[00:44] <teward> The_LoudSpeaker: have you checked to make sure it *builds* with the version bumps?  Resolved any packaging issues?  Got a list of the *specific* minor vision bumps from upstream changelogs about what actually was changed?  (justification for example, like only security or bug fix patches and such)
[09:22] <seb128> doko, hey, please update that evolution-data-server patch to use dpkg vendor check for Ubuntu/i386 and forward to Debian, we were in sync on that package and want to keep this way
[10:05] <Laney> huh
[10:05] <Laney> why did boost-defaults drop binaries which weren't unused?
[10:05] <Laney>  libboost-system-dev | 1.71.0.0ubuntu4 | hirsute          | amd64, arm64, armhf, i386, ppc64el, riscv64, s390x
[10:05] <Laney>  libboost-system-dev | 1.74.0.3ubuntu1 | hirsute-proposed | amd64, arm64, armhf, ppc64el, riscv64, s390x
[10:06] <Laney> libphonenumber BDs on that
[14:13] <seb128> xnox, hey, could you review https://code.launchpad.net/~seb128/livecd-rootfs/+git/livecd-rootfs/+merge/394848 ?
[14:28] <TJ-> With QEMU (static) builds how is the static executable made independent of glibc ('ldd' reports 'not a dynamic executable' but when building from upstream source the executable still requires glibc ('ldd' reports 'statically linked') - from the build logs I see LDFLAGS="-Wl,--warn-common -m64 -static -g  -Wl,-Bsymbolic-functions -Wl,-z,relro -Wl,--as-needed" but not sure where/how "-static"
[14:28] <TJ-> is slipped into/alongside common_configure_opts
[14:41] <niub> o/ does ubuntu have a linux-image with dbgsym available?
[14:42] <niub> or should I build it by myself?
[15:21] <xnox> Laney:  i will redo the merge of boost-defaults, I'm not too sure if it was done right.
[15:30] <TJ-> niub: they're on ddeb.ubuntu.com - you can add that as a repository in sources.list{.d/} and install the ${PACKAGE_NAME}-dbgsym of the binary package
[15:32] <niub> TJ- okay, thanks
[15:34] <TJ-> niub: same format as the regular archive.ubuntu.com entries
[15:35] <TJ-> niub: see https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Debug%20Symbol%20Packages
[15:46] <seb128> xnox, thanks
[16:12] <seb128> bdmurray, rbasak, RAOF, could one of you review the gnome-shell stack SRU updates in the focal queue. Bug #1903764 got updated to include testing the available extensions during the verification which was discussed in https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/scope-of-gnome-mru/18041/ and blocked the previous round
[16:13] <seb128> bdmurray, rbalint, RAOF, the SRU includes some important fixes and we are aiming in getting in the point release so it would be great if it was accepted before holidays so it can stay in proposed during that period and get proper testing
[16:13] <seb128> Trevinho, ^
[16:14] <bdmurray> seb128: Its my day so I can do that. How was the list of extensions generated?
[16:16] <seb128> bdmurray, rdepe
[16:16] <seb128> ups
[16:16] <seb128> bdmurray, $ apt rdepends gnome-shell | grep Depends | awk '{print $2}' | sort | uniq
[16:16] <seb128> bdmurray, and apt search gnome-shell-
[16:17] <seb128> and then manually cleaning noise
[16:17] <seb128> bdmurray, on a focal system with main, universe, multiverse enabled
[16:20] <bdmurray> okay, thanks for the information
[16:21] <seb128> bdmurray, np! just ask if you need more details and thanks for reviewing!
[16:24] <bdmurray> seb128: shouldn't the extensions also be tested for bug 1908161 (the groovy update)?
[16:26] <seb128> bdmurray, we would prefer not since it's quite some extra work, I updated the description to mention it though now
[16:27] <seb128> bdmurray, in practice we might end up not tested the rdepends in a non LTS cycle which is going to block the SRU and the fixes for most users but I'm not going to have here the discourse discussion
[16:27] <seb128> bdmurray, but we just don't have the capacity to deal with the overhead of that requirement
[16:28] <seb128> would still make sense to accept in proposed, we might be able to get community help for the testing...
