-5ubuntu1~20.04] (no packageset) [02:36] hellsworth: For the libreoffice focal SRU, there's special code in sru-release warning refusing to release libreoffice without also releasing libreoffice-l10n. [02:36] hellsworth: My investigation suggests that this is an outdated check, and that libreoffice-l10n is now no longer a separate source package, and so we should be good to release, but I'd like to check first :) [03:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted sshuttle [source] (focal-proposed) [0.78.5-1ubuntu1.1] [04:01] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: libsejda-java (focal-proposed/universe) [3.2.84-1 => 3.2.84-2~20.04] (no packageset) [04:08] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: pdfsam (focal-proposed/universe) [4.0.4-1 => 4.0.4-1ubuntu2~20.04] (no packageset) [04:31] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected sshuttle [source] (bionic-proposed) [0.78.3-1ubuntu1.1] [04:32] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected sshuttle [source] (xenial-proposed) [0.76-1ubuntu1.1] [04:34] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted sshuttle [source] (bionic-proposed) [0.78.3-1ubuntu1.1] [04:37] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted sshuttle [source] (xenial-proposed) [0.76-1ubuntu1.1] [06:52] vorlon, I don't really know, it was strange to me too... [10:17] rbasak: 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.gz [10:17] it looks like it just timed out [10:17] is there a way to retrigger the build? [10:19] dosaboy, yes (done) [10:20] LocutusOfBorg: thanks [10:20] thanks to you [10:20] usually better directly ping the uploader for the package or the sponsor, coreycb in this case :) [10:21] LocutusOfBorg: ack will do [10:22] lets see if this time the build passes [10:36] LocutusOfBorg: he won't be online for a couple of hours yet ;-) [10:40] not 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 already [11:01] sil2100, 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 failure [11:24] dosaboy, it built, happy testing [11:35] djview4 (4.11-2build1 to 4.11-3) [11:35] Migration status for djview4 (4.11-2build1 to 4.11-3): BLOCKED: Rejected/violates migration policy/introduces a regression [11:35] Issues preventing migration: [11:35] old binaries left on ppc64el: djview-plugin (from 4.11-2build1) [11:35] old binaries left on s390x: djview-plugin (from 4.11-2build1) [11:35] vorlon, Laney: trying to remove those binaries shows that they don't exist ... [11:57] doko: 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] also djvulibre-plugin === acheronuk is now known as RikMills [12:05] seems wrong, I'll take a look [12:56] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected pulseaudio [source] (focal-proposed) [1:13.99.1-1ubuntu3.8] [13:21] -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) [13:22] -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) [13:24] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-gcp-5.4 [amd64] (bionic-proposed/main) [5.4.0-1026.26~18.04.1] (no packageset) [14:18] -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] bdmurray: 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 queue [14:18] thanks! [14:19] s/from focal and bionic/from focal and bionic queues/ [14:21] RAOF: 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, etc [14:21] https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libreoffice [14:22] so if the sru code is looking for a one off libreoffice-l10n package, it doesn't exist and is an antiquated idea [14:33] hellsworth: I'll finish off releasing libreoffice today [14:40] Laney: are you working on that? the alternative solution would be to remove it in the release pocket to let it migrate [14:40] yeah [14:41] I went to eat some avocado on toast [14:41] but now I am looking at the code [14:41] and full of delicious green goo [14:43] happy mashing [14:53] can sort of see the problem [14:53] but I don't exactly know how to fix it [14:53] believe it or not it's to do with partial i386 [14:56] tdaitx: Okay, keep in mind we can review it from the rejected queue so you don't necessarily need to reupload it. [15:00] bdmurray: ack, thanks for the info [15:14] -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] [15:25] Laney, 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/1896744 [15:25] Ubuntu bug 1896744 in ubuntu-image (Ubuntu Focal) "[FFe] SRU 1.10 tracking bug" [Critical,New] [15:25] It's the usual thing, most changes are UC20 related [15:25] vorlon, 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] Ubuntu bug 1896790 in Launchpad itself "libdrm-common binary incorrectly superseeded after an i386 copy" [Undecided,New] [15:57] I think it was an override change rather than a copy in fact [15:57] Though a slightly weird one, possibly inconsistent across architectures? [16:04] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected gnome-shell [source] (bionic-proposed) [3.28.4-0ubuntu18.04.5] [16:21] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: netplan.io (focal-proposed/main) [0.99-0ubuntu3~20.04.2 => 0.100-0ubuntu4~20.04.1] (core) [16:23] doko: ok, should be fixed for the next round [16:23] hoepfully I didn't break anything else, don't think so [16:25] vorlon, I *think* libdc1394-22 on i386 can be dropped, and libdc1394 should be used instead (ffmpeg switched to it) [16:26] the library changed just name, and the new release has just two bugfixes [16:30] (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] the switch is a matter of switching a build-dependency, nothing difficult to do, but I don't want to introduce delta [16:44] RAOF: I don't think the check should be removed be libreoffice-l10n is still a think for bionic afaict [16:44] *because [16:50] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: gnome-shell-extension-appindicator (focal-proposed/main) [33-1 => 33.1-0ubuntu0.20.04.1] (ubuntu-desktop) [17:00] bdmurray: thanks re libreoffice [17:02] hellsworth: no problem, I'm glad we worked through that stuff [17:02] definitely. and improved what future srus look like [18:03] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-oem-5.6 [amd64] (focal-proposed/main) [5.6.0-1029.29] (no packageset) [18:06] bdmurray: 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 snapd [18:07] i.e. I can't assign this bug for snapd to anyone or set the importance: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/snapd/+bug/1879290 [18:07] Ubuntu bug 1879290 in linux (Ubuntu) "pc: no message on the screen for ~30s on fast HW" [Undecided,Incomplete] [18:08] ijohnson: That's the snapd source package [18:09] bdmurray: right [18:10] ijohnson: okay you'd said snpad source project previously and I just trying to make sure we are using the same terms [18:10] sorry yes I need access to set bug things on the snapd source package [18:11] I 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-bugcontrol [18:12] bdmurray: ah ok, I will ask mvo to look at that tomorrow thanks [18:12] let me know if it gets sorted and I'll make sure snappy-dev doesn't expire [18:13] ack, thanks for checking [18:23] -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) [18:40] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: livecd-rootfs (focal-proposed/main) [2.664.6 => 2.664.7] (desktop-core, i386-whitelist) [19:15] sil2100: I've added more SRU information to bug 1894919 if you could have a look. [19:15] bug 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/1894919 [19:36] -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) [19:39] sil2100: 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)? [19:47] bdmurray: 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 queue [19:47] bug 1870813 in scilab (Ubuntu Focal) "Scilab does not start on bionic and focal" [High,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1870813 [19:48] sil2100: ^ fiy since you worked on the openjdk 11 transition in bionic (this is about fixing a regression from an later openjdk-11 security update) [19:50] bdmurray: it's not urgent, so peek at it when you have the time ;-) [19:56] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: cryptsetup (bionic-proposed/main) [2:2.0.2-1ubuntu1.1 => 2:2.0.2-1ubuntu1.2] (core) [19:57] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: cryptsetup (focal-proposed/main) [2:2.2.2-3ubuntu2.2 => 2:2.2.2-3ubuntu2.3] (core, i386-whitelist) [20:08] -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) [20:19] bdmurray: we got a sru-regression due to some merge issue it seems in latest mutter, I've uploaded a fixup ^ [20:20] https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/nbs.html shows some revdep cleanup is needed for the gst transition [20:24] LocutusOfBorg: libdc1394> can you point me specifically to what is dependent on libdc1394 being available on i386? [20:27] seb128, 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)? [20:29] Laney: what did you have to change to fix the "out of date on {ppc64el,riscv64,s390x}" problem? [20:41] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted ubuntu-release-upgrader [source] (bionic-proposed) [1:18.04.39] [20:42] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted ubuntu-release-upgrader [source] (xenial-proposed) [1:16.04.31] [20:43] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: zlib (focal-proposed/main) [1:1.2.11.dfsg-2ubuntu1 => 1:1.2.11.dfsg-2ubuntu1.1] (core, i386-whitelist) [20:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted livecd-rootfs [source] (xenial-proposed) [2.408.60] [21:01] -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) [21:13] per robie's comment, please remove openjfx 11.0.7+0-5ubuntu1~20.04 from the queue, I will rework it and do another upload [21:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected openjfx [source] (focal-proposed) [11.0.7+0-5ubuntu1~20.04] [21:50] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: mediathekview (bionic-proposed/universe) [13.0.6-1 => 13.0.6-3~18.04] (no packageset) (sync) [22:13] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted mutter [source] (focal-proposed) [3.36.6-1ubuntu0.20.04.2]