[03:19] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: update-motd (focal-proposed/main) [3.6-0ubuntu6 => 3.6-0ubuntu6.1] (core)
[03:40] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: openjfx (focal-proposed/universe) [11.0.7+0-2ubuntu1 => 11.0.7+0-2ubuntu2] (no packageset) (sync)
[04:30] <amurray> Laney bdmurray sil2100: would someone from the release team be able to take a look at iptables FFe bug https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/iptables/+bug/1894195 ? thanks :)
[04:30] <ubot5> Ubuntu bug 1894195 in iptables (Ubuntu) "FFe: Merge iptables 1.8.5-3 (main) from Debian sid (main)" [Undecided,New]
[04:49] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: libfprint (focal-proposed/main) [1:1.90.2+tod1-0ubuntu1~20.04.1 => 1:1.90.2+tod1-0ubuntu1~20.04.2] (desktop-core, ubuntu-desktop)
[05:08] <rafaeldtinoco> Sorry to bother release team. I need FFe for https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/pacemaker/+bug/1896223 and Im just highlighting that because next week I'm likely moving into new job role for some months and I would like to guarantee the upload, if possible, before that happens. Thanks for understanding and sorry for the rush, I know you're
[05:08] <rafaeldtinoco> all very busy.
[05:08] <ubot5> Ubuntu bug 1896223 in pacemaker (Ubuntu) "[FFe] this is the no-quorum-policy feature (specially for mssql sevrer)" [High,New]
[06:14] <LocutusOfBorg> vorlon, libdc1394 took over the -dev packages from libdc1394-22, so I presume everything (e.g. opencv, gst-plugins-bad1.0, ffmpeg) now needs it
[06:15] <LocutusOfBorg> I plan to do the no change rebuilds so we can remove libdc1394-22 from i386
[06:15] <LocutusOfBorg> right now ffmpeg is waiting for it
[06:21] <LocutusOfBorg> debian already did the rebulds
[06:43] <LocutusOfBorg> I issued rebuilds
[07:35] <sil2100> Hello! Can I get an ubuntu-release member to take a look at my ubuntu-image FFe? https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-image/+bug/1896744
[07:35] <ubot5> Ubuntu bug 1896744 in ubuntu-image (Ubuntu Focal) "[FFe] SRU 1.10 tracking bug" [Critical,New]
[07:59] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: gnome-flashback (focal-proposed/universe) [3.36.4-0ubuntu1 => 3.36.4-0ubuntu2] (edubuntu)
[08:00] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: gnome-flashback (bionic-proposed/universe) [3.28.0-1ubuntu1.4 => 3.28.0-1ubuntu1.5] (edubuntu)
[08:00] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: gnome-flashback (focal-proposed/universe) [3.36.4-0ubuntu1 => 3.36.4-0ubuntu1.1] (edubuntu)
[08:01] <Mirv> ^ please remove the focal with wrong SRU version ubuntu2
[08:03] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected gnome-flashback [source] (focal-proposed) [3.36.4-0ubuntu2]
[08:04] <Laney> vorlon: In _merge_binaries() I made oodarchs [sic?] a dict keyed by arch. It was deciding that the package was out of date on i386 (correctly I guess, arch:all binary) and merging those binaries into -proposed. But then this was carrying over to all the later arches, and so the dropped binaries for those were merged into proposed too, which made them show up as NBS in proposed.
[08:05] <Laney> I've been doing fixups, because eventually I'll be submitting most of this stuff upstream, and it's easier if the commits are already close to that state
[08:31] <sil2100> cpaelzer: hey! Looking at the libvirt focal SRU right now - you think we could get IBM's -proposed package verification in the nearest time, or you think this what we got is the best we can count for?
[08:35] <Laney> sil2100: I'll look at ubuntu-image for you now, was hoping someone else would :P
[08:37] <Laney> is it possible to run that test case before uploading or does it need to be a PROPOSED=1 build?
[08:38] <apw> Laney, out-of-date-archs ?
[08:42] <Laney> apw: seems unlikely as a python variable name :p
[08:42] <apw> :) it is rather short for python that is for sure
[08:42] <Laney> https://git.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-release/britney/+git/britney2-ubuntu/tree/britney2/inputs/suiteloader.py#n244
[08:42] <Laney> oodsrcs!
