| xnox | slyon: i don't think there is a way to disable that apart from exporting new DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS in the top of debian/rules. But check with rbalint. When I added implied noudeb, i added support to pass '!noudeb' to negate that. But i don't think there is '!nocheck' (aka if nocheck is in place, drop it). | 08:52 |
|---|---|---|
| === rZr is now known as RzR | ||
| slyon | xnox: thanks! | 09:16 |
| tumbleweed | slyon: RE https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/pycparser/2.20-3ubuntu1 what about pypy/pypy3? | 10:33 |
| slyon | tumbleweed: IMO pypy is supposed to go away together with python2, no? And I'm looking into pypy3 currently to see if it can be built using python3.. | 10:36 |
| tumbleweed | it can't | 10:37 |
| tumbleweed | so no, pypy sticks around for the moment, to build pypy3 | 10:37 |
| tumbleweed | upstream is working on this, but I don't think they've got very far | 10:38 |
| tumbleweed | we can live without python-pycparser, if we stop building pypy with cpython. Which does leave us with a bootstrapping problem | 10:39 |
| tumbleweed | FWIW the relevant upstream porting work is here https://foss.heptapod.net/pypy/pypy/-/tree/branch/rpython3 | 10:43 |
| slyon | thank you for the heads-up! I need to check that upstream work.. | 10:59 |
| tumbleweed | of course pypy also carries a bundled pycparser, we could hack the build to get that on PATH for translation | 11:21 |
| tumbleweed | and we could carry a cpython2.7 source in the pypy source if the python2.7 source packgae has to go... | 11:22 |
| slyon | that sounds like a good approach, to keep pypy/3 as self-contained as possible. That way we can move on with the python2-rm transition, keeping pypy isolated so it can easily be remove as soon as pypy3 is ready for Python3. | 11:24 |
| slyon | I'm not sure about python2.7... but my understanding was that it is supposed to die, especially as python2 has been deprecated since Jan 2020. | 11:26 |
| tumbleweed | yes, it does need to die, somehow | 11:27 |
| tumbleweed | I just haven't gone down those rabbit holes because I haven't needed to, yet | 11:28 |
| toabctl | bdmurray, any reason why bionic was not uploaded to proposed for https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/livecd-rootfs/+bug/1926732 ? | 11:38 |
| ubottu | Launchpad bug 1926732 in livecd-rootfs (Ubuntu Hirsute) "Add ubuntu-oci project for building OCI-ready tarballs with livecd-rootfs" [Undecided,Fix committed] | 11:38 |
| rbalint | slyon, re: nocheck vs riscv see dpkg changelog entry for 1.20.9ubuntu1 | 13:56 |
| rbalint | DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS := $(filter-out nocheck,$(DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS)) | 13:56 |
| slyon | rbalint: thanks! That's a very good hint, exactly what I was looking for :) | 13:58 |
| xnox | slyon: no cpython2.7 and pypy will remain. | 13:59 |
| xnox | slyon: even if we remove python2-defaults, we will keep python2.7 | 13:59 |
| xnox | a otherwise there is no way to rebootstrap pypy, to rebootstrap pypy3 | 13:59 |
| xnox | *as | 13:59 |
| xnox | slyon: tumbleweed: the death of python2.7 is a lot harder than simply death of python2-defaults. | 14:00 |
| slyon | xnox: ack. we might still want to make use of the already bundled pycparser, to avoid keeping python-pycparser + depends (cc tumbleweed) | 14:01 |
| tumbleweed | yeah, it's worth a try | 14:01 |
| tumbleweed | from a quick look at the imports, it should be doable, I try it | 14:02 |
| xnox | +1 | 14:04 |
| tumbleweed | it'd help if I tested with --profile=stage1. Doh. | 14:53 |
| Laney | slyon: any idea on https://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/packages/n/netplan.io/hirsute/armhf btw? do you think I really did break it? :( | 14:57 |
