[00:02] <bdmurray> guiverc: really? it was talked about. I'll look into it on Monday.
[00:04] <guiverc> thanks bdmurray :)
[11:21] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: r-bioc-gsva [ppc64el] (impish-proposed/universe) [1.38.2+ds-2] (no packageset)
[11:21] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: r-bioc-gsva [s390x] (impish-proposed/universe) [1.38.2+ds-2] (no packageset)
[11:22] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: r-bioc-gsva [amd64] (impish-proposed/universe) [1.38.2+ds-2] (no packageset)
[11:24] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: r-bioc-gsva [arm64] (impish-proposed/universe) [1.38.2+ds-2] (no packageset)
[11:24] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: r-bioc-gsva [armhf] (impish-proposed/universe) [1.38.2+ds-2] (no packageset)
[11:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: r-bioc-gsva [riscv64] (impish-proposed/universe) [1.38.2+ds-2] (no packageset)
[12:36] <ddstreet> guiverc it was already announced: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-announce/2021-March/000266.html
[12:52] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted r-bioc-gsva [amd64] (impish-proposed) [1.38.2+ds-2]
[12:52] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted r-bioc-gsva [armhf] (impish-proposed) [1.38.2+ds-2]
[12:52] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted r-bioc-gsva [riscv64] (impish-proposed) [1.38.2+ds-2]
[12:53] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted r-bioc-gsva [arm64] (impish-proposed) [1.38.2+ds-2]
[12:53] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted r-bioc-gsva [s390x] (impish-proposed) [1.38.2+ds-2]
[12:53] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted r-bioc-gsva [ppc64el] (impish-proposed) [1.38.2+ds-2]
[13:33]  * enyc meows
[14:42] <hallyn> was looking at the oldest in focal unapproved queue, youtube-dl - it builds and installs fine, but depends on debhelper-compat 13, focal is on 12, what's the usual way to handle that?
[14:42] <hallyn> i saw another pkg where they just lowered the dependency on the bakcport...
[14:48] <rbasak> For -updates, I think it's a case of adjusting the packaging to use the version of the debhelper available
[14:48] <rbasak> Newer debhelper goes into -backports sometimes, but I don't recall this ever having been done in -updates
[15:21] <hallyn> it's actually targeted for backports
[15:22] <hallyn> anyway it's been there 11 months so is out of date with what's in newer releases again anyway,
[15:22] <hallyn> tmepted to reject and ask them to re-do with newest, but that seems rude
[17:03] <rbasak> Ah I didn't realise you were reviewing backports. I didn't think you were in the backporters team though? How does that work?
[17:05] <rbasak> Because availability of backports reviews has been an issue for the past few years.
[18:07] <hallyn> rbasak: lol, i'm not.  i'm just looking through the queue
[18:07] <hallyn> in part to narrow it down so that my 'lxc' unapproved one can get looked at :)
[18:08] <hallyn> honestly i don't know waht teams there are at this point.  there's a separate backport team?
[18:37] <rbasak> hallyn: there is but it's basically inactive. I think you'd struggle to find any backporters team member who has actually reviewed something for backports recently.
[19:36] <guiverc> ddstreet, that was a warning (and mirrrored to fridge); convention is the follow that up on event with the actual annoucement (expected last saturday my local time, or late friday 30 for most)
[19:58] <stgraber> looks like grub in xenial is rather broken
[19:58] <stgraber>  grub-efi-amd64-signed : Depends: grub2-common (>= 2.02~beta2-36ubuntu3.31) but 2.02~beta2-36ubuntu3.29 is to be installed
[19:58] <stgraber> been breaking all Xenial MAAS deploys and also breaking xenial image builds
[19:58] <stgraber> looking like a partial SRU or a partial SRU revert happened
[20:11] <juliank> stgraber: confirmed, src:grub2 was not released, but src:grub2-signed needs the new -common
[20:12] <juliank> stgraber: we really ought to have tooling to prevent stuff like this - or releasing packages that have a block-<release>-proposed (or whatever it was) tag
[20:13] <juliank> In an optimal world, releasing an SRU would be giving britney a unblock hint, and then have britney do the copy/move, such that it can still do its checks
[20:14] <juliank> xnox, vorlon ^ grub2 in xenial is broken atm, src:grub2-signed was released, but src:grub2 not, but former depends on latter :/
[20:16] <juliank> In other news, we're now down to ~5K tests on arm64 impish, from 8k
[20:17] <juliank> So, not sure if queue will be empty on monday
[20:21] <stgraber> just looked at the grub2 SRU and though it's past the waiting period, the fixes haven't been confirmed on it, otherwise I could have done a quick sru-release to fix things. If we can have someone quickly confirm the grub build as good to go, I can release it. Otherwise we'd need to revert the grub2-signed back to the previous build, but that tends to get quite messy...
[20:31] <juliank> stgraber: the grub2 update .31 regressed the autopkgtest infra, and was validated, so does not need revalidation for 1915536 really; just for 1926748
[20:35] <juliank> stgraber: I don't remember how I reproduced other issue :/
[20:44] <juliank> stgraber: Verifying now. I've rerun the top of https://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/packages/update-notifier/xenial/arm64, once it passes upgrading grub2 at the start we should be good :D
[20:47] <juliank> stgraber: verified
[21:58] <stgraber> juliank: done
[23:05] <guiverc> thanks juliank   (grub+shim on arm64 likely still cause)
[23:14] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: jcabi-aspects [amd64] (impish-proposed/none) [0.22.6-1] (no packageset)
[23:34] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted jcabi-aspects [amd64] (impish-proposed) [0.22.6-1]