[08:55] <sil2100> Laney: you mean the ubuntu-image test case?
[08:56] <Laney> yus
[08:56] <Laney> in the bug description
[08:56] <cpaelzer> sil2100: I don't think we can expect them verifying it again anytime soon
[08:56] <Laney> basically I want to say to you 'have you run that for groovy?'
[08:56] <Laney> but then I thought you might say no, that has to be done in the archive
[08:56] <Laney> :>
[08:56] <cpaelzer> sil2100: I did the x86 bits tha I could, but that particular s390x featu they look for isn't enabled on our box
[08:57] <sil2100> Laney: hah, ubuntu-image is just a set of python scripts and as mentioned, this change is already in the snap - so yeah, I did run it and I don't think it matters that it wasn't run against packages in the archive
[08:59] <Laney> mmm ok
[08:59] <sil2100> cpaelzer: hm hmm, ok, tricky then, I wouldn't want this SRU to just idle for too long because of this
[08:59] <Laney> that bit is a bit confusing to be honest, all the bits about some stuff being distro patched
[08:59] <Laney> it made me think it's not clear what is actually changing in this ffe upload
[08:59] <sil2100> cpaelzer: how big you think the risk of the PPA packages giving different results from the ones in the archive is?
[09:00] <apw> (are they copied with binaries or without)
[09:01] <sil2100> Laney: I might have written that a bit confusing ;p Since I guess the only things that are already in the archive are the dep-changes for fdisk, a test-fix and some flake8 compliance fixes
[09:02] <sil2100> Those are also in 1.10, but were distro-patched in the archive already - all the 'new features' are specific to the 1.10 upload
[09:02] <cpaelzer> sil2100: on the s390x side I'm less concerned
[09:02] <cpaelzer> sil2100: if anything I'm more concerned about missing an unexpected effect on x86
[09:02] <cpaelzer> sil2100: which I didn't find, but that does not mean it does not exist
[09:03] <cpaelzer> sil2100: yet the missing s390x verification wouldn't help with that anyway :-/
[09:06] <vorlon> LocutusOfBorg: thanks for the clarification, libdc1394/i386 triggered now
[09:07] <vorlon> Laney: ok. I'm wondering if somehow this change has anything to do with https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/proposed-migration/groovy_uninst.txt suddenly showing pm-utils as uninstallable, even though its single dependency exists... not sure what else changed that would cause this
[09:08] <vorlon> seb128, Laney: would someone follow through on the updates needed for gst doc package removals? https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/nbs.html
[09:17] <Laney> vorlon: it looks right, pm-utils is uninstallable in a chroot for me
[09:18] <vorlon> hmm, wasn't when I tested earlier
[09:18] <Laney> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/groovy/amd64/powermgmt-base
[09:18] <Laney> wat
[09:18]  * vorlon double-checks
[09:18] <vorlon> wut
[09:19] <Laney> and ack on gstreamer, I was just reminded of that too by some conversations in #debian-gnome
[09:20] <cjwatson> powermgmt-base> This is another instance of bug 1896790 (compare https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/groovy/i386/powermgmt-base).  What's with all these single-architecture priority changes?
[09:20] <ubot5> bug 1896790 in Launchpad itself "libdrm-common binary incorrectly superseeded after an i386 copy" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1896790
[09:20] <Laney> ah yes, of course. I'll copy it back
[09:21] <Laney> can we detect other instances of this proactively?
[09:21] <cjwatson> vorlon, please hold off on any further single-arch priority changes until we figure out what's going on here
[09:22] <cjwatson> I'm not sure, it's rather hard to detect and I couldn't think of a straightforward way to do it yesterday.  But I suppose I can think harder
[09:22] <cjwatson> Anything to do with the dominator algorithm always takes me a run-up
[09:23] <Laney> Might be easiest for vorlon to check shell history
[09:24] <vorlon> ah yes, powermgmt-base was also in the list of priority mismatches for i386 (and I had changed it at the same time as libdrm-common)
[09:24] <vorlon> I will definitely hold off
[09:25] <vorlon> based on shell history, I believe those should be the only two packages affected
[09:25] <cjwatson> (I think it's only single-arch override changes of Architecture: all packages, but that's slightly guesswork)
[09:25] <vorlon> yeah there were 9 packages that got overridden, only the two arch: all ones had problems
[09:26] <Laney> should be coming back now
[09:34] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Packageset: Removed libcdaudio from i386-whitelist in groovy
[09:34] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Packageset: Removed libusrsctp from i386-whitelist in groovy
[09:34] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Packageset: Added libdc1394 to i386-whitelist in groovy
[09:34] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Packageset: Added qttranslations-opensource-src to i386-whitelist in groovy
[09:55] <dgadomski> sil2100: hi, could you please take a look at initramfs-tools in x/b upload queues and cryptsetup in b/f if you have a moment?
