[06:48] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted gcc-11-cross [amd64] (hirsute-proposed) [3ubuntu1]
[07:22] <cpaelzer> hiho ubuntu-archive people, I know you regularly check component mismatches for movements to universe anyway. I just wanted to mention that lua5.2 showing up there is intentional and that we'd appreciate if that move could be done before 21.04 is finalized
[07:22] <cpaelzer> we were able to unite all lua users that are in main on v5.3
[07:22] <cpaelzer> which means less concurrent versions to look after :-)
[07:23] <cpaelzer> doko: you asked for dh-systemd in postgresql; here an FYI on this
[07:23] <cpaelzer> doko: this already is debhelper | dh-syystemd (+versions)
[07:23] <cpaelzer> doko: the reason this is still there is becasue from the very same sources this is built back up to Xenial which still needs it via dh-systemd
[07:24] <cpaelzer> once Xenial is no more, this can be fully eliminated
[07:24] <cpaelzer> but since it is an A|B dependency the NBS report shouldn't be so hard on this one :-)
[10:59] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: barbican (focal-proposed/main) [1:10.0.0-0ubuntu0.20.04.2 => 1:10.0.0-0ubuntu0.20.04.3] (openstack, ubuntu-server)
[12:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted west-chamber [source] (groovy-proposed) [20100405+svn20111107.r124-12ubuntu0.3]
[12:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted west-chamber [source] (focal-proposed) [20100405+svn20111107.r124-12ubuntu0.3~20.04.1]
[12:51] <jibel> vorlon, hi, ubiquity in hirsute proposed fails to build on all arches. Can you have a look?
[13:01] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted ceilometer [source] (groovy-proposed) [1:15.0.0-0ubuntu2]
[13:06] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted ceilometer [source] (focal-proposed) [1:14.0.0-0ubuntu0.20.04.2]
[13:31] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted openbox [source] (focal-proposed) [3.6.1-9ubuntu0.20.04.1]
[13:31] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted openbox [source] (groovy-proposed) [3.6.1-9ubuntu0.20.10.1]
[13:34] <tjaalton> Trevinho: hi, the groovy mutter touches bugs with missing sru info
[13:36] <tjaalton> Trevinho: only bug 1841774 it seems, the rest are fine
[14:09] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: apt (bionic-proposed/main) [1.6.12ubuntu0.2 => 1.6.13] (core)
[14:10] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: apt (focal-proposed/main) [2.0.4 => 2.0.5] (core, i386-whitelist)
[14:10] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: apt (groovy-proposed/main) [2.1.10ubuntu0.2 => 2.1.10ubuntu0.3] (core, i386-whitelist)
[17:03] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: s390-tools (groovy-proposed/main) [2.14.0-1ubuntu1.1 => 2.14.0-1ubuntu1.2] (core)
[17:06] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: s390-tools (focal-proposed/main) [2.12.0-0ubuntu3.2 => 2.12.0-0ubuntu3.3] (core)
[17:20] <Laney> tjaalton: on the mesa ffe, what do we have to do with llvm 12, promote it or what?
[17:24] <LocutusOfBorg> sad llvm-12 promotion is sad...
[17:24] <LocutusOfBorg> :/
[17:25] <tjaalton> LocutusOfBorg: why?
[17:25] <LocutusOfBorg> I hope mesa won't require an unstable rc compiler to work
[17:25] <tjaalton> LocutusOfBorg: yes
[17:25] <tjaalton> err, Laney ^
[17:25] <tjaalton> LocutusOfBorg: we've always bumped it for new major mesa release
[17:26] <tjaalton> and it should be non-rc soon
[17:26] <Laney> why does it always require the bleeding edge version though?
[17:26] <tjaalton> amdgpu generally wants it
[17:27] <LocutusOfBorg> non-rc-soon is meh, they delay their timeline for months usually
[17:27] <LocutusOfBorg> maybe yes, maybe no
[17:27] <LocutusOfBorg> its sad that upstream requires rc compilers
[17:27] <Laney> it does feel a bit bad
[17:27] <tjaalton> mesa doesn't require it
[17:28] <Laney> be nice to have a policy that you can only rely on the actual stable versions
[17:28] <Laney> but ...
[17:28] <tjaalton> in fact it doesn't build with rc2
[17:28] <tjaalton> maybe does with rc3
[17:30] <tjaalton> doesn't
[17:30] <tjaalton> anyway, there's no immediate need to switch to 12 right now, can be done later
[17:31] <Laney> that sounds good, can you update the bug with that info?
[17:31] <LocutusOfBorg> btw mine is not a complain to go back to another compiler. If upstream is testing with 12, go with it, just its a sad story. We had regressions in llvm even between stable versions, I don't feel confident about knowing somebody using an rc one
[17:34] <tjaalton> done
[17:37] <tjaalton> looks like the build fail is fixed in master but not in 21.0-branch
[17:54] <tjaalton> Laney: I'm prepping xserver without xwayland now
[17:54] <Laney> great
[17:55] <Laney> probably best for early next week now
[17:55] <tjaalton> yep
[18:38] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-oem-5.6 [amd64] (focal-proposed/main) [5.6.0-1050.54] (no packageset)
[19:42] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: corosync (groovy-proposed/main) [3.0.3-2ubuntu3 => 3.0.3-2ubuntu3.1] (i386-whitelist, ubuntu-desktop, ubuntu-server)
[19:43] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: corosync (focal-proposed/main) [3.0.3-2ubuntu2 => 3.0.3-2ubuntu2.1] (i386-whitelist, ubuntu-desktop, ubuntu-server)
[19:44] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: corosync (bionic-proposed/main) [2.4.3-0ubuntu1.1 => 2.4.3-0ubuntu1.2] (ubuntu-desktop, ubuntu-server)
[20:15] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: openbox (bionic-proposed/universe) [3.6.1-7ubuntu0.1 => 3.6.1-7ubuntu0.2] (no packageset)
[20:18] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-oem-5.6 [amd64] (focal-proposed) [5.6.0-1050.54]
[21:26] <vorlon> jibel: yeah I'm aware of it and started looking but was puzzled since there doesn't seem to be anything in the diff that would explain the failure.  I'm off this week but will look at it on Monday