[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] <RAOF> 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] <RAOF> hellsworth: My investigation suggests that this is an outdated check, and that libreoffice-l10n is now no longer a separate source package, and so we should be good to release, but I'd like to check first :)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] <LocutusOfBorg> vorlon, I don't really know, it was strange to me too...
[10:17] <dosaboy> 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] <dosaboy> it looks like it just timed out
[10:17] <dosaboy> is there a way to retrigger the build?
[10:19] <LocutusOfBorg> dosaboy, yes (done)
[10:20] <dosaboy> LocutusOfBorg: thanks
[10:20] <LocutusOfBorg> thanks to you
[10:20] <LocutusOfBorg> usually better directly ping the uploader for the package or the sponsor, coreycb in this case :)
[10:21] <dosaboy> LocutusOfBorg: ack will do
[10:22] <LocutusOfBorg> lets see if this time the build passes
[10:36] <icey> LocutusOfBorg: he won't be online for a couple of hours yet ;-)
[10:40] <LocutusOfBorg> 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] <doko> 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] <LocutusOfBorg> dosaboy, it built, happy testing
[11:35] <doko> djview4 (4.11-2build1 to 4.11-3)
[11:35] <doko> Migration status for djview4 (4.11-2build1 to 4.11-3): BLOCKED: Rejected/violates migration policy/introduces a regression
[11:35] <doko> Issues preventing migration:
[11:35] <doko> old binaries left on ppc64el: djview-plugin (from 4.11-2build1)
[11:35] <doko> old binaries left on s390x: djview-plugin (from 4.11-2build1)
[11:35] <doko> vorlon, Laney: trying to remove those binaries shows that they don't exist ...
[11:57] <xnox> 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] <xnox> also djvulibre-plugin
[12:05] <Laney> 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] <tdaitx> 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] <tdaitx> thanks!
[14:19] <tdaitx> s/from focal and bionic/from focal and bionic queues/
[14:21] <hellsworth> 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] <hellsworth> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libreoffice
[14:22] <hellsworth> 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] <bdmurray> hellsworth: I'll finish off releasing libreoffice today
[14:40] <doko> Laney: are you working on that? the alternative solution would be to remove it in the release pocket to let it migrate
[14:40] <Laney> yeah
[14:41] <Laney> I went to eat some avocado on toast
[14:41] <Laney> but now I am looking at the code
[14:41] <Laney> and full of delicious green goo
[14:43] <doko> happy mashing
[14:53] <Laney> can sort of see the problem
[14:53] <Laney> but I don't exactly know how to fix it
[14:53] <Laney> believe it or not it's to do with partial i386
[14:56] <bdmurray> tdaitx: Okay, keep in mind we can review it from the rejected queue so you don't necessarily need to reupload it.
[15:00] <tdaitx> 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] <sil2100> 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] <sil2100> It's the usual thing, most changes are UC20 related
[15:25] <seb128> 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?
[15:57] <cjwatson> I think it was an override change rather than a copy in fact
[15:57] <cjwatson> 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] <Laney> doko: ok, should be fixed for the next round
[16:23] <Laney> hoepfully I didn't break anything else, don't think so
[16:25] <LocutusOfBorg> vorlon, I *think* libdc1394-22 on i386 can be dropped, and libdc1394 should be used instead (ffmpeg switched to it)
[16:26] <LocutusOfBorg> the library changed just name, and the new release has just two bugfixes
[16:30] <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] <LocutusOfBorg> the switch is a matter of switching a build-dependency, nothing difficult to do, but I don't want to introduce delta
[16:44] <bdmurray> RAOF: I don't think the check should be removed be libreoffice-l10n is still a think for bionic afaict
[16:44] <bdmurray> *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] <hellsworth> bdmurray: thanks re libreoffice
[17:02] <bdmurray> hellsworth: no problem, I'm glad we worked through that stuff
[17:02] <hellsworth> 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] <ijohnson> 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] <ijohnson> 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
[18:08] <bdmurray> ijohnson: That's the snapd source package
[18:09] <ijohnson> bdmurray: right
[18:10] <bdmurray> ijohnson: okay you'd said snpad source project previously and I just trying to make sure we are using the same terms
[18:10] <ijohnson> sorry yes I need access to set bug things on the snapd source package
[18:11] <bdmurray> 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] <ijohnson> bdmurray: ah ok, I will ask mvo to look at that tomorrow thanks
[18:12] <bdmurray> let me know if it gets sorted and I'll make sure snappy-dev doesn't expire
[18:13] <ijohnson> 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] <bdmurray> sil2100: I've added more SRU information to bug 1894919 if you could have a look.
[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] <Trevinho> 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] <tdaitx> 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
[19:48] <tdaitx> 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] <tdaitx> 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] <Trevinho> bdmurray: we got a sru-regression due to some merge issue it seems in latest mutter, I've uploaded a fixup ^
[20:20] <vorlon> https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/nbs.html shows some revdep cleanup is needed for the gst transition
[20:24] <vorlon> LocutusOfBorg: libdc1394> can you point me specifically to what is dependent on libdc1394 being available on i386?
[20:27] <vorlon> 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] <vorlon> 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] <tdaitx> 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]