[10:24] <sil2100> dgadomski: sure! Will do after lunch
[10:24] <dgadomski> great, thank you
[11:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-azure-4.15 [amd64] (bionic-proposed/main) [4.15.0-1097.107] (no packageset)
[11:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed [ppc64el] (groovy-proposed/main) [5.8.0-20.21] (core, kernel)
[11:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed [amd64] (groovy-proposed/main) [5.8.0-20.21] (core, kernel)
[11:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed [s390x] (groovy-proposed/main) [5.8.0-20.21] (core, kernel)
[11:31] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed [arm64] (groovy-proposed/main) [5.8.0-20.21] (core, kernel)
[11:36] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed [amd64] (groovy-proposed) [5.8.0-20.21]
[11:36] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed [ppc64el] (groovy-proposed) [5.8.0-20.21]
[11:36] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed [arm64] (groovy-proposed) [5.8.0-20.21]
[11:36] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed [s390x] (groovy-proposed) [5.8.0-20.21]
[11:36] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-azure-4.15 [amd64] (bionic-proposed) [4.15.0-1097.107]
[11:50] <Trevinho> sil2100: hey, have you seen my ping about that mutter FTBFS in bionic? No need to do it now, just to know... :)
[11:58] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: mdadm (focal-proposed/main) [4.1-5ubuntu1 => 4.1-5ubuntu1.1] (core, i386-whitelist)
[12:44] <teward> rbasak: and AAs/SRU: SRU for sup-mail https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/sup-mail/+bug/1888749 has been in NEW since July, if you want to go poking.
[12:44] <ubot5> Ubuntu bug 1888749 in sup-mail (Ubuntu Focal) "sup-mail broken and unusable after Bionic to Focal upgrade" [Medium,In progress]
[12:45] <teward> (rbasak prodded in -motu RE: it so I thought i'd poke again)
[13:04] <sil2100> Trevinho: hey! Might have missed it! Was that today, or older?
[13:04] <Trevinho> sil2100: last night
[13:08] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: ubuntu-image (bionic-proposed/main) [1.9+18.04ubuntu1 => 1.10+18.04ubuntu1] (desktop-core)
[13:08] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: ubuntu-image (xenial-proposed/main) [1.9+16.04ubuntu1 => 1.10+16.04ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[13:09] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: ubuntu-image (focal-proposed/main) [1.9+20.04ubuntu1 => 1.10+20.04ubuntu1] (desktop-core)
[13:10] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: mdadm (focal-proposed/main) [4.1-5ubuntu1 => 4.1-5ubuntu1.1] (core, i386-whitelist)
=== seb128_ is now known as seb128
[13:30] <sil2100> juliank: hey! We have a shim/shim-signed combo in -proposed right now, I see all the bugs for shim-signed verified, but the shim one is not - but also I don't see any test case there
[13:31] <sil2100> juliank: do you remember what's the story with that one?
[13:31] <juliank> sil2100: that was the regression in the 0ubuntu1 that got fixed in 0ubuntu2 but did not affect old releases
[13:32] <juliank> sil2100: now we can't really test that sensibly, as it was a path lookup/parsing gone wrong, and you need actual fwupd binaries to test it. However: the binaries are the same in all releases, so we checked it against groovy
[13:32] <juliank> sil2100: But: Should we also check whether loading those fwupd EFI binaries of older releases work even though that was not what the bug was about?
[13:36] <sil2100> cpaelzer: oh, uh, actually! Re: libvirt, doesn't comment #28 actually indicate testing using the -proposed packages?
