[00:20] <xnox> ubuntu-sru => please reject it is for hirsute Unapproved: openssl (groovy-proposed/main) [1.1.1f-1ubuntu4.2 => 1.1.1j-1ubuntu1]
[00:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected openssl [source] (groovy-proposed) [1.1.1j-1ubuntu1]
[00:44] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted fprintd [source] (groovy-proposed) [1.90.9-1~ubuntu20.10.1]
[00:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted fprintd [source] (focal-proposed) [1.90.9-1~ubuntu20.04.1]
[01:01] <xnox> Laney:  https://code.launchpad.net/~xnox/britney/+git/britney2-ubuntu/+merge/398270 added one more cludge
[02:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: rejected directx-headers [source] (hirsute-proposed) [1.0.1-0ubuntu1]
[05:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: fwupd (hirsute-proposed/main) [1.5.7-2 => 1.5.7-2] (core)
[05:25] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: fwupd (hirsute-proposed/main) [1.5.7-2 => 1.5.7-2] (core)
[05:26] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: fwupd (hirsute-proposed/main) [1.5.7-2 => 1.5.7-2] (core)
[05:52] <tjaalton> RAOF: thanks for looking at directx-headers, I'll poke upstream
[06:56] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: s390-tools (hirsute-proposed/main) [2.15.1-1ubuntu3 => 2.16.0-0ubuntu1] (core)
[08:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: poppler [s390x] (hirsute-proposed/main) [21.02.0-0build1] (desktop-core, i386-whitelist, ubuntu-server)
[08:54] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: poppler [ppc64el] (hirsute-proposed/main) [21.02.0-0build1] (desktop-core, i386-whitelist, ubuntu-server)
[09:00] <LocutusOfBorg> "21.02.0-0build1" is not really a good versioning? or is it?
[09:01] <Laney> xnox: I was sort of expecting you to come back with a merge proposal to b1 to not merge those for >= hirsute
[09:01] <LocutusOfBorg> aren't people using "-0git1" when the version is in sync with Debian?
[09:04] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: poppler [arm64] (hirsute-proposed/main) [21.02.0-0build1] (desktop-core, i386-whitelist, ubuntu-server)
[09:04] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: poppler [i386] (hirsute-proposed/main) [21.02.0-0build1] (desktop-core, i386-whitelist, ubuntu-server)
[09:05] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: poppler [armhf] (hirsute-proposed/main) [21.02.0-0build1] (desktop-core, i386-whitelist, ubuntu-server)
[09:06] <seb128> LocutusOfBorg, do we autosync over 0git<n> versions?
[09:07] <LocutusOfBorg> I don't know... but people are using that notation
[09:07] <LocutusOfBorg> let me check the code
[09:07] <seb128> LocutusOfBorg, also it's only a number, why does it matter if it's called 0git1 or 0build1 or ~fakesync1?
[09:08] <LocutusOfBorg> yeah, we will probably even sync from experimental later? :)
[09:08] <LocutusOfBorg> just sounds "strange" :D
[09:08] <seb128> yes, it needs to go to binNEW
[09:08] <seb128> so it's going to take after feature freeze probably
[09:18] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: poppler [amd64] (hirsute-proposed/main) [21.02.0-0build1] (desktop-core, i386-whitelist, ubuntu-server)
[09:20] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted poppler [amd64] (hirsute-proposed) [21.02.0-0build1]
[09:20] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted poppler [armhf] (hirsute-proposed) [21.02.0-0build1]
[09:20] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted poppler [ppc64el] (hirsute-proposed) [21.02.0-0build1]
[09:20] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted poppler [arm64] (hirsute-proposed) [21.02.0-0build1]
[09:20] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted poppler [s390x] (hirsute-proposed) [21.02.0-0build1]
[09:20] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted poppler [i386] (hirsute-proposed) [21.02.0-0build1]
[09:30] <mwhudson> the only thing that doesn't get synced over is "ubuntu" isn't it?
[09:31] <Laney> afaik yes
[09:34] <xnox> Laney:  ha.
[09:37] <xnox> Laney:  a shell script, that has python -c with a 60 like python script embedded inline?!
[09:37] <xnox> and i mean 'python -c' not python2, nor python3
[09:38] <Laney> talking about britney1?
[09:41] <Laney> xnox: you can use my Quality Function https://gist.github.com/iainlane/a6df7f4c8e928fd7d1cccc6bef643211 😎
[09:46] <LocutusOfBorg> Laney, shouldn't this go straight to ubuntu-dev-tools? :)
[09:46] <LocutusOfBorg> or ubuntu-archive-tools maybe?
[09:47] <Laney> it could do I guess, I was considering it to be a function rather than a script
[09:48] <LocutusOfBorg> or maybe merged into distro-info tool directly
[09:48] <LocutusOfBorg> like distro-info --compare
[09:48] <Laney> I would probably write it in distro-info really
[09:48] <LocutusOfBorg> yeah, looks the best thing to do
[09:53] <Laney> even more useful for Debian
[09:54] <Laney> I can never EVER remember which order Debian releases go in
[12:02] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-hwe-5.8 [s390x] (focal-proposed/main) [5.8.0-45.51~20.04.1] (no packageset)
[12:05] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-hwe-5.8 [ppc64el] (focal-proposed/main) [5.8.0-45.51~20.04.1] (no packageset)
[12:05] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed [amd64] (groovy-proposed/main) [5.8.0-45.51] (core, kernel)
[12:05] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed [amd64] (focal-proposed/main) [5.4.0-67.75] (core, kernel)
[12:06] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed [ppc64el] (focal-proposed/main) [5.4.0-67.75] (core, kernel)
[12:06] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed [ppc64el] (groovy-proposed/main) [5.8.0-45.51] (core, kernel)
[12:07] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed [amd64] (bionic-proposed/main) [4.15.0-137.141] (core, kernel)
[12:07] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-hwe-5.8 [amd64] (focal-proposed/main) [5.8.0-45.51~20.04.1] (no packageset)
[12:08] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed [ppc64el] (bionic-proposed/main) [4.15.0-137.141] (core, kernel)
[12:08] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed [s390x] (groovy-proposed/main) [5.8.0-45.51] (core, kernel)
[12:09] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-hwe-5.8 [arm64] (focal-proposed/main) [5.8.0-45.51~20.04.1] (no packageset)
[12:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed [s390x] (focal-proposed/main) [5.4.0-67.75] (core, kernel)
[12:13] <LocutusOfBorg> Laney, python-cobra is NBS on s390x... hint autopkgtests please?
[12:13] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed [arm64] (groovy-proposed/main) [5.8.0-45.51] (core, kernel)
[12:13] <LocutusOfBorg> https://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/packages/p/python-cobra/hirsute/s390x
[12:14] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed [arm64] (focal-proposed/main) [5.4.0-67.75] (core, kernel)
[12:43] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed [amd64] (groovy-proposed) [5.8.0-45.51]
[12:43] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed [ppc64el] (groovy-proposed) [5.8.0-45.51]
[12:43] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed [arm64] (groovy-proposed) [5.8.0-45.51]
[12:43] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed [s390x] (groovy-proposed) [5.8.0-45.51]
[12:44] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-hwe-5.8 [amd64] (focal-proposed) [5.8.0-45.51~20.04.1]
[12:44] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-hwe-5.8 [ppc64el] (focal-proposed) [5.8.0-45.51~20.04.1]
[12:44] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-hwe-5.8 [arm64] (focal-proposed) [5.8.0-45.51~20.04.1]
[12:44] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-hwe-5.8 [s390x] (focal-proposed) [5.8.0-45.51~20.04.1]
[12:44] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed [amd64] (focal-proposed) [5.4.0-67.75]
[12:44] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed [ppc64el] (focal-proposed) [5.4.0-67.75]
[12:44] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed [arm64] (focal-proposed) [5.4.0-67.75]
[12:44] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed [s390x] (focal-proposed) [5.4.0-67.75]
[12:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed [amd64] (bionic-proposed) [4.15.0-137.141]
[12:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed [ppc64el] (bionic-proposed) [4.15.0-137.141]
[13:26] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-hwe-5.4 [s390x] (bionic-proposed/main) [5.4.0-67.75~18.04.1] (no packageset)
[13:28] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-hwe-5.4 [ppc64el] (bionic-proposed/main) [5.4.0-67.75~18.04.1] (no packageset)
[13:28] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-hwe-5.4 [amd64] (bionic-proposed/main) [5.4.0-67.75~18.04.1] (no packageset)
[13:31] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-hwe-5.4 [arm64] (bionic-proposed/main) [5.4.0-67.75~18.04.1] (no packageset)
[13:32] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-unstable [amd64] (hirsute-proposed/universe) [5.11.0-10.11] (no packageset)
[13:37] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-hwe-5.4 [amd64] (bionic-proposed) [5.4.0-67.75~18.04.1]
[13:37] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-hwe-5.4 [ppc64el] (bionic-proposed) [5.4.0-67.75~18.04.1]
[13:37] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-hwe-5.4 [arm64] (bionic-proposed) [5.4.0-67.75~18.04.1]
[13:37] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-hwe-5.4 [s390x] (bionic-proposed) [5.4.0-67.75~18.04.1]
[13:37] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-unstable [arm64] (hirsute-proposed/universe) [5.11.0-10.11] (no packageset)
[13:59] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted python-oslo.vmware [source] (bionic-proposed) [2.26.0-0ubuntu2]
[14:03] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected livecd-rootfs [source] (focal-proposed) [2.664.18]
[14:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted ubiquity [source] (focal-proposed) [20.04.15.11]
[14:12] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: tgt [amd64] (hirsute-proposed/main) [1:1.0.80-1ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[14:12] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: tgt [s390x] (hirsute-proposed/main) [1:1.0.80-1ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[14:13] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: tgt [ppc64el] (hirsute-proposed/main) [1:1.0.80-1ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[14:14] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: tgt [arm64] (hirsute-proposed/main) [1:1.0.80-1ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[14:14] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: tgt [armhf] (hirsute-proposed/main) [1:1.0.80-1ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[14:14] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted wireguard-linux-compat [source] (bionic-proposed) [1.0.20201112-1~18.04.3]
[14:25] <xnox> Laney:  https://code.launchpad.net/~xnox/britney/ignore-udebs/+merge/398618
[14:25] <xnox> Laney:  i'm sure that breaks all layering violations
[14:25] <xnox> should it be an "option" that the script gets, and then edit ubuntu-archive-scripts to pass it in or not?
[14:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: tgt [riscv64] (hirsute-proposed/main) [1:1.0.80-1ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[15:07] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted geoclue-2.0 [source] (focal-proposed) [2.5.6-0ubuntu1.1]
[15:08] <seb128> doko, what is needed to drop udebs on rebuilds?
[15:08] <seb128> you uploaded https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gtk2-engines/1:2.20.2-5build1 but the s390x build still generated an udeb, https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gtk2-engines/1:2.20.2-5build1/+build/21066932
[15:08] <seb128> so I guess whatever needed to be built before it was not yet? is it now and do we need another no change upload there?
[15:12] <doko> see http://launchpadlibrarian.net/524724106/fuse3_3.10.2-1build2_3.10.2-1ubuntu1.diff.gz or any other of this kind of upload
[15:13] <seb128> doko, well on the gtk2-engines example only s390x built the udeb
[15:13] <seb128> why is it arch specific?
[15:15] <xnox> seb128:  debhelper all 13.3.3ubuntu2
[15:15] <xnox> seb128:  on s390x, old debhelper was used. I suspect that s390x is so much quicker that the no change uploads started building before debhelper got published.
[15:15] <xnox> seb128:  no change rebuild, should get rid of this arch skew
[15:16] <seb128> xnox, k, so those need another no change rebuild, things are in place now for it to be right this time?
[15:16] <doko> if you want to forward that to debian, then you have to patch it
[15:17] <xnox> seb128:  yeap.
[15:17] <seb128> xnox, thans
[15:17] <seb128> thanks
[15:21] <Laney> xnox: heh, let me try that in a bit
[15:22] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted node-uid-number [source] (focal-proposed) [0.0.6-1ubuntu0.20.04.1]
[15:22] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted node-uid-number [source] (groovy-proposed) [0.0.6-1ubuntu0.20.10.1]
[15:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-gcp [amd64] (groovy-proposed/main) [5.8.0-1024.25] (core, kernel)
[15:50] <xnox> Laney:  well, we might actually be able to get away without touching britney, i think d o k o is trying to remove udebs from release (de-cruft NBS basically) since these packages no longer produce udebs in their next upload.
[15:50] <Laney> I thought this was my first suggestion that you told me sucked :p
[15:51] <xnox> Laney:  well i couldn't be bothered to upload all of the no change rebuilds. But turns out I have d o k o as a service api, meaning he jumped and uploaded 200+ rebuilds.
[15:52] <xnox> Laney:  also at the time my kernel patch was not merged yet, but now it was pulled for the v5.11 kernel.
[15:52] <xnox> Laney:  so change of circumstances =)
[15:52] <xnox> which is probably "yes laney told you so" and "yes you were right"
[15:52] <Laney> it's ok, as long as I was right
[15:52] <Laney> :D
[15:52] <Laney> xnox: close the MP?
[15:52] <xnox> yeah
[16:00] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-gcp [amd64] (groovy-proposed) [5.8.0-1024.25]
[16:05] <doko> xnox: https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/QSc27CTyB8/
[16:05] <doko> the first batch are source+binary removals, + blacklisting
[16:05] <doko> the second batch binary removals
[16:06] <doko> release pocket
[16:06] <xnox> doko: looks good, but missing arch specific things from ports.
[16:07] <doko> right
[16:07] <doko> I think I'll do these now, nad the ports stuff later/tomorrow
[16:07] <xnox> doko: yes, cause many of these are arch-all
[16:08] <xnox> And are duplicated in ports.
[16:08] <xnox> Well maybe not.
[16:08] <doko> ?
[16:13] <xnox> doko:  i.e. console-keymaps-acorn is _all.udeb => I can't remember if it needs to removed 7 times, or just the one.
[16:13] <xnox> (ie. from every launchpad arch, or it goes away everywhere)
[16:13] <xnox> cause i'm not a AA =)
[16:13] <doko> just one
[16:14] <xnox> cool. so yeah processing amd64 paste from above, will make ports list of remaining udebs very short.
[16:21] <doko> binary udeb removals running
[16:40] <cjwatson> doko: Err I think I would have said it had to be removed from all arches.  ICBW, I always forget the fine detaails of the dominator's logic ...
[16:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New source: adsys (hirsute-proposed/primary) [0.1]
[17:01] <doko> cjwatson: yes, doing that, and then looking at what's left for the ports
[17:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-unstable [amd64] (hirsute-proposed) [5.11.0-10.11]
[17:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-unstable [arm64] (hirsute-proposed) [5.11.0-10.11]
[17:51] <doko> apw, sforshee: the linux-unstable upload to hirsute still builds linux-unstable-udebs-generic-5.11.0-10.11. it won't migrate, because the other udebs aren't built anymore (noudeb profile)
[17:53] <apw> doko, ack, it isn't intended to make it past -proposed anyhow, but ... we will get it sorted out
[17:53] <apw> sforshee, ^ that is a bug in the no_di support
[18:44] <sforshee> ack
[18:45] <ricotz> xnox, hi, I am curious if a backport of neon27 0.31.2-1 to focal would be possible?
[19:13] <xnox> ricotz:  i have no idea what it is; and if backport would be possible. I am nobody =) you probably want somebody who is a member of ~ubuntu-sru team, or like ~ubuntu-release or ~ubuntu-archive . I am none of those things.
[19:14] <xnox> apw:  i can check that.
[19:14] <xnox> apw:  or you can delete udeb binaries by hand to make it migratable.
[19:15] <ricotz> xnox, oh, I see, I assumed you have some insight given https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/neon27/0.30.2-3~ubuntu18.04.1
[19:16] <xnox> ricotz:  no not at all. that was necessory, because i did 1.1.0 -> 1.1.1 openssl transition in bionic as an SRU on exceptional basis to get TLSv1.3 support in bionic. And had to SRU many dozens of packages to introduce support for openssl 1.1.1 otherwise they would be toast.
[19:16] <xnox> ricotz:  that is not precident for backports of neon27 whatsoever.
[19:17] <ricotz> xnox, ok, don't mind me then :)
[19:22] <xnox> apw:  sforshee: =( debian.master/control.d/flavour-control.stub missing Build-Profiles: <!noudeb> for that package. Or it should be scoped to be processed by the udeb snippet, instead of some other snippet that does it. =/
[19:23] <xnox> my test build didn't make that one =/ https://launchpad.net/~ci-train-ppa-service/+archive/ubuntu/4429/+build/21001282 when it was 8.9
[19:52] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: neutron (focal-proposed/main) [2:16.2.0-0ubuntu3 => 2:16.3.0-0ubuntu2] (openstack, ubuntu-server)
[19:52] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: neutron (groovy-proposed/main) [2:17.0.0-0ubuntu3 => 2:17.1.0-0ubuntu2] (openstack)
[20:06] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: unattended-upgrades (xenial-proposed/main) [1.1ubuntu1.18.04.7~16.04.6 => 1.1ubuntu1.18.04.7~16.04.7] (desktop-core, ubuntu-server)
[20:13] <sforshee> xnox: yeah, looks like that upload happened before your patches were applied, so should be better next time
[20:17] <vorlon> kanashiro: I see that ruby-rails-assets-emojione autopkgtest failure has been resolved with a new Debian upload; do you understand what it is about this new version that fixes the problem?
[20:19] <vorlon> kanashiro: (asking since ruby-rails-assets-jquery-fullscreen-plugin is still not fixed)
[20:20] <vorlon> kanashiro: otoh ruby-rails-assets-jquery-fullscreen-plugin has no revdeps so I think I'm just going to yank it until it gets fixed in Debian
[20:45] <RikMills> vorlon: would very much like to get flatpak hinted and migrated. regards the arm64/ppc64el single test recent failures, this is a new test in the version in proposed, so to consider it a regression is hard. the tests do not even run on debian CI. s390x is that test failing, another new one, and a couple of existing ones. again these have never been tested on debian CI
[20:45] <RikMills> tests pass on amd64
[20:46] <RikMills> ahayzen has been in touch with the debian maintainer
[20:47] <RikMills> who at the least thinks the arm64 test is flaky as he has seen some fails on his chroot tests
[20:48] <RikMills> so I was thinking of maybe a force-reset-test flatpak/1.10.1-2ubuntu1
[20:49] <kanashiro> vorlon, there was a problem with webpack not being available in non-amd64 architectures, a fix for all the ruby-rails-assets-* packages were uploaded to debian
[20:49] <kanashiro> I am tracking it
[20:52] <RikMills> I could do an upload marking the new tests flaky, and badtest s390x perhaps. but I'm not keen on delta to debian where it debian does not have the test coverage to show it is needed
[20:53] <RikMills> https://ci.debian.net/packages/f/flatpak/
[21:11] <vorlon> RikMills: the expected solution is for new tests that aren't regressions to be marked as flaky or xfail or so in the package's test suite, instead of accepting regressions in the test results that decrease coverage
[21:14] <RikMills> that I can do
[21:17] <RikMills> I can do that now, but s390x will still fail
[21:26] <RikMills> done
[21:32] <RikMills> thank you :)
[21:40] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed [amd64] (xenial-proposed/main) [4.4.0-204.236] (core, kernel)
[22:03] <LocutusOfBorg> vorlon, please hint python-cobra on s390x? its NBS there...
[22:54] <vorlon> LocutusOfBorg: done