[16:50] <rbalint> bdmurray, please merge https://code.launchpad.net/~rbalint/britney/+git/hints-ubuntu/+merge/395266 for the glibc SRU
[16:51] <Trevinho> bdmurray: I've forgot to upload extensions for 3.38 as well, and seems that they need to be there, so will have something else to review shortly
[16:52] <Trevinho> bdmurray: could be nice if you could re-iterate on libfprint as well as I've re-uploaded a version with further fixes to address a bug that was just half-fixed by previous version
[16:52] <bdmurray> Trevinho: for focal?
[16:53] <Trevinho> bdmurray: focal and groovy
[16:53] <Trevinho> it's almost the same -minus debhelper 13 stuff
[17:03] <bdmurray> rbalint: wouldn't you want to run an autopkgtest of php-imagick 3.4.3~rc2-2ubuntu4.1 with glibc/2.27-3ubuntu1.3 to prove that its the security update's fault?
[17:15] <rbalint> bdmurray, did not I run the test against hello?
[17:16] <bdmurray> rbalint: that's less obvious
[17:17] <rbalint> trigger with glibc pulls in glibc from proposed, thus the new baseline testing marker is hello/x
[17:17] <bdmurray> rbalint: so this isn't doing what I think its doing? http://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/running#pkg-php-imagick
[17:20] <rbalint> bdmurray, does not seem so: Processing triggers for libc-bin (2.27-3ubuntu1.4) ...
[17:20] <bdmurray> rbalint: well that's lame
[17:21] <rbalint> bdmurray, you can take a look at the run history of the test, you will see the hello trigger and you can also check the artifacts if you would like to verify that my log is valid
[17:23] <rbalint> bdmurray, i guess you support my efforts to prioritize infra fixes higher ;-)
[17:24] <bdmurray> rbalint: linking to http://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/packages/p/php-imagick/bionic/armhf in the bug would have been nice
[17:26] <rbalint> bdmurray, ack, but the log i linked also showed no upgrade of glibc, so i think this could have been enough
[17:31] <bdmurray> Its nice to have the full history especially with snapcraft
[17:34] <Trevinho> mhmhm, can someone also reiterate on the waiting package for https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-shell/+bug/1838152 ?
[18:48] <bdmurray> Trevinho: Can you put some information in bug 1908107 regarding what to watch for with "prints data can be leaked"?
[18:49]  * Trevinho checks
[18:49] <Trevinho> bdmurray: ah ok I meant only memory leaks :P
[18:49] <Trevinho> not really prints infos, let me explain
[18:50] <Trevinho> done
[18:54] <bdmurray> Trevinho: Where's? +# Debian specifics
[18:54] <bdmurray> +udev-rules-creation-add-Debian-specifics.patch
[18:54] <bdmurray> Oh, I see it just moved
[18:54] <Trevinho> mhmh
[18:54] <Trevinho> yeah.. moved to the back to put upstream first
[19:17] <Trevinho> thanks a lot bdmurray !
[20:20] <seb128> Trevinho, gnome-shell/focal was approved, thanks to bdmurray. It was fine to have it going alone or do the other components are required?
[20:20] <Trevinho> seb128: no, mutter can wait
[20:20] <Trevinho> even though... there are nice fixes there
[20:20] <Trevinho> but it's not a strict requriement
[20:20] <seb128> bdmurray, ^ you could perhaps let that one in as well?
[20:21] <seb128> they usually go together as a set, would be nice to also get it tested during the eoy
[21:01] <Laney> xnox: boost-defaults> right, it looks that way to me, thanks
[21:01] <Laney> let me know when it's uploaded, I will sort out the eds stuff
[21:04] <bdmurray> seb128, Trevinho: bug 1899206 is called out in the changelog but is missing SRU information.
[22:23] <RAOF> seb128: Urgh, yes. colord *is* on my list.
[22:23] <RAOF> Thanks for the ping.