[13:40] <sil2100> juliank: hm, no, I think that won't be necessary
[13:40] <sil2100> Ok, thank for clearing things out for me then
[13:44] <cpaelzer> sil2100: es #20 was on the PPA and #28 on -proposed
[13:44] <cpaelzer> so yes
[13:53] <LocutusOfBorg> doko, I syncd pypdf2, no reverse dependencies for python2 binding...
[13:56] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted initramfs-tools [source] (bionic-proposed) [0.130ubuntu3.11]
[13:59] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted initramfs-tools [source] (xenial-proposed) [0.122ubuntu8.17]
[14:03] <Trevinho> apw: any luck you can merge https://code.launchpad.net/~3v1n0/ubuntu-archive-tools/sru-review-bileto-support/+merge/364193 ? :)
[14:05] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: bolt (focal-proposed/main) [0.8-4 => 0.8-4ubuntu1] (desktop-core, ubuntu-server)
[14:06] <sil2100> cpaelzer: \o/
[14:17] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: python2.7 (focal-proposed/universe) [2.7.18~rc1-2 => 2.7.18-1~20.04] (i386-whitelist, kubuntu) (sync)
[14:24] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: gcc-9-cross-mipsen (focal-proposed/universe) [4+c2ubuntu2 => 4+c2ubuntu2.1] (no packageset) (sync)
[14:25] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: gcc-10-cross-mipsen (focal-proposed/universe) [2+c1 => 2+c1ubuntu1.1] (no packageset) (sync)
[14:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected mdadm [source] (focal-proposed) [4.1-5ubuntu1.1]
[14:32] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: gnome-clocks (focal-proposed/universe) [3.36.0-1ubuntu0.2 => 3.36.2-1~ubuntu20.04.1] (desktop-extra)
[14:40] <bdmurray> sil2100: What do you think about the verification of bug 1894919 now?
[14:40] <ubot5> 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
[14:41] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-azure [amd64] (groovy-proposed/main) [5.8.0-1006.6] (core, kernel)
[14:41] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-gcp [amd64] (groovy-proposed/main) [5.8.0-1004.4] (core, kernel)
[14:42] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-oracle [amd64] (groovy-proposed/main) [5.8.0-1003.3] (core, kernel)
[14:43] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-azure [amd64] (groovy-proposed) [5.8.0-1006.6]
[14:43] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-oracle [amd64] (groovy-proposed) [5.8.0-1003.3]
[14:43] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-gcp [amd64] (groovy-proposed) [5.8.0-1004.4]
[14:45] <bdmurray> cjwatson: Could you look at the moderation queue for the ubuntu-release mailing list?
[14:49] <Laney> ah
[14:50] <Laney> I was going to ask around for the password for that list yesterday
[14:50] <Laney> Trevinh_o sent a mail that I would have moderated
[14:50] <Laney> maybe it could be shared about?
[14:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted mdadm [source] (focal-proposed) [4.1-5ubuntu1.1]
[14:56] <sil2100> bdmurray: looking!
[14:59] <juliank> sil2100: I marked the shim one as verified now and added a comment explaining why
[15:01] <sil2100> juliank: excellent! Will deal with it after the meeting
[15:01] <cjwatson> bdmurray: done
[15:01] <cjwatson> Laney: added you to the list, will MM you the password
[15:01] <Laney> cjwatson: Merci
[15:24] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: gnome-control-center (focal-proposed/main) [1:3.36.4-0ubuntu1 => 1:3.36.4-0ubuntu2] (ubuntu-desktop)
[15:24] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted python2.7 [sync] (focal-proposed) [2.7.18-1~20.04]
[15:26] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted gcc-9-cross-mipsen [sync] (focal-proposed) [4+c2ubuntu2.1]
[15:27] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted gcc-10-cross-mipsen [sync] (focal-proposed) [2+c1ubuntu1.1]
[15:43] <juliank> Laney: (less often) baseline retesting for stable releases, does that make sense?
[15:43] <juliank> just a thought that popped into my mind right this second
[15:45] <Laney> feels like it probably does
[15:47] <Laney> I wonder how long it'll take to chew through, but it could make sense to try to do a round right after release, before accepting any SRUs
[15:57] <bdmurray> sil2100: so about that bug verification. ;-)
[16:24] <sil2100> bdmurray: yes! Just need this meeting to finish :)
[16:24] <sil2100> (on which you are not!)