| slyon | Laney: argh.. that test is flaky and disabled in all other series... I think it would be best to hint netplan.io/armhf/0.102-0ubuntu3 ... I don't think its worth doing a full SRU just for the autopkgtest fix | 14:59 |
| Laney | ahhhh | 14:59 |
| slyon | could you do that or do you want me to create an MP? | 15:00 |
| Laney | I got suspicious by the pattern going from all green to red | 15:00 |
| Laney | well, maybe I technically could, but I'm a bit wary of touching the SRU hints | 15:00 |
| * Laney picks on some SRU team members | 15:00 | |
| Laney | apw: rbasak: sil2100: mind if I commit the above ^- ? | 15:00 |
| slyon | yeah it was working previously... I'm not exactly sure what changed in the build environment | 15:01 |
| slyon | it is most probably container related, as it only happens in the armhf/LXD test | 15:01 |
| Laney | I think we moved to focal meanwhile, so updated kernel | 15:01 |
| Laney | I could do the hint for this exact version only, if the skipping will be included in any future SRU? | 15:03 |
| slyon | Yes. I will include with the next hirsute SRU | 15:05 |
| Laney | 👍 | 15:06 |
| Laney | ok, waiting for feedback then | 15:06 |
| slyon | I staged the fix here, so it can go into the next hirsute upload: https://git.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-core-dev/netplan/+git/ubuntu/log/?h=ubuntu/hirsute | 15:14 |
| Laney | doko: do you have any idea about automake-1.16/armhf? I see 6 retries from you against bison ;-) | 15:25 |
| doko | Laney: yeah, retried too often. no, didn't look at it yet, and unlikely before mid next week | 16:13 |
| Laney | alright | 16:14 |
| realtime-neil | What is the preseedable `partman-base partman/installation_medium_mounted`, why is it forcing an interactive prompt on my preseeded https://cdimage.ubuntu.com/ubuntu-legacy-server/releases/focal/release/ubuntu-20.04.1-legacy-server-amd64.iso , and how do I quiesce this prompt? | 18:15 |
| TJ- | realtime-neil: is it this? Bug #1491963 | 18:51 |
| ubottu | bug 1491963 in partman-base (Ubuntu) "preseeding for partman/installation_medium_mounted fails because 'seen' is forced to false" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1491963 | 18:51 |
| realtime-neil | TJ-: yep, that's probably the one blocking me | 18:53 |
| bryce | if I have a package with a debian version 5.1.20+4.0.11-0+deb11u1 that I want to do a no-change rebuild for, what should the new version be? 5.1.20+4.0.11-0+deb11u1-0build1 ? | 19:08 |
| bryce | or 5.1.20+4.0.11-0+deb11u1build1? | 19:09 |
| RzR | bryce, dpkg --compare-versions will tell you which one if it will trigger rebuild | 19:18 |
| RzR | \dpkg --compare-versions 5.1.20+4.0.11-0+deb11u1 lt 5.1.20+4.0.11-0+deb11u1-0build1 && echo lower | 19:20 |
| bryce | Rzr thanks for the reminder of that. They both appear to work | 19:20 |
| RzR | so this will work | 19:20 |
| cjwatson | bryce: I think just appending build1 rather than appending -0build1 is more conventional | 20:32 |
| cjwatson | Partly because there are cases where appending -0build1 does Very Confusing Things (due to converting a native version into a non-native version), which isn't the case for just appending build1 | 20:32 |
| bryce | cjwatson, thanks, I did end up going with just build1. More than one '-' in a version string feels wrong. | 20:35 |
| cjwatson | bryce: And in fact now that I think about it there's good reason for it to feel that way; the upstream vs. packaging split in the version takes place on the *last* '-' | 21:13 |
| cjwatson | bryce: So 5.1.20+4.0.11-0+deb11u1-0build1 means upstream version 5.1.20+4.0.11-0+deb11u1, packaging revision 0build1 | 21:13 |
| cjwatson | bryce: And that can have some very surprising effects | 21:13 |
| bryce | cjwatson, aha, thanks again! | 21:23 |
| mwhudson | bryce: i'm on +1 maintenance next week, so please let me know of any turn-the-handle type stuff i can do to keep the php transition moving | 22:55 |
| bryce | mwhudson, noted thanks. | 22:55 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!