[11:05] <Montresor> rbasak: Happen to see my icecast2 SRU?
[11:05] <Montresor> My == Unit193
[11:05] <rbasak> I don't
[11:06] <rbasak> Where is it?
[11:06] <Montresor> Perhaps I did not tag it well.
[11:06] <Montresor> LP 1899841
[11:06] <rbasak> (I'm not on SRU rota today but I can try to help things along)
[11:07] <Montresor> I was just thinking "now that groovy is out of the way"
[11:11] <rbasak> Looks good. Just needs a couple of minor tweaks.
[11:11] <rbasak> I trust you've built and tested this on Focal?
[11:16] <Montresor> Since the problem isn't focal specific, not exactly (though did build), I technically did the testing on Debian stable with the same version of wolfssl.
[11:16] <rbasak> OK that's enough, thanks.
[11:17] <rbasak> Just to make sure the upload won't be entirely broken.
[11:17] <Montresor> Thank you.
[11:17] <rbasak> We'll need to test the actual binary during SRU verification, please, when asked to in the bug.
[11:17] <Montresor> Yeah that's fine.
[11:19] <rbasak> Do you have a link to where the patch came from, please?
[11:20] <Montresor> Via email and from the aforementioned Xiph issue.
[11:22] <rbasak> Ah. Thanks!
[11:22] <Montresor> (I'd give you the direct link, but I don't have it handy.  I can dig)
[11:25] <rbasak> No problem, I found it
[11:30] <rbasak> OK I made a bunch of changes
[11:30] <Montresor> Dang.
[11:30] <rbasak> Details here: https://pastebin.ubuntu.com/p/HnrXm2WjZW/ - are you happy for me to sponsor that in your name?
[11:30] <rbasak> Don't worry they're all minor
[11:30] <rbasak> All in metadata and around Ubuntu process, etc. The patch itself is the same.
[11:33] <Montresor> Mmmm, I went with what's closer to a backport version, right.  I forgot the colon didn't I?  But yeah that's all fine, thanks.
[11:33] <rbasak> The issue with the version is that it always has to go up
[11:33] <rbasak> With the ~ it would have gone down
[11:33] <rbasak> And no users would pick that up because from apt's perspective it would have been a downgrade
[11:34] <rbasak> (also Launchpad would block that from happening)
[11:34] <rbasak> If in doubt you can check with dpkg --compare-versions
[11:35] <Montresor> Yeah I should be well aware of version increments, I don't know what I was thinking.
[11:35] <rbasak> On the bug reference, you can double check by looking for Launchpad-Bugs-Fixed in the generated changes file if you build the source package for uploads. But you have to be on Ubuntu for the tooling to generate that header.
[11:35] <Montresor> Or run with 'DEB_VENDOR=ubuntu' I believe.
[11:36] <rbasak> (I think there's some setting to...yeah :)
[11:37] <Laney> If the uploader uses dput-ng to perform the upload, it should fail if that field is missing for an SRU :-)
[11:38] <Montresor> I use dput, it suits my needs better. :3
[11:39] <Montresor> I should maybe re-check that dput-ng doesn't do what I want though.
[11:39] <rbasak> dput-ng breaks with my dput configuration and I never got round to sorting it out. One of these days :)
[11:39] <rbasak> OK, uploaded
[11:39] <rbasak> Thank you for working on this!
[11:39] <rbasak> We'll need to wait for a (different) SRU team member next.
[11:39] <Montresor> Thanks for looking into this.
[11:40] <Montresor> (I also do a lot of uploads to a mini-dinstall repo and some uploads to an aptly repo.)