[16:35] <LocutusOfBorg> vorlon, if you want... https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=963924
[16:35] <ubot5> Debian bug 963924 in ftp.debian.org "RM: libdc1394-22 -- RoQA; Superseeded by libdc1394" [Normal,Open]
[16:35] <LocutusOfBorg> so we remove one i386 package :p
[16:35] <LocutusOfBorg> stuff is migrating in a britney run or two
[16:36] <LocutusOfBorg> not yet removed in Debian but should be kicked out
[16:37] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New sync: sagemath (groovy-proposed/primary) [9.2~beta12-1]
[16:39] <tjaalton> who has the power to handle updates to partner repos? AA's?
[16:44] <sil2100> tjaalton: not sure if there's not some special team for that, I have the power if anything
[16:44] <sil2100> bdmurray: hm hmm
[16:50] <bdmurray> sil2100: So I guess the really weird thing is in comment #9 where those 3 packages were kept after the upgrade
[16:51] <bdmurray> sil2100: So those could end up being cruft that is carried around between upgrades
[16:51] <tjaalton> sil2100: there are some flashplugin updates on the xenial/bionic/focal queues, been there for a long time now..
[16:51] <bdmurray> sil2100: And there could be more cruft depending on the package set you have installed
[16:56] <sil2100> bdmurray: yeah, makes me a bit worried to be honest
[16:57] <bdmurray> sil2100: Okay, let's remove it and I'l just release note the 'apt autoremove' having stuff to do issue
[17:00] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted adobe-flashplugin [source] (focal-proposed) [1:20200714.1-0ubuntu0.20.04.1]
[17:01] <sil2100> Since it just leaving stuff for later autoremoval would be fine, like what we discussed yesterday - but this is just weird, since packages are suddenly not autoremovable even though they were before
[17:01] <sil2100> bdmurray: +1 on that, sadly :<
[17:01] <sil2100> tjaalton: ok, accepting those
[17:02] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted adobe-flashplugin [source] (bionic-proposed) [1:20200714.1-0ubuntu0.18.04.1]
[17:03] <sil2100> bdmurray: while we're talking about SRUs, there's a few juicy ubuntu-image ones for focal, bionic and xenial
[17:04] <bdmurray> sil2100: are you trying to cut the line?
[17:06] <sil2100> ...sorry!
[17:08] <LocutusOfBorg> xnox, klibc... is it syncable?
[17:08] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected adobe-flashplugin [source] (xenial-proposed) [1:20200114.1-0ubuntu0.16.04.1]
[17:08] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted adobe-flashplugin [source] (xenial-proposed) [1:20200714.1-0ubuntu0.16.04.1]
[17:11] <tjaalton> sil2100: thanks, makes the list easier on the eye :)
[17:12] <bdmurray> now only if those backports could go somewhere
[17:15] <tjaalton> exactly
=== ijohnson is now known as ijohnson|lunch
=== ijohnson|lunch is now known as ijohnson
[18:57] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: file-roller (focal-proposed/main) [3.36.2-0ubuntu1 => 3.36.3-0ubuntu1] (ubuntu-desktop)
[19:42] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: cheese (focal-proposed/main) [3.34.0-1build1 => 3.34.0-1ubuntu1] (desktop-core, desktop-extra)
[19:43] <rbasak> tjaalton, sil2100: it's ~canonical-partner-dev that can upload to partner
[19:43] <rbasak> As listed at https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/ anyway
[19:43] <rbasak> Steve, Lukasz, Dann and security
[19:44] <tjaalton> ah, indeed
[20:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-azure [amd64] (xenial-proposed/main) [4.15.0-1097.107~16.04.1] (kernel)
[20:54] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: apport (bionic-proposed/main) [2.20.9-0ubuntu7.17 => 2.20.9-0ubuntu7.18] (core)
[20:59] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted ubuntu-image [source] (focal-proposed) [1.10+20.04ubuntu1]
[21:04] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted ubuntu-image [source] (bionic-proposed) [1.10+18.04ubuntu1]
[21:06] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted ubuntu-image [source] (xenial-proposed) [1.10+16.04ubuntu1]
[21:10] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: apport (xenial-proposed/main) [2.20.1-0ubuntu2.24 => 2.20.1-0ubuntu2.